Next Article in Journal
Basil as Secondary Crop in Cascade Hydroponics: Exploring Salinity Tolerance Limits in Terms of Growth, Amino Acid Profile, and Nutrient Composition
Next Article in Special Issue
Rootstocks Impact Yield, Fruit Composition, Nutrient Deficiencies, and Winter Survival of Hybrid Cultivars in Eastern Canada
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Canary Island Date Palms in Physical Amenity Provisioning for Urban Landscape Settings
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Sustainable Viticulture Method Adapted to the Cold Climate Zone in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 7
Issue 7
10.3390/horticulturae7070202
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ecosystem Service Function and Assessment of the Value of Grape Industry in Soil-Burial Over-Wintering Areas

by
Zhilei Wang
1,†,
Xiao Cao
1,†,
Liang Zhang
1,
Xing Han
1,
Ying Wang
1,
Hua Wang
1,2,3,4,* and
Hua Li
1,2,3,4,*
1
College of Enology, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
2
Engineering Research Center for Viti-Viniculture, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Yangling 712100, China
3
Shaanxi Engineering Research Center for Viti-Viniculture, Yangling 712100, China
4
China Wine Industry Technology Institute, Yinchuan 750021, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contribute equally to this work.
Horticulturae 2021, 7(7), 202; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/horticulturae7070202
Submission received: 7 June 2021 / Revised: 16 July 2021 / Accepted: 17 July 2021 / Published: 20 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Viticulture Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As a representative economic crop with the potential for long-term sustainable development, grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) bring direct economic benefits to the people, and the indirect ecological benefits produced by grapevines cannot be ignored. This study utilized relevant statistical data from the government sectors and data obtained at vineyards and wineries through interviews and surveys. The value of the ecosystem service of the grape industry in soil-burial over-wintering areas was first evaluated from four first-level indicators types and 10 s-level indicators types, using Hongsibu of the eastern foothill of Helan Mountain, Ningxia, as an example. The results show that the total current benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service function in Hongsibu are ¥ 1067 million. The direct economic benefits are ¥ 660 million and indirect ecological benefits are ¥ 407 million. The value ranking of the first-level function types is as follows: supply services > cultural services > support services > regulatory services. The ranking of the value of second-level function types is as follows: food production > ecological poverty alleviation > biodiversity > carbon fixation and oxygen release > ecotourism > air purification > nutrient accumulation > water conservation and efficiency > water holding > soil conservation. Cultivation measures (such as burial-free cultivation technology, inter-row grass technology, and suspending grape branches after winter pruning technology) increased the value of the service function of the grape ecosystem and explored some potential benefits. The results indicated the necessity of assessing ecosystem service value of the grape industry, which could enable people to realize the direct economic benefits as well as the ecological benefits. Meanwhile, the positive effects of cultivation techniques on the value of ecosystem service function were demonstrated in soil-burial over-wintering areas. This study provides important reference value and comprehensive guidance for the healthy and sustainable development of the grape industry.

1. Introduction

Statistics released by the OIV (International Organization of Vine and Wine) indicated that the total area of global grape cultivation was 7.4 million ha in 2018, of which 875,000 ha are cultivated in China [1]. Thus, China has become the world’s second largest grape-growing country. China has a wide range of grape-growing areas. There are grapevines grown in 32 provinces across the country [2]. However, excellent grapevines growing areas are primarily concentrated in arid and semi-arid areas in northern China [3]. These regions have cold winters, strong wind and blowing sand, and low temperatures [4]. If the vines are not insulated in time, they will dry in the air and develop freeze injuries, which will affect the growth and yield of the grapevines in the following year [5].
Grapevines are thermophilic plants. Most grapevines cultivated in China are V. vinifera varieties, which require soil-burying to safely over-winter, as the mature shoots of V. vinifera can only tolerate a low temperature of about −15 °C during winter dormancy [6,7,8]. Wang et al. analyzed 30 years (1982–2011) of meteorological data from 2294 meteorological stations in China. They selected the soil-burial over-wintering areas using the location that experienced an annual extreme minimum temperature of less than or equal to −15 °C more than three times within 30 years [9,10], as shown in Figure 1.
Ninety percent of the grapevines in China are located in the soil-burial over-wintering areas [3]. Grapevines are protected from the cold by burying the vines, which damages the soil surface, accelerates wind erosion, increases soil carbon emissions, and affects the grape ecosystem to some extent [3,11]. Liu et al. determined the effect of in-row mulching in the Yinchuan region on the ecological environment of the vineyard [12]. They found that in-row branches and straw mulch can significantly reduce the air temperature and humidity of the canopy of grapevines and soil temperature and increase the number of soil microorganisms. This is consistent with the research of Xi and others on the cover cropping system of vineyards [13,14,15]. Wang studied the ability of grapevines to serve as windbreaks in winter in the soil-burial over-wintering areas and found that windbreaks of grapevines branches can change the structure of the wind and sand flow near the surface of the vineyard during the period of soil-burial over-wintering and affect the distribution of sand transport near the surface [16]. The grapevines have blocks and cause the wind and sand to subside, resulting in an average value of total sediment transport within 5 to 150 cm from the surface to be 39.0% higher than the control [17]. The study also found that branch wind barriers significantly affect the wind erosion of the vineyard. Wind barriers settle sand particles in the wind, and wind erosion primarily results in sedimentation, which reduces the amount of erosion by 75.85% [17].
As a service crop, grapevines are considered to play a role in soil protection. In addition, the vineyard provides a large number of ecosystem services, such as weed control, pest and disease regulation, water supply, water purification, field trafficability, soil biodiversity, carbon sequestration, alleviating poverty and land degradation [18,19,20,21]. Currently, the research on the grape industry in the soil-burial over-wintering areas is primarily focused on the selection and development of new grape varieties, grape quality improvement and efficient cultivation techniques, key technology innovation and application of the wine industry chain, and little research has been conducted in the field of grape ecology [22]. This research aims to understand the economic and ecological value of the grape industry. Based on this, we have made an evaluation system for the value of the ecosystem service function of vineyards and conducted a systematic analysis. Our research will contribute to the sustainable development of the grape industry in soil-burial over-wintering areas.

2. Research Areas and Research Methods

2.1. Research Areas

As shown in Figure 2. Hongsibu (105°43′45″ E, 37°28′08″ N) is located in the protected area of the National Geographical Declaration of Wine Grapes in the eastern foothills of Helan Mountain, Ningxia. This area is a temperate arid climate zone, and the continental climate is readily apparent. The annual average rainfall is 277 mm, and the annual mean evaporation is 2050 mm. The annual average temperature is 8.4 °C, the average temperature in the growing season from May to October is 17.9 °C. The annual effective accumulated temperature (≥10 °C) is above 3200 °C, and the average frost-free period is more than 170 days, which can fully meet the conditions of middle-late maturity grape cultivation [18].

