Identification of high natural-value farmland and its spatial distribution pattern: Taking Yunnan Province as an example
-
摘要: 中国耕地保护面临巨大挑战, 耕地数量质量管控是保护的基本前提; 同时为促进中国农业可持续发展, 需要增强农业生态系统韧性, 因此在自然价值视角下, 探索高自然价值农田识别与空间分布具有重要意义。本文借鉴国内外学者对农田保护的研究, 引出“高自然价值农田”的概念, 探索“高自然价值农田”对中国农田生态系统建设的作用。并以云南省为实例, 采用ArcGIS和InVEST模型进行定量分析,作为探索中国西南地区高自然价值农田的识别方法。利用2009年、2012年、2015年和2018年4期土地利用现状数据, 计算各年份的农田生境质量, 研究各年份高自然价值农田空间分布格局变化情况。主要得到以下结论: 1)依据现有文献, 总结高自然价值农田主要分为以下3种类型: ①半自然植被比例较高的农田; ②以低强度农业为主的农田或小规模半自然的农田镶嵌体; ③维持稀有物种生存的农田。2)依据评价结果, 从时间格局来看, 高自然价值农田所占比例年度变化不大, 平均为10.86%, 以毗邻林地、水域的破碎化的小图斑为主。3)从空间格局来看, 云南省农田自然价值等级整体处于较低等级, 高自然价值农田所占比例较低, 分布于滇西北和滇东北部分地区, 斑块相对比较细碎, 零散分布于集中连片的农田周边; 而较低自然价值的农田所占比例最大, 广泛分布于云南省范围内, 其生产价值较高。最后从自然资源、农田生态系统生物多样性保护和农业文化遗产保护的视角进行分析, 提出分区分级进行农田保护与退耕还林政策, 实现“共治共建, 同管同护”的保护理念。Abstract: Farmland protection in China faces huge challenges, and the quantity and quality control of cultivated land is a fundamental prerequisite for protection. At the same time, to promote the sustainable development of agriculture in China, it is necessary to enhance the resilience of agricultural ecosystems. Therefore, from the perspective of natural value, it is important to explore the identification and spatial distribution of high natural-value farmland. This article drew on researches into farmland protection by many scholars, introduced the concept of high natural-value farmland, and explored the role of high natural-value farmland in the construction of China’s farmland ecosystem. Taking Yunnan Province as an example, ArcGIS and InVEST models were used for quantitative analysis as an identification method for exploring high natural-value farmland in Southwest China. It used four sets of land use data in 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 to calculate the quality of farmland habitat in each year, and the spatial distribution patterns of high natural-value farmland in each year were studied. The main conclusions were as follows. 1) According to existing literature, it was concluded that high natural-value farmland was mainly divided into the following three types: ① farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation; ② farmland with low-intensity agriculture or small-scale semi-natural farmland mosaic; and ③ farmland for maintaining the survival of rare species. At the same time, high natural-value farmland is ecologically fragile and usually presents a small-scale mosaic form. 2) According to the evaluation results, from the perspective of the time pattern, the proportion of high natural-value farmland changed little from year to year, with an average of 10.86%, mainly small patches adjacent to forest land and water. Farmland with a low natural-value accounted for the largest proportion (82.43%). It was widely distributed in Yunnan Province and had a high production value. This showed that the “ecological-production” value of farmland in Yunnan Province varied considerably. The production value of concentrated contiguous areas was high, but the natural value was low, while the production value of small plots adjacent to forest land and relatively fragmented waters was low, but the natural value was high. 3) From the perspective of spatial pattern, the natural value of farmland in Yunnan Province is generally low; moreover, the proportion of farmland with high natural value is relatively low. It is distributed in parts of northwestern and northeastern Yunnan. The patches are fragmented and scattered around the contiguous farmland. Otherwise, there are two groups of factors that affect the distribution of high natural-value farmland. One group includes human factors: economic growth, urban development, and environmental pollution. The second group includes natural factors: topography, changes in precipitation, temperature distribution, and vegetation cover. Finally, the study analyzed farmland ecosystem biodiversity and agricultural cultural heritage protections from the perspective of natural resources. We proposed policies for farmland protection at different levels or returning farmland to forests, thus realizing the protection concept of “co-governance and joint construction, and the same management and protection.”
