贵州省乌江流域生态脆弱性评价及其空间变化特征

安芬; 李旭东; 程东亚

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2019.04.041

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

贵州省乌江流域生态脆弱性评价及其空间变化特征

试验研究

- 贵州省乌江流域生态脆弱性评价及其空间变化特征
- Ecological Vulnerability Assessment and Spatial Variation Characteristics of Wujiang River Basin in Guizhou Province
- 水土保持通报 2019年39卷第4期页码：261-269
- 作者机构：
  
  贵州师范大学地理与环境科学学院,贵州,贵阳,550025
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  国家自然科学基金项目"西南山地流域城市化与生态环境的耦合关系研究：以贵州乌江流域为例"（41261039）
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2019.04.041
  中图分类号： {P964}
- 纸质出版：2019
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
安芬, 李旭东, 程东亚. 贵州省乌江流域生态脆弱性评价及其空间变化特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019,39(4):261-269.

An Fen, LI Xudong, Cheng Dongya. Ecological Vulnerability Assessment and Spatial Variation Characteristics of Wujiang River Basin in Guizhou Province[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2019, 39(4): 261-269.
安芬, 李旭东, 程东亚. 贵州省乌江流域生态脆弱性评价及其空间变化特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019,39(4):261-269. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2019.04.041.

An Fen, LI Xudong, Cheng Dongya. Ecological Vulnerability Assessment and Spatial Variation Characteristics of Wujiang River Basin in Guizhou Province[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2019, 39(4): 261-269. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2019.04.041.

摘要

[目的]分析贵州省乌江流域生态脆弱性原因及空间变化特征，为该区生态环境建设与保护提供科学参考。[方法]通过构建评价指标体系，采用层次分析法（AHP）对影响流域生态脆弱性因子赋权重值，并利用GIS采用不同分类法对流域生态脆弱性进行综合评价。[结果]①分位数、相等间隔与自然间断点三种分类法对生态脆弱性等级划分影响不大，但面积比例存在明显差异，其极度脆弱与潜在脆弱流域面积比例最小；②流域生态脆弱程度以一般脆弱和中度脆弱为主，其面积占比在50%以上；③人类活动对流域生态脆弱性影响明显，贵阳、遵义市等大中城市周边多为极度脆弱区；④流域一般脆弱区空间分布较为分散，不利于流域生态环境保护治理。[结论]流域生态脆弱性等级大致从上游至下游逐渐降低，脆弱性空间分布特征明显。因地制宜地治理和保护流域生态脆弱区对减轻流域生态脆弱程度作用巨大。

Abstract

[Objective] The ecological vulnerability and spatial variation characteristics of the Wujiang River basin in Guizhou Province were studied to provide a scientific reference for the ecological environment construction and protection in the area.[Methods] By constructing the evaluation index system

the AHP was used to weight the ecological vulnerability factors of the basin

and GIS was used to comprehensively evaluate the ecological vulnerability of the basin.[Results] ① The three classifications of quantile

equal interval and natural discontinuity had little effect on the classification of ecological vulnerability

but there were significant differences in area ratio

and the proportions of extremely fragile and potentially vulnerable watershed were the smallest. ② The ecological fragility of the basin is mainly fragile and moderately fragile

the areas of the two fragilities accounting for more than 50%. ③ Human activities have a significant impact on the ecological vulnerability of the basin. The surrounding areas of large and medium-sized cities such as Guiyang and Zunyi City are mostly and extremely vulnerable. ④ The spatial distribution of the generally fragile areas in the basin is relatively scattered

which is not conducive to the ecological environment protection of the basin.[Conclusion] The ecological vulnerability level of the basin is gradually reduced from the upstream to the downstream

and the spatial distribution characteristics of vulnerability are obvious. The protection of the ecologically fragile areas of the basin in terms of the local conditions has a great effect on reducing the ecological vulnerability of the basin.

关键词

Keywords

references

韦莉.基于RS和GIS的石羊河流域生态脆弱性评价研究[D].甘肃兰州:西北师范大学,2010.

宋利君.漓江流域脆弱性生态系统评价及其与旅游业的协调发展研究[D].广西桂林:广西师范大学,2013.

李辉, 张利华, 吴君峰, 等. 基于GIS的鄱阳湖流域生态脆弱性评价[J]. 华中师范大学学报:自然科学版,2011,45(1):145-149.

Sathyan A R, Funk C, Aenis T, et al. Sensitivity analysis of a climate vulnerability index:A case study from Indian watershed development programmes[J]. Climate Change Responses, 2018,5(1):1-14.

Shukla R, Chakraborty A, Joshi P K. Vulnerability of agro-ecological zones in India under the earth system climate model scenarios[J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2017,22(3):399-425.

Alves M C, Fábio M S, Sanches L, et al. Geospatial analysis of ecological vulnerability of coffee agroecosystems in Brazil[J]. Applied Geomatics, 2013,5(2):87-97.

Mansur A V, Eduardo S, Brondízio R S, et al. An assessment of urban vulnerability in the Amazon Delta and Estuary:A multi-criterion index of flood exposure, socio-economic conditions and infrastructure[J]. Sustainability Science, 2016,11(4):625-643.

Mahapatra M, Ramakrishnan R, Rajawat A S. Coastal vulnerability assessment using analytical hierarchical process for South Gujarat coast, India[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015,76(1):1-21.

Chatterjee S, Krishna A P, Sharma A P. Geospatial assessment of soil erosion vulnerability at watershed level in some sections of the upper Subarnarekha river basin, Jharkhand, India[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2013,71(1):357-374.

石惠春,何剑,刘伟.石羊河流域生态脆弱性评价研究[J].资源开发与市场,2012,28(11):1020-1024.

王钰,胡宝清.西江流域生态脆弱性时空分异及其驱动机制研究[J].地球信息科学学报,2018,20(7):947-956.

雷波,焦峰,王志杰,等.延河流域生态环境脆弱性评价及其特征分析[J].西北林学院学报,2013,28(3):161-167.

余坤勇,刘健,黄维友,等.基于GIS技术的闽江流域生态脆弱性分析[J].江西农业大学学报,2009,31(3):568-573.

刘玒玒,汪妮,解建仓,等.基于模糊综合评价法的渭河流域生态脆弱性评价[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2014(1):73-77.

张鑫,杜朝阳,蔡焕杰.黄土高原典型流域生态环境脆弱性的集对分析[J].水土保持研究,2010,17(4):96-99.

范强.基于SRP模型资源枯竭型城市生态脆弱性时空分异研究[D].辽宁沈阳:辽宁师范大学,2017.

石悦樾,银正彤,郑文锋.基于GLDAS和MODIS的乌江流域植被与地表水变化关系研究[J].江苏农业科学,2017,45(12):192-198.

化环环,邱新法,曾燕.基于互补相关的乌江流域实际蒸散量分布式模拟[J].长江科学院院报,2018,35(7):25-29.

牛潜,周旭,许幼霞,等.基于土地利用的贵州省乌江流域生态系统服务价值演变分析[J].生态科学,2018,37(5):165-173.

芦颖,李旭东,杨正业.1990-2015年贵州省乌江流域生态环境质量变化评价[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(2):140-147.

况润元,周云轩,李行,等.崇明东滩鸟类生境适宜性空间模糊评价[J].长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(3):229-233.

王雪梅,席瑞.基于GIS的渭干河流域生态环境脆弱性评价[J].生态科学,2016,35(4):166-172.

王延平,刘霞,姚孝友,等.淮河流域沂蒙山区水土保持生态脆弱性的AHP分析[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(3):20-27.

浏览量

839

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

基于生态脆弱性的淮河流域水土保持策略研究

基于改进PSR模型的恩平市土地可持续利用评价

重庆市公路水毁环境区划指标的研究

层次分析法在泥石流危险度评价中的应用——以北京市密云县为例

长武县生态农业建设效益评价