2.2. Research Methods

Currently, there are many ways to evaluate ecosystem service functions, but evaluation systems for the ecosystem service functions of the grape industry are rare [23,24,25,26,27]. The method of this study is based on the classification of ecosystem services functions in China by Xie et al. [28]. For the first time, the ecosystem service functions of the grape industry are summarized into four first-level and 10 s-level indicator types as alluded to in the “Forest Ecosystem Service Function Evaluation Standards” (LY/T1721-2008) and China’s economic forest ecosystem service value evaluation methods [29]. The evaluation index system of the grape ecosystem service functions is shown in Table 1.

2.3. Data Sources

The data in this study are derived from: (1) relevant statistics from the Water Resources Department of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region; (2) statistics from the Statistics Bureau of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region; (3) social and public data released by the Grape Industry Development Bureau of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region; (4) statistical data of the Grape Industrial Office of Hongsibu District Agricultural and Rural Bureau; (5) data obtained at vineyards and wineries through interviews and surveys.

2.4. Data Standardization Procession

Using the sampling survey method, we randomly selected 108 grape growers and 10 chateaus to obtain source data on evaluation indicators of the comprehensive benefits. The actual value of each indicator was then calculated using the formulas listed in Table 1.

3. Results

As of the end of 2018, the total grape planting area in Hongsibu has reached 7633.33 ha under conventional cultivation management, of which 7066.67 ha for wine grapes and 566.67 ha for table grapes.

3.1. Value of Ecosystem Service Function

3.1.1. Supply Service

Food Production Function

We referenced the research by Zhang and Lei on the status of the grape industry in Hongsibu, and the relevant data in 2018 was provided by the Grape Industrial Office of Hongsibu District Agricultural and Rural Bureau [30,31]. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 2.
As Table 2 indicates, the income of the fruits production function of the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu was ¥ 365.3 million (¥ is the symbol for RenMinBi, Yuan.). Considering the large initial investment in the vineyard, the cost of grapes only uses the labor and material costs for the year being analyzed. Research by Yang and Gao indicated that investment in grapes ranges from 12,500 to 15,000 ¥·ha−1 [32]. The grape industry in Hongsibu invested ¥ 105 million, and the annual output value of the grapes was ¥ 260.3 million in 2018. In addition, according to the data provided by the Industrial Office of Hongsibu District Agricultural and Rural Bureau, the annual processing capacity of the Hongsibu’s grape industry reached 35 million kg in 2018, with an annual output of 8 million bottles of finished wine and an output value of ¥ 400 million in profit. The total value of functional indicators of food production was ¥ 660.3 million. The output value of grapes and fruits accounts for 39.42% of the total value of food production, and the output value of wine accounts for 60.58% of the total value of food production.

3.1.2. Regulator Service

Carbon Fixation and Oxygen Release Function

We referenced research by Guo and others on the net CO2 exchange of vineyard ecosystems in the soil-burial over-wintering areas [33,34]. The amount of oxygen released by the grapes was 648 g·m−2 during the main growth period. The ecological benefits of carbon fixation and oxygen release adopt the Chinese afforestation cost method. The price of carbon is 273.3 ¥·t−1, and the price of oxygen is 369.7 ¥·t−1. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 3.
Vineyard is a carbon sink during the main growth period. The aboveground part of the sink is mainly concentrated in annual organs (fruits, etc.) and perennial organs (trunk, etc.). The underground part of the sink is mainly concentrated in roots and soil. As Table 3 indicates, the carbon fixation and oxygen release value of the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu is ¥ 35.1 million, of which the carbon fixation value is ¥ 16.8 million, accounting for 47.86% of the total value of carbon fixation and oxygen release. The value of the oxygen released is ¥ 18.3 million, accounting for 52.14% of the total value of carbon fixation and oxygen release.

Water Holding Function

Statistics provided by the Water Resources Department of Ningxia indicated that the annual average evapotranspiration of the grape production area in the eastern foothills of Helan Mountain is 184 mm. The annual rainfall in Hongsibu production area is 277 mm. Based on the lowest transaction price of 0.818 ¥·m−3 calculated by the Ningxia Academy of Water Sciences as the base price, we used the water balance method to calculate it [35]. The total amount of water conserved by the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu is 7.1 million m3, and the ecological economic benefits generated by the water conservation are ¥ 5.81 million.

Water Conservation and Efficiency Function

Wang and Song showed that the annual amount of irrigation water used in the Hongsibu irrigation area is 5710 m3·ha−1, and the annual irrigation water in grape is 1500 m3·ha−1 [26,36]. Compared with other crops, the grape aquatic production value is 135 ¥·t−1, which is 4.2, 7.6, 38.8 and 41.8 times the output value of wolfberry (Lycium barbarum L), potato (Solanum tuberosum L), corn (Zea mays L) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L), respectively [36]. Statistics from the Water Resources Department of Ningxia indicated that the price of different crops before the reform was 0.22 ¥·m−3, and the ecological and economic benefits of water-saving and efficiency improvement of the Hongsibu grape industry ecosystem were ¥ 7.08 million.

Air Purifying Function

The index of negative ions in the air in vineyard ecosystems is based on previous studies on negative ions in the air of different types of vegetation [37,38]. The amount of harmful gases absorbed and the treatment costs are based on the results of Ma [39]. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that the annual purification value of the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu is ¥ 12.58 million. Among them, the value of providing negative ions is ¥ 4150, accounting for 0.03% of the total value of purifying the atmosphere; the value of absorption of SO2 is ¥ 412,000, accounting for 3.28% of the total value of purifying the atmosphere. The value of absorption of NOx is ¥ 458,000, accounting for 3.65% of the total value of purified air. The value of HF is ¥ 3660, accounting for 0.03% of the total value of purifying the atmosphere. The value of retarding the fall of dust is ¥ 11.7 million, accounting for 93% of the total value of purifying the atmosphere.

