|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|92893||160101||2016||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود کنید|
• Agriculture lands have been changed significantly during the last decades in Midwestern of US.
• SmartScape™ assists policymakers to produce effective crop change policy by evaluating the tradeoff analysis among multiple ecosystem services.
• We used SmartScape™ for two crop change scenarios, perennial into annual crops and vice versa.
• Replacing perennial crops with annual crops promoted net-income and gross biofuel.
• Replacing annual crops with perennial crops promoted energy production, water quality, climate regulation and biodiversity.
Agricultural land use is increasingly changing due to different anthropogenic activities. A combination of economic, socio-political, and cultural factors exerts a direct impact on agricultural changes. This study aims to illustrate how stakeholders and policymakers can take advantage of a web-based spatial decision support system (SDSS), namely SmartScape™ to either test existing crop change policies or produce effective crop change decisions using tradeoff analysis. We addressed the consequences of two common crop change scenarios for Dane county in Wisconsin, United States, (a) replacing perennial energy crops with annual energy crops and (b) replacing annual energy crops with perennial energy crops. The results suggested that converting areas under grass and alfalfa production that were located on high quality soil and flat slope to corn promoted a net-income and availability of gross biofuel. Additionally, the model outcome proposed that converting areas under corn and soy production that were located on high slope to grass promoted net-energy, phosphorus loading, soil loss, soil carbon sequestration, nitrous oxide emission, grassland bird habitat, pollinator abundance, and biocontrol. Therefore, SmartScape™ can assist strategic crop change policy by comparing the tradeoff among ecosystem services to ensure that crop change policies have outcomes that are agreeable to a diversity of policymakers.
Figure optionsDownload as PowerPoint slide
Journal: Land Use Policy - Volume 51, February 2016, Pages 41–53