4.6 Article

Assessment of physical vulnerability to agricultural drought in China

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 645-657

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-013-0594-1

关键词

Drought; Physical vulnerability assessment; EPIC model; Wheat yield

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Foundation [41001059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food security has drawn great attention from both researchers and practitioners in recent years. Global warming and its resultant extreme drought events have become a great challenge to crop production and food price stability. This study aimed to establish a preliminary theoretical methodology and an operational approach for assessing the physical vulnerability of two wheat varieties (Yongliang #4 and Wenmai #6) to agricultural drought using Environmental Policy Integrated Climate model (EPIC). Drought hazard index was set up based on output variables of the EPIC water stress (WS), including the magnitude and duration of WS during the crop-growing period. The physical vulnerability curves of two wheat varieties to drought were calculated by the simulated drought hazard indexes and loss ratios. And the curve's effect on drought disaster risk was defined as A, B and C sections, respectively. Our analysis results showed that (a) physical vulnerability curves varied between two wheat varieties, which were determined by genetic parameters of crops; (b) compared with spring wheat Yongliang 4# winter wheat Wenmai 6# was less vulnerable to drought under the same drought hazard intensity scenario; (c) the wheat physical vulnerability curve to drought hazard displayed a S shape, suggesting a drought intensity-dependent magnifying or reducing effect of the physical vulnerability on drought disasters; (d) the reducing effect was mainly in the low-value area of vulnerability curve, whereas the magnifying effect was in the middle-value area, and the farming-pastoral zone and the Qinling Mountain-Huaihe River zone formed important spatial division belts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据