3.1.3. Support Services

Soil Conservation Function

Wang and Gao conducted research on the soil and water conservation monitoring of Hongsibu [40,41]. The original landform soil erosion modulus of the Hongsibu irrigation area was 3.50 × 10−3 t·m−2·year−1, and the allowable soil loss in the irrigation area after the development of forest and grasscover management is 8.00 × 10−4 t·m−2·year−1. Xiao et al. found that the price of soil conservation is 6.52 ¥·t−1 [42]. The research of Wang on the mechanisms of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and those in the soil of the grape production area in the eastern foothills of Helan Mountain indicated that the content of organic matter in the soil of the vineyard is 10.79 g·kg−1 [43]. We converted the total amount of standardized ammonium diammonium phosphate and potassium chloride to facilitate their conversion into pure nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. The ratios of the fertilizers are 132/28, 132/31, and 75/39. The price of chemical fertilizers is calculated based on the average cost of Chinese chemical fertilizers equaling 2.55 × 103 ¥·t−1 [44]. The ratio of general fuel wood to soil organic matter is 2:1, and the opportunity cost per ton of fuel wood is ¥ 51.3 [45]. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 indicates that the annual soil conservation value of the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu is ¥ 2.21 million. Among them, the value of solid soil is ¥ 1.34 million, accounting for 60.74% of the total value of conservation soil. The value of soil is ¥ 867,000, accounting for 39.26% of the total benefit of soil conservation.

Nutrient Accumulation Function

Based on the results of research by Ma, on the nutrient accumulation of grapes in soil-burial over-wintering areas, the distribution of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in various parts of grape plants is shown in Table 6 [46]. The N, P, K content (kg·hm−2) = N, P, K content (g·kg−1) × dry weight (kg·strain−1) × number of plants (strain·ha−1) × 10−3.
Table 6 indicated that the total accumulation of annual nutrients in the vines of the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu is 473.9 kg·ha−1. The total grapevines planting area in Hongsibu was 7633.33 ha. The total accumulation of annual nutrients in the vines of the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu is 36.2 million kg, and the value is ¥ 9.21 million. Among them, the accumulated amount of nitrogen in the vine is 15 million kg, with a value of ¥ 3.83 million, accounting for approximately 41.50% of the total benefits of the accumulation of material. The accumulated amount of phosphorus in the vine is 8.14 million kg, and the value is ¥ 2.08 million, accounting for 22.52% of the total benefits of the accumulation of material. The accumulated amount of potassium in the vine is 13 million kg, and the value is ¥ 3.32 million, accounting for approximately 35.98% of the total benefits of the accumulation of material.

Biodiversity Function

Wang and other researchers who have evaluated economic forest ecosystem services in China have reported that the Shannon-Wiener index is an important tool to calculate the conservation value of biological species resources [29]. When the index is 2 to 3, the conservation value of biodiversity is 20,000 ¥·ha−1·year−1. When the index is 3 to 4, the conservation value of biodiversity is 30,000 ¥·ha−1·year−1. The research on vineyard soil microbial communities by Si, indicated that the diversity index of soil microbial communities in clear plowed vineyards is between 2 and 3 [47]. Therefore, we can estimate that the value of the annual biodiversity function of the grape industry ecosystem in Hongsibu is ¥ 153 million.

3.1.4. Cultural Service

Ecological Poverty Alleviation Function

Based on the research by Yang and Gao on the status of Hongsibu’s grape industry, the grape labor is 0.7 ha per person [32]. The entire grape base area of Hongsibu is 7633 ha, which requires 10,904 people to stabilize employment. The annual income is calculated at ¥ 15,000 per person, which can increase the income of the production area and surrounding farmers by ¥ 164 million. The grape industry has become a pillar industry to alleviate poverty in soil-burial over-wintering areas.

Ecotourism Function

Based on the Hongsibu District People’s Government Work Report, the area received 440,000 tourists and achieved a comprehensive tourism income of ¥ 16.6 million in 2017. Hongsibu received 471,000 tourists throughout the year by holding a picking festival for special industries in 2018. Based on the per capita tourism expenditure in 2017, it realized a comprehensive tourism income of ¥ 17.77 million in 2018.

3.2. Direct and Indirect Benefits

As Table 7 indicates, the total current benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions are ¥ 1067 million, of which direct economic benefits are ¥ 660 million and indirect ecological benefits are ¥ 407 million. Ecological benefits account for 38.14% of the current total benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions. The value ranking of the first-level function types is as follows: supply services > cultural services > support services > regulatory services. The ranking of the value of second-level function types is as follows: food production > Ecological poverty alleviation > biodiversity > carbon fixation and oxygen release > ecotourism > air purification > nutrient accumulation > water conservation and efficiency > water holding > soil conservation.

3.3. Current and Potential Benefits

We designate the current benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions, and the potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions under different models of cultivation technology. This study only considered the burial-free cultivation technology, inter-row grass technology, and suspending grape branches after winter pruning technology of the grape industry in the soil-burial over-wintering areas. By analyzing the data in research by Xue, it was known that the burial-free cultivation as an overwintering measure for soil-burial over-wintering areas reduced the average wintering cost from 22% of the annual management to 6.5%. Converting it into the value of food production, the implementation of burial-free cultivation technology increased the value of food production by ¥ 16.3 million in soil-burial over-wintering areas.
The technique of suspending grape branches in winter reduced the wind blowing on the soil surface particles, thereby reducing the amount of erosion by 75.85% [11]. Converting it into the value of solid soil, the implementation of suspending the grape branches after winter pruning technology increased the solid soil value by ¥ 1.02 million in soil-burial over-wintering areas. In addition, the study found that the implementation of inter-row grass technology in soil-burial over-wintering areas significantly increased the content of soil organic matter. Compared with the control of clear cultivation, the inter-row grass soil organic matter content increased by 1.5 g·kg−1 [18]. Converting it into organic matter preservation value, the implementation of inter-row grass technology in soil-burial over-wintering areas, preserved the value of the fertilizer by ¥ 31,700.
Moreover, the implementation of inter-row grasscover technology in vineyards significantly increased the richness of soil microbial communities, resulting in a 0–20 cm soil layer microbial community diversity index greater than three [41]. The implementation of inter-row grasscover technology in soil-burial over-wintering areas increased the biodiversity value by ¥ 76.3 million following converting into this value. However, the vineyard inter-row grass technology reduced the soil water storage, and the average decline for two consecutive years reached 9.15% [42]. Following conversion into the value of water holding, the implementation of inter-row grass technology in vineyards reduced the value of conservation water by ¥ 532,000. The potential benefits assessment does not cover all ecological service functions related to the current benefits, as some of the research has not been conducted in soil-burial over-wintering areas. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 indicates that the potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service function under the supporting cultivation technology are ¥ 92.85 million. Combined with Table 7, the total potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service that functions under supporting cultivation technologies are ¥ 1160 million, of which direct economic benefits are ¥ 677 million and indirect ecological benefits are ¥ 483 million. Ecological benefits account for 41.67% of the total potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions. The value of first-level indicator types supports service functions exceeds those of cultural service functions, exerting a greater ecological value embodied in the richness of biodiversity.

