IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2163-d501032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. John, Felix & Toth, Russell & Frank, Karin & Groeneveld, Jürgen & Müller, Birgit, 2019. "Ecological Vulnerability Through Insurance? Potential Unintended Consequences of Livestock Drought Insurance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 357-368.
    6. Anna Gaviglio & Mattia Bertocchi & Maria Elena Marescotti & Eugenio Demartini & Alberto Pirani, 2016. "The social pillar of sustainability: a quantitative approach at the farm level," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-19, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Ranjan Roy & Ngai Weng Chan, 2012. "An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators in Bangladesh: review and synthesis," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 99-110, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Marine Natsvaladze, 2015. "Sustainable Agriculture Development Problems in the Context of Providing food security in Georgia," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 2503820, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    11. Lydia C. L. Teh & William W. L. Cheung & Rashid Sumaila, 2022. "Assessing the Economic Contribution of Ocean-Based Activities Using the Pacific Coast of British Columbia as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-14, July.
    12. Tran, Dung Duc & van Halsema, Gerardo & Hellegers, Petra J.G.J. & Ludwig, Fulco & Seijger, Chris, 2018. "Stakeholders’ assessment of dike-protected and flood-based alternatives from a sustainable livelihood perspective in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 187-199.
    13. Jia Mao & Ziang Zhao & Xiangyu Li & Honggang Zhao & Ciyun Lin, 2023. "Comprehensive Benefit of Crop Straw Return Volume under Sustainable Development Management Concept in Heilongjiang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-26, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Hans R A Koster, 2024. "The Welfare Effects of Greenbelt Policy: Evidence from England," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(657), pages 363-401.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2017. "Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-17.
    19. Zuzana Hloušková & Michaela Lekešová & Monika Hlaváčová & Ludmila Pánková, 2020. "Multicriteria assessment of Czech farms," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(3), pages 101-111.
    20. 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).

    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.