Analysis of Variation Characteristics of Ecological Net Primary Productivity and Climate Response in Hulun Buir Agricultural Reclamation Group

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0903

Abstract

Abstract:

To provide technical reference for the carbon source / sink analysis of farmland ecosystem, the ecological net primary productivity (Net ecosystem productivity, NEP) of Farm of Agricultural Reclamation Group in Hulun Buir was evaluated from 2001 to 2021. The NEP of various farms was studied based on remote sensing and meteorological data. The change trend and the response to climate of NEP were analyzed by using Sen trend line analysis method, Hurst index, coefficient of variation method and partial correlation analysis method. The results showed that the annual average NEP of Hulun Buir was 221.1 g C/(m·a), decreasing to the both sides of the Daxing'an Mountains. There was extremely significant increase of NEP during the study period. However, the results of Hurst index analysis showed that NEP changes of most farms of Hulun Buir Agricultural Reclamation Group were negatively associated with previous, namely decreasing trend in the future. The correlation between the NEP of Hulun Buir Agricultural Reclamation Group and precipitation was significant positive, but insignificant with temperature. It is suggested that Hulun Buir Agricultural Reclamation Group should strengthen the promotion of farming methods with high carbon fixation capacity to prevent the decline of carbon fixation capacity of farmland ecosystem, and strengthen the construction of agricultural irrigation and weather modification capacity to reduce the risk and impact of farmland drought disasters.

Key words: Hulun Buir Agricultural Reclamation Group, ecological net primary productivity, change trend, climate response

QU Xuebin, JIANG Fengyou, GAO Shaoxin, XIN Xiaofei. Analysis of Variation Characteristics of Ecological Net Primary Productivity and Climate Response in Hulun Buir Agricultural Reclamation Group[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(32): 109-114.

Figures/Tables 5

References 25

[1]	IPCC. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change[M]. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
[2]	袁佳双, 张永香, 陈迎, 等. 认识减缓气候变化最新进展科学助力碳中和[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18(5):523-530.
[3]	IPCC. Climate change 2021: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability[M]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
[4]	李智广, 王海燕, 王隽雄. 碳达峰与碳中和目标下水土保持碳汇的机理、途径及特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022, 42(3):312-317,380.
[5]	刘凤, 曾永年. 2000—2015年青海高原植被碳源/汇时空格局及变化[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(14):5792-5803.
[6]	陈雪娇, 周伟, 杨晗. 2001—2017年三江源区典型草地群落碳源/汇模拟及动态变化分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(6):1583-1592.
[7]	王川, 刘永昌, 李稚. 塔里木河下游生态输水对植被碳源/汇空间格局的影响[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(3):729-738.
[8]	李远航, 郝兴明, 张静静, 等. 近17a阿克苏绿洲农田净碳汇功能的时空变化[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(4):1303-1311.
[9]	王谢, 邓清, 周婧, 等. 基于统计资料的桑园碳汇估算模型的构建——以四川省为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(2):31-37. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0827
[10]	谭美秋, 崔耀平, 马晓哲, 等. 河南省农田生态系统碳汇核算研究[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2022, 38(9):1129-1137.
[11]	何源, 李星锐, 杨晓帆, 等. 内蒙古锡林郭勒盟典型草原固碳量及固碳潜力估算[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(10):2274-2285. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.10.019
[12]	PEI Z Y, OUYANG H, ZHOU C P, et al. Carbon balance in an alpine steppe in the Qinghai-Tibet plateau[J]. Journal of integrative plant biology, 2009, 51(5):521-526. doi: 10.1111/jipb.2009.51.issue-5 URL
[13]	武江民, 赵军, 党国锋, 等. 耕地净初级生产力及生态服务价值时空分异研究——以甘肃省白银区为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(35):65-70. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16050163
[14]	曲学斌, 窦华山, 高绍鑫. 呼伦贝尔市NPP时空变化及其对气候的响应[J]. 沙漠与绿洲气象, 2019, 13(5):100-105.
[15]	马苏, 崔国屹, 赵玉, 等. 植被NPP时空变化特征及驱动因子分析——以延安地区为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(19):93-98. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0733
[16]	李延林, 许显花, 刘义花, 等. 青海黄南地区近54年蒸发量变化特征及其影响因子[J]. 气象科技, 2019, 47(2):269-275.
[17]	康雄, 曹俊涛, 陈成, 等. 不同趋势法的宁夏长时序植被变化分析[J]. 测绘通报, 2020(11):23-27. doi: 10.13474/j.cnki.11-2246.2020.0348
[18]	靖娟利, 和彩霞, 王永锋, 等. 西南地区1902—2018年干旱时空演变特征分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(3):220-227.
[19]	HURST H E. The problem of long-term storage in reservoirs[J]. International association of scientific hydrology, 1956, 1(3):13-27.
[20]	高绍鑫, 刘静, 常煜. 内蒙古地区四季和年降水量趋势分析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2022, 41(4):426-433.
[21]	曲学斌, 王彦平, 高绍鑫, 等. 2000—2020年呼伦贝尔地区归一化植被指数时空变化及其对气候的响应[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2022, 38(5):57-63.
[22]	吴云龙, 刘胜尧, 李丽平, 等. 石家庄冬小麦需水量变化特征及气象影响因子[J]. 气象科技, 2016, 44(1):123-129.
[23]	武鹏飞, 张钧泳, 谭娇. 1961—2015年新疆天山日照时数时空变化特征及其影响因素分析[J]. 气象科技, 2019, 47(3):450-459.
[24]	苑明睿, 杨峰山, 蔡柏岩. 等. 农业土壤碳汇研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(8):37-42.
[25]	曾诗鸿, 李璠, 翁智雄, 等. 我国碳交易试点政策的减排效应及地区差异[J]. 中国环境科学, 2022, 42(4):1922-1933.