4. Discussion

Grapevine ecosystems both provide and rely upon important ecosystem service, which can be classified into four main categories: supply service, regulating service, supporting service and cultural service [48]. Understanding the value of ecosystem service function is necessary for soil-burial over-wintering areas, which is of great significance to the sustainable and healthy development of grape industry [36]. This research mainly evaluated the ecological service function value of grape industry in soil-burial over-wintering areas, and analyzed the direct and indirect ecological benefits of the grape industry. In addition, a comparative analysis of potential benefits and current benefits of the grape industry under some cultivation measures in the soil-burial over-wintering areas has been done, which provides a potential direction for subsequent research.

4.1. Grape Industry Provides Important Ecosystem Service Value

Grape ecosystem services confer benefits and costs, respectively, to agriculture. These are supplied by varied species and functional groups in grapevine yards over a range of scales, and influenced by human activities [48]. The grape industry ecosystem not only provides food for humans but also includes enormous environmental regulatory and ecological service functions in the soil-burial over-wintering areas [36]. Our research results showed that the value of food supply accounted for 61.88% of the entire grape industry ecosystem service value which was the greatest value of the grape industry ecosystem; these results were consistent with previous research results [36]. The second was cultural services. Among them, the value of ecological poverty alleviation contributes the most to the cultural service value. This shows that the development of the grape industry has increased the income of residents, and solve the employment problem of the poor effectively, thus producing significant social benefits [18].
However, the low value of eco-tourism was derived in this study. The reason may be that Hongsibu production area, on the eastern foot of Helan Mountain, is small. On the one hand, the superior local resources are significantly lower than the average level of the entire production area. On the other hand, the regional tourism industry is not well developed and is still lagging behind [49,50]. The potential role of biodiversity in the grape ecosystem can help provide economically relevant ecosystem services [19]. In this study, the functional value of biodiversity contributed the greatest to support service value, indicating that cultivating grapes help enrich the biodiversity in soil-burial over-wintering areas. Microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes) are critical mediators of this ecosystem service. For example, bacteria enhance nitrogen availability through the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere. This occurs most often in plants that have symbiotic relationships with N-fixing bacteria, but free-living soil bacteria fix nitrogen as well [51]. Microorganisms also enhance soil fertility by liberating nutrients from detrital organic matter (e.g., plant leaves) and retaining nutrients in their biomass that might otherwise be lost downstream [52]. Therefore, rich biodiversity is of great significance to the accumulation and circulation of soil nutrients.
However, in this study, although the biodiversity value of vineyards was much higher than that of sea buckthorn, the soil conservation value and nutrient accumulation value were only ¥ 2.21 and ¥ 9.21 million, respectively, which were far lower than the soil conservation value of sea buckthorn [53,54,55]. The reason may be that vineyard farming methods (such as burying and unearthed mechanical farming) will damage the soil surface, limiting soil conservation to a certain extent [11]. Grapevines are not only an economic forest, which produces fruits, but also a characteristic green forest, which is conducive to the improvement of the ecological environment, mainly through carbon fixation and oxygen release [36], water conservation and water-saving and efficiency-enhancing [56], as well as atmospheric purification [36].
Trees improve water infiltration within woodlands, and reduce surface runoff and soil salinization [57]. Wetlands and riparian vegetation can also improve water quality and attenuate floods [58]. In this study, the total value of water holding and water conservation of the vineyard accounted for 1.20% of the total value, which is still higher than many traditional local crops, such as corn, wheat, rice and potatoes [36]. It shows that grapes consume less water during cultivation and are suitable for planting in arid and semi-arid areas in northern China.
Carbon fixation and oxygen release as well as air purification are important parts of the regulation service function. In this study, carbon fixation and oxygen release accounted for a relatively high proportion of the regulation service value, followed by air purification. Studies found that total carbon storage of the Vitis vinifera ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ vineyard ecosystem is 55.35 t·ha−1, most of which is distributed in the soil surface (underground), and the remaining part is mainly distributed in the perennial, leaf and fruit parts of the vine (the aboveground) [59]. Grapes, as a protective forest in soil-burial over-wintering areas, are much more effective in cleaning the atmosphere than sea buckthorn, with a value of ¥ 1648 per ha for grapes and only ¥ 54.9 per ha for sea buckthorn [55].

4.2. Grape Industry Plays an Important Role in Direct and Indirect Ecological Benefits

Direct benefits mainly refer to the profit value of grape and wine; the indirect benefits are mainly reflected in the ecological benefits of the grape industry. In this study, the direct benefits of the grape industry accounted for 61.88% and the ecological benefits accounted for 38.12% of the total benefits of the ecosystem service value of the grape industry in soil-burial over-wintering areas. This indicates that the grape industry ecosystem not only provides direct benefits but also provides significant economic benefits for human society [36]. Among the ecological benefits, the value of ecological poverty alleviation was the highest, followed by the value of biodiversity. This shows that, in the context of the relatively fragile ecological environment of the soil-burial over-wintering areas, with the continuous expansion of the area of grape cultivation, the direct economic benefits are becoming more and more evident, while the ecological and biodiversity benefits it generates cannot be ignored [18]. Because of this, the importance of the long-term objectives of the vineyard system deserves to be considered. As a woody perennial crop, grapevines can be considered a service crop in the agricultural landscape, i.e., providing more overall services than products for sale. This cash crop is prone to delivering ecosystem services agro-ecosystems [18]. In addition to their ability to increase soil organic matter and fertility, and reduce runoff and erosion processes, service crops provide a large variety of ecosystem services in vineyards such as weed control, pest and disease regulation, water supply, water purification, improvement of field trafficability and maintenance of soil biodiversity [19]. It contributes to the protection and improvement of the ecological environment and is of great importance to the goal of sustainable development.

