2005-2015年漓江流域景观格局动态变化定量研究
|
摘要
为了定量研究喀斯特地貌条件下发育的岩溶河流流域景观格局动态变化规律,本文以漓江流域2005年土地利用数据和2015年GF-1多光谱影像为主要数据源,在土地利用/覆被变化理论、景观生态学理论的基础上,选取土地变化动态度、斑块数量、斑块密度、最大斑块指数等12个指标,从斑块类型水平和景观类型水平两个尺度,定量研究漓江流域10年的景观格局变化规律。结果表明:有林地、水田、灌木林地在2015年分别占漓江流域总面积的44.78%、15.02%和13.76%,2005-2015年有林地和水田面积分别减少了71.09km2和117.66km2,变化幅度较大,河流面积保持相对稳定,10年内仅减少0.39km2。土地利用类型转化方面,林地分别以31.79%、21.17%和17.80%的比例转化为水田、旱地和草地;耕地主要转化为林地和居民地,转化率为46.44%和21.32%。从斑块类型水平看,2005-2015年景观破碎度加剧,斑块个数净增419个,斑块形状逐渐复杂化,疏林地破碎化程度最高,斑块个数由2005年的146个增加到2015年的541个,聚集度指数下降了9.76,主要受林果业种植的影响,河流分布集中化,支流减少,聚集度指数升高了38.85,形状指数降低了3.77。从景观类型水平看,2005-2015年景观多样性指数增加了0.09,蔓延度减少了2.96,景观趋于多样化,破碎度加剧,分布不集中,连通性减弱。
In order to quantitatively study the dynamic changes of landscape pattern in karst river basins developed under karst geomorphology, this paper takes the land use data of Lijiang River Basin in 2005 and GF-1 multispectral images in 2015 as the main data sources, and selected 12 indexes including land change dynamic attitude, patch number, patch density and maximum patch index on the basis of land use/cover change theory and landscape ecology theory to quantitatively explore the 10-year landscape pattern changes of Lijiang River Basin from two scales of patch type level and landscape type level. The results showed that forested land, paddy field and shrub land accounted for 44.78%,15.02% and 13.76% of the total area of Lijiang River Basin respectively in 2015, while forested land and paddy field decreased by 71.09 km2 and 117.66 km2 respectively from 2005 to2015, with great changes. The river area remained relatively stable, with a decrease of only 0.39 km2 in 10 years. In terms of land use type transformation, forest land was transformed into paddy field, dry land and grassland in the proportions of 31.79%,21.17% and 17.80%, respectively. Cultivated land is mainly converted into forest land and residential land, with conversion rates of 46.44% and 21.32%. From the patch type level, the landscape fragmentation increased from 2005 to 2015, with a net increase of 419 patches, the patch shape became more complicated, the fragmentation degree of sparse forest land was the highest, the number of patches increased from 146 in 2005 to 541 in 2015, and the aggregation index decreased by 9.76, which was mainly affected by forest and fruit planting. The distribution of rivers was centralized, the tributaries were reduced, the aggregation index increased by 38.85, and the shape index decreased by 3.77. From the level of landscape types, the landscape diversity index increased by 0.09 from 2005 to 2015,and the contag decreased by 2.96. The landscape tends to be diversified, the fragmentation is intensified, the distribution is not centralized, and connectivity is weakened. Cultivated land is mainly converted into forest land and residential land, with conversion rates of 46.44% and 21.32%. From the level of patch type, the landscape fragmentation increased from 2005 to 2015,and the number of patchs increased by 419. The shape of the patches gradually became more complicated, and the fragmentation degree of the sparse forest was the highest. The number of patches increased from 146 in 2005 to 541 in 2015, and the aggregation index decreased by 9.76, mainly due to cultivation of forestry and fruit industry, the river distribution was concentrated, the tributaries were reduced, the aggregation index increased by38.85, and the shape index decreased by 3.77. From the perspective of landscape type, the landscape diversity index increased by 0.09 from 2005 to 2015, the contagion index decreased by 2.96. Landscape diversification, fragmentation, non-concentration of distribution and weakening of connectivity were also observed.
In order to quantitatively study the dynamic changes of landscape pattern in karst river basins developed under karst geomorphology, this paper takes the land use data of Lijiang River Basin in 2005 and GF-1 multispectral images in 2015 as the main data sources, and selected 12 indexes including land change dynamic attitude, patch number, patch density and maximum patch index on the basis of land use/cover change theory and landscape ecology theory to quantitatively explore the 10-year landscape pattern changes of Lijiang River Basin from two scales of patch type level and landscape type level. The results showed that forested land, paddy field and shrub land accounted for 44.78%,15.02% and 13.76% of the total area of Lijiang River Basin respectively in 2015, while forested land and paddy field decreased by 71.09 km2 and 117.66 km2 respectively from 2005 to2015, with great changes. The river area remained relatively stable, with a decrease of only 0.39 km2 in 10 years. In terms of land use type transformation, forest land was transformed into paddy field, dry land and grassland in the proportions of 31.79%,21.17% and 17.80%, respectively. Cultivated land is mainly converted into forest land and residential land, with conversion rates of 46.44% and 21.32%. From the patch type level, the landscape fragmentation increased from 2005 to 2015, with a net increase of 419 patches, the patch shape became more complicated, the fragmentation degree of sparse forest land was the highest, the number of patches increased from 146 in 2005 to 541 in 2015, and the aggregation index decreased by 9.76, which was mainly affected by forest and fruit planting. The distribution of rivers was centralized, the tributaries were reduced, the aggregation index increased by 38.85, and the shape index decreased by 3.77. From the level of landscape types, the landscape diversity index increased by 0.09 from 2005 to 2015,and the contag decreased by 2.96. The landscape tends to be diversified, the fragmentation is intensified, the distribution is not centralized, and connectivity is weakened. Cultivated land is mainly converted into forest land and residential land, with conversion rates of 46.44% and 21.32%. From the level of patch type, the landscape fragmentation increased from 2005 to 2015,and the number of patchs increased by 419. The shape of the patches gradually became more complicated, and the fragmentation degree of the sparse forest was the highest. The number of patches increased from 146 in 2005 to 541 in 2015, and the aggregation index decreased by 9.76, mainly due to cultivation of forestry and fruit industry, the river distribution was concentrated, the tributaries were reduced, the aggregation index increased by38.85, and the shape index decreased by 3.77. From the perspective of landscape type, the landscape diversity index increased by 0.09 from 2005 to 2015, the contagion index decreased by 2.96. Landscape diversification, fragmentation, non-concentration of distribution and weakening of connectivity were also observed.
引文
[1]李莹,黄岁.滦河流域景观格局变化对水沙过程的影响[J].生态学报,2017,37(07):2463-2475.
[2]周玲,张丽,许君一,等.漓江流域土地利用变化分析及预测[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(6):218-223.
[3]曾建军.景观格局变化背景下疏勒河流域生态承载力和生态需水研究[D].兰州大学,2018.
[4]陈爱玲,都金康.基于CA-Markov模型的秦淮河流域土地覆盖格局模拟预测[J].国土资源遥感,2014,26(02):184-189.
[5]Masuma Chowdhury,Mohammad Emran Hasan,M.M.AbdullahAl-Mamun.Land use/land cover change assessment of Halda watershed using remote sensing and GIS[J].The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences,2018.
[6]徐炫清,陈裕婵,李青圃,等.五华河流域景观格局演变对径流泥沙的影响[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(01):231-236+242.
[7]刘铁冬.杂谷脑河流域近30年景观格局时空演变研究[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(03):98-102+108.
[8]田颖,沈红军,吕学研.江苏太湖流域景观格局特征分析[J].生态科学,2016,35(03):146-152.
[9]张金茜,巩杰,柳冬青.地理探测器方法下甘肃白龙江流域景观破碎化与驱动因子分析[J].地理科学,2018,38(08):1370-1378.
[10]王芳,陈芝聪,谢小平.太湖流域建设用地与耕地景观时空演变及驱动力[J].生态学报,2018,38(09):3300-3310.
[11]蒙金华,张正栋,袁宇志,等.基于CA-Markov模型的流溪河流域景观格局分析及动态预测[J].华南师范大学学报(自然科学版),2015,47(04):122-127.
[12]胡金龙,罗楠,周志翔.漓江流域1973-2013年景观格局动态变化研究[J].西北林学院学报,2017,32(04):217-223.
[13]王鑫,刘伟玲,张林波,等.2000-2010年辽河流域景观格局动态分析[J].福建林业科技,2015,42(02):9-15.
[14]花东文,温仲明,杨士梭,等.黄土丘陵沟壑区土地利用景观格局变化分析——以延河流域为例[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(05):86-91.
[15]周德民,宫辉力,胡金明,等.三江平原淡水湿地生态系统景观格局特征研究——以洪河湿地自然保护区为例[J].自然资源学报,2007,(01):86-96.
[16]冯源嵩,杨庆媛,邱从毫.南明河流域水质对景观格局演变的响应[J].环境科学研究,2015,28(12):1852-1861.
[17]张静静,朱文博,赵芳,等.山地平原过渡带地形起伏特征及其对景观格局的影响——以太行山淇河流域为例[J].中国科学:地球科学,2018,48(04):476-486.
[18]樊相宁.2000-2010陕西省景观格局及其动态变化研究[D].西北大学,2015.
[19]肖笃宁.论现代景观科学的形成与发展[J].地理科学,1999,(04):379-384.
[20]朱海玲.密云水库流域的景观格局及变化分析研究[D].北京林业大学,2013.
[21]胡冬雪,唐立娜,邱全毅,等.海峡西岸经济区景观格局10年变化及驱动力[J].生态学报,2015,35(18):6138-6147.
[22]张玲玲.兰州城市在不同地形条件下扩展的时空过程分析[D].兰州大学,2017.
[23]朱颖,林静雅,胡义涛,等.天目湖流域景观格局时空变化及生态系统服务价值分析[J].西北林学院学报,2018,33(04):239-245.
[24]宋先先,王得祥,赵鹏祥,等.天华山自然保护区景观格局现状及分析[J].西北林学院学报,2011,26(04):75-79.
[25]王军强,郭青霞,赵富才,等.岔口小流域土地利用景观破碎化现状分析[J].山西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2014,34(02):152-156.
[26]郭力宇,李怡,郭昭.宝鸡市渭北旱塬区土地利用及景观格局动态变化分析[J].西北林学院学报,2018,33(05):263-268.
[27]孙拥康,李际平.森林景观格局与环境关系及其尺度效应——以西洞庭湖区为例[J].东北林业大学学报,2014,42(01):42-46+75.
[28]徐嘉兴,李钢,渠俊峰,等.洪泽湖地区土地利用与景观格局演变[J].长江流域资源与环境,2011,20(10):1211-1216.
[2]周玲,张丽,许君一,等.漓江流域土地利用变化分析及预测[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(6):218-223.
[3]曾建军.景观格局变化背景下疏勒河流域生态承载力和生态需水研究[D].兰州大学,2018.
[4]陈爱玲,都金康.基于CA-Markov模型的秦淮河流域土地覆盖格局模拟预测[J].国土资源遥感,2014,26(02):184-189.
[5]Masuma Chowdhury,Mohammad Emran Hasan,M.M.AbdullahAl-Mamun.Land use/land cover change assessment of Halda watershed using remote sensing and GIS[J].The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences,2018.
[6]徐炫清,陈裕婵,李青圃,等.五华河流域景观格局演变对径流泥沙的影响[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(01):231-236+242.
[7]刘铁冬.杂谷脑河流域近30年景观格局时空演变研究[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(03):98-102+108.
[8]田颖,沈红军,吕学研.江苏太湖流域景观格局特征分析[J].生态科学,2016,35(03):146-152.
[9]张金茜,巩杰,柳冬青.地理探测器方法下甘肃白龙江流域景观破碎化与驱动因子分析[J].地理科学,2018,38(08):1370-1378.
[10]王芳,陈芝聪,谢小平.太湖流域建设用地与耕地景观时空演变及驱动力[J].生态学报,2018,38(09):3300-3310.
[11]蒙金华,张正栋,袁宇志,等.基于CA-Markov模型的流溪河流域景观格局分析及动态预测[J].华南师范大学学报(自然科学版),2015,47(04):122-127.
[12]胡金龙,罗楠,周志翔.漓江流域1973-2013年景观格局动态变化研究[J].西北林学院学报,2017,32(04):217-223.
[13]王鑫,刘伟玲,张林波,等.2000-2010年辽河流域景观格局动态分析[J].福建林业科技,2015,42(02):9-15.
[14]花东文,温仲明,杨士梭,等.黄土丘陵沟壑区土地利用景观格局变化分析——以延河流域为例[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(05):86-91.
[15]周德民,宫辉力,胡金明,等.三江平原淡水湿地生态系统景观格局特征研究——以洪河湿地自然保护区为例[J].自然资源学报,2007,(01):86-96.
[16]冯源嵩,杨庆媛,邱从毫.南明河流域水质对景观格局演变的响应[J].环境科学研究,2015,28(12):1852-1861.
[17]张静静,朱文博,赵芳,等.山地平原过渡带地形起伏特征及其对景观格局的影响——以太行山淇河流域为例[J].中国科学:地球科学,2018,48(04):476-486.
[18]樊相宁.2000-2010陕西省景观格局及其动态变化研究[D].西北大学,2015.
[19]肖笃宁.论现代景观科学的形成与发展[J].地理科学,1999,(04):379-384.
[20]朱海玲.密云水库流域的景观格局及变化分析研究[D].北京林业大学,2013.
[21]胡冬雪,唐立娜,邱全毅,等.海峡西岸经济区景观格局10年变化及驱动力[J].生态学报,2015,35(18):6138-6147.
[22]张玲玲.兰州城市在不同地形条件下扩展的时空过程分析[D].兰州大学,2017.
[23]朱颖,林静雅,胡义涛,等.天目湖流域景观格局时空变化及生态系统服务价值分析[J].西北林学院学报,2018,33(04):239-245.
[24]宋先先,王得祥,赵鹏祥,等.天华山自然保护区景观格局现状及分析[J].西北林学院学报,2011,26(04):75-79.
[25]王军强,郭青霞,赵富才,等.岔口小流域土地利用景观破碎化现状分析[J].山西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2014,34(02):152-156.
[26]郭力宇,李怡,郭昭.宝鸡市渭北旱塬区土地利用及景观格局动态变化分析[J].西北林学院学报,2018,33(05):263-268.
[27]孙拥康,李际平.森林景观格局与环境关系及其尺度效应——以西洞庭湖区为例[J].东北林业大学学报,2014,42(01):42-46+75.
[28]徐嘉兴,李钢,渠俊峰,等.洪泽湖地区土地利用与景观格局演变[J].长江流域资源与环境,2011,20(10):1211-1216.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |