本文選題：中原經(jīng)濟區(qū) + 循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)�。� 參考：《河南師范大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：針對目前中原經(jīng)濟區(qū)農(nóng)業(yè)資源不均、環(huán)境污染日益嚴重以及可持續(xù)性發(fā)展不足等問題,本研究以傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式(“麥—玉”復種,秸稈焚燒)為對照,應用能值評價法(EMA)和生命周期評價法(LCA),對中原經(jīng)濟區(qū)不同農(nóng)業(yè)循環(huán)模式即農(nóng)田循環(huán)模式(秸稈直接還田)、農(nóng)牧循環(huán)模式(糧—牛—糧)和農(nóng)菌循環(huán)模式(糧—菌—糧)下的農(nóng)田系統(tǒng)進行分析研究,得到以下主要結(jié)論:1.通過能值評價發(fā)現(xiàn),三種循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式均優(yōu)化了能值投入結(jié)構(gòu),其不可更新資源投入較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式分別降低了4.42%-6.00%;循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式增加了總能值產(chǎn)出,其較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式高0.50%-6.35%;循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)的能值指標較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式更優(yōu),其中可更新比率較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式增加了642.72%-730.06%,環(huán)境負載率較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式降低了86.51%-88.87%,凈能值產(chǎn)出率較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式高0.91%-9.17%,可持續(xù)性指標比傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式高704.68%-848.25%。綜合來講,三種循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式具有更優(yōu)的能值投入結(jié)構(gòu)、更高的能值產(chǎn)出和更好的可持續(xù)發(fā)展性,其中又以農(nóng)牧循環(huán)模式和農(nóng)菌循環(huán)模式更優(yōu)。2.通過生命周期評價發(fā)現(xiàn),三種循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式降低了“麥—玉”兩熟制種植模式的環(huán)境總影響,其中全球增溫潛勢較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式降低了50.88%-51.45%,環(huán)境酸化潛勢較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式降低了10.98%-14.04%,富營養(yǎng)化潛勢較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式降低了0.04%-1.93%;對環(huán)境和人體毒性影響較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式降低了2.90%-13.62%。綜合來看,三種循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)的各項環(huán)境影響均小于傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè),其中又以農(nóng)牧循環(huán)模式和農(nóng)田循環(huán)模式最優(yōu),但在實際生產(chǎn)中仍應注意優(yōu)化施肥和病蟲害治理方式,減少化肥和農(nóng)藥的過量施用,進一步降低農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)對環(huán)境造成的負面影響。3.結(jié)合循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)的發(fā)展特點,通過EMA-LCA綜合評價發(fā)現(xiàn),三種循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式的綜合效益均優(yōu)于傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式,其中資源減量化指標較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式提高1.45%-53.36%,再循環(huán)利用指標較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式提高38.67%-45.94%,經(jīng)濟競爭力指標較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式提高11.11%-730.06%,污染減排指標較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式提高2.53%-51.15%,可持續(xù)發(fā)展指標較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式提高642.72%-848.25%。綜上可知,三種農(nóng)業(yè)循環(huán)模式體現(xiàn)了循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)的“減量化、再循環(huán)、再利用、可控化”的原則,達到了節(jié)能減排的目的。三種循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式中又以農(nóng)牧循環(huán)模式的綜合指標更好。綜合來看,應用能值和生命周期評價法對不同的農(nóng)業(yè)模式下的農(nóng)田系統(tǒng)進行評價,結(jié)果表明農(nóng)田循環(huán)、農(nóng)牧循環(huán)和農(nóng)菌循環(huán)三種循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式的能值投入結(jié)構(gòu)和能值指標優(yōu)于傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式,能值產(chǎn)出高于傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式,環(huán)境影響低于傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式,資源減量化指標、再循環(huán)利用指標、經(jīng)濟競爭力指標、污染減排指標及可持續(xù)發(fā)展指標較傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)模式好,是更適合中原經(jīng)濟區(qū)農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展的模式,可因地制宜進行發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:In view of the problems of uneven agricultural resources in the Central Plains Economic Zone, the increasingly serious environmental pollution and the lack of sustainable development, this study takes the traditional agricultural production model ("wheat and jade" replanting, straw burning) as the control, using the EMA and the life cycle assessment (LCA), to the different agricultural cycle modes in the Central Plains Economic Area, namely, farmland The farmland system under the cycle model (straw returning directly to the field), the agricultural and animal husbandry cycle model (grain cow grain) and the agricultural bacteria cycle model (grain bacteria and grain) was analyzed and studied, and the following main conclusions were obtained: 1. through the evaluation of the energy value, the energy input structure was optimized by the three kinds of circular agricultural models, and the non renewable resource input was more than the traditional agricultural production. The model reduced 4.42%-6.00% respectively; the circular agriculture model increased the total energy output, which was higher than the traditional agricultural production model 0.50%-6.35%; the energy value index of the circular agriculture was better than the traditional agricultural production model, in which the renewable ratio increased by 642.72% -730.06% compared with the traditional agricultural production model, and the environmental load rate was more than the traditional agricultural production model. Lower 86.51%-88.87%, the net energy output rate is higher than the traditional agricultural production model 0.91%-9.17%, the sustainability index is higher than the traditional agricultural production model 704.68%-848.25%. comprehensive, three kinds of circular agricultural models have better energy value input structure, higher energy output and better sustainable development. Through the life cycle evaluation, the three kinds of circular agricultural models reduce the total environmental impact of the "Mai Yu" two cropping pattern, in which the global warming potential decreased by 50.88%-51.45% than the traditional agricultural production model, and the environmental acidification potential decreased by 10.98%-14.04% than that of the traditional agricultural production model, which was 10.98%-14.04% and rich. The nutritional potential decreased by 0.04%-1.93% than the traditional agricultural production model, and the effect of the environmental and human toxicity on the traditional agricultural production model was lower than that of the traditional agricultural production model 2.90%-13.62%.. All the environmental impacts of the three kinds of circular agriculture were less than that of the traditional agriculture, and the agricultural and animal husbandry cycle mode and the farmland cycle model were the best, but in actual production, it still remained in the actual production. Attention should be paid to optimizing the methods of fertilization and pest management, reducing the excessive application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, reducing the negative effects of agricultural production on the environment and the development characteristics of.3. combined with circular agriculture. Through EMA-LCA comprehensive evaluation, it is found that the comprehensive benefits of the three kinds of Circular Agricultural models are all superior to the traditional agricultural production models, among which the resources are reduced. Compared with the traditional agricultural production model, the quantitative index is improved by 1.45%-53.36%, the index of recycling utilization is higher than the traditional agricultural production model by 38.67%-45.94%, the index of economic competitiveness is improved by 11.11%-730.06% compared with the traditional agricultural production model, and the pollution emission reduction index is higher than the traditional agricultural production model by 2.53%-51.15%. The index of sustainable development is more than the traditional agricultural production. The production model improves the 642.72%-848.25%. comprehensive analysis. The three agricultural cycle models reflect the principle of "reduction, recycling, reuse and controllability" of circular agriculture, which has achieved the goal of energy saving and emission reduction. In the three circular agriculture models, the comprehensive index of agriculture and animal husbandry cycle model is better. Comprehensive, application of energy and life cycle evaluation The method is used to evaluate the farmland system under different agricultural patterns. The results show that the energy input structure and energy value index of three circular agricultural models of agricultural and pastoral circulation and agricultural cycle are superior to the traditional agricultural production model, and the energy output is higher than the traditional agricultural production model, and the environmental impact is lower than the traditional agricultural production model and the resource reduction. The index, recycling index, economic competitiveness index, pollution reduction target and sustainable development index are better than the traditional agricultural production model. It is more suitable for the development of agricultural development in the Central Plains Economic Region.

