IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2163-d501032.html

Multi-Scale Evaluation of Dominant Factors (MSDF) on Forage: An Ecosystemic Method to Understand the Function of Forage

Author

Listed:
  • Shanning Lou

    (College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Jiao Ning

    (College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Cheng Zhang

    (College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Chunmei Wang

    (College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Wanhe Zhu

    (College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Shenghua Chang

    (College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Fujiang Hou

    (College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

Abstract

Grassland agroecosystem plays a key role on resource cycling and sustainability of global ecosystem. Forage is the basic factor and core of the grassland agroecosystem. At a single scale, the most of forage evaluation remain in a state of qualitative or quantitative evaluation, and lack a series of quantitative evaluation at multi spatial scales and influence of society, environment and economy. This study collected dominant indicators at micro, plot, farm, ecoregional and macro scales to compile a systemic evaluation of forage in agroecosystems. A case study is presented for forage evaluation by using plot, farm, and regional data from an arid region of Gansu, China. Multi-scale evaluation of dominant factors (MSDF) was used to aggregate forage evaluation indicators. Results showed that the scale of evaluation had significant effects on the results of the evaluation. The evaluation results of the single index for the same forage species among plot, farm and ecoregional scales were different. Results implied that forage MSDF are needed to guide the evaluation of forage and then production of forage and herbivore in the future. An appropriate scale of evaluation could be selected in term of the forage production objectives and moreover, MSDF evaluation of forage should be used to improve the environmental, social and productive evaluation of forage in a grassland agroecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Shanning Lou & Jiao Ning & Cheng Zhang & Chunmei Wang & Wanhe Zhu & Shenghua Chang & Fujiang Hou, 2021. "Multi-Scale Evaluation of Dominant Factors (MSDF) on Forage: An Ecosystemic Method to Understand the Function of Forage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2163-:d:501032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2163/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2163/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    2. Seppelt, Ralf & Müller, Felix & Schröder, Boris & Volk, Martin, 2009. "Challenges of simulating complex environmental systems at the landscape scale: A controversial dialogue between two cups of espresso," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3481-3489.
    3. Rasul, Golam & Thapa, Gopal B., 2004. "Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 327-351, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tom Joerß & Payam Akbar & Robert Mai & Stefan Hoffmann, 2017. "Conceptualizing sustainability from a consumer perspective [Konzeptionalisierung der Nachhaltigkeit aus der Konsumentensicht]," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 15-23, June.
    2. Jindřich Špička & Tomáš Vintr & Renata Aulová & Jana Macháčková, 2020. "Trade-off between the economic and environmental sustainability in Czech dual farm structure," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(6), pages 243-250.
    3. Shamsheer Haq & Ismet Boz, 2020. "Measuring environmental, economic, and social sustainability index of tea farms in Rize Province, Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2545-2567, March.
    4. Pouria Ataei & Hassan Sadighi & Mohammad Chizari & Enayat Abbasi, 2020. "In-depth content analysis of conservation agriculture training programs in Iran based on sustainability dimensions," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7215-7237, December.
    5. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    6. Olfa Gharsallah & Claudio Gandolfi & Arianna Facchi, 2021. "Methodologies for the Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems, with a Focus on Rice: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, October.
    7. David Conner & Amanda Falkner & Nathan Lantieri & Betsy McGavisk & Bridgette McShea, 2018. "Stakeholder Perceptions of Campus Sustainability Efforts: Lessons from Vermont," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Thi Dieu Linh Nguyen & Bart Defloor & Stijn Speelman & Brent Bleys, 2024. "Does Adaptation to Saltwater Intrusion Improve the Livelihoods of Farmers? Evidence for the Central Coastal Region of Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Gökçe Koç & Ayşe Uzmay, 2024. "Construction of a Farm-Level Food Security Index: Case Study of Turkish Dairy Farms," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 687-714, November.
    10. Mula, G. & Sarker, S.C., 2013. "Impact of Improved Agro-techniques on Sustainable Livelihood Empowerment: An Economic Study from West Bengal," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 26(Conferenc).
    11. M. Kumaran & M. Sundaram & Shijo Mathew & P. R. Anand & T. K. Ghoshal & P. Kumararaja & R. Anandaraja & Shyne Anand & K. K. Vijayan, 2021. "Is Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) farming in India sustainable? A multidimensional indicators-based assessment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 6466-6480, April.
    12. Sydorovych, Olha & Wossink, Ada, 2008. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis in Agricultural Sustainability Assessment," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44464, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    14. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    15. Maurizio Canavari & Nicola Cantore & Sergio Albertazzi & Chiara Marco Della & Giuliano Vitali & Claudio Signorotti & Guido Baldoni & Concetta Cardillo & Antonella Trisorio & Guido Maria Bazzani & Robe, 2013. "Sustainability in organic and conventional farm ing: toward s a multicriteria model based on simulated farm indicators," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 175-200.
    16. Menale Kassie & Hailemariam Teklewold & Paswel Marenya & Moti Jaleta & Olaf Erenstein, 2015. "Production Risks and Food Security under Alternative Technology Choices in Malawi: Application of a Multinomial Endogenous Switching Regression," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 640-659, September.
    17. Ngadi Ngadi & Junji Nagata, 2022. "Oil Palm Land Use Change and Rice Sustainability in South Sumatra, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, April.
    18. Langhammer, Maria & Thober, Jule & Lange, Martin & Frank, Karin & Grimm, Volker, 2019. "Agricultural landscape generators for simulation models: A review of existing solutions and an outline of future directions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 393(C), pages 135-151.
    19. Schröter, Matthias & Stumpf, Klara H. & Loos, Jacqueline & van Oudenhoven, Alexander P.E. & Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne & Abson, David J., 2017. "Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 35-43.
    20. Khosravi, Faramarz & Izbirak, Gokhan & Shavarani, Seyed Mahdi, 2021. "Application of bootstrap re-sampling method in statistical measurement of sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2163-:d:501032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.