It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
By applying the concept of the coupled natural and human system (CNH), we compared spatiotemporal changes in livestock (LSK), land cover, and ecosystem production to understand the relative roles that natural and social driving forces have on CNH dynamics on the Mongolia plateau. We used socioeconomic and physical data at prefecture level for Inner Mongolia and Mongolia from 1981 through 2010 to represent changes in net primary productivity (NPP), enhanced vegetation index (EVI), precipitation, annual average temperature, LSK, livestock density (LSKD), land cover change (LCC), gross domestic production (GDP), and population (POP). The ratios such as LSK:NPP, LSKD: EVI, LSKD:albedo, LSK:POP, and LSK:GDP were examined and compared between Inner Mongolia and Mongolia, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to quantify the complex interactions. Substantial differences in LSK, POP, and economic development were found among the biomes and between Inner Mongolia and Mongolia. When various indicators for policy shifts—such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) for China, the Third Campaign to Reclaim Abandoned Agriculture Lands (ATAR-3), and the Grain for Green Program for China (GFG)—were added into our SEM, the results showed significant change in the strength of the above relationships. After China joined the WTO, the relationships in Inner Mongolia between LSKD:LCC and LSKD:NPP were immensely strengthened, whereas relationships in NPP:LCC were weakened. In Mongolia, the ATAR-3 program first appeared to be an insignificant policy, but the Collapse of the Soviet Union enhanced the correlation between LSKD:LCC, weakened the connection of LCC:NPP, and did not affect LSKD:NPP. We conclude that human influences on the Mongolian CNH system exceeded those of the biophysical changes, but that the significance varies in time and per biome, as well as between Inner Mongolia and Mongolia.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 CGCEO/Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
2 School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36949, USA
3 Department of Economics, University of the Humanities, Ulaanbaatar 210620, Mongolia
4 School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
5 International Center for Ecology, Meteorology, and Environment (IceMe), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, People’s Republic of China
6 Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy; CGCEO/Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
7 School of Life Sciences, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, People’s Republic of China