Cultivated land utilization ecological efficiency assessment method

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of agricultural resource and environment management, in particular to a cultivated land utilization ecological efficiency assessment method, which comprises the following steps of: setting assessment units with the same natural conditions, and taking the least common multiple of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group period as a total assessment period; according to the method, output end indexes including crop rotation annual total economic output, fallow annual dynamic ecological gain and inter-period moisture collaborative total gain and input end indexes of crop rotation annual total resource consumption and fallow annual dynamic total cost are constructed, a fallow marginal ecological benefit decline coefficient and a dynamic cost apportionment coefficient are introduced, and key parameters are calibrated, so that the yield of crop rotation is improved. According to the method, an ecological efficiency evaluation model is established, and an optimal matching group is screened by further combining a matching optimization index, so that accurate quantification and dynamic optimization of the ecological economic benefits of the crop rotation-fallow system are realized, the scientificity and practical guidance value of an evaluation result are remarkably improved, and effective decision support is provided for sustainable utilization of cultivated land.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of agricultural resource and environmental management technology, specifically to a method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use. Background Technology

[0002] Existing or traditional methods for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use have at least the following technical problems: 1. Traditional assessment methods lack consideration of the dynamic synergistic effects of crop rotation-fallow systems across multiple cycles, leading to static and one-sided assessment results. Furthermore, the use of fixed-year assessments fails to address the comparability of different crop rotation-fallow ratio groups, such as a three-year rotation with one year of fallow versus a five-year rotation with two years of fallow. This makes it impossible to fairly compare the ecological efficiency of different cycle patterns under the same benchmark, resulting in distorted assessment results that fail to reflect the long-term comprehensive benefits of farmland use. At the same time, traditional assessment methods often ignore the direct impact of differences in natural conditions on the assessment basis, incorporating plots of different qualities into the same assessment system, causing the assessment results to deviate from reality.

[0003] 2. Existing assessment methods lack a quantitative mechanism for the dynamic diminishing ecological benefits of fallow and the intertemporal synergistic effects, resulting in incomplete ecological value accounting. They also focus more on the economic output and resource consumption of crop rotation years, failing to include the dynamic ecological gains brought by fallow years and the characteristics of their marginal benefits diminishing over time. Furthermore, they ignore the intertemporal impacts of fallow on subsequent crop rotation years, such as the synergistic water gains. This leads to an underestimation of the long-term ecological value of fallow, causing decision-making to tend towards over-utilization of arable land, which is detrimental to soil conservation and sustainable water resource utilization.

[0004] 3. Traditional assessment methods lack dynamic calibration and adjustment mechanisms based on changes in environmental parameters, leading to rigid decision-making. Existing methods typically use fixed parameters for assessment, failing to incorporate dynamic environmental factors such as actual rainfall and the severity of pests and diseases to calibrate economic output and ecological benefit coefficients in real time. This makes it difficult for assessment models to adapt to actual climate fluctuations and field management conditions, resulting in assessment results that are out of sync with reality. Furthermore, the lack of a mechanism to re-optimize the mix design triggered by changes in key parameters makes it difficult to dynamically adjust the established scheme according to environmental changes, thus restricting the adaptive management capabilities of arable land ecosystems. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the aforementioned shortcomings of existing technologies, this invention provides a method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use, which can effectively solve the problems of static assessment, incomparable cycles, and lack of dynamic ecological benefits in the prior art.

[0006] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention adopts the following technical solution: The present invention provides a method for evaluating the ecological efficiency of cultivated land use, including: S1, obtaining cultivated land with the same natural differences as the target evaluation unit, setting each rotation-fallow ratio group, evaluating the least common multiple of each rotation-fallow ratio group, and using it as the total evaluation period.

[0007] S2. Based on the set crop rotation-fallow ratio groups and the total evaluation cycle, construct the output and input indicator framework for each ratio group, and quantify the output and input indicators respectively. At the same time, calculate the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow for each fallow year for each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, as well as the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient.

[0008] S3. Collect calibration data and calibrate the total economic output of the rotation year and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow.

[0009] The calibration data includes rainfall in each fallow year, historical average rainfall in fallow years, and quantitative values ​​of the total incidence of pests and diseases in crop rotation years.

[0010] S4. Based on the calibrated annual total economic output of crop rotation and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow, calculate the efficiency value of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, introduce the ratio optimization index, sort each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, and select the optimal ratio group.

[0011] S5. Based on the optimal ratio group, evaluate the periodic fluctuation range corresponding to the optimal ratio group, and establish a dynamic adjustment mechanism triggered by changes in key parameters.

[0012] Preferably, the process of evaluating the least common multiple of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is as follows: cultivated land that meets the pre-set unified standards in all aspects of natural differences is taken as the target evaluation unit.

[0013] The number of crop rotation years is denoted as The number of years of fallow land is recorded as Set up each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, and and Adding them together, we get the corresponding cycles for each crop rotation-fallow ratio group.

[0014] Based on the cycles corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, the cycles corresponding to all crop rotation-fallow ratio groups are decomposed into prime factors. The least common multiple of the cycles corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is obtained by multiplying the highest power of each prime factor.

[0015] The least common multiple is compared with the set period interval. If the least common multiple is greater than the upper limit of the set period interval, the number of rotation and fallow years corresponding to the ratio group with the largest cycle in the rotation-fallow ratio group is reduced. Conversely, the number of rotation and fallow years corresponding to the ratio group with the largest cycle in the rotation-fallow ratio group is increased. This process continues until the least common multiple falls within the set period interval, thus obtaining the total evaluation period.

[0016] Preferably, the quantitative analysis of output-side and input-side indicators is carried out as follows: the actual yield of crops in each rotation year and the average market price of the corresponding year are obtained, and the total economic output of the rotation year is calculated.

[0017] The increase in soil organic matter, the reduction in soil erosion due to fallow, and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits coefficient of fallow were obtained after each fallow year. The dynamic ecological gain value of the fallow year was calculated by weighting these values.

[0018] The water supply gain for each fallow year to each crop rotation year is obtained, along with the diminishing marginal ecological benefit coefficient of fallow, and the total inter-period water synergy gain is calculated.

[0019] The total input of fertilizers, pesticides, and agricultural machinery operations in each crop rotation year are obtained, and the total resource consumption of the crop rotation year is calculated by weighted average.

[0020] By obtaining the direct restoration input and opportunity cost of fallow for each fallow year, the dynamic total cost of the fallow year can be calculated.

[0021] Preferably, the calculation of the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow and the dynamic cost sharing coefficient of fallow for each fallow year corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is specifically performed as follows: obtain the marginal reduction rate coefficient corresponding to the target evaluation unit, and calculate the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow for each fallow year corresponding to the target evaluation unit.

[0022] Based on the dynamic total cost of fallow, the diminishing marginal benefit coefficient of fallow, and the total economic output of each crop rotation year, the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient of the target evaluation unit is calculated.

[0023] Preferably, the calibration of the total economic output of the rotation year and the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow is carried out in the following specific calibration process: the calibration data includes the rainfall of each fallow year, the historical average rainfall of the fallow year, and the quantitative value of the total occurrence of pests and diseases in the rotation year.

[0024] By combining the rainfall in each fallow year and the historical average rainfall in fallow years, as well as the total economic output of the rotation year, the calibrated marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow is calculated.

[0025] By combining the quantitative value of the total occurrence of pests and diseases and the pest and disease impact coefficient of the crop rotation year, as well as the diminishing marginal ecological benefits coefficient of fallow, the calibrated total economic output of the crop rotation year is calculated.

[0026] Preferably, the specific process for calculating the efficiency value of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is as follows: Based on the calibrated marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow, the dynamic ecological gain value of the fallow year is corrected, and combined with the total economic output of the crop rotation year and the average annual output value of the non-crop rotation-non-fallow plots, the crop rotation-fallow synergistic output gain rate is calculated.

[0027] By combining the crop rotation-fallow synergistic output gain rate, the calibrated total economic output of the crop rotation year, the total intertemporal water synergistic gain, the total resource consumption of the crop rotation year, the dynamic total cost of the fallow year and the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient, as well as the water value conversion coefficient, the dynamic ecological efficiency value of the target assessment unit is calculated.

[0028] Preferably, the process of selecting the optimal ratio group is as follows: combining the efficiency value of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group and the grain yield of each ratio group, the comprehensive optimization index corresponding to each ratio group is calculated.

[0029] Sort the comprehensive optimization indexes of each ratio group in descending order, and the ratio group corresponding to the comprehensive optimization index ranked first is the optimal ratio group.

[0030] The technical solution provided by this invention has the following advantages compared with the known prior art: 1. In the process of setting the evaluation benchmark, the embodiments of the present invention select cultivated land with the same natural differences as the target evaluation unit and use the least common multiple method to determine the total evaluation cycle, which is conducive to establishing a unified evaluation benchmark, effectively eliminating the interference of differences in natural conditions such as soil, slope and irrigation on the evaluation results, and solving the comparability problem between different crop rotation-fallow cycles.

[0031] 2. In the process of constructing the indicator system, this invention establishes output-side indicators that include total economic output in crop rotation years, dynamic ecological gains in fallow years, and total intertemporal water synergy gains, as well as input-side indicators that include total resource consumption in crop rotation years and dynamic total costs in fallow years. This facilitates the comprehensive quantification of ecological and economic benefits. The comprehensive indicator framework not only considers immediate economic output but also incorporates the ecological benefits and intertemporal synergistic effects brought about by fallow into the evaluation scope. This breaks through the limitations of traditional evaluation that only focuses on short-term economic gains and provides complete methodological support for the accounting of arable land ecological value.

[0032] 3. In the parameter calibration process of this invention, environmental factors such as rainfall and the degree of pest and disease occurrence are introduced to dynamically calibrate the total economic output of the rotation year and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow. This helps to improve the accuracy and practicality of the assessment model, fully considers the actual impact of natural environmental changes on arable land productivity, and enables the assessment results to truly reflect the ecological efficiency level under different climatic conditions and pest and disease pressures, effectively enhancing the environmental adaptability and decision-making reference value of the assessment model.

[0033] 4. In the process of optimizing the selection of the scheme, the embodiments of the present invention calculate the efficiency value of each ratio group and introduce the ratio optimization index for ranking, which is conducive to the scientific screening of the rotation-fallow scheme. It not only considers the single indicator of ecological efficiency, but also combines key production indicators such as grain yield. Through the calculation and ranking of the comprehensive optimization index, it is conducive to identifying the optimal ratio scheme that takes into account both ecological benefits and food security, and provides a quantitative decision-making basis for the sustainable use and management of arable land.

[0034] 5. In the process of establishing a long-term mechanism, this invention evaluates the periodic fluctuation range of the optimal ratio group and establishes a dynamic adjustment mechanism for changes in key parameters. This helps to ensure the continuous optimization of farmland use patterns, facilitates long-term tracking and evaluation of the implementation effect of selected schemes, and promptly triggers scheme re-optimization when environmental conditions or key parameters change. This ensures that farmland use strategies are always kept in the optimal state and significantly improves the adaptability and long-term stability of the management system. Attached Figure Description

[0035] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are merely some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without any creative effort.

[0036] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the implementation steps of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0037] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some, not all, of the embodiments of the present invention. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0038] The present invention will be further described below with reference to embodiments.

[0039] Please see Figure 1 As shown, a method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use includes at least: S1. Obtain cultivated land with similar natural differences as the target evaluation unit, set up each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, evaluate the least common multiple of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, and use it as the total evaluation cycle.

[0040] In a specific embodiment, the process of evaluating the least common multiple of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is as follows: natural differences include soil differences, slope differences, irrigation pattern differences, rainfall differences, and plot contiguousness differences. Farmland that meets all the pre-set unified standards for each natural difference is used as the target evaluation unit.

[0041] The number of crop rotation years is denoted as The number of years of fallow land is recorded as Based on the agricultural data of the target assessment units, the set rotation-fallow ratio groups were obtained, and... and Adding them together, we get the corresponding cycles for each crop rotation-fallow ratio group.

[0042] Based on the cycles corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, the cycles corresponding to all crop rotation-fallow ratio groups are decomposed into prime factors. The least common multiple of the cycles corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is obtained by multiplying the highest power of each prime factor.

[0043] The least common multiple is compared with the set period interval. If the least common multiple is greater than the upper limit of the set period interval, the number of rotation and fallow years corresponding to the ratio group with the largest cycle in the rotation-fallow ratio group is reduced. Conversely, the number of rotation and fallow years corresponding to the ratio group with the largest cycle in the rotation-fallow ratio group is increased. This process continues until the least common multiple falls within the set period interval, thus obtaining the total evaluation period.

[0044] It should be noted that the pre-set unified standards include soil standards, slope standards, irrigation pattern standards, rainfall standards, and plot contiguousness standards. These pre-set unified standards were obtained by referring to industry technical specifications and by experts in agriculture, ecology, and other fields.

[0045] It should be noted that soil differences refer to the consistency of core soil attributes within the target assessment unit. These core attributes include soil fertility, texture, and pH. Soil fertility includes organic matter content and nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium nutrients, while texture includes sandy soil, loam, and clay soil. Soil differences directly affect crop growth efficiency and the effectiveness of fallow ecological restoration. Therefore, unified standards are required, such as organic matter content ≥1.5% or pH value 6.0-7.5.

[0046] Irrigation modes include drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, and flood irrigation. If the pre-set irrigation mode standard is drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation, then the irrigation mode of the target evaluation unit must be one of the two, or a combination of the two.

[0047] Using farmland with slope differences that meet the preset slope standards as the target evaluation unit means that if the preset slope standard is ≤15°, then all farmland with a slope of 15° or less will be included in the target evaluation unit, while steep slope farmland with a slope of 20° will be excluded because it does not meet the standard.

[0048] The meaning of using farmland that meets the pre-set contiguousness standard as the target assessment unit is as follows: the pre-set contiguousness standard is "concentrated contiguous area ≥ 100 mu and no obvious division". Then, 120 mu of concentrated farmland is included in the target assessment unit, while scattered farmland of 5-10 mu around the village is excluded because it does not meet the contiguousness standard.

[0049] It should be noted that, assuming the agricultural data of the target assessment unit is suitable for short-cycle crop rotation and fallow, and the agricultural data includes soil fertility level, growth cycle of major crops, regional annual precipitation, irrigation water supply capacity and ecological carrying capacity of arable land, the number of rotation years and fallow years are set to form ratio groups such as "2:1", "3:1" and "2:2", and the number of rotation years n and fallow years m of each group are added to obtain the corresponding cycles of 3, 4 and 4 respectively.

[0050] It should be noted that, taking the crop rotation-fallow ratio groups with corresponding cycles of 3, 4, and 5 as examples, after prime factorization... Multiplying the highest power of each prime factor together gives 60, and the result 60 is the least common multiple of these periods.

[0051] It should also be noted that the set period range is based on the agricultural production characteristics of the target assessment unit, such as the crop growth cycle and the time required for fallow ecological restoration, combined with the assessment accuracy requirements and monitoring manpower and material costs, and with reference to the conventional period range of similar cultivated land assessments in the industry. The upper and lower limits are determined after expert demonstration.

[0052] In the process of setting the evaluation benchmark, this invention selects cultivated land with the same natural differences as the target evaluation unit and uses the least common multiple method to determine the total evaluation cycle. This is conducive to establishing a unified evaluation benchmark, effectively eliminating the interference of differences in natural conditions such as soil, slope and irrigation on the evaluation results, and solving the comparability problem between different crop rotation-fallow cycles.

[0053] S2. Based on the set crop rotation-fallow ratio groups and the total evaluation cycle, construct the output and input indicator framework for each ratio group, and quantify the output and input indicators respectively. At the same time, calculate the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow for each fallow year for each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, as well as the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient.

[0054] In a specific embodiment, the quantitative analysis of output-side indicators and input-side indicators is carried out as follows: output-side indicators include total economic output in crop rotation years, dynamic ecological gain in fallow years, and total intertemporal water synergy gain; input-side indicators include total resource consumption in crop rotation years and dynamic total cost in fallow years.

[0055] Obtain the actual crop yield and the average market price for each crop rotation year for each crop rotation group. Sum the actual crop yield and the average market price for each crop rotation year to obtain the total economic output for each crop rotation group. , The numbers corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group are provided. The value can be a positive integer.

[0056] The soil organic matter increment, soil and water loss reduction due to fallow, and marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of each ratio group were obtained for each fallow year. The dynamic ecological gain value of each ratio group for each fallow year was obtained by weighted calculation.

[0057] The water supply gain of each ratio group to each rotation year during each fallow year and the diminishing marginal ecological benefit coefficient of fallow were obtained, and the total inter-period water synergy gain of each ratio group was calculated.

[0058] Obtain the total fertilizer input, total pesticide input, and total agricultural machinery operation energy consumption for each crop rotation year for each fertilizer ratio group. Multiply these figures by their respective weighting factors to obtain the total resource consumption for each crop rotation year for each fertilizer ratio group. .

[0059] Obtain the direct restoration input and fallow opportunity cost for each crop rotation-fallow ratio group in each fallow year, add them together to get the cost for each fallow year, and then sum the costs for each ratio group for each fallow year to obtain the dynamic total cost for each ratio group in the fallow year. .

[0060] It should be noted that the dynamic ecological gain value of fallow years The calculation formula is: ,in The corresponding numbers for each fallow year, , , and Represented as the first The increase in soil organic matter (the amount of increase in soil organic matter after each fallow year), the reduction in soil erosion, and the coefficient of diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallowing are all relevant factors. and These represent the weighting factors corresponding to the increase in soil organic matter and the reduction in soil erosion, respectively. and The values ​​range from 0 to 1.

[0061] The corresponding numbers for each crop rotation year. , The corresponding numbers for each fallow year, .

[0062] Total intertemporal moisture synergistic gain The calculation formula is: ,in Represented as the first The corresponding ratio group is in the first... During the fallow year, the first Water supply gain per crop rotation year.

[0063] It should be noted that the weighting factors corresponding to the total input of fertilizers, total input of pesticides, and total energy consumption of agricultural machinery operations are determined based on the actual impact of fertilizers, pesticides, and agricultural machinery energy consumption on the ecological environment of arable land. They are based on research results in the field of agricultural ecology, the characteristics of regional arable land ecological carrying capacity, and relevant industry standards. Through expert evaluation and scoring or calibration with historical monitoring data, different weighting values ​​are finally assigned to the three inputs (e.g., fertilizer 0.4, pesticides 0.3, and agricultural machinery energy consumption 0.3).

[0064] It should also be noted that the actual yield and average market price of crops for each crop rotation year for each ratio group are obtained as follows: the actual yield is obtained by combining the farmers' planting ledger records with on-site sampling and verification after harvest. For example, three sample plots are selected for weighing and calculation. The average market price is taken from the annual agricultural product price bulletin issued by the regional agricultural and rural affairs bureau.

[0065] and The acquisition process is as follows: Soil samples were taken from the 0-30cm soil layer and sent to a third-party organization for testing. The content difference between the samples after and before fallowing was used to obtain the results. The difference between fallow and non-fallow plots was measured at the regional soil and water conservation monitoring station.

[0066] and The process for setting these parameters is the same as that for setting the weighting factors corresponding to the total fertilizer input, total pesticide input, and total energy consumption of agricultural machinery operations, and will not be elaborated further here. and The values ​​range from 0 to 1.

[0067] Calculations were performed using rainfall data from meteorological stations. The effective rainfall in the corresponding crop rotation year, the water storage in the fallow year, and the water supply in the non-fallow year were summed to obtain... .

[0068] The process for obtaining the total fertilizer input, total pesticide input, and total energy consumption of agricultural machinery operations for each ratio group in each crop rotation year is as follows: The total fertilizer input and total pesticide input are obtained through farmers' purchase vouchers combined with on-site verification, such as weighing the residue in fertilizer or pesticide bags; the total energy consumption of agricultural machinery operations is the sum of the energy consumption of all agricultural machinery involved in farmland production during the crop rotation year, covering key links such as tillage, sowing, fertilization, irrigation, inter-row cultivation, harvesting, and transportation. The fuel consumption and electricity consumption of agricultural machinery are directly counted (converted uniformly to standard coal or kilowatt-hours), and finally the energy consumption of each link is added together. For example, if 50 mu of corn is planted in a certain crop rotation year, the fuel consumption of agricultural machinery for tillage is 300 kilowatt-hours, for sowing 150 kilowatt-hours, for harvesting 250 kilowatt-hours, and for transportation 100 kilowatt-hours. The sum of these four items is 800 kilowatt-hours, which is the total energy consumption of agricultural machinery operations in that crop rotation year.

[0069] The process of obtaining the direct restoration inputs and fallow opportunity costs for each allocation group in each fallow year is as follows: Direct restoration inputs are the expenses directly incurred in restoring the farmland ecology (such as soil improvement and pest control) during the fallow year, obtained through the statistics of agricultural input purchases (such as organic fertilizers) and engineering services (such as deep soil tillage); fallow opportunity cost is the income that could have been obtained if crops were planted during the fallow period, calculated based on the average yield of similar crops in the region (such as an annual income of 800 yuan per mu). For example, in a fallow year for a certain allocation group, the direct restoration input is 600 yuan per mu (purchasing green manure seeds and carrying out biological control), and the fallow opportunity cost is calculated based on the local annual income of corn of 700 yuan per mu. The sum of the two is 1300 yuan per mu for the fallow year. The dynamic total cost is obtained by summing the costs of each fallow year.

[0070] In a specific embodiment, the calculation of the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow for each fallow year corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, and the dynamic cost allocation coefficient of fallow, is specifically performed as follows: obtain the marginal reduction rate coefficient corresponding to the target evaluation unit, and calculate the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow for each fallow year corresponding to the target evaluation unit.

[0071] Based on the dynamic total cost of fallow, the diminishing marginal benefit coefficient of fallow, and the total economic output of each crop rotation year, the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient of the target evaluation unit is calculated.

[0072] It should be noted that the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow land The calculation formula is: ,in This is expressed as the marginal deceleration rate coefficient corresponding to the target evaluation unit. Represented as the first Each ratio group corresponds to a fallow year.

[0073] The acquisition process is as follows: Location monitoring points are set up within the target assessment unit to continuously collect fallow ecological benefit data for at least 5 years, recording core indicators such as soil organic matter increase and soil erosion reduction. Then, a correlation curve between fallow years and ecological benefit increase is fitted using logarithmic regression analysis. Based on the curve fitting results, a fallow restoration pattern that fits the actual fallow restoration pattern of the unit is deduced. The process of fitting logarithmic regression analysis is an existing technique and will not be elaborated on here.

[0074] Fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient The calculation formula is: .

[0075] In the process of constructing the indicator system, this invention establishes output-side indicators that include the total economic output of crop rotation years, the dynamic ecological gains of fallow years, and the total intertemporal water synergy gains, as well as input-side indicators that include the total resource consumption of crop rotation years and the dynamic total cost of fallow years. This facilitates the comprehensive quantification of ecological and economic benefits. The comprehensive indicator framework not only considers immediate economic output but also incorporates the ecological benefits and intertemporal synergistic effects brought about by fallow into the evaluation scope. This breaks through the limitations of traditional evaluations that only focus on short-term economic gains and provides complete methodological support for the accounting of arable land ecological value.

[0076] S3. Collect calibration data and calibrate the total economic output of the rotation year and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow.

[0077] In a specific embodiment, the calibration of the total economic output of the rotation year and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow is carried out in the following specific calibration process: the calibration data includes the rainfall of each fallow year, the historical average rainfall of the fallow year, and the quantitative value of the total occurrence of pests and diseases in the rotation year.

[0078] By combining the rainfall in each fallow year and the historical average rainfall in fallow years, as well as the total economic output of the rotation year, the calibrated marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow is calculated.

[0079] By combining the quantitative value of the total occurrence of pests and diseases and the pest and disease impact coefficient of the crop rotation year, as well as the diminishing marginal ecological benefits coefficient of fallow, the calibrated total economic output of the crop rotation year is calculated.

[0080] It should be noted that, and It is a "key variable" affecting the evaluation results and is easily affected by external interference, while the other parameters are highly stable and less susceptible to interference, such as... and wait, Direct decision and Accounting It is the core of crop rotation economy output. and Both have a combined effect And optimal ratio screening, for example, extreme drought can drastically reduce the ecological benefits of fallow, without calibration The benefits will be overestimated; pests and diseases will cause the actual yield to be lower than the recorded value, and the yield will not be calibrated. This would artificially inflate output; while other parameters such as fertilizer input and direct costs of fallowing are actual expenditure records. For example, buying 300 kg of fertilizer is a fixed value, or professional testing data, such as the increase in soil organic matter, which can be ignored due to interference from climate, pests and diseases.

[0081] It should be noted that, The calibration process is as follows: ,in Indicated as calibrated , and Represented as the first The quantitative values ​​of the total occurrence of pests and diseases and the pest and disease impact coefficients for each crop rotation group in the corresponding crop rotation year.

[0082] The calibration process is as follows: ,in Indicated as calibrated , Represented as the first The first proportion group corresponds to the first Rainfall in a fallow year Represented as the first Each ratio group corresponds to the average rainfall during historical fallow years.

[0083] It should also be noted that the pest and disease impact coefficient is a fixed standard value, directly referencing the industry standard "Guidelines for Calculating the Natural Damage Loss Rate of Major Crop Pests and Diseases" (NY / T3301-2018) issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in 2018. This standard clearly specifies the impact coefficients for different crops (such as wheat and corn) corresponding to different pests and diseases (such as wheat stripe rust and corn borer), requiring no additional calculation. It can be directly retrieved by looking up the crop type planted in the assessment unit and the types of pests and diseases that may occur. For example, the guidelines specify that the impact coefficient for wheat scab is 0.25, and this value is used when assessing wheat rotation years.

[0084] The process of obtaining the quantitative value of the total occurrence of pests and diseases is as follows: The quantitative value is a graded value of 0-3 (0 for no occurrence, 1 for mild, 2 for moderate, and 3 for severe). The first step is for farmers to record basic information such as the actual percentage of the affected area and the duration of damage in the crop rotation year. The second step is for the local agricultural technology station to verify the recorded information according to industry standards and determine the occurrence level of a single season / year by comparing it with the grading standards (e.g., ≤30% of the affected area and ≤7 days of damage is recorded as level 1, 30%-60% and 8-15 days of damage is recorded as level 2). Finally, the highest level of the crop rotation year in the entire crop rotation period (referring to the sum of the corresponding crop rotation years in a certain ratio group) is taken as the quantitative value of the total occurrence. For example, if there is a severe pest and disease outbreak (level 3) in one year of a 3-year crop rotation period and the other two years are mild (level 1), then the quantitative value of that crop rotation period is 3.

[0085] Rainfall amounts for each fallow year, as well as the historical average fallow year rainfall, were obtained directly from meteorological stations in the region to which the target assessment unit belongs.

[0086] In the parameter calibration process of this invention, environmental factors such as rainfall and the degree of pest and disease occurrence are introduced to dynamically calibrate the total economic output of the rotation year and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow. This helps to improve the accuracy and practicality of the assessment model, fully considers the actual impact of natural environmental changes on arable land productivity, and enables the assessment results to truly reflect the ecological efficiency level under different climatic conditions and pest and disease pressures, effectively enhancing the environmental adaptability and decision-making reference value of the assessment model.

[0087] S4. Based on the calibrated annual total economic output of crop rotation and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow, calculate the efficiency value of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, introduce the ratio optimization index, sort each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, and select the optimal ratio group.

[0088] In a specific embodiment, the process of calculating the efficiency value of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is as follows: Based on the calibrated marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow, the dynamic ecological gain value of the fallow year is corrected, and combined with the total economic output of the crop rotation year and the average annual output value of the non-crop rotation-non-fallow plots, the crop rotation-fallow synergistic output gain rate is calculated.

[0089] By combining the crop rotation-fallow synergistic output gain rate, the calibrated total economic output of the crop rotation year, the total intertemporal water synergistic gain, the total resource consumption of the crop rotation year, the dynamic total cost of the fallow year and the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient, as well as the water value conversion coefficient, the dynamic ecological efficiency value of the target assessment unit is calculated.

[0090] It should be noted that the process of correcting the dynamic ecological gain value of fallow years involves substituting the calibrated marginal ecological benefit diminishing coefficient of fallow into the equation. It is calculated using the formula.

[0091] Crop rotation-fallow synergistic output gain rate The calculation formula is: ,in Represented as the first The crop rotation years corresponding to each crop ratio group It is expressed as the average annual output value of non-rotation-non-fallow land plots.

[0092] Efficiency values ​​of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group The calculation formula is: ,in It is expressed as the water value conversion coefficient.

[0093] Based on traditional planting areas with consistent natural conditions corresponding to the target assessment unit, and referring to the "Technical Guidelines for Loss Assessment of Agricultural Environmental Damage Events" (NY / T1263-2022) and FAO's "Agricultural Water Management: Water Resources Economic Assessment Manual" (2012 edition), the actual water scarcity of local rainfed agriculture was determined. For example, the 3:1 and 4:2 ratio groups to be assessed in S4 are all for the Loess Plateau rainfed area, so local standards were used as a reference. The price is equal to 1.1 yuan / mm·hm⁻¹; if the ratio is for areas with sufficient water resources in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, then 0.9 yuan / mm·hm⁻¹ is used, and the same ratio is used for the same batch of candidate ratios. This ensures the fairness of the horizontal comparison of multiple proportions in step four and aligns with the need for unified accounting in the model.

[0094] In a specific embodiment, the process of selecting the optimal ratio group is as follows: combining the efficiency values ​​of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group and the grain yield of each ratio group, the comprehensive optimization index corresponding to each ratio group is calculated.

[0095] Sort the comprehensive optimization indexes of each ratio group in descending order, and the ratio group corresponding to the comprehensive optimization index ranked first is the optimal ratio group.

[0096] It should be noted that the comprehensive optimization index corresponding to each proportion group The calculation formula is: ,in Represented as the first The grain yield corresponding to each ratio group No. Each ratio group corresponds to a fallow year.

[0097] In the process of optimizing the selection of the scheme, the embodiments of the present invention calculate the efficiency value of each ratio group and introduce the ratio optimization index for ranking, which is conducive to the scientific screening of the rotation-fallow scheme. It not only considers the single indicator of ecological efficiency, but also combines key production indicators such as grain yield. By calculating and ranking the comprehensive optimization index, it is helpful to identify the optimal ratio scheme that takes into account both ecological benefits and food security, and provides a quantitative decision-making basis for the sustainable use and management of arable land.

[0098] S5. Based on the optimal ratio group, evaluate the periodic fluctuation range corresponding to the optimal ratio group, and establish a dynamic adjustment mechanism triggered by changes in key parameters.

[0099] In a specific embodiment, the evaluation of the periodic fluctuation amplitude corresponding to the optimal ratio group is carried out as follows: based on the preset number of tracking periods, when each period corresponding to the optimal ratio group is completed, the efficiency value corresponding to each period is calculated, and the fluctuation amplitude of the efficiency value is analyzed. Combined with the preset fluctuation amplitude threshold, it is determined whether the periodic fluctuation amplitude corresponding to the optimal ratio group meets the requirements.

[0100] It should be noted that the calculation process for the efficiency values ​​corresponding to each period is the same as... The calculation process.

[0101] It should be noted that the core basis for determining the preset number of tracking cycles is a comprehensive balance between the verification accuracy requirements, practical costs, and agricultural production characteristics: if the climate in the target assessment unit is highly volatile (e.g., frequent droughts and floods), the soil conditions are unstable, or higher reliability verification results are required, the number of cycles can be increased to 3-4 cycles; if the regional production conditions are stable and efficient and low-cost verification is pursued, 2 cycles can cover the main interannual fluctuations, supplemented by industry standards, such as the "Guidelines for Sustainable Agricultural Development Assessment," namely the 2-3 tracking cycles recommended by the FAO's "SAFA Guidelines: Assessment of Sustainability of Food and Agricultural Systems" published in 2014, and the experience of regional agricultural experts.

[0102] It should also be noted that the fluctuation range threshold is set in conjunction with the stability of regional agricultural production, such as the degree of climate and soil fluctuation, similar assessment cases in the industry and the assessment accuracy requirements. The specific values ​​are determined after expert demonstration, with reference to the ecological efficiency fluctuation control requirements in the "Technical Specification for Agricultural Sustainable Development Assessment" (NY / T3951-2021).

[0103] It should also be noted that the specific process of analyzing the fluctuation range of the efficiency value is as follows: taking a tracking period of 2 and an optimal ratio of 3 to 1 as an example, the total period is 8 years. When the first period is completed, if the efficiency value is 0.5, and when the second period is completed, if the efficiency value is 0.8, then the fluctuation range at this time is 0.3.

[0104] In a specific embodiment, the establishment of a dynamic adjustment mechanism triggered by changes in key parameters is carried out as follows: when the key parameters change in steps S1 to S4, the dynamic adjustment mechanism is triggered, the calculation method of steps S1 to S4 is reused, and the optimal ratio group is re-selected.

[0105] It should be noted that key parameters include total economic output in crop rotation years, dynamic ecological gains in fallow years, total intertemporal water synergy gains, total resource consumption in crop rotation years, and dynamic total costs in fallow years.

[0106] A computer device includes a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, the processor executing the computer program to implement the steps of the method.

[0107] In the process of establishing a long-term mechanism, this invention evaluates the periodic fluctuation range of the optimal ratio group and establishes a dynamic adjustment mechanism for changes in key parameters. This helps to ensure the continuous optimization of farmland use patterns, facilitates long-term tracking and evaluation of the implementation effects of selected schemes, and promptly triggers scheme re-optimization when environmental conditions or key parameters change. This ensures that farmland use strategies are always kept in the optimal state and significantly improves the adaptability and long-term stability of the management system.

[0108] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and are not intended to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions will not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the protection scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use, characterized in that, include: S1. Obtain cultivated land with similar natural differences as the target evaluation unit, set up each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, evaluate the least common multiple of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, and use it as the total evaluation cycle; The natural differences include soil differences, slope differences, irrigation pattern differences, rainfall differences, and differences in the contiguousness of land plots; S2. Based on the set crop rotation-fallow ratio groups and total evaluation cycle, construct the output and input indicator framework for each ratio group, quantify the output and input indicators respectively, and calculate the marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow for each fallow year for each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, as well as the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient. The output-side indicators include the total economic output of the rotation year, the dynamic ecological gain of the fallow year, and the total intertemporal water synergy gain; the input-side indicators include the total resource consumption of the rotation year and the dynamic total cost of the fallow year. S3. Collect calibration data and calibrate the total economic output of the rotation year and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow. The calibration data includes rainfall in each fallow year, rainfall in the historical average fallow year, and quantitative values ​​of the total incidence of pests and diseases in crop rotation years; S4. Based on the calibrated annual total economic output of crop rotation and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow, calculate the efficiency value of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, introduce the ratio optimization index, sort each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, and select the optimal ratio group. S5. Based on the optimal ratio group, evaluate the periodic fluctuation range corresponding to the optimal ratio group, and establish a dynamic adjustment mechanism triggered by changes in key parameters.

2. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process for evaluating the least common multiple of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is as follows: Farmland that meets all pre-set uniform standards in all aspects of natural differences is used as the target evaluation unit; Each crop rotation-fallow ratio group was set up, and the corresponding cycle for each crop rotation-fallow ratio group was obtained based on the number of crop rotation years and the number of fallow years. Based on the cycles corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group, the cycles corresponding to all crop rotation-fallow ratio groups are decomposed into prime factors. The least common multiple of the cycles corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is obtained by multiplying the highest power of each prime factor. The least common multiple is compared with the set period interval. If the least common multiple is greater than the upper limit of the set period interval, the number of rotation and fallow years corresponding to the ratio group with the largest cycle in the rotation-fallow ratio group is reduced. Conversely, the number of rotation and fallow years corresponding to the ratio group with the largest cycle in the rotation-fallow ratio group is increased. This process continues until the least common multiple falls within the set period interval, thus obtaining the total evaluation period.

3. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 2, characterized in that, The specific quantification process for output-side and input-side indicators is as follows: Obtain the actual crop yield and the corresponding average market price for each crop rotation year, and calculate the total economic output of the crop rotation year. The increase in soil organic matter, the reduction in soil erosion due to fallow, and the diminishing marginal ecological benefit coefficient of fallow were obtained after each fallow year, and the dynamic ecological gain value of fallow years was calculated by weighting. The water supply gain for each fallow year to each crop rotation year was obtained, as well as the diminishing marginal ecological benefit coefficient of fallow, and the total inter-period water synergy gain was calculated. The total fertilizer input, total pesticide input, and total energy consumption of agricultural machinery operations for each crop rotation year are obtained, and the total resource consumption for the crop rotation year is obtained through weighted calculation. By obtaining the direct restoration input and opportunity cost of fallow for each fallow year, the dynamic total cost of the fallow year can be calculated.

4. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 3, characterized in that, The calculation process for the diminishing marginal ecological benefits coefficient of fallow and the dynamic cost-sharing coefficient of fallow for each fallow year corresponding to each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is as follows: Obtain the marginal deceleration rate coefficient corresponding to the target assessment unit, and calculate the fallow marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of the target assessment unit corresponding to each fallow year; Based on the dynamic total cost of fallow, the diminishing marginal benefit coefficient of fallow, and the total economic output of each crop rotation year, the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient of the target evaluation unit is calculated.

5. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 4, characterized in that, The calibration process for the total economic output of crop rotation and the diminishing marginal ecological benefits of fallow is as follows: The calibration data includes rainfall in each fallow year, historical average rainfall in fallow years, and quantitative values ​​of the total occurrence of pests and diseases in crop rotation years; By combining the rainfall in each fallow year and the historical average rainfall in fallow years, as well as the total economic output of the rotation year, the calibrated marginal ecological benefit reduction coefficient of fallow is calculated. By combining the quantitative value of the total occurrence of pests and diseases and the pest and disease impact coefficient of the crop rotation year, as well as the diminishing marginal ecological benefits coefficient of fallow, the calibrated total economic output of the crop rotation year is calculated.

6. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 5, characterized in that, The specific process for calculating the efficiency values ​​of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group is as follows: Based on the calibrated marginal ecological benefit diminishing coefficient of fallow, the dynamic ecological gain value of fallow years is corrected, and combined with the total economic output of the calibrated rotation year and the average annual output value of non-rotation-non-fallow plots, the synergistic output gain rate of rotation-fallow is calculated. By combining the crop rotation-fallow synergistic output gain rate, the calibrated total economic output of the crop rotation year, the total intertemporal water synergistic gain, the total resource consumption of the crop rotation year, the dynamic total cost of the fallow year and the fallow dynamic cost allocation coefficient, as well as the water value conversion coefficient, the dynamic ecological efficiency value of the target assessment unit is calculated.

7. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 6, characterized in that, The specific process for selecting the optimal ratio group is as follows: By combining the efficiency values ​​of each crop rotation-fallow ratio group and the grain yield of each ratio group, the comprehensive optimization index corresponding to each ratio group is calculated. Sort the comprehensive optimization indexes of each ratio group in descending order, and the ratio group corresponding to the comprehensive optimization index ranked first is the optimal ratio group.

8. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 7, characterized in that, The specific process for evaluating the periodic fluctuation range corresponding to the optimal ratio group is as follows: Based on the preset number of tracking cycles, when each cycle corresponding to the optimal ratio group is completed, the efficiency value corresponding to each cycle is calculated, and the fluctuation range of the efficiency value is analyzed. Combined with the preset fluctuation range threshold, it is determined whether the fluctuation range of the cycle corresponding to the optimal ratio group meets the requirements.

9. The method for assessing the ecological efficiency of arable land use according to claim 8, characterized in that, The specific process for establishing a dynamic adjustment mechanism triggered by changes in key parameters is as follows: When key parameters change in steps S2 to S4, a dynamic adjustment mechanism is triggered, reusing the calculation methods of steps S2 to S4 to reselect the optimal ratio group.

10. A computer device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 9.

Images