Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

Linking ecosystem service benefit and grazing prohibition intensity can better optimize fence layout in northern Tibet

Dados Bibliográficos

ID21649683
AutoresJunhe Chen (0000-0001-8258-0456, State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER) Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing PR China), Yafeng Wang (0009-0002-8134-4886, State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER) Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing PR China), Jian Sun (0009-0002-5679-3823, State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER) Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing PR China), Jianxiang Zhang (0000-0002-0984-2947, College of Earth and Environment Science, Lanzhou University Lanzhou PR China), Jingtian Zhang (0009-0004-6619-0318, State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER) Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing PR China), Yingxin Wang (0000-0001-9032-9990, Grassland Research Center of National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Chinese Academy of Forestry Beijing PR China, autor correspondente), Tiancai Zhou (0000-0002-4885-3980, State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER) Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing PR China), Huangyu Huo (State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER) Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing PR China), Eryuan Liang (0000-0002-8003-4264, State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER) Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing PR China)
Ano2023
Volume34
Fascículo7
Páginas2038-2051
Data de publicação2023-04-30
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoLand Degradation and Development (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1085-3278 • E-ISSN: 1099-145X
EditoraWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ldr.4587
OpenAlexW4313438412
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas56

There is an urgent need to link grazing exclusion policy and the resulting benefits for fence layout management. However, policy implementation intensity and benefits are rarely considered together. Here, combining the changes in the rate of the livestock and fenced area, we constructed a grazing prohibition intensity (GPI) index that reflected the intensity of policy implementation. We also quantified ecosystem service benefits (ESBs), including net primary productivity (NPP) and soil conservation by the different models. Then, a new perspective in combination with ESBs and GPI was used to assess whether a fence layout is appropriate using the four–quadrant model and how to optimize a potentially unreasonable fence layout based on seven drivers. We found that the NPP and soil conservation service notably increased by 59% and 87%, respectively, in the total fenced area, after the implementation of the grazing exclusion program. The high values of ESBs and GPI were concentrated in the eastern and central‐eastern regions of the northern Tibet, respectively. Moreover, the potentially unreasonable fence layout accounted for 10% of the total fenced area, and was focused on meadow areas with a high human footprint. The area proportion of reasonable fence layout coupling ESBs and GPI increased by 20% compared with ESBs individually. Finally, an optimal potential unreasonable fence layout might reduce the mismatch between the ESB and GPI by considering countermeasures such as attention to the potential unreasonable fence layout, setting a target for supplying carbon sinks and soil and water conservation quantities and reducing the human footprint. Our study indicates the necessity of linking ESBs and GPI for fence layout management

Agricultural engineering · Ecosystem · Ecosystem services · Environmental resource management · Footprint · Geography · Grazing · Livestock · Soil conservation · Traffic intensity · Computer Science · Engineering · Environmental Science · Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology · Soil erosion and sediment transport · Ecology · Forestry

  • Impacts of rangeland ecological compensation on livelihood resilience of herdsmen

    Open Access•Meng Zhao, Haibin Chen et al.•Journal of Rural Studies•2024

  • Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets

    Open Access•Benjamin Burkhard, Franziska Kroll et al.•Ecological Indicators•2012

  • Combatting global grassland degradation

    Open Access•Richard D Bardgett, James M Bullock et al.•Nature Reviews Earth & Environment•2021

  • Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture

    Open Access•Pete Smith, Daniel Martino et al.•Philosophical Transactions of the…•2008

  • Grasslands—more important for ecosystem services than you might think

    Open Access•Jan Bengtsson, James M Bullock et al.•Ecosphere•2019

  • Terrestrial ecosystem production

    Open Access•Christopher Potter, Christopher S Potter et al.•Global Biogeochemical Cycles•1993

  • Consequences of integrating livestock and wildlife in an African savanna

    Open Access•Felicia Keesing, Richard S Ostfeld et al.•Nature Sustainability•2018

Citações por ano0,5
Intervalo de citações2024 - 2024 (1)
Altamente citadoNão

Ferramentas

Abrir DOI
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae