Spatial identification and scenario simulation of the ecological transition zones under the climate change in China

doi:10.1007/s11442-021-1855-7

Abstract

Abstract:

Explicitly identifying the spatial distribution of ecological transition zones (ETZs) and simulating their response to climate scenarios is of significance in understanding the response and feedback of ecosystems to global climate change. In this study, a quantitative spatial identification method was developed to assess ETZ distribution in terms of the improved Holdridge life zone (iHLZ) model. Based on climate observations collected from 782 weather stations in China in the T0 (1981-2010) period, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (IPCC CMIP5) RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 climate scenario data in the T1 (2011-2040), T2 (2041-2070), and T3 (2071-2100) periods, the spatial distribution of ETZs and their response to climate scenarios in China were simulated in the four periods of T0, T1, T2, and T3. Additionally, a spatial shift of mean center model was developed to quantitatively calculate the shift direction and distance of each ETZ type during the periods from T0 to T3. The simulated results revealed 41 ETZ types in China, accounting for 18% of the whole land area. Cold temperate grassland/humid forest and warm temperate arid forest (564,238.5 km ²), cold temperate humid forest and warm temperate arid/humid forest (566,549.75 km ²), and north humid/humid forest and cold temperate humid forest (525,750.25 km ²) were the main ETZ types, accounting for 35% of the total ETZ area in China. Between 2010 and 2100, the area of cold temperate desert shrub and warm temperate desert shrub/thorn steppe ETZs were projected to increase at a rate of 4% per decade, which represented an increase of 3604.2, 10063.1, and 17,242 km ² per decade under the RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 scenarios, respectively. The cold ETZ was projected to transform to the warm humid ETZ in the future. The average shift distance of the mean center in the north wet forest and cold temperate desert shrub/thorn grassland ETZs was generally larger than that of other ETZs, with the mean center moving to the northeast and the shift distance being more than 150 km during the periods from T0 to T3. In addition, with a gradual increase of temperature and precipitation, the ETZs in northern China displayed a shifting northward trend, while the area of ETZs in southern China decreased gradually, and their mean center moved to high-altitude areas. The effects of climate change on ETZs presented an increasing trend in China, especially in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.

Key words: ecological transition zone, mean center, spatial identification model, scenario simulation, China

FAN Zemeng. Spatial identification and scenario simulation of the ecological transition zones under the climate change in China[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021, 31(4): 497-517.

Figures/Tables 10

Figure 1

Table 1

The identification criterion of ecological transition zone (ETZ) types"

Code	ETZ Type	MAB (℃)	TAP (mm)	PER
1	Transition zone between aeolian area and nival area (Aeolian-Nival)	>0.375	<125	<0.25
2	Transition zone between aeolian area, periglacial area, and nival area (Aeolian-Peri-Nival)	<0.75	>125	>0.25
3	Transition zone between aeolian area, frigorideserta, and periglacial area (Aeolian-Fri-Peri)	>0.75	<125	<0.50
4	Transition zone between periglacial area and nival area (Peri-Nival)	>0.75	<250	<0.25
5	Transition zone between frigorideserta, periglacial area, and alpine cold steppe (Fri-Peri-AlpColdSte)	<1.50	>125	>0.50
6	Transition zone between periglacial area, nival area, and alpine cold meadow (Peri-Nival-AlpColdMea)	<1.50	>250	>0.25
7	Transition zone between alpine cold desert, alpine cold steppe, and frigorideserta (AlpColdDes-AlpColdSte-Fri)	>1.50	<125	<1.00
8	Transition zone between alpine cold steppe, alpine cold meadow, and periglacial area (AlpColdSte-AlpColdMea-Peri)	>1.50	<250	<0.50
9	Transition zone between alpine cold meadow, alpine rain tundra, and nival area (AlpColdMea-AlpRainTundra-Nival)	>1.50	<500	<0.25
10	Transition zone between alpine cold desert, alpine cold steppe, and boreal dry scrub (AlpColdDes-AlpColdSte-BorealDryScr)	<3.00	>125	>1.00
11	Transition zone between alpine cold steppe, alpine cold meadow, and boreal moist forest (AlpColdSte-AlpColdMea-BorealMoistFor)	<3.00	>250	>0.50
12	Transition zone between alpine cold meadow, alpine rain tundra, and boreal wet forest (AlpColdMea-AlpRainTundra-BorealWetFor)	<3.00	>500	>0.25
13	Transition zone between boreal desert, boreal dry scrub, and alpine cold desert (BorealDes-BorealDryScr-AlpColdDes)	>3.00	<125	<2.00
14	Transition zone between boreal dry scrub, boreal moist forest, and alpine cold steppe (BorealDryScr-BorealMoistFor-AlpColdSte)	>3.00	<250	<1.00
15	Transition zone between boreal moist forest, boreal wet forest and alpine cold meadow (BorealMoistFor-BorealWetFor-AlpColdMea)	>3.00	<500	<0.50
16	Transition zone between boreal wet forest, boreal rain forest, and alpine rain tundra (BorealWetFor-BorealRainFor-BorealRainTundra)	>3.00	<1000	<0.25
17	Transition zone between boreal desert, boreal dry scrub, and cool temperate desert scrub (BorealDes-BorealDryScr-CoolTemDesScr)	<6.00	>125	>2.00
18	Transition zone between boreal dry scrub, boreal moist forest, and cool temperate steppe (BorealDryScr-BorealMoistFor-CoolTemSte)	<6.00	>250	>1.00
19	Transition zone between boreal moist forest, boreal wet forest, and cool temperate moist forest (BorealMoistFor-BorealWetFor-CoolTemMoistFor)	<6.00	>500	>0.50
20	Transition zone between boreal wet forest, boreal rain forest, and cool temperate wet forest (BorealWetFor-BorealRainFor-CoolTemWetFor)	<6.00	>1000	>0.25
21	Transition zone between cool temperate desert, cool temperate desert scrub, and boreal desert (CoolTemDes-BorealRainFor-CoolWetFor)	>6.00	<125	<4.00
22	Transition zone between cool temperate desert scrub, cool temperate steppe, and boreal dry scrub (CoolTemDesScr-CoolTemSte-BorealDryScr)	>6.00	<250	<2.00
23	Transition zone between cool temperate steppe, cool temperate moist forest, and boreal moist forest (CoolTemSte-CoolTemMoistFor-BorealMoistFor)	>6.00	<500	<1.00
24	Transition zone between cool temperate moist forest, cool temperate wet forest, and boreal wet forest (CoolTemMoistFor-CoolTemWetFor-BorealWetFor)	>6.00	<1000	<0.50
25	Transition zone between cool temperate wet forest, cool temperate rain forest, and boreal rain forest (CoolTemWeFor-CoolTemRainFor-BorealRainFor)	>6.00	<2000	<0.25
26	Transition zone between cool temperate desert, cool temperate desert scrub, and warm temperate desert (CoolTemDes-CoolTemDesScr-WarmTemDes)	<12.00	>125	>4.00
