1. 云南大学 地球科学学院,云南,昆明,650500
2. 云南省高校国产高分卫星遥感地质 工程研究中心,云南,昆明,650500
3. 云南大学 国际河流与生态安全研究院,云南,昆明,650500
纸质出版:2022
移动端阅览
李益敏, 刘师旖, 吴博闻, 等. 云南省瑞丽市景观生态风险及其与COVID-19疫情分布的耦合关系[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022,42(1):317-326.
Li Yimin, Liu Shiyi, Wu Bowen, et al. Landscape Ecological Risk and Its Coupling Relationship With COVID-19 Outbreak Distribution at Ruili City, Yunnan Province[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2022, 42(1): 317-326.
李益敏, 刘师旖, 吴博闻, 等. 云南省瑞丽市景观生态风险及其与COVID-19疫情分布的耦合关系[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022,42(1):317-326. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.01.042.
Li Yimin, Liu Shiyi, Wu Bowen, et al. Landscape Ecological Risk and Its Coupling Relationship With COVID-19 Outbreak Distribution at Ruili City, Yunnan Province[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2022, 42(1): 317-326. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.01.042.
[目的] 探究生态风险时空演变和其与COVID-19疫情空间分布关系,为区域的生态环境保护、可持续发展和疫情管控提供理论参考。 [方法] 以云南省瑞丽市为研究区,基于Landsat遥感影像,提取2000,2010,2015和2021年4期景观类型数据,运用景观人工干扰强度、景观生态风险评价模型和GWR模型等方法,定量研究2000—2021年瑞丽市景观类型和生态风险时空变化,进而研究景观人工干扰强度和生态风险分别与COVID-19疫情空间分布的关系。 [结果] ①2000—2021年瑞丽市景观类型主要以林地和园地为主;林园地面积相对稳定,耕地面积出现波动,建设用地不断扩张; ②2000—2021年瑞丽市景观人工干扰强度以低强度为主,以点状向外缓慢增加,整体趋势向西北—东南方向扩张,中高强度区域面积不断增大,南部沿瑞丽江区域强度逐渐加深; ③瑞丽市景观生态风险等级以低和较低风险为主,并呈现由低等级向高等级转移趋势;低风险区主要分布在中部;中等级及以上风险区主要分布在西北和东南部。各时期景观生态风险在空间上以高—高和低—低聚集,有较强的自相关性; ④2021年瑞丽市COVID-19疫情空间分布呈现“一主两次”中心的聚集特征,疫情空间分布与景观生态风险指数和景观人工干扰强度均存在关联。 [结论] 研究期间瑞丽市景观类型变化明显,生态风险升高,生态环境出现恶化趋势;COVID-19疫情空间分布与景观格局具有相关性,城市建设用地和生态用地对病毒传播有空间聚集和阻碍的作用。
[Objective] The temporal and spatial evolution of landscape ecological risk
driving forces
and their correlation with the spatial distribution of the COVID-19 epidemic were studied
in order to provide a theoretical reference for regional ecological environment protection
sustainable development
and epidemic control. [Methods] Landsat remote sensing images of Ruili City in Yunnan Province were used to extract landscape type distribution data in 2000
2010
2015
and 2021 by using methods such as landscape artificial disturbance intensity
an ecological risk assessment model
and the GWR model. The temporal and spatial changes of the landscape types and ecological risks in Ruili City from 2000 to 2021 were quantitatively studied. The relationships between landscape artificial disturbance intensity and landscape ecological risks
and the spatial distribution of the COVID-19 epidemic were determined. [Results] ① From 2000 to 2021
landscape types of Ruili City were mainly woodland and garden land. Forest and garden areas were relatively stable
while the area of arable land fluctuated
and the construction land area continued to expand; ② From 2000 to 2021
the intensity of landscape artificial disturbance in Ruili City was mainly low
slowly increasing outwards in a dotted pattern. The overall trend was expansion from the northwest to the southeast direction. The area of medium and high intensity areas continued to increase
and the intensity of the southern area along the Ruili River gradually deepened; ③ Landscape ecological risk level of Ruili City was classified as lower-risk and low-risk areas
and shifted from low-level to high-level over time. The low-risk areas were mainly located in the middle of the study area
and the medium-risk and high-risk areas were mainly located in the northwest and southeast areas. Landscape ecological risks in different periods were spatially clustered in high-high and low-low level
with strong autocorrelation; ④ The spatial distribution of the COVID-19 epidemic in Ruili City in 2021 presented the clustering characteristics of one main center and two secondary centers. The spatial distribution of the epidemic was correlated with the landscape ecological risk index and the intensity of landscape artificial disturbance. [Conclusion] During the study period
the landscape types of Ruili City changed significantly
the ecological risk increased
and the ecological environment showed a trend of deterioration. The change of landscape type in Ruili City was obvious
the ecological risk increased
and the ecological environment deteriorated. The spatial distribution of the COVID-19 epidemic was correlated with the landscape pattern. Urban construction land and ecological land had spatial aggregation and obstruction effects on the spread of the virus.
Lin Dayi, Liu Fangyu, Zhang Jiping, et al. Research progress on ecological risk assessment based on multifunctional landscape[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021,12(2):260-267.
马克明,傅伯杰,黎晓亚,等.区域生态安全格局:概念与理论基础[J].生态学报,2004,24(4):761-768.
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.
邹秀萍,齐清文,徐增让,等.怒江流域土地利用/覆被变化及其景观生态效应分析[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(5):147-151.
Luxon M, Landis W. Application of the relative risk model to the Upper Willamette River and lower McKenzie River, Oregon[M]. Boca Raton:CRC Press LLC, 2005.
龚艳冰.基于正态云模型和熵权的河西走廊城市化生态风险综合评价[J].干旱区资源与环境,2012,26(5):169-174.
高彬嫔,李琛,吴映梅,等.川滇生态屏障区景观生态风险评价及影响因素[J].应用生态学报,2021,32(5):1603-1613.
刘希朝,李效顺,蒋冬梅.基于土地利用变化的黄河流域景观格局及生态风险评估[J].农业工程学报,2021,37(4):265-274.
杨伶,邓敏,王金龙,等.近40年来洞庭湖流域土地利用及生态风险时空演变分析[J].生态学报,2021,41(10):3929-3939.
朱娴飞,陆雨婷,吴鹏海,等.近30年长江下游升金湖湿地不同季节景观生态风险时空分析[J].湖泊科学,2020,32(3):813-825.
王鹏,王亚娟,刘小鹏,等.基于景观结构的生态移民安置区生态风险评价:以宁夏红寺堡区为例[J].生态学报,2018,38(8):2672-2682.
王琳,赵俊三.城市群新冠疫情时空分布格局与分异机制的地理探测[J].生态学报,2020,40(19):6788-6800.
Zaldo-Aubanell Q, López F C I, Bach A, et al. Community risk factors in the COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Catalonia (Spain). A population-based study[J].International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021,18(7):3768.
You Yongfa, Pan Shufen. Urban vegetation slows down the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the United States[J].Geophysical Research Letters,2020,47:e2020GL089286.
王姣娥,杜德林,魏冶,等.新冠肺炎疫情的空间扩散过程与模式研究[J].地理研究,2020,39(7):1450-1462.
陈晓,黄宇金,李佳慧,等.COVID-19疫情时空聚集性特征及影响因素分析:以重庆市为例[J].地理科学进展,2020,39(11):1798-1808.
王峥,樊红.湖北省COVID-19疫情时空聚类分析及社会经济影响因素研究[J].武汉大学学报(工学版),2021,54(9):866-873.
刘郑倩,叶玉瑶,张虹鸥,等.珠海市新型冠状病毒肺炎聚集发生的时空特征及传播路径[J].热带地理,2020,40(3):422-431.
程艺,刘慧,刘海猛,等.中国边境口岸地区传染病境外输入风险评估:以新冠肺炎疫情为例[J/OL].地理研究:1-15.http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1848.P.20210315.0939.002.html.
Rangel-Buitrago N, Neal W J, de Jonge V N. Risk assessment as tool for coastal erosion management[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2020,186:105099.
黄越,程静,王鹏.中国北方农牧交错区生态脆弱性时空演变格局与驱动因素:以盐池县为例[J].干旱区地理,2021,44(4):1175-1185.
陈心怡,谢跟踪,张金萍.海口市海岸带近30年土地利用变化的景观生态风险评价[J].生态学报,2021,41(3):975-986.
刘永超,李加林,袁麒翔,等.人类活动对港湾岸线及景观变迁影响的比较研究:以中国象山港与美国坦帕湾为例[J].地理学报,2016,71(1):86-103.
崔王平,李阳兵,李睿康,等.基于梯度分析的重庆市主城区城市扩展的景观生态效应[J].生态学杂志,2017,36(1):205-215.
曾辉,郭庆华,喻红.东莞市风岗镇景观人工改造活动的空间分析[J].生态学报,1999,19(3):298-303.
田鹏,李加林,姜忆湄,等.海湾景观生态脆弱性及其对人类活动的响应:以东海区为例[J].生态学报,2019,39(4):1463-1474.
刘佳琦,栗云召,宗敏,等.黄河三角洲人类干扰活动强度变化及其景观格局响应[J].地球信息科学学报,2018,20(8):1102-1110.
曾辉,刘国军.基于景观结构的区域生态风险分析[J].中国环境科学,1999,19(5):454-457.
杜军,赵胜朝,邱士可,等.2000-2015年豫西黄土丘陵区土地利用变化及景观生态风险评价[J].水土保持研究,2021,28(1):279-284.
张金茜,李红瑛,曹二佳,等.多尺度流域生态脆弱性评价及其空间关联性:以甘肃白龙江流域为例[J].应用生态学报,2018,29(9):2897-2906.
赵筱青,王兴友,谢鹏飞,等.基于结构与功能安全性的景观生态安全时空变化:以人工园林大面积种植区西盟县为例[J].地理研究,2015,34(8):1581-1591.
刘孟竹,王彦芳,裴宏伟.基于土地利用变化的河北省坝上地区景观生态风险评价[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(4):303-311.
Cleveland W S. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots[J].Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1979,74(368):829-836.
王杰云,罗志军,齐松.城镇空间扩张与景观生态风险的耦合关联:以江西省袁州区为例[J].水土保持研究,2021,28(5):142-151.
0
浏览量
773
下载量
0
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621