No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Global greening over the past 30 years since 1980s has been confirmed by numerous studies. However, a single-dimensional indicator and non-spatial modelling approaches might exacerbate uncertainties in our understanding of global change. Thus, comprehensive monitoring for vegetation’s various properties and spatially explicit models are required. In this study, we used the newest enhanced vegetation index (EVI) products of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Collection 6 to detect the inconsistency trend of annual peak and average global vegetation growth using the Mann–Kendall test method. We explored the climatic factors that affect vegetation growth change from 2001 to 2018 using the spatial lag model (SLM), spatial error model (SEM) and geographically weighted regression model (GWR). The results showed that EVImax and EVImean in global vegetated areas consistently showed linear increasing trends during 2001–2018, with the global averaged trend of 0.0022 yr−1 (p < 0.05) and 0.0030 yr−1 (p < 0.05). Greening mainly occurred in the croplands and forests of China, India, North America and Europe, while browning was almost in the grasslands of Brazil and Africa (18.16% vs. 3.08% and 40.73% vs. 2.45%). In addition, 32.47% of the global vegetated area experienced inconsistent trends in EVImax and EVImean. Overall, precipitation and mean temperature had positive impacts on vegetation variation, while potential evapotranspiration and vapour pressure had negative impacts. The GWR revealed that the responses of EVI to climate change were inconsistent in an arid or humid area, in cropland or grassland. Climate change could affect vegetation characteristics by changing plant phenology, consequently rendering the inconsistency between peak and mean greening. In addition, anthropogenic activities, including land cover change and land use management, also could lead to the differences between annual peak and mean vegetation variations.

Operationalization of sustainability assessments is necessary to promote the sustainable development of agroecosystems. However, primarily, focus has been on the development of sustainability assessment tools with less attention on whether these are suitable for adoption and implementation in specific areas. This drawback could lead to inappropriate management guidance for agricultural practices. Hence, three extensively used models, i.e., the Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework, ecological footprint (EF), and emergy analysis (EMA), were applied to quantify the sustainability performance of the agroecosystems in 27 cities in the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration (YRDUA), China, in 2016. The models were compared using the Pearson correlation analysis and natural break method, to determine a more adaptive method for agricultural sustainability assessments. The level of agricultural sustainable development of each city varied according to the methodology considered for its calculation. Compared with the EMA model, the DPSIR and EF models showed a better relationship (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.71). The DPSIR model more accurately represented regional rankings of the agricultural sustainability at the municipality level due to its comprehensive consideration of multiple dimension factors and significance for policy making. However, each methodology has its own contribution depending on the study objectives. Hence, different models should be used for adequate determination of agricultural sustainable development at different regional scales; this would also enable better implementation of agricultural practices as well as policies in any given agricultural area for promoting the sustainable development of agroecosystems.