-
Key words:
- High natural-value /
- Farmland /
- Biodiversity /
- Spatial distribution pattern /
- Yunnan Province
-
图 3 2009—2018年云南省农田生境质量等级空间分布变化
高、较高、中、较低和低生境质量耕地的生境质量值分别为0.8~1.0、0.6~0.8、0.4~0.6、0.2~0.4和0~0.2。The values of high, relatively high, medium, relatively low and low farmland habitat quality are 0.8−1.0, 0.6−0.8, 0.4−0.6, 0.2−0.4 and 0−0.2.
Figure 3. Changes in spatial distribution of different grades of habitat quality of farmland from 2009 to 2018 in Yunnan Province
图 4 2009—2018年云南省高自然价值农田分布图
高、较高、中、较低和低生境质量耕地的生境质量值分别为0.8~1.0、0.6~0.8、0.4~0.6、0.2~0.4和0~0.2。The values of high, relatively high, medium, relatively low and low farmland habitat quality are 0.8−1.0, 0.6−0.8, 0.4−0.6, 0.2−0.4 and 0−0.2.
Figure 4. Distribution map of high natural value farmland from 2009 to 2018 in Yunnan Province
表 1 InVEST模型中威胁源相关参数设置
Table 1. Setting of threat sources related parameters in InVEST model
威胁源
Threat source最大威胁距离
Maximum threat distance (km)权重
Weight衰减类型
Decline type水田 Paddy field 5 0.7 指数型 Exponential 旱地 Dry land 10 0.8 指数型 Exponential 交通用地 Traffic land 8 0.6 指数型 Exponential 城镇用地 Urban land 15 1.0 线型 Linear 村庄 Village 10 0.9 线型 Linear 采矿用地 Mining land 8 1.0 线型 Linear 裸地 Bare land 3 0.1 指数型 Exponential 表 2 生境适宜性和相关敏感性参数设置
Table 2. Setting of habitat suitability and related sensitivity parameters
代码
Code土地利用类型
Land use type生境适宜性
Habitat suitability水田
Paddy field旱地
Dry land交通用地
Traffic land城镇用地
Urban land村庄
Village采矿用地
Mining land1 水田 Paddy field 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 旱地 Dry land 0.4 0.1 0 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.2 3 园地 Garden 0.35 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.15 0.2 4 林地 Forest 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 5 草地 Grass land 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 6 交通用地 Traffic land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 水利设施用地 Water facilities land 0.75 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7 8 城镇用地 Urban land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 村庄 Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 采矿用地 Mining land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 裸地 Bare land 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 12 其他用地 Others 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 表 3 2009—2018年云南省不同等级生境质量所占比例
Table 3. Proportions of different grades of habitat quality from 2009 to 2018 in Yunnan Province
% 年份
Year高
High较高
Relatively high中
Medium较低
Relatively low低
Low2009 60.63 9.13 0.74 24.95 4.55 2012 60.66 9.15 0.70 25.07 4.43 2015 60.50 9.10 0.70 24.90 4.81 2018 60.53 9.16 0.66 24.94 4.71 高、较高、中、较低和低生境质量耕地的生境质量值分别为0.8~1.0、0.6~0.8、0.4~0.6、0.2~0.4和0~0.2。
The values of high, relatively high, medium, relatively low and low farmland habitat quality are 0.8−1.0, 0.6−0.8, 0.4−0.6, 0.2−0.4 and 0−0.2.表 4 2009—2018年云南省高自然价值农田所占比例
Table 4. Proportion of high natural value farmland from 2009 to 2018 in Yunnan Province
% 年份
Year高
High较高
Relatively high中
Medium较低
Relatively low低
Low2009 10.89 1.98 2.92 82.30 1.91 2012 10.80 2.01 2.75 82.54 1.90 2015 10.87 1.97 2.75 82.34 2.07 2018 10.89 1.98 2.61 82.54 1.99 高、 较高、 中、 较低和低生境质量耕地的生境质量值分别为0.8~1.0、 0.6~0.8、 0.4~0.6、 0.2~0.4和0~0.2。 The values of high, relatively high, medium, relatively low and low habitat quality farmland are 0.8−1.0, 0.6−0.8, 0.4−0.6, 0.2−0.4 and 0−0.2. -
[1] 姜言秀. 人与自然和谐相处的道德原则——美国哲学家利奥波德的大地伦理思想论析[J]. 理论学刊, 2006(2): 60–62JIANG Y X. The moral principles of harmony between human and nature — On the land ethics of American philosopher Leopold[J]. Theory Journal, 2006(2): 60–62 [2] 霍尔姆斯·罗尔斯顿. 杨通进译. 环境伦理学: 大自然的价值以及人对大自然的义务[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2000ROLSTON H. YANG T J, Trans. Environmental Ethics: the Nature Value and Human’ s Obligation to Nature[M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2000 [3] 赵晓红. 从人类中心论到生态中心论−当代西方环境伦理思想评介[J]. 中共中央党校学报, 2005, 9(4): 35−38ZHAO X H. From anthropocentrism to eco-centrism: A review of contemporary western environmental ethics[J]. Journal of the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC, 2005, 9(4): 35−38 [4] 薛勇民, 路强. 自然价值论与生态整体主义[J]. 科学技术哲学研究, 2014, 31(4): 23−27XUE Y M, LU Q. Nature value theory and ecological holism[J]. Studies in Philosophy of Science and Technology, 2014, 31(4): 23−27 [5] BIGNAL E M, MCCRACKEN D I. The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems[J]. Environmental Reviews, 2000, 8(3): 149−171 doi: 10.1139/a00-009 [6] PLIENINGER T, BIELING C. Resilience-based perspectives to guiding high-nature-value farmland through socioeconomic change[J]. Ecology and Society, 2013, 18(4): 20 [7] BERNUÉS A, TELLO-GARCÍA E, RODRÍGUEZ-ORTEGA T, et al. Agricultural practices, ecosystem services and sustainability in high nature value farmland: unraveling the perceptions of farmers and nonfarmers[J]. Land Use Policy, 2016, 59: 130−142 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.033 [8] BONATO M, CIAN F, GIUPPONI C. Combining LULC data and agricultural statistics for a better identification and mapping of high nature value farmland: a case study in the Veneto Plain, Italy[J]. Land Use Policy, 2019, 83: 488−504 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.034 [9] 谷树忠, 王道龙. 农业自然资源核算的理论与方法[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 1995, 16(1): 32−35GU S Z, WANG D L. Theories and methods of agricultural natural resources accounting[J]. Chinese Agricultrural Resoures and Regional Planning, 1995, 16(1): 32−35 [10] 申强, 姜志德, 王继军. 不同退耕态势下农地资源生态服务价值评估比较[J]. 农机化研究, 2009, 31(11): 5−9SHEN Q, JIANG Z D, WANG J J. Comparison of ecosystem services value of agricultural land resources under different retirement of cultivated situation[J]. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, 2009, 31(11): 5−9 [11] 蔡银莺, 张安录. 武汉市农地资源价值估算[J]. 生态学杂志, 2007, 26(3): 422−427 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4890.2007.03.024CAI Y Y, ZHANG A L. Value evaluation of agricultural land resources in Wuhan[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2007, 26(3): 422−427 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4890.2007.03.024 [12] 孙新章, 周海林, 谢高地. 中国农田生态系统的服务功能及其经济价值[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2007, 17(4): 55−60 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2007.04.012SUN X Z, ZHOU H L, XIE G D. Ecological services and their values of Chinese agroecosystem[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2007, 17(4): 55−60 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2007.04.012 [13] 丁陆彬, 何思源, 闵庆文. 农业文化遗产系统农业生物多样性评价与保护[J]. 自然与文化遗产研究, 2019, 4(11): 44−47DING L B, HE S Y, MIN Q W. Evaluation and conservation of agricultural biodiversity in agricultural heritage systems[J]. Study on Natural and Cultural Heritage, 2019, 4(11): 44−47 [14] BEAUFOY G, BALDOCK D, DARK J. The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries[M]. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 1994 [15] ANDERSON E, BALDOCK D, BROUWER F M, et al. Developing a High Nature Value Farming Area Indicator[M]. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2004 [16] ANDERSON E, MAMMIDES C. Changes in land-cover within high nature value farmlands inside and outside natura 2000 sites in Europe: a preliminary assessment[J]. Ambio, 2020, 49(12): 1958−1971 doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01330-y [17] HOOOGEVEEN Y, PETERSEN J, BALAZS K, et al. High Nature Value Farmland: Characteristics, Trends and Policy Challenges[M]. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 2004 [18] PARACCHINI M L, PETERSEN J E, HOOGEVEEN Y, et al. High Nature Value Farmland in Europe. An Estimate of the Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data[R]. European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2008 [19] LOMBA A, GUERRA C, ALONSO J, et al. Mapping and monitoring high nature value farmlands: challenges in European landscapes[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2014, 143: 140−150 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.04.029 [20] LAZZERINI G, DIBARI C, MERANTE P, et al. Identification and mapping the high nature value farmland by the comparison of a combined and species approaches in Tuscany, Italy[J]. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 2015, 10(3): 132 doi: 10.4081/ija.2015.676 [21] KIKAS T, BUNCE R G H, KULL A, et al. New high nature value map of Estonian agricultural land: application of an expert system to integrate biodiversity, landscape and land use management indicators[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2018, 94: 87−98 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.008 [22] MASKELL L C, BOTHAM M, HENRYS P, et al. Exploring relationships between land use intensity, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity to identify and monitor areas of high nature value farming[J]. Biological Conservation, 2019, 231: 30−38 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.12.033 [23] MORELLI F, TRYJANOWSKI P. Birds as Useful Indicators of High Nature Value farmlands: Using Species Distribution Models as a Tool for Monitoring the Health of Agro-ecosystems[M]: Gewerbestrasse: Springer, 2017 [24] NEMATOLLAHI S, FAKHERAN S, KIENAST F, et al. Application of InVEST habitat quality module in spatially vulnerability assessment of natural habitats (case study: Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province, Iran)[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2020, 192(8): 487 doi: 10.1007/s10661-020-08460-6 [25] CARO C, MARQUES J C, CUNHA P P, et al. Ecosystem services as a resilience descriptor in habitat risk assessment using the InVEST model[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2020, 115: 106426 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106426 [26] MIGUEL M, CATARINA F, MARTA V, et al. Spatial assessment of habitat conservation status in a Macaronesian island based on the InVEST model: a case study of Pico Island (Azores, Portugal)[J]. Land Use Policy, 2018, 78: 637−649 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.015 [27] 李嘉诚, 吴健生, 毛家颖, 等. 基于生境质量的城市增长边界研究−以长三角地区为例[J]. 地理科学, 2017, 37(1): 28−36LI J C, WU J S, MAO J Y, et al. Urban growth boundary based on the evaluation of habitat quality: Taking the Yangtze River Delta as an example[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2017, 37(1): 28−36 [28] 刘园, 周勇, 杜越天. 基于InVEST模型的长江中游经济带生境质量的时空分异特征及其地形梯度效应[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(10): 2429−2440LIU Y, ZHOU Y, DU Y T. Study on the spatio-temporal patterns of habitat quality and its terrain gradient effects of the middle of the Yangtze River Economic Belt based on InVEST model[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2019, 28(10): 2429−2440 [29] 陈妍, 乔飞, 江磊. 基于 InVEST 模型的土地利用格局变化对区域尺度生境质量的影响研究−以北京为例[J]. 北京大学学报: 自然科学版, 2016, 52(3): 553−562CHEN Y, QIAO F, JIANG L. Effects of land use pattern change on regional scale habitat quality based on InVEST model — a case study in Beijing[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2016, 52(3): 553−562 [30] 方一舒, 艾东, 祖健, 等. 基本农田保护区共同体活力评价研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(22): 90−98 doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.22.010FANG Y S, AI D, ZU J, et al. Vitality evaluation of basic farmland protection zone community[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2019, 35(22): 90−98 doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.22.010