Response of Soil and Water Conservation Ecosystem Service Value to Land Use Type at Anjiagou Watershed in Dingxi City

Ma Haixia; Zhang Bailin; Zhang Wenxiang; Chang Junxia; Li Xuchun

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.04.037

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Response of Soil and Water Conservation Ecosystem Service Value to Land Use Type at Anjiagou Watershed in Dingxi City

- Response of Soil and Water Conservation Ecosystem Service Value to Land Use Type at Anjiagou Watershed in Dingxi City
- Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation Vol. 43, Issue 4, Pages: 316-326(2023)
- 作者机构：
  
  定西市水土保持科学研究所,甘肃,定西,743000
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.04.037
  CLC： X171.1
- Published：2023
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
Ma Haixia, Zhang Bailin, Zhang Wenxiang, et al. Response of Soil and Water Conservation Ecosystem Service Value to Land Use Type at Anjiagou Watershed in Dingxi City[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(4): 316-326.
DOI：

Ma Haixia, Zhang Bailin, Zhang Wenxiang, et al. Response of Soil and Water Conservation Ecosystem Service Value to Land Use Type at Anjiagou Watershed in Dingxi City[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(4): 316-326. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.04.037.

摘要

[目的

]

定量评价黄河流域丘陵沟壑区的甘肃省定西市安家沟流域2005—2020年不同土地利用方式的生态系统服务价值情况，分析其时空变化规律，为优化该区土地利用结构以及土地资源的可持续利用提供科学参考。[方法

]

采用机会成本法和影子工程法，定量分析黄河流域丘陵沟壑区安家沟流域2005—2020年不同土地利用方式的水土保持生态系统服务价值，利用方式包括人工草地、小麦地、沙棘地、油松地、封禁和撂荒地。[结果

]

①除小麦地之外，安家沟流域水土保持生态服务价值在2005—2020年呈现持续增加的态势； ②人工草地水土保持生态服务价值平均为58.2万元/(km

·a)，小麦地44.9万元/(km

·a)，沙棘地69.9万元/(km

·a)，油松地67.3万元/(km

·a)，封禁地53.4万元/(km

·a)，撂荒地46.8万元/(km

·a)，其排列顺序为：沙棘地＞油松地＞人工草地＞封禁＞撂荒地＞小麦地，且不同土地利用方式间差异显著； ③水土保持生态服务价值年均增幅最高的是人工草地，为9.82%，其次是封禁和撂荒地，分别为8.52%和6.84%，最低的是油松林地，为2.12%，而小麦地的水土保持生态服务价值随年限的变化无明显趋势。[结论

]

水土保持生态服务价值贡献值较高的是沙棘地和油松林地，分别为21%和20%，其次是人工草地，为17%，最低的是小麦地，为13%，封禁地和撂荒地居中，分别为15%和14%。可见，黄河流域丘陵沟壑区治理水土流失问题的关键在于保持和提高林草地的质量。

Abstract

[Objective] The ecosystem service value of different land use types at Anjiagou watershed in Dingxi City

Gansu Province was quantitatively determined in hilly and gully regions of the Yellow River basin from 2005 to 2020

and the temporal and spatial variation patterns were studied in order to provide a scientific reference for optimizing land use structure and sustainable utilization of land resources in this area. [Methods] Soil and water conservation ecosystem service values were quantitatively analyzed by using the opportunity cost and the shadow engineering method in the Anjiagou watershed from 2005 to 2020. Land use types included artificial grassland

wheat fields

sea buckthorn land

Chinese pine land

closed land

and barren land. [Results] ① Ecosystem service values continuously increased from 2005 to 2020 for all land use types except for wheat fields. ② The average value of soil and water conservation ecosystem service for artificial grassland

wheat fields

sea buckthorn land

Chinese pine land

closed land

and barren land was 5.82×105

4.49×105

6.99×105，6.73×105

5.34×105

and 4.68×105 yuan/(km2·ha) respectively. The order of the rasult was sea buckthorn land＞Chinese pine land＞artificial grassland＞barren land＞closed land＞wheat fields. However

there were significant differences among different land use types. ③ The annual growth rate of ecosystem service value increase was greatest for artificial grassland (9.82%)

followed by closed land and barren land (8.52% and 6.84%

respectively)

and lowest for Chinese pine land (2.12%). However

there was no obvious trend in wheat fields with years. [Conclusion] Sea buckthorn land and Chinese pine land accounted for 21% and 20%

respectively

of the soil and water conservation ecosystem service value

followed by artificial grassland (17%). Wheat fields accounted for the least amount of ecosystem service value (13%). Closed land and barren land had intermediate values (15% and 14%

respectively). Therefore

the key to controlling soil and water loss in hilly and gully regions of the Yellow River basin is to maintain and improve the quality of forest land and grasslands.

关键词

Keywords

references

吴彬,李岳霖,赵青瑛,等.广西北部湾滨海湿地生态系统服务价值评价及其影响因素研究[J].生态经济,2020,36(9):151-157.

刘耕源,杨青,黄俊勇.黄河流域近十五年生态系统服务价值变化特征及影响因素研究[J].中国环境管理,2020,12(3):90-97.

Groot R, Brander L, Ploeg S, et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services inmonetary units [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2012,1(1):50-61.

Costanza R, D’Agrger R, De Groat R, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital [J]. Natural, 1997,387(15):253-260.

Daily G C. Natures Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Eco-systems [M]. Washington D C:Island Press, 1997:329-344.

单娜娜,赖波,马雪琴,等.吉尔吉斯共和国生态系统服务功能对土地利用变化的响应[J].新疆农业科学,2013,50(1):181-188.

李文华,欧阳志云,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能研究[M].北京:气象出版社,2002.

谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2):189-195.

欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿,等.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999,19(5):607-613.

欧阳志云,朱春全,杨广斌,等.生态系统生产总值核算:概念、核算方法与案例研究[J].生态学报,2013,33(21):7647-6761.

赖敏,吴绍洪,戴尔阜,等.三江源区生态系统服务间接使用价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2013,28(1):38-50.

赵进.流域生态价值评估及其生态补偿模式研究[D].江苏南京:南京林业大学,2009.

谢高地,鲁春霞,成升魁.全球生态系统服务价值评估研究进展[J].资源科学,2001,23(6):5-9.

赵同谦,欧阳志云,郑华,等.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(4):480-491.

刘慧明,高吉喜,刘晓,等.国家重点生态功能区2010—2015年生态系统服务价值变化评估[J].生态学报,2020,40(6):1-12.

吴秀芹,蒙吉军.塔里木河下游土地利用/覆盖变化环境效应[J].干旱区研究,2004,21(1):39-42.

黄湘,陈亚宁,马建新.西北干旱区典型流域生态系统服务价值变化[J].自然资源学报,2011,26(8):1365-1369.

黄志霖,傅伯杰,陈利顶.黄土丘陵区不同坡度、土地利用类型与降水变化的水土流失分异[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(4):11-18.

魏慧,赵文武,张骁,等.基于土地利用变化的区域生态系统服务价值评价:以山东省德州市为例[J].生态学报,2017,37(11):3830-3839.

张天海,田野,徐舒,等.滨海城市土地利用格局演变及对生态系统服务价值的影响[J].生态学报,2018,38(21):7572-7578.

Du Xuejun, Huang Zhonghua. Ecological and environmental effects of land use change in rapid urbanization: the case of Hangzhou, China [J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017,81:243-251.

闵庆文,刘寿东,杨霞.内蒙古典型草原生态系统服务功能价值评估研究[J].草地学报,2004,12(3):165-169.

张瑞君,邸利,黄海霞,等.定西市安家沟小流域生态经济系统健康定量评价[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2009,44(1):132-137.

许炯心.黄土高原生态环境建设的若干问题与研究需求[J].水土保持研究,2000,7(2):10-13.

Duan H, Yan C, Tsunekawa A, et al. Assessing vegetation dynamics in the Three-North Shelter Forestregion of China using AVHRR NDVI data [J]. Envirinmental Earth Sciences, 2011,64(4):1011-1020.

Liu Jiangguo, Li Shuxin, Ou Zhiyun, et al. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China, spolicies for ecosystem services [J]. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008,105(28):9477-9482.

朱建佳,彭晓伟,刘耀亮,等.基于InVEST模型的太行山区土壤侵蚀与土壤保持[J].河北科技师范学院学报,2021,35(1):58-66.

陈瑾,张佰林,王琨.安家沟流域地面监测数据质量及合理性评价[J].中国水土保持,2018(9):61-62.

李金昌,姜文来,靳乐山,等.生态价值论[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,1999.

缪建群,杨文亭,杨滨娟,等.崇义客家梯田区生态系统服务功能及价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2016,31(11):1817-1831.

缪建群,王志强,杨文亭,等.崇义客家梯田生态系统服务功能[J].应用生态学报,2017,28(5):1642-1652.

许爱霞,吴军.定西市农村土地资源利用现状调查研究[J].农经管理,2019(16):52-54.

侯元兆.森林环境价值核算[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,2002.

林家淮,欧书丹,刘良源.东江源区森林涵养水源、固碳制氧价值估算[J].江西科学,2009,27(2):247-250.

周国逸,闫俊华.生态公益林补偿理论与实践[M].北京:气象出版社,2000,198-226.

高月明,吴文俊,蒋洪强,等.基于全球陆地生态系统的水源涵养服务价值时空变化分析[J].环境科学研究,2021,34(11):2696-2705.

Costanza R, De-groot R, Sutton P, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services [J]. Global Environmental Change, 2014,26:152-158.

张瑜,赵晓丽,左丽君,等.黄土高原生态系统服务价值动态评估与分析[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(3):170-176.

Yu Miaozi, Zhang Lulu, Xu Xuexuan, et al. Impact of land use changes on soil hydraulic properties of calcaric regosols on the Loess Plateau, NW China[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2015,178:486-498.

谢高地,张钇锂,鲁春霞,等.中国自然草地生态系统服务价值[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(1):47-53.

李志沛,张宇清,朱清科,等.中国平原林业工程涵养水源生态服务功能价值估算[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(3):242-244.

马海霞.不同利用方式和坡位变化对高寒草甸保水固土的影响[D].甘肃兰州:甘肃农业大学,2021,75-79.

杨青,刘耕源.湿地生态系统服务价值能值评估:以珠江三角洲城市群为例[J].环境科学学报,2018,38(11):4527-4538.

Views

407

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Comparing Two Methods of Forest Ecosystem Value Evaluation

Land Use Changes and Ecological Environment Effects in a Valley City Based on RS and GIS

Prediction of Ecological Service Values Under Different Land Use Types in Yanchi County,Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region

Characteristics of Runoff and Sediment Yield of Vegetation Measures on Slope Farmland in Anjiagou Watershed

Research on Ecological Service Value of Anhui Province Based on Land Use Change

Related Author

CAO Xian-he

RONG Hui-fang

ZHANG Le-qin

FENG Xiao-ming

WANG Yong-bing

HUANG Hui-ping

CHEN Yong-hong

WANG Zhi-shu

Related Institution

Forestry Bureau of Shitai County, Shitai

Resource Environment and Tour Department, Chizhou College

Zhanghe Project Administration Bureau of Hubei Province

North China Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power

College of Soil and Water Conservation, Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Desertification Combating of the Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University

⁰