【學位授予單位】：河南師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：S181

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 石鵬飛;趙平;趙吉祥;楊東玉;鄭媛媛;賈亮;王貴彥;;種養(yǎng)一體化循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)園區(qū)的接口技術(shù)及其生態(tài)經(jīng)濟效益分析[J];中國農(nóng)業(yè)資源與區(qū)劃;2016年12期

2 王國剛;劉合光;劉靜;李蕓;錢靜斐;吳國勝;;種養(yǎng)加一體化的理論初探與政策建議[J];農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化研究;2016年05期

3 李欣;婁世玲;楊麒;劉云國;徐衛(wèi)華;湯馨荃;劉偉;;基于生命周期能值分析的秸稈能源化利用方式的對比評價[J];環(huán)境工程學報;2016年08期

4 高雪松;鄧良基;張世熔;徐安琪;;成都平原典型秸稈循環(huán)利用模式的生命周期評價[J];土壤;2016年02期

5 楊印生;林偉;;不同玉米種植模式的環(huán)境影響評價研究——基于LCA[J];農(nóng)機化研究;2015年12期

6 吳曼;鄧賀囡;王維紅;許才明;;江蘇省循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式運作水平評價與發(fā)展建議[J];江蘇農(nóng)業(yè)科學;2015年10期

7 劉文志;;秸稈綜合利用循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)模式研究進展[J];現(xiàn)代化農(nóng)業(yè);2015年09期

8 丁金勝;;循環(huán)經(jīng)濟主導型農(nóng)業(yè)生態(tài)園的規(guī)劃設計研究[J];中國農(nóng)業(yè)資源與區(qū)劃;2015年04期

9 黃小柱;彭麗芬;李琳;;國外特色農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展模式、經(jīng)驗與啟示[J];世界農(nóng)業(yè);2015年07期

10 David Abler;;Economic evaluation of agricultural pollution control options for China[J];Journal of Integrative Agriculture;2015年06期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前2條

1 楊琰;基于DEA的陜南循環(huán)農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟效率評價研究[D];西北農(nóng)林科技大學;2012年

2 李貞宇;我國不同生態(tài)區(qū)小麥、玉米和水稻施肥的生命周期評價[D];河北農(nóng)業(yè)大學;2010年

，

本文編號：1791569