Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Ecological risk assessment and ecological security pattern optimization in the middle reaches of the Yellow River based on ERI+MCR model
Yang Lian’an, PhD and Associate Professor, specialized in landscape ecology and agricultural GIS. E-mail: yanglianan@163.com |
Received date: 2022-01-03
Accepted date: 2022-08-25
Online published: 2023-05-11
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China(41601290)
The middle reaches of the Yellow River represent an important area for the protection and development of the Yellow River Basin. Most of the area of the river basin is within the Loess Plateau, which establishes it as a fragile ecological environment. Firstly, using high-resolution data of land use in the watershed from the past 30 years, landscape ecological risk (LER) sample units are defined and an ecological risk index (ERI) model is constructed. Kriging interpolation is used to display the LER spatial patterns, and the temporal and spatial evolution of risk is examined. Secondly, the spatial evolution of land use landscape change (LULC) is analyzed, and the correlation between land use landscape and ecological risk is discussed. Finally, Based on the LER model, a risk-based minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) model is established, and a comprehensive protection and management network system for the ecological source-corridor-node system designed. The results suggest that in the past 30 years, LER has a high spatial correlation and areas with extremely high ecological risks are concentrated in northwest and southeast areas of the region, of which the northwest area accounts for the highest proportion. Risk intensity is closely related to the spatial pattern of land use landscape. ERI values of forestland, grasslands, and unused land and farmland are low, medium, and high, respectively. The trend of risk evolution is “overall improvement and partial deterioration”. Man-made construction and exploitation is the most direct reason for the increase of local ecological risks. The high ecological-risk areas in the northwest are dominated by deserts which reduce excessive interference by human activities on the natural landscape. Recommendations are: high-quality farmland should be protected; forestland should be restored and rebuilt; repair and adjust the existing ecosystem to assist in landscape regeneration and reconstruction; utilize the overall planning vision of “mountain, water, forest, field, lake, grass, sand” to design a management project at the basin scale; adhere to problem-oriented and precise policy implementation.
YANG Lian’an , LI Yali , JIA Lujing , JI Yongfan , HU Guigui . Ecological risk assessment and ecological security pattern optimization in the middle reaches of the Yellow River based on ERI+MCR model[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2023 , 33(4) : 823 -844 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-023-2108-8
Figure 1 Location of the middle reaches of the Yellow River (MYRB) |
Figure 2 Land-use maps in the middle reaches of the Yellow River in 1990 (a), 2000 (b), 2010 (c) and 2018 (d) |
Table 1 Landscape ecological risk index calculation method |
Landscape index | Formula | Descriptions |
---|---|---|
Landscape fragmentation index | ${{C}_{i}}={{n}_{i}}/{{A}_{i}}$ | Ni is the patches number of landscape class i; Ai is the landscape area. The index represents the process in which the landscape type tends to be complex and discontinuous patches from a single continuous whole, reflecting the degree of fragmentation (Li et al., 2020).The higher the value, the lower the stability of the corresponding landscape ecosystem. |
Landscape splitting index | ${{N}_{i}}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{{{n}_{i}}}{A}}\times A/{{A}_{i}}$ | A is the total area of all the land class. The index represents the split between different patch individuals in the landscape. The higher the value, the more complex the landscape distribution, the lower the ecological landscape stability, and the higher the ecological risk (Zhang et al., 2016). |
Landscape fractal dimension index | ${{F}_{i}}=\frac{2\text{ln}({{P}_{i}}/4)}{\ln {{A}_{i}}}$ | Pi is the perimeter of landscape class i. The expression describing morphological changes that landscape after being disturbed by risk sources can reflect the human activities impact on the landscape (Pang, 2016). The value range is between 1 and 2, the smaller the value is, the simpler the patch shape is. The larger the value, the more complex the plaque geometry. |
