[1]PENG Chunhua,ZHOU Qigang,MENG Haobin,et al.Identification of Key Ecological Restoration Areas of Landscape Based on Positive and Negative Sensitivity Analysis[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2021,28(03):325-330.
Copy
Identification of Key Ecological Restoration Areas of Landscape Based on Positive and Negative Sensitivity Analysis
Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume:
28
Number of periods:
2021 03
Page number:
325-330
Column:
Public date:
2021-04-20
- Title:
- Identification of Key Ecological Restoration Areas of Landscape Based on Positive and Negative Sensitivity Analysis
- Keywords:
- Chongqing section of the Three Gorges Reservoir area; landscape ecological condition index; landscape ecology; sensitivity
- CLC:
- X321
- DOI:
- -
- Abstract:
- The status of the landscape ecological environment is a reflection of the degree of interference of the landscape ecosystem to the changes in the natural environment and human activities, as well as the possibility of ecological environmental problems. Based on landscape functions and landscape pattern components, we constructed a landscape ecological status evaluation model with 11 indicators. Using the Landscape Ecological Status Index(LECI)and the Landscape Ecological Sensitivity Index(LESI), we revealed the characteristics of temporal and spatial changes of landscape ecological conditions in Chongqing section of the Three Gorges Reservoir from 2002 to 2017, and identified key restoration areas of landscape ecology. The results show that:(1)from 2002 to 2017, the spatial distribution of landscape ecological conditions in the study area had a good consistency, and the grade value showed a gradually decreasing trend from east to west; a turning point for the changes in the landscape ecological environment in the Chongqing section of the Three Gorges Reservoir area was found in 2012; since then, the landscape ecological environment had gradually improved;(2)from 2002 to 2007, the landscape ecological sensitivity was dominated by slight negative sensitivity, accounting for 49.843% of the study area; in the periods of 2007—2012 and 2012—2017, the landscape ecological sensitivity was mainly neutral sensitivity, accounting for 47.426% and 98.208% of the study area, respectively; during the study period, the overall ecology of the region was changing into the better condition;(3)in the past 15 years, the changes in the landscape ecological sensitivity level in the eastern part of the study area were mainly volatility enhancement, the southern part was mainly continuous and stable, the west was mainly continuously weakened, and the north was mainly volatile; the overall landscape ecological stability of the study area was low, and the western and northern regions need to be alerted to the risk of landscape ecological degradation;(4)the key area of ecological restoration in the study area was 999.83 km2, accounting for 2.17% of the total area of the study area, and ecological restoration was proposed; the strategies to manage the regional environment and protect the landscape ecology were put forward. This study can enrich the regional landscape ecological evaluation methods, and also provide certain reference significance for the evaluation of ecologically sensitive areas and restoration areas.
- References:
- [1] 张行,陈海,史琴琴,等.陕西省景观生态脆弱性时空演变及其影响因素[J].干旱区研究,2020,37(2):496-505.[2] Polsky C, Neff R, Yarnal B. Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments:The vulnerability Sco-ping Diagram[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2007,17(3):472-485.[3] 李鹤,张平宇.全球变化背景下脆弱性研究进展与应用展望[J].地理科学进展,2011,30(7):920-929.[4] 孙才志,闫晓露,钟敬秋.下辽河平原景观格局脆弱性及空间关联格局[J].生态学报,2009,34(2):247-257.[5] 孙鸿超,张正祥.吉林省松花江流域景观格局脆弱性变化及其驱动力[J].干旱区研究,2019,34(7):950-957.[6] 张玉娟,何鲲,李城林,等.松花江流域(哈尔滨段)景观敏感度时空变化分析[J].测绘与空间地理信息,2019,42(11):5-7,11,16.[7] 王奇,李伟芳,寇相玮,等.甬台温海岸带景观格局及生态脆弱性时空演变特征[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(1):297-303,325.[8] 穆荣钦.基于水土保持功能分区的生态脆弱性评价研究[D]. 贵阳:贵州师范大学,2019.[9] 马文月,杨美玲,周俊俊.西北生态脆弱区生态补偿研究进程与展望[J].宁夏工程技术,2019,18(4):356-362.[10] 贾晶晶,赵军,王建邦,等.基于SRP模型的石羊河流域生态脆弱性评价[J].干旱区资源与环境,2020,34(1):34-41.[11] 傅伯杰,张立伟.土地利用变化与生态系统服务:概念、方法与进展[J].地理科学进展,2014,33(4):441-446.[12] 傅伯杰,周国逸,白永飞,等.中国主要陆地生态系统服务功能与生态安全[J].地球科学进展,2009,24(6):571-576.[13] Ortega M, Saura S, Gonzalez-avila S, et al. Landscape vulnerability to wildfires at the forest-agriculture interface:Half-century patterns in Spain assessed through the SISPARES monitoring framework [J]. Agroforestry Systems, 2012,85(4):331-349.[14] Zang Z, Zou X, Zuo P, et al. Impact of landscape patterns on ecological vulnerability and ecosystem service values:An empirical analysis of Yancheng Nature Reserve in China [J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017,72(2017):142-152.[15] 徐燕,孙小银,张大智,等.1980—2015年南四湖流域景观格局及其脆弱性[J].应用生态学报,2018,29(2):635-642.[16] Sativ P. Landscape vulnerability and rehabilitation issues: A study of hydropower projects in Garhwal region, Himalaya [J]. Natural Hazards, 2015,75(3):2265-2278.[17] Yuan C, Zhang Z W, Gao J H, et al. Evaluating landscape ecological sensitivity of an estuarine island based on landscape pattern across temporal and spatial scales[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2019,101(6):221-237.[18] 苏显力.基于移动窗口法的下辽河平原区农田景观异质性研究[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学,2018.[19] 解亚丽,柯小玲,闵园园,等.基于超效率DEA模型的三峡库区生态效率评价及空间演化格局分析[J].中国环境管理,2020,12(1):113-120.[20] 梅昭容,李云驹,康翔,等.基于移动窗口分析法的矿区景观格局时空演变研究[J].国土资源遥感,2019,31(4):60-68.[21] 杨青,陆荫,张强.祁连山国家级自然保护区所属县域生态环境评价[J].甘肃科技,2019,35(21):6-7.[22] 张寒,王浩程,王琳.基于ArcGIS的山东省潍坊市蔡家沟村生态敏感性差异分析[J].山东农业科学,2020,52(5):92-99.[23] 陶帅,邝婷婷,彭文甫,等.2000—2015年长江上游NDVI时空变化及驱动力分析:以宜宾市为例[J].生态学报,2020,40(14):5029-5043.[24] 李素萃,赵艳玲,肖武,等.巢湖流域景观生态质量时空分异评价[J].农业机械学报,2020,51(1):203-213.
- Similar References:
Memo
-
Last Update:
2021-04-20