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

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于景观结构的城乡结合部生态风险分析——以泰安市岱岳区为例

石浩朋,于开芹**,冯永军   

  1. (山东农业大学资源与环境学院/土肥资源高效利用国家工程实验室, 山东泰安 271018)
  • 出版日期:2013-03-18 发布日期:2013-03-18

Ecological risk assessment of rural-urban ecotone based on landscape pattern: A case study in Daiyue District of Tai’an City, Shandong Province of East China.

SHI Hao-peng, YU Kai-qin, FENG Yong-jun   

  1. (National Engineering Laboratory for Efficient Utilization of Soil and Fertilizer Resources, College of Resources and Environment, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, Shandong, China)
  • Online:2013-03-18 Published:2013-03-18

摘要:

以2000、2005和2010年的遥感数据为基础,对泰安市岱岳区土地利用类型和景观格局变化进行分析,构建生态风险指数,对研究区域的生态风险指数进行重采样和空间差值,并分析了城乡结合部区域生态风险的时空变化规律.结果表明: 2000—2010年,研究区土地利用类型的主要转移方向是自然景观向人工景观转移;耕地、园地、林地的人为干扰强度较大,水域的人为干扰较小;耕地和水域的生态损失度指数有所下降,其他土地利用类型基本上呈上升趋势;2000和2010年,研究区各生态风险小区的生态风险值分布较分散,2005年最集中,2000—2005年,各生态风险小区的生态风险值以增加为主,2005—2010年则以降低为主;2000—2010年,研究区生态风险指数等级以中等程度为主,生态风险指数在空间分布上表现出明显的空间差异,大体上以林地为中心向周围区域呈扩散状递增;研究区域风险等级以中风险区和较高风险区为主,较低风险区面积动态变化明显,最低风险区和最高风险区的面积变化不大.
 

Abstract: Based on the remote sensing data in 2000, 2005, and 2010, this paper analyzed the variation trends of the land use type and landscape pattern in Daiyue District of Tai’an City from 2000 to 2010. The ecological risk index was built, that of the District was re-sampled and spatially interpolated, and the spatiotemporal pattern of the ecological risk in the ruralurban ecotone of the District was analyzed. In 2000-2010, the main variation trend of the land use type in the District was the shift from natural landscape to artificial landscape. The intensity of human disturbance was larger in cultivated land, garden plot, and forestland than in other landscape types, while the human disturbance in water area was smaller. The ecological loss degree of cultivated land and water area decreased somewhat, while that of the other land use types presented an increasing trend. The ecological risk distribution in the District was discrete in 2000 and 2010, but most centralized in 2005. The ecological risk of each ecological risk sub-area had an increasing trend in 2000-2005, but was in adverse in 2005-2010. In 2000-2010, the ecological risk of the District was mainly at medium level. Spatially, the distribution of the ecological risk in the District had an obvious differentiation, with an overall diffusive increasing from forestland as the center to the surrounding areas. In the District, the ecological risk was mainly at medium and higher levels, the area with lower ecological risk had an obvious dynamic change, while that with the lowest and highest ecological risk had less change.