PDF Download

[1]TAN Tenghui,JIAO Xiong,PING Yuan,et al.Ecological Carrying Capacity Evaluation Based on Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Soil Erosion at County Scale[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2023,30(04):210-216.[doi:10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2023.04.015.]

Copy

Ecological Carrying Capacity Evaluation Based on Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Soil Erosion at County Scale

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 30 Number of periods: 2023 04 Page number: 210-216 Column: Public date: 2023-06-10

Title:: Ecological Carrying Capacity Evaluation Based on Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Soil Erosion at County Scale

Author(s):: TAN Tenghui, JIAO Xiong, PING Yuan, LI Yuchen, GUO Zhonglu; (College of Resources and Environment, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

Keywords:: land use change; InVEST model; degree of soil erosion; ecological carrying capacity; Ningdu County

CLC:: S157.1

DOI:: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2023.04.015.

Abstract:: [Objective] In order to explore the spatiotemporal evolution and correlation of soil erosion and ecological carrying capacity in the context of land type changes, it is of great significance to improve the level of ecological carrying capacity, optimize land use structure and configure soil and water conservation measures. [Methods] This paper takes Ningdu County, Jiangxi Province as the research area, based on natural resource and socio-economic data, uses InVEST model and spatial principal component method to analyze the impact of soil erosion changes on ecological carrying capacity. [Results](1)The main types of land use in Ningdu County were forest land, arable land and grassland. The degree of soil erosion in the past 9 years showed the order: 597.42 t/(km²·a)in 2010>591.29 t/(km²·a)in 2015>583.51 t/(km²·a)in 2018. The type of erosion was predominantly slight. In areas such as the central, northwestern and southeastern regions, the degree of soil erosion on construction land and cultivated land was serious.(2)Ningdu County's ecological carrying capacity was low in the southwest and high in the northeast. In the past 9 years, the ecological carrying capacity had improved slightly. In areas with severe soil erosion in the third stage, the level of ecological carrying capacity was low.(3)From 2010 to 2018, Ningdu County had carried out large-scale land preparation, converting forest land and wasteland(unused land)into garden land and cultivated land, increasing the land cover. Coupled with the decrease in rainfall, the runoff erosion was weakened, and the erosion modulus significantly reduced, which reduced by 178.19 t/(km²·a), 876.32 t/(km²·a), and 2 205.07 t/(km²·a), respectively. Other land use types had less variation in erosion modulus. In general, the main reason for the change in soil erosion modulus was the conversion of arable land, garden land and unused land. [Conclusion] Soil erosion intensity varies under different land use methods in Ningdu County and has a large impact on the regional carrying capacity. Future research on the impact of human activities on erosion as well as ecological carrying capacity should be strengthened.

References:: [1] 韩文权,常禹,胡远满,等.景观格局优化研究进展[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(12):1487-1492.
[2] 张鹏宇,王全九,周蓓蓓.陕西省耕地土壤可蚀性因子[J].水土保持通报,2016,36(5):100-106.
[3] 朱连奇,许立民.全球变化对陆地生态系统的影响研究[J].地域研究与开发,2011,30(2):161-165.
[4] 刘新华,杨勤科,汤国安.中国地形起伏度的提取及在水土流失定量评价中的应用[J].水土保持通报,2001,21(1):57-59,62.
[5] 陈樟昊,姚雄,余坤勇,等.南方典型红壤区生态脆弱性与土壤侵蚀的演化关系[J].西南林业大学学报:自然科学版,2017,37(4):82-90.
[6] 冉涛,邓伟.北方生态脆弱区土壤侵蚀敏感性空间分异[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(4):182-186,190.
[7] 潘竟虎,任梓菡.基于景观格局和土壤侵蚀敏感性的兰州市生态脆弱性评价[J].土壤,2012,44(6):1015-1020.
[8] 康惠惠,潘韬,盖艾鸿,等.生态退化与恢复对三江源区土壤保持功能的影响[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(3):7-14.
[9] 王静,周伟奇,许开鹏,等.京津冀地区的生态质量定量评价[J].应用生态学报,2017,28(8):2667-2676.
[10] 廖炜,李璐,吴宜进,等.丹江口库区土地利用变化与生态环境脆弱性评价[J].自然资源学报,2011,26(11):1879-1889.
[11] 何莎莎,朱文博,崔耀平,等.基于InVEST模型的太行山淇河流域土壤侵蚀特征研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2019,28(2):426-439.
[12] 黄瑶.基于CSLE模型土壤侵蚀及水土保持情景分析研究[D].福州:福建师范大学,2017.
[13] 黄金良,洪华生,张路平,等.基于GIS和USLE的九龙江流域土壤侵蚀量预测研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(5):75-79.
[14] 符素华,刘宝元,周贵云,等.坡长坡度因子计算工具[J].中国水土保持科学,2015,13(5):105-110.
[15] 蔡崇法,丁树文,史志华,等.应用USLE模型与地理信息系统IDRISI预测小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2):19-24.
[16] 高峰,华璀,卢远,等.基于GIS和USLE的钦江流域土壤侵蚀评估[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(1):18-22,28.
[17] 潘美慧,伍永秋,任斐鹏,等.基于USLE的东江流域土壤侵蚀量估算[J].自然资源学报,2010,25(12):2154-2164.
[18] 纪学朋,白永平,杜海波,等.甘肃省生态承载力空间定量评价及耦合协调性[J].生态学报,2017,37(17):5861-5870.
[19] 周文英,何彬彬.四川省若尔盖县生态环境质量评价[J].地球信息科学学报,2014,16(2):314-319.
[20] 郭泽呈,魏伟,庞素菲,等.基于SPCA和遥感指数的干旱内陆河流域生态脆弱性时空演变及动因分析:以石羊河流域为例[J].生态学报,2019,39(7):2558-2572.
[21] 张学渊,魏伟,颉斌斌,等.西北干旱区生态承载力监测及安全格局构建[J].自然资源学报,2019,4(11):2389-2402.
[22] 易文明,李正南.湘中丘陵区典型小流域治理前期水土流失规律研究[J].中国水土保持,2002(5):18-20.
[23] 郭云,李鹏,程维金,等.洞庭湖土地利用和生态服务功能时空变化及其耦合效应分析[J].环境科学学报,2022,42(1):121-130.
[24] 杨君,周鹏全,袁淑君,等.基于InVEST模型的洞庭湖生态经济区生态系统服务功能研究[J].水土保持通报,2022,42(1):267-272,282.
[25] 姚华荣,崔保山.澜沧江流域云南段土地利用及其变化对土壤侵蚀的影响[J].环境科学学报,2006,26(8):1362-1371.
[26] 胡文浩,张晓婧,陈雅杰,等.坝上地区不同年代退耕还林生境的草本层植物多样性及影响因子[J].生态学报,2021,41(3):1116-1126.
[27] 姚雄,余坤勇,刘健,等.南方水土流失严重区的生态脆弱性时空演变[J].应用生态学报,2016,27(3):735-745.
[28] 荣月静,郭新亚,杜世勋,等.基于生态系统服务功能及生态敏感性与PSR模型的生态承载力空间分析[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(1):323-329.
[29] 刘慧芳.汾河上游流域水土资源服务功能及承载力耦合研究[D].太原:山西大学,2019.
[30] 荣月静,郭新亚,杜世勋,等.基于生态系统服务功能及生态敏感性与PSR模型的生态承载力空间分析[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(1):323-329.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2023-06-10