欢迎访问《应用生态学报》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

应用生态学报 ›› 2012, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (05): 1351-1358.

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

二维与三维景观格局指数在山区县域景观格局分析中的应用

路超1,齐伟1**,李乐2,孙瑶1,秦天天1,王娜娜1   

  1. 1山东农业大学资源与环境学院, 山东泰安 271018; 2中国农业大学土地资源管理系, 北京 100193)
  • 出版日期:2012-05-18 发布日期:2012-05-18

Applications of 2D and 3D landscape pattern indices in landscape pattern analysis of mountainous area at county level.

LU Chao1, QI Wei1, LI Le2, SUN Yao1, QIN Tian-tian1, WANG Na-na1   

  1. (1College of Resources and Environment, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, Shandong, China; 2Department of Land Resources Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)
  • Online:2012-05-18 Published:2012-05-18

摘要: 景观格局指数是景观格局分析中常用的定量分析工具,而传统二维景观格局指数却忽略了地形对景观的影响,在定量描述山区景观格局时可能存在一定局限.本文以典型山地丘陵区山东栖霞市为研究区,在地形结构分析的基础上,选择面积/密度(类型面积、平均斑块大小)、边缘/形状(边缘密度、景观形状指数、平均斑块分维数)、多样性(香农多样性指数、香农均匀度指数)、聚散性(聚集度)4个方面的8个景观格局指数,比较分析传统二维景观格局指数与三维景观格局指数对山区景观格局及其动态变化定量描述的差异.结果表明: 三维类型面积、平均斑块大小和边缘密度与其相应二维指数差异显著,三维景观形状指数、平均斑块分维数、香农多样性指数和香农均匀度指数与其相应二维指数差异不显著,三维聚集度与二维聚集度无差别.由于采用斑块表面面积和表面周长计算三维景观格局指数,采用各斑块的投影面积和投影周长计算二维景观格局指数,所以在描述山区景观面积、密度、边界等指标时三维景观格局指数相对精确,但在测定景观形状、多样性和聚散性等指数时,则与传统的二维景观格局指数差异不显著.三维景观格局指数引入了地形特征,对景观格局及其动态变化的反映相对精确.

关键词: 二维景观格局指数, 景观格局, 地形分析, 三维景观格局指数

Abstract: Landscape pattern indices are the commonly used tools for the quantitative analysis of landscape pattern. However, the traditional 2D landscape pattern indices neglect the effects of terrain on landscape, existing definite limitations in quantitatively describing the landscape patterns in mountains areas. Taking the Qixia City, a typical mountainous and hilly region in Shandong Province of East China, as a case, this paper compared the differences between 2D and 3D landscape pattern indices in quantitatively describing the landscape patterns and their dynamic changes in mountainous areas. On the basis of terrain structure analysis, a set of landscape pattern indices were selected, including area and density (class area and mean patch size), edge and shape (edge density, landscape shape index, and fractal dimension of mean patch), diversity (Shannon’s diversity index and evenness index), and gathering and spread (contagion index). There existed obvious differences between the 3D class area, mean patch area, and edge density and the corresponding 2D indices, but no significant differences between the 3D landscape shape index, fractal dimension of mean patch, and Shannon’s diversity index and evenness index and the corresponding 2D indices. The 3D contagion index and 2D contagion index had no difference. Because the 3D landscape pattern indices were calculated by using patch surface area and surface perimeter whereas the 2D landscape pattern indices were calculated by adopting patch projective area and projective perimeter, the 3D landscape pattern indices could be relative accurate and efficient in describing the landscape area, density and borderline,  in mountainous areas. However, there were no distinct differences in describing landscape shape, diversity, and gathering and spread  between the 3D and 2D landscape pattern indices. Generally, by introducing 3D landscape pattern indices to topographic pattern, the description of landscape pattern and its dynamic change would be relatively accurate.

Key words: landscape pattern, terrain analysis, 3D landscape pattern indices, 2D landscape pattern indices.