Original Articles

Evaluation for Cultivated Land Resources Security of China in 2007

Expand
  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China;
    2. Agriculture Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Beijing 100081, China

Received date: 2011-03-01

  Revised date: 2011-06-01

  Online published: 2011-11-25

Abstract

14 indexes about quantity security, quality security and ecological security were selected to evaluate the cultivated land resources security (CLRS) of China in 2007. The data were derived from the land use survey and the reports of agricultural land classification from the Ministry of Land and Resources of China, the Second National Soil Survey (1978) and National Bureau of Statistics of China. The results can be concluded as follows. (1) the CLRS of China is not high in 2007 with a score of only 0.517. Among the four regions, the evaluation value of CLRS is higher in eastern China but lower in western China. At provincial level, the scores of CLRS of Xinjiang and Tibet in Western China and 10 provinces of eastern China, such as Shandong, Fujian, Zhejiang, is higher than those of the others. Provinces with lower scores of CLRS are mostly distributed in Western China, including Shaanxi, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Qinghai, and Ningxia. (2) The quantity security score of CLRS in China is 0.195, higher in Northeast China but lower in regions of Loess Plateau, North China Plain and Sichuan Basin. The quick loss of cultivated land caused by construction occupation and the policy for grainto- green and the high inventory of cultivated land in 2020 under the consideration of regional tasks for grain production are the main reasons resulting in the low quantity security score of CLRS in the three regions. (3) The quality security score of CLRS in China is 0.171, higher in Northeast China but lower in eastern China. Natural land quality is the key factor affecting regional quality security. (4) The ecological security score of CLRS in China is 0.171, higher in Northeast China but lower in eastern China. Eco-environmental problems caused by excessive use of chemical fertilizer, agricultural pesticide and agricultural film are the main reasons leading to lower ecological security in eastern China, but soil and water erosion is the key reason for western China.

Cite this article

SONGWei, CHEN Baiming, SHIWenjiao, WU Jianzhai . Evaluation for Cultivated Land Resources Security of China in 2007[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2011 , 30(11) : 1449 -1455 . DOI: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2011.11.016

References

[1] 姚予龙, 谷树忠. 资源安全机理及其经济学解释. 资源科学, 2002, 24(5): 46-51.

[2] Christiansen F. Food security, urbanization and social stabilityin China. Journal of Agrarian Change, 2009, 9(4):548-575.

[3] 张晋科, 张凤荣, 张迪, 等. 2004 年中国耕地的粮食生产能力研究. 资源科学, 2006, 28(3): 44-51.

[4] Zhang Z B, Duan Z Y, Xu P, et al. Food security of China:The past, present and future. Plant Omics, 2010, 3(6):183-189.

[5] 刘玉, 刘彦随, 郭丽英. 环渤海地区粮食生产地域功能综合评价与优化调控. 地理科学进展, 2010, 29(8):920-926.

[6] 赵其国, 周炳中, 杨浩, 等. 中国耕地资源安全问题及相关对策思考. 土壤, 2002(6): 293-302.

[7] 朱红波. 耕地资源安全的内涵与理论基础. 国土资源科技管理, 2008, 25(3): 26-29.

[8] 杨齐, 干晓宇, 李建龙, 等. 张家港市耕地资源安全与城市化时空动态分析. 自然资源学报, 2010, 25(8):1274-1283.

[9] 陈百明, 周小萍. 中国粮食自给率与耕地资源安全底线的探讨. 经济地理, 2005, 25(2): 145-148.

[10] 郝军, 苏根成, 邬文艳. 内蒙古耕地资源安全评价. 内蒙古师范大学学报: 自然科学汉文版, 2008, 37(4):558-561.

[11] 文森, 邱道特, 杨庆媛, 等. 耕地资源安全评价指标体系研究. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(8): 466-470.

[12] 高楠, 宋戈. 黑龙江省耕地资源安全综合评价研究. 水土保持研究, 2009, 16(4): 250-254.

[13] 郑荣宝, 刘毅华, 董玉祥. 广州市土地资源安全预警及耕地安全警度判定. 资源科学, 2009, 31(8): 1362-1368.

[14] 吴文盛, 朱军, 郝志军. 耕地资源的安全评价与预警. 地域研究与开发, 2003, 22(5): 46-49.

[15] 杨瑞珍. 我国耕地水土流失及其防治措施. 水土保持通报, 1994, 14(2): 32-36.

[16] 曾希柏, 李菊梅. 中国不同地区化肥施用及其对粮食生产的影响. 中国农业科学, 2004, 37(3): 387-392.

[17] 张国平, 刘纪远, 张增祥. 近10 年来中国耕地的时空变化分析. 地理学报, 2003, 58(3): 323-332.

[18] 石淑芹, 陈佑启, 姚艳敏, 等. 中国区域性耕地变化与粮食生产的关系研究: 以东北地区为例. 自然资源学报,2008, 23(3): 361-368.

[19] 宋伟, 陈百明, 陈曦炜. 常熟市耕地占用与经济增长的脱钩(decoupling) 评价. 自然资源学报, 2009, 24(9):1532-1540.

[20] 孟凯. 黑龙江省耕地质量的态势与对策. 农业系统科学与综合研究, 2009, 25(4): 490-493.
Outlines

/