| Literature DB >> 35308278 |
Wanni Yang1,2,3, Haiwei Jia4, Chao Wang5, Haojia Wang6, Chuanzhun Sun4.
Abstract
Household food consumption is the associative link between ecosystems and anthropogenic activities. In grassland areas, inappropriate food consumption patterns will cause irreversible damage to vulnerable local ecosystems. For this study, we selected three typical transitional grassland areas of Inner Mongolia, China (i.e., meadow steppe, typical steppe, and desert steppe), to analyze spatial heterogeneity in household food consumption and nutritional characteristics. Results showed that: (a) Food consumption structures exhibited zonal gradients from east to west alongside a reduction in grassland conditions. Additionally, the average food consumption quantity also decreased. Available food supplies altered household preferences for vegetables and fruits, meat, dairy products, and other food consumption category types. (b) The nutritional structure implied that grains provided the main source of energy, proteins, and fat for local rural households, while meat, dairy products, beans (including bean byproducts), and oils caused a fluctuation in the nutritional structure of residents. (c) Local food supplies affect short-term local food consumption patterns, while socioeconomic development affects long-term food consumption patterns. This study is intended to provide a reference for the development of sustainable strategies for regional resource management.Entities:
Keywords: Inner Mongolia; Mongolian Plateau (MP); food consumption patterns; food nutrition; grassland areas comparations
Year: 2022 PMID: 35308278 PMCID: PMC8924594 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.810485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Location of study sites in Inner Mongolia and the dominant land-use types. Source: data center for Resource and Environment Data Platform of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) (http://www.resdc.cn).
Basic information about the study areas (2012).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hulun Buir | Meadow steppe | 25.3 | 253.4 | 9.1 | 69.0 | 1335.8 | 52,649 | 8,807 |
| Xilin Gol | Typical steppe | 20.3 | 102.0 | 30.8 | 45.6 | 820.2 | 79,105 | 8,925 |
| Ordos | Desert steppe | 8.7 | 104.1 | 12.8 | 31.6 | 3656.8 | 182,680 | 11,416 |
Source: statistical yearbooks of Hulun Buir, Xilin Gol, and Ordos (.
Data and sources used in this study.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Food consumption data of rural residents | Food consumption quantity and structure of rural residents | (1) Statistical yearbook of Hulun Buir ( |
| Land use data | Study area location and land use data | (1) Data Center for Resources and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (1 × 1 km, |
| Food nutrition data | Data on energy, fat, and protein content of each food type in China | China Food Composition ( |
| Ecological and socio-economic characteristic data of the study sites | Indicators such as NPP, NDVI, grassland type, grassland area, residenthousehold rearing structure, household income, ethnic population composition, family size, regional transportation facilities, residential housing, etc. | (1) NPP and NDVI data obtain from Data Center for Resources |
| Food consumption | Food consumption quantity | FAO database ( |
The main food types and items consumed by rural residents at the study sites.
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Wheat | Pork | Milk |
| Rice | Beef | Dried milk cake |
| Corn | Mutton | Other dairy products |
| Broomcorn | Poultry |
|
| Millet | Meat and poultry products (MPP) | Liquor and spirits |
| Other cereals | Fish | Beer |
| Sweet potato |
| Fruit wine |
| Potato | Root tubers |
|
| Other yams | Snake melon (i.e., Armenian cucumber) | Vegetable oil |
|
| Nightshade | Animal oil |
| Chicken eggs | Cabbage |
|
| Duck eggs | Leafy greens | Soybean |
| Other eggs | Other fresh vegetables | Other beans |
|
| Dried vegetables | Soy products |
| Melon |
| |
| Fruit | Tea | |
| Sugar | ||
Nutritional content of food types (content per 100 g of edible food).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Wheat | 339.0 | 11.9 | 1.3 | Melon | 27.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Rice | 347.0 | 7.4 | 0.8 | Fruit | 94.9 | 0.9 | 0.2 |
| Corn | 112.0 | 4.0 | 1.2 |
| |||
| Broomcorn | 360 | 10.4 | 3.1 | Root tubers | 36.9 | 3.3 | 0.2 |
| Millet | 361 | 9 | 3.1 | Snake melon | 311.6 | 12.5 | 4.6 |
| Other cereals | 376 | 12.2 | 7.2 | Nightshade | 49.5 | 7.3 | 0.3 |
| Sweet potato | 102 | 1.1 | 0.2 | Cabbage | 153.2 | 13.1 | 1.7 |
| Potato | 77 | 2 | 0.2 | Leafy greens | 277.0 | 20.8 | 2.5 |
| Other yams | 119 | 2.1 | 0.3 | Other fresh vegetables | 23.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
|
| Dried vegetable | 36.9 | 3.3 | 0.2 | |||
| Chicken eggs | 144.0 | 13.3 | 8.8 |
| |||
| Duck eggs | 180.0 | 12.6 | 13.0 | Milk | 54.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Other eggs | 162 | 10.9 | 12.95 | Dried milk cake | 305.0 | 46.2 | 7.8 |
|
| Other dairy products | 235.7 | 19.3 | 5.4 | |||
| Pork | 395.0 | 13.2 | 37.0 |
| |||
| Beef | 125.0 | 19.9 | 4.2 | Liquor and spirits | 351.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Mutton | 203.0 | 19.0 | 14.1 | Beer | 32.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Poultry | 203.5 | 17.4 | 14.6 | Fruit wine | 72.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Meat and poultry products | 231.6 | 17.4 | 17.5 |
| |||
| Fish | 103.0 | 16.6 | 3.3 | Vegetable oil | 898.0 | 0.0 | 99.7 |
|
| Animal oil | 828.7 | 0.0 | 89.57 | |||
| Soybean | 390.0 | 35.0 | 16.0 |
| |||
| Other beans | 365.5 | 29.0 | 8.2 | Sugar | 400.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Bean byproducts | 189.3 | 19.2 | 8.7 | Tea | 283.0 | 14.5 | 4.0 |
Source: China Food Composition (.
Figure 2The food consumption structure of residents (2000–2012). Data source: Statistical yearbooks from 2000 to 2012 that were assorted and calculated by the authors of this study. (A) Hulun Buir, (B) Xilin Gol, (C) Ordos.
Quantities of annual food types consumed by rural residents at all three study sites and one-way ANOVA test results.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.71 | 0.195 | 164.80 | 574.16 | 186.77 | 445.80 | 173.00 | 1794.52 |
|
| ||||||||
| Vegetables | 46.11 | <0.001 | 80.61 | 234.65 | 45.57 | 58.68 | 42.59 | 84.82 |
| Fruits | 3.66 | 0.036 | 15.79 | 6.93 | 9.05 | 4.72 | 15.19 | 136.29 |
|
| ||||||||
| Meat | 19.26 | <0.001 | 18.03 | 15.75 | 28.14 | 46.80 | 40.07 | 182.09 |
| Fish | 236.21 | <0.001 | 3.01 | 0.25 | 0.63 | 0.02 | 0.60 | 0.04 |
|
| ||||||||
| Milk & Dairy | 51.93 | <0.001 | 6.36 | 14.48 | 25.00 | 76.94 | 3.98 | 7.71 |
| Eggs | 84.12 | <0.001 | 5.93 | 1.08 | 1.61 | 0.17 | 1.73 | 1.57 |
|
| ||||||||
| Alcohol | 40.29 | <0.001 | 15.85 | 15.76 | 10.77 | 1.98 | 6.75 | 2.37 |
| Tea | 3.64 | 0.036 | 1.45 | 1.93 | 4.42 | 42.67 | 0.48 | 0.65 |
| Bean and bean byproducts | 8.98 | 0.001 | 9.22 | 74.21 | 1.24 | 1.13 | 2.94 | 1.28 |
| Oil | 31.12 | <0.001 | 6.89 | 4.35 | 2.11 | 0.78 | 2.84 | 3.16 |
| Sugar | 7.81 | 0.002 | 0.89 | 0.01 | 1.39 | 0.07 | 1.04 | 0.25 |
Significance (one way ANOVA): ns, not significant;
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01, and
p < 0.001. “a,” “b,” and “c” show the significant difference among study sites at 5% level.
Meat consumed by residents at all three study sites (2000–2012 averages).
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Mutton | 35.54 | <0.001 | 1.62 | 0.92 | 13.33 | 13.63 | 12.60 | 34.09 | |
| Beef | 18.79 | <0.001 | 1.90 | 1.62 | 5.66 | 2.43 | 3.21 | 3.52 | |
| Chicken | 9.72 | 0.001 | 2.23 | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.13 | 2.29 | 2.18 | |
| Pork | 40.65 | <0.001 | 12.20 | 4.42 | 8.36 | 10.44 | 21.97 | 32.35 | |
| Fish | 236.21 | <0.001 | 3.01 | 0.25 | 0.63 | 0.02 | 0.60 | 0.04 | |
Significance (ANOVA): ns, not significant;
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001. “a,” “b,” and “c” show the significant difference among study sites at 5% level.
Figure 3Nutritional characteristics of rural residents in three study sites (2000–2012). (A–C) Energy intake of rural residents. (D–F) Protein intake of rural residents. (G–I) Fat intake of rural residents. Data source: calculated by the authors.
NPP, NDVI, grassland, and cropland areas of the three study sites (2000–2012 averages).
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| NPP (gC/m2yr) | 177.85 | <0.001 | 299.16 | 791.54 | 191.44 | 374.51 | 129.96 | 318.68 |
| NDVI | 475.37 | <0.001 | 0.2608 | 0.0002 | 0.1689 | <0.0001 | 0.1391 | <0.0001 |
| Grassland areas (km2) | 16618.27 | <0.001 | 84855.79 | 9741.12 | 135534.62 | 681132.42 | 77177.24 | 1581128.34 |
| Cropland areas (km2) | 934392.38 | <0.001 | 32017.73 | 6498.76 | 3767.74 | 4265.50 | 3390.95 | 489.09 |
Significance (one-way ANOVA): ns, not significant;
p < 0.001. “a,” “b,” and “c” show the significant difference among study sites at 5% level.
Sources: European Space Agency (.
Production patterns of rural residents under existent natural resources (2012).
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| % of grassland area | 38.3 | 81.8 | 59.7 |
|
| |||
| Total pasture area (km2) | 813,374 | 176,556 | 58,264 |
| Pasture area per capita | 1.03 | 0.32 | 0.06 |
| (km2) | |||
|
| |||
| Sheep | 2.35 | 4.85 | 1.69 |
| Cattle | 0.40 | 0.80 | 0.14 |
| Horse | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.01 |
| Pig | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.28 |
Grassland % data were calculated from 2012 land-use data.
Sources: European Space Agency (.
Relationships between NPP and food consumption among grassland transects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Hulun Buir | −0.228 | −0.277 | 0.058 | 0.021 | 0.028 | 0.016 | 0.037 | 0.012 | 0.055 | 0.024 | 0.099 | −0.031 | 0.010 | 0.050 | 0.000 |
| (0.193) | (0.143) | (0.021) | (0.008) | (0.010) | (0.008) | (0.020) | (0.003) | (0.038) | (0.008) | (0.027) | (0.011) | (0.029) | (0.016) | (0.001) | |
| Xilingol | 0.048 | −0.003 | 0.062 | −0.022 | 0.013 | 0.011 | −0.028 | 0.001 | 0.103 | 0.017 | 0.018 | −0.018 | −0.016 | 0.008 | −0.006 |
| (0.296) | (0.117) | (0.025) | (0.053) | (0.024) | (0.004) | (0.048) | (0.002) | (0.062) | (0.004) | (0.018) | (0.101) | (0.016) | (0.011) | (0.003) | |
| Ordos | 0.743 | 0.357 | 0.209 | 0.096 | 0.044 | 0.049 | 0.185 | 0.006 | 0.067 | 0.046 | −0.028 | 0.010 | 0.023 | 0.011 | −0.022 |
| (0.645) | (0.116) | (0.181) | (0.089) | (0.028) | (0.019) | (0.069) | (0.003) | (0.040) | (0.015) | (0.023) | (0.013) | (0.015) | (0.027) | (0.005) |
Sources: calculated by authors, regression with Tobit model.
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Figure 4Chinese food consumption and nutritional structure between 2000 and 2012. Data source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Arranged and calculated by the authors of this study. (A) China—Food consumption quantity, (B) China—Energy, (C) China—Protein, (D) China—Fat.
Meat consumption quantity of Chinese rural residents (average values from 2000 to 2012) (kg).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mutton | 0.78 | 0.03 | 0.90 | 0.60 |
| Beef | 0.65 | 0.05 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Chicken | 3.68 | 0.18 | 4.50 | 2.80 |
| Pork | 14.00 | 0.24 | 12.70 | 2.90 |
| Fish | 4.88 | 0.14 | 5.40 | 3.90 |
| Meat and poultry products | 20.75 | 0.52 | 23.50 | 18.20 |
Data source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.
Figure 5Food consumption and nutritional structure of residents in other typical grassland countries or regions. Data source: FAO database (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data). (A-1) UK—food consumption quantity, (A-2) UK—nutrition, (B-1) New Zealand—food consumption quantity, (B-2) New Zealand—nutrition, (C-1) Mongolia—food consumption quantity, (C-2) Mongolia—nutrition, (D-1) Kazakhstan—food consumption quantity, (D-2) Kazakhstan—nutrition, (E-1) Argentina—food consumption quantity, (E-2) Argentina—Nutrition.