Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 571–577

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Effective crop structure adjustment under climate change

Zhiqiang Dong a,b , Zhihua Pan a,b,∗ , Sen Wang a,b , Pingli An a,b , Jingting Zhang a,b ,
Jun Zhang a,b , Yuying Pan a,b , Lei Huang a,b , Hui Zhao a,b , Guolin Han a,b , Dong Wu a,b ,
Jialin Wang a,b , Dongliang Fan a,b , Lin Gao b , Xuebiao Pan a,b
a
College of Resources and Environmental Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
b
Key Ecology and Environment Experimental Station of Ministry of Agriculture for Field Scientific Observation in Hohhot, Wuchuan, Hohhot 011705, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Choosing effective responses to the adverse impacts of climate change is a challenging issue worldwide.
Received 9 October 2015 Crop structure adjustment is a primary strategy to effectively respond to climate change and maximize
Received in revised form 27 March 2016 climatic resources. However, quantitative analysis of crop structure adjustment is a difficult process. This
Accepted 4 April 2016
study proposes an effective evaluation method for crop structure adjustment that combines vulnerability
Available online 30 May 2016
and contribution rate assessment. Selection of prior crop with lower vulnerability, higher climate change
contribution rate, and lower agricultural technology contribution rate can effectively address the adverse
Keywords:
impacts of climate change and maximize climatic resources at a lower cost. A case study comparing spring
Climate change
Crop structure adjustment
wheat, potato and naked oat in Wuchuan County of Inner Mongolia, China determined the feasibility and
Vulnerability practicality of this method.
Contribution rate © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Agricultural technology

1. Introduction climate change effectively. Crop structure adjustment, which can

Increased adverse impacts of climate change have caused inter-
national communities, experts, policy-makers, and scholars to
focus their attentions on the main areas: adaptation and mitiga-
tion. Though attempts to strengthen mitigation efforts will control
long-term risks, adaptation will have more significant effect on the
adverse impacts that have occurred, or will occur (IPCC, 2014). Now
we are facing a dilemma regarding our inability to mitigate cli-
mate change without sharply reducing economical development.
Therefore, the adaptation approaches to climate change begin to
receive more emphasis as a sustainable development principle
worldwide.
Agriculture is central to human welfare and the development
of society. Consequently, agricultural adaptation to climate change
will always be an important research field. Agriculture experiences
many negative impacts from climate change due to its sensi-
tivity (IPCC, 2007). Limited time and resources have increased
awareness of the need to find ways for agriculture to adapt to
∗ Corresponding author at: College of Resources and Environmental Science, China
Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China. Tel.: +86 10 62733839.
E-mail address: panzhihua@cau.edu.cn (Z. Pan).
make the best use of climatic resources, is currently the pri-
mary response to climate change. However, effective quantitative
analysis of crop structure adjustment is an urgent and difficult
matter.
The economic benefits of crop structure adjustment are always
a major concern for scholars and farmers (Liang et al., 2008; Wu
et al., 2008). Market demand and national policies always play
important roles in crop selection (Hao et al., 2011). But any-
ways, the most important factor in crop structure adjustment
that should be considered is the suitability of natural conditions
prior to economic benefits, because climatic resources determine
whether particular crops can grow and develop normally. For
example, the corn planted area has been significantly increased
with increased demand of corn ethanol (Kleiber, 2009). If we
do not evaluate climatic resource suitability before introducing
more corn seed and enlarging the planting area, the corn could
not be maturate normally. This would induce waste of resources,
and even food price fluctuation. Alternatively, if we attempt to
maximize climatic resources with the least amount of cost, we
can lay a foundation for the pursuit of the highest economic
benefit.
The prior crop will be less affected by climate change and it
could maximize climatic resources with the least amount of cost.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.010
1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
572 Z. Dong et al. / Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 571–577
We propose this as the primary theoretical basis for crop structure
adjustment.
