Influence of Land Use on Landscape Pattern Evolution of Rocky Desertification in Karst Areas of Yunnan,China

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2022.01.008

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the land use types and the temporal and spatial characteristics and evolution laws of rocky desertification grades in karst areas of Yunnan Province,the effects of different land use types on rocky desertification grades were analyzed. The data of land use type was obtained based on GlobeLand30,and the data of rocky desertification grade was obtained by using ENVI to classify the decision tree of Landsat image. The spatial analysis of land use type and rocky desertification landscape pattern were carried out by ArcGIS and Fragstats. The results in the karst area of Yunnan from 2000 to 2020 showed that: 1) The main types of land use were cultivated land,woodland and grassland,and the area of cultivated land and construction land was increased year by year. 2)The area of non-rocky desertification increased year by year,the area of severe rocky desertification decreased year by year,the overall grade of rocky desertification tended to improve,and the area of high-grade rocky desertification patch decreased,namely the dominance decreased. 3) Rocky desertification mainly occured in woodland and shrubbery,the area of rocky desertification in cultivated land showed an increasing trend,and the area of rocky desertification in woodland and grassland showed a decreasing trend except for the grade of extremely severe rocky desertification. 4) The PAFRAC of land use type and rocky desertification landscape pattern decreased by 0.0007 and 0.0022 respectively,while COHESION,AI,DIVISION,SHDI and SHEI showed negative correlation. The complexity of rocky desertification landscape type decreased with the change of land use landscape type,and the situation of rocky desertification improved continuously. This study was helpful to evaluate the effectiveness of rocky desertification control and provided a scientific basis for ecological restoration and rocky desertification control in the future.

Key words: rocky desertification, land use, landscape pattern evolution, transition matrix, karst areas, Yunnan Province

CLC Number:

S758.5

TIAN Xiangyun, ZHANG Chao, CHEN Qi, SHI Xiaorong, WANG Yan. Influence of Land Use on Landscape Pattern Evolution of Rocky Desertification in Karst Areas of Yunnan,China[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, (1): 61-69.

Figures/Tables 11

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Tab.3

Fig.3

Fig.4

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.5

References 27

[1]	Bai Xiaoyong, Zhang Xinbai, Chen Hu, et al. Using Cs-137 fingerprinting technique to estimate sediment deposition and erosion rates from Yongkang depression in the karst region of Southwest China[J]. Land Degradation & Development, 2010,21(2):101-105.
[2]	王世杰. 喀斯特石漠化概念演绎及其科学内涵的探讨[J]. 中国岩溶, 2002(2):31-35.
[3]	Chen Chaojun, Yuan Daoxian, Cheng Hai, et al. Human activity and climate change triggered the expansion of rocky desertification in the karst areas of Southwestern China[J]. Science China:Earth Sciences, 2021,64(10):1761-1773. doi: 10.1007/s11430-020-9760-7
[4]	袁道先. 岩溶石漠化问题的全球视野和我国的治理对策与经验[J]. 草业科学, 2008,25(9):19-25.
[5]	陈起伟, 熊康宁, 兰安军. 基于3S的贵州喀斯特石漠化遥感监测研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2014,28(3):62-67.
[6]	Peng Xudong, Dai Quanhou, Ding Guijie, et al. Role of underground leakage in soil,water and nutrient loss from a rock-mantled slope in the karst rocky desertification area[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2019,578(C):124086. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124086
[7]	陈起伟, 安理艳, 徐丰. 典型岩溶区不同水土流失强度区石漠化特征分析[J]. 中国水土保持, 2018(11):30-32.
[8]	国家林业局. 中国石漠化状况公报[N]. 中国绿色时报, 2012-06-18(3).
[9]	陈明叶, 高宝嘉, 刘素红. 土地利用景观格局变化的服务功能响应研究——以大清河水系阜平流域为例[J]. 林业资源管理, 2018(2):103-110.
[10]	周常萍, 童立强, 雷蓉. 贵州省土地石漠化形成与发展机理研究[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2005,20(2):269-273.
[11]	Pu Junwei, Zhao Xiaoqing, Dong Pinliang, et al. Extracting Information on Rocky Desertification from Satellite Images:A Comparative Study[J]. Remote Sensing, 2021,13(13):2497-2497. doi: 10.3390/rs13132497
[12]	Wang Hongyan, Li Qiangzi, Du Xin, et al. Quantitative extraction of the bedrock exposure rate based on unmanned aerial vehicle data and Landsat-8 OLI image in a karst environment[J]. Frontiers of Earth Science, 2018,12(3):481-490. doi: 10.1007/s11707-017-0681-9
[13]	Chong Guoshuang, Hai Yue, Zheng Hua, et al. Characteristics of Changes in Karst Rocky Desertification in Southtern and Western China and Driving Mechanisms[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 2021,31(6):1082-1096. doi: 10.1007/s11769-021-1243-3
[14]	卢涛, 胡文英, 张军. 滇东喀斯特地区石漠化时空演化特征研究——以曲靖市为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021,35(8):71-79.
[15]	Chen Fei, Wang Shijie, Bai Xiaoyong, et al. Assessing spatial-temporal evolution processes and driving forces of karst rocky desertification[J]. Geocarto International, 2021,36(3):262-280. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2019.1595175
[16]	陈昊, 吴攀, 刘沛, 等. 麻窝山小流域石漠化景观格局变化特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2012,19(4):239-243.
[17]	王媛媛, 周忠发, 魏小岛. 石漠化景观格局对土地利用时空演变的响应[J]. 山地学报, 2013,31(3):307-313.
[18]	许玉凤. 从《西南喀斯特植物与环境》看典型喀斯特地区石漠化景观格局对土地利用变化的响应[J]. 环境工程, 2020,38(11):227.
[19]	李乡旺, 陆素娟, 王妍. 云南石漠化综合治理区域划分[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2018.
[20]	Silva L P, Xavier A P, Silva R M, et al. Modeling land cover change based on an artificial neural network for a semiarid river basin in northeastern Brazil[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2020,21(C):e00811. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00811
[21]	张蕊娇, 张超, 陆双飞, 等. 滇东典型岩溶地区石漠化时空演变特征研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2019(2):99-108.
[22]	冉晨, 白晓永, 谭秋, 等. 典型喀斯特地区石漠化景观格局对土地利用变化的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(24):8901-8910.
[23]	张明明, 张黎俊, 粟海军, 等. 草海国家级自然保护区景观格局变化与景观发展强度研究[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2019,35(3):300-306.
[24]	邬建国. 景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000.
[25]	王正雄, 蒋勇军, 张远嘱, 等. 基于GIS与地理探测器的岩溶槽谷石漠化空间分布及驱动因素分析[J]. 地理学报, 2019,74(5):1025-1039. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201905014
[26]	许留兴, 熊康宁, 张锦华, 等. 西南喀斯特地区草地生态系统面临的问题及对策[J]. 草业科学, 2015,32(5):828-836.
[27]	卢涛. 滇东喀斯特地区石漠化时空演化特征及其驱动机制研究[D]. 昆明:云南师范大学, 2021.

序号	景观指数	生态学意义
1	面积周长分维数(PAFRAC)	1≤PRAFRAC≤2,描述景观形状复杂程度,越接近1形状越简单;越接近2则越复杂
2	凝聚度指数(COHESION)	0≤COHESION≤100,描述景观间的连通性,随着各斑块间分布聚集,自然连通度提高
3	聚合度指数(AI)	0≤AI≤100,描述景观类型斑块间的集聚程度,值越小集聚程度越低
4	分离度指数(DIVISION)	0≤DIVISION<100,描述不同斑块类型的混合程度,值越大分布越分散
5	香农多样性(SHDI)	0≤SHDI,描述景观结构组成的复杂程度,值增大,则斑块在景观中呈均衡化分布
6	香农均匀度(SHEI)	0≤SHEI≤1,描述景观中各斑块在面积上分布的均匀程度,值越大越均匀

类型	面积/km²			2000—2010年		2010—2020年		2000—2020年
类型	2000年	2010年	2020年	变化面积/km²	动态度/%	变化面积/km²	动态度/%	变化面积/km²	动态度/%
耕地	38440.49	38682.29	39458.14	241.80	0.06	775.85	0.20	1017.65	0.13
林地	49116.70	48638.74	47883.35	-477.96	-0.10	-755.39	-0.16	-1233.35	-0.13
草地	21298.07	20872.45	20390.98	-425.62	-0.20	-481.47	-0.23	-907.09	-0.21
灌木	7088.65	7737.24	6757.23	648.59	0.91	-980.01	-1.27	-331.42	-0.23
湿地	43.79	14.85	13.56	-28.94	-6.61	-1.29	-0.87	-30.23	-3.45
水域	1357.64	1268.23	1509.34	-89.41	-0.66	241.11	1.90	151.70	0.56
建设用地	665.97	756.67	2122.83	90.70	1.36	1366.16	18.05	1456.86	10.94
裸地	182.78	279.11	132.78	96.33	5.27	-146.33	-5.24	-50.00	-1.37
冰雪	111.42	55.93	37.30	-55.49	-4.98	-18.63	-3.33	-74.12	-3.33

石漠化等级	面积/km²			2000—2010年		2010—2020年		2000—2020年
石漠化等级	2000年	2010年	2020年	变化面积/km²	动态度/%	变化面积/km²	动态度/%	变化面积/km²	动态度/%
无石漠化	62459.24	66179.97	74720.13	3720.73	0.60	8540.16	1.29	12260.89	0.98
潜在石漠化	18895.02	18391.77	18763.56	-503.25	-0.27	371.79	0.20	-131.46	-0.03
轻度石漠化	3849.05	4402.55	2438.55	553.50	1.44	-1964.00	-4.46	-1410.50	-1.83
中度石漠化	5644.20	4976.98	5140.92	-667.22	-1.18	163.94	0.33	-503.28	-0.45
重度石漠化	19957.55	16322.75	12122.71	-3634.80	-1.82	-4200.04	-2.57	-7834.84	-1.96
极重度石漠化	7500.45	8031.49	5119.64	531.04	0.71	-2911.85	-3.63	-2380.81	-1.59

石漠化等级	年份	土地利用
石漠化等级	年份	耕地	林地	草地	灌木	湿地	水域	建设用地	裸地	冰雪
无石漠化	2000	56.88	33.89	3.96	1.88	0.06	2.09	1.04	0.03	0.17
	2010	54.07	36.16	4.74	1.92	0.02	1.85	1.11	0.05	0.08
	2020	49.46	37.43	5.41	2.94	0.02	1.94	2.73	0.02	0.05
潜在石漠化	2000	3.54	75.08	7.87	13.46	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.00
	2010	3.46	73.93	10.76	11.79	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.00
	2020	4.07	68.87	13.77	13.18	0.00	0.03	0.05	0.03	0.00
轻度石漠化	2000	5.11	57.04	33.33	4.40	0.00	0.07	0.02	0.03	0.00
	2010	5.21	43.52	47.22	3.92	0.00	0.07	0.02	0.04	0.00
	2020	5.38	23.57	68.24	2.53	0.00	0.14	0.11	0.03	0.00
中度石漠化	2000	5.63	45.13	40.46	8.48	0.00	0.20	0.03	0.07	0.00
	2010	6.51	36.32	48.43	8.40	0.00	0.17	0.03	0.14	0.00
	2020	6.74	25.05	62.95	4.79	0.00	0.25	0.16	0.06	0.00
重度石漠化	2000	5.92	33.80	51.37	8.66	0.00	0.09	0.02	0.14	0.00
	2010	6.81	31.99	48.08	12.82	0.00	0.08	0.03	0.19	0.00
	2020	7.06	29.21	54.69	8.61	0.00	0.15	0.20	0.08	0.00
极重度石漠化	2000	6.88	30.32	47.40	13.29	0.02	0.24	0.09	1.75	0.01
	2010	7.08	26.87	42.97	20.22	0.00	0.21	0.15	2.50	0.00
	2020	7.06	30.73	44.71	14.53	0.00	0.32	0.70	1.94	0.01

年份	景观格局指数
年份	面积周长维数 (PAFRAC)	凝聚度指数 (COHESION)	聚合度指数 (AI)	分离度指数 (DIVISION)	香浓多样性 (SHDI)	香农均匀度 (SHEI)
2000	1.6226	96.0479	55.3324	0.9944	1.3074	0.5950
2010	1.6288	95.8817	54.7611	0.9947	1.3153	0.5986
2020	1.6219	95.4930	54.7526	0.9958	1.3379	0.6089
2000—2010	0.0062	-0.1662	-0.5713	0.0003	0.0079	0.0036
2010—2020	-0.0069	-0.3887	-0.0085	0.0011	0.0226	0.0103
2000—2020	-0.0007	-0.5549	-0.5798	0.0014	0.0305	0.0139