农场名称	平均变化趋势(S)/[g C/(m·a)]	平均Hurst 指数(H)	平均变异系数(C)
三河马场	4.456^**	0.452	1.147
拉布大林农场	5.195^**	0.467	1.230
上库力农场	4.055^**	0.459	0.907
格尼农场	4.772^**	0.488	1.470
东方红农场	3.315^*	0.467	0.942
欧肯河农场	3.515^*	0.443	0.904
免渡河农场	3.877^**	0.446	0.763
牙克石农场	4.332^**	0.441	0.848
古里农场	3.873^*	0.449	0.897
特尼河农场	6.359^**	0.441	1.162
哈达图农场	6.198^**	0.423	1.516
甘河农场	3.633^*	0.471	1.044
陶海牧场	4.915^**	0.454	1.629
绰尔河农场	3.784^**	0.446	0.648
大河湾农场	5.26^**	0.435	1.445
苏沁农牧场	5.208^**	0.462	1.243
宜里农场	3.843^*	0.488	0.861
莫拐农场	4.714^**	0.422	0.917
巴彦农场	3.537^*	0.462	1.090
诺敏河农场	4.273^**	0.495	0.794
扎兰屯马场	3.922^**	0.415	0.814
谢尔塔拉农场	6.258^**	0.439	1.62
扎兰河农场	3.987^*	0.501	0.825
那吉屯农场	5.257^**	0.478	1.546

农场名称	平均变化趋势(S)/[g C/(m·a)]	平均Hurst 指数(H)	平均变异系数(C)
三河马场	4.456^**	0.452	1.147
拉布大林农场	5.195^**	0.467	1.230
上库力农场	4.055^**	0.459	0.907
格尼农场	4.772^**	0.488	1.470
东方红农场	3.315^*	0.467	0.942
欧肯河农场	3.515^*	0.443	0.904
免渡河农场	3.877^**	0.446	0.763
牙克石农场	4.332^**	0.441	0.848
古里农场	3.873^*	0.449	0.897
特尼河农场	6.359^**	0.441	1.162
哈达图农场	6.198^**	0.423	1.516
甘河农场	3.633^*	0.471	1.044
陶海牧场	4.915^**	0.454	1.629
绰尔河农场	3.784^**	0.446	0.648
大河湾农场	5.26^**	0.435	1.445
苏沁农牧场	5.208^**	0.462	1.243
宜里农场	3.843^*	0.488	0.861
莫拐农场	4.714^**	0.422	0.917
巴彦农场	3.537^*	0.462	1.090
诺敏河农场	4.273^**	0.495	0.794
扎兰屯马场	3.922^**	0.415	0.814
谢尔塔拉农场	6.258^**	0.439	1.62
扎兰河农场	3.987^*	0.501	0.825
那吉屯农场	5.257^**	0.478	1.546