植物生态学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (7): 675-686.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00063
收稿日期:
2013-12-16
接受日期:
2014-02-26
出版日期:
2014-12-16
发布日期:
2014-07-10
通讯作者:
周平
作者简介:
* E-mail: zhoupinger@sinogaf.cn基金资助:
PENG Zi1, GU Cheng-Yan1, LIU Zhi-Yong2, LIN Wen3, ZHOU Ping1,*()
Received:
2013-12-16
Accepted:
2014-02-26
Online:
2014-12-16
Published:
2014-07-10
Contact:
ZHOU Ping
摘要:
探索流域生态承载力随土地利用类型及人口数量变化的时空变化格局对流域的可持续发展规划具有重要的生态意义。该研究通过对东江流域1989年、1994年、1999年、2004年、2009年5个时期Landsat-5 TM遥感影像的解译与分析, 利用变化率、单一动态度、综合动态度等指标, 探索了东江流域上、中、下游土地利用类型变化的时空格局。基于土地利用类型、东江流域人口数量、均衡因子、产量因子等数据, 进一步计算了东江流域人均生态承载力和总生态承载力, 并分析了影响生态承载力消长的因素。结果表明: (1) 1989-2009年东江流域各类用地结构调整明显。在城镇化加剧的同时, 森林植被也在改善, 两者并非是消长关系。但是上、中、下游表现出不同的变化格局, 上游和中游以园地向林地转移为主, 下游以耕地向城镇用地转移为主。(2)在1989-2009年20年间东江流域人口持续增长的情况下, 虽然流域人均生态承载力呈下降的趋势, 但其下降的幅度低于人口的增长速度, 总生态承载力仍呈增长的趋势, 说明20年间土地利用类型在优化发展。从时间来看, “十年绿化广东”结束之后的10年间(1994-2004年), 在人口增长的压力下, 人均生态承载力趋于相对平稳的状态。而之前的5年(1989-1994年)和之后的5年间(2004-2009年), 年人均生态承载力下降较明显, 前者与改革开放初期的大量开发有关, 后者与土地利用空间可优化的类型越来越少有关。流域内部不同区域的总生态承载力的变化趋势不尽相同, 上游和中游表现为先减小后增加的趋势, 下游表现为先增加后减小又恢复的趋势。综合来看, 东江流域人口对城镇化需求增加的同时, 并没有导致森林资源的恶化, 一定程度上实现了两者的协调发展。因而, 在人口增长对生态资源需求增长的情况下, 可以通过优化土地利用类型和提高总体生态服务功能, 来缓冲人均生态承载力下降的趋势。
彭资, 谷成燕, 刘智勇, 林雯, 周平. 东江流域1989-2009年土地利用变化对生态承载力的影响. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(7): 675-686. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00063
PENG Zi, GU Cheng-Yan, LIU Zhi-Yong, LIN Wen, ZHOU Ping. Impact of land use change during 1989-2009 on eco-capacity in Dongjiang watershed. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2014, 38(7): 675-686. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00063
分类精度 Classification accuracy | 1989 | 1994 | 1999 | 2004 | 2009 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
精度 Accuracy (%) | 90.59 | 85.19 | 87.64 | 87.85 | 87.63 |
Kappa系数 Kappa coefficient | 0.874 6 | 0.821 0 | 0.864 6 | 0.848 4 | 0.853 4 |
表1 1989年、1994年、1999年、2004年和2009年5个时期遥感影像的分类精度
Table 1 Classification accuracy of Landsat TM images for 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009
分类精度 Classification accuracy | 1989 | 1994 | 1999 | 2004 | 2009 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
精度 Accuracy (%) | 90.59 | 85.19 | 87.64 | 87.85 | 87.63 |
Kappa系数 Kappa coefficient | 0.874 6 | 0.821 0 | 0.864 6 | 0.848 4 | 0.853 4 |
图1 1989年、1994年、1999年、2004年、2009年东江流域土地利用类型空间格局。
Fig. 1 Spatial patterns of land use types in Dongjiang River watershed in 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009.
图2 东江流域1989年、1994年、1999年、2004年、2009年5个时期各土地利用类型面积格局。AL, 耕地; F, 林地; G, 园地; P, 灌草地; UL, 未利用地; U, 城镇用地; WA, 水域。
Fig. 2 Patterns of land use types by area in Dongjiang River watershed in 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009. AL, arable land; F, forest; G, garden; P, pasture; UL, unused land; U, urban; WA, water area.
图3 东江上、中、下流域各土地利用类型面积格局。AL, 耕地; F, 林地; G, 园地; P, 灌草地; UL, 未利用地; U, 城镇用地; WA, 水域。
Fig. 3 Patterns of land use types by area in the upper, middle and lower reaches in Dongjiang River watershed. AL, arable land; F, forest; G, garden; P, pasture; UL, unused land; U, urban; WA, water area.
时间区间 Time interval | 统计类型 Statistic type | AL | G | P | F | U | WA | UL | LC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
东江流域 Dongjiang River watershed | 1989-1994 | KT | -46.30% | -8.44% | 33.85% | 10.64% | 21.79% | 10.69% | -4.90% | 0.018 1 |
K | -0.093 0 | -0.017 0 | 0.068 0 | 0.021 0 | 0.044 0 | 0.021 0 | -0.010 0 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | -6.36% | -9.64% | 21.45% | 1.49% | 13.97% | 10.08% | -45.92% | 0.008 4 | |
K | -0.013 0 | -0.019 0 | 0.043 0 | 0.003 0 | 0.028 0 | 0.020 0 | -0.092 0 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | 25.58% | -1.00% | -57.46% | 9.78% | 10.93% | 10.57% | -30.69% | 0.016 5 | |
K | 0.051 0 | -0.002 0 | -0.115 0 | 0.020 0 | 0.022 0 | 0.021 0 | -0.061 0 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | 9.96% | -5.93% | -45.07% | 3.51% | 12.76% | -29.42% | -0.44% | 0.008 2 | |
K | 0.020 0 | -0.012 0 | -0.090 0 | 0.007 0 | 0.026 0 | -0.059 0 | -0.001 0 | |||
上游 Upper reach | 1989-1994 | KT | 36.90% | -55.20% | 102.53% | 22.30% | -72.95% | -31.89% | -55.57% | 0.041 0 |
K | 0.073 8 | -0.110 4 | 0.205 1 | 0.044 6 | -0.145 9 | -0.063 8 | -0.111 1 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | -23.67% | 119.30% | -82.96% | 0.11% | 61.15% | 13.51% | 12.91% | 0.025 4 | |
K | -0.047 3 | 0.238 6 | -0.165 9 | 0.000 2 | 0.122 3 | 0.027 0 | 0.025 8 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | 5.67% | -9.91% | 118.94% | -2.36% | 50.19% | 7.96% | -40.41% | 0.009 3 | |
K | 0.011 3 | -0.019 8 | 0.237 9 | -0.004 7 | 0.100 4 | 0.015 9 | -0.080 8 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | 91.01% | -47.39% | -70.35% | 3.79% | 43.10% | -24.59% | -29.05% | 0.024 9 | |
K | 0.182 0 | -0.094 8 | -0.140 7 | 0.007 6 | 0.086 2 | -0.049 2 | -0.058 1 | |||
中游 Middle reach | 1989-1994 | KT | -55.57% | 6.63% | 34.12% | 11.09% | 10.23% | 19.08% | -7.18% | 0.019 9 |
K | -0.111 1 | 0.013 3 | 0.068 2 | 0.022 2 | 0.020 5 | 0.038 2 | -0.014 4 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | -9.96% | -22.62% | 57.97% | 0.50% | 7.48% | 7.98% | -57.19% | 0.014 3 | |
K | -0.019 9 | -0.045 2 | 0.115 9 | 0.001 0 | 0.015 0 | 0.016 0 | -0.114 4 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | 44.61% | -4.77% | -69.96% | 15.94% | 32.41% | -6.22% | -16.28% | 0.026 3 | |
K | 0.089 2 | -0.009 5 | -0.139 9 | 0.031 9 | 0.064 8 | -0.012 4 | -0.032 6 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | -14.45% | 17.27% | -34.04% | 3.02% | -0.65% | -18.53% | -13.77% | 0.008 0 | |
K | -0.028 9 | 0.034 5 | -0.068 1 | 0.006 0 | -0.001 3 | -0.037 1 | -0.027 5 | |||
下游 Lower reach | 1989-1994 | KT | -76.64% | 65.76% | -70.62% | -52.75% | 352.54% | 7.11% | 351.88% | 0.092 9 |
K | -0.153 3 | 0.131 5 | -0.141 2 | -0.105 5 | 0.705 1 | 0.014 2 | 0.703 8 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | 98.62% | -82.62% | 357.60% | 43.64% | 11.58% | 21.50% | -57.08% | 0.059 3 | |
K | 0.197 2 | -0.165 2 | 0.715 2 | 0.087 3 | 0.023 2 | 0.043 0 | -0.114 2 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | -0.86% | 174.44% | -37.46% | 16.31% | -18.59% | 110.67% | -48.29% | 0.030 8 | |
K | -0.001 7 | 0.348 9 | -0.074 9 | 0.032 6 | -0.037 2 | 0.221 3 | -0.096 6 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | -27.29% | 17.40% | -48.25% | 9.69% | 17.85% | -59.44% | 106.12% | 0.025 5 | |
K | -0.054 6 | 0.034 8 | -0.096 5 | 0.019 4 | 0.035 7 | -0.118 9 | 0.212 2 |
表2 1989-2009年东江流域不同阶段土地利用类型的变化
Table 2 Variations in land use types in Dongjiang River watershed during different periods between 1989-2009
时间区间 Time interval | 统计类型 Statistic type | AL | G | P | F | U | WA | UL | LC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
东江流域 Dongjiang River watershed | 1989-1994 | KT | -46.30% | -8.44% | 33.85% | 10.64% | 21.79% | 10.69% | -4.90% | 0.018 1 |
K | -0.093 0 | -0.017 0 | 0.068 0 | 0.021 0 | 0.044 0 | 0.021 0 | -0.010 0 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | -6.36% | -9.64% | 21.45% | 1.49% | 13.97% | 10.08% | -45.92% | 0.008 4 | |
K | -0.013 0 | -0.019 0 | 0.043 0 | 0.003 0 | 0.028 0 | 0.020 0 | -0.092 0 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | 25.58% | -1.00% | -57.46% | 9.78% | 10.93% | 10.57% | -30.69% | 0.016 5 | |
K | 0.051 0 | -0.002 0 | -0.115 0 | 0.020 0 | 0.022 0 | 0.021 0 | -0.061 0 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | 9.96% | -5.93% | -45.07% | 3.51% | 12.76% | -29.42% | -0.44% | 0.008 2 | |
K | 0.020 0 | -0.012 0 | -0.090 0 | 0.007 0 | 0.026 0 | -0.059 0 | -0.001 0 | |||
上游 Upper reach | 1989-1994 | KT | 36.90% | -55.20% | 102.53% | 22.30% | -72.95% | -31.89% | -55.57% | 0.041 0 |
K | 0.073 8 | -0.110 4 | 0.205 1 | 0.044 6 | -0.145 9 | -0.063 8 | -0.111 1 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | -23.67% | 119.30% | -82.96% | 0.11% | 61.15% | 13.51% | 12.91% | 0.025 4 | |
K | -0.047 3 | 0.238 6 | -0.165 9 | 0.000 2 | 0.122 3 | 0.027 0 | 0.025 8 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | 5.67% | -9.91% | 118.94% | -2.36% | 50.19% | 7.96% | -40.41% | 0.009 3 | |
K | 0.011 3 | -0.019 8 | 0.237 9 | -0.004 7 | 0.100 4 | 0.015 9 | -0.080 8 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | 91.01% | -47.39% | -70.35% | 3.79% | 43.10% | -24.59% | -29.05% | 0.024 9 | |
K | 0.182 0 | -0.094 8 | -0.140 7 | 0.007 6 | 0.086 2 | -0.049 2 | -0.058 1 | |||
中游 Middle reach | 1989-1994 | KT | -55.57% | 6.63% | 34.12% | 11.09% | 10.23% | 19.08% | -7.18% | 0.019 9 |
K | -0.111 1 | 0.013 3 | 0.068 2 | 0.022 2 | 0.020 5 | 0.038 2 | -0.014 4 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | -9.96% | -22.62% | 57.97% | 0.50% | 7.48% | 7.98% | -57.19% | 0.014 3 | |
K | -0.019 9 | -0.045 2 | 0.115 9 | 0.001 0 | 0.015 0 | 0.016 0 | -0.114 4 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | 44.61% | -4.77% | -69.96% | 15.94% | 32.41% | -6.22% | -16.28% | 0.026 3 | |
K | 0.089 2 | -0.009 5 | -0.139 9 | 0.031 9 | 0.064 8 | -0.012 4 | -0.032 6 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | -14.45% | 17.27% | -34.04% | 3.02% | -0.65% | -18.53% | -13.77% | 0.008 0 | |
K | -0.028 9 | 0.034 5 | -0.068 1 | 0.006 0 | -0.001 3 | -0.037 1 | -0.027 5 | |||
下游 Lower reach | 1989-1994 | KT | -76.64% | 65.76% | -70.62% | -52.75% | 352.54% | 7.11% | 351.88% | 0.092 9 |
K | -0.153 3 | 0.131 5 | -0.141 2 | -0.105 5 | 0.705 1 | 0.014 2 | 0.703 8 | |||
1994-1999 | KT | 98.62% | -82.62% | 357.60% | 43.64% | 11.58% | 21.50% | -57.08% | 0.059 3 | |
K | 0.197 2 | -0.165 2 | 0.715 2 | 0.087 3 | 0.023 2 | 0.043 0 | -0.114 2 | |||
1999-2004 | KT | -0.86% | 174.44% | -37.46% | 16.31% | -18.59% | 110.67% | -48.29% | 0.030 8 | |
K | -0.001 7 | 0.348 9 | -0.074 9 | 0.032 6 | -0.037 2 | 0.221 3 | -0.096 6 | |||
2004-2009 | KT | -27.29% | 17.40% | -48.25% | 9.69% | 17.85% | -59.44% | 106.12% | 0.025 5 | |
K | -0.054 6 | 0.034 8 | -0.096 5 | 0.019 4 | 0.035 7 | -0.118 9 | 0.212 2 |
AL | G | P | F | U | WA | UL | 小计 Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
上游 Upper reach | AL | 207.49 | 134.02 | 17.21 | 168.75 | 58.08 | 4.20 | 17.40 | 607.16 |
G | 294.10 | 125.57 | 15.47 | 998.51 | 104.85 | 4.59 | 13.61 | 1 556.69 | |
P | 84.05 | 102.99 | 16.49 | 225.74 | 15.50 | 0.56 | 12.96 | 458.28 | |
F | 372.89 | 135.66 | 29.84 | 3 072.97 | 238.97 | 9.25 | 31.75 | 3 891.33 | |
U | 180.33 | 91.89 | 8.06 | 192.44 | 99.41 | 6.09 | 5.47 | 583.70 | |
WA | 5.36 | 2.91 | 0.50 | 29.37 | 14.06 | 21.96 | 0.81 | 74.98 | |
UL | 136.25 | 131.84 | 15.07 | 140.28 | 15.91 | 0.54 | 14.32 | 454.21 | |
小计 Total | 1 280.47 | 724.87 | 102.65 | 4 828.07 | 546.79 | 47.19 | 96.32 | 7 626.35 | |
变化 Change | 1 072.98 | 599.30 | 86.15 | 1 755.09 | 447.37 | 25.24 | 82.00 | - | |
中游 Middle reach | AL | 308.22 | 397.65 | 53.55 | 308.30 | 189.21 | 8.26 | 26.11 | 1 291.28 |
G | 191.53 | 447.56 | 182.98 | 1 892.57 | 125.58 | 7.24 | 25.21 | 2 872.68 | |
P | 202.14 | 517.98 | 108.58 | 874.83 | 94.80 | 4.68 | 23.91 | 1 826.92 | |
F | 409.70 | 704.81 | 120.10 | 7 151.98 | 290.04 | 9.81 | 80.21 | 8 766.65 | |
U | 144.92 | 129.98 | 31.27 | 173.75 | 288.62 | 31.96 | 21.51 | 822.01 | |
WA | 23.01 | 13.20 | 2.52 | 23.01 | 80.53 | 331.96 | 13.80 | 488.03 | |
UL | 158.65 | 271.34 | 80.20 | 98.69 | 93.67 | 8.69 | 38.83 | 750.07 | |
小计 Total | 1 438.17 | 2 482.52 | 579.20 | 10 523.12 | 1 162.45 | 402.60 | 229.57 | 16 817.64 | |
变化 Change | 1 129.95 | 2 034.95 | 470.62 | 3 371.14 | 873.83 | 70.64 | 190.74 | - | |
下游 Lower reach | AL | 113.25 | 117.60 | 23.19 | 66.64 | 359.12 | 17.11 | 61.69 | 758.60 |
G | 37.71 | 62.99 | 22.31 | 137.86 | 148.99 | 6.16 | 22.40 | 438.41 | |
P | 35.23 | 76.30 | 24.06 | 61.98 | 86.89 | 4.69 | 18.90 | 308.05 | |
F | 51.58 | 122.70 | 29.96 | 382.76 | 152.98 | 6.01 | 27.91 | 773.90 | |
U | 13.07 | 8.97 | 3.70 | 9.86 | 143.56 | 7.49 | 7.77 | 194.41 | |
WA | 2.02 | 1.82 | 0.98 | 4.08 | 24.40 | 34.91 | 1.56 | 69.76 | |
UL | 9.13 | 16.68 | 5.21 | 6.99 | 25.98 | 1.21 | 5.08 | 70.29 | |
小计 Total | 261.98 | 407.06 | 109.4 | 670.17 | 941.91 | 77.58 | 145.31 | 2 613.42 | |
变化 Change | 148.73 | 344.08 | 85.34 | 287.41 | 798.36 | 42.67 | 140.23 | - |
表3 1989-2009年东江上、中、下游土地利用转移矩阵(单位: km2)
Table 3 Transition matrix of land use in the upper, middle and lower reaches in Dongjiang River watershed from 1989 to 2009 (unit: km2)
AL | G | P | F | U | WA | UL | 小计 Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
上游 Upper reach | AL | 207.49 | 134.02 | 17.21 | 168.75 | 58.08 | 4.20 | 17.40 | 607.16 |
G | 294.10 | 125.57 | 15.47 | 998.51 | 104.85 | 4.59 | 13.61 | 1 556.69 | |
P | 84.05 | 102.99 | 16.49 | 225.74 | 15.50 | 0.56 | 12.96 | 458.28 | |
F | 372.89 | 135.66 | 29.84 | 3 072.97 | 238.97 | 9.25 | 31.75 | 3 891.33 | |
U | 180.33 | 91.89 | 8.06 | 192.44 | 99.41 | 6.09 | 5.47 | 583.70 | |
WA | 5.36 | 2.91 | 0.50 | 29.37 | 14.06 | 21.96 | 0.81 | 74.98 | |
UL | 136.25 | 131.84 | 15.07 | 140.28 | 15.91 | 0.54 | 14.32 | 454.21 | |
小计 Total | 1 280.47 | 724.87 | 102.65 | 4 828.07 | 546.79 | 47.19 | 96.32 | 7 626.35 | |
变化 Change | 1 072.98 | 599.30 | 86.15 | 1 755.09 | 447.37 | 25.24 | 82.00 | - | |
中游 Middle reach | AL | 308.22 | 397.65 | 53.55 | 308.30 | 189.21 | 8.26 | 26.11 | 1 291.28 |
G | 191.53 | 447.56 | 182.98 | 1 892.57 | 125.58 | 7.24 | 25.21 | 2 872.68 | |
P | 202.14 | 517.98 | 108.58 | 874.83 | 94.80 | 4.68 | 23.91 | 1 826.92 | |
F | 409.70 | 704.81 | 120.10 | 7 151.98 | 290.04 | 9.81 | 80.21 | 8 766.65 | |
U | 144.92 | 129.98 | 31.27 | 173.75 | 288.62 | 31.96 | 21.51 | 822.01 | |
WA | 23.01 | 13.20 | 2.52 | 23.01 | 80.53 | 331.96 | 13.80 | 488.03 | |
UL | 158.65 | 271.34 | 80.20 | 98.69 | 93.67 | 8.69 | 38.83 | 750.07 | |
小计 Total | 1 438.17 | 2 482.52 | 579.20 | 10 523.12 | 1 162.45 | 402.60 | 229.57 | 16 817.64 | |
变化 Change | 1 129.95 | 2 034.95 | 470.62 | 3 371.14 | 873.83 | 70.64 | 190.74 | - | |
下游 Lower reach | AL | 113.25 | 117.60 | 23.19 | 66.64 | 359.12 | 17.11 | 61.69 | 758.60 |
G | 37.71 | 62.99 | 22.31 | 137.86 | 148.99 | 6.16 | 22.40 | 438.41 | |
P | 35.23 | 76.30 | 24.06 | 61.98 | 86.89 | 4.69 | 18.90 | 308.05 | |
F | 51.58 | 122.70 | 29.96 | 382.76 | 152.98 | 6.01 | 27.91 | 773.90 | |
U | 13.07 | 8.97 | 3.70 | 9.86 | 143.56 | 7.49 | 7.77 | 194.41 | |
WA | 2.02 | 1.82 | 0.98 | 4.08 | 24.40 | 34.91 | 1.56 | 69.76 | |
UL | 9.13 | 16.68 | 5.21 | 6.99 | 25.98 | 1.21 | 5.08 | 70.29 | |
小计 Total | 261.98 | 407.06 | 109.4 | 670.17 | 941.91 | 77.58 | 145.31 | 2 613.42 | |
变化 Change | 148.73 | 344.08 | 85.34 | 287.41 | 798.36 | 42.67 | 140.23 | - |
区域 Region | 年份 Year | ec | EC | ec | EC | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
变化量 Magnitude of change (hm2·person-1) | 变化率 Rate of change (%) | 变化量 Magnitude of change (hm2) | 变化率 Rate of change (%) | |||||
东江流域 Dongjiang River watershed | 1989 | 0.854 2 | 4 329 682 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.683 0 | 3 853 844 | -0.171 3 | -0.200 5 | -475 838 | -0.109 9 | ||
1999 | 0.622 0 | 3 871 333 | -0.061 0 | -0.089 3 | 17 489 | 0.004 5 | ||
2004 | 0.644 7 | 4 307 321 | 0.022 7 | 0.036 5 | 435 988 | 0.112 6 | ||
2009 | 0.593 4 | 4 539 629 | -0.051 2 | -0.079 5 | 232 309 | 0.053 9 | ||
上游 Upper reach | 1989 | 0.827 5 | 1 128 088 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.728 9 | 1 056 882 | -0.098 6 | -0.119 2 | -71 205 | -0.063 1 | ||
1999 | 0.724 2 | 1 119 064 | -0.004 6 | -0.006 4 | 62 181 | 0.058 8 | ||
2004 | 0.699 2 | 1 146 417 | -0.025 0 | -0.034 6 | 27 353 | 0.024 4 | ||
2009 | 0.792 8 | 1 365 117 | 0.093 6 | 0.133 9 | 218 700 | 0.190 8 | ||
中游 Middle reach | 1989 | 0.860 8 | 2 692 816 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.671 8 | 2 271 964 | -0.189 0 | -0.219 6 | -420 852 | -0.156 3 | ||
1999 | 0.598 0 | 2 178 598 | -0.073 8 | -0.109 8 | -93 366 | -0.041 1 | ||
2004 | 0.672 3 | 2 614 415 | 0.074 3 | 0.124 3 | 435 817 | 0.200 0 | ||
2009 | 0.579 8 | 2 601 633 | -0.092 4 | -0.137 5 | -12 782 | -0.004 9 | ||
下游 Lower reach | 1989 | 0.949 0 | 508 789 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.783 3 | 525 013 | -0.165 7 | -0.174 6 | 16 223 | 0.031 9 | ||
1999 | 0.715 7 | 573 722 | -0.067 7 | -0.086 4 | 48 709 | 0.092 8 | ||
2004 | 0.620 2 | 546 535 | -0.095 0 | -0.133 3 | -27 187 | -0.047 4 | ||
2009 | 0.508 5 | 572 860 | -0.111 8 | -0.180 1 | 26 325 | 0.048 2 |
表4 1989-2009年东江流域人均生态承载力变化与总生态承载力变化(单位: hm2)
Table 4 Changes in total and per capita eco-capacity in Dongjiang River watershed from 1989 to 2009 (unit: hm2)
区域 Region | 年份 Year | ec | EC | ec | EC | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
变化量 Magnitude of change (hm2·person-1) | 变化率 Rate of change (%) | 变化量 Magnitude of change (hm2) | 变化率 Rate of change (%) | |||||
东江流域 Dongjiang River watershed | 1989 | 0.854 2 | 4 329 682 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.683 0 | 3 853 844 | -0.171 3 | -0.200 5 | -475 838 | -0.109 9 | ||
1999 | 0.622 0 | 3 871 333 | -0.061 0 | -0.089 3 | 17 489 | 0.004 5 | ||
2004 | 0.644 7 | 4 307 321 | 0.022 7 | 0.036 5 | 435 988 | 0.112 6 | ||
2009 | 0.593 4 | 4 539 629 | -0.051 2 | -0.079 5 | 232 309 | 0.053 9 | ||
上游 Upper reach | 1989 | 0.827 5 | 1 128 088 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.728 9 | 1 056 882 | -0.098 6 | -0.119 2 | -71 205 | -0.063 1 | ||
1999 | 0.724 2 | 1 119 064 | -0.004 6 | -0.006 4 | 62 181 | 0.058 8 | ||
2004 | 0.699 2 | 1 146 417 | -0.025 0 | -0.034 6 | 27 353 | 0.024 4 | ||
2009 | 0.792 8 | 1 365 117 | 0.093 6 | 0.133 9 | 218 700 | 0.190 8 | ||
中游 Middle reach | 1989 | 0.860 8 | 2 692 816 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.671 8 | 2 271 964 | -0.189 0 | -0.219 6 | -420 852 | -0.156 3 | ||
1999 | 0.598 0 | 2 178 598 | -0.073 8 | -0.109 8 | -93 366 | -0.041 1 | ||
2004 | 0.672 3 | 2 614 415 | 0.074 3 | 0.124 3 | 435 817 | 0.200 0 | ||
2009 | 0.579 8 | 2 601 633 | -0.092 4 | -0.137 5 | -12 782 | -0.004 9 | ||
下游 Lower reach | 1989 | 0.949 0 | 508 789 | - | ||||
1994 | 0.783 3 | 525 013 | -0.165 7 | -0.174 6 | 16 223 | 0.031 9 | ||
1999 | 0.715 7 | 573 722 | -0.067 7 | -0.086 4 | 48 709 | 0.092 8 | ||
2004 | 0.620 2 | 546 535 | -0.095 0 | -0.133 3 | -27 187 | -0.047 4 | ||
2009 | 0.508 5 | 572 860 | -0.111 8 | -0.180 1 | 26 325 | 0.048 2 |
图4 东江流域土地利用类型、人均生态承载力、总生态承载力的变化率。 AL, 耕地; F, 林地; G, 园地; P, 灌草地; U, 城镇用地; UL, 未利用地; WA, 水域。
Fig. 4 Rate of change in land use types, per capita eco-capacity, and total eco-capacity in Dongjiang River watershed. AL, arable land; F, forest; G, garden; P, pasture; U, urban; UL, unused land; WA, water area.
[1] | Cai HS, Zhu DH, Zhang XL, Zhao XM (2007). Dynamics analysis of the ecological capacity in Po-yang Lake Nature Reserve based on RS and GIS. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27, 4751-4757. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[蔡海生, 朱德海, 张学玲, 赵小敏 (2007). 鄱阳湖自然保护区生态承载力. 生态学报, 27, 4751-4757.] | |
[2] | Chen XH, Wang ZL (2010). Land use change and its impact on water resources in East River basin, South China. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Natural Science), 46, 311-316. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[陈晓宏, 王兆礼 (2010). 东江流域土地利用变化对水资源的影响. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 46, 311-316.] | |
[3] | Fang JY, Piao SL, He JS, Ma WH (2003). Enhancement of China vegetation in last 20 years. Science in China (Series C), 33, 554-565. (in Chinese) |
[方精云, 朴世龙, 贺金生, 马文红 (2003). 近20年来中国植被活动在增强. 中国科学(C辑), 33, 554-565.] | |
[4] | Liu YC, Huang TS (1988). Estimation of rigid body motion using straight line correspondences. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 43, 37-52. |
[5] | Martinuzzi S, Gould WA, Ramos González OM (2007). Land development, land use, and urban sprawl in Puerto Rico integrating remote sensing and population census data. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 288-297. |
[6] | Piao SL, Fang JY (2001). Dynamic vegetation cover change over the last 18 years in China. Quaternary Sciences, 21, 294-302. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[朴世龙, 方精云 (2001). 最近18年来中国植被覆盖的动态变化. 第四纪研究, 21, 294-302.] | |
[7] | Ren FP, Jiang Y, Xiong X, Dong MY, Wang B (2011). Characteristics of the spatial-temporal differences of land use changes in the Dongjiang River Basin from 1990 to 2009. Resources Science, 33, 143-152. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[任斐鹏, 江源, 熊兴, 董满宇, 王博 (2011). 东江流域近20年土地利用变化的时空差异特征分析. 资源科学, 33, 143-152.] | |
[8] |
Richards JA (1996). Classifier performance and map accuracy. Remote Sensing of Environment, 57, 161-166.
DOI URL |
[9] | Song Y, Ma GM (2007). Study on vegetation cover change in northwest China based on SPOT VEGETATION data. Journal of Desert Research, 27, 89-93. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[宋怡, 马明国 (2007). 基于SPOT VEGETATION数据的中国西北植被覆盖变化分析. 中国沙漠, 27, 89-93.] | |
[10] | Sun JH, Zhang J, Zhang J, Li YG, Meng J (2007). The study of changes of Beiyunhe valley’s vegetation cover. Journal of Capital Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 28(2), 93-97. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[孙久虎, 张晶, 张洁, 李佑钢, 孟健 (2007). 近20年来北运河地区植被覆盖时空变化研究. 首都师范大学学报 (自然科学版), 28(2), 93-97.] | |
[11] | Tong C, Yang JR, Yong WY, Yong SP (2002). Spatial pattern of steppe degradation in Xilin River Basin of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Natural Resources, 17, 571-578. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[仝川, 杨景荣, 雍伟义, 雍世鹏 (2002). 锡林河流域草原植被退化空间格局分析. 自然资源学报, 17, 571-578.] | |
[12] | Tong C, Yong WY, Wu YN, Zhao LQ, Jiang C, Yong SP (2001). Change in the spatial structure of grassland vegetation in the Xilin River Basin from 1985 to 1999. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Neimongol, 32, 562-566. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[仝川, 雍伟义, 乌云娜, 赵利清, 姜超, 雍世鹏 (2001). 锡林河流域近15年植被空间结构变化遥感分析. 内蒙古大学学报 (自然科学版), 32, 562-566.] | |
[13] | Wang N, Liu P, Huang XH (2004). Research progress in ecological carrying capicity. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 20(6), 278-281. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[王宁, 刘平, 黄锡欢 (2004). 生态承载力研究进展. 中国农学通报, 20(6), 278-281. ] | |
[14] | Wang SY, Liu JY, Zhang ZX, Zhou QB, Zhao XL (2001). Analysis on spatial-temporal features of land use in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 56, 631-639. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[王思远, 刘纪远, 张增祥, 周全斌, 赵晓丽 (2001). 中国土地利用时空特征分析. 地理学报, 56, 631-639.] | |
[15] | Wang ZL, Chen XH, Li Y (2006). Spatial-temporal changes of NDVI in the pearl River Basin. Ecologic Science, 25, 303-307, 311. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[王兆礼, 陈晓宏, 李艳 (2006). 珠江流域植被覆盖时空变化分析. 生态科学, 25, 303-307, 311.] | |
[16] | World Wide Fund for Nature (2004). “Living Planet Report 2004”. Gland, Switzerland. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/living_planet_report_timeline/lpr04/. Cited: 2013-11-15. |
[17] | Xu ZM, Chen DJ, Zhang ZQ, Cheng GD (2002). Calculation and analysis on ecological footprints of China. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 39, 441-445. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[徐中民, 陈东景, 张志强, 程国栋 (2002). 中国1999年的生态足迹分析. 土壤学报, 39, 441-445.] | |
[18] | Yang ST, Liu CM, Sun R (2002). The vegetation cover over last 20 years in Yellow River Basin. Acta Geographica Sinica, 57, 679-684. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[杨胜天, 刘昌明, 孙睿 (2002). 近20年来黄河流域植被覆盖变化分析. 地理学报, 57, 679-684.] | |
[19] | Yue DX, Du J, Liu JY, Guo JJ, Zhang JJ, Ma JH (2011). Spatio-temporal analysis of ecological carrying capacity in Jinghe Watershed based on Remote Sensing and Transfer Matrix. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31, 2550-2558. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[岳东霞, 杜军, 刘俊艳, 郭建军, 张佳静, 马金辉 (2011). 基于RS和转移矩阵的泾河流域生态承载力时空动态评价. 生态学报, 31, 2550-2558.] | |
[20] | Yue DX, Xu XF, Li ZZ, Hui C, Li WL, Yang HQ, Ge JP (2006). Spatiotemporal analysis of ecological footprint and biological capacity of Gansu, China 1991-2015: down from the environmental cliff. Ecological Economics, 58, 393-406. |
[21] | Zhao S, Li ZZ, Li WL (2005). A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecological Modelling, 185, 65-75. |
[22] | Zhao XG, Wei LH, Ma CH, Wang J (2007). Dynamics of ecological footprint and ecological safety in Xi’an. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 21, 1-5. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[赵先贵, 韦良焕, 马彩虹, 王婧 (2007). 西安市生态足迹与生态安全的动态研究. 干旱区资源与环境, 21, 1-5.] | |
[23] | Zhu HY, Li XB (2003). Discussion on the index method of regional land use change. Acta Geographica Sinica, 58, 643-650. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[朱会义, 李秀彬 (2003). 关于区域土地利用变化指数模型方法的讨论. 地理学报, 58, 643-650.] |
[1] | 张宏锦, 王娓. 生态系统多功能性对全球变化的响应: 进展、问题与展望[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(10): 1112-1126. |
[2] | 白娥, 薛冰. 土地利用与土地覆盖变化对生态系统的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(5): 543-552. |
[3] | MOSELEY Robert K, 唐亚. 云南干旱河谷150年来的植被变化研究及其对生态恢复的意义[J]. 植物生态学报, 2006, 30(5): 713-722. |
[4] | 吴建国, 徐德应. 六盘山林区几种土地利用方式对土壤中可溶性有机碳浓度影响的初步研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2005, 29(6): 945-953. |
[5] | 杨景成, 黄建辉, 唐建维, 潘庆民, 韩兴国. 西双版纳农田弃耕后橡胶园的建立对碳的固存作用 (英文)[J]. 植物生态学报, 2005, 29(2): 296-303. |
[6] | 吴建国, 张小全, 徐德应. 六盘山林区几种土地利用方式下土壤活性有机碳的比较[J]. 植物生态学报, 2004, 28(5): 657-664. |
[7] | 杨景成, 黄建辉, 潘庆民, 韩兴国. 西双版纳不同热带生态系统土壤有机质的光谱学特性[J]. 植物生态学报, 2004, 28(5): 623-629. |
[8] | 吴建国, 张小全, 徐德应. 六盘山林区几种土地利用方式对土壤有机碳矿化影响的比较[J]. 植物生态学报, 2004, 28(4): 530-538. |
[9] | 李凌浩. 土地利用变化对草原生态系统土壤碳贮量的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 1998, 22(4): 300-302. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2022 版权所有 《植物生态学报》编辑部
地址: 北京香山南辛村20号, 邮编: 100093
Tel.: 010-62836134, 62836138; Fax: 010-82599431; E-mail: apes@ibcas.ac.cn, cjpe@ibcas.ac.cn
备案号: 京ICP备16067583号-19