27	Transition zone between cool temperate desert scrub, cool temperate steppe, and warm temperate thorn steppe (CoolTemDesScr-CoolTemSte-WarmTemThornSte)	<12.00	>250	>2.00
28	Transition zone between cool temperate steppe, cool temperate moist forest, and warm temperate dry forest (CoolTeSte-CoolTemMoistFor-WarmTemDryFor)	<12.00	>500	>1.00
29	Transition zone between cool temperate moist forest, cool temperate wet forest, and warm temperate moist forest (CoolTemMoistFor-CoolTemWetFor-WarmTemMoistFor)	<12.00	>1000	>0.50
30	Transition zone between cool temperate wet forest, cool temperate rain forest, and warm temperate wet forest (CoolTemWetFor-CoolTemRainFor-Warm TemWetFor)	<12.00	>2000	>0.25
31	Transition zone between warm temperate desert, warm temperate desert scrub, and cool temperate desert (WarmTemDes-WarmTemDesScr-CoolTemDes)	>12.00	<125	<8.00
32	Transition zone between warm temperate desert scrub, warm temperate thorn steppe, and cool temperate desert scrub (WarmTemDesScr-WarmTemThornSte-CoolTemDesScr)	>12.00	<250	<4.00
33	Transition zone between warm temperate thorn steppe, warm temperate dry forest, and cool temperate steppe (WarmTemthornDesScr-WarmTemDryFor-CoolTemSte)	>12.00	<500	<2.00
34	Transition zone between warm temperate dry forest, warm temperate moist forest, and cool temperate moist forest (WarmTemDryFor-WarmTemMoistFor-CoolTemMoistFor)	>12.00	<1000	<1.00
35	Transition zone between warm temperate moist forest, warm temperate wet forest and cool temperate wet forest (WarmTemMoistFor-WarmTemWetFor- CoolTemWetFor)	>12.00	<2000	<0.50
36	Transition zone between warm temperate wet forest, warm temperate rain forest, and cool temperate rain forest (WarmTemWetFor-WarmTemRainFor- CoolTemRainFor)	>12.00	<4000	<0.25
37	Transition zone between subtropical desert, subtropical desert scrub, and tropical desert scrub (SubtroDes-SubtroDesScr-TroDesScr)	<24.00	>125	>8.00
38	Transition zone between subtropical desert scrub, subtropical thorn steppe, and tropical thorn forest (SubtroDesScr-SubtroThornSte-TroThornFor)	<24.00	>250	>4.00
39	Transition zone between subtropical thorn woodland, subtropical dry forest, and tropical very dry forest (SubtroThornWood-SubtroDryFor-TroVeryDryFor)	<24.00	>500	>2.00
40	Transition zone between subtropical dry forest, subtropical moist forest, and tropical dry forest (SubtroDryFor-SubtroMoistFor-TroDryFor)	<24.00	>1000	>1.00
41	Transition zone between subtropical moist forest, subtropical wet forest, and tropical moist forest (SubtroMoistFor-SubtroWetFor-TroMoistFor)	<24.00	>2000	>0.50
42	Transition zone between subtropical wet forest, subtropical rain forest, and tropical wet forest (SubtroWetFor-SubtroRainFor-TroWetFor)	<24.00	>4000	>0.25
43	Transition zone between tropical desert, tropical desert scrub, and subtropical desert (TroDes-TroDesScr-SubtroDes)	>24.00	<125	<16.00
44	Transition zone between tropical desert scrub, tropical thorn woodland, and subtropical desert (TroDesScr-TroDesThornwood-SubtroDesScr)	>24.00	<250	<8.00
45	Transition zone between tropical thorn woodland, tropical very dry forest, and subtropical thorn woodland (TroThornWood-TroVeryDryFor-SubtroThornWood)	>24.00	<500	<4.00
46	Transition zone between tropical very dry forest, tropical dry forest, and subtropical dry forest (TroVeryDryFor-TroDryFor-SubtroDryFor)	>24.00	<1000	<2.00
47	Transition zone between tropical dry forest, tropical moist forest, and subtropical moist forest (TroDryFor-TroMoistFor-SubtroMoistFor)	>24.00	<2000	<1.00
48	Transition zone between tropical moist forest, tropical wet forest, and subtropical wet forest (TroMoistFor-TroWetFor-SubtroWetFor)	>24.00	<4000	<0.50
49	Transition zone between tropical wet forest, tropical rain forest, and subtropical wet forest (TroWetFor-TroRainFor-SubtroWetFor)	>24.00	<8000	<0.25

Table 1

Figure 2

Table 2

Areas in different ecological transition zones (ETZs) under the three scenarios of RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 during the periods from T0 to T3 (km2)"

ETZ type code	T0	RCP 2.6			RCP 4.5			RCP 8.5
ETZ type code	T0	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1	0	18	11	28	33	20	16	19	12	4
2	0	331	319	186	359	234	60	358	44	8
3	0	112	61	44	99	82	32	106	36	6
4	4133	2523	1929	2252	2249	1362	1255	2311	1251	177
5	69	1733	1621	1066	2043	1487	444	1937	235	21
6	67207	10165	5417	5630	9968	2705	2324	9085	2328	1271
7	0	496	569	85	494	503	38	462	33	0
8	21710	11833	8575	10436	11382	6306	5947	10986	6176	1778
9	50942	61529	54199	57642	56865	39831	35050	58659	30123	3972
10	6226	8108	7560	4602	7505	7651	3534	6888	1899	51
11	42813	72193	62699	63182	77481	51897	33686	74401	29872	9700
12	51665	60798	74726	76468	56264	81194	91293	57836	86511	64255
13	3698	2938	2566	1301	3330	2810	891	3097	568	9
14	33304	43970	35350	28835	44576	26912	22438	39653	26194	20468
15	53039	104570	121523	125735	105814	129326	145756	109206	147273	124791
16	20394	10	16	14	14	1	27	14	15	414
17	14482	16502	13437	13794	17491	11940	11067	15377	10001	3115
18	31289	45109	46366	43487	39986	50052	53911	40208	57198	32904
19	52387	135375	135381	167223	152001	164383	160644	151677	152096	182743
20	5537	0	0	0	0	21	21	0	15	14
21	13194	22047	18090	14887	20233	9779	5739	17244	4532	2311
22	63353	42135	42346	47085	45189	44690	46499	47416	45579	28390
23	148436	108981	102719	96813	104815	91829	77895	106336	86948	58513
24	21484	2006	4495	2412	1909	2212	5104	1702	1580	9054
25	186	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
26	130080	145120	136429	143718	143769	105773	102151	150962	92610	23052
27	49453	107082	126616	131613	116791	144363	139982	120822	144384	119965
28	206067	247976	236233	227930	215464	268572	267315	215277	230023	200860
29	37587	5908	7822	2878	204	1386	3071	133	315	1645
30	17	43	32	32	39	11	3	41	3	0
31	17491	107649	119337	105099	92396	114786	145654	104675	152720	101876
32	3540	21099	32599	39582	23460	70216	104171	26351	115379	175955
33	98325	19043	29874	32358	27524	50384	46884	28507	102668	167583
34	221686	226182	188416	212098	239735	163580	154365	225159	132460	132566
35	15214	6769	3878	4046	6482	2097	1362	6260	1291	16
37	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	884
38	13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
39	62	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
40	65438	40014	39494	36285	48298	89004	109617	66368	237548	515481
41	25166	364	3349	1005	3	2304	5937	0	2991	7498
47	18348	39697	55697	54925	41424	85862	134610	42064	157828	317434

Table 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Table 3

Trends in the spatial shift (km) of mean center in ecological transition zones (ETZs) under the RCP2.6 scenario"

ETZ type code	T0-T1		T1-T2		T2-T3
ETZ type code	Shift distance	Shift direction	Shift distance	Shift direction	Shift distance	Shift direction
1			575.89	Southeast	158.44	West
2			36.46	North	364.35	Southeast
3			524.49	Northwest	440.09	Southeast
4	313.37	West	45.65	Northwest	33.72	West
5	163.57	Northeast	204.43	Northwest	80.98	Southeast
6	75.23	South	111.08	Northwest	34.18	Southwest
7			62.35	East	183.79	Northwest
8	344.76	West	9.82	Northeast	34.16	South
9	65.01	North	66.15	West	3.16	Northeast
10	114.76	Northwest	102.64	Northwest	80.54	Northwest
11	133.99	South	90.37	Northwest	25.27	South
12	265.35	Northeast	75.64	West	10.24	East
13	221.60	West	33.91	Northwest	23.62	West
14	226.46	Southwest	72.05	Northwest	153.18	Northwest
15	171.44	Southeast	110.42	West	36.23	Southeast
16	2827.93	Northeast	251.73	Southwest	251.45	Northeast
17	289.66	Southwest	134.86	West	218.66	West
18	447.75	South	64.87	Southwest	127.80	North
19	119.67	Southeast	150.92	Southwest	197.31	South
21	86.68	Southeast	56.18	Southwest	97.37	Southwest
22	981.11	Southwest	167.08	Southwest	30.74	Northeast
23	533.87	Southwest	66.24	West	309.09	Northeast
24	2268.19	Northeast	843.93	Southwest	1032.88	Northeast
26	54.23	Southwest	18.27	West	9.99	Southeast
27	101.50	Northeast	38.75	Northwest	167.87	East
28	216.51	Northeast	101.74	Northeast	72.23	Northeast
29	160.22	West	20.78	West	46.98	North
30	766.46	Southeast	13.12	South	0.00
31	259.19	Southeast	95.16	Southeast	44.37	Northwest
32	839.21	North	415.56	Southeast	112.89	Northwest
33	294.23	Southwest	48.46	Northwest	21.06	Southeast
34	220.07	Southwest	52.50	North	19.88	Northwest
35	378.48	East	35.47	Southeast	9.45	Southeast
40	488.65	Northwest	48.12	Northeast	381.42	South
41	641.45	Northeast	216.49	Northeast	169.64	Northeast
47	29.03	Northwest	61.20	North	2.36	South

Table 3

Table 4

Trends in the spatial shift (km) of mean center in ecological transition zones (ETZs) under the RCP4.5 scenario"

ETZ type code	T0-T1		T1-T2		T2-T3
ETZ type code	Shift distance	Shift direction	Shift distance	Shift direction	Shift distance	Shift direction
1			293.08	East	123.63	South
2			36.08	Northeast	279.36	Southeast
3			473.97	Northwest	494.86	Southeast
4	320.13	West	52.11	Northwest	57.99	West
5	170.54	East	203.39	Northwest	70.2	Southeast
6	87.43	South	237.81	West	161.8	Northwest
7			120.74	Northwest	104.33	South
8	321.52	West	28.5	North	112.16	Northwest
9	64.65	North	115.89	Northwest	71.13	Northwest
10	170.76	Northwest	119.2	Northwest	33.71	West
11	131.38	South	114.57	Northwest	101.63	Northwest
12	268.45	Northeast	149.39	West	95.55	West
13	226.55	West	28.13	North	54.75	West
14	217.42	Southwest	248.67	West	175.08	Northwest
15	213.48	Southeast	120.03	Northwest	119.29	West
16	2827.64	Northeast	2225.08	Southwest	60.36	South
17	384.24	West	372.57	West	72.11	Southwest
18	325.97	Southwest	234.82	South	52.36	South
19	174.34	South	432.43	Southwest	308.11	Southwest
20					0.28	Northeast
21	69.1	South	377.76	Southwest	412.93	Southwest
22	919.58	Southwest	332.35	Southwest	150.7	Southwest
23	445.81	Southwest	260.71	Southwest	155.94	Southwest
24	2650.17	Northeast	179.94	Southwest	1561.57	Southwest
26	63.85	West	82.43	West	57.92	Southwest
27	306.92	East	146.99	Northwest	140.7	Northwest
28	320.71	Northeast	191.07	Northeast	24.79	Northwest
29	153.5	Northwest	214.07	West	103.68	West
30	768.54	Southeast	19.08	North	24.07	North
31	235.48	Southeast	346.37	East	67.52	Southeast
32	743.09	North	664.54	Southeast	20.01	North
33	274.56	Southwest	99.58	Northwest	89.56	Northwest
34	322.29	Southwest	137.42	Northeast	76.99	Northeast
35	384.46	East	105.23	Southeast	94.5	Southeast
40	556.84	West	253.32	Northeast	108.94	Northeast
41	1017.64	Northeast	58.91	Southeast	7.72	Northeast
47	34.71	Northwest	136.54	Northeast	74.47	North

Table 4

Table 5

Trends in the spatial shift (km) of mean center in ecological transition zones (ETZs) under the RCP8.5 scenario"

ETZ type code	T0-T1		T1-T2		T2-T3
ETZ type code	Shift distance	Shift direction	Shift distance	Shift direction	Shift distance	Shift direction
1			122.27	Southeast	333.54	West
2			930.5	Southeast	285.74	Southeast
3			297.21	Southeast	81.38	East
4	326.75	West	136.14	Northwest	64.26	South
5	173.46	East	246.25	Southeast	840.32	Southeast
6	86.9	South	445.58	Northwest	133.04	Northwest
7			295.09	Southeast
8	333.53	West	147.15	Northwest	78.14	West
9	67.49	North	185.05	Northwest	150.35	Northwest
10	189.19	Northwest	76.72	West	74.34	South
11	137.95	South	239.1	Northwest	265.65	Northwest
12	280.61	Northeast	257.8	West	290.64	West
13	224.04	West	79.49	Southwest	50.82	Northwest
14	259.6	Southwest	386.82	Northwest	113.5	Northwest
15	196.98	Southeast	202.81	Northwest	299.93	Northwest
16	2827.64	Northeast	2282.75	Southwest	206.86	South
17	479.18	West	346.49	Southwest	49.96	West
18	326.78	Southwest	349.86	South	428.34	Southwest
19	231.84	South	727.43	Southwest	656.35	West
20					1.12	South
21	100.83	South	1140.32	Southwest	89.01	Northwest
22	956.6	Southwest	508.54	Southwest	719.47	Southwest
23	389.8	Southwest	791.86	Southwest	1331.83	Southwest
24	2649.15	Northeast	744.07	Southwest	1838.76	Southwest
26	64.76	West	206.18	West	427.11	West
27	289.31	Northeast	278.89	Northwest	378.4	West
28	364.48	Northeast	312.33	Northeast	176.63	North
29	153.47	Northwest	267.16	West	138.46	North
30	767.04	Southeast	39.75	North
31	260.29	Southeast	388.81	East	189.04	East
32	720.01	North	631	Southeast	250.86	Northwest
33	280.88	Southwest	215.3	Northwest	137.05	North
34	349.58	Southwest	165.45	North	953.92	Northeast
35	401.18	East	232.65	Southeast	202.82	Southeast
40	510.16	West	418.01	Northeast	128.65	Northeast
41					13.76	Northwest
47	36.96	Northwest	233.08	Northeast	102.5	North

Table 5

Figure 5

References 46

1	Bestelmeyer B T, Wiens J A, 2001. Local and regional-scale responses of ant diversity to a semiarid biome transition zone. Ecography, 24:381-392. doi: 10.1111/eco.2001.24.issue-4
2	Biermann F, 2007. ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change-Human Policy Dimension, 17(3/4):326-337. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.010
3	Breshears D D, Cobb N S, Rich P M et al., 2005. Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(42):15144-15148.
4	Caneva G, Bartoli F, Savo V et al., 2016. Combining statistical tools and ecological assessments in the study of biodeterioration patterns of stone temples in Angkor (Cambodia). Scientific Reports, 6:32601. doi: 10.1038/srep32601 pmid: 27597658
5	Castri F, Hansen A J, Holland M M, 1988. A New Look at Ecotones. Biology International, Special Issue 17. Paris: International Union of Biological Sciences.
6	Chapin II I F S, Zavaleta E S, Eviner V T et al., 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405:234-242. pmid: 10821284
7	Clements F C, 1905. Research Methods in Ecology. Lincoln: University Publishing Corporation.
8	Danz N P, Frelich LE, Reich P B et al., 2013. Do vegetation boundaries display smooth or abrupt spatial transitions along environmental gradients? Evidence from the prairie-forest biome boundary of historic Minnesota, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science, 24:1129-1140. doi: 10.1111/jvs.12028
9	Fan Z M, Bai R Y, Yue T X, 2019. Spatio-temporal distribution of vascular plant species abundance on Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29(10):1625-1636. doi: 10.1007/s11442-019-1667-1
10	Fan Z M, Fan B, 2019. Shifts of the mean center of potential vegetation ecosystems under future climate change in Eurasia. Forests, 10(10):873. doi: 10.3390/f10100873
11	Fan Z M, Li J, Yue T X, 2013a. Land-cover changes of biome transition zones in Loess Plateau of China. Ecological Modelling, 252(1):129-140. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.07.039
12	Fan Z M, Li J, Yue T X et al., 2015. Scenarios of land cover in karst area of southwestern China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74:6407-6420. doi: 10.1007/s12665-015-4223-z
13	Fan Z M, Zhang X, Li J et al., 2013b. Land-cover changes of national nature reserves in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 23(2):258-270. doi: 10.1007/s11442-013-1008-8
14	Feddema J J, Oleson K W, Bonan G B et al., 2005. The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. Science, 310(5754):1674-1678. doi: 10.1126/science.1118160
15	Ferro I, Morrone J J, 2014. Biogeographical transition zones: A search for conceptual synthesis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 113:1-12. doi: 10.1111/bij.2014.113.issue-1
16	Gao H W, 1994. Advancement of theoretical research in ecotone. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 13(1):32-38. (in Chinese)
17	Gosz J R, 1993. Ecotone hierarchies. Ecological Application, 3(3):369-376. doi: 10.2307/1941905
18	Guan K Y, Pan M, Li H B et al., 2015. Photosynthetic seasonality of global tropical forests constrained by hydroclimate. Nature Geoscience, 8:284-289. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2382
19	Holland M M, 1988. SCOPE/M AB technical consultations on landscape boundaries: Report on an ACOPE/MAB Workshop on Ecotones. Biology International, 17:47-106.
20	Li S J, Sun Z G, Tan M H, 2018. Changing patterns in farming-pastoral ecotones in China between 1990 and 2010. Ecological Indicators, 89:110-117. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.067
21	Loehle C, 2018. Disequilibrium and relaxation times for species responses to climate change. Ecological Modelling, 384:23-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.06.004
22	Ma S J, 1990. A Perspective of Modern Ecology. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)
23	Marín V H, 2007. Toward conceptual cohesiveness: A historical analysis of the theory and utility of ecological boundaries and transition zones. Ecosystems, 10:462-476. doi: 10.1007/s10021-007-9036-9
24	Marshall C J, Liebherr J K, 2000. Cladistic biogeography of the Mexican transition zone. Journal of Biogeography, 27(1):203-216. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00388.x
