The effects of land consolidation on the ecological connectivity based on ecosystem service value: A case study of Da’an land consolidation project in Jilin province

doi:10.1007/s11442-015-1190-y

Abstract

Abstract:

Land consolidation has a profound impact on landscape patterns and ecological functions at various scales through engineering and biological measures. In recent years, China invests more than 100 billion RMB yuan on land consolidation each year. To understand how land consolidation affects landscape patterns and ecosystems, we investigated the ecosystem service value and the ecological connectivity in a consolidated area of Da’an city from 2008 to 2014 using a revised ecological connectivity index. The results indicated that land consolidation has certain negative influences on the ecosystem services in this area. The total ecosystem service value will decrease by nearly 30% in the late stage of consolidation. This decrease is caused by the loss of ecosystem service of the wetland and grassland, despite a sensible increase of cultivated land. In addition, land consolidation could change the ecological connectivity as well as the land use structure. Up to 85% of the entire area will be in low connectivity in the late stage of consolidation, representing a 6.23% increase in the total coverage compared to pre-consolidation. Finally, the different connectivity landscape and their key areas can be identified by the revised ecological connectivity index effectively. This study is helpful to trace out the relationships between landscape pattern and ecological process, and provides insights for ecological planning and designing of land consolidation in this area. We suggest that more attentions should be paid to improve the quality and ecosystem service value per unit area of the landscape, to establish ecological compensation mechanism of wetland losses, and to create the ecological corridors along the least accumulated impendence surface in the key areas during land consolidation.

Key words: land consolidation project, ecological connectivity, ecosystem service value, landscape pattern, landscape function, Da’an city

Jun WANG, Shenchun YAN, Yiqiang GUO, Junran LI, Guoqing SUN. The effects of land consolidation on the ecological connectivity based on ecosystem service value: A case study of Da’an land consolidation project in Jilin province[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2015, 25(5): 603-616.

Figures/Tables 9

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Figure 2

Table 5

Figure 3

Table 6

References 43

1	Ai D, Zhu D L, Hao X X, 2007. The relationship of land consolidation and bio-environmental rehabilitation.Ecology and Environment, 16(1): 257-263. (in Chinese)
2	Anka L, Marina P, 2005. Conservation of natural ecosystems by land consolidation in the rural landscape.Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 85(1): 73-82.
3	Bowne D R, Bowers M A, Hines J E, 2006. Connectivity in an agricultural landscape as reflected by interpond movements of a freshwater turtle.Conservation Biology, 20(3): 780-791.
4	Chen D J, Wang Z Y, Qu C Xet al., 2008. A primary discussion on the application of ecological footprint for environmental impact assessment of land consolidation planning.Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 24(9): 444-447. (in Chinese)
5	Cook E A, 2002. Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks.Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(3/4): 269-280.
6	Davenport D W, Breshears B P, Wilcox C Det al., 1998. Sustainability of Pifion-Juniper ecosystems: A unifying perspective of soil erosion thresholds.Journal of Range Management, 51(2): 231-240.
7	Ferreras P, 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation, 100(1): 125-136.
8	Fu W, Liu S L, Cui B Set al., 2009. A review on ecological connectivity in landscape ecology.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29(11): 6174-6181. (in Chinese)
9	Gillis E A, Krebs C J, 2003. Survival of dispersing versus philopatric juvenile snowshoe hares: Do dispersers die?Oikos, 90(2): 343-346.
10	Gu X K, Chen B M, 2008. Method and application of landscape ecological evaluation of land consolidation: A case of land consolidation project in Jianghan Plain.China Land Science, 22(12): 58-62. (in Chinese)
11	Hanski I, Ovaskainen O, 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape.Nature, 404(6779): 755-758.
12	Jordan F, Baldi A, Orci K Met al., 2003. Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecology, 18(1): 83-92.
13	Kong F H, Yin H W, 2008. Developing green space ecological networks in Jinan City.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(4): 42-52. (in Chinese)
14	Langevelde F, 2000. Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations.Ecography, 23: 614-622.
15	Levin N, Lahav H, Ramon Uet al., 2007. Landscape continuity analysis: A new approach to conservation planning in Israel.Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1): 53-64.
16	Liu Y, Wu C F, Yue W Zet al., 2008. Evaluation of ecological effect and landscape pattern in land consolidation project.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(5): 2261-2269. (in Chinese)
17	Lucia P H, Saura S, 2006. Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: Towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation.Landscape Ecology, 21(7): 959-967.
18	Luo M, Zhang H Y, 2002. Land consolidation and its ecological and environmental impacts.Resources Science, 24(2): 60-63. (in Chinese)
19	Mallarach J M, Marull J, 2006. Impact assessment of ecological connectivity at the regional level: Recent developments in the Barcelona Metropolitan Area.Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(2): 127-137.
20	Martensen A C, Pimentel R G, Metzger J P, 2008. Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest: Implications for conservation.Biological Conservation, 141(9): 2184-2192.
21	Mcgarigal K, Cushman S A, Neel M Cet al., 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
22	Neel M C, 2008. Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemic plant species Astragalus albens (Fabaceae). Biological Conservation, 141(4): 938-955.
23	Niu C J, Jia F F, Ma H Xet al., 2008. Analysis on the regional eco-environmental impact of land Consolidation.Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 15(1): 193-196. (in Chinese)
24	Ou Y Y, Liu X H, 2009. Eco-environment impact assessment on land consolidation based on entropy-weighted matter-element model: A case study of the land consolidation project in Menglou Town, Laohekou City. Journal of Southwest China Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 34(6): 67-73. (in Chinese)
25	Pasakarnis G, Maliene V, 2010. Towards sustainable rural development in Central and Eastern Europe: Applying land consolidation.Land Use Policy, 27(2): 545-549.
26	Philippe C, Burel F, 1997. The role of spatial temporal patch connectivity at the landscape level: An example in a bird distribution.Landscape and Urban Planning, 38: 37-43.
27	Rafael C, Carlos A, Urbano F, 2002. Economic, social and environmental impact of land consolidation in Galicia.Land Use Policy, 19(2): 135-147.
28	Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L, 2007. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study.Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(2/3): 91-103.
29	Sklenicka P, 2006. Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect to three contrasting study areas in the Czech Republic.Land Use Policy, 23: 502-510.
30	Sun X B, Liu H Y, 2010. Optimization of wetland landscape patterns based on ecological function evaluation: A case study on the coastal wetlands of Yancheng, Jiangsu Province.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30(5): 1157-1166. (in Chinese)
31	Tang J, Si A, Lu Yet al., 2007. The effects of land use change on the ecosystem service value in the hinterland of Songnen plain.Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 25(4): 30-35. (in Chinese)
32	Taylor P D, Fahrig L, Henein Ket al., 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure.Oikos, 68(3): 571-573.
33	Timothy S H, 2004. Using measures of cost distance in the estimation of polity boundaries in the Postclassic Yautepec valley, Mexico.Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(6): 799-814.
34	Wang J, Li Z, Bai Z Ket al., 2011. Progress and prospect of ecological environment impact of land consolidation.Transactions of the CSAE, 27(Supp.1): 340-345. (in Chinese)
35	Wang J, Qiu Y, Yang Let al., 2007. Landscape effect analysis of land consolidation using GIS.Geographical Research, 26(2): 258-264. (in Chinese)
36	Wang W M, Zhang Y, 2004. Land consolidation and sustainable development.China Population, Resources and Environment, 14(1): 13-18. (in Chinese)
37	Wu X H, Tang D S, Fu G H, 2008. Effects of regional land consolidation on ecosystem services values: A case of Jiawang County Xuzhou City.Urban Studies, 15(4):36-41. (in Chinese)
38	Xiong C N, Wei H, Lan M J, 2008. Analysis of connectivity on green land landscape in metropolitan region of Chongqing City. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(5): 2237-2244. (in Chinese)
39	Yu G M, Lu D, Lin X Wet al., 2008. On the assessment methodology of natural ecological compensation for land consolidation planning.Ecology and Environment, 17(4): 1702-1706. (in Chinese)
40	Yu W H, Zang S Y, Wu C Set al., 2011. Analyzing and modeling land use land cover change (LUCC) in the Daqing City, China.Applied Geography, 31: 600-608. (in Chinese)
41	Yun W J, Yang X Y, Shi Y, 2008. Science definition of land consolidation.Resources and Industries, 10(5): 1-2. (in Chinese)
42	Zhang Z F, 2008. Estimation of gains and losses of ecosystem services value with land consolidation.Transactions of the CSAE, 24(9): 69-72. (in Chinese)
43	Zhang Z F, Zhao W, 2007. Effects of land consolidation on ecological environment.Transactions of the CSAE, 23(8): 281-285. (in Chinese)

ECI	Classification
1.00-1.87	Very low connectivity
1.87-2.62	Low connectivity
2.62-3.57	Medium connectivity
3.57-4.86	High connectivity
4.86-6.48	Very high connectivity
6.48-10	Highest connectivity

2008	2014
2008	Cultivated Land	Woodland	Grassland	Artificial wetland	Natural wetland	Construction land	Other land	Total
Cultivated Land	17189.81	55.13	33.69	0.00	6.13	21.44	94.94	17401.14
Woodland	226.63	3093.13	12.25	0.00	0.00	3.06	18.38	3353.45
Grassland	31868.38	122.50	12571.56	3.06	796.25	159.25	1283.19	46804.19
Artificial wetland	1059.63	3.06	150.06	0.00	1757.88	0.00	2324.44	5295.07
Natural wetland	698.25	0.00	177.63	3929.19	52.06	0.00	107.19	4964.32
Construction land	208.25	0.00	27.56	0.00	0.00	2180.50	39.81	2456.12
Other land	34557.25	18.38	698.25	9.19	30.63	21.44	4587.63	39922.77
Total	85808.20	3292.20	13671.00	3941.44	2642.95	2385.69	8455.58	120197.06

Ecosystem categories	ESV₂₀₀₈	ESV₂₀₁₄	Change	Change (%)
Cultivated land	4872.32	24026.30	19153.98	393.12
Woodland	3018.11	2962.98	-55.13	-1.83
Grassland	41655.73	12167.19	-29488.54	-70.79
Artificial wetland	37171.39	18553.51	-18617.88	-50.09
Natural wetland	60614.35	48124.98	-12489.36	-20.60
Construction land	98.24	95.43	-2.82	-2.87
Other land	4790.73	1014.67	-3776.06	-78.82
Total	152220.87	106945.05	-45275.81	-29.74

2008	2014
2008	Very low	Low	Medium	High	Very high	Highest	Total	Proportion (%)
Very low	16029.14	4863.25	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	20892.39	17.38
Low	10106.25	26729.50	1883.44	0.00	0.00	0.00	38719.19	32.21
Medium	8219.75	4930.63	20527.94	1904.88	52.06	45.94	35681.20	29.69
High	2835.88	1338.31	1748.69	8357.57	309.31	563.50	15153.26	12.61
Very high	842.19	269.50	526.75	318.50	1828.31	229.69	4014.94	3.34
Highest	652.31	287.88	992.25	1127.00	508.38	2168.26	5736.08	4.77
Total	38685.52	38419.07	25679.07	11707.95	2698.06	3007.39	120197.06	100.00
Proportion (%)	32.19	31.96	21.36	9.74	2.24	2.50	100.00

	Very low	Low	Medium	High	Very high	Highest
Cultivated land	26719.51	24497.95	11443.92	4792.69	773.18	179.81
Woodland	-175.93	236.79	-33.40	-39.92	-10.76	-38.03
Grassland	-4895.65	-12984.14	-9832.46	-4178.54	-1073.51	-168.89
Artificial wetland	-57.11	-284.10	-408.18	-279.16	-135.54	-189.54
Natural wetland	16.10	11.99	-0.08	-16.93	58.15	-2390.60
Construction land	105.03	31.15	-78.82	-100.70	-20.63	-6.46
Other land	-3918.84	-11809.75	-11093.10	-3622.75	-907.75	-115.00
Total	17793.11	-300.11	-10002.12	-3445.31	-1316.86	-2728.71