Evolution and Jump Features of Ecological Vulnerability of the Typical Karst Wetland Watershed

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2019.03.011

Abstract

Abstract:

The ecological vulnerability of the Puzhehei karst wetland in 2006-2015 was analyzed based on the comprehensive analysis method of ecological analysis and ecological vulnerability,and the combination of the Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System technology.The spatial-temporal evolution and mutation of the vulnerability were further evaluated.The comprehensive index of ecological vulnerability in Puzhehei karst wetland decreased in 2006-2015,and the level of the ecological fragility was medium.In addition,during this period of time,the spatial and temporal distribution pattern of the ecological vulnerability in the Puzhehei river basin was scattered and the extremely fragile area was shifted from the lower reaches in the Puzhehei basin to the upper reaches.What's more,the area of extremely fragile areas decreased and the trend of deterioration of ecological vulnerability was eased.The entropy of ecological vulnerability had mutations in 2006-2015.The ranking results of the mutation eigenvalue was:stage 2(2009-2012)>stage 1(2006-2008)>stage 3(2012-2015).The results revealed the reason why ecological fragility in the study area changed was the superposition of natural factors and human factors.However,the main driving factors which affected the ecological fragility were the land use,landscape pattern,pollution evolution,and economic development etc.

Key words: ecological vulnerability, spatial-temporal evolution, mutation, entropy, karst wetland

CLC Number:

X826

ZHANG Chao, WEN Guojing, LIU Yungen, WANG Yan, LIU Peng, ZHANG Zixia. Evolution and Jump Features of Ecological Vulnerability of the Typical Karst Wetland Watershed[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2019, (3): 57-65.

Figures/Tables 5

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.1

Tab.3

Fig.2

References 19

[1]	郭泽呈, 魏伟, 庞素菲, 等. 基于SPCA和遥感指数的干旱内陆河流域生态脆弱性时空演变及动因分析—以石羊河流域为例[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(7):1-14.
[2]	Adger W N. Vulnerability[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2006,16(3):282-281.
[3]	林金煌, 胡国建, 祁新华, 等. 闽三角城市群生态环境脆弱性及其驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(12):4155-4166.
[4]	Petersen B, Aslan C, Stuart D, et al. Incorporating social and ecological adaptive capacity into vulnerability assessments and management decisions for biodiversity conservation[J]. Bioscience, 2018,68:371-380.
[5]	Luers A L, Lobell D B, Sklar L S, et al. A method for quantifying vulnerability,applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2003,13:255-267.
[6]	Antoinette L B, Elizabeth L M. Modeling vulnerability and resilience to climate change:A case study of India and Indian states[J]. Climatic Change, 2005,72(1-2):57-102.
[7]	冉圣宏, 李秀彬, 吕昌河. 土地覆被及生态服务价值变化的多时间尺度模拟——以四川省渔子溪流域为例[J]. 地理学报, 2006,61(10):1113-1120.
[8]	唐国平, 刘燕华. 全球气候变化下水资源脆弱性及其评估方法[J]. 地球科学进展, 2000,15(3):313-317.
[9]	张学玲, 余文波, 蔡海生, 等. 区域生态环境脆弱性评价方法研究综述[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(16):5970-5981.
[10]	魏明欢, 胡波洋, 杨鸿雁, 等. 山区县域土地利用变化对生态脆弱性的影响—以青龙满族自治县为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 2018,25(6):322-328.
[11]	颜世伟, 蒋丽伟, 张月莹. 基于层次分析法的伊金霍洛旗生态脆弱性评价[J]. 林业资源管理, 2018(6):45-49.
[12]	郭玉静, 王妍, 刘云根, 等. 普者黑岩溶湖泊湿地湖滨带景观格局演变对水质的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(5):1711-1721.
[13]	陈克亮, 时亚楼, 林志兰. 基于突变理论的近岸海域生态风险综合评价方法—以罗源湾为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012,23(1):213-221.
[14]	巩杰, 赵彩霞, 谢余初, 等. 基于景观格局的甘肃白龙江流域生态风险评价与管理[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014,25(7):2041-2048.
[15]	闻国静, 刘云根, 王妍, 等. 普者黑湖流域景观格局及生态风险时空演变[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2017,34(6):1095-1103.
[16]	Jackson L E, Bird S L, Matheny R W, et al. A regional approach to projecting land-use change and resulting ecological vulnerability[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2004,94(1-3):231-248.
[17]	Hou K, Li X, Wang JJ, et al. An analysis of the impact on land use and ecological vulnerability of the policy of returning farmland to forest in Yan'an,China[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2016,23(5):4670-4680.
[18]	Thiault L, Marshall P, Gelcich S, et al. Mapping social-ecological vulnerability to inform local decision making[J]. Conservation Biology, 2018,32:447-456.
[19]	Liao F J, Zhao D S. Forestry Landscape Patterns Changes and Dynamic Simulation ofNanling National Nature Reserve,Guangdong[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014,34(9):1099-1107.

一级指标	权重	二级指标	权重	三级指标	权重
自然因素	0.2315	气候特征	0.0343	年均降水量	0.0229
		气候特征	0.0343	年均气温	0.0114
		地形地貌	0.0265	坡向	0.0031
				海拔	0.0163
				坡度	0.0071
		植被特征	0.0788	植被覆盖度	0.0263
		植被特征	0.0788	湖滨湿地退化率	0.0525
		景观生态	0.0919	挺水植物比重	0.0546
				景观破碎度指数	0.0144
				景观多样性指数	0.0229
人为因素	0.7685	污染净化	0.1659	入湖河流TN浓度	0.1244
		污染净化	0.1659	入湖河流TP浓度	0.0415
		土地利用	0.1389	土地垦殖率	0.0463
		土地利用	0.1389	土地利用类型	0.0926
		经济发展	0.2878	农业总产值	0.0957
				旅游业总产值	0.1519
				养殖业总产值	0.0402
		人口压力	0.1759	人口密度	0.0251
				生活污水排放量	0.0754
				生活垃圾排放量	0.0754

脆弱性	等级	EVI	生态特征
微度脆弱	Ⅰ	<2.5	生态系统结构和功能完善,所承受压力小,生态系统稳定,抗外界干扰能力和自我恢复能力强,无生态异常出现,生态脆弱性低。
轻度脆弱	Ⅱ	2.5~5.0	生态系统结构和功能较为完善,所承受压力小,生态系统稳定,抗外界干扰能力和自我恢复能力较强,存在潜在的无生态异常,生态脆弱性较低。
中度脆弱	Ⅲ	5.0~7.5	生态系统结构和功能尚可维持,所承受压力接近生态阈值,生态系统较不稳定,对外界干扰较为敏感,自我恢复能力较弱,已有少量无生态异常,生态脆弱性较高。
重度脆弱	Ⅳ	7.5~10.0	生态系统结构和功能出现缺陷,所承受压力大,生态系统不稳定,对外界干扰敏感强,受损后恢复难度大,生态脆弱性高。
极度脆弱	Ⅴ	≥10.0	生态系统结构和功能严重退化,所承受压力极大,生态系统极不稳定,对外界干扰极度敏感,受损后恢复难度极大,甚至不可逆转,生态异常大面积出现,生态脆弱性极高。

年份	微度脆弱	轻度脆弱	中度脆弱	重度脆弱	极度脆弱
2006	3205.12	8274.74	12664.13	3407.81	5617.09
2007	1908.39	7085.10	10362.61	10553.45	3259.34
2008	2535.91	7919.58	9648.86	10061.98	3002.56
2009	3510.23	8102.73	5681.90	8034.32	7839.71
2010	3102.27	6221.38	8135.30	7965.66	7744.28
2011	1855.08	10890.13	2713.74	11076.35	6633.59
2012	2661.17	3729.01	8744.28	9854.97	8179.46
2013	2522.91	6633.59	12162.06	5648.86	6201.47
2014	1058.91	9553.45	12003.08	4221.38	6332.07
2015	4322.91	8723.81	11076.35	6030.55	3015.27