2. Theoretical basis
Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to,
or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change including
climate variability and extremes (IPCC, 2001). According to this, the
agricultural vulnerability is the degree to which agriculture is sus-
ceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change
including climate variability and extremes. It can be simplified as
that the agricultural vulnerability to climate change is the impact
degree caused by climatic factors changes (Dong et al., 2015). If a
crop is vulnerable to a climatic factor, the crop will experience dis-
cernable impact when the climatic factor changes. If a crop is not
vulnerable, there are few adverse impacts.
Crops with lower vulnerability experience less adverse impacts
and can adapt to climate change effectively. However, vulnerability
evaluation does not explain why certain crop has lower vulnerabil-
ity due to the crop itself or the cost of agricultural technology. If
high cost is required for growing a crop, the sustainability of the
crop will be reduced. Therefore, we introduce the contribution rate
evaluation which is the method to separate the natural and human
impacts on crop production, and to assess the different influence
degrees of climatic factors and agricultural technology.
Vulnerability assessment would help us choose the crops with
lower vulnerability which could encounter less adverse impacts
from climate change. And the contribution rate evaluation would
help us choose the crops with higher climate change contribution
rates and lower agricultural technology contribution rates which
could maximize climatic resources with the minimal cost. Com-
prehensive evaluation of these results can be used to choose the
most suitable prior crop.
3. Quantitative methods
The agricultural vulnerability evaluation method used in this
study is based on the conceptual framework of vulnerability in IPCC
assessment reports (Formula (1)) where vulnerability (V) is a func-
tion of sensitivity (S), adaptive capacity (A), and exposure degree
(E) (IPCC, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014).
S∗E
V=
A Step 2: Calculating the trend yield Ya1 and climatic yield Yc1 for
In agricultural vulnerability evaluation, sensitivity (S) is defined
as how deeply agriculture is affected by climate-related stimuli,
whether adversely or beneficially (IPCC, 2001). And sensitive yield
(Ys, kg ha−1 ) is used to express sensitivity in agriculture, which
is the increase or decrease amount of the crop yield due to cli-
mate change (Dong et al., 2015). Adaptive capacity (A) is defined
as agricultural ability to adjust to climate change (including cli-
mate variability and extremes), moderate potential damages, take
advantage of opportunities, or cope with consequences (IPCC,
2001). Adaptive yield (Ya, kg ha−1 ) is used to express adaptive
capacity in agriculture, which is the difference between the actual
crop yield and sensitive yield. Because the actual crop yield is
the comprehensive result of climate change impacts and adaption,
the difference between the crop yield and the sensitive yield can
exactly reflect the degree of adaptation (Dong et al., 2015). Expo-
sure degree is defined as the range of agriculture exposed to climate
change and climate variability, which can be expressed by crop
planting area quantitatively (Dong et al., 2015).
Thus, agricultural vulnerability under climate change can be fur-
ther defined as (Formula (2)):
Ys ∗ E
V= (2)
Ya
Generally, agricultural yield can be decomposed into trend
yield and fluctuation yield. Trend yield (Yt) reflects the crop yield
component from productivity developing level for a long period.
Fluctuant yield reflects the crop yield component affected by the
fluctuation of climatic elements, and is also called the climatic yield
(Yc). The adaptive yield (Ya) has a corresponding relationship with
trend yield (Yt) and sensitive yield (Ys) has the same relationship
with negative climatic yield (Yc) (Dong et al., 2015). Thus, vulnera-
bility can also be expressed as:
−Yc ∗ E
V= (3)
Ya
Due to the difference of the vulnerabilities in the different
ranges, the unit vulnerability and the regional vulnerability are
defined. Unit vulnerability reflects the degree of crop affected by
climate change (Formula (4)). Regional vulnerability is unit vulner-
ability multiplied by the exposure degree (E) (Formula (5)) (Dong
et al., 2015).
Ys
Unit V = (4)
Ya
Ys ∗ E
Regional V = (5)
Ya
It’s very important to emphasize the concepts of the basic period
and the study period, which is the basis to highlight the impacts of
climate change and to assess agricultural vulnerability and con-
tribution rate. The basic period refers to the time before climate
mutated during which the climate environment is relatively stable.
The study period refers to the time after climate mutation during
which the climate changes and the crop has a distinct response to
the changes.
3.1. The steps of vulnerability evaluation (Dong et al., 2015)
Step 1: Determining the basic period and the study period.
According to the Mann–Kendall mutation test method
(Gerstengarbe and Werner, 1999; Zhang et al., 2006), the
year for mutated temperature is computed. The period
before mutation is identified as the basic period, and the
period after mutation is the study period.
(1)
every year in the basic period by linear regression model
(Wei, 1999; Qin, 2000). The relational equations of climatic
yield with temperature, precipitation, and multiple factors
are established.
Step 3: Simulating the climatic yield Yc2 for every year in the study
period (including temperature, precipitation, and multi-
ple factors) according to the equations with temperature,
precipitation, and multiple factors in the basic period. The
sensitive yield Ys is −Yc2. And the adaptive yield Ya2 is the
difference between the crop yield Y and the climatic yield
Yc2.
Step 4: Calculating the exposure degree. The exposure degree is the
ratio between the crop planting area in every study year and
the average planting area in the basic period.
Step 5: Calculating the vulnerability. Unit vulnerability is
[−Yc2/Ya2 = −Yc2/(Y − Yc2)], and includes tempera-
ture, precipitation and comprehensive vulnerability.
Regional vulnerability is the unit vulnerability multiplied
by exposure degree.
 Z. Dong et al. / Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 571–577
Fig. 1. Change trends in average annual temperature and precipitation in Wuchuan County from 1961 to 2010 and from 1991 to 2010.
Similar to the vulnerability evaluation, contribution rate eval-
uation (including climate change and agricultural technology) is
also based on the basic period and the study period. The dif-
ference in average yield between the study period and basic
period is used to reflect crop yield variation (Y). The differ-
ence in average climatic yield between the study period and
basic period (Yc2 − Yc1) is used to quantify the crop yield vari-
ation caused by changes of different climatic factors. The ratio
between (Yc2 − Yc1) and Y is the contribution rate of different
climatic factors Qc (Formula (6)). The difference in average adap-
tive yield between the study period and basic period (Ya2 − Ya1)
is used to quantify the crop yield variation caused by agricul-
tural technology change. The ratio between (Ya2 − Ya1) and Y
is the contribution rate of agricultural technology Qa (Formula
(7)).
(Yc2 − Yc1)
Qc =
Y
(Ya2 − Ya1)
Qa =
Y
The method above is used to compare the vulnerabilities and
contribution rates of different crops so as to select prior crop. We
selected the prior crop with combined lower vulnerability, higher
climate change contribution rate, and lower agricultural technol-
ogy contribution rate.
4. Case study
Wuchuan County in Inner Mongolia, China, a good represen-
tative of the semi-arid region, was chosen as the study area. It is
located in the center of Inner Mongolia from 40◦ 47 to 23◦ 41 N
and from 110◦ 31 to 111◦ 53 E. The altitude varies from 1500 to
2000 m and the average annual temperature is about 3.0 ◦ C. Annual
precipitation is between 250 and 400 mm and mainly concentrates
in the summer. Its agriculture is mainly rain-fed with one harvest
per year. The local main grain crops include spring wheat, potato,
naked oat, corn, millet, etc.
Spring wheat, potato, and naked oat, which are all the conven-
tional planting crops in Wuchuan County, were chosen for this
study. The yield and planting area data from 1961 to 2010 were
obtained from the local agriculture bureau. The average annual
573
temperature and annual precipitation were used as indicators for
crop structure adjustment because they are the key climatic factors
that influence agricultural production. Temperature and precipita-
tion data were observational data collected at the local weather
bureau from 1961 to 2010.
The climate data from Wuchuan County between 1961 and 2010
had a mutation in ∼1991 according to the Mann–Kendall mutation
test method. Thus, we identified the period from 1961 to 1990 as
the basic period and the period from 1991 to 2010 as the study
period.
Fig. 1 shows the climate change characteristic over the past 50
years, indicating that the average annual temperature in Wuchuan
County increased at an average rate of 0.44 ◦ C dec−1 (P < 0.01).
The temperature in the study period increased at an average rate
of 0.66 ◦ C dec−1 (P < 0.05). The precipitation during the past 50
years decreased at a rate of 8 mm dec−1 , but its change trend
was not significant. However, this decrease rate of precipita-
(6)
tion in the study period increased to an average of 30 mm dec−1 .
Overall, the local climate presented a warming and drying
(7) trend.
The changes of unit yield and planting area of spring wheat,
potato, and naked oat were shown in Figs. 2 and 3. During the
past 50 years, the unit yields of these three crops all presented
Fig. 2. Change trends in unit yield of spring wheat, potato, and naked oat in
Wuchuan County from 1961 to 2010.
574 Z. Dong et al. / Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 571–577
Fig. 3. Change trends in planting area of spring wheat, potato, and naked oat in
Wuchuan County from 1961 to 2010.
significant increasing trends (spring wheat average change rate
was 83.8 kg ha−1 dec−1 , P < 0.01; potato average change rate was
532.5 kg ha−1 dec−1 , P < 0.01; and naked oat average change rate
Fig. 4. Comparison of unit vulnerability of spring wheat, potato, and naked oat.
was 159.0 kg ha−1 dec−1 , P < 0.01). The potato unit yield was clearly
higher than spring wheat and naked oat after 1980.
Spring wheat and naked oat planting areas significantly
decreased over the past 50 years. However, the potato planting
area significantly increased. Before 1990, the planting area of spring
wheat was the most, followed by naked oat and potato. But after
1990, the potato planting area increased rapidly and exceeded
spring wheat in 1998.
We evaluated the unit vulnerabilities of the three crops
including unit temperature vulnerability (T–V), unit pre-
cipitation vulnerability (P–V), and unit comprehensive
vulnerability (TP–V) as shown in Fig. 4.
Unit temperature and comprehensive vulnerabilities of spring
wheat were higher than the vulnerabilities of naked oat and potato.
Unit precipitation vulnerability of naked oat was the highest. And
these vulnerabilities of potato were the lowest. All three crops were
more vulnerable to temperature (Fig. 4a) and comprehensive func-
tion of temperature and precipitation (Fig. 4c). All crops were less
vulnerable to precipitation (Fig. 4b).
We calculated the annual exposure degree during the study
year. The exposure degree of potato was much higher than spring
wheat and naked oat (Fig. 5).
 Z. Dong et al. / Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 571–577
Fig. 5. Comparison of exposure degrees of spring wheat, potato, and naked oat.
Multiplying exposure degree with unit vulnerability, we
obtained the regional vulnerability of the three crops (Fig. 6). Com-
paring with the vulnerabilities of spring wheat and naked oat, the
regional temperature, precipitation and their comprehensive vul-
nerabilities of potato were all the highest. Since potato had lower
Fig. 6. Comparison of regional vulnerabilities of spring wheat, potato, and naked oat.
575
unit vulnerability, its planting area expansion provided an effective
measure to adapt to climate change. Conversely, the planting areas
of crops with higher unit vulnerability, such as spring wheat and
naked oat, should be reduced to decrease the influence of climate
change.
And then, we compared the contribution rates of the three crops.
Crops with higher climate change contribution rate can maximize
climatic resources. And analysis above shows that potato had lower
unit vulnerability, but it did not explain why. If the reason is the
higher agricultural technology contribution rate, it will result in
higher cost and reduce sustainability.
Fig. 7 shows climate change contribution rate of the three
crops. Temperature, precipitation, and their comprehensive func-
tion all had negative contributions to the three crops. The climate
change contribution rates of potato were the highest and spring
wheat were the lowest. The agricultural technology contribution
rate mainly addresses the adverse impacts of climate change and
provides positive contribution. The agricultural technology contri-
bution rates of spring wheat were the highest and potato were the
lowest.
576 Z. Dong et al. / Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 571–577
Fig. 7. Contribution rates comparison of temperature, precipitation and climate change with agricultural technology of spring wheat, potato, and naked oat.
Combining vulnerability with contribution rates, potato had the
lowest unit vulnerability, the highest climate change contribution
rate, and the lowest agricultural technology contribution rate. This
indicates that the choice of potato as the prior crop was an effective
measure to cope with the adverse impacts of climate change and
maximize climatic resources at a lower cost.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Crop structure adjustment is one of the most important meth-
ods for adapting to climate change effectively with a minimal
amount of time and resources. Current research regarding crop
structure adjustment mostly used the field survey method that
mainly focuses on farmers’ perceptions and adaptations to climate
change (Eastering, 1996; Howden et al., 2007). Researchers sum-
marized reasons for crop choices according to farmers’ interview
and different statistical analysis methods (Liu et al., 2013; Guo et al.,
2014; Mendelsohn, 2000; Xia et al., 2013) and then compared the
tendencies of farmers under different climate change characteris-
tics (Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2006; Seo and Mendelsohn,
2008). This method has a high level of accuracy and persuasion
because the data is acquired firsthand. However, this method only
provides a higher level of explanation for a short time in a spe-
cific area. And a large amount of manpower and material resources
are required to study in a large area over a long period with this
approach. This will result in its poor generality. This method has
substantial questionnaire design requirements as the data avail-
ability limited by complex problem. The questionnaire must cover
all the main aspects of the influencing factors. And the questions
should be easily understood and not misleading. Additionally, data
analysis involves different analytical methods that produce differ-
ent types of results, which results in poor comparability.
This study proposes the primary theoretical basis for crop struc-
ture adjustment under climate change is the prior crop must be less
susceptible to climate change and capable of maximizing climatic
resources at a minimal cost. Using the indicators of vulnerability,
climate change contribution rate and agricultural technology con-
tribution rate, we propose an effective method for crop structure
adjustment. Selecting prior crop with lower vulnerability, higher
climate change contribution rate and lower agricultural technol-
ogy contribution rate can manage the adverse impacts of climate
change effectively and maximize climatic resources with less cost.
Comparison shows this method has obvious advantages. The
impacts of climate change and agricultural technology on crops
production are considered separately and the evaluation of results
is relatively comprehensive and objective. The climatic factors
 Z. Dong et al. / Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 571–577
and agricultural production data used in this method is acquired
relatively simply. Therefore, this method may ensure higher gen-
eralizability and comparability on a regional scale. According to the
basic period and the study period, we could highlight the impacts
of climate change. Compared with the published paper which
focus on the introduction of the vulnerability assessment method
(Dong et al., 2015), this paper place emphasis on the practical
application of this method, and we demonstrate its practicability
with the comparison of different crops.
The case study demonstrated this method is feasible and prac-
ticable. The results showed that the annual average temperature
in Wuchuan County rose significantly over the past 50 years and
more significantly in the past 20 years. The local annual precip-
itation had a reducing trend in the past 50 years. Therefore, the
local climate showed a warming and drying trend. Unit tempera-
ture and comprehensive vulnerabilities of spring wheat were the
highest compared with the vulnerabilities of naked oat and potato.
Unit precipitation vulnerability of naked oat was the highest. And
these vulnerabilities of potato were the lowest. All three crops were
more vulnerable to temperature and the comprehensive function
of temperature and precipitation. The temperature, precipitation
and their comprehensive contribution rates were all negative for
the three crops. The climate change contribution rates of potato
were the highest and those of spring wheat were the lowest. The
agricultural technology contribution rates of spring wheat were
the highest and those of potato were the lowest. Since potato has
lower unit vulnerability, higher climate change contribution rate,
and lower agricultural technology contribution rate, the choice of
potato as the prior crop for Wuchuan County was an effective
measure to address the adverse impacts of climate change and
maximize climatic resources at a lower cost.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Basic Research
Program of China (no. 2012CB956204), the Non-profit Research
Foundation for Meteorology of China (no. GYHY201506016), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 41371232
and 41271110), the Non-profit Research Foundation for Agriculture
of China (no. 201103039), and the National Science and Technology
Support Program of China (no. 2012BAD09B02).
References
Dong, Z.Q., Pan, Z.H., An, P.L., Wang, L.W., Zhang, J.T., He, D., Han, H.J., Pan, X.B.,
2015. A novel method for quantitatively evaluating agricultural vulnerability
to climate change. Ecol. Indic. 48, 49–54.
Eastering, W.E., 1996. North American agriculture to climate change in review.
Agric. For. Meteorol. 80 (1), 1–53.
Gerstengarbe, F.W., Werner, P.C., 1999. Estimation of the beginning and end of
recurrent events within a climate regime. Clim. Res. 11, 97–107.
577
Guo, L.X., Zhang, B., Feng, J.M., Dong, L.L., 2014. Household crop choices and crop
spatial patterns in arid Gansu Province. Resour. Sci. 36 (10), 2194–2202.
Hao, H.G., Li, X.B., Tan, M.H., Zhao, Y.L., 2011. An analysis in crops choice and its
driving factors in the Agro-Pastoral Ecotone in Northern China—a case of
household survey in Taibus County, Inner Mongolia. J. Nat. Resour. 7 (7),
1107–1118.
Howden, S.M., Soussana, J.F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., 2007. Adapting
agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (50),
19691–19696.
IPCC, 1995. Technical summary. In: Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., Moss, R.H. (Eds.),
Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IPCC, 2001. Technical summary. In: White, K.S., Ahmad, Q.K., Anisimov, O., et al.
(Eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
IPCC, 2007. Technical summary. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., et al.
(Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
IPCC, 2014. Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral
aspects. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., et al. (Eds.), Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kleiber, K., 2009. The effect of ethanol-driven corn demand on crop choice. In:
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2009 Annual Meeting,
Milwaukee, WI.
Kurukulasuriya, P., Mendelsohn, R., 2006. Crop Selection: Adapting to Climate
Change in Africa. University of Pretoria, Preroria.
Liang, S.M., Meng, Z., Bai, S., 2008. Study on the changes of Chinese planting
structure based on survey in villages. Issues Agric. Econ. (Suppl. 1), 26–31.
Liu, Z.H., Yang, P., Wu, W.B., Li, Z.G., Tang, P.Q., Li, Z.P., Yu, Q.Y., Xia, T., Tang, H.J.,
2013. Impact of natural-environmental factors on the crop choices of
households—a case study in Binxian County of Heilongjiang Province. Sci.
Agric. Sin. 46 (15), 3238–3247.
Mendelsohn, R., 2000. Efficient adaptation to climate change. Clim. Change 45 (3),
583–600.
Qin, J., 2000. Relationship between climatic factors and grain production in Yunnan
province. Q. J. Appl. Meteorol. 11 (2), 213–220.
Seo, S.N., Mendelsohn, R., 2008. An analysis of crop choice: adapting to climate
change in South American farms. Ecol. Econ. 67 (1), 109–116.
Wei, F.Y., 1999. Modern Climatic Statistical Diagnosis and Prediction Technology.
China Meteorological Press, Beijing, pp. 59–79.
Wu, W.B., Yang, P., Meng, C.Y., Ryosuke, S., Zhou, Q.B., Tang, H.J., Shi, Y., 2008. An
integrated model to simulate sown area changes for major crops at a global
scale. Sci. China Ser. D: Earth Sci. 51 (3), 370–379.
Xia, T., Wu, W.B., Tang, H.J., Zhou, Q.B., Yang, P., Li, Z.G., Liu, Z.H., Yu, Q.Y., 2013.
Influencing mechanism of family attributes on choosing crops—a case study in
Binxian County of Heilongjiang Province. Sci. Agric. Sin. 46 (15), 3257–3265.
Zhang, Q., Liu, C.L., Xu, C.Y., Xu, Y.P., Jiang, T., 2006. Observed trends of annual
maximum water level and streamflow during past 130 years in the Yangtze
River basin, China. J. Hydrol. 324, 255–265.