Landscape disturbance index | ${{E}_{i}}=a{{C}_{i}}+b{{N}_{i}}+c{{F}_{i}}$ | a=0.5, b=0.3, c=0.2 (Zhao et al., 2019). Quantifying the loss intensity of landscape subjected to external disturbance, the greater the value, the higher the ecological risk (Lin et al., 2019). |
Landscape fragility index | ${{V}_{i}}$ | Land use fragility: unused land = 6, water = 5, farmland = 4, grassland = 3, forestland = 2, built-up land = 1. After normalization, the index is obtained. The index indicates the ability of different landscape types to resist external disturbances. The smaller the ability to resist external disturbance, the greater the fragility and the higher the ecological risk (Fu et al., 2019). |
Landscape loss index | ${{R}_{i}}={{E}_{i}}\times {{V}_{i}}$ | The index refers to the difference in the ecological loss of each landscape type when it is disturbed, and it is a combination of the disturbance degree and the vulnerability index (Ye et al., 2020). |
Figure 3 Maps of the landscape ecological risk (LER) in the middle reaches of the Yellow River for 1990 (a), 2000 (b), 2010 (c), and 2018 (d) (Note: I: Extremely low, II: Low, III: Medium, IV: High, V: Extremely high. The number in parentheses is the area percentage of each LER class.) |
Figure 4 Local spatial autocorrelation (Lisa) of the landscape ecological risk in the middle reaches of the Yellow River for 1990 (a), 2000 (b), 2010 (c), and 2018 (d) |
Figure 5 Landscape ecological risk change spatial distribution in the middle reaches of the Yellow River for 1990 to 2000 (a), 2000 to 2010 (b), 2010 to 2018 (c), and 1990 to 2018 (d) (The number in the parentheses is the percentage of area for each LER change class.) |
Figure 6 Changes in I, II, III internal land use landscapes in the middle reaches of the Yellow River |
Figure 7 Map of land use landscape center of gravity transfer in the middle reaches of the Yellow River (a. farmland, b. forestland, c. grassland, d. water, e. built-up land, f. unused land) |
Table 2 Landscape area (CA, ha) and dynamic attitude towards change (K, %) |
Landscape type | CA1990 | CA2000 | CA2010 | CA2018 | K1990-2000 | K2000-2010 | K2010-2018 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farmland | 13,782,030.00 | 13 801,271.76 | 13 017,665.97 | 12,768,659.91 | 0.01% | -0.57% | -0.24% |
Forestland | 6,696,526.00 | 6 686,714.07 | 6 915,599.91 | 6,895,743.93 | -0.01% | 0.34% | -0.04% |
Grassland | 11,809,910.00 | 11 854,688.40 | 12 061,886.94 | 12,032,993.97 | 0.04% | 0.17% | -0.03% |
Water | 387,730.20 | 365,374.26 | 356,842.44 | 359,651.79 | -0.58% | -0.23% | 0.10% |
Farmland | 758,543.20 | 846,784.35 | 1 241,309.34 | 1 534,453.02 | 1.16% | 4.66% | 2.95% |
Unused land | 936,875.30 | 816,729.57 | 778,366.08 | 772,511.13 | -1.28% | -0.47% | -0.09% |
Table 3 Land use landscape transfer matrix (ha) |
1990 | 2018 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farmland | Forestland | Grassland | Water | Built-up land | Unused land | |
Farmland | 11,207,331.31 | 172,954.17 | 1,182,919.46 | 70,113.81 | 105,260.4 | 29,646.18 |
Forestland | 339,738.88 | 6,151,248.53 | 380,353.58 | 6169.55 | 4390.65 | 13,539.76 |
Grassland | 1,517,517.39 | 318,377.66 | 9,959,568.41 | 24,525.11 | 17,426.69 | 195,166.24 |
Water | 61,514.68 | 7256.91 | 26,310.13 | 257,050.99 | 1859.36 | 5646.93 |
Built-up land | 639,541.75 | 40,772.37 | 176,650.21 | 16,966.44 | 628,571.43 | 31,902.79 |
Unused land | 14,218.80 | 4379.22 | 80,871.1 | 11,162.46 | 993.94 | 660,868.86 |
Table 4 Land use landscape pattern index |
Land use landscape | Year | Splitting index | Fractal dimension index | Disturbance index | Fragility index | Loss index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farmland | 1990 | 0.00064 | 1.50357 | 0.30091 | 0.19050 | 0.05732 |
2000 | 0.00065 | 1.50424 | 0.30104 | 0.19050 | 0.05735 | |
2010 | 0.00068 | 1.50343 | 0.30089 | 0.19050 | 0.05732 | |
2018 | 0.00072 | 1.50536 | 0.30129 | 0.19050 | 0.05740 | |
Forestland | 1990 | 0.00094 | 1.45330 | 0.29094 | 0.09524 | 0.02771 |
2000 | 0.00095 | 1.45419 | 0.29112 | 0.09524 | 0.02773 | |
2010 | 0.00095 | 1.45698 | 0.29168 | 0.09524 | 0.02778 | |
2018 | 0.00096 | 1.45772 | 0.29183 | 0.09524 | 0.02779 | |
Grassland | 1990 | 0.00060 | 1.51036 | 0.30225 | 0.14286 | 0.04318 |
2000 | 0.00060 | 1.51063 | 0.30231 | 0.14286 | 0.04319 | |
2010 | 0.00057 | 1.50714 | 0.30160 | 0.14286 | 0.04309 | |
2018 | 0.00059 | 1.50803 | 0.30178 | 0.14286 | 0.04311 | |
Water | 1990 | 0.00474 | 1.43508 | 0.28844 | 0.23810 | 0.06868 |
2000 | 0.00495 | 1.43915 | 0.28932 | 0.23810 | 0.06888 | |
2010 | 0.00504 | 1.43523 | 0.28856 | 0.23810 | 0.06870 | |
2018 | 0.00543 | 1.44353 | 0.29034 | 0.23810 | 0.06913 | |
Built-up land | 1990 | 0.00829 | 1.47142 | 0.29678 | 0.04762 | 0.01413 |
2000 | 0.00748 | 1.46844 | 0.29593 | 0.04762 | 0.01409 | |
2010 | 0.00546 | 1.47005 | 0.29565 | 0.04762 | 0.01408 | |
2018 | 0.00453 | 1.46758 | 0.29488 | 0.04762 | 0.01404 | |
Unused land | 1990 | 0.00944 | 1.38924 | 0.28068 | 0.28571 | 0.08020 |
2000 | 0.00211 | 1.39525 | 0.27968 | 0.28571 | 0.07991 | |
2010 | 0.00246 | 1.40134 | 0.28101 | 0.28571 | 0.08029 | |
2018 | 0.00283 | 1.40724 | 0.28230 | 0.28571 | 0.08066 |
Figure 8 The proportion of land use landscape area in landscape ecological risk areas in the middle reaches of the Yellow River from 1990 to 2018 |
Table 5 Resistance factor evaluation system and weights |
Resistance factors | Resistance level | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unit | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Slope | ° | <7 | 7-15 | 15-25 | >25 |
DEM | m | 800 | 800-1200 | 1200-1700 | >1700 |
Land use | — | Forestland Grassland | Water | Farmland | Built-up land Unused land |
NDVI | — | >65% | 50%-65% | 35%-50% | <35% |
Distance from natural reserves | m | <2000 | 2000-4000 | 4000-6000 | >6000 |
Distance from water area | m | <500 | 500-1000 | 1000-1500 | >1500 |
Distance from residential areas | m | >2000 | 1500-2000 | 1000-1500 | <1000 |
Distance from roads | m | >3000 | 2000-3000 | 1000-2000 | <1000 |
Table 6 Principal component eigenvalues and contribution rate |
PC | Eigen value | Contribution rate (%) | Cumulative contribution rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.958 | 24.481 | 24.481 |
2 | 1.237 | 15.464 | 39.944 |
3 | 1.053 | 13.166 | 53.111 |
4 | 0.963 | 12.033 | 65.144 |
5 | 0.874 | 10.923 | 76.066 |
6 | 0.749 | 9.367 | 85.433 |
7 | 0.617 | 7.716 | 93.149 |
8 | 0.548 | 6.851 | 100.000 |
Table 7 Principal component loading matrix |
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | Weight | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Slope | -0.682 | -0.373 | -0.110 | 0.275 |
DEM | -0.608 | 0.077 | 0.507 | 0.044 |
Landcover | 0.687 | 0.134 | 0.026 | 0.211 |
NDVI | 0.396 | 0.453 | 0.539 | 0.300 |
Distance from natural reserves | 0.138 | 0.271 | -0.628 | 0.028 |
Distance from water area | -0.380 | 0.638 | 0.047 | 0.043 |
Distance from residential areas | 0.251 | -0.569 | 0.304 | 0.005 |
Distance from roads | 0.517 | -0.253 | 0.058 | 0.093 |
Figure 9 Resistance value distribution in the middle reaches of the Yellow River (a), and spatial distribution of the minimum cumulative resistance (b) |
Table 8 Interaction intensity of the ecological sources |
Importance intensity | Ecological sources | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
Ecological sources | 1 | — | 496.363 | 3251.784 | 493.007 | 383.939 | 314.764 | 315.858 |
2 | — | — | 1835.816 | 6627.223 | 7788.075 | 1007.024 | 2968.156 | |
3 | — | — | — | 1271.954 | 1157.586 | 908.272 | 920.473 | |
4 | — | — | — | — | 3011.552 | 609.881 | 1455.133 | |
5 | — | — | — | — | — | 1741.775 | 17393.908 | |
6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3146.495 | |
7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Importance intensity | Ecological sources | |||||||
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||
Ecological sources | 1 | 135.354 | 139.319 | 261.405 | 202.370 | 549.194 | 10,961.767 | 5029.719 |
2 | 308.224 | 362.369 | 2142.793 | 1445.406 | 1830.386 | 912.972 | 492.734 | |
3 | 220.694 | 240.434 | 615.857 | 471.708 | 1902.202 | 13,376.014 | 1932.548 | |
4 | 605.245 | 755.824 | 3786.867 | 1969.244 | 988.864 | 844.004 | 535.114 | |
5 | 320.027 | 372.389 | 3742.240 | 3054.440 | 2995.553 | 644.070 | 363.737 | |
6 | 141.933 | 154.790 | 614.531 | 534.548 | 18,111.769 | 498.506 | 257.936 | |
7 | 233.010 | 264.684 | 1908.673 | 1680.415 | 4604.026 | 510.890 | 284.662 | |
8 | — | 23263.813 | 527.708 | 435.166 | 200.630 | 180.063 | 147.014 | |
9 | — | — | 659.663 | 542.943 | 220.362 | 192.012 | 148.768 | |
10 | — | — | — | 30,887.623 | 882.213 | 403.579 | 267.825 | |
11 | — | — | — | — | 735.599 | 307.211 | 206.296 | |
12 | — | — | — | — | — | 928.662 | 435.460 | |
13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4278.296 | |
14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Figure 10 Spatial pattern of ecological sources, ecological corridors and ecological nodes in the middle reaches of the Yellow River |
Figure 11 Ecological security optimization zoning in the middle reaches of the Yellow River |
[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] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |