4.7 Article

Evaluating national ecological risk of agricultural pesticides from 2004 to 2017 in China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 259, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113778

关键词

Pesticide; Nonpoint source pollution; Agricultural loss; Potential ecological risk; Spatial-temporal variability; Pesticide management

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51779010]
  2. Fund for Innovative Research Group of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51721093]
  3. Key Laboratory of Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, the Ministry of Agriculture, P.R. China
  4. Interdisciplinary Research Funds of Beijing Normal University, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, excessive application and loss of pesticides have caused great risks to the aquatic systems, but the spatio-temporal variability in the ecological risk that agricultural pesticides pose to aquatic systems has not been explored at the national scale. In this study, an integrated assessment framework was proposed for the potential ecological risk of surface water caused by agricultural pesticide loss. The spatio-temporal variability in the potential ecological risk caused by agricultural pesticide runoff was evaluated. Based on the results, the total pesticide emissions increased from 165.47 tons in 2004 to 179.77 tons in 2017. Among the three pesticide types, insecticide had the largest application, but its runoff was estimated as the lowest. High-risk areas of insecticide runoff were concentrated in the east, south and central part of China, while the central region of China was identified as a hotspot due to the high and the ever-increasing ecological risk. This study provides an integrated method for potential ecological risk assessment of agricultural pesticide runoff to adjacent water bodies in large-scale regions and the results of the study have direct implications for environmental policies on pesticide management in China and around the world. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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