Grain production space reconstruction and land system function tradeoffs in China

Abstract

Grain production space reconstruction referred to the changes in the quantity, quality and pattern of grain production space caused by functional tradeoffs and conflicts between grain production space, urban-rural development space, and ecological service space. Exploring tradeoffs between land system functions caused by grain production space reconstruction was particularly important for ensuring food security, promoting the construction of ecological civilization, and achieving sustainable development. Therefore, this study identified four relationships of land system functions during the process of grain production space reconstruction (1980-2018) in China by using Set Pair Analysis. Research results showed that the reconstruction of grain production space was achieved mainly through three pathways: Grain for Green, deforestation and reclamation, and urban expansion. Generally, ecological service had spatial negative correlation with grain production, economic development and population carrying capacity (P < 0.01), but grain production, economic development and population carrying capacity were positively correlated with each other (P < 0.01). In the process of grain production space reconstruction, ecological services and economic development, ecological services and population carrying capacity had all shown inverse synergies; there was a tradeoff between grain production and ecological services, a codirectional tradeoff between grain production and economic development, but a strong synergy between economic development and population carrying capacity. However, the functions of land systems only appeared as synergies or tradeoffs, and there were no inverse synergies and codirectional tradeoffs in the separate processes of Grain for Green, deforestation and reclamation, and urban expansion. It can be concluded that the relationships between land system functions were relatively simple in a single process, but it became complex and diverse when multiple processes were integrated for system analysis.

Keywords

Land system function / Tradeoffs / Synergy / Grain production space reconstruction / Set Pair Analysis

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted under the auspice of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41701094).

References

[1] Auer, A., Maceira, N., Nahuelhual, L., 2017. Agriculturisation and trade-offs between commodity production and cultural ecosystem services: A case study in Balcarce County. J. Rural Stud. 53 88e101.

[2] Balbi, S., Prado, A.D., Gallejones, P., Geevan, C.P., Pardo, G., Pérez-Miñana, E., Manrique, R., Hernandez-Santiago, C., Villa, F., 2015. Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in agricultural production systems. Environ. Modell. Softw. 72, 314-326.

[3] Barnett, A., Fargione, J., Smith, M.P., 2016. Mapping trade-offs in ecosystem services from reforestation in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Bioscience 66, 223-237.

[4] Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12 (12), 1394-1404.

[5] Bradford, J.B., D’Amato, A.W., 2012. Recognizing trade-offs in multi-objective land management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10 (4), 210-216.

[6] Cavender-Bares, J., Polasky, S., King, E., Balvanera, P., 2015. A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 20 (1), 17.

[7] Dai, E., Wang, X., Zhu, J., Gao, J., 2015. Progress and perspective on ecosystem services trade-offs. Adv. Earth Sci. 30 (11), 1250-1259.

[8] Darvill, R., Zoë, L., 2016. The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-offdecisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landsc. Ecol. 31 (3), 533-545.

[9] Feng, Q., Zhao, W., Fu, B., Ding, J., Wang, S., 2017. Ecosystem service trade-offs and their influencing factors: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. Sci. Total Environ. 607, 1250-1263 1250-1263.

[10] Global Land Programme (GLP), 2016. GLP Science plan and implementation strategy 2016-2021. Bern.

[11] Goldstein, J.H., Caldaron, G., Duarte, T.K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G., Polasky, S., Wolny, S., Daily, G.C., 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 109 (19), 7565-7570.

[12] Groot, R.D., 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75 (3-4), 175-186.

[13] Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F., Seppelt, R., 2012. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the leipzighalle region, Germany. Ecol. Soc. 17 (3), 22.

[14] Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., Mace, G.M., 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Change-Human Policy Dimens. 28 (1), 263-275.

[15] IIASA/FAO, 2010. Global Agro-ecological Zones (GAEZ v3.0). IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy.

[16] Jopke, C., Kreyling, J., Maes, J., Koellner, T., 2015. Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecol. Indic. 49, 46-52.

[17] Klionsky, D.M., Oreshko, N.I., Geppener, V.V., 2009. Empirical mode decomposition in segmentation and clustering of slowly and fast changing non-stationary signals. Pattern Recognit. Image Anal. 19 (1), 14-29.

[18] Kragt, M.E., Robertson, M.J., 2014. Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices. Ecol. Econ. 102, 147-157.

[19] Lafond, V., Cordonnier, T., Mao, Z., Courbaud, B., 2017. Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services in uneven-aged mountain forests: Evidences using Pareto fronts. Eur. J. For. Res. 136, 997-1012.

[20] Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., Goethals, P.L.M., 2016. Bayesian belief networks to analyse trade-offs among ecosystem services at the regional scale. Ecol. Indic. 71, 327-335.

[21] Liu, H., Fang, C., Miao, Y., Ma, H., Zhang, Q., Zhou, Q., 2018. Spatio-temporal evolution of population and urbanization in the countries along the Belt and Road 1950-2050. J. Geogr. Sci. 28 (7), 919-936.

[22] Liu, J., Kuang, W., Zhang, Z., Xu, X., Qin, Y., Ning, J., Zhou, W., Zhang, S., Li, R., Yan, C., Wu, S., Shi, X., Jiang, N., Yu, D., Pan, X., Chi, W., 2014. Spatiotemporal characteristics, patterns, and causes of land-use changes in China since the late 1980s. J. Geogr. Sci. 24 (2), 195-210.

[23] Lu, N., Fu, B., Jin, T., Chang, R., 2014. Trade-offanalyses of multiple ecosystem services by plantations along a precipitation gradient across Loess Plateau landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 29 (10), 1697-1708.

[24] Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E.G., Notte, A.L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Paracchini, M.L., Braat, L., Bidoglio, G., 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decisionmaking in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (1), 31-39.

[25] Ning, J., Liu, J., Kuang, W., Xu, X., Zhang, S., Yan, C., Li, R., Wu, S., Hu, Y., Du, G., Chi, W., Pan, T., Ning, J., 2018. Spatiotemporal patterns and characteristics of land-use change in China during 2010-2015. J. Geogr. Sci. 28 (5), 547-562.

[26] Oñatibia, G.R., Aguiar, M.R., Semmartin, M., 2015. Are there any trade-offs between forage provision and the ecosystem service of C and N storage in arid rangelands? Ecol. Eng. 77, 26-32.

[27] Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Bakkenes, M., Schulp, C.J.E., Velde, M., Leemans, R., 2014. Mapping and modelling trade-offs and synergies between grazing intensity and ecosystem services in rangelands using global-scale datasets and models. Glob. Environ. Change-Human Policy Dimens. 29, 223-234.

[28] Pickard, B.R., Van Berkel, D., Petrasova, A., Meentemeyer, R.K., 2017. Forecasts of urbanization scenarios reveal trade-offs between landscape change and ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 32 (3), 617-634.

[29] Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 365 (1554), 2959-2971.

[30] Rapidel, B., Ripoche, A., Allinne, C., Metay, A., Deheuvels, O., Lamanda, N., Blazy, J., Valdés-Gómez, H., Gary, C., 2015. Analysis of ecosystem services trade-offs to design agroecosystems with perennial crops. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1373-1390.

[31] Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Mooney, B.H.A., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad,. Sci. USA. 107 (11), 5242-5247.

[32] Sanon, S., Hein, T., Douven, W., Winkler, P., 2012. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: The case of an urban floodplain in Vienna. Austria. J. Environ. Manage. 111, 159-172.

[33] Schirpke, U., Candiago, S., Vigl, L.E., Jäger, H., Labadini, A., Marsoner, T., Meisch, C., Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U., 2019. Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 928-941.

[34] Setälä, H., Bardgett, R.D., Birkhofer, K., Brady, M., Byrne, L., Ruiter, P.C., Vries, F.T., Gardi, C., Hedlund, K., Hemerik, L., Hotes, S., Liiri, M., Mortimer, S.R., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Pouyat, R., Tsiafouli, M., Putten, W.H., 2014. Urban and agricultural soils: Conflicts and trade-offs in the optimization of ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst. 17 (1), 239-253.

[35] Turner, K.G., Odgaard, M.V., Bøcher, P.K., Dalgaard, T., Svenning, J., 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125, 89-104.

[36] Wang, J., Peng, J., Zhao, M., Liu, Y., Chen, Y., 2017b. Significant trade-offfor the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services in North-western Yunnan. China. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 57-64.

[37] Wang, P., Zhang, L., Li, Y., Jiao, L., Wang, H., Yan, J., Lv, Y., Fu, B., 2017a. Spatio-temporal characteristics of the trade-offand synergy relationships among multiple ecosystem services in the Upper Reaches of Hanjiang River Basin. J. Geogr. Sci. 72 (11), 2064-2078.

[38] Wells, G.J., Neil, S., Furley, P.A., Ryan, C.M., 2018. Ecosystem service analysis in marginal agricultural lands: A case study in Belize. Ecosyst. Serv. 32, 70-77.

[39] Xie, G., Zhang, C., Zhang, L., Chen, W., Li, S., 2015. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. J. Nat. Resour. 8 (30), 1243-1254.

[40] Xue, Z., Zhen, L., Miah, M.G., Shoyama, K., 2019. Impact assessment of land use functions on the sustainable regional development of representative Asian countries: A comparative study in Bangladesh, China and Japan. Sci. Total Environ. 694, 133689.

[41] Yang, G., Ge, Y., Xue, H., Yang, W., Shi, Y., Peng, C., Du, Y., Fan, X., Ren, Y., Chang, J., 2015. Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban-rural complexes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 136, 110-121.

[42] Yang, S., Zhao, W., Liu, Y., Wang, S., Wang, J., Zhai, R., 2018. Influence of land use change on the ecosystem service trade-offs in the ecological restoration area: Dynamics and scenarios in the Yanhe watershed. China. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 556-566.

[43] Zhang, Y., Long, H., Tu, S., Ge, D., Ma, L., Wang, L., 2019. Spatial identification of land use functions and their tradeoffs/synergies in China: Implications for sustainable land management. Ecol. Indic. 107, 105550.

[44] Zhao, K., 2000. Set Pair Analysis and its preliminary application. Zhejiang Science and Technology Press, Hangzhou (in Chinese).