Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Accuracy assessment of approaches to spatially explicit reconstruction of historical cropland in Songnen Plain, Northeast China
Author: Jiang Lanqi (1988-), PhD Candidate, specialized in land use/cover change. E-mail: jianglanqi@126.com
*Corresponding author: Zang Shuying (1963-), Professor, specialized in integrated and applying researches in 3S and land use/cover change. E-mail: zsy6311@163.com
Received date: 2015-08-07
Accepted date: 2015-09-20
Online published: 2016-02-25
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.42171217, No.41471171
Doctorial Innovation Fund, No.HSDBSCX 2015-12
Natural Science of Foundation of Heilongjiang Province, No.ZD201308
Copyright
To understand historical human-induced land use/cover change (LUCC) and its climatic effects, it is essential to reconstruct historical land use/cover changes with explicit spatial information. In this study, based on the historically documented cropland area at county level, we reconstructed the spatially explicit cropland distribution at a cell size of 1 km × 1 km for the Songnen Plain in the late Qing Dynasty (1908 AD). The reconstructions were carried out using two methods. One method (hereafter, referred to as method I) allocated the cropland to cells ordered from a high agricultural suitability index (ASI) to a low ASI, but they were all within the domain of potential cropland area. The potential cropland area was created by excluding natural woodland, swamp, water bodies, and mountains from the study area. The other method (hereafter, method II) allocated the cropland to cells in the order from high ASI to low ASI within the domain of cropland area in 1959. This method was based on the hypothesis that the cropland area domain in 1959 resulted from enlargement of the cropland area domain in 1908. We then compared these two reconstructions. We found that the cropland distributions reconstructed by the two methods exhibit a similar spatial distribution pattern. Both reconstructions show that the cropland was mostly found in the southern and eastern parts of the Songnen Plain. The two reconstructions matched each other for about 68% of the total cropland area. By spatially comparing the unmatched cropland cells of the two reconstructions with the settlements for each county, we found that unmatched cropland cells from method I are closer to settlements than those from method II. This finding suggests that reconstruction using method I may have less bias than reconstruction with method II.
JIANG Lanqi , ZHANG Lijuan , *ZANG Shuying , ZHANG Xuezhen . Accuracy assessment of approaches to spatially explicit reconstruction of historical cropland in Songnen Plain, Northeast China[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2016 , 26(2) : 219 -229 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-016-1264-5
Figure 1 Location of the Songnen Plain (a) and the distribution of counties (b) |
Table 1 Cropland area (km2) of each county in the Songnen Plain in the late Qing Dynasty (1908) |
County | Area | County | Area | County | Area | County | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hailun | 5043.00 | Changling | 2198.51 | Huaide | 2381.91 | Mulan | 530.84 |
Dehui | 4035.59 | Hulan | 2180.84 | Yitong | 1214.34 | Tangyuan | 265.42 |
Changchun | 3538.94 | Suihua | 2087.98 | Kaitong | 1159.68 | Nehe | 176.95 |
Binzhou | 2927.03 | Xincheng | 1821.08 | Wuchang | 1069.06 | Anda | 60.65 |
Yushu | 2775.49 | Lanxi | 1602.72 | Anguang | 926.96 | Nenjiang | 30.79 |
Nongan | 2770.65 | Yuqing | 1494.73 | Dalai | 912.20 | Zhaozhou | 26.54 |
Shuangcheng | 2390.08 | Jing’an | 1451.42 | Longjiang | 814.36 | Guoqianqi | ― |
Bayan | 2300.59 | Taonan | 1405.50 | Baiquan | 582.15 | Acheng | ― |
Xingdong | ― | Binjiang | ― | Total | 49175.98 |
Figure 2 Spatial distribution of ASI of the Songnen Plain in the late Qing Dynasty (1908) |
Figure 3 Administrative divisions in the Songnen Plain in the late Qing Dynasty |
Figure 4 Potential cropland area of the Songnen Plain in the late Qing Dynasty |
Figure 5 Spatial distribution of cropland in the Songnen Plain in 1908 reconstructed by allocating cropland within the potential cropland area |
Figure 6 Spatial distribution of cropland in the Songnen Plain in 1959 |
Figure 7 Spatial distribution of cropland in the Songnen Plain in 1908 reconstructed by allocating cropland within the cropland area in 1959 |
Figure 8 Spatial distribution of the unmatched cropland pixels in the Songnen Plain for late Qing Dynasty (1908) reconstructed using the two different methods |
Figure 9 Spatial distribution of settlements in the Songnen Plain for the late Qing Dynasty and mismatch of cropland pixels reconstructed (a) by allocating cropland area within the potential cropland area and (b) by allocating cropland area within cropland area in 1959 |
Table 2 Average coordinates of settlements and average coordinates of unmatched cropland pixels of two reconstructions for each county in the Songnen Plain (°E,°N) |
County | Settlement | Method I | Method II | County | Settlement | Method I | Method II |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wuchang | 127.1, 44.8 | 127.3, 44.8 | 127.4, 44.9 | Longjiang | 124.0, 47.5 | 124.0, 47.5 | 124.1, 47.5 |
Yuqing | 127.5, 46.9 | 127.7, 46.9 | 127.5, 46.9 | Yitong | 125.2, 43.5 | 125.2, 43.5 | 125.2, 43.5 |
Lanxi | 126.2, 46.3 | 127.7, 46.9 | 127.5, 46.9 | Nongan | 124.7, 44.6 | 124.9, 44.7 | 125.1, 44.7 |
Shuangcheng | 126.6, 45.3 | 126.4, 45.4 | 126.3, 45.4 | Dalai | 123.9, 45.8 | 123.8, 45.9 | 123.8, 45.9 |
Hulan | 126.6, 46.1 | 126.8, 46.0 | 126.7, 45.9 | Anguang | 123.3, 45.5 | 123.3, 45.5 | 123.3, 45.5 |
Anda | 124.2, 46.6 | 124.3, 46.7 | 124.0, 46.6 | Kaitong | 122.9, 44.8 | 123.0, 44.9 | 122.7, 44.9 |
Binzhou | 127.5, 45.8 | 127.6, 45.7 | 127.7, 45.8 | Dehui | 125.8, 43.9 | 125.7, 43.9 | 125.9, 44.1 |
Bayan | 127.4, 46.1 | 127.4, 46.3 | 127.6, 46.3 | Huaide | 124.6, 43.8 | 124.4, 44.0 | 124.3, 44.0 |
Baiquan | 125.9, 47.4 | 126.0, 47.5 | 125. 7, 44.4 | Xincheng | 125.6, 45.1 | 125.3, 45.1 | 125.3, 45.1 |
Mulan | 128.2, 46.0 | 127.9, 46.1 | 127.9, 46.1 | Yushu | 126.5, 45.0 | 126.6, 45.0 | 126.6, 44.8 |
Hailun | 126.7, 47.1 | 126.8, 47.2 | 128.0, 47.6 | Taonan | 122.7, 45.4 | 122.5, 45.4 | 122.6, 45.3 |
Suihua | 127.1, 46.9 | 127.0, 46.8 | 127.2, 47.1 | Changling | 123.6, 44.4 | 123.6, 44.4 | 123.5, 44.4 |
Zhaozhou | 125.0, 45.7 | 125.5, 45.8 | 124.7, 45.9 | Changchun | 124.9, 44.2 | 125.0, 44.2 | 124.8, 44.3 |
Nehe | 124.9, 48.5 | 124.9, 48.4 | 125.0, 48.4 | Jing’an | 122.8, 45.7 | 123.2, 45.9 | 122.9, 45.8 |
Acheng | 127.0, 45.6 | 126.9, 45.8 | 127.0, 45.7 | Average | 125.5, 45.7 | 125.5, 45.7 | 125.5, 45.8 |
Table 3 Cropland area fraction in 1908 for each modern county |
County | R1 | R2 | R3 | County | R1 | R2 | R3 | County | R1 | R2 | R3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nongan | 0.60 | 0.47 | 0.6-1 | Bayan | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.1-0.2 | Lindian | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 |
Beian | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.2-0.6 | Hulan | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.1-0.2 | Tailai | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 |
Hailun | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.2-0.6 | Shuangcheng | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.1-0.2 | Zhenlai | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0-0.05 |
Suiling | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.2-0.6 | Wuchang | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.1-0.2 | Zhaoyuan | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0-0.05 |
Qing’an | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.2-0.6 | Gannan | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.05-0.1 | Anda | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 |
Wangkui | 0.60 | 0.77 | 0.2-0.6 | Longjiang | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05-0.1 | Zhaodong | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0-0.05 |
Lanxi | 0.46 | 0.53 | 0.2-0.6 | Fuyu | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.05-0.1 | Zhaozhou | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0-0.05 |
Suihua | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.2-0.6 | Taonan | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.05-0.1 | Acheng | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0-0.05 |
Mulan | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.2-0.6 | Qian’an | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.05-0.1 | Binxian | 0.31 | 0.51 | 0-0.05 |
Da’an | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.2-0.6 | Qianguo | 0.28 | 0.40 | 0.05-0.1 | Tongyu | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0-0.05 |
Fuyu | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.2-0.6 | Changling | 0.51 | 0.41 | 0.05-0.1 | Daqing | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 |
Yushu | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.2-0.6 | Nehe | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0-0.05 | Baicheng | 0.36 | 0.50 | 0-0.05 |
Dehui | 0.52 | 0.26 | 0.2-0.6 | Keshan | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 | Gongzhuling | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.2-0.6 |
Jiutai | 0.48 | 0.03 | 0.2-0.6 | Kedong | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 | Harbin | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0-0.05 |
Changchun | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0.2-0.6 | Yian | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 | Qiqihar | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.05-0.1 |
Yitong | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.2-0.6 | Baiquan | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0-0.05 | Dorbot | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 |
Qinggang | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.1-0.2 | Mingshui | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0-0.05 | Wudalianchi | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0-0.05 |
Note: R1 stands for the results of method I; R2 stands for the results of method II; R3 stands for the results of CNEC |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
Course on the Survey of Manchurian Railway (CSMR), 1923. Local Gazette of Manchu-Mongolian. Manchuria Riri Press. (in Chinese)
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. UK: Cambridge University Press.
|
11 |
Liaoning Provincial Archives (LAP), 2008. Survey of Manchurian Railway (Vol 3). Nanning: Guangxi Normal University Press. (in Chinese)
|
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |