Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Assessment of effectiveness of nature reserves on the Tibetan Plateau based on net primary production and the large sample comparison method
Author: Zhang Yili (1962-), Professor, specialized in physical geography and biogeography. E-mail: zhangyl@igsnrr.ac.cn
*Corresponding author: Qi Wei (1987-), PhD, E-mail: qiw@igsnrr.ac.cn
Received date: 2015-05-22
Accepted date: 2015-09-21
Online published: 2016-01-25
Supported by
Foundation: The Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.XDB03030500
National Key Technology Research and Development Program, No.2013BAC04B02
Key Foundation Project of Basic Work of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, No.2012FY111400
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41171080, No.41201095
Copyright
Twenty-one typical coupled large samples were chosen from areas within and surrounding nature reserves on the Tibetan Plateau using the large sample comparison method (LSCM). To evaluate the effectiveness of the nature reserves in protecting the ecological environment, the alpine grassland net primary production (NPP) of these coupled samples were compared and the differences between them before and after their establishment as protected areas were analyzed. The results showed that: (1) With respect to the alpine grassland NPP, the ecological and environmental conditions of most nature reserves were more fragile than those of the surrounding areas and also lower than the average values for the Tibetan Plateau. (2) Of the 11 typical nature reserves selected, the positive trend in the NPP for Manzetang was the most significant, whereas there was no obvious trend in Taxkorgan. With the exception of Selincuo, the annual NPP growth rate in the nature reserves covered by alpine meadow and wetland was higher than that in nature reserves consisting of alpine steppe and alpine desert. (3) There were notable findings in 21 typical coupled samples: (a) After the establishment of the nature reserves, the annual rate of increase in the NPP in 76% of samples inside nature reserves and 82% of samples inside national nature reserves was higher than that of the corresponding samples outside nature reserves. (b) The effectiveness of ecological protection of the Mid-Kunlun, Changshagongma, Zoige and Selincuo (Selin Co) nature reserves was significant; the effectiveness of protection was relatively significant in most parts of the Sanjiangyuan and Qiangtang nature reserves, whereas in south-east Manzetang and north Taxkorgan the protection effectiveness was not obvious. (c) The ecological protection effectiveness was significant in nature reserves consisting of alpine meadow, but was weak in nature reserves covered by alpine steppe. This study also shows that the advantage of large sample comparison method in evaluating regional ecology change. Careful design of the samples used, to ensure comparability between the samples, is crucial to the success of this LSCM.
ZHANG Yili , HU Zhongjun , *QI Wei , WU Xue , BAI Wanqi , LI Lanhui , DING Mingjun , LIU Linshan , WANG Zhaofeng , ZHENG Du . Assessment of effectiveness of nature reserves on the Tibetan Plateau based on net primary production and the large sample comparison method[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2016 , 26(1) : 27 -44 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-016-1252-9
Figure 1 Typical nature reserves and their peripheral buffer zones on the Tibetan Plateau (TP) (a), and 21 typical sample pairs (b) |
Table 1 Representative nature reserves on the Tibetan Plateau |
Name of nature reserve | Area (km2) | Proportion of alpine grassland (%)* | Type of protection | Level | Date of creation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Qiangtang | 300,000.0 | 78.31 | Desert ecosystem | National | 09 Jul. 1993 |
Sanjiangyuan | 150,000.0 | 84.42 | Inland wetland | National | 23 May 2000 |
Altun Mountain | 45,000.0 | 36.69 | Desert ecosystem | National | 01 Jan. 1983 |
Hoh Xil | 45,000.0 | 56.13 | Wild animal | National | 08 Oct. 1995 |
Selincuo | 20,323.8 | 68.92 | Wild animal | National | 01 Jan. 1993 |
Yanchiwan | 13,600.0 | 47.03 | Wild animal | National | 01 Apr. 1982 |
Changshagongma | 6,698.0 | 91.07 | Wild animal | National | 08 Dec. 1997 |
Zoige | 1,665.7 | 86.25 | Inland wetland | National | 18 Nov. 1994 |
Mid-Kunlun Mountain | 32,000.0 | 21.82 | Wild animal | Provincial | 01 Jan. 2001 |
Taxkorgan | 15,000.0 | 28.07 | Wild animal | Provincial | 08 May 1984 |
Manzetang | 3,658.8 | 64.83 | Inland wetland | Provincial | 08 Jun. 2001 |
*Calculated data combined with data from Zhang et al. (2007) |
Table 2 Data for typical sample pairs |
Sample No. | Nature reserve | Vegetation type | Number of effective pixels in internal/external samples* |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Taxkorgan | Alpine steppe | 87/102 |
2 | Mid-Kunlun Mountain | Alpine desert | 34/63 |
3 | Qiangtang | Alpine steppe | 54/71 |
4 | Qiangtang | Alpine desert | 62/66 |
5 | Qiangtang | Alpine steppe | 102/84 |
6 | Qiangtang | Alpine steppe | 80/88 |
7 | Qiangtang | Alpine steppe | 91/93 |
8 | Qiangtang | Alpine steppe | 86/97 |
9 | Selincuo | Alpine steppe | 51/79 |
10 | Selincuo | Alpine meadow | 77/147 |
11 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine meadow | 70/95 |
12 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine meadow | 132/98 |
13 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine meadow | 148/95 |
14 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine meadow | 115/106 |
15 | Changshagongma | Alpine meadow | 90/110 |
16 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine meadow | 115/145 |
17 | Manzetang | Alpine meadow | 46/113 |
18 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine meadow | 125/94 |
19 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine meadow | 77/80 |
20 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine steppe | 70/70 |
21 | Zoige | Wetland | 37/50 |
*For greater accuracy, all the NPP data in the internal and external representative sample areas only count the number of effective pixels of vegetation types. The effective pixels refer to complete pixels (0.05° × 0.05°) with alpine grassland vegetation, for which the yearly NPP value can be included in the source data. |
Figure 2 Distribution of NPP inside typical nature reserves and peripheral buffer zones of the Tibetan Plateau. Data are based on results of Zhang et al. (2014). |
Table 3 Comparison of NPP of alpine grassland vegetation on the Tibetan Plateau (gC m-2 yr-1) |
Vegetation type | Representative nature reserve | Surrounding area of nature reserve | Tibetan Plateau (Zhang et al., 2014) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
National level | Provincial level | |||
Alpine desert | 43.50±61.11 | 12.58±4.74 | 41.05±56.57 | 41.12±52.74 |
Alpine steppe | 33.48±38.18 | 19.71±16.46 | 74.51±98.52 | 55.86±81.40 |
Alpine meadow | 169.2±105.2 | 301.9±188.7 | 232.4±178.9 | 188.7±156.0 |
Alpine sparse vegetation | 38.43±44.50 | 11.68±6.15 | 36.95±50.90 | 34.49±40.89 |
Wetland | 108.1±126.1 | 15.12±2.64 | 218.4±219.2 | 147.2±163.6 |
Mean | 87.33 | 93.95 | 157.86 | 120.8 |
Note: Data are given as mean±SD values. |
Figure 3 Changes in the NPP in natural reserves before and after their establishment. Red lines represent decreasing trends and green lines represent increasing trends |
Figure 4 Changes in the NPP in sample pairs before and after the establishment of the natural reserves. Red lines represent decreasing trends and green lines represent increasing trends |
Table 4 Amplitude and amplitude ratio of the NPP in sample pairs before and after the establishment of nature reserves |
Sample area | Analysis period | Protection amplitude /Pk | Protection amplitude ratio/Pr | Nature reserve | Vegetation type | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample No. | Sample pair | Whole period (1982- 2009)/k | First stage (1982 to establishment) | Second stage (establishment to 2009) | ||||
1 | Inside reserve | 0.10 | 0.24 | 0.10 | -1.66 | -1.09 | Taxkorgan | Alpine steppe |
Outside reserve | 0.31 | -1.22 | 0.31 | |||||
2 | Inside reserve | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.45 | 0.16 | 0.97 | Mid-Kunlun | Alpine desert |
Outside reserve | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.28 | |||||
4 | Inside reserve | 0.06 | -0.01 | 0.10 | -0.09 | -0.47 | Qiangtang | Alpine desert |
Outside reserve | 0 | -0.19 | -0.003 | |||||
3 | Inside reserve | 0 | 0.09 | -0.02 | -0.11 | -105.50 | Alpine steppe | |
Outside reserve | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.11 | |||||
5 | Inside reserve | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.06 | -0.03 | -0.78 | ||
Outside reserve | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.03 | |||||
6 | Inside reserve | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.54 | ||
Outside reserve | -0.08 | -0.03 | -0.21 | |||||
7 | Inside reserve | -0.01 | 0.30 | -0.20 | 0.16 | 0.24 | ||
Outside reserve | -0.05 | 0.37 | -0.29 | |||||
8 | Inside reserve | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.29 | 0.77 | ||
Outside reserve | 0.03 | 0.15 | -0.23 | |||||
9 | Inside reserve | 0.13 | 0.40 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.23 | Selincuo | Alpine steppe |
Outside reserve | -0.05 | 0.15 | -0.32 | |||||
10 | Inside reserve | 0.16 | -0.42 | -0.05 | 0.42 | 9.17 | Alpine meadow | |
Outside reserve | 0.10 | -0.20 | -0.25 | |||||
20 | Inside reserve | 1.10 | -0.94 | 8.76 | -1.94 | -0.17 | Sanjiangyuan | Alpine steppe |
Outside reserve | 1.16 | -1.05 | 10.60 | |||||
11 | Inside reserve | 0.10 | 0.17 | 1.79 | 0.01 | 0.01 | Alpine meadow | |
Outside reserve | 0.08 | 0.10 | 1.71 | |||||
12 | Inside reserve | -0.13 | -0.38 | 1.40 | 0.33 | 0.23 | ||
Outside reserve | 0.13 | -0.01 | 1.44 | |||||
13 | Inside reserve | 0.52 | -0.29 | 5.64 | 3.50 | 1.44 | ||
Outside reserve | 0.54 | 0.32 | 2.74 | |||||
14 | Inside reserve | 0.64 | 0.09 | 0.92 | 1.35 | 2.57 | ||
Outside reserve | 0.65 | 0.48 | -0.05 | |||||
16 | Inside reserve | 0.72 | -0.13 | 1.09 | 0.43 | 0.54 | ||
Outside reserve | 0.74 | -0.17 | 0.63 | |||||
18 | Inside reserve | 1.29 | 1.59 | -1.83 | 1.29 | 0.27 | ||
Outside reserve | 1.37 | 2.08 | -2.63 | |||||
19 | Inside reserve | 0.81 | 0.53 | -1.47 | 0.78 | 0.28 | ||
Outside reserve | 0.62 | 0.72 | -2.07 | |||||
15 | Inside reserve | 1.43 | -0.29 | 2.49 | 2.31 | 5.01 | Changshagongma | Alpine meadow |
Outside reserve | 0.96 | -0.57 | -0.11 | |||||
17 | Inside reserve | 0.99 | 0.34 | -0.58 | -3.27 | -1.39 | Manzetang | Alpine meadow |
Outside reserve | 1.27 | 0.32 | 2.68 | |||||
21 | Inside reserve | 0.97 | -0.58 | 2.51 | 3.74 | 5.70 | Zoige | Wetland |
Outside reserve | 0.87 | 1.37 | 0.72 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
Department of Environment Protection of Qinghai Province, Bureau of Quality and Technology Supervision of Qinghai Province (DEPQP), 2015. Local Standard of Qinghai Province-Technical Specification for Evaluation on Ecological Effect of Ecological Protection and Construction of Three-Rivers Nature Reserve (DB63/T1342-2015).
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |