

Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (12): 3112-3120.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.027
• Crop Genetics and Breeding · Cultivation Physiology · Germplasm Resources • Previous Articles
YU Liyan1, MU Yueying2(
), DING Jianguo3
Received:2022-02-10
Online:2022-12-20
Published:2023-01-30
Correspondence author:
MU Yueying
Supported by:通讯作者:
穆月英
作者简介:于丽艳(1977-),女,博士研究生,副教授,研究方向为农业经济理论与政策,(E-mail)
基金资助:CLC Number:
YU Liyan, MU Yueying, DING Jianguo. Research on Horizontal Integration and Vertical Integration of Tomato Market of Five Provinces and Cities in the Bohai Sea Rim[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(12): 3112-3120.
于丽艳, 穆月英, 丁建国. 环渤海五省市番茄市场横向整合与纵向整合分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12): 3112-3120.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.xjnykx.com/EN/10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.027
| Variables | Obs | Mean | Std.Dev. | Min | Max | Skew. | Kurt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 北京番茄批发价 Beijing | 464 | 2.04 | 0.585 | 1.1 | 3.675 | 0.438 | 2.202 |
| 天津番茄批发价 Tianjin | 464 | 2.426 | 0.801 | 1.125 | 4.3 | 0.37 | 1.915 |
| 河北番茄批发价 Hebei | 464 | 1.897 | 0.768 | 0.725 | 3.5 | 0.337 | 1.785 |
| 辽宁番茄批发价 Liaoning | 464 | 2.302 | 0.696 | 1.238 | 4.125 | 0.508 | 2.457 |
| 山东番茄批发价 Shandong | 464 | 2.023 | 0.738 | 0.8 | 3.625 | 0.537 | 2.183 |
| 北京超市番茄零售价格 Beijing Supermarket | 464 | 3.979 | 1.097 | 2.46 | 6.39 | 0.448 | 1.865 |
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of tomato wholesale prices in five provinces and cities and Beijing tomato retail prices
| Variables | Obs | Mean | Std.Dev. | Min | Max | Skew. | Kurt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 北京番茄批发价 Beijing | 464 | 2.04 | 0.585 | 1.1 | 3.675 | 0.438 | 2.202 |
| 天津番茄批发价 Tianjin | 464 | 2.426 | 0.801 | 1.125 | 4.3 | 0.37 | 1.915 |
| 河北番茄批发价 Hebei | 464 | 1.897 | 0.768 | 0.725 | 3.5 | 0.337 | 1.785 |
| 辽宁番茄批发价 Liaoning | 464 | 2.302 | 0.696 | 1.238 | 4.125 | 0.508 | 2.457 |
| 山东番茄批发价 Shandong | 464 | 2.023 | 0.738 | 0.8 | 3.625 | 0.537 | 2.183 |
| 北京超市番茄零售价格 Beijing Supermarket | 464 | 3.979 | 1.097 | 2.46 | 6.39 | 0.448 | 1.865 |
| 变量名称 Variable | ADF统计量 ADF statistics | P值 P-value | 结论 Conclusion | 变量名称 Variable | ADF统计量 ADF statistics | P值 P-value | 结论 Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fqbj | -2.274 | 0.1805 | 不平稳 | △fqbj | -21.357 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqtj | -1.645 | 0.4599 | 不平稳 | △fqtj | -21.796 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqhb | -1.278 | 0.6391 | 不平稳 | △fqhb | -23.353 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqln | -1.669 | 0.4473 | 不平稳 | △fqln | -21.796 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqshd | -1.003 | 0.7523 | 不平稳 | △fqln | -19.263 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| bjchshf | -0.173 | 0.9416 | 不平稳 | △bjchshf | -19.263 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
Table 2 Stationarity Test of Tomato Wholesale Price Series
| 变量名称 Variable | ADF统计量 ADF statistics | P值 P-value | 结论 Conclusion | 变量名称 Variable | ADF统计量 ADF statistics | P值 P-value | 结论 Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fqbj | -2.274 | 0.1805 | 不平稳 | △fqbj | -21.357 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqtj | -1.645 | 0.4599 | 不平稳 | △fqtj | -21.796 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqhb | -1.278 | 0.6391 | 不平稳 | △fqhb | -23.353 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqln | -1.669 | 0.4473 | 不平稳 | △fqln | -21.796 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| fqshd | -1.003 | 0.7523 | 不平稳 | △fqln | -19.263 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| bjchshf | -0.173 | 0.9416 | 不平稳 | △bjchshf | -19.263 | 0.0000 | 平稳 |
| 地区 Region | 协整秩 Cointegration rank H0 | 特征值 Eigenvalue | 迹统计量Trace statistic | 最大特征值统计量Max statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | |||
| 北京-天津 Beijng-Tianjin | r=0 | — | 35.061 | 15.41 | 31.887 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.067 | 3.175* | 3.76 | 3.175 | 3.76 | |
| 北京-河北 Beijing-Hebei | r=0 | — | 32.268 | 15.41 | 31.130 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.065 | 1.137* | 3.76 | 1.137 | 3.76 | |
| 北京-辽宁 Beijing-Liaoning | r=0 | — | 30.336 | 15.41 | 28.049 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.059 | 2.287* | 3.76 | 2.287 | 3.76 | |
| 北京-山东 Beijing-Shandong | r=0 | — | 32.187 | 15.41 | 30.843 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.065 | 1.344* | 3.76 | 1.344 | 3.76 | |
| 天津-河北 Tianjn-Hebei | r=0 | — | 33.99 | 15.41 | 32.692 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.068 | 1.2954* | 3.76 | 1.295 | 3.76 | |
| 天津-辽宁 Tianjn-Liaoning | r=0 | — | 4.331* | 15.41 | 12.497 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.027 | 1.833 | 3.76 | 1.833 | 3.76 | |
| 天津-山东 Tianjn-Shandong | r=0 | — | 29.637 | 15.41 | 28.445 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.060 | 1.193* | 3.76 | 1.193 | 3.76 | |
| 辽宁-河北 Liaoning-Hebei | r=0 | — | 17.872 | 15.41 | 16.895 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.036 | 0.977* | 3.76 | 0.977 | 3.76 | |
| 河北、山东 Hebei-Shandong | r=0 | — | 12.384* | 15.41 | 11.402 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.024 | 0.982 | 3.76 | 0.982 | 3.76 | |
| 辽宁-山东 Liaoning-Shandong | r=0 | — | 14.276* | 15.41 | 13.050 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.028 | 1.226 | 3.76 | 1.226 | 3.76 | |
Table 3 Cointegration Test of Tomato Wholesale Price
| 地区 Region | 协整秩 Cointegration rank H0 | 特征值 Eigenvalue | 迹统计量Trace statistic | 最大特征值统计量Max statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | |||
| 北京-天津 Beijng-Tianjin | r=0 | — | 35.061 | 15.41 | 31.887 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.067 | 3.175* | 3.76 | 3.175 | 3.76 | |
| 北京-河北 Beijing-Hebei | r=0 | — | 32.268 | 15.41 | 31.130 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.065 | 1.137* | 3.76 | 1.137 | 3.76 | |
| 北京-辽宁 Beijing-Liaoning | r=0 | — | 30.336 | 15.41 | 28.049 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.059 | 2.287* | 3.76 | 2.287 | 3.76 | |
| 北京-山东 Beijing-Shandong | r=0 | — | 32.187 | 15.41 | 30.843 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.065 | 1.344* | 3.76 | 1.344 | 3.76 | |
| 天津-河北 Tianjn-Hebei | r=0 | — | 33.99 | 15.41 | 32.692 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.068 | 1.2954* | 3.76 | 1.295 | 3.76 | |
| 天津-辽宁 Tianjn-Liaoning | r=0 | — | 4.331* | 15.41 | 12.497 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.027 | 1.833 | 3.76 | 1.833 | 3.76 | |
| 天津-山东 Tianjn-Shandong | r=0 | — | 29.637 | 15.41 | 28.445 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.060 | 1.193* | 3.76 | 1.193 | 3.76 | |
| 辽宁-河北 Liaoning-Hebei | r=0 | — | 17.872 | 15.41 | 16.895 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.036 | 0.977* | 3.76 | 0.977 | 3.76 | |
| 河北、山东 Hebei-Shandong | r=0 | — | 12.384* | 15.41 | 11.402 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.024 | 0.982 | 3.76 | 0.982 | 3.76 | |
| 辽宁-山东 Liaoning-Shandong | r=0 | — | 14.276* | 15.41 | 13.050 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.028 | 1.226 | 3.76 | 1.226 | 3.76 | |
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | 协整系数 Cointegration coefficient | 误差调整系数 Error adjustment coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | |||
| 北京 Beijing | 天津 Tianjin | 0.791*** (0.090) | -0.044*** (0.017) | 0.062*** (0.016) |
| 北京 Beijing | 河北 Hebei | 0.623*** (0.059) | -0.095*** (0.020) | 0.020 (0.022) |
| 北京 Beijing | 辽宁 Liaoning | 0.905*** (0.105) | -0.060*** (0.017) | 0.042*** (0.015) |
| 北京 Beijing | 山东 Shandong | 0.693*** (0.074) | -0.088*** (0.021) | 0.018 (0.015) |
| 天津 Tianjin | 河北 Hebei | 0.769*** (0.072) | -0.074*** (0.016) | 0.019 (0.019) |
| 天津 Tianjin | 山东 Shandong | 0.922*** (0.077) | -0.077*** (0.017) | 0.024 (0.023) |
| 辽宁 Liaoning | 河北 Hebei | 0.652*** (0.101) | -0.044*** (0.013) | 0.024 (0.017) |
Table 4 Regression Results of Error Correction Model for Tomato Wholesale Price
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | 协整系数 Cointegration coefficient | 误差调整系数 Error adjustment coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | |||
| 北京 Beijing | 天津 Tianjin | 0.791*** (0.090) | -0.044*** (0.017) | 0.062*** (0.016) |
| 北京 Beijing | 河北 Hebei | 0.623*** (0.059) | -0.095*** (0.020) | 0.020 (0.022) |
| 北京 Beijing | 辽宁 Liaoning | 0.905*** (0.105) | -0.060*** (0.017) | 0.042*** (0.015) |
| 北京 Beijing | 山东 Shandong | 0.693*** (0.074) | -0.088*** (0.021) | 0.018 (0.015) |
| 天津 Tianjin | 河北 Hebei | 0.769*** (0.072) | -0.074*** (0.016) | 0.019 (0.019) |
| 天津 Tianjin | 山东 Shandong | 0.922*** (0.077) | -0.077*** (0.017) | 0.024 (0.023) |
| 辽宁 Liaoning | 河北 Hebei | 0.652*** (0.101) | -0.044*** (0.013) | 0.024 (0.017) |
| 地区 Region | 协整秩 Cointegration rank H0 | 特征值 Eigenvalue | 迹统计量Trace statistic | 最大特征值统计量Max statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | |||
| 天津-北京 Tianjin-Beijing | r=0 | — | 37.088 | 15.41 | 36.354 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.076 | 0.734* | 3.76 | 0.734 | 3.76 | |
| 河北-北京 Hebei-Beijing | r=0 | — | 36.195 | 15.41 | 35.457 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.074 | 0.738* | 3.76 | 0.738 | 3.76 | |
| 辽宁-北京 Liaoning-Beijing | r=0 | — | 13.690* | 15.41 | 13.221 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.028 | 0.469 | 3.76 | 0.469 | 3.76 | |
| 山东-北京 Shandong-Beijing | r=0 | — | 25.680 | 15.41 | 24.729 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.052 | 0.950* | 3.76 | 0.950 | 3.76 | |
Table 5 Cointegration Test of Tomato Wholesale Prices and Retail Prices
| 地区 Region | 协整秩 Cointegration rank H0 | 特征值 Eigenvalue | 迹统计量Trace statistic | 最大特征值统计量Max statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | 统计量 Statistic | 5%临界值 5% critical value | |||
| 天津-北京 Tianjin-Beijing | r=0 | — | 37.088 | 15.41 | 36.354 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.076 | 0.734* | 3.76 | 0.734 | 3.76 | |
| 河北-北京 Hebei-Beijing | r=0 | — | 36.195 | 15.41 | 35.457 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.074 | 0.738* | 3.76 | 0.738 | 3.76 | |
| 辽宁-北京 Liaoning-Beijing | r=0 | — | 13.690* | 15.41 | 13.221 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.028 | 0.469 | 3.76 | 0.469 | 3.76 | |
| 山东-北京 Shandong-Beijing | r=0 | — | 25.680 | 15.41 | 24.729 | 14.07 |
| r≤1 | 0.052 | 0.950* | 3.76 | 0.950 | 3.76 | |
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | 协整系数 Cointegration coefficient | 误差调整系数 Error adjustment coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | |||
| 北京 Beijing | 天津 Tianjin | 1.469*** (0.076) | -0.037*** (0.009) | 0.061*** (0.016) |
| 北京 Beijing | 河北 Hebei | 1.547*** (0.105) | -0.038*** (0.007) | 0.010 (0.010) |
| 北京 Beijing | 山东 Shandong | 1.633*** (0.152) | -0.025*** (0.006) | 0.012 (0.007) |
Table 6 Results of error correction model for tomato wholesale prices and retail prices
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | 协整系数 Cointegration coefficient | 误差调整系数 Error adjustment coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 地区A RegionA | 地区B RegionB | |||
| 北京 Beijing | 天津 Tianjin | 1.469*** (0.076) | -0.037*** (0.009) | 0.061*** (0.016) |
| 北京 Beijing | 河北 Hebei | 1.547*** (0.105) | -0.038*** (0.007) | 0.010 (0.010) |
| 北京 Beijing | 山东 Shandong | 1.633*** (0.152) | -0.025*** (0.006) | 0.012 (0.007) |
| 原假设 Null hypothesis | chi2 chi2 | Df Df | P值 P-value | 结论 conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 北京零售价格不是天津批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in Tianjin | 8.253 | 4 | 0.083 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 天津批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in Tianjin is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 8.550 | 4 | 0.073 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 北京零售价格不是河北批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in hebei | 3.515 | 5 | 0.621 | 接受原假设 Accept |
| 河北批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in hebei is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 18.499 | 5 | 0.002 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 北京零售价格不是辽宁批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in Liaoning | 9.980 | 7 | 0.190 | 接受原假设 Accept |
| 辽宁批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in Liaoning is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 13.665 | 7 | 0.057 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 北京零售价格不是山东批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in Shandong | 6.463 | 7 | 0.487 | 接受原假设 Accept |
| 山东批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in Shandong is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 20.914 | 7 | 0.004 | 拒绝原假设√ |
Table 7 Granger Causality Test of Vertical Transmission of Tomato Price
| 原假设 Null hypothesis | chi2 chi2 | Df Df | P值 P-value | 结论 conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 北京零售价格不是天津批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in Tianjin | 8.253 | 4 | 0.083 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 天津批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in Tianjin is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 8.550 | 4 | 0.073 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 北京零售价格不是河北批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in hebei | 3.515 | 5 | 0.621 | 接受原假设 Accept |
| 河北批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in hebei is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 18.499 | 5 | 0.002 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 北京零售价格不是辽宁批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in Liaoning | 9.980 | 7 | 0.190 | 接受原假设 Accept |
| 辽宁批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in Liaoning is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 13.665 | 7 | 0.057 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| 北京零售价格不是山东批发价格的格兰杰原因 The retail price in Beijing is not the Granger reasonof the wholesale price in Shandong | 6.463 | 7 | 0.487 | 接受原假设 Accept |
| 山东批发价格不是北京零售价格的格兰杰原因 The wholesale price in Shandong is not the Granger reasonof the retail price in Beijing | 20.914 | 7 | 0.004 | 拒绝原假设√ |
| [1] |
Balcombe K, Bailey A, Brooks J. Threshold Effects in Price Transmission: The Case of Brazilian Wheat, Maize, and Soya Prices[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2007, 89(2):308-232.
DOI URL |
| [2] | 马述忠, 屈艺. 市场整合与贸易成本-基于中国粮食市场空间价格传导的新证据[J]. 农业经济问题, 2017. 38(5): 72-82, 112. |
| MA Shuzhong, QU Yi. Market Integration and Trade Costs-New Evidence Based on the Spatial Price Transmission of China's Grain Market[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economics, 2017, 38(5): 72-82, 112. | |
| [3] | 周章跃, 万广华. 论市场整合研究方法-兼评喻闻、黄季《从大米市场整合程度看我国粮食市场改革》一文[J]. 经济研究, 1999,(3): 75-81. |
| ZHOU Zhangyue, WAN Guanghua. The Research Methods of Market Integration-Also on Yu Wen and Huang Ji's article "Viewing my country's Grain Market Reform from the Degree of Rice Market Integration"[J]. Economic Research, 1999,(3): 75-81. | |
| [4] | 潘方卉, 李翠霞. 生猪产销市场整合、决定因素与地理距离-基于省级数据的面板门槛模型[J]. 中国农村经济, 2016,(8): 28-41. |
| PAN Fanghui, LI Cuixia. Market integration of live pig production and marketing, eterminants and geographic distance: a panel threshold model based on provincial data[J]. China Rural Economy, 2016,(8): 28-41. | |
| [5] | 虞祎, 王含露. 我国肉鸡市场横向整合研究-基于不同品种肉鸡日度价格数据[J]. 价格理论与实践, 2017,(12): 94-97. |
| YU Yi, WANG Hanlu. Research on Horizontal Integration of Chinese Broiler Market-Based on Daily Price Data of Different Breeder Chickens[J]. Price Theory and Practice, 2017,(12): 94-97. | |
| [6] | 韩胜飞. 市场整合研究方法与传达的信息[J]. 经济学, 2007, 6(4): 1359-1372. |
| HAN Shengfei. Market Integration Research Methods and Information Conveyed[J]. Economics, 2007, 6(4): 1359-1372. | |
| [7] | 黄季焜, Scott Rozelle, 解玉平, 等. 从农产品价格保护程度和市场整合看入世对中国农业的影响[J]. 管理世界, 2002,(9): 84- 94, 154-155. |
| HUANG Jikun, Scott Rozelle, XIE Yuping, et al. The impact of WTO accession on China's agriculture from the perspective of agricultural product price protection and market integration[J]. Management World, 2002,(9): 84- 94, 154-155. | |
| [8] | 武拉平,. 我国小麦、 玉米和生猪收购市场整合程度研究[J]. 中国农村观察, 1999,(4): 25-31, 40. |
| WU Laping. Research on the Integration Degree of Chinese Wheat, Corn and Live Pig Purchase Markets[J]. China Rural Observation, 1999,(4): 25-31, 40. | |
| [9] | 柏菁. 中国小麦市场整合研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2012. |
| BAI Jing. Research on China's Wheat Market Integration[D] Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2012. | |
| [10] | 郑燕, 丁存振, 马骥. 中国鸡蛋产业链不同市场环节价格传导效应分析[J]. 农林经济管理学报, 2018, 17(6): 727-737. |
| ZHENG Yan, DING Cunzhen, MA Ji. Analysis on the price transmission effect of different market links in China's egg industry Chain[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Forestry Economics and Management, 2018, 17(6): 727-737. | |
| [11] | 李靓. 基于产业链视角的蔬菜价格形成研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2018. |
| LI Liang. Research on Vegetable Price Formation from the Perspective of Industrial Chain[D] Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2018. | |
| [12] | 吴舒, 穆月英. 我国蔬菜价格的垂直传导关系研究[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2013,(18): 11-18. |
| WU Shu, MU Yueying. Research on the Vertical Transmission of Vegetable Prices in my country[J]. Chinese Vegetables, 2013,(18): 11-18. | |
| [13] | 罗超平, 王钊, 翟琼. 蔬菜价格波动及其内生因素-基于PVAR模型的实证分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2013,(2): 22-30. |
| LUO Chaoping, WANG Zhao, ZHAi Qiong. Vegetable Price Volatility and Its Endogenous Factors-An Empirical Analysis Based on PVAR Model[J]. Agricultural Technology Economy, 2013,(2): 22-30. | |
| [14] | 刘玲. 我国蔬菜价格垂直传导的非对称性研究-基于面板VAR模型的实证[J]. 经济与管理评论, 2015,(2): 118-124. |
| LIU Ling. Research on the Asymmetry of the Vertical Transmission of Vegetable Prices in my country-Based on the Empirical Study of Panel VAR Model[J]. Economic and Management Review, 2015,(2): 118-124. | |
| [15] | 高静, 李修颖, 谢鹏. 城市蔬菜供应链价格纵向传导机制研究-重庆的实证[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2016,(1): 147-154. |
| GAO Jing, LI Xiuying, XIE Peng, et al. Research on the Price Vertical Transmission Mechanism of Urban Vegetable Supply Chain: An Empirical Study in Chongqing[J]. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Ed.), 2016,(1): 147-154. | |
| [16] | 赵友森, 赵安平, 王川. 北京市场蔬菜来源地分布的调查研究[J]. 中国食物与营养, 2011, 17(8): 41-44. |
| ZHAO Yousen, ZHAO Anping, WANG Chuan. Investigation on the source distribution of vegetables in Beijing market[J]. China Food and Nutrition, 2011, 17(8): 41-44. | |
| [17] | 陈强. 高级计量经济学及Stata应用[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社. 2013:325. |
| QIANG Chen. Advanced Econometrics and Stata Application[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2013:325. |
| [1] | XU Maomao, GAO Jie, LI Junming, LI Xin, LIU Lei, PAN Feng. Population diversity analysis of 20 commercial tomato cultivars [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2191-2196. |
| [2] | TIAN Haiyan, ZHANG Zhanqin, XIE Jianhui, WANG Jianjiang, YANG Xiangkun. Study on the relationship between Lycopene and main quality characters of processing tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2197-2202. |
| [3] | TIAN Chao, LI Yushan, MA Yue, SONG Yu. Effects of different concentrations of sophora alopecuroides extract on the growth and soil fertility of continuous cropping tomatoes [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2203-2210. |
| [4] | CHEN Fang, LI Zihui, SUNXiaogui , ZHANG Tingjun. Different dosage of microbial agents on the yield and quality of processed tomatoes [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2285-2289. |
| [5] | XI Rui, CHEN Yijia, LI Ning, YU Qinghui, WANG Qiang, QIN Yong. Effects of exogenous 2, 4-epibrassinolide on seed germination of different salt-sensitive tomatoes under salt stress [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(8): 1983-1992. |
| [6] | ZHANG Caihong, WANG Guoqiang, JIANG Luyan, LIU Tao, DE Xianming. Variation of environmental factors and analysis of tomato traits in low-energy assembly-type deep-winter production solar greenhouse [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(8): 2043-2053. |
| [7] | ZHANG Fulin, LI Ning, LIU Yuxiang, CHEN Yijia, YU Qinghui, YAN Huizhuan. Effects of exogenous 2,4-Epibrassinolide and melatonin on fruit quality and peel morphology of cherry tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(7): 1738-1747. |
| [8] | RUAN Xiangyang, PU Min, XIAO Lele, LUO Linyi, CHEN Ruijie, LI Ran, CHEN Guoyong, YE Jun. Effect of magnesium sulfate fertilizer application strategy on the yield and quality of processed tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(4): 916-925. |
| [9] | LI Chunyu, TAN Zhanming, CHENG Yunxia, GAO Yuan, MA Quanhui, LI Zhiguo, MA Xing. Effects of water and fertilizer coupling on diurnal changes of chlorophyll content and photosynthetic characteristics of sand-cultivated tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(12): 3006-3013. |
| [10] | LI Yali, Halihashi , TANG Yali, DUAN jingjing, LI Qingjun. Effect of NP reduction and K synergism on yield and nutrient absorption of processing tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(12): 3014-3019. |
| [11] | LIU Huifang, WANG Qiang, HAN Hongwei, ZHUANG Hongmei, WANG Hao, CHANG Yanan. Effects of salt, alkali and complex salt alkali stress on the photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidant enzyme activity of tomato seedlings [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2658-2666. |
| [12] | ZHAO Wenxuan, CHENG Yunxia, TAN Zhanming, LI Chunyu, SHU Sheng, Ayimaimu Shawuti, YANG Liyu, MIAO Xianjun. Comparison of chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic characteristics of different processed tomato varieties based on principal component analysis [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2667-2675. |
| [13] | LI Chunyu, TAN Zhanming, CHENG Yunxia, SHU Sheng, MA Quanhui, HE Miao, DUAN Yifan, WU Hui. Comparative analysis of agronomic traits of different processing tomato varieties [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2676-2683. |
| [14] | LIU Jiahui, LI Hong, WANG Jingjing, CHANG Chiyin. Evaluation of high quality development of tomato products export trade in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(10): 2593-2600. |
| [15] | WANG Dandan, LI Yan, ZHANG Qingyin, Li Shidong, PANG Yongchao, MA Kunzhi, MA Long, NIU Ruisheng, ZHONG Zengming, QI Lianfen, SHI Jianhua. Effects of different microbial treatments on tomato soil microbial diversity [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2248-2257. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||