4.3. Grape Industry Has Great Potential Benefits

This study conducted an assessment and analysis of the ecosystem services value of vineyards with three cultivation techniques, showing that there is important potential benefits could be exploited in the grape industry. To a large extent, these potential benefits depend on the strategies of farmers and the tactical operations they set up [60]. We designated the current benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions, and the potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions under different models of cultivation technology. Only the burial-free cultivation technology, inter-row grass technology, and suspending grape branches after winter pruning technology of the grape industry in the soil-burial over-wintering areas were considered in this study. The implementation of burial-free cultivation technology added ¥ 16.3 million to food production value in soil-burial over-wintering areas. As part of the conservation tillage, costs (for example, labor, facilities, and operating costs) are decreased by reducing winter burial and spring emergence tillage, thus increasing the value of food supply service [61].
In addition, mulching techniques may also decrease soil evaporation [62] and prevent runoff and erosion from vineyard soils [63]. The implementation of the suspending grape branches after using winter pruning technology in vineyards reduces the amount of wind blowing on soil surface particles and the amount of soil erosion [17], while increasing the value of soil conservation by ¥ 1.02 million in soil-burial over-wintering areas. The implementation of inter-row grass technology in the soil-buried overwintering zone increased the value of fertilizer retention and biodiversity by ¥ 31.7 and ¥ 76.3 million, respectively, but reduced the value of water retention by ¥ 532,000. This is due to the fact that the implementation of inter-row grass mulching in vineyards significantly increases the soil organic matter content and soil microbial community richness, but reduces soil water storage [12,13,14]. Several interventional strategies such as rational fertilization, cover crops, non-tillage, and other agronomic measures enhance soil structure and associated productivity, thereby improving the efficiency within the orchard ecosystem while simultaneously reducing net carbon emissions [19]. Therefore, it is possible to exploit the potential value of the vineyard ecosystem by changing some of the current cultivation practices.
Considering the potential value that can be realized, cultivators need to be managed, as does any other crop is grown with a direct economic purpose. The introduction of cultivation practices that help farmers overcome the problems often faced by vineyards (water loss, soil erosion and carbon emission) is developing, though it has not been systematically adopted by vineyard growers [18]. As the main reason for service crop rejection is still competition with grapevines, more research is needed to develop appropriate cultivation techniques according to the targeted services and tactical management options to achieve trade-offs between ecosystem service without impairing economic return of farmers [19].
Although this study quantitatively analyzed the current and potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service function in Hongsibu, due to the limitation of evaluation methods and data in the research process, not all the use values and non-use values of the system were evaluated, and the protection value, scientific research value, heritage value, and aesthetic value were absent from our study. Therefore, as far as the results of these evaluations are concerned, the actual ecological service value of the study area is much larger than the current results of this evaluation. In addition, during the process of evaluation, due to the lack of local research data for the evaluation of a single ecological function, some data indicators refer to the comparison of research results in other regions, which inevitably introduces certain errors. To more comprehensively and accurately evaluate the ecological benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions in the soil-burial over-wintering areas and minimize these types of errors, we need to explore the data in more detail and improve them in practice.

5. Conclusions

Among the four first-level functional values, supply services and cultural services account for the highest proportion. Among the 10 s-level functional values, food production, ecological poverty alleviation and biodiversity account for a relatively high proportion. Some cultivation measures, such as burial-free cultivation technology, inter-row grass technology, and suspending grape branches after winter pruning technology, increase the value of the ecosystem service function of grape industry and offer new opportunities to exploit the potential benefits of the grape industry. The development of the grape industry in the over-wintering areas help drive the local economy and employment, and provide income increases and poverty alleviation for the growers and solves the livelihood problem of the poor residents in sandy areas. Generally, the development of local grapevines industries effectively improves the local ecology, thus providing solutions to the dual pressures of poverty and environmental degradation, as well as providing a method of sustainable development worldwide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.W., L.Z., Y.W., H.W. and H.L.; Data curation, Z.W., X.C., L.Z. and X.H.; Formal analysis, X.C.; Funding acquisition, H.W. and H.L.; Investigation, Z.W., L.Z., X.H. and Y.W.; Methodology, Z.W.; Project administration, H.W. and H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project, [2019YFD1002500], Key Research and Development Project of Shaanxi Province, [2020ZDLNY07-08].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or references.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the help of the Grape Industrial Office of Hongsibu District Agricultural and Rural Bureau with the collection of the occurrence data and its verification.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Pau, S. State of the vitivinicultural sector in 2019. In Proceedings of the OIV Press Conference, Paris, France, 23 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Liu, F. Current status and development trent of viticulture in China. Deciduous Fruits 2017, 49, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Xue, T.T.; Han, X.; Zhang, H.J.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, H. Effects of a biodegradable liquid film on winter chill protection of winegrape cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, Z.L.; Xue, T.T.; Gao, F.F.; Zhang, L.; Han, X.; Wang, Y.; Hui, M.; Wu, D.; Li, H.; Wang, H. Intraspecific recurrent selection in V. vinifera: An effective method for breeding of high quality, disease-, cold-, and drought -resistant grapes. Euphytica 2021, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yuan, Q.C.; Xu, L.M.; Ma, S.; Yu, C.C.; Duan, Z.Z.; Xing, J.J. Current situation and consideration of mechanization of grape planting in winter and soil cleaning in spring in northern China. Sino-Overseas Grapevine Wine 2017, 6, 66–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lisek, J.; Lisek, A. Cold Hardiness of Primary Buds of Wine and Table Grape Cultivars in Poland. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2020, 41, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Atucha, A.; Hedtcke, J.; Workmaster, B.A. Pomology; Study Results from University of Wisconsin Update Understanding of Pomology (Evaluation of Cold-climate interspecific Hybrid Wine Grape Cultivars for the Upper Midwest). Agric. Week J. Am. Pomol. Soc. 2018, 72, 80–93. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fennell, A. Freezing Tolerance and Injury in Grapevines. J. Crop. Improv. 2004, 10, 201–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, L.; Li, H.; Wang, H. Climatic regionalization of grape in China II: Wine grape varieties regionalization. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2017, 62, 1539–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Wang, L.; Hua, L.; Wang, H. Climatic regionalization of grape in China I: Indexes and methods. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2017, 62, 1527–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wolff, M.W.; Alsina, M.M.; Stockert, C.M.; Khalsa, S.D.S.; Smart, D.R. Minimum tillage of a cover crop lowers net GWP and sequesters soil carbon in a California vineyard. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 175, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, S.; Wang, Z.L.; Zhang, J.X. Effects of within-row mulching on soil microsites in vineyard and fruit quality. J. Northwest A F Univ. 2019, 47, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, C.; Wang, X.L.; Liu, S.; Li, H.; Zhang, J.X. Effects of Natural Herbage on Soil-nutrients, Enzyme Activities and Microorganisms in Vineyard of Helan Mountain’s Eastern Foothills. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 32, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xi, Z.M.; Li, H.; Long, Y.; Zhang, J.; Pang, X.L. Variation of Soil Microbial Populations and Relationships Between Microbial Factors and Soil Nutrients in Cover Cropping System of Vineyard. Acta Hortic. Sin. 2010, 37, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xi, Z.M.; Li, H.; Zhang, Z.W.; Liu, Y.L.; Wei, G.L. Effect of green covering on vineyard microclimate and wine quality. J. Northwest Sci-Tech Univ. Agric. For. 2004, 32, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, S.; Li, H.; Wang, H. Wind erosion prevention effect of suspending shoots on wires after winter pruning in soil-burying zones over-wintering. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, S. Effect of Shoots Windbreak on Vineyard Ecotope in Soil-Buried Cold-Proof Period; Northwest A&F University: Yangling, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zhang, L.; Wang, Z.; Xue, T.; Gao, F.; Wei, R.; Wang, Y.; Han, X.; Li, H.; Wang, H. Combating Desertification through the Wine Industry in Hongsibu, Ningxia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Garcia, L.; Celette, F.; Gary, C.; Ripoche, A.; Valdés-Gómez, H.; Metay, A. Management of service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 251, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Paiola, A.; Assandri, G.; Brambilla, M.; Zottini, M.; Pedrini, P.; Nascimbene, J. Exploring the potential of vineyards for biodiversity conservation and delivery of biodiversity-mediated ecosystem services: A global-scale systematic review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Han, X.; Xue, T.; Liu, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Yao, F.; Wang, H.; Li, H. A Sustainable Viticulture Method Adapted to the Cold Climate Zone in China. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tian, S.F. The Development of Grape Industry and Technology in China. J. Agric. 2018, 8, 135–139. [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, H.; Wang, H.; Aamp, N. A sustainable viticulture model adapting to the soil-bury over-wintering zone of China. Sino-Overseas Grapevine Wine 2018, 6, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liu, H.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, L.; Li, Z.H. The Methods of Assessment for Valuation of Ecosystem Service. Environ. Ecol. Three Gorges 2011, 33, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, Y.L.; Ma, J.J.; Jin, X.L.; Wang, B.Z.; Lin, J.Q.; Zhang, M. Review of ecosystem service functional value assessment methods. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2005, 15, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, Y.; Gao, J.X.; Wang, J.S.; Zheng, H. Review on Evaluation method of ecosystem services value. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2013, 23, 337–339. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhao, J.L.; Wang, L.X.; Han, H.R.; Kang, F.F.; Zhang, Y.L. Research progress and trend of forest ecosystem service value assessment. Chin. J. Ecol. 2013, 32, 2229–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhang, S.C.; Xiao, Y.; Lu, C.X. The value of ecosystem services in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1740–1746. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, B.; Lu, S.W. Evaluation of economic forest ecosystem services in China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 2, 417–425. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lei, J.Y.; Jia, A.P.; Yi, Z.R.; Ji, L.D.; Han, Z.X. The investigation and evaluation of water and fertilizer management of dominant varieties in different wine grape growing districts, Ningxia. Ningxia J. Agric. For. Sci. Technol. 2018, 59, 8–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, Y.H.; Zhang, Y.M. Counterm easures for vinifera industry development in Hongsibu district of Ningxia province. Ningxia J. Agric. For. Sci. Technol. 2016, 57, 15–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, R.B.; Gao, H.L. Current situation of development and counterm easures of grape industry in Hongsibu in Ningxia. Ningxia J. Agric. For. Sci. Technol. 2013, 54, 101–102, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Guo, W.H.; Gao, Y. The Variation of Vineyard Net CO2 Exchange under Different Conditions in Northwest Arid. J. Irrig. Drain. 2013, 32, 107–109, 136. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pitacco, A.; Meggio, F. Carbon budget of the vineyard—A new feature of sustainability. In Proceedings of the Paper Presented at the 38th Word Vine and Wine Congress, Mainz, Germany, 5 July 2015; University of Padova: Padova, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bao, L.M. Exploration and Practices of Agricultural Water Rights Trading in Hongsibu District of Ningxia. Ningxia J. Agric. For. Sci. Technol. 2017, 58, 46–48. [Google Scholar]
  36. Song, Z.W.; Sun, M.Y.; Yang, R.J.; Dou, G.Y.; Zhang, Y. Evaluation of ecosystem service function of grape industry at the eastern foot of Helan mountain, Ningxia, China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 979–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, K.C.; Su, S.Q.; Jiang, J.F.; Xu, W.A. Preliminary investigation of air anions in different vegetation types. For. Environ. Sci. 2002, 18, 37–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, S.Y.; Wu, Q.; Yang, W.; Xia, S.G.; Zhang, C.L.; Yang, P. Generation capacity of air anion in three urban forest community. Urban Environ. Urban Ecol. 2014, 6, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ma, X.H.; Sun, G.N.; Ren, Z.Y. The Values of Vegetation Purified Air and Its Measure In Xi’an City. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2002, 16, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gao, G. Soil and water conservation monitoring and evaluation of yanghuang irrigation project for poverty alleviation in Ningxia. Ningxia J. Agric. For. Sci. Technol. 2011, 52, 53–55, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, R.Q. Monitoring and exploration of soil and water conservation in the yanghuang poverty alleviation project in Ningxia: A case study of Hongsibu irrigated area dominated by wind erosion. Ningxia J. Agric. For. Sci. Technol. 2009, 4, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xiao, H.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; Zhao, J.Z.; Wang, X.K. Forest ecosystem services and their ecological valuation—A case study of tropical forest in Jianfengling of Hainan island. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 11, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Z.L.; Bao, L.; Ge, X.W.; Wang, R.; Sun, Q. Effects of organic fertilization by drip irrigation on soil microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen and enzyme activities in wine vineyards. Soil Fertil. Sci. China 2019, 61–67, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tian, Z.H.; Wang, Y.N. Eco-Economic Value of Soil Conservation Service of Orchard Ecosystems in Beijing Mountainous Area: A Case Study of Orchard in Pinggu District of Beijing. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2011, 47, 165–171. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, Z.K.; Zhou, B.B. Preliminary report on forest resources in Beijing. For. Econ. 2001, 2, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ma, L.; Wang, Z.L.; Wang, R.; Chang, F.D.; Sun, Q. Accumulation Dynamics and Distribution of Nutrient in Red Globe Grape. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 32, 604–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Si, P.; Yu, H.L.; Gao, D.T.; Shao, W.; Qiao, X.S.; Chen, J.R. Effects of intercropping herbages on carbon source metabolism of soil microbial community in sandy vineyard. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 2017, 35, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.H.; Kremen, C.; Carney, K.; Swinton, S.M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Zeng, C.; Wang, L.; Wang, L. The innovative development path of wine tourism industry in the region at the eastern foot of Helan mountain. North. Hortic. 2019, 426, 173–181. [Google Scholar]
  50. Li, Y.; Li, L. Research on wine tourism development in Hongsipu District. North. Hortic. 2016, 10, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vitousek, P.M.; Cassman, K.; Cleveland, C.; Crews, T.; Field, C.B.; Grimm, N.B.; Sprent, J.I. Towards an ecological understanding of biological nitrogen fixation. Biogeochemistry 2002, 57, 1–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Paul, E.A.; Clark, F.E. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  53. Li, D.Q.; Liang, Y.M.; Hou, X.L.; Huang, J.; Jiang, J.; Ruan, C.J.; Hao, D.Y.; Qi, J.Y. A Study on the Functions and Benefits of Seabuckthorn for Improving Eco-environment of the Loess Plateau. Hippophae 2003, 16, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yan, P.H. Planting hippophae rhamnoides L and taking the road of double harvest of ecological and economic benefits. China Water Resour. 2003, 5, 75–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Feng, R.; Guo, J.Y.; Ling, X.; Wang, T.S.; Li, J.R. Evaluation of Ecological Benefit of Hippophae rhamnoides Forestry Projects in Wuqi County. Glob. Seabuckthorn Res. Dev. 2009, 7, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Savi, T.; Petruzzellis, F.; Martellos, S.; Stenni, B.; Borgo, A.D.; Zini, L.; Nardini, A. Vineyard water relations in a karstic area: Deep roots and irrigation management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 263, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Eldridge, D.J.; Freudenberger, D. Ecosystem wicks: Woodland trees enhance water infiltration in a fragmented agricultural landscape in eastern Australia. Austral Ecol. 2010, 30, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Houlahan, J.E.; Findlay, C.S. Estimating the ‘critical’ distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liang, Z.; Tingting, X.; Feifei, G.; Ruteng, W.; Zhilei, W.; Hua, L.; Hua, W. Carbon Storage Distribution Characteristics of Vineyard Ecosystems in Hongsibu, Ningxia. Plants 2021, 10, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rapidel, B.; Ripoche, A.; Allinne, C.; Metay, A.; Deheuvels, O.; Lamanda, N.; Gary, C. Analysis of ecosystem services trade-offs to design agroecosystems with perennial crops. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1373–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xue, T. Research of Free-Buried Mode Based on Biodegradable Liquid Film in Grapevine Soil-Burial Areas; Northwestern A & F University: Yangling, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  62. Unger, P.W.; Vigil, M.F. Cover crop effects on soil water relationships. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1998, 53, 200–207. [Google Scholar]
  63. Prosdocimi, M.; Jordán, A.; Tarolli, P.; Keesstra, S.; Novara, A.; Cerdà, A. The immediate effectiveness of barley straw mulch in reducing soil erodibility and surface runoff generation in Mediterranean vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Horticulturae 07 00202 g001 550
Figure 1. Distribution of suitable viticultural zone and current winegrowing zone in viticultural climatic zoning map of China. Viticultural suitable zone according to the special continental monsoon climate characteristics in China; current winegrowing zone according to the distribution of Chinese wine regions; soil-burying line according to the annual extreme minimum temperature was less than or equal to −15 °C for more than three times within 30 years.
Figure 1. Distribution of suitable viticultural zone and current winegrowing zone in viticultural climatic zoning map of China. Viticultural suitable zone according to the special continental monsoon climate characteristics in China; current winegrowing zone according to the distribution of Chinese wine regions; soil-burying line according to the annual extreme minimum temperature was less than or equal to −15 °C for more than three times within 30 years.
Horticulturae 07 00202 g001
Horticulturae 07 00202 g002 550
Figure 2. Location Map of Hongsibu District. The eastern foothills of Helan Moutain Region, Ningxia, is an internationally famous wine grapes-producing area, including five wine grapes sub-regions. The Hongsibu producing area is one of them.
Figure 2. Location Map of Hongsibu District. The eastern foothills of Helan Moutain Region, Ningxia, is an internationally famous wine grapes-producing area, including five wine grapes sub-regions. The Hongsibu producing area is one of them.
Horticulturae 07 00202 g002
Table
Table 1. The evaluation index system of the grape ecosystem service functions.
Table 1. The evaluation index system of the grape ecosystem service functions.
Ecosystem Service FunctionsEvaluation
Index		Calculation FormulaParameter Description
Level 1 IndicatorsLevel 2 Indicators
Supply serviceFood productionValue of grapeVf = P·A·M − CiP: the vineyard yield; A: the vineyard area; M: the market price of grapes; Ci: the cost input.
Value of wineVw = B·C − CiB: the single bottle price of wine; C: the total wine production; Ci: the cost input.
Regulatory serviceCarbon fixation and oxygen releaseValue of carbon fixationVc = Pc·A·(Upc + Udc)Pc: the carbon fixation price; Upc: the carbon storage above the vineyard; Udc: the carbon storage above the vineyard.
Value of oxygen releaseVo = Po·N·A·bPo: the price of oxygen; N: the net CO2 exchange amount of the vineyard ecosystem; b: the proportionality coefficient, which is 0.73.
Water holdingValue of water holdingVw = (R − E)·A·PR: the average rainfall; E: the average annual evapotranspiration; P: the unit water storage cost.
Water conservation and efficiencyValue of water conservationVw = (X − x)·A·PX: the average water used for grape irrigation; x: the average water used for agricultural irrigation; P: the average price of crop water.
Air purificationValue of negative ion productionVi = 52.56 × 1014 × A·H·K(Q − 600)/LH: the stand height; K: the cost of production of negative ions; Q: the concentration of negative ions in the forest; L: the retention time of negative ions; 600 is the lowest air negative ion concentration that is beneficial to human health;
Value of absorption of harmful gasesVh = ΣKi·Qi·A
(i = SO2, NOx, HFx)		Ki: the unit price of pollution treatment unit; Qi: the amounts of pollutants absorbed per unit area of vineyard.
Value of dust retentionVd = K·Q·AK: the unit price of the control cost of dust reduction; Q: the amount of dust reduction blocked by the vineyard per unit area.
Support serviceSoil conservationValue of soil fixationVs = A·C·(X2 − X1)C: the soil conservation price; X2: the annual soil erosion modulus of the original topography; X1: the annual soil erosion modulus after the grapes is planted.
Value of retaining fertilizedVf = ΣA·Ci·Pi·
(X2 − X1)
(i = N, P, K, O)		Ci: the pure content of N, P, K and O in the vineyard soil; Pi: the price of N, P, K and O.
Nutrient accumulationValue of nutrient accumulationVn = A·Ci·Pi
(i = N, P, K)		Ci: the annual pure content of N, P and K in grape plants; Pi is the price of N, P and K.
BiodiversityValue of biodiversityVb = S·AS: the protection value of annual biological species resources per unit area of vineyard.
Cultural serviceEcological poverty alleviationValue of employmentVe = P·NP: the annual salary income per capita; N: the total number of people driving employment.
EcotourismValue of tourismVt = P·NP: the annual per capita tourism expenditure; N: the total number of tourists
Table
Table 2. Food production function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Table 2. Food production function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Evaluation IndexPlanting Distribution (ha)Yield (kg·ha−1)Unit Selling Price (¥·kg−1)Earnings
(Million ¥)
GrapeWine grapeChateau a3000~60005.0~10.0174
Farmer b12,000~15,0003.0~5.0102
Table grapeChateau & Farmer22,500~30,0005.0~7.089.3
a The first ingredient that defines a chateau owning a vineyard in viticultural suitable zone. In the table, chateau refers to a vineyard built by the chateau owner. b In the table, farmer refers to a vineyard built by the farmer.
Table
Table 3. Carbon fixation and oxygen release function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Table 3. Carbon fixation and oxygen release function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Evaluation IndexDesign FormulasContribution Per Unit Area (g·m−2)Total Contribution Amount (t)Unit Price
(¥·t−1)		Earnings
(million ¥)
Carbon fixationAboveground partVc = Pc·A·Upc4883.72 × 104273.310.2
Underground partVc = Pc·A·Udc3262.49 × 1046.6
Oxygen releaseVo = Po·N·A·b6484.95 × 104369.718.3
Table
Table 4. Atmospheric purification function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Table 4. Atmospheric purification function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Evaluation IndexDesign FormulasUnit price (¥·kg−1
& ¥·10−18·unit−1)		Total Contribution Amount (kg & unit)Earnings (¥)
Negative ion productionVi = 52.56 × 1014 × A·H·K·(Q − 600)/L7.295.69 × 10204150
Absorption of harmful gasesAbsorption of SO2Vso2 = Kso2·Qso2·A0.6687,000412,000
Absorption of NOXVNOx = KNOX·QNOX·A0.9509,000458,000
Absorption of HFVHF = KHF·QHF·A0.661003660
Dust retentionVd = K·Q·A17068,70011,700,000
The unit price of negative ion production is ¥·10−18·unit−1. The unit price of absorption of harmful gases and dust retention is ¥·kg−1.
Table
Table 5. Atmospheric purification function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Table 5. Atmospheric purification function value of Hongsibu’s grape industry.
Evaluation IndexDesign FormulasUnit Price
(¥·t−1)		Total Contribution
Amount (t)		Earnings
(¥)
Soil fixationVs = A·C·(X2 − X1)6.52206,0001,340,000
Fertilizer retainedRetention of organicVO = A·(X2 − X1)·CO·PO1032220227,000
Retention of nitrogenVN = A·(X2 − X1)·CN·PN25503.4888,700
Retention of phosphateVP = A·(X2 − X1)·CP·PP2.7469,900
Retention of potassiumVK = A·(X2 − X1)·CK·PK18.9481,000
Table
Table 6. Grape plant nutrient accumulation and distribution chart.
Table 6. Grape plant nutrient accumulation and distribution chart.
Nutrient (kg·ha−1)LeavesPetioleShootTrunkVine RootFruitTotalEarnings (¥)Value Composition (%)
Nitrogen content of the grapevine53.52.836.026.117.660.7196.73,830,00041.50
Phosphate content of the grapevine28.53.624.113.217.619.7106.72,080,00022.52
Potassium content of the grapevine29.319.242.715.28.655.2170.53,320,00035.98
Table
Table 7. Direct benefits and indirect benefits of grape industry ecosystem service functions in Hongsibu.
Table 7. Direct benefits and indirect benefits of grape industry ecosystem service functions in Hongsibu.
Ecological FunctionsLevel 1 TypeLevel 2 TypeEcological Service Value (Million ¥)Value Composition (%)Ecological Value Composition (%)
Direct benefitsSupply serviceFood production660.3061.8861.88
Indirect benefitsRegulatory servicesCarbon fixation and oxygen release35.103.295.67
Water holding5.810.54
Water conservation and efficiency7.080.66
Air purification12.581.18
Support servicesSoil conservation2.210.2115.41
Nutrient accumulation9.210.86
Biodiversity153.0014.34
Cultural servicesEcological poverty alleviation164.0015.3717.04
Ecotourism17.771.67
Table
Table 8. Current and potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions in Hongsibu.
Table 8. Current and potential benefits of the grape industry ecosystem service functions in Hongsibu.
Ecological FunctionsLevel 1 TypeLevel 2 TypeCurrent Benefits (Million ¥)Potential Benefits (Million ¥)Potential Benefits Composition (%)
Direct benefitsSupply serviceFood production660.30676.6358.33
Indirect benefitsRegulatory servicesCarbon fixation and oxygen release35.10/5.18
Water holding5.815.28
Water conservation and efficiency7.08/
Air purification12.58/
Support servicesSoil conservation2.213.2620.82
Nutrient accumulation9.21/
Biodiversity153.00229
Cultural servicesEcological poverty alleviation164.00/15.67
Ecotourism17.77/
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Z.; Cao, X.; Zhang, L.; Han, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, H. Ecosystem Service Function and Assessment of the Value of Grape Industry in Soil-Burial Over-Wintering Areas. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 202. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/horticulturae7070202

AMA Style

Wang Z, Cao X, Zhang L, Han X, Wang Y, Wang H, Li H. Ecosystem Service Function and Assessment of the Value of Grape Industry in Soil-Burial Over-Wintering Areas. Horticulturae. 2021; 7(7):202. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/horticulturae7070202

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Zhilei, Xiao Cao, Liang Zhang, Xing Han, Ying Wang, Hua Wang, and Hua Li. 2021. "Ecosystem Service Function and Assessment of the Value of Grape Industry in Soil-Burial Over-Wintering Areas" Horticulturae 7, no. 7: 202. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/horticulturae7070202

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop