草业学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 221-230.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2023063
• 研究简报 • 上一篇
杨鼎1(), 金娇2, 李景浩1, 王志鹏1, 郝元渤1, 丁宁1, 陈璐3()
收稿日期:
2023-03-02
修回日期:
2023-05-10
出版日期:
2024-04-20
发布日期:
2024-01-15
通讯作者:
陈璐
作者简介:
E-mail: chenlustella@126.com基金资助:
Ding YANG1(), Jiao JIN2, Jing-hao LI1, Zhi-peng WANG1, Yuan-bo HAO1, Ning DING1, Lu CHEN3()
Received:
2023-03-02
Revised:
2023-05-10
Online:
2024-04-20
Published:
2024-01-15
Contact:
Lu CHEN
摘要:
开展草原鼠害防控工作有利于降低草原鼠类密度,从而达到鼠类存在而不致灾的目的。对维护国家生态安全和国土安全、牧区经济及社会可持续发展等具有重要意义。本研究以全国现有草原鼠害防控实际情况为基准,结合草原鼠害防治质量发展方向,构建了草原鼠害防控质量评价指标体系,并采用熵权TOPSIS模型进行分析,科学评价了2019-2021年全国草原鼠害防控质量。研究结果表明,在防控质量评价中,防治投入权重占比最大,其次是防治成效投入,最后是组织建设。2019-2021年间全国草原鼠害综合评价、组织建设、防治投入和防治成效评价整体偏低,均为一般或较差水平,同时草原小省在综合评价、组织建设、防治成效方面显著优于草原大省。本研究可为调整草原鼠害防控过程中各组分的重新分配提供依据。
杨鼎, 金娇, 李景浩, 王志鹏, 郝元渤, 丁宁, 陈璐. 基于熵权TOPSIS模型的全国草原鼠害防控质量评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(4): 221-230.
Ding YANG, Jiao JIN, Jing-hao LI, Zhi-peng WANG, Yuan-bo HAO, Ning DING, Lu CHEN. Evaluation of rodent control quality in grassland in China based on an entropy weight TOPSIS model[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(4): 221-230.
准测层 Quasi bed | 指标 Index | 指标计算 Index determination | 指标属性 Index attribute |
---|---|---|---|
A | 省级草原管理强度Provincial management intensity (A1, Unit·hm-2) | 省级管理人数Provincial administrative personnel/GA | + |
市县级草原管理强度 Intensity of grassland management in prefecture-level and county-level cities (A2, Unit·hm-2) | 市县级管理人数 Number of personnel in prefecture-level and county-level cities/GA | + | |
国家级监测站点分布密度Distribution density of national monitoring stations (A3, Unit·hm-2) | 国家级监测站点数量Number of national monitoring stations/GA | + | |
省级监测站点分布密度Distribution density of provincial monitoring stations (A4, Unit·hm-2) | 省级监测站点数量Number of provincial monitoring sites/GA | + | |
市县级监测站点分布密度Distribution density of monitoring stations at city and county level (A5, Unit·hm-2) | 市县级监测站点数量City and county monitoring stations/GA | + | |
B | 技术指导强度Technical guidance strength (B1, day·hm-2) | 技术人员指导天数Technical staff guidance days/GHA | + |
施工强度Construction intensity (B2, day·hm-2) | 施工人员作业天数Construction personnel operation days/GHA | + | |
飞防使用强度Flight protection strength (B3, Unit·hm-2) | 飞机使用次数Frequency of aircraft use/GHA | + | |
机械使用强度Mechanical strength (B4, Unit·hm-2) | 大中小型施药机械使用次数Times of application of large, medium and small application machinery/GHA | + | |
车辆使用强度Vehicle service intensity (B5, Unit·hm-2) | 车辆的使用次数The number of times the vehicle is used/GHA | + | |
中央下拨防治资金The central government allocates funds for prevention and control (B6, ×104 CNY·hm-2) | 中央财政中草原鼠害防治资金The central government appropriated funds for rodent control in grassland/GHA | + | |
省级配套防治资金Provincial supporting funds for prevention and control (B7, ×104 CNY·hm-2) | 省级配套草原鼠害防治资金 Provincial funds for prairie rodent control/GHA | + | |
农药使用强度Intensity of pesticide use (B8, t·hm-2) | 农药使用量Pesticide usage/GHA | + | |
超范围农药使用强度Excessive pesticide use intensity (B9, t·hm-2) | 超范围使用量Out-of-range usage/GHA | - | |
登记农药使用强度Registered pesticide use intensity (B10, t·hm-2) | 登记农药使用量Registered pesticide usage/GHA | + | |
C | 发生率Incidence rate (C1, %) | GRDA/GA | - |
成灾率Disaster rate (C2, %) | 草原鼠害严重危害面积Grassland rat damage seriously harm the area/GA | - | |
防治率Control rate (C3, %) | 草原鼠害防治面积 Grassland rodent control area/GRDA | + | |
化学药剂防治面积占比Area proportion of chemical control (C4, %) | 化学药剂防治面积Chemical control area/TCA | - | |
生物药剂防治面积占比Area proportion of biological control (C5, %) | 生物药剂防治面积Biological control area/TCA | + | |
天敌防治面积占比Proportion of area controlled by natural enemies (C6, %) | 天敌防治面积Area controlled by natural enemies/TCA | + | |
物理防治面积占比Physical control area proportion (C7, %) | 物理防治面积Physical control area/TCA | + | |
持续控制面积占比Continuous control of the total area of grassland (C8, %) | 持续有效控制面积Continuous and effective control of area/TCA | + |
表1 草原鼠害防控质量评价指标体系
Table 1 Evaluation index system of grassland rodent control benefit
准测层 Quasi bed | 指标 Index | 指标计算 Index determination | 指标属性 Index attribute |
---|---|---|---|
A | 省级草原管理强度Provincial management intensity (A1, Unit·hm-2) | 省级管理人数Provincial administrative personnel/GA | + |
市县级草原管理强度 Intensity of grassland management in prefecture-level and county-level cities (A2, Unit·hm-2) | 市县级管理人数 Number of personnel in prefecture-level and county-level cities/GA | + | |
国家级监测站点分布密度Distribution density of national monitoring stations (A3, Unit·hm-2) | 国家级监测站点数量Number of national monitoring stations/GA | + | |
省级监测站点分布密度Distribution density of provincial monitoring stations (A4, Unit·hm-2) | 省级监测站点数量Number of provincial monitoring sites/GA | + | |
市县级监测站点分布密度Distribution density of monitoring stations at city and county level (A5, Unit·hm-2) | 市县级监测站点数量City and county monitoring stations/GA | + | |
B | 技术指导强度Technical guidance strength (B1, day·hm-2) | 技术人员指导天数Technical staff guidance days/GHA | + |
施工强度Construction intensity (B2, day·hm-2) | 施工人员作业天数Construction personnel operation days/GHA | + | |
飞防使用强度Flight protection strength (B3, Unit·hm-2) | 飞机使用次数Frequency of aircraft use/GHA | + | |
机械使用强度Mechanical strength (B4, Unit·hm-2) | 大中小型施药机械使用次数Times of application of large, medium and small application machinery/GHA | + | |
车辆使用强度Vehicle service intensity (B5, Unit·hm-2) | 车辆的使用次数The number of times the vehicle is used/GHA | + | |
中央下拨防治资金The central government allocates funds for prevention and control (B6, ×104 CNY·hm-2) | 中央财政中草原鼠害防治资金The central government appropriated funds for rodent control in grassland/GHA | + | |
省级配套防治资金Provincial supporting funds for prevention and control (B7, ×104 CNY·hm-2) | 省级配套草原鼠害防治资金 Provincial funds for prairie rodent control/GHA | + | |
农药使用强度Intensity of pesticide use (B8, t·hm-2) | 农药使用量Pesticide usage/GHA | + | |
超范围农药使用强度Excessive pesticide use intensity (B9, t·hm-2) | 超范围使用量Out-of-range usage/GHA | - | |
登记农药使用强度Registered pesticide use intensity (B10, t·hm-2) | 登记农药使用量Registered pesticide usage/GHA | + | |
C | 发生率Incidence rate (C1, %) | GRDA/GA | - |
成灾率Disaster rate (C2, %) | 草原鼠害严重危害面积Grassland rat damage seriously harm the area/GA | - | |
防治率Control rate (C3, %) | 草原鼠害防治面积 Grassland rodent control area/GRDA | + | |
化学药剂防治面积占比Area proportion of chemical control (C4, %) | 化学药剂防治面积Chemical control area/TCA | - | |
生物药剂防治面积占比Area proportion of biological control (C5, %) | 生物药剂防治面积Biological control area/TCA | + | |
天敌防治面积占比Proportion of area controlled by natural enemies (C6, %) | 天敌防治面积Area controlled by natural enemies/TCA | + | |
物理防治面积占比Physical control area proportion (C7, %) | 物理防治面积Physical control area/TCA | + | |
持续控制面积占比Continuous control of the total area of grassland (C8, %) | 持续有效控制面积Continuous and effective control of area/TCA | + |
贴近度Close degree | 防治效果水平Control effect level |
---|---|
0<Tj ≤0.3 | 较差Range |
0.3<Tj ≤0.6 | 一般Ordinary |
0.6<Tj ≤0.8 | 良好Good |
0.8<Tj ≤1.0 | 优秀Excellent |
表2 草原鼠害防治效果评判标准
Table 2 Evaluation criteria of rodent control effect in steppe
贴近度Close degree | 防治效果水平Control effect level |
---|---|
0<Tj ≤0.3 | 较差Range |
0.3<Tj ≤0.6 | 一般Ordinary |
0.6<Tj ≤0.8 | 良好Good |
0.8<Tj ≤1.0 | 优秀Excellent |
指标 Index | 全国 Nationwide | 各省 Each province | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||
A1 | 2.82 | 2.94 | 2.89 | 3.53 |
A2 | 7.39 | 4.67 | 4.75 | 4.99 |
A3 | 3.48 | 3.42 | 3.54 | 3.68 |
A4 | 1.57 | 1.78 | 1.54 | 1.51 |
A5 | 2.34 | 2.53 | 2.78 | 2.81 |
总计Total | 17.60 | 15.34 | 15.50 | 16.52 |
B1 | 5.95 | 11.92 | 4.87 | 6.31 |
B2 | 3.96 | 6.16 | 4.28 | 5.32 |
B3 | 7.36 | 11.50 | 11.60 | 10.61 |
B4 | 7.21 | 3.30 | 9.30 | 5.78 |
B5 | 4.02 | 6.58 | 4.25 | 6.00 |
B6 | 2.86 | 2.69 | 2.90 | 2.58 |
B7 | 7.01 | 7.22 | 10.34 | 8.82 |
B8 | 2.83 | 8.36 | 9.03 | 7.63 |
B9 | 4.14 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.55 |
B10 | 6.38 | 3.43 | 3.66 | 2.70 |
总计Total | 51.75 | 61.64 | 60.72 | 56.30 |
C1 | 3.66 | 5.38 | 0.80 | 0.83 |
C2 | 2.82 | 0.52 | 1.48 | 1.28 |
C3 | 6.47 | 0.63 | 4.32 | 5.55 |
C4 | 2.89 | 0.56 | 0.80 | 0.89 |
C5 | 2.86 | 1.54 | 1.35 | 2.27 |
C6 | 2.82 | 4.55 | 5.21 | 6.52 |
C7 | 3.15 | 5.23 | 4.81 | 5.14 |
C8 | 5.98 | 4.61 | 5.01 | 4.70 |
总计Total | 30.65 | 23.02 | 23.78 | 27.18 |
表 3 草原鼠害防治质量评价各指标权重
Table 3 Weight of each index of rodent control quality evaluation in grassland (%)
指标 Index | 全国 Nationwide | 各省 Each province | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||
A1 | 2.82 | 2.94 | 2.89 | 3.53 |
A2 | 7.39 | 4.67 | 4.75 | 4.99 |
A3 | 3.48 | 3.42 | 3.54 | 3.68 |
A4 | 1.57 | 1.78 | 1.54 | 1.51 |
A5 | 2.34 | 2.53 | 2.78 | 2.81 |
总计Total | 17.60 | 15.34 | 15.50 | 16.52 |
B1 | 5.95 | 11.92 | 4.87 | 6.31 |
B2 | 3.96 | 6.16 | 4.28 | 5.32 |
B3 | 7.36 | 11.50 | 11.60 | 10.61 |
B4 | 7.21 | 3.30 | 9.30 | 5.78 |
B5 | 4.02 | 6.58 | 4.25 | 6.00 |
B6 | 2.86 | 2.69 | 2.90 | 2.58 |
B7 | 7.01 | 7.22 | 10.34 | 8.82 |
B8 | 2.83 | 8.36 | 9.03 | 7.63 |
B9 | 4.14 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.55 |
B10 | 6.38 | 3.43 | 3.66 | 2.70 |
总计Total | 51.75 | 61.64 | 60.72 | 56.30 |
C1 | 3.66 | 5.38 | 0.80 | 0.83 |
C2 | 2.82 | 0.52 | 1.48 | 1.28 |
C3 | 6.47 | 0.63 | 4.32 | 5.55 |
C4 | 2.89 | 0.56 | 0.80 | 0.89 |
C5 | 2.86 | 1.54 | 1.35 | 2.27 |
C6 | 2.82 | 4.55 | 5.21 | 6.52 |
C7 | 3.15 | 5.23 | 4.81 | 5.14 |
C8 | 5.98 | 4.61 | 5.01 | 4.70 |
总计Total | 30.65 | 23.02 | 23.78 | 27.18 |
年份 Year | 综合评价 Comprehensive evaluation | 组织建设 Organization construction | 防治投入Rodent control input | 防治成效 Rodent control effect |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 0.473 | 0.385 | 0.418 | 0.585 |
2020 | 0.583 | 0.434 | 0.662 | 0.554 |
2021 | 0.361 | 0.488 | 0.315 | 0.238 |
表 4 全国草原鼠害防治质量评价
Table 4 Quality evaluation of rodent control in grassland in China
年份 Year | 综合评价 Comprehensive evaluation | 组织建设 Organization construction | 防治投入Rodent control input | 防治成效 Rodent control effect |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 0.473 | 0.385 | 0.418 | 0.585 |
2020 | 0.583 | 0.434 | 0.662 | 0.554 |
2021 | 0.361 | 0.488 | 0.315 | 0.238 |
图 1 全国各省草原鼠害防治质量评价横坐标上各省草原面积从左至右逐渐减少,a代表草原大省,b代表草原小省。On the horizontal axis, the grassland area of each province decreases gradually from left to right, with a representing large grassland province and b representing small grassland province.
Fig. 1 Evaluation of rodent control quality in grassland in all provinces
1 | Pang X P, Yang H, Wei X X, et al. Effect of plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae) bioturbation on soil C-N-P stoichiometry in alpine meadows. Geoderma, 2021, 397: 115098. |
2 | Yang D, Pang X P, Jia Z F, et al. Effect of plateau zokor on soil carbon and nitrogen concentrations of alpine meadows. Catena, 2021, 207: 105625. |
3 | Yang D. Effect of plateau zokor on duration of soil carbon and nitrogen concentration in alpine meadow. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2021. |
杨鼎. 高原鼢鼠影响高寒草甸土壤碳氮含量的时间有效性研究. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2021. | |
4 | Pang X P, Yu C Q, Zhang J, et al. Effect of disturbance by plateau pika on soil nitrogen stocks in alpine meadows. Geoderma, 2020, 372: 114392. |
5 | Yang D, Qi H H, Wang Q, et al. Restoration course of vegetation community characteristics in the revegetation of plateau zokor mounds in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(2): 114-122. |
杨鼎, 齐昊昊, 王倩, 等. 青藏高原高原鼢鼠鼠丘植被恢复过程中植物群落特征的变化. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 114-122. | |
6 | Li G, Li X, Li J, et al. Influences of plateau zokor burrowing on soil erosion and nutrient loss in alpine meadows in the Yellow River source zone of West China. Water, 2019, 11(11): 2258. |
7 | Davidson A D, Detling J K, Brown J H. Ecological roles and conservation challenges of social, burrowing, herbivorous mammals in the world’s grasslands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2012, 10(9): 477-486. |
8 | Yue F Z, Gao S J, Cheng T T, et al. Current situation and prospect of pest control in grassland of China. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1615-1620. |
岳方正, 高书晶, 程通通, 等. 中国草原有害生物防治工作现状及展望. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1615-1620. | |
9 | Han H B, Gao S J, Xu L B, et al. Discussion on current situation of grassland pest control and problems under the background of ecological civilization construction in China. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2021, 43(9): 107-114. |
韩海斌, 高书晶, 徐林波, 等. 刍议我国草原虫害治理现状及生态文明建设背景下的问题. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(9): 107-114. | |
10 | Dong S K, Tang F L, Ping X Y, et al. Multi-dimensional classification of grassland in China under the background of ecological civilization construction. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(1): 1-8. |
董世魁, 唐芳林, 平晓燕, 等. 生态文明建设背景下中国草原多维分类方法探讨. 草地学报, 2023, 31(1): 1-8. | |
11 | Niu Y, Yang S, Zhu H, et al. Cyclic formation of zokor mounds promotes plant diversity and renews plant communities in alpine meadows on the Tibetan Plateau. Plant and Soil, 2020, 446(1): 65-79. |
12 | Niu Y, Zhou J, Yang S, et al. Plant diversity is closely related to the density of zokor mounds in three alpine rangelands on the Tibetan Plateau. PeerJ, 2019, 7: e6921. |
13 | Liu X H. Differences, contradictions, discrepancy, paradox, challenges, and strategies in face of national needs for rodent management in China. Journal of Plant Protection, 2022, 49(1): 407-414. |
刘晓辉. 中国鼠害防控需求的差异、矛盾、挑战与对策. 植物保护学报, 2022, 49(1): 407-414. | |
14 | Hong J, Yun X J, Lin J, et al. Pest rodents damages analysis and control in natural grassland of China. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2014, 36(3): 1-4. |
洪军, 贠旭疆, 林峻, 等. 我国天然草原鼠害分析及其防控. 中国草地学报, 2014, 36(3): 1-4. | |
15 | Tan Y C, Han T H, Xu G C, et al. Evaluation of drug resistance of plateau zokor population in the eastern margin of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(11): 2952-2961. |
谭宇尘, 韩天虎, 许国成, 等. 青藏高原东缘高原鼢鼠种群抗药性评估. 草业科学, 2019, 36(11): 2952-2961. | |
16 | Su J H, Liu R T, Ji W H, et al. Stages and characteristics of grassland rodent pests control and research in China. Pratacultural Science, 2013, 30(7): 1116-1123. |
苏军虎, 刘荣堂, 纪维红, 等. 我国草地鼠害防治与研究的发展阶段及特征. 草业科学, 2013, 30(7): 1116-1123. | |
17 | Lindtner P, Gömöryová E, Gömöry D, et al. Development of physico-chemical and biological soil properties on the European ground squirrel mounds. Geoderma, 2019, 339: 85-93. |
18 | Zhang X L, Li G. Effects of plateau pika and plateau zokor on alpine meadow ecosystem. Pratacultural Science, 2015, 32(5): 816-822. |
张兴禄, 李广. 高原鼠兔和高原鼢鼠在高寒草甸生态系统的作用. 草业科学, 2015, 32(5): 816-822. | |
19 | Liu Y, Fan J, Harris W, et al. Effects of plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae) on net ecosystem carbon exchange of grassland in the Three Rivers Headwaters region, Qinghai-Tibet, China. Plant and Soil, 2013, 366(1): 491-504. |
20 | Zhao J, Tian L, Wei H, et al. Impact of plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae) burrowing-induced microtopography on ecosystem respiration of the alpine meadow and steppe on the Tibetan plateau. Plant and Soil, 2021, 458(1): 217-230. |
21 | Tian F, Cheng Y X, Zhou G L, et al. Relationship between pika burrow density and plant community structure and soil factors in alpine meadow. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(4): 1094-1104. |
田富, 程云湘, 周国利, 等. 高原鼠兔洞穴密度与高寒草甸植物群落结构以及土壤因子的关系. 草业科学, 2019, 36(4): 1094-1104. | |
22 | Shao Z T, Qin Y. Effects of pika disturbance on carbon cycle in alpine grassland. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(5): 1086-1094. |
邵梓桐, 秦彧. 高原鼠兔干扰对高寒草地碳循环的影响研究进展. 草地学报, 2022, 30(5): 1086-1094. | |
23 | Pan X, Mi M W D. Plateau pika ecology: A review. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2016, 35(9): 2537-2543. |
潘璇, 米玛旺堆. 高原鼠兔生态学研究进展. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(9): 2537-2543. | |
24 | Su J H, Ji W H, Xu C L, et al. The ecological characteristics of food habits for four herbivores in Gannan meadow. Chinese Journal of Zoology, 2017, 52(3): 381-389. |
苏军虎, Ji W H, 徐长林, 等. 甘南草原主要草食动物的食性及其生态位特征. 动物学杂志, 2017, 52(3): 381-389. | |
25 | Yue F Z, Li X, Yang D, et al. Establishment and analysis of key pest control indicators in grasslands in China. Pratacultural Science, 2022, 39(9): 1773-1781. |
岳方正, 李璇, 杨鼎, 等. 我国主要草原有害生物防治指标制定与分析. 草业科学, 2022, 39(9): 1773-1781. | |
26 | Tang F L, Yang Z, Wang Z R, et al. Research on the establishment of grassland governance systems from the perspective of ecological civilization. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(11): 2381-2390. |
唐芳林, 杨智, 王卓然, 等. 生态文明视域下草原治理体系构建研究. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2381-2390. | |
27 | Lei X P, Qiu G H. Empirical study about the carrying capacity evaluation of regional resources and environment based on entropy-weight TOPSIS model. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2016, 36(1): 314-323. |
雷勋平, 邱广华. 基于熵权TOPSIS模型的区域资源环境承载力评价实证研究. 环境科学学报, 2016, 36(1): 314-323. | |
28 | Wang Q, Yu C, Pang X P, et al. The disturbance and disturbance intensity of small and semi-fossorial herbivores alter the belowground bud density of graminoids in alpine meadows. Ecological Engineering, 2018, 113: 35-42. |
29 | Zhou F F, Wang H, Zhang F Y, et al. Evaluation on the effect of rodent control measureson alpine meadow in Maqu County of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Grassland and Turf, 2020, 40(4): 80-87. |
周富斐, 王宏, 张飞宇, 等. 玛曲县高寒草甸鼠害地治理措施效果评价. 草原与草坪, 2020, 40(4): 80-87. | |
30 | Yang K, Yuan S, Wu X D, et al. Harmful and economic thresholds for rodent pests in the Alxa desert area under different grassland utilization patterns. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(11): 36-47. |
杨可, 袁帅, 武晓东, 等. 不同利用方式荒漠区草地鼠害防治的危害阈值和经济阈值. 草业学报, 2022, 31(11): 36-47. | |
31 | Zhou Y S, Hua L M, Chu B, et al. Assessment of damage caused by plateau zokor to an alpine meadow in eastern Qilian Mountain. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(18): 5922-5930. |
周延山, 花立民, 楚彬, 等. 祁连山东段高原鼢鼠对高寒草甸危害评价. 生态学报, 2016, 36(18): 5922-5930. | |
32 | Chen M D, Huang X D, Hou X M, et al. Dynamic monitoring of biomass and vegetation coverage in rodent damaged grassland regions of Qinghai Province, China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(4): 247-256. |
陈梦蝶, 黄晓东, 侯秀敏, 等. 青海省草原鼠害区域草地生物量及盖度动态监测研究. 草业学报, 2013, 22(4): 247-256. | |
33 | Zhang Y S, Ouyang F, Ge F, et al. Analysis of biomass loss from rodent pest in grassland. Journal of Hunan Agricultural University (Natural Sciences), 2017, 43(4): 417-422. |
张永生, 欧阳芳, 戈峰, 等. 鼠害对草地生物量的危害损失分析. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 43(4): 417-422. | |
34 | Wang X T, Hua L M, Su J H, et al. A study on the economic injury level of plateau pika (Ochtona curzoniae) and its control index. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(6): 198-203. |
王兴堂, 花立民, 苏军虎, 等. 高原鼠兔的经济损害水平及防治指标研究. 草业学报, 2009, 18(6): 198-203. | |
35 | Chen Y Y, Li J, Zhou S, et al. Method for evaluating the effects of plateau pika disturbance on the value of alpine meadow ecosystem services. Pratacultural Science, 2022, 39(1): 187-201. |
陈莹莹, 李捷, 周俗, 等. 高原鼠兔影响高寒草甸生态系统服务价值的评价方法. 草业科学, 2022, 39(1): 187-201. | |
36 | Tu X B, Du G L, Li C J, et al. Research progress in biological control of rangeland pests in China. Research Progress in Biological Control of Rangeland Pests in China, 2015, 31(5): 780-788. |
涂雄兵, 杜桂林, 李春杰, 等. 草地有害生物生物防治研究进展. 中国生物防治学报, 2015, 31(5): 780-788. | |
37 | Yang D, Yue F Z, Li X, et al. Current research status and hot spots of grassland rodent pests based on Cite Space. Acta Agratologica Sinica, 2022, 30(3): 670-681. |
杨鼎, 岳方正, 李璇, 等. 基于CiteSpace的草地鼠害研究现状及热点分析. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3): 670-681. | |
38 | Huang Q, Hua L M, Cao Hui, et al. Study on grassland rodent pest division in Gansu province. Pratacultural Science, 2009, 26(2): 91-99. |
黄倩, 花立民, 曹慧, 等. 甘肃草原鼠害区划研究. 草业科学, 2009, 26(2): 91-99. | |
39 | Hong J, Du G L, Yun X J, et al. Integrated biocontrol of insect pests during the last 10 years in China: Research and practice. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(5): 303-311. |
洪军, 杜桂林, 贠旭疆, 等. 近10年来我国草原虫害生物防控综合配套技术的研究与推广进展. 草业学报, 2014, 23(5): 303-311. | |
40 | Ma C Y, Du G L, Zhang Z R, et al. Research of grassland locust regionalization and its green prevention-control matching technology in Inner Mongolia. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(4): 804-810. |
马崇勇, 杜桂林, 张卓然, 等. 内蒙古草原蝗虫区划及其绿色防控配套技术研究. 草地学报, 2018, 26(4): 804-810. | |
41 | Du J X, Sun Y, Xiang B, et al. Potential distribution of plateau pika and its influence factors in the source region of the Yellow River Basin using BIOMOD. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(4): 1074-1083. |
杜嘉星, 孙义, 向波, 等. 基于BIOMOD的黄河源区高原鼠兔潜在分布及其影响因子. 草业科学, 2019, 36(4): 1074-1083. |
[1] | 花蕊, 包达尔罕, 董瑞, 唐庄生, 楚彬, 郝媛媛, 花立民. 基于无人机遥感的天然草原鼠害发生面积调查方法研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 71-82. |
[2] | 刘江, 吕涛, 张立欣, 叶丽娜, 刘向阳, 代香荣, 王伟伟, 丁茹. 基于主成分分析的不同种植年限甘草地土壤质量评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 162-171. |
[3] | 王兴堂,花立民,苏军虎,曹慧,祁小梅,王俊梅,刘荣堂*. 高原鼠兔的精确性可持续控制技术研究——几种杀鼠剂的对比试验[J]. 草业学报, 2010, 19(1): 191-200. |
[4] | 王兴堂,花立民,苏军虎,曹慧,祁晓梅,刘荣堂*. 高原鼠兔的经济损害水平及防治指标研究[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(6): 198-204. |
[5] | 许岳飞,金晶炜,孙小玲,周禾. 基于反射光谱技术评价草坪质量模型的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(4): 256-259. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||