北京林业大学 精准林业北京市重点实验室,北京,100083
纸质出版:2022
移动端阅览
马骏, 裴燕如, 王慧媛, 等. 鄂尔多斯—榆林地区景观生态风险评价及其驱动因子分析[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022,42(2):275-283.
Ma Jun, Pei Yanru, Wang Huiyuan, et al. Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment and Its Driving Factor Analysis in Ordos-Yulin Area[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2022, 42(2): 275-283.
马骏, 裴燕如, 王慧媛, 等. 鄂尔多斯—榆林地区景观生态风险评价及其驱动因子分析[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022,42(2):275-283. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.02.037.
Ma Jun, Pei Yanru, Wang Huiyuan, et al. Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment and Its Driving Factor Analysis in Ordos-Yulin Area[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2022, 42(2): 275-283. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.02.037.
[目的] 对鄂尔多斯—榆林地区(简称“鄂榆地区”)景观生态风险评价及驱动因子进行分析,为该区生态环境治理、修复以及生态安全格局的构建提供科学依据。[方法] 以2000,2010和2020年的鄂榆地区土地利用数据为基础,运用ArcGIS 10.2和Fragstats 4.2等软件,基于景观干扰度和景观脆弱度构建景观生态风险评价模型,从时间和空间上对鄂榆地区景观生态风险进行动态分析,并利用地理探测器方法探测其变化的驱动因素。[结果] ①草地、耕地和未利用地为鄂榆地区主要的土地利用类型,其中在2010—2020年土地利用变化强度和速度最为活跃,草地为主要的转入、转出类型; ②在2000—2010年,中生态风险、较高生态风险和高生态风险地区面积呈现扩张趋势,低生态风险、较低生态风险呈现收缩趋势。在2010—2020年,中生态风险、较高生态风险和高生态风险低面积呈现收缩趋势,而低生态风险和较低生态风险地区呈现扩张趋势; ③2000,2010和2020年的全局自相关分析Moran’s I指数均大于0.8,在空间分布上呈显著正相关,绝大多数生态风险单元呈现高—高和低—低分布,少数的生态风险单元在高—高和低—低风险单元周围分布,说明研究区的生态风险比较稳定。④人为干扰度对景观生态风险有很强的解释力,其次为NDVI,各种生态保护活动直接促进了NDVI的提升。[结论] 鄂榆地区景观生态风险主要受人类活动的影响,其中以生态保护活动为主的人类活动可以有效降低生态风险。应继续加强对鄂榆地区的生态保护措施,促进生态安全格局的构建。
[Objective] The landscape ecological risk assessment and driving factors in the Ordos-Yulin area was analyzed
in order to provide a scientific basis for the management and restoration of the ecological environment and the construction of the ecological security pattern in this area. [Methods] Based on the land use data of Ordos-Yulin area in 2000
2010 and 2020
ArcGIS 10.2 and Fragstats 4.2 software were used to construct a landscape ecological risk assessment model based on the degree of landscape disturbance and landscape vulnerability. The dynamic analysis of landscape ecological risks was carried out at spatial and temporal scale
and the driving factors of its changes were detected by using geographic detector. [Results] ① Grassland
cultivated land and unused land were the main land use types in Ordos-Yulin area
and the intensity and speed of land use was the most active from 2010 to 2020. Grassland was the main type of transfer in and out. ② From 2000 to 2010
the areas with medium ecological risk
high ecological risk and high ecological risk showed an expansion trend
while the low ecological risk and low ecological risk showed a contraction trend. From 2010 to 2020
the areas with medium ecological risk
higher ecological risk
and low ecological risk showed a contraction trend
while areas with low ecological risk and lower ecological risk showed an expansion trend; ③ The global autocorrelation analysis of Moran’s I index in 2000
2010
2020 was greater than 0.8
showing a significant positive correlation in spatial distribution. Most ecological risk units presented high-high and low-low distribution
and a small number of ecological risk units were high-high and low. The distribution around the low-risk unit indicated that the ecological risk in the study area was relatively stable. ④ According to the analysis of geographic detectors
the degree of human disturbance had a strong explanatory power for landscape ecological risks
followed by NDVI. Various ecological protection activities directly promoted the improvement of NDVI. [Conclusion] Landscape ecological risks in Ordos-Yulin area are mainly affected by human activities
and human activities mainly ecological protection activities
can effectively reduce ecological risks. Accordingly
ecological protection measures should be strengthened to promote ecological security patterns in Ordos-Yulin area.
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.
张月,张飞,周梅,等.干旱区内陆艾比湖区域景观生态风险评价及时空分异[J].应用生态学报,2016,27(1):233-242.
陈辉,刘劲松,曹宇,等.生态风险评价研究进展[J].生态学报,2006(05):1558-1566.
Norton S B, Rodier D J, van der Schalie W H, et al. A framework for ecological risk assessment at the EPA [J]. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 1992, 11(12): 1663-1672.
赵晓光,张亦扬,杜华栋.陕北矿区不同土地类型下土壤重金属污染评价[J].环境工程,2019,37(9):188-193.
何瑞东,张轶舜,陈永阳,等.郑州市某生活区大气PM_(2.5)中重金属污染特征及生态、健康风险评估[J].环境科学,2019,40(11):4774-4782.
李捷,宋鹏,李慧,等.北方湖库沉积物重金属区域特征及生态风险评价[J].中国环境科学,2020,40(11):4927-4935.
和春兰,普军伟,沈金祥.2005—2018年澜沧江下游流域景观生态安全时空变化及其驱动因素[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(4):219-227.
张小强,王云燕,黄娟.2010—2015年江苏省环太湖及沿海地区土地利用变化和生态风险分析[J].安徽农业科学,2020,48(17):97-103,132.
高雅.玛河流域景观生态风险评价与时空分异[J].测绘与空间地理信息,2021,44(1):86-89.
鞠军,喻成林.沛北煤矿区景观生态风险评价[J].矿山测量,2019,47(3):138-142.
杨庚,张振佳,曹银贵,等.晋北大型露天矿区景观生态风险时空异质性[J].生态学杂志,2021,40(1):187-198.
胡云锋,高戈.城市景观生态风险评估框架与实践:以北京天坛地区为例[J].生态学报,2020,40(21):7805-7815.
李峥.梁野山国家级自然保护区景观生态风险评价[J].武夷学院学报,2020,39(12):1-7.
沈海岑,薛联青.基于土地利用变化的塔里木河下游区近20 a景观生态风险研究[J].中国农村水利水电,2020(11):77-82.
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):279-284,291.
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.
崔杨林,高祥,董斌,等.县域景观生态风险评价[J].浙江农林大学学报,2021,38(3):541-551.
石玉琼,王宁练,李团胜,等.榆林市景观生态风险及其时空分异[J].干旱区研究,2019,36(2):494-504.
陈丹,蒋贵国,张妍,等.基于生态服务价值的沱江流域土地景观生态风险时空分异研究[J].水土保持通报,2019,39(3):223-230,313.
李武斌,李淼,赵少敏.鄂榆模式:经济增长产业区性质与外部影响[J].西安石油大学学报(社会科学版),2015,24(2):22-27.
于立忠,朱教君,闫巧玲,等.森林干扰度评价方法及应用:以中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所清原森林生态试验站为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2010,18(2):388-392.
谷东起,付军,丰爱平.基于景观生态学方法的朝阳港潟湖湿地人类干扰强度定量评估[J].湿地科学,2010,8(1):37-42.
梁治平,周兴.土地利用动态变化模型的研究综述[J].广西师范学院学报(自然科学版),2006,23(S1):22-26.
苏海民,何爱霞.基于RS和地统计学的福州市土地利用分析[J].自然资源学报,2010,25(1):91-99.
刘春艳,张科,刘吉平.1976—2013年三江平原景观生态风险变化及驱动力[J].生态学报,2018,38(11):3729-3740.
侯蕊,李红波,高艳丽.基于景观格局的武汉市江夏区土地利用生态风险评价[J].水土保持研究,2021,28(1):323-330,403.
卿巧玲,黄云,裴婵.基于景观结构变化的生态风险评价与管控:以重庆市万州区为例[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2021,43(1):174-184.
钟艳霞,崔文斌,罗玲玲,等.基于景观格局的宁夏星海湖生态风险时空分异[J].广西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2021,39(2):154-161.
王洁,摆万奇,田国行.青藏高原景观生态风险的时空特征[J].资源科学,2020,42(9):1739-1749.
陈鹏, 潘晓玲. 干旱区内陆流域区域景观生态风险分析:以阜康三工河流域为例[J]. 生态学杂志, 2003, 22(4): 116-120.
黎启燃,刘辉.基于景观结构的土地利用生态风险分析[J].福州大学学报(自然科学版),2014,42(1):62-69.
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.
0
浏览量
725
下载量
7
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621