Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Spatial associations between NDVI and environmental factors in the Heihe River Basin
Yuan Lihua (1988–), specialized in geographical variations analysis and human geography research. E-mail: ylh20070901@ 163.com |
Received date: 2018-10-23
Accepted date: 2019-01-22
Online published: 2019-12-11
Supported by
National Key R&D Program of China(No.2017YFA0604704)
Copyright
The Heihe River Basin is located in the arid and semi-arid regions of Northwest China. Here, the terrestrial ecosystem is vulnerable, making it necessary to identify the factors that could affect the ecosystem. In this study, MODIS-NDVI data with a 250-m resolution were used as a proxy for the terrestrial ecosystem. By combining these with environmental factors, we were able to explore the spatial features of NDVI and identify the factors influencing the NDVI distribution in the Heihe River Basin during the period of 2000-2016. A geographical detector (Geodetector) was employed to examine the spatial heterogeneity of the NDVI and to explore the factors that could potentially influence the NDVI distribution. The results indicate that: (1) the NDVI in the Heihe River Basin appeared high in the southeast while being low in the north, showing spatial heterogeneity with a q-statistic of 0.38. The spatial trend of the vegetation in the three sub-basins generally increased in the growing seasons from 2000 to 2016; (2) The results obtained by the Geodetector (as denoted by the q-statistic as well as the degree of spatial association between the NDVI and environmental factors) showed spatial heterogeneity in the associations between the NDVI and the environmental factors for the overall basin as well as the sub-basins. Precipitation was the dominant factor for the overall basin. In the upper basin, elevation was found to be the dominant factor. The dominant factor in the middle basin was precipitation, closely followed by the soil type. In the lower basin, the dominant factor was soil type with a lower q-statistic of 0.13, and the dominant interaction between the elevation and soil type was nonlinearly enhanced (q-statistic = 0.22).
YUAN Lihua , CHEN Xiaoqiang , WANG Xiangyu , XIONG Zhe , SONG Changqing . Spatial associations between NDVI and environmental factors in the Heihe River Basin[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019 , 29(9) : 1548 -1564 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-019-1676-0
Figure 1 Location of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China |
Table 1 Factors selected for spatial association analysis in the Heihe River Basin |
Category | Factor | Factor unit | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Climate | |||
Precipitation | mm | Heihe River Data Organization (http://www.heihedata.org/) | |
Temperature | ℃ | Heihe River Data Organization (http://www.heihedata.org/) | |
Specific humidity | g/kg | Heihe River Data Organization (http://www.heihedata.org/) | |
Topography | |||
Elevation | m | Derived from DEM data (http://www. heihedata.org/ data/ea5a9bba- 20c3-40c8-8013-584e0e55a952) | |
Aspect | - | Derived from DEM data | |
Slope | ° | Derived from DEM data | |
Soil property | |||
Soil type | - | Heihe River Data Organization (http://www.heihedata.org/) |
Figure 2 Spatial distribution of average growing-season NDVI (a) and ecosystem types (b) in the Heihe River Basin |
Table 2 Trend and significance results for NDVI in the Heihe River Basin |
Value | Sub-types | Percentage of sub-types (%) | Types | Percentage of types (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NDVI slope | (0.001,0.033] | Moderately increased | 3.5 | Increased | 10.6 |
(0,0.001] | Slightly increased | 7.1 | |||
[-0.001,-0] | Slightly degraded | 20.8 | Degraded | 89.4 | |
(-0.001,-0.020] | Moderately degraded | 68.6 | |||
Significance level | <5% | - | - | Significance | 54.4 |
>5% | - | - | Non-significance | 45.6 | |
The overlay result of the slope and M-K test | (0.001,0.033]∩<5% | Moderately increased with significance | 52.2 | Increased with significance | 53.0 |
(0,0.001]∩<5% | Slightly increased with significance | 0.8 | |||
(0.001,0.033]∩>5% | Moderately increased with non-significance | 19.3 | Increased with non-significance | 37.0 | |
(0,0.001]∩>5% | Slightly increased with non-significance | 17.7 | |||
(-0.001,-0.020]∩<5% | Moderately degraded with significance | 1.4 | Degraded with significance | 1.4 | |
[-0.001,-0]∩<5% | Slightly degraded with significance | 0 | |||
(-0.001,-0.020]∩>5% | Moderately degraded with non-significance | 2.1 | Degraded with non-significance | 8.6 | |
[-0.001,-0]∩>5% | Slightly degraded with non-significance | 6.5 |
Figure 3 Spatial trends and significance of growing-season NDVI in the Heihe River Basin from 2000 to 2016 (a. Spatial trend of median slope; b. Significance of M-K test; c. Overlay results of median slope and M-K test) |
Figure 4 Spatial distribution of seven environmental factors for NDVI in the Heihe River Basin (a. Average accumulated precipitation for 2000-2016; b. average temperature for 2000-2016; c. average humidity for 2000-2016; d. elevation; e. slope; f. aspect; g. soil type, number of 1-15 denoted Alluvial soil, Gray cinnamon soil, Dark brown soil, chestnut soil, brown calcareous soil, gray calcareous soil, gray desert soil, gray brown desert soil, brown desert soil, gray meadow soil, inland saline soil, aeolian sand soil, straw mat soil, shaga soil, cold desert soil, respectively.) |
Table 3 Factor/factor interaction results for the Heihe River Basin |
Factor /Interaction | q-statistic | |
---|---|---|
First ranking factor | Precipitation | 0.53 |
Second ranking factor | Elevation | 0.52 |
Third ranking factor | Soil type | 0.50 |
First interaction | Soil type∩Humiditya | 0.68 |
Second interaction | Soil type∩Elevationa | 0.634 |
Third interaction | Soil type∩Precipitationa | 0.629 |
Note: a indicates the interaction was bienhanced, represented by the q-statistic of interaction being larger than that of the two individual factors. |
Table 4 Factor/factor interaction results for sub-basins in the Heihe River Basin |
Region | Individual factor | Interaction | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First ranking factor | q-statistic | Second ranking factor | q-statistic | First ranking interaction | q-statistic | Second ranking interaction | q-statistic | |
Upper basin | Elevation | 0.30 | Humidity | 0.27 | Elevation∩Humiditya | 0.52 | Elevation∩Precipitationa | 0.46 |
Middle basin | Precipitation | 0.36 | Soil type | 0.33 | Soil type∩Humiditya | 0.55 | Precipitation∩Soil typea | 0.50 |
Lower basin | Soil type | 0.13 | Precipitation | 0.05 | Precipitation∩Soil typeb | 0.22 | Soil type∩Humidityb | 0.18 |
Note: a indicates an interaction bienhancement (in the same way as in Table 2), determined by the q-statistic of interaction being larger than that of the two individual factors; b indicates that the interactions nonlinearly enhance each other, as indicated by the q-statistic of interaction being greater than the sum of the two individual factors. |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[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] |
|
[52] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |