Agricultural environment biodiversity index assessment method

Abstract

The invention relates to an agricultural environment biodiversity index evaluation method based on field biodiversity investigation. Comprising the following steps: acquiring agricultural environment biodiversity basic data through field investigation; according to the collected data, an agricultural environment biodiversity index (ABI) is used for calculation, and the farm biodiversity level is evaluated; grading the farm biodiversity management by using landscape survey data, agricultural cultivation technology and the like; through correlation analysis between the ABI indexes and the ecological landscape management indexes, the accuracy of ABI index scores is checked; and generating a report according to an evaluation result, indicating the biodiversity condition of the farmland, and providing related biodiversity management suggestions. The method has good sensitivity, effectiveness and objectivity on the biological diversity of the farm, is suitable for quickly, comprehensively and scientifically evaluating the biological diversity state of an agricultural system, helps farm managers to enhance the protection consciousness on the biological diversity, and guides sustainable management of ecological agriculture. Meanwhile, the method is also applied to different agricultural systems, and helps the user to carry out farm biodiversity self-evaluation and farm management improvement.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of environmental science and ecological technology, and in particular to an agricultural environment biodiversity index evaluation method based on an eco-friendly agricultural system. Background Art

[0002] As global agricultural land expands, biodiversity loss is becoming increasingly serious. Large-scale mechanization and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in traditional agricultural systems have severely damaged biodiversity. Furthermore, some ecological farm management practices lack effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, hindering the long-term health and sustainability of ecological farms.

[0003] At present, there is no unified assessment system for the biodiversity status of agricultural environments. Existing biodiversity assessments mainly rely on certain indicator species, such as birds, large invertebrates and plant diversity. However, these assessment methods have limitations and cannot fully reflect the complexity of ecosystems and the specific impacts of farm management measures on biodiversity and ecological services. Their limitations are mainly reflected in the following aspects: first, their indicator groups are not consistent; second, the correlation between groups and environmental factors is analyzed from the perspective of ecology and biology as part of most biodiversity performance assessments, but some assessments are based on farm ecosystem services. Third, cross-level (local or regional) indicators are often incompatible in terms of structure and data requirements. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a simplified and reliable assessment method to help ecological agriculture achieve effective monitoring and protection of biodiversity, so as to provide more accurate decision-making support. Summary of the Invention

[0004] Based on the above background, the present invention provides an agricultural environment biodiversity index scoring system for quantitatively evaluating the biodiversity status of farms and the performance of eco-friendly agriculture.

[0005] An agricultural environment biodiversity index assessment method based on an eco-friendly agricultural system comprises the following steps:

[0006] S1: Obtain basic data on biodiversity in agricultural environments;

[0007] S2: Based on the collected data, the Agri-Environmental Biodiversity Index (ABI) is used to calculate and assess the level of biodiversity on the farm;

[0008] S3: Use landscape survey data and agricultural practices to score farm biodiversity management;

[0009] The accuracy of the ABI index score was tested through correlation analysis between the ABI index and ecological landscape management indicators;

[0010] S4: Generate a report based on the assessment results, indicating the biodiversity status of the farmland and providing relevant management recommendations

[0011] Furthermore, the S1 specifically includes:

[0012] Obtain biodiversity data on plants, birds, invasive species, etc. on farms through field surveys, farmer interviews, and remote sensing technology;

[0013] Collect information on farm management practices and landscape factors, including land use, distribution of natural / semi-natural habitats, and agricultural practices;

[0014] Furthermore, the S2 specifically includes:

[0015] Based on the basic data obtained, the various indexes in the ABI assessment table are determined, including 5 main indicators and 10 secondary indicators: biodiversity status (including animal diversity, plant diversity and invasive species), habitat status (including habitat quality) and ecosystem services (including ecological agriculture and environmental education).

[0016] Animal diversity includes: the abundance of birds observed in a day; the number of nationally protected species;

[0017] Plant diversity includes: the number of weed species recorded in a survey; the average number of weed species per square meter;

[0018] Invasive species include: the number of alien invasive species among the top ten weeds in terms of importance; the coverage of the first-level malignant invasive species among alien invasive species;

[0019] Habitat quality includes: the proportion of natural habitat area; the wildness of each habitat;

[0020] Ecological agriculture and environmental education includes: the number of times ecological agriculture and environmental education activities are carried out; and the average number of people participating in each ecological agriculture and environmental education activity.

[0021] Furthermore, the S3 specifically includes:

[0022] Scoring farm biodiversity management using landscape survey data and agricultural practices:

[0023] Conduct data collation and analysis, score each ABI index, determine the farm biodiversity management score, and measure the farm biodiversity management level.

[0024] Furthermore, the S4 specifically includes:

[0025] Adopting the natural capital accounting framework to form an agricultural environment biodiversity index accounting system:

[0026]

[0027] ABI = Animal Biodiversity + Plant Biodiversity + Invasive Species + Habitats + Educational Activities;

[0028] Biodiversity accounting = Natural capital index = Natural capital value - farm area × ratio of natural / semi-natural areas × (ABI / i).

[0029] Data analysis used SPSS statistical software to analyze the correlations between ABI indicators and landscape management factors to determine whether these relationships were significant, so as to assess the sensitivity and suitability of the indicator design.

[0030] By performing regression analysis on the main correlates of ABI scores, a formula was established to roughly predict plant and animal diversity and habitat quality:

[0031] Animal diversity = 0.245 + 0.013 * area

[0032] Animal diversity = 0.283*1.025^area

[0033] Plant diversity = 0.299 + 0.016 * area

[0034] N_types = exp(1.646–6.320 / area)

[0035] H_quality=0.061+0.179*N_types

[0036] ABI = 1.988 * N_types 0.361

[0037] Among them, N_types: natural habitat type score; H_quality: natural and cultivated habitat richness score;

[0038] The calculated scores were compared with the scores of each index to test the accuracy of the ABI index scores.

[0039] Furthermore, the S5 specifically includes:

[0040] Based on the ABI score results, a report is generated, proposing a series of farm management measures, such as increasing natural habitats, reducing chemical inputs, and applying ecological agricultural technologies, to improve the ecological benefits of the farm;

[0041] Assess the value of ecosystem services and optimize farm management practices, such as tree planting, wetland restoration, and habitat protection, to enhance ecosystem sustainability.

[0042] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0043] By constructing an agricultural biodiversity index (ABI), this invention can accurately quantify the biodiversity status of farms and provide effective strategies for optimizing ecological management. It can serve as a rapid and scientific tool for researchers and managers to evaluate the overall biodiversity performance of environmentally friendly farms.

[0044] This invention can be used by agricultural practitioners as a self-assessment method or incentive to improve their biodiversity indicators. Through the ABI score, farms can identify weak links in biodiversity conservation and, based on this, improve management measures and enhance ecosystem services, thereby achieving sustainable agricultural development while protecting the environment.

[0045] The invention is based on a natural capital accounting framework and can also be aggregated with other financial accounts to assess their relationship with various investments. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0046] To facilitate understanding by those skilled in the art, the present invention is further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0047] Figure 1 A flowchart showing a preferred example of an agro-environmental biodiversity index assessment method based on eco-friendly agricultural systems;

[0048] Figure 2 is the ABI score of the pilot farm;

[0049] Figure 3 It is an indicator with significant correlation in ABI;

[0050] Figure 4 is the correlation between habitat information and farming practices;

[0051] Figure 5 is the relationship diagram of each evaluation factor (all arrows indicate relationships with significant correlation);

[0052] Figure 6 are regression equations with statistical significance and good fit evidence for roughly predicting plant and animal diversity and habitat quality;

[0053] Figure 7 This is an analysis chart of the ABI scores for various factors on the pilot farm;

[0054] Figure 8 Biodiversity was scored using the ABI regression equation and farm land use. Figure 9 Schematic diagram of the process of constructing and using the ABI index for farm biodiversity assessment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0055] In order to make the purpose, technical solutions and advantages of the present invention more clear and distinct, the present invention is further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and examples. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are only used to explain the present invention and are not intended to limit the present invention.

[0056] In one embodiment, Figure 1 As shown, a method for evaluating the biodiversity index of an agricultural environment based on an eco-friendly agricultural system is provided, comprising the following steps: Step 1: Obtain basic data on agricultural environmental biodiversity; Data was collected primarily through field surveys, infrared cameras, remote sensing equipment, and face-to-face interviews with farmers to better understand ecosystem services. This included plant surveys, bird surveys, and ecosystem service surveys. Plant surveys primarily collected data on trees and shrubs through field surveys. Herbaceous plant data was collected using 1m x 1m grass plots in both natural and cultivated habitats. Five plot surveys were conducted in each habitat, recording weed species richness, density, and coverage. Diversity indices (including the Simpson, Shannon, and Pielou evenness indices) and other key indicators were calculated to determine the herbaceous diversity and "wildness" of different habitat types, thereby deriving a score representing habitat quality. Furthermore, the distribution and invasion status of invasive alien species, as well as the treatment methods used by farmers, were identified and recorded. Bird surveys were conducted along a specific line transect between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM, with a repeat transect between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM. Birds seen, heard, or photographed within 50 meters on either side of each transect were recorded. Line transects were set between 600 and 800 meters, depending on farm size and landscape heterogeneity: farms <10 hectares received one transect; farms 10-30 hectares received two to three transects; and farms >30 hectares received four to six transects. Habitat information was recorded for all transects. Additionally, mammals encountered during the farm surveys were recorded and given extra points for animal diversity due to their rarity. The Ecosystem Services Survey primarily collects information on the number of eco-agricultural and environmental education sessions and the average number of participants per session. (Although food production is the most important ecosystem service provided by farms, data on production capacity is limited due to the volatility of ecological farm yields and the lack of proper financial records to track farmers' income and expenditures. Production capacity is closely related to non-biodiversity factors.)

[0057] Step 2: Based on the collected data, use the Agri-Environmental Biodiversity Index (ABI) system to calculate and assess the level of biodiversity on the farm; Based on the basic data obtained, the various indices in the ABI assessment table are determined. These include five primary indicators and 10 secondary indicators: biodiversity status (including animal diversity, plant diversity, and invasive species), habitat status (including habitat quality), and ecosystem services (including ecological agriculture and environmental education). Specifically, the second step in this embodiment is to calculate and evaluate each function separately according to the calculation method. The specific process is as follows: (1) Animal diversity assessment. The abundance of birds observed in a day is scored: 10-20 in the south is 0.1 point, 20-30 is 0.2 point, 30-40 is 0.3 point, 40-50 is 0.4 point, 50 is 0.5 point; 5-10 in the north is 0.1 point, 10-20 is 0.2 point; 20-30 is 0.3 point, 30-40 is 0.4 point, ≥40 is 0.5 point. The number of national protected species is scored: 0.1 point is added for each additional national second-level protected animal; 0.2 point is added for each additional national first-level protected animal, until the maximum score is 0.5. Each additional mammal has a score twice that of a bird. (2) Plant diversity assessment. The number of weed species recorded in a survey was scored: 30-45 species in the south were scored as 0.1, 45-60 species were scored as 0.2, 60-90 species were scored as 0.3, 90-120 species were scored as 0.4, and ≥120 species were scored as 0.5. In the north, 10-20 species were scored as 0.1, 20-30 species were scored as 0.2, 30-40 species were scored as 0.3, 40-50 species were scored as 0.4, and ≥50 species were scored as 0.5. The average number of weed species per square meter was scored: 5-10 species were scored as 0.1, 10-15 species were scored as 0.2, 15-20 species were scored as 0.3, 25-30 species were scored as 0.4, and ≥30 species were scored as 0.5. (3) Invasive species assessment. The number of invasive alien species among the top ten weeds ranked by importance was scored as follows: 5 species = 0.1 point, 4 species = 0.2 point, 3 species = 0.3 point, 2 species = 0.4 point, and 1 species = 0.5 point. The coverage of the first-level malignant invasive species among the invasive alien species was scored as follows: >70% = 0 point, 50%-70% = 0.1 point, 40%-50% = 0.2 point, 30%-40% = 0.3 point, 20%-30% = 0.4 point, and 10%-20% = 0.5 point. (4) Habitat quality assessment. The area proportion of natural habitats was scored as follows: 5% to 10% was 0.1 points, 10% to 20% was 0.2 points, 20% to 30% was 0.3 points, 30% to 50% was 0.4 points, and >50% was 0.5 points. The wildness of each habitat was scored: whether it was naturally grown or cultivated, the complexity of the community structure, the intensity of artificial maintenance, the ecotone, and the diversity of the habitat. Each aspect was scored with a maximum score of 0.1 points. (5) Ecological agriculture and environmental education evaluation. The number of times ecological agriculture and environmental education was conducted was scored as follows: 1-5 times = 0.1 point; 5-10 times = 0.2 point; 10-30 times = 0.3 point; 30-50 times = 0.4 point; and ≥50 times = 0.5 point. The average number of people participating in each ecological agriculture and environmental education activity was scored as follows: 2-5 people = 0.1 point; 5-10 people = 0.2 point; 10-30 people = 0.3 point; 30-50 people = 0.4 point; and >50 people = 0.5 point.

[0058] Step 3: Use landscape survey data and agricultural practices to score farm biodiversity management; like Figure 2 As shown in the figure, each ABI index is scored to determine the farm biodiversity management score and measure the farm biodiversity management level.

[0059] Step 4: Verify the accuracy of the ABI index score through correlation analysis between the ABI index and ecological landscape management indicators; Adopting the natural capital accounting framework to form an agricultural environment biodiversity index accounting system: ABI = Animal biodiversity + Plant diversity + Invasive species + Habitats + Educational activities Biodiversity accounting = Natural capital index = Natural capital value - Farm area × Ratio of natural / semi-natural areas × (ABI / i); Data analysis Using SPSS statistical software, the correlations between ABI indicators and landscape management factors were analyzed to determine whether these relationships were significant, so as to assess the sensitivity and suitability of indicator design, such as Figure 3 As shown, the ABI total score was significantly correlated with most biodiversity indicators, including natural / semi-natural habitat richness (N-type, r=0.911, p<0.01), habitat richness (H-type, r=0.827, p<0.01), farm area (r=0.765, p<0.05), natural / semi-natural area ratio, animal diversity (r=0.684, p<0.05), plant diversity (r=0.781, p<0.05), and habitat quality (r=0.844, p<0.01). The correlation coefficients were 0.844, p<0.05, and 0.01, respectively. The ABI index has good sensitivity, validity, and objectivity for farmland biodiversity. Figure 4Different habitat types and farming practices were represented as dummy variables, with 1 indicating presence and 0 indicating absence. Correlation analysis was performed between the dummy variables and ABI scores. The results showed that most habitat and agricultural factors were significantly correlated with ABI score factors: 1) the use of woods, ponds, fallow land, and homemade fertilizers were significantly associated with animal diversity; 2) the use of shrubs, rice fields, native seeds, and homemade fertilizers was positively correlated with plant diversity, but negatively correlated with the use of plastic film; 3) the use of hedges and biodynamic elements was negatively correlated with invasive species status; 4) the presence of forests, ponds, and shrub fields was positively correlated with habitat quality, while the use of large machinery was negatively correlated; 5) educational activities were associated with the presence of rivers and hedges; and 6) the total ABI score was correlated with the presence of forests, ponds, rice fields, animal sheds, and hedges. Figure 5 The results showed that natural / semi-natural habitat richness (n-type) was a core variable and significantly correlated with the three main factors of the ABI: plant diversity, animal diversity, and habitat quality. Furthermore, for ecological farms, "area" was a significant factor influencing biodiversity performance. Generally speaking, larger ecological farms had greater external and internal habitats, resulting in better habitat quality, higher plant and animal diversity, and higher ABI scores. By performing regression analysis on the main correlates of ABI scores, we can roughly predict plant and animal diversity and habitat quality. Figure 6 The specific formula is as follows: Animal diversity = 0.245 + 0.013 * area Animal diversity = 0.283*1.025^area Plant diversity = 0.299 + 0.016 * area N_types = exp(1.646–6.320 / area) H_quality=0.061+0.179*N_typesABI=1.988*N_types0.361 Among them, N_types: natural habitat type score; H_quality: natural and cultivated habitat richness score. The calculated scores were compared with the scores of each index to test the accuracy of the ABI index scores.

[0060] Step 5: Generate a report based on the assessment results, indicating the biodiversity status of the farmland and providing relevant management recommendations; Figure 7 、 Figure 8 The model is formed based on the evaluation results. Figure 7Among the nine farms, the ABI scores have three peaks, which illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of each farm. For example, PX Farm has the highest overall score, and its plant and animal species are significantly better than other farms; TC Farm is better than other farms in the north in terms of plant and animal species, alien species management status, and habitat quality; HDF Farm performs well in environmental education activities, with a high comprehensive score, reaching the third peak; while the ABI scores of KKG Farm and XLS Farm reflect the existence of some negative characteristics, such as small scale, single habitat, few plant and animal species, and few cultural activities. Based on this model, the expert panel proposed several strategies for different ecological farms to improve their biodiversity performance: 1) Actively maintain and increase natural land to increase farm productivity and improve biodiversity (e.g., PX, TC, and HDF farms); 2) Passively increase natural land due to lack of farm management and poorly managed cultivated land (e.g., SGXY farm); 3) Actively manage cultivated land area to ensure production capacity while maintaining biodiversity (e.g., XLS, KKG, LW, and ZD farms); and 4) Implement industrial organic agricultural management, increasing productivity and saving labor through greenhouse construction and plastic film covering, while preserving natural areas rather than linking biodiversity to agricultural production (e.g., BOH farm). BOH, a third-party rating organization for sustainable agriculture, assumes that ecological farms should integrate the maintenance of cultivated land productivity with biodiversity. Ecological farms should focus on ecological production and effectively utilize biodiversity and ecosystem services to improve the productivity of agricultural systems, rather than industrial food production and the use of nature as a branding tool.

[0061] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention and does not constitute any form of limitation to the present invention. Although the present invention has been disclosed as a preferred embodiment as above, it is not intended to limit the present invention. Any person skilled in the art can make some changes or modifications to equivalent embodiments using the technical contents disclosed above without departing from the scope of the technical solution of the present invention. However, any simple modifications, equivalent changes and modifications made to the above embodiments based on the technical essence of the present invention without departing from the content of the technical solution of the present invention are still within the scope of the technical solution of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the biodiversity index of an agricultural environment based on field biodiversity surveys, characterized in that: The steps include: S1: Obtain basic data on biodiversity in agricultural environments; S2: Based on the collected data, the Agri-Environmental Biodiversity Index (ABI) is used to calculate and assess the level of biodiversity on the farm; S3: Use landscape survey data and agricultural practices to score farm biodiversity management; S4: The accuracy of the ABI index score was tested through correlation analysis between the ABI index and ecological landscape management indicators; S54: Generate a report based on the assessment results, indicating the biodiversity status of the farmland and providing relevant biodiversity management recommendations.

2. The agricultural environment biodiversity index evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The acquisition of basic data on agricultural environmental biodiversity includes: Obtain biodiversity data on plants, birds, invasive species, etc. on farms through field surveys, farmer interviews, and remote sensing technology; Collect information on farm management practices and landscape factors, including land use, distribution of natural / semi-natural habitats, and agricultural practices.

3. The agricultural environment biodiversity index evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Based on the collected data, the Agri-Environmental Biodiversity Index (ABI) was calculated to assess the level of biodiversity on the farm, including: Based on the basic data obtained, the various indexes in the ABI assessment table are determined, including 3 main indicators and 10 secondary indicators: biodiversity status (including bird diversity, plant diversity and invasive species), habitat status (including habitat quality) and ecosystem services (including ecological agriculture and environmental education).

4. The agricultural environment biodiversity index evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Farm biodiversity management is scored using landscape survey data and agricultural practices, including: Conduct data collation and analysis, score each ABI index, determine the farm biodiversity management score, and measure the farm biodiversity management level.

5. The agricultural environment biodiversity index assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The accuracy of the ABI index score was tested through correlation analysis between the ABI index and ecological landscape management indicators, including: Adopting the natural capital accounting framework to form an agricultural environment biodiversity index accounting system: ABI = Animal Biodiversity + Plant Biodiversity + Invasive Species + Habitats + Educational Activities; Biodiversity accounting = Natural capital index = Natural capital value - farm area × ratio of natural / semi-natural areas × (ABI / i); Data analysis used SPSS statistical software to analyze the correlations between ABI indicators and landscape management factors to determine whether these relationships were significant, so as to assess the sensitivity and suitability of the indicator design; By performing regression analysis on the main correlates of ABI scores, a formula was established to roughly predict plant and animal diversity and habitat quality: Animal diversity = 0.245 + 0.013 * area Animal diversity = 0.283*1.025^area Plant diversity = 0.299 + 0.016 * area N_types = exp(1.646–6.320 / area) H_quality=0.061+0.179*N_types ABI = 1.988 * N_types 0.361 Among them, N_types: natural habitat type score; H_quality: natural and cultivated habitat richness score; The calculated scores were compared with the scores of each index to test the accuracy of the ABI index scores.

6. The agricultural environment biodiversity index assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: A report is generated based on the assessment results, indicating the biodiversity status of the farmland and providing relevant biodiversity management recommendations, including: Based on the ABI score results, a report is generated, proposing a series of farm management measures, such as increasing natural habitats, reducing chemical inputs, and applying ecological agricultural technologies, to improve the ecological benefits of the farm; Assess the value of ecosystem services and optimize farm management practices, such as tree planting, wetland restoration, and habitat protection, to enhance ecosystem sustainability.

7. A method for evaluating the biodiversity index of an agricultural environment based on an eco-friendly agricultural system, characterized in that: The method for implementing the agricultural environment biodiversity index assessment method according to claims 1 to 6 comprises: Data collection module: used to obtain the geographical basis and biodiversity assessment data of the farm; Index calculation module: used to calculate the agricultural biodiversity index (ABI) based on the collected data to evaluate the biodiversity level of the farm; Assessment and scoring module: uses landscape survey data and agricultural farming techniques to score farm biodiversity management; Model analysis module: Through the correlation analysis between ABI index and ecological landscape management indicators, the accuracy of ABI index score is tested; Report generation module: Generates a report based on the assessment results, indicating the biodiversity status of the farmland and providing relevant biodiversity management recommendations.

Images