期刊文献+

水稻害虫治理措施的综合评价 被引量:10

Comprehensive assessment on management measures of rice insect pests
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 在对广州有机水稻生产示范区稻田节肢动物多样性和害虫控制效果调查分析的基础上,应用层次分析法对研究区有机水稻生产过程中经济、社会和生态3方面的效益和代价进行了评价.结果表明:有机水稻生产方式下所产生的综合效益最大,权重值达0.5355;生态代价在综合代价中占据主导地位;化学防治病虫害的水稻生产方式付出的生态代价最惨重,其综合代价权重值达0.6252;从综合效益代价比(RPC)来看,有机水稻生产模式是较理想的模式,其RPC值达2.4776,符合农业可持续发展的要求. Based on the investigation of arthropods biodiversity and insect pests controlling effect in the paddy fields of demonstration area of organic rice production in Guangzhou, a comprehensive assessment on the economic, social, and ecological profits and costs of organic rice production in study area was conducted by using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The results indicated that among all insect pests controlling measures, organic rice planting had the best comprehensive benefits, with a weight value of 0. 5355. Ecological cost played a dominant role in comprehensive costs,and that of traditional pesticide-based insect pests control was most cruel, with a weight value of comprehensive costs being 0. 6252. From the viewpoint of the ratio of comprehensive profits to comprehensive costs ( RPC ), organic rice planting was better than any other insect pests controlling modes, whose RPC was 2. 4776, being accorded with the requirement of sustainable development of agriculture.
出处 《应用生态学报》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2008年第12期2731-2737,共7页 Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology
基金 国家重点基础研究发展计划项目(2006CB100204) 国家发展和改革委员会资助项目(040705011190316)
关键词 有机水稻 层次分析法 综合效益 综合代价 organic rice analytic hierarchy process comprehensive benefits comprehensivecosts.
  • 相关文献

参考文献28

  • 1王东阳.世界农业型态变化与现代农业的发展研究[J].世界科技研究与发展,2004,26(2):47-54. 被引量:6
  • 2Ramanathan R. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 2001,63:27-35.
  • 3Moffett A, Dyer JS, Sarkar S. Integrating biodiversity representation with multiple criteria in North-Central Na mibia using non-dominated alternatives and a modified analytic hierarchy process. Biological Conservation, 2006, 129:181-191.
  • 4Sadiq R, Husain T, Veitch B, et al. Evaluation of generic types of drilling fluid using a risk-based analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management, 2003, 32 : 778-787.
  • 5Herath G. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: The use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management, 2004, 70:263-273.
  • 6Randall P, Brown L, Deschaine L, et al. Application of the analytic hierarchy process to compare alternatives for the long-ternl management of surplus mercury. Journal of Environmental Management, 2004, 71:35-43.
  • 7虞晓芬,傅玳.多指标综合评价方法综述[J].统计与决策,2004,20(11):119-121. 被引量:585
  • 8Mardle S, Paseoe S, Herrero I. Management objective importance in fisheries: An evaluation using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Environmental Management, 2004, 33 : 1-11.
  • 9Stirn LZ. Integrating the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with dynamic programming approach for determining the optimal forest management decisions. Ecological Modelling, 2006, 194:296-305.
  • 10万年峰,蒋杰贤,徐建祥,吴进才.层次分析法在上海市农田有害生物治理中的应用[J].生态学报,2005,25(11):2997-3002. 被引量:26

二级参考文献109

共引文献786

同被引文献133

引证文献10

二级引证文献57

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部