Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Spatio-temporal differences and factors influencing intensive cropland use in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain
Author: Shi Shuqin, PhD and Professor, specialized in agricultural remote sensing and land use evaluation. E-mail: ssq0533@163.com
Received date: 2017-03-05
Accepted date: 2017-10-09
Online published: 2018-11-20
Supported by
Project of Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences, No.16YJCZH082, No.16YJC630149
Copyright
This study developed a comprehensive system to evaluate the intensity of cropland use and evolution of cropland use in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain. Delphi-entropy methods were adopted to determine the weight of the index, and the GeoDetector model was established to explore the influencing factors. The results are summarized as follows: (1) The intensity of inputs, degree of utilization, and production increased continuously, but the intensity of continuous conditions experienced an overall decline followed by a rebound towards the end of the study period. The number of counties with high and moderately high intensity increased by 56.8% and 14.6%, respectively, from 1996 to 2011. The number of counties with moderately low and low intensity declined by 35.9 % and 11.9 %, respectively. Areas with significant increases in intensity were mainly distributed in northeast Hebei Province, northwest Shandong Province, and north Jiangsu Province. The intensity is high in northern Jiangsu and Anhui; the output effect remained above moderate intensity mainly near Beijing, Tianjin, Tangshan, and counties in the suburbs of Shijiazhuang. (2) Natural disasters, elevation, slope, and road networks were the main factors influencing the intensity of cropland use in this region, with influence values of 0.158, 0.143, 0.129, and 0.054, respectively. Areas with moderately high and high levels of intensity were distributed in low-lying areas. Uneven distribution of precipitation, seasonal drought, and flood disasters can directly affect the stability index of croplands and reduce the intensity of cropland use. Developed road networks are associated with moderately high intensity. Our results suggest recommendations such as promoting agricultural intensification and large-scale management, promoting the construction of road networks, improving early warning systems for drought and flood disasters, and promoting moderate and intensive use of arable land, and focusing on restoration and sustainable use of cropland.
SHI Shuqin , HAN Yu , YU Wentao , CAO Yuqing , CAI Weimin , YANG Peng , WU Wenbin , YU Qiangyi . Spatio-temporal differences and factors influencing intensive cropland use in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018 , 28(11) : 1626 -1640 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-018-1533-6
Figure 1 Map of the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain |
Table 1 Evaluation index system of the intensity of cropland use |
Target layer | Criterion layer | Index layer | Metering method | Effect | Weights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intensive utilization of cultivated lands | Input intensity | Labor input per unit area | Population employed in agriculture per unit area of cropland | + | 0.2565 |
Fertilizer input per unit area | Application of fertilizers per unit area of cropland | + | 0.2148 | ||
Pesticide input per unit area | Application of pesticides per unit area of cropland | + | 0.2850 | ||
Power input per unit area | Total power of agricultural machinery per unit area of cropland | + | 0.2437 | ||
Utilization degree | Cultivation index | Area of cropland/Total area of all lands | + | 0.2252 | |
Irrigation index | Area of effective irrigation per unit area of cropland | + | 0.2235 | ||
Stable yield index | Security areas/Seeded area | + | 0.5515 | ||
Output effect | Output value of every farmer | Total output value of agriculture/ Population of agricultural employment | + | 0.5646 | |
The production of foodstuff | Total production of foodstuff/Seeded area | + | 0.1613 | ||
The production of foodstuff of every farmer | Total production of foodstuff/Population employed in agriculture | + | 0.2740 | ||
Continued situation | Non-agriculture index | Non-agriculture/Total population | - | 0.6725 | |
Per capita net area of croplands | Total area of lands/Total population | + | 0.3275 |
Note: “+” indicates the positive effect, and “-” indicates the negative effect. |
Figure 6 Spatial distribution of influencing factors and the degree of intensive use of croplands (Annotation: Both influencing factors and districts with high intensity in the chart are based on the data of 2011.) |
Table 2 Selected influencing factors, their influence value and proportion |
Influencing factors | Code | Variables | Unit | Influence value | Proportion (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural resources conditions | Elevation | X1 | Average elevation | m | 0.143 | 23.55 |
Slope | X2 | Average slope | ° | 0.129 | 21.23 | |
Temperature | X3 | Annual average temperature | ℃ | 0.042 | 6.94 | |
Precipitation | X4 | Annual average precipitation | mm | 0.051 | 8.37 | |
Natural disasters | X5 | Natural hazard rate | % | 0.158 | 25.9 | |
Social, economic, and policy conditions | Economic development state | X6 | Gross domestic product | 10,000 | 0.013 | 2.17 |
Supportive policy | X7 | Agricultural subsidy | 10,000 | 0.006 | 1.03 | |
Urbanization extent | X8 | Built-up area | Ha | 0.012 | 2.03 | |
Transport condition | X9 | Density of road network | m/ha | 0.054 | 8.78 |
Annotation: The influencing factors in the chart are based on the data of 2011. |
Figure 2 Number and percentage of counties at each level of intensity in cropland use |
Figure 3 County number and intensity level of the subsystem |
Figure 4 Variations in the overall level of the intensive utilization of croplands from 1996 to 2011 |
Figure 5 Variation in the intensive level of each subsystem from 1996 to 2011 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |