Emergy Evaluation of three Rice Wetland Farming Systems in the Taihu Lake Catchment of China
Emergy analysis was performed to evaluate the sustainability of three rice farming systems (rice mono-cropping, rice-fish and rice-duck farming systems) in the Jiangsu province. The results showed that the three systems exhibit unique characteristics on each component. The emergy of rice seeding and the labour input were the most important costs, at 57.18 and 18.20 sej/ha/season, respectively, for the rice mono-cropping system. In the rice-fish and rice-duck systems, the feed input played a more important role, corresponding to values of 63.70 and 79.20 sej/ha/season, respectively. The machinery input was 45.21 sej/ha/season for the rice-fish system due to the construction of fish ponds and ditches. The rice-duck system exhibited lower environmental loading and a higher sustainability index than the rice mono-cropping and rice-fish systems, respectively. The ratios of the economic input to output were 0.41, 0.61 and 0.41 for the rice mono-cropping, rice-fish and rice-duck systems, respectively. The net profit of the rice-duck system was $3264.2 per hectare, which was nearly 40% higher than those of the other systems. Based on the results showing the highest economic efficiency and value on the sustainability index, the rice-duck system may be the optimal rice agriculture system from both ecological and economic perspectives.
KeywordsRice farming system Emergy analysis Resource use efficiency Environmental impact
We thank Krysta Black-Mazumdar PhD from AJE for checking the written English in this manuscript.
This work was supported by the National Key Technology Support Program (2014BAD14B05), the Tianjin Natural Science Foundation (13JCYBJC25400), the Basic Research Fund for Central Public Research Institutes (2015-szjj-lj-08) and the Ministry of Agriculture 948 project (2015-Z7).
- Campbell DE, Brandt-Williams SL, Meisch ME (2005) Environmental accounting using emergy: evaluation of the state of West Virginia. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Guo Y (2001) Rice-fish systems in China. In: Integrated agriculture-aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical paper, No 407. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
- Jiang WL (2005) An introduction of water resources management. Chemical Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
- Lan SF, Qin P, Lu HF (2002) The emergy analysis of ecological economic system. Chemical Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
- Li CF, Cao CG, Wang JP, Zhan M, Pan SG (2009) Dynamics of soil soluble organic N in rice-duck and rice-fish ecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica 29:2541–2550Google Scholar
- Lu H, Bai Y, Ren H, Campbell DE (2010) Integrated emergy, energy and economic evaluation of rice and vegetable production systems in alluvial paddy fields: implications for agricultural policy in China. Journal of Environmental Management 91:2727–2735. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wang SB, Wang KL, Huang GQ (2011) A study on ecosystem service value of paddy fields in multiple cropping systems in southern hilly areas of China taking Yujiang County as an example. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis 33:636–642Google Scholar
- Xie J, Hu L, Tang J, Wu X, Li N, Yuan Y, Yang H, Zhang J, Luo S, Chen X (2011) Ecological mechanisms underlying the sustainability of the agricultural heritage rice-fish coculture system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:E1381–E1387. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1111043108 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Zeng H, Wu J, Lin L (2008) Using 137Cs tracer technique to investigate soil erosion distribution and total erosion amount in Taihu Lake catchment. Marine Geology and Quaternary Geology 28:79–85Google Scholar
- Zhang JE, Zhao MY, Chen J, Huang ZX (2005) Effects of integrated rice-duck farming system on the growth of rice. Ecologic Science 2:117–119Google Scholar