Land Landscape Pattern and Ecological Risk Analysis of Tianshan Grand Canyon National Forest Park

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.03.024

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 By analyzing and evaluating the changes of land landscape pattern and ecological risks in the study area, it provides a basis for the ecological construction and rational development of Tianshan Grand Canyon National Forest Park.【Method】 Using ArcGIS and Fragstats software to calculate and analyze the landscape pattern index and ecological risk index, based on the land use data of the study area in 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2018, to conduct landscape ecological risk assessment.【Result】 From 1990 to 2018, cultivated land, forest land and grassland were the main ecological landscape types in the region, accounting for 85.5% of the total area. The ecological landscape area of grassland and unused land increased significantly (7,894.7and 4,684.12 hm²), of which the area of cultivated land, forest land and water area decreased. (1,556, 5,898.54, 6,240.73 hm²); the number of patches, patch density, maximum patch index, spread and aggregation index in the regional landscape pattern index showed an upward trend; the area of low, medium and low risk areas during the study period increased (59.60 and 35.72 hm²), and the area of medium, high and high risk areas decreased (6.57, 32.14, 56.62 hm²).【Conclusion】 According to the research and analysis of this data, the overall landscape ecological risk index has decreased, and the ecological environment has shown a good trend of development; South and Northeast transfer.

Key words: Land use; landscape pattern; Ecological Risk Assessment; Tianshan Grand Canyon National Forest Park

摘要：

【目的】研究土地景观格局变化和生态风险进行分析评价,为天山大峡谷国家森林公园生态建设提供依据。【方法】以研究区1990年、2000年、2010年和2018年4期土地利用数据,利用ArcGIS和Fragstats软件计算分析景观格局指数和生态风险指数,进行景观生态风险评价。【结果】1990-2018年,区域以耕地、林地和草地为主要生态景观类型,占总面积85.5%,草地和未利用地生态景观面积大幅增加(7 894.7 hm²和4 684.12 hm²),其中耕地、林地、水域面积减少(1 556、5 898.54和6 240.73 hm²);区域内景观格局指数中斑块数量、斑块密度、最大斑块指数、蔓延度及聚集度指数呈现上升的趋势;研究期内低、中低风险区面积增加(59.60和35.72 hm²),中、高和较高风险区面积减少(6.57 、32.14和56.62 hm²)。【结论】整体景观生态风险指数减小,生态环境呈现好的趋势发展;较高和高风险区向东南方向转移,低和较低风险区向南部和东北部转移。

关键词: 土地利用, 景观格局, 生态风险, 天山大峡谷国家森林公园

CLC Number:

ZHAO Fangfang, SUN Guili, JI Xiaomin, GE Wenting, LI Xue, LU Hang. Land Landscape Pattern and Ecological Risk Analysis of Tianshan Grand Canyon National Forest Park[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(3): 735-743.

赵芳芳, 孙桂丽, 吉小敏, 各文婷, 李雪, 卢航. 天山大峡谷国家森林公园土地景观格局及生态风险分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(3): 735-743.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1 Topography of study area

Fig.2 Land use landscape pattern in the study area

Table 1 Landscape pattern index calculation

序号 Number	指数名称 IndexName	公式 Formula	含义 Meaning
1	破碎度指数指数(C_i)	C_i=n_i/A_i.	景观破碎度是指景观类型的破碎化程度。
2	景观分离度指数(S_i)	S_i= $1 / 2 n i TA A i$ ×TA.	景观分离度描述景观类型中斑块分布的离散程度。
3	景观干扰度指数(Ei)	E_i=aC_i+bS_i+cF_i.	景观干扰指数Ei表明了不同景观对生态系统的干扰程度。
4	景观分维度(Fi)	F_i= $2 In P i 4 In A i$ .	景观分离度描述景观类型中斑块分布的离散程度。
5	景观损失度(Ri)	R_i=E_i×F_i.	景观损失指数表示不同景观类型受影响后自然属性损失的程度。
6	景观敏感度(LSI)	$L S I=\sum_{i=1}^{n} U_{i} \times V_{i}$.	景观敏感度指数表示不同景观受自然因素的敏感程度。
7	景观适应度(LAI)	LAI=PRD×SHDI×SHEI.	景观适应度表示不同景观对生态系统的适应程度。
8	景观脆弱度指数(LVI)	LVI=LSI×(1-LAI).	景观脆弱度表示生态系统内部结构的易损性。

Table 1 Landscape pattern index calculation

序号 Number	指数名称 IndexName	公式 Formula	含义 Meaning
1	破碎度指数指数(C_i)	C_i=n_i/A_i.	景观破碎度是指景观类型的破碎化程度。
2	景观分离度指数(S_i)	S_i= $1 / 2 n i TA A i$ ×TA.	景观分离度描述景观类型中斑块分布的离散程度。
3	景观干扰度指数(Ei)	E_i=aC_i+bS_i+cF_i.	景观干扰指数Ei表明了不同景观对生态系统的干扰程度。
4	景观分维度(Fi)	F_i= $2 In P i 4 In A i$ .	景观分离度描述景观类型中斑块分布的离散程度。
5	景观损失度(Ri)	R_i=E_i×F_i.	景观损失指数表示不同景观类型受影响后自然属性损失的程度。
6	景观敏感度(LSI)	$L S I=\sum_{i=1}^{n} U_{i} \times V_{i}$.	景观敏感度指数表示不同景观受自然因素的敏感程度。
7	景观适应度(LAI)	LAI=PRD×SHDI×SHEI.	景观适应度表示不同景观对生态系统的适应程度。
8	景观脆弱度指数(LVI)	LVI=LSI×(1-LAI).	景观脆弱度表示生态系统内部结构的易损性。

Table 2 Changes in the area of landscape types from 1990 to 2018

土地类型 Land type	1990		2000		2010		2018
土地类型 Land type	面积 Area (hm²)	比例 Proportion (%)	面积 Area (hm²)	比例 Proportion (%)	面积 Area (hm²)	比例 Proportion (%)	面积 Area (hm²)	比例 Proportion (%)
耕地Arable land	10 693.71	10.7	10 606.14	10.61	9 203.76	9.21	9 137.7	9.14
林地Woodland	16 031.97	16.04	16 033.41	16.04	10 133.46	10.14	10 133.46	10.14
草地Grassland	58 258.71	54.89	58 273.83	58.3	66 323.07	66.36	66 153.42	66.22
水域Watery	7 554.15	7.56	7 553.7	7.56	2 020.68	0.72	2 020.68	2.02
建设用地Construction land	197.73	0.2	272.88	0.27	830.61	0.83	1 066.32	1.07
未利用地Unused land	7 208.82	7.21	7 213.23	7.21	11 433.51	11.44	11 433.51	11.44

Table 3 1990-2018 Landscape Type Transfer Matrix

时间 Time	土地利用类型 Land use type	耕地 Arable land	林地 Woodland	草地 Grass	水域 Waters	建设用地 Construction land	未利用地 Unused land
1990~2000	耕地	10 550.25	0.00	81.50	0.00	61.70	0.20
	林地	0.00	16 031.40	3.90	0.00	0.00	0.00
	草地	48.80	5.30	58 180.60	2.10	20.30	0.70
	水域	0.00	0.00	2.50	7 551.60	0.00	0.00
	建设用地	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	190.80	0.00
	未利用地	0.4	0.00	2.10	0.00	0.00	7 207.20
2000~2010	耕地	8 070.80	0.00	2 037.69	162.60	335.10	0.00
	林地	11.30	8 194.86	7 799.76	5.60	0.00	21.90
	草地	988.00	1 911.87	51 197.20	181.89	357.84	3 658.30
	水域	0.00	0.00	1 241.50	469.30	0.00	5 843.00
	建设用地	129.80	0.00	5.70	0.00	137.40	0.00
	未利用地	3.90	26.70	4 066.00	399.60	0.00	445.30
2010~2018	耕地	8 953.74	0.00	242.70	0.00	7.30	0.00
	林地	0.00	10 133.46	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	草地	184.00	0.00	65 910.70	0.00	228.40	0.00
	水域	0.00	0.00	0.00	2 020.70	0.00	0.00
	建设用地	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	533.20	0.00
	未利用地	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	11 433.50	0.00

Table 4 Patch feature index of each landscape element in the study area (1990-2018)

时间 Time	土地类型 Land type	斑块数量 NP	面积 Area (hm²)	破碎度 C_i	分离度指数 S_i	分维度指数 F_i	干扰度指数 E_i	脆弱度指数 R_i
1990	耕地	3	10 693.7	0.000 3	0.025 6	1.512 5	0.310 3	0.18
	林地	92	16 032	0.152 7	23.339 8	2.547 5	7.587 8	1.972 8
	草地	40	58 258.7	0.006 4	0.283	5.733 2	1.234 7	0.518 6
	水域	1	7 554.1	0.000 1	0.020 9	1.749	0.356 1	0.263 5
	建设用地	14	197.7	0.070 8	2.991 6	5.282 2	1.989 3	0.198 9
	未利用地	11	7 208.9	0.007	0.502 6	6.019 1	1.358 1	1.222 3
2000	耕地	3	10 597.4	0.000 3	0.025 8	1.515 5	0.311	0.180 4
	林地	92	16 020.05	0.153 8	23.502 3	2.546 3	7.636 8	1.985 6
	草地	43	58 222.3	0.006 7	0.289 6	5.734 3	1.237 1	0.519 6
	水域	1	7 546.86	0.000 1	0.020 9	1.749 3	0.356 2	0.263 6
	建设用地	16	272.61	0.058 7	2.318 4	3.589 9	1.442 8	0.144 3
	未利用地	12	7 202.97	0.007 8	0.541 4	6.020 1	1.370 4	1.233 3
2010	耕地	14	9 203.76	0.001 5	0.064 3	1.728 3	0.365 7	0.212 1
	林地	363	10 133.46	0.605 7	43.008	5.494 4	14.304 2	3.719 1
	草地	38	66 323.05	0.002 7	0.146 9	4.998 2	1.045	0.438 9
	水域	55	1 313.37	0.041 9	0.892 6	2.693	0.827 3	0.612 2
	建设用地	42	1 240.47	0.068 2	2.364 1	6.340 5	2.011 4	0.201 1
	未利用地	24	11 730.93	0.264 4	15.871 1	4.357 3	5.765	5.188 5
2018	耕地	15	9 137.7	0.001 6	0.067	1.740 6	0.369	0.214
	林地	363	10 133.46	0.605 7	43.007 9	5.494 3	14.304 1	3.719 1
	草地	41	66 153.4	0.003 2	0.157 9	5.056 3	1.060 2	4.164 4
	水域	55	1 313.37	0.041 9	0.892 6	2.693	0.827 3	0.612 2
	建设用地	42	1 314.09	0.063 8	2.207 3	6.188 9	1.931 9	0.193 2
	未利用地	29	11 893.02	0.257 5	15.351 2	4.274 5	5.589	5.030 1

Table 5 Research Area Landscape Level Index (1990-2018)

时间 Time	斑块数量 Number of plaques	斑块密度 Patch density	最大斑块指数 Maximum plaque index	蔓延度指数 Sprawl Index	香农多样性指数 Shannon Diversity Index	香农均匀度指数 Shannon Uniformity Index	聚集度指数 Aggregation index
1990	161	0.034 9	10.670 0	63.869 4	1.610 4	0.671 6	97.831 1
2000	167	0.026 5	7.808 7	63.668 5	1.613 3	0.672 8	97.673 3
2010	536	0.116 3	11.726 1	66.748 9	1.546 8	0.603 0	96.825 3
2018	545	0.118 2	11.726 1	66.565 5	1.553 6	0.605 7	96.780 3

Table 6 Areas of ecological risk areas from 1990 to 2018

生态风险类型 Ecological risk type	年份 Years
生态风险类型 Ecological risk type	1990年	百分比 Percentage	2000年	百分比 Percentage	2010年	百分比 Percentage	2018年	百分比 Percentage
低生态风险 Low ecological risk	452.565	0.453	446.297	0.447	492.773	0.493	512.156	0.512
较低生态风险 Lower ecological risk	168.360	0.168	236.687	0.237	216.416	0.217	204.087	0.204
中生态风险 Ecological risk	140.153	0.140	154.431	0.155	149.545	0.150	133.584	0.134
较高生态风险 Higher ecological risk	138.598	0.139	114.560	0.115	98.255	0.098	106.456	0.107
高生态风险区 High ecological risk	99.830	0.100	47.530	0.048	42.518	0.043	43.223	0.043

Fig.3 Landscape ecological risk spatial pattern

References 25

[1]	谢花林. 基于景观结构的土地利用生态风险空间特征分析—以江西兴国县为例[J]. 中国环境科学, 2011, 31(4): 688-695.
	XIE Hualin. Spatial characteristic analysis of land use eco-risk based on landscape structure:a case study in Xingguo County, Jiangxi Province[J]. China Environmental Science, 2011, 31(4): 688-695.
[2]	Strohbach M W, Haase D. Above-ground carbon storage by urban trees in Leipzig, Germany: Analysis of patterns in a European city[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2012, 104(1): 95-104. DOI URL
[3]	Cook E A. Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002, 58(2): 269-280. DOI URL
[4]	Ramalho C E, Laliberté E, Poot P, et al. Complex effects of fragmentation on remnant woodland plant communities of a rapidly urbanizing biodiversity hotspot[J]. Ecology, 2014, 95(9): 2466-2478. DOI URL
[5]	邬建国, 景观生态学-格局、过程、尺度与等级 (第二版)[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2007: 112-113.
	WU Jianguo. Landscape Ecology-Pattern, Process, Scale and Level (Second Ed.)[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2007: 112-113.
[6]	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, 20(1): 43-45.
	ZENG Hui, LIU Guojun. Regional ecological risk analysis based on landscape structure[J]. China Environmental Science, 1999, 20(1): 43-45.
[7]	陈百明, 周小萍, 土地利用现状分类国家标准的解读[J]. 自然资源学报, 2007, 22(6): 994-1003.
	CHEN Baiming, ZHOU Xiaoping. Explanation of Current Land Use Condition Classification for National Standard of the People's Republic of China[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2007, 22(6): 994-1003.
[8]	郭怀成, 都小尚, 刘永, 等. 基于景观格局分析的区域规划环评方法[J]. 地理研究, 2011, 30(9): 1713-1724.
	GUO Huaicheng, DU Xiaoshang, LIU Yong, et al. A landscape pattern analysis-based methodology framework for regional planning environmental assessment[J]. Geographical Research, 2011, 30(9): 1713-1724.
[9]	李小妹, 严平. 中国北方地区沙漠与河流景观格局[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(9): 1198-1208. DOI
	LI Xiaomei, YAN Ping. Landscape pattern characteristics of deserts and rivers in Northern China[J]. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(9): 1198-1208. DOI
[10]	阿布都热合曼·哈力克, 卞正富, 瓦哈普·哈力克. 吐鲁番盆地水资源运转规律及其持续利用研究[J]. 水文, 2009, 29(3): 50-54.
	Abudureheman Khaliq, BIAN Zhengfu, Wahapu Khaliq. Discussion on the Water Resources and Their Rational Development and Utilization in Turpan Basin[J]. Journal of China Hydrology, 2009, 29(3): 50-54.
[11]	王娟, 崔保山, 刘杰, 等. 云南澜沧江流域土地利用及其变化对景观生态风险的影响[J]. 环境科学学报, 2008, 28(2): 269-277.
	WANG Juan, CUI Baoshan, LIU Jie, et al. The effect of land use and its change on ecological risk in the Lancang River watershed of Yunnan Province at the landscape scale[J]. Journal of Environmental Science, 2008, 28(2): 269-277.
[12]	张雅杰, 方媛, 贺法法, 等. 基于土地利用变化模拟的生态风险动态评价[J]. 测绘空间地理信息, 2016, 39(1): 5-8,12.
	ZHANG Yajie, FANG Yuan, HE Fafa, et al. Ecological Risk Dynamic Assessment Based on Simulation of Land Use Change[J]. Surveying and Mapping Spatial Geographic Information, 2016, 39(1): 5-8,12.
[13]	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.
	CHEN Peng, PAN Xiaoling. Ecological risk analysis of regional landscape in inland river watershed of arid area—a case study of Sangong River Basin in Fukang[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2003, 22(4): 116-120.
[14]	张月, 张飞, 王娟, 等. 基于LUCC的艾比湖区域生态风险评价及预测研究[J]. 中国环境科学, 2016, 36(11): 3465-3474.
	ZHANG Yue, ZHANG Fei, WANG Juan, et al. Ecological risk assessment and prediction of Ebinur Lake region based on Land use/Land cover change[J]. China Environmental Science, 2016, 36(11): 3465-3474.
[15]	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.
	SU Haimin, HE Aixia. Analysis of land use in Fuzhou based on RS and geostatistics[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2010, 25(1): 91-99.
[16]	谢小平, 陈芝聪, 王芳, 等. 基于景观格局的太湖流域生态风险评估[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(10): 3369-3377. PMID
	XIE Xiaoping, CHEN Zhicong, WANG Fang, et al. Ecological risk assessment of Taihu Lake basin based on landscape pattern[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017, 28(10): 3369-3377. DOI PMID
[17]	高宾, 李小玉, 李志刚, 等. 基于景观格局的锦州湾沿海经济开发区生态风险分析[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(12): 3441-3450.
	GAO Bin, LI Xiaoyu, LI Zhigang, et al. Assessment of ecological risk of coastal economic developing zone in Jinzhou Bay based on landscape pattern[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(12): 3441-3450.
[18]	李菊荣, 王延华, 唐湘玲, 等. 新疆玛纳斯河流域土地利用变化特征及影响因素研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2018, 49(1): 61-68.
	LI Jurong, WANG Yanhua, TANG Xiangling, et al. The Spatial-Temporal Characteristics of Land Use Change in the Manas River Basin and Influencing Factors[J]. Soil Bulletin, 2018, 49(1): 61-68.
[19]	张甜, 刘焱序, 彭建, 等. 深圳市景观生态风险多尺度关联分析[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(9): 2478-2486.
	ZHANG Tian, LIU Yanxu, PENG Jian, et al. Correlation of the landscape ecological risk on multi-scales in Shenzhen City[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2016, 35(9): 2478-2486.
[20]	许妍, 高俊峰, 赵家虎, 等. 流域生态风险评价研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(1): 284-292.
	XU Yan, GAO Junfeng, ZHAO Jiahu, et al. The research progress and prospect of watershed ecological risk assessment[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2012, 32(1): 284-292. DOI URL
[21]	徐兰, 罗维, 周宝同. 基于土地利用变化的农牧交错带典型流域生态风险评价—以洋河为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(4): 580-590.
	XU Lan, LUO Wei, ZHOU Baotong. Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment of Farming-Pastoral Ecozone Based on Land Use Change-A Case Study of the Yanghe Watershed, China[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(4): 580-590.
[22]	李月月, 黄义雄, 杨阳, 等. 基于景观结构的福建省沿海生态风险时空特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2018, 38(4): 241-246.
	LI Yueyue, HUANG Yixiong, YANG Yang, et al. Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Coastal Ecological Risk in Fujian Province Based on Landscape Structure[J]. Water and Soil Conservation Bulletin, 2018, 38(4): 241-246.
[23]	王亚娟, 王鹏, 韩文文, 等. 宁夏中部干旱带生态移民过程生态风险时空分异—以红寺堡区为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2018, 41(4): 817-825.
	WANG Yajuan, WANG Peng, HAN Wenwen, et al. Spatial and temporal variation of ecological risk in the process of ecological immigration in the arid zone of central Ningxia:A case of Hongsibu District[J]. Arid Zone Geography, 2018, 41(4): 817-825.
[24]	肖欢, 李成英, 冉港雄, 等. 剑门关丹霞地貌类型景观格局时空变化研究[J]. 地理空间信息,2019,17(4):75-78, 102, 10.
	XIAO Huan, LI Chengying, RAN Gangxiong, et al. Study on Spatio-temporal Variation of Landscape Pattern of Jianmen Pass Danxia Landform[J]. Geospatial Information, 2019, 17(4):75-78, 102, 10.
[25]	王成, 魏朝富, 袁敏, 等. 不同地貌类型下景观格局对土地利用方式的响应[J]. 农业工程学报, 2007,(9): 64-71, 293.
	WANG Cheng, WEI Chaofu, YUAN Min, et al. Response to the landscape pattern on the land use pattern under the different types of geomorphology[J]. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 2007, 23(9): 64-71, 293.