Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China

Besides crops, agriculture supplies all three major categories of ecosystem services (ES). However, agriculture also supplies an array of ecosystem dis-services (EDS) that may harm other ecosystems. The flows of ES and EDS are directly dependent on the management of agricultural ecosystems. The trad...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 2012-10, Vol.6 (5), p.743-752
Hauptverfasser: Zhang, Dan, Min, Qingwen, Liu, Moucheng, Cheng, Shengkui
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 752
container_issue 5
container_start_page 743
container_title Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering
container_volume 6
creator Zhang, Dan
Min, Qingwen
Liu, Moucheng
Cheng, Shengkui
description Besides crops, agriculture supplies all three major categories of ecosystem services (ES). However, agriculture also supplies an array of ecosystem dis-services (EDS) that may harm other ecosystems. The flows of ES and EDS are directly dependent on the management of agricultural ecosystems. The traditional method of Chinese agriculture, which supports sustainable agriculture, has been proven to increase ES and reduce EDS. However, there is a lack of a detailed understanding of the ES and EDS associated with traditional agriculture, and also of differences between traditional and modem agriculture. In this study, an investigation was conducted on the ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem dis-services (EDS) of traditional and modem agriculture in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Afterwards, the economic values of ES and EDS were quantified experimentally and calculated based on the market price. The results show that: the net economic value of traditional rice-fish agriculture was 3.31 x 104 CNY.haI (6.83 CNY = 1 USD as of July, 2009) and that of rice monoculture was 1.99 x 104 CNY.ha ~. Significant differences existed between traditional rice-fish and rice monoculture fields for their economic values of some ES or EDS. A benefit and cost analysis (BCA) model was used to adjust the conflict between the economic income and environmental loss from traditional and modem agricul- ture. The BCA model not only calculates the net income but also monetizes the EDS of the agricultural systems. The results showed that the net income of rice-fish agriculture was 1.94x 104CNY.ha-1 higher than that of rice monoculture. However, the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of rice-fish agriculture was lower than that of rice monoculture, indicating that the traditional agricultural model was not the most optimized choice for farmers. The value of the rice-fish agriculture was much higher than that of the rice monoculture. Thus, when considering the benefits that rice-fish agriculture contributes to the large- scale society, these agricultural methods needs to be utilized. Furthermore, the labor opportunity costs were calculated and the comprehensive value of rice mono- culture was negative. Finally, the compensation standard was calculated based on the comprehensive benefit analysis. The lowest level was 1.09×103 CNY.ha-1, and the highest level was 1.21 × 104 CNY.ha-1.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2918743616</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>43682904</cqvip_id><sourcerecordid>2918743616</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-224e61b2caaee34573dfbcd46ecbf00e816bd9ca9e33cc78207e3c601e0a9dc43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UcFq3DAUNCWFhjQfkFMUco1bPUtry8ewpEkh0EIb6E3I0rOtZVfaSHLC9tjP6Lfkn_oL1dYhvUUXPR4zw5uZojgB-gEobT5GgEawkgKUlIlFyd8UhxVtF2VVwY-Dl5nCu-I4xhXNTwgOgh0Wv660j7uYcEMihgerkaSgDPq-Jx2mR0T3b2GT9U6tiXKGbLzB4IgagtXTOk0B_zz9JopoFZHENJkdsY4svRtWVrkhT5NLuwtyPdmfo5_I1-AfrNN4QZajdep98bZX64jHz_9Rcffp6vvyprz9cv15eXlbag6LlO_nWENXaaUQGV80zPSdNrxG3fWUooC6M61WLTKmdSMq2iDTNQWkqjWas6PifNbdBn8_YUxy5aeQTUVZtSAazmqoMwpmlA4-xoC93Aa7UWEngcp92nJOW-a05T5tuVeuZk7MWDdg-K_8GknMpNEOIwY024Axyj54lyyG16mnM7VXXu5riPLuW66XUwpN0zLIiLNnF2Ou4T4f9WIj2xRVSzn7C_4DrDg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2918743616</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China</title><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Zhang, Dan ; Min, Qingwen ; Liu, Moucheng ; Cheng, Shengkui</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Dan ; Min, Qingwen ; Liu, Moucheng ; Cheng, Shengkui</creatorcontrib><description>Besides crops, agriculture supplies all three major categories of ecosystem services (ES). However, agriculture also supplies an array of ecosystem dis-services (EDS) that may harm other ecosystems. The flows of ES and EDS are directly dependent on the management of agricultural ecosystems. The traditional method of Chinese agriculture, which supports sustainable agriculture, has been proven to increase ES and reduce EDS. However, there is a lack of a detailed understanding of the ES and EDS associated with traditional agriculture, and also of differences between traditional and modem agriculture. In this study, an investigation was conducted on the ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem dis-services (EDS) of traditional and modem agriculture in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Afterwards, the economic values of ES and EDS were quantified experimentally and calculated based on the market price. The results show that: the net economic value of traditional rice-fish agriculture was 3.31 x 104 CNY.haI (6.83 CNY = 1 USD as of July, 2009) and that of rice monoculture was 1.99 x 104 CNY.ha ~. Significant differences existed between traditional rice-fish and rice monoculture fields for their economic values of some ES or EDS. A benefit and cost analysis (BCA) model was used to adjust the conflict between the economic income and environmental loss from traditional and modem agricul- ture. The BCA model not only calculates the net income but also monetizes the EDS of the agricultural systems. The results showed that the net income of rice-fish agriculture was 1.94x 104CNY.ha-1 higher than that of rice monoculture. However, the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of rice-fish agriculture was lower than that of rice monoculture, indicating that the traditional agricultural model was not the most optimized choice for farmers. The value of the rice-fish agriculture was much higher than that of the rice monoculture. Thus, when considering the benefits that rice-fish agriculture contributes to the large- scale society, these agricultural methods needs to be utilized. Furthermore, the labor opportunity costs were calculated and the comprehensive value of rice mono- culture was negative. Finally, the compensation standard was calculated based on the comprehensive benefit analysis. The lowest level was 1.09×103 CNY.ha-1, and the highest level was 1.21 × 104 CNY.ha-1.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2095-2201</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2095-221X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1673-7520</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Agricultural economics ; Agricultural ecosystems ; Agricultural management ; Agricultural practices ; Agriculture ; agroecosystems ; benefit and cost analysis (BCA) ; case studies ; Cost benefit analysis ; crops ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Economic analysis ; economic valuation ; Economics ; ecosystem dis-services (EDS) ; Ecosystem services ; ecosystem services (ES) ; Ecosystems ; Environment ; farmers ; Farming systems ; Fish ; Income ; labor ; market prices ; Monoculture ; opportunity costs ; Research Article ; Rice ; rice monoculture ; rice-fish agriculture ; Strategic management ; Sustainable agriculture ; traditional agriculture ; Traditional farming ; 中国 ; 价格计算 ; 传统方法 ; 农业生态系统 ; 生态系统服务 ; 稻鱼共生 ; 综合效益分析 ; 贵州省</subject><ispartof>Frontiers of Environmental Science &amp; Engineering, 2012-10, Vol.6 (5), p.743-752</ispartof><rights>Copyright reserved, 2014, Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg</rights><rights>Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012</rights><rights>Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-224e61b2caaee34573dfbcd46ecbf00e816bd9ca9e33cc78207e3c601e0a9dc43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-224e61b2caaee34573dfbcd46ecbf00e816bd9ca9e33cc78207e3c601e0a9dc43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/71245X/71245X.jpg</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2918743616?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21388,27924,27925,33744,41488,42557,43805,51319,64385,64389,72469</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Min, Qingwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Moucheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Shengkui</creatorcontrib><title>Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China</title><title>Frontiers of Environmental Science &amp; Engineering</title><addtitle>Front Envir Sci Eng</addtitle><addtitle>Front. Environ. Sci. Eng</addtitle><addtitle>Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China</addtitle><description>Besides crops, agriculture supplies all three major categories of ecosystem services (ES). However, agriculture also supplies an array of ecosystem dis-services (EDS) that may harm other ecosystems. The flows of ES and EDS are directly dependent on the management of agricultural ecosystems. The traditional method of Chinese agriculture, which supports sustainable agriculture, has been proven to increase ES and reduce EDS. However, there is a lack of a detailed understanding of the ES and EDS associated with traditional agriculture, and also of differences between traditional and modem agriculture. In this study, an investigation was conducted on the ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem dis-services (EDS) of traditional and modem agriculture in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Afterwards, the economic values of ES and EDS were quantified experimentally and calculated based on the market price. The results show that: the net economic value of traditional rice-fish agriculture was 3.31 x 104 CNY.haI (6.83 CNY = 1 USD as of July, 2009) and that of rice monoculture was 1.99 x 104 CNY.ha ~. Significant differences existed between traditional rice-fish and rice monoculture fields for their economic values of some ES or EDS. A benefit and cost analysis (BCA) model was used to adjust the conflict between the economic income and environmental loss from traditional and modem agricul- ture. The BCA model not only calculates the net income but also monetizes the EDS of the agricultural systems. The results showed that the net income of rice-fish agriculture was 1.94x 104CNY.ha-1 higher than that of rice monoculture. However, the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of rice-fish agriculture was lower than that of rice monoculture, indicating that the traditional agricultural model was not the most optimized choice for farmers. The value of the rice-fish agriculture was much higher than that of the rice monoculture. Thus, when considering the benefits that rice-fish agriculture contributes to the large- scale society, these agricultural methods needs to be utilized. Furthermore, the labor opportunity costs were calculated and the comprehensive value of rice mono- culture was negative. Finally, the compensation standard was calculated based on the comprehensive benefit analysis. The lowest level was 1.09×103 CNY.ha-1, and the highest level was 1.21 × 104 CNY.ha-1.</description><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Agricultural ecosystems</subject><subject>Agricultural management</subject><subject>Agricultural practices</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>agroecosystems</subject><subject>benefit and cost analysis (BCA)</subject><subject>case studies</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>crops</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>economic valuation</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>ecosystem dis-services (EDS)</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>ecosystem services (ES)</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>farmers</subject><subject>Farming systems</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Income</subject><subject>labor</subject><subject>market prices</subject><subject>Monoculture</subject><subject>opportunity costs</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>Rice</subject><subject>rice monoculture</subject><subject>rice-fish agriculture</subject><subject>Strategic management</subject><subject>Sustainable agriculture</subject><subject>traditional agriculture</subject><subject>Traditional farming</subject><subject>中国</subject><subject>价格计算</subject><subject>传统方法</subject><subject>农业生态系统</subject><subject>生态系统服务</subject><subject>稻鱼共生</subject><subject>综合效益分析</subject><subject>贵州省</subject><issn>2095-2201</issn><issn>2095-221X</issn><issn>1673-7520</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UcFq3DAUNCWFhjQfkFMUco1bPUtry8ewpEkh0EIb6E3I0rOtZVfaSHLC9tjP6Lfkn_oL1dYhvUUXPR4zw5uZojgB-gEobT5GgEawkgKUlIlFyd8UhxVtF2VVwY-Dl5nCu-I4xhXNTwgOgh0Wv660j7uYcEMihgerkaSgDPq-Jx2mR0T3b2GT9U6tiXKGbLzB4IgagtXTOk0B_zz9JopoFZHENJkdsY4svRtWVrkhT5NLuwtyPdmfo5_I1-AfrNN4QZajdep98bZX64jHz_9Rcffp6vvyprz9cv15eXlbag6LlO_nWENXaaUQGV80zPSdNrxG3fWUooC6M61WLTKmdSMq2iDTNQWkqjWas6PifNbdBn8_YUxy5aeQTUVZtSAazmqoMwpmlA4-xoC93Aa7UWEngcp92nJOW-a05T5tuVeuZk7MWDdg-K_8GknMpNEOIwY024Axyj54lyyG16mnM7VXXu5riPLuW66XUwpN0zLIiLNnF2Ou4T4f9WIj2xRVSzn7C_4DrDg</recordid><startdate>20121001</startdate><enddate>20121001</enddate><creator>Zhang, Dan</creator><creator>Min, Qingwen</creator><creator>Liu, Moucheng</creator><creator>Cheng, Shengkui</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Higher Education Press</general><general>SP Higher Education Press</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>W92</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121001</creationdate><title>Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China</title><author>Zhang, Dan ; Min, Qingwen ; Liu, Moucheng ; Cheng, Shengkui</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-224e61b2caaee34573dfbcd46ecbf00e816bd9ca9e33cc78207e3c601e0a9dc43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Agricultural ecosystems</topic><topic>Agricultural management</topic><topic>Agricultural practices</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>agroecosystems</topic><topic>benefit and cost analysis (BCA)</topic><topic>case studies</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>crops</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>economic valuation</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>ecosystem dis-services (EDS)</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>ecosystem services (ES)</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>farmers</topic><topic>Farming systems</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Income</topic><topic>labor</topic><topic>market prices</topic><topic>Monoculture</topic><topic>opportunity costs</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>Rice</topic><topic>rice monoculture</topic><topic>rice-fish agriculture</topic><topic>Strategic management</topic><topic>Sustainable agriculture</topic><topic>traditional agriculture</topic><topic>Traditional farming</topic><topic>中国</topic><topic>价格计算</topic><topic>传统方法</topic><topic>农业生态系统</topic><topic>生态系统服务</topic><topic>稻鱼共生</topic><topic>综合效益分析</topic><topic>贵州省</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Min, Qingwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Moucheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Shengkui</creatorcontrib><collection>维普_期刊</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>维普中文期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-工程技术</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Frontiers of Environmental Science &amp; Engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhang, Dan</au><au>Min, Qingwen</au><au>Liu, Moucheng</au><au>Cheng, Shengkui</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China</atitle><jtitle>Frontiers of Environmental Science &amp; Engineering</jtitle><stitle>Front Envir Sci Eng</stitle><stitle>Front. Environ. Sci. Eng</stitle><addtitle>Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China</addtitle><date>2012-10-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>743</spage><epage>752</epage><pages>743-752</pages><issn>2095-2201</issn><eissn>2095-221X</eissn><eissn>1673-7520</eissn><abstract>Besides crops, agriculture supplies all three major categories of ecosystem services (ES). However, agriculture also supplies an array of ecosystem dis-services (EDS) that may harm other ecosystems. The flows of ES and EDS are directly dependent on the management of agricultural ecosystems. The traditional method of Chinese agriculture, which supports sustainable agriculture, has been proven to increase ES and reduce EDS. However, there is a lack of a detailed understanding of the ES and EDS associated with traditional agriculture, and also of differences between traditional and modem agriculture. In this study, an investigation was conducted on the ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem dis-services (EDS) of traditional and modem agriculture in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Afterwards, the economic values of ES and EDS were quantified experimentally and calculated based on the market price. The results show that: the net economic value of traditional rice-fish agriculture was 3.31 x 104 CNY.haI (6.83 CNY = 1 USD as of July, 2009) and that of rice monoculture was 1.99 x 104 CNY.ha ~. Significant differences existed between traditional rice-fish and rice monoculture fields for their economic values of some ES or EDS. A benefit and cost analysis (BCA) model was used to adjust the conflict between the economic income and environmental loss from traditional and modem agricul- ture. The BCA model not only calculates the net income but also monetizes the EDS of the agricultural systems. The results showed that the net income of rice-fish agriculture was 1.94x 104CNY.ha-1 higher than that of rice monoculture. However, the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of rice-fish agriculture was lower than that of rice monoculture, indicating that the traditional agricultural model was not the most optimized choice for farmers. The value of the rice-fish agriculture was much higher than that of the rice monoculture. Thus, when considering the benefits that rice-fish agriculture contributes to the large- scale society, these agricultural methods needs to be utilized. Furthermore, the labor opportunity costs were calculated and the comprehensive value of rice mono- culture was negative. Finally, the compensation standard was calculated based on the comprehensive benefit analysis. The lowest level was 1.09×103 CNY.ha-1, and the highest level was 1.21 × 104 CNY.ha-1.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2095-2201
ispartof Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2012-10, Vol.6 (5), p.743-752
issn 2095-2201
2095-221X
1673-7520
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2918743616
source SpringerLink (Online service); ProQuest Central
subjects Agricultural economics
Agricultural ecosystems
Agricultural management
Agricultural practices
Agriculture
agroecosystems
benefit and cost analysis (BCA)
case studies
Cost benefit analysis
crops
Earth and Environmental Science
Economic analysis
economic valuation
Economics
ecosystem dis-services (EDS)
Ecosystem services
ecosystem services (ES)
Ecosystems
Environment
farmers
Farming systems
Fish
Income
labor
market prices
Monoculture
opportunity costs
Research Article
Rice
rice monoculture
rice-fish agriculture
Strategic management
Sustainable agriculture
traditional agriculture
Traditional farming
中国
价格计算
传统方法
农业生态系统
生态系统服务
稻鱼共生
综合效益分析
贵州省
title Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T15%3A14%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ecosystem%20service%20tradeoff%20between%20traditional%20and%20modern%20agriculture%EF%BC%9A%20a%20case%20study%20in%20Congjiang%20County,%20Guizhou%20Province,%20China&rft.jtitle=Frontiers%20of%20Environmental%20Science%20&%20Engineering&rft.au=Zhang,%20Dan&rft.date=2012-10-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=743&rft.epage=752&rft.pages=743-752&rft.issn=2095-2201&rft.eissn=2095-221X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2918743616%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2918743616&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cqvip_id=43682904&rfr_iscdi=true