[1]ZHANG Junmin,RONG Cheng,DONG Guosong.Spatiotemporal Differentiation of Landscape Ecological Vulnerability in Lijiang River Basin from 2000 to 2020[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2022,29(05):283-292.
Copy
Spatiotemporal Differentiation of Landscape Ecological Vulnerability in Lijiang River Basin from 2000 to 2020
Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume:
29
Number of periods:
2022 05
Page number:
283-292
Column:
Public date:
2022-08-20
- Title:
- Spatiotemporal Differentiation of Landscape Ecological Vulnerability in Lijiang River Basin from 2000 to 2020
- Keywords:
- landscape pattern; spatiotemporal differentiation; landscape ecological vulnerability; geodetector
- CLC:
- F301.24
- DOI:
- -
- Abstract:
- The Lijiang River Basin is an important ecological security barrier for the fragile karst environment in southern China. Optimizing the land space management through the assessment of landscape ecological vulnerability can provide a scientific basis for the ecological restoration and poverty alleviation achievements in karst areas. Based on land use, remote sensing information and GIS spatial analysis platform, landscape ecological vulnerability and temporal-spatial changes of landscape index of the Lijiang River Basin were analyzed from multi-dimensional temporal-spatial scales with the methods of landscape index, temporal-spatial statistics, spatial analysis, geodetector employed. The results indicate that the main landscape of the Lijiang River Basin is forestland and cultivated land, accounting for 90% of the total basin area; in the past 20 years, its area change rate was less than 0.37%, the expansion intensity was less than 3.59%, and the basin landscape pattern was stable; construction land had the fastest growth and significant expansion, its dynamic degree was significantly higher than other land type and the urbanization process was the main driver of the landscape pattern; the landscape ecosystem was dominated by low-and middle-level fragile areas, accounting for 56.53% of the total area, and high-risk fragile areas accounting for less than 10%, which formed a differentiation pattern of low-value clusters in urbanization centers and high-value contiguous mountain areas; in the past 20 years, the expansion intensities of level 1 and level 5 vulnerable zones were 1.70% and 1.36%, respectively, and the area expansion intensity of middle and high-level fragile areas was -2.59%, informing that the ecological fragility of the basin landscape weakened; the landscape ecosystem was dominated by low-and middle-level fragile areas, and the area of high-risk fragile areas accounted for less than 10%; a differentiation pattern of low-value clusters in urbanization centers and high-value contiguous mountain areas had been formed; In the past 20 years, the range of low-value areas had continued to expand while the area of middle and high-level fragile areas reduced, informing that the ecological fragility of the basin landscape weakened; LEV spatial differentiation presented a pattern of low-value artificial landscapes and high-value natural landscapes; the urban area of Guilin was a low-low adjacent cold spot, and the surrounding mountainous area was a high-high adjacent hot spot; the range of cold spots and hot spots had expanded slightly in the past 20 years, and the landscape ecological spatial pattern was relatively stable; urbanization and gradient changes had the greatest degree of explanation for vulnerability, with q values of 0.268 9 and 0.250 8, respectively, which were the core drivers of LEV spatial differentiation; natural and artificial factors jointly determined LEV temporal and spatial differentiation. The land use of the Lijiang River Basin should adhere to the principles of comprehensive management and systematic planning, coordinate urban and rural land use and land space planning, and systematically integrate the types and functions of urban and rural, natural and artificial landscapes.
- References:
-
[1] 刘纪远,张增祥,张树文,等.中国土地利用变化遥感研究的回顾与展望:基于陈述彭学术思想的引领[J].地球信息科学学报,2020,22(4):680-687.
[2] 赵东升,张雪梅.生态系统多稳态的研究进展[J].生态学报,2021,41(16):1-15.
[3] 李睿倩,李永富,胡恒.生态系统服务对国土空间规划体系的理论与实践支撑[J].地理学报,2020,75(11):2417-2430.
[4] Zhao Z N, Zhang T Z. Integration of ecosystem services into ecological risk assessment for implementation in ecosystem based river management:A case study of the Yellow River, China[J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2013,19(1):80-97.
[5] 彭建,党威雄,刘焱序,等.景观生态风险评价研究进展与展望[J].地理学报,2015,70(4):664-677.
[6] 傅伯杰.地理学综合研究的途径与方法:格局与过程耦合[J].地理学报,2014,69(8):1052-1059.
[7] 张楚宜,胡远满,刘淼,等.景观生态学三维格局研究进展[J].应用生态学报,2019,30(12):4353-4360.
[8] 谢高地,张彪,鲁春霞,等.北京城市扩张的资源环境效应[J].资源科学,2015,37(6):1108-1114.
[9] 吴健生,宗敏丽,彭建.基于景观格局的矿区生态脆弱性评价:以吉林省辽源市为例[J].生态学杂志,2012,31(12):3213-3220.
[10] 杨靖,吴学灿,周瑞伍,等.基于景观格局的云南省富源县生态脆弱性空间特征分析[J].生态科学,2021,40(3):184-192.
[11] 韩鑫,胡江玲,刘传胜,等.基于遥感的山地景观健康诊断及格局演变研究:以新疆天山自然遗产地喀拉峻:库尔德宁为例[J].生态学报,2021,41(16):6451-6465.
[12] 王国玉,白伟岚,熊筱,等.京津冀城市群生态空间受损识别研究[J].城市规划,2021,45(8):9-19,41.
[13] 黄木易,岳文泽,方斌,等.1970—2015年大别山区生态服务价值尺度响应特征及地理探测机制[J].地理学报,2019,74(9):1904-1920.
[14] 左玲丽,彭文甫,陶帅,等.岷江上游土地利用与生态系统服务价值的动态变化研究[J].生态学报,2021,41(16):1-14.
[15] 张学渊,魏伟,周亮,等.西北干旱区生态脆弱性时空演变分析[J].生态学报,2021,41(12):4707-4719.
[16] 林增学.1985—2014年漓江流域景观格局动态变化研究[J].中国岩溶,2019,38(3):466-471.
[17] 向芸芸,蒙吉军.漓江流域旅游开发景观格局干扰的时空分异[J].山地学报,2014,32(1):11-20.
[18] 何毅,唐湘玲,代俊峰.漓江流域生态系统服务价值最大化的土地利用结构优化[J].生态学报,2021,41(13):5214-5222.
[19] 朱柏露,杨奇勇,谢运球,等.漓江流域土地石漠化空间分布及驱动因子分析[J].广西师范大学学报:自然科学版,2021,39(3):139-150.
[20] 陆丹丹,钟永德,杨永德,等.漓江上游土地利用与覆盖变化及其驱动力研究[J].生态经济,2015,31(9):128-131,146.
[21] 魏雨涵,钱建平,范伟伟,等.基于RSEI的漓江流域生态环境质量动态监测[J].中国水土保持科学,2021,19(1):122-131.
[22] 王劲峰,徐成东.地理探测器:原理与展望[J].地理学报,2017,72(1):116-134.
[23] 罗奎,方创琳,马海涛.基于生产函数视角的城镇化动力机制研究[J].地理科学,2017,37(3):394-399.
- Similar References:
Memo
-
Last Update:
2022-08-20