25	Mayle F E, Beerling D J, Gosling W D et al., 2004. Responses of Amazonian ecosystems to climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes since the Last Glacial Maximum. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359:499-514. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2003.1434
26	Mayle F E, Burbridge R, Killeen T J, 2000. Millennial-scale dynamics of southern Amazonian rain forests. Science, 290(22):2291-2294. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5500.2291
27	Nicholas A M M, Franklin D C, Bowman D M J S, 2011. Floristic uniformity across abrupt boundaries between Triodia hummock grassland and Acacia shrubland on an Australian desert sandplain. Journal of Arid Environments, 75:1090-1096. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.06.016
28	Niu W Y, 1989. The discriminatory index with regard to the weakness, overlapness, and breadth of ecotone. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 9(2):97-105. (in Chinese)
29	Pauli H, Gottfried M, Dullinger S et al., 2012. Recent plant diversity changes on Europe’s mountain summits. Science, 336(20):353-355. doi: 10.1126/science.1219033
30	Peteet D, 2000. Sensitivity and rapidity of vegetational response to abrupt climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(4):1359-1361.
31	Reich P B, Sendall K M, Rice K et al., 2015. Geographic range predicts photosynthetic and growth response to warming in co-occurring tree species. Nature Climate Change, 5(2):148-152. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2497
32	Rich R L, Stefanski A, Montgomery R A et al., 2015. Design and performance of combined infrared canopy and belowground warming in the B4WarmED (Boreal Forest Warming at an Ecotone in Danger) experiment. Global Change Biology, 21(6):2334-2348. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12855 pmid: 25640748
33	Sarneel J M, Huig N, Veen G F et al., 2014. Herbivores enforce sharp boundaries between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems, 17(8):1426-1438. doi: 10.1007/s10021-014-9805-1
34	Shi W J, Liu Y T, Shi X L, 2017. Quantitative methods for detecting the impacts of climate change on the fluctuation of farming-pastoral ecotone boundaries in northern China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(3):407-419. (in Chinese)
35	Smith T B, Wayne R K, Girman D J et al., 1997. A role for ecotones in generating rainforest biodiversity. Science, 276(20):1855-1857. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1855
36	van Vuuren D P, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al., 2011. The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Climatic Change, 109:5-31. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
37	Wang X Y, Li Y, Chen Y P et al., 2018. Temporal and spatial variation of extreme temperatures in an agropastoral ecotone of northern China from 1960 to 2016. Scientific Reports, 8:8787. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27066-0
38	Williamsa A P, Allen C D, Millar C I et al., 2010. Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(50):21289-21294.
39	Wuyts B, Champneys A R, House J I, 2017. Amazonian forest-savanna bistability and human impact. Nature Communication, 8(1):15519. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15519
40	Xiao Q G, Chen W Y, Du P et al., 1997. Monitoring the ecological transect in East Asia monsoon region by meteorological satellite remote sensing. Acta Botanica Sinica, 39(9):826-830. (in Chinese)
41	Yarrow M M, Salthe S N, 2008. Ecological boundaries in the context of hierarchy theory. BioSystems, 92(3):233-244. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2008.03.001
42	Yue T X, Fan Z M, Liu J Y et al., 2005. Changes of major terrestrial ecosystems in China since 1960. Global and Planetary Change, 48(4):287-302. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2005.03.001
43	Yue T X, Fan Z M, Liu J Y, 2006. Scenarios of major terrestrial ecosystems in China. Ecological Modelling, 199(3):363-376. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.05.026
44	Yue T X, Zhao N, Liu Y et al., 2020. A fundamental theorem for eco-environmental surface modelling and its applications. Science China Earth Sciences, 63(8):1092-1112. doi: 10.1007/s11430-019-9594-3
45	Yue T X, Zhao N, Fan ZM et al., 2016. CMIP5 downscaling and its uncertainty in China. Global and Planetary Change, 146:30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2016.09.003
46	Yue T X, 2011. Surface Modelling: High Accuracy and High Speed Methods. New York: CRC Press.

[1]	HUANG Lin, NING Jia, ZHU Ping, ZHENG Yuhan, ZHAI Jun. The conservation patterns of grassland ecosystem in response to the forage-livestock balance in North China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021, 31(4): 518-534.
[2]	ZHANG Xiaoping, LIN Meihan, WANG Zhenbo, JIN Fengjun. The impact of energy-intensive industries on air quality in China’s industrial agglomerations [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021, 31(4): 584-602.
[3]	ZHANG Xinghang, ZHANG Baiping, WANG Jing, YU Fuqin, ZHAO Chao, YAO Yonghui. North-south vegetation transition in the eastern Qinling-Daba Mountains [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021, 31(3): 350-368.
[4]	JIN Fengjun, YAO Zuolin, CHEN Zhuo. Development characteristics and construction prospects for a multi-integrated economic zone in the South China Sea Region [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021, 31(3): 403-422.
[5]	WEI Wei, GUO Zecheng, SHI Peiji, ZHOU Liang, WANG Xufeng, LI Zhenya, PANG Sufei, XIE Binbin. Spatiotemporal changes of land desertification sensitivity in northwest China from 2000 to 2017 [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021, 31(1): 46-68.
[6]	MA Bin, ZHANG Bo, JIA Lige. Spatio-temporal variation in China’s climatic seasons from 1951 to 2017 [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(9): 1387-1400.
[7]	LIU Xiaojing, LIU Dianfeng, ZHAO Hongzhuo, HE Jianhua, LIU Yaolin. Exploring the spatio-temporal impacts of farmland reforestation on ecological connectivity using circuit theory: A case study in the agro-pastoral ecotone of North China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(9): 1419-1435.
[8]	WU Li, SUN Xiaoling, SUN Wei, ZHU Cheng, ZHU Tongxin, LU Shuguang, ZHOU Hui, GUO Qingchun, GUAN Houchun, XIE Wei, KE Rui, LIN Guiping. Evolution of Neolithic site distribution (9.0-4.0 ka BP) in Anhui, East China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(9): 1451-1466.
[9]	ZHU Wenbo, ZHANG Jingjing, CUI Yaoping, ZHU Lianqi. Ecosystem carbon storage under different scenarios of land use change in Qihe catchment, China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(9): 1507-1522.
[10]	YE Chao, LI Simeng, ZHANG Zhao, ZHU Xiaodan. A comparison and case analysis between domestic and overseas industrial parks of China since the Belt and Road Initiative [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(8): 1266-1282.
[11]	WANG Xueqin, LIU Shenghe, QI Wei. Mega-towns in China: Their spatial distribution features and growth mechanisms [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(7): 1060-1082.
[12]	YANG Fan, HE Fanneng, LI Meijiao, LI Shicheng. Evaluating the reliability of global historical land use scenarios for forest data in China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(7): 1083-1094.
[13]	LIU Ruiqing, XU Hao, LI Jialin, PU Ruiliang, SUN Chao, CAO Luodan, JIANG Yimei, TIAN Peng, WANG Lijia, GONG Hongbo. Ecosystem service valuation of bays in East China Sea and its response to sea reclamation activities [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(7): 1095-1116.
[14]	FANG Chuanglin, WANG Zhenbo, LIU Haimeng. Beautiful China Initiative: Human-nature harmony theory, evaluation index system and application [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(5): 691-704.
[15]	CHEN Mingxing, LIANG Longwu, WANG Zhenbo, ZHANG Wenzhong, YU Jianhui, LIANG Yi. Geographical thoughts on the relationship between ‘Beautiful China’ and land spatial planning [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(5): 705-723.