大九湖泥炭湿地甲烷通量变异特征及影响因素

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2023.04.008

生态环境学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4): 706-714.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2023.04.008

大九湖泥炭湿地甲烷通量变异特征及影响因素

刘紫薇¹^,²^,³(), 葛继稳¹^,²^,³^,^*(), 王月环¹^,³, 杨诗雨¹^,²^,³, 姚东¹^,³, 谢金林¹^,³

1.中国地质大学（武汉）环境学院，湖北武汉 430078
2.古生物与地质环境演化湖北省重点实验室，湖北武汉 430205
3.中国地质大学生态环境研究所，湖北武汉 430078

收稿日期:2022-11-03 出版日期:2023-04-18 发布日期:2023-07-12
通讯作者: *葛继稳，E-mail: gejiwen@cug.edu.cn
作者简介:刘紫薇（1996年生），女，博士研究生，研究方向为湿地生态学。E-mail: liuziwei@cug.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31971490);古生物与地质环境演化湖北省重点实验室开放研究基金项目(PEL-202208)

Variation Pattern and Influential Factors of Methane Flux in the Dajiuhu Peatland

LIU Ziwei¹^,²^,³(), GE Jiwen¹^,²^,³^,^*(), WANG Yuehuan¹^,³, YANG Shiyu¹^,²^,³, YAO Dong¹^,³, XIE Jinlin¹^,³

1. School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430078, P. R. China
2. Hubei Key Laboratory of Paleontology and Geological Environment Evolution, Wuhan 430205, P. R. China
3. Institution of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430078, P. R. China

Received:2022-11-03 Online:2023-04-18 Published:2023-07-12

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

研究选取神农架大九湖泥炭湿地作为研究对象，基于2016－2019年涡度相关设备观测数据，分析大九湖泥炭湿地CH₄通量变异特征及其影响因素。结果表明，大九湖泥炭湿地是“CH₄源”，CH₄年排放量呈逐年上升趋势。大九湖泥炭湿地CH₄排放呈现以下规律：年尺度来看，CH₄排放量呈先上升后下降的趋势，高排放量集中在夏季；日尺度来看，CH₄高排放量集中在白天，CH₄昼通量高于夜通量。2016－2019，年昼通量百分比分别达到57.76%、59.09%、61.34%、50.84%，为大九湖泥炭湿地CH₄通量主要组成部分。昼通量占比最大值分别为74.59%、81.85%、67.22%及70.12%，主要发生在春季；夜通量占比最大值分别为48.82%、50.54%、44.59%及54.31%，主要出现在夏季，该现象可能与春季昼夜温差较大而夏季昼夜温差较小有关。CH₄通量与气象因子相关性分析结果表明，整体上来看，大九湖泥炭湿地CH₄通量与气温（t_a）和土壤温度（t_s）呈正相关（r=0.61，P=0.000；r=0.59，P=0.000），与表层土壤含水率（SWC）呈负相关性（r= ?0.24，P=0.000）。路径分析和多元线性回归分析结果表明，t_s、t_a和光合有效辐射（PAR）是影响昼通量的主要因子，其中t_s的影响最重要（标准化系数=0.418，P=0.000）；t_s、t_a和SWC对夜通量更具调节作用，其中t_a的影响最显著（标准化系数=0.246，P=0.000）。2016－2019年，研究区内SWC年际变化范围分别为29.99%－81.70%、61.88%－80.76%、61.38%－81.35%、54.95%－80.17%，年均值为70.35%、78.23%、77.82%、68.10%，2016年和2019年波动频繁，幅度较大，2017年和2018年较为平稳。结合一元线性回归结果得出，SWC波动频繁时，t_s对CH₄通量呈现更强的指示作用，SWC相对稳定时，t_a更具有指示意义。

关键词: 泥炭湿地, 涡度相关, 甲烷通量, 相关性分析

Abstract:

We selected the Dajiuhu Peatland, located in Shennongjia, Hubei Province, China, as the study site. Based on the monitoring data from 2016 to 2019 using the eddy covariance technique, the variation pattern and influencing factors of methane flux were analyzed. The results demonstrated that the Dajiuhu peatland served as a net source of CH₄, and the annual CH₄ emissions displayed an increasing tendency. On an annual scale, the CH₄ emission showed an upward trend followed by a decline, and the largest emission emerged in summer. On the diurnal scale, the highest CH₄ flux occurred in the daytime, which was higher than the nocturnal CH₄ flux. From 2016 to 2019, the annual diurnal fluxes accounted for 57.76%, 59.09%, 61.34%, and 50.84% of the total emissions, respectively, which were the primary components of CH₄ fluxes in the Dajiuhu Peatland. Between 2016 and 2019, the maximum ratio of diurnal fluxes were 74.59%, 81.85%, 67.22%, and 70.12%, respectively, which mostly occurred in spring. The maximum ratio of nocturnal fluxes were 48.82%, 50.54%, 44.59%, and 54.31%, which mainly occurred in summer. This phenomenon might be related to the distinct diurnal temperature difference in spring and the small difference in summer. Correlation analysis suggested that the variation of CH₄ emission was positively correlated with air temperature (t_s) and soil temperature (t_a) (r=0.61, P=0.000; r=0.59, P=0.000), whereas negatively correlated with surface soil moisture content (SWC) (r= ?0.24, P=0.000). Path analysis and multiple linear regression analysis illustrated that t_s, t_a, and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) were the major factors affecting the diurnal CH₄ flux, and t_s was the most important factor (standardized coefficient=0.418, P=0.000). Furthermore, t_s, t_a and SWC had more regulating effects on nocturnal CH₄ flux changes, and t_a played the most significant role in the process (standardized coefficient=0.246, P=0.000). From 2016 to 2019, the interannual variation ranges of SWC were 29.99%?81.70%, 61.88%?80.76%, 61.38%?81.35%, 54.95%?80.17%, and the annual mean values of SWC were 70.35%, 78.23%, 77.82%, 68.10%, respectively. SWC presented frequent and prominent fluctuations in 2016 and 2019, while relatively stable in 2017 and 2018. In addition, supplemented with linear regression, we found that t_s was a stronger indicator of CH₄ flux when SWC fluctuated frequently, while t_a was more indicative when SWC was steady.

Key words: peatland, eddy covariance, methane emission, correlation analysis

中图分类号:

X16
X144

刘紫薇, 葛继稳, 王月环, 杨诗雨, 姚东, 谢金林. 大九湖泥炭湿地甲烷通量变异特征及影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 706-714.

LIU Ziwei, GE Jiwen, WANG Yuehuan, YANG Shiyu, YAO Dong, XIE Jinlin. Variation Pattern and Influential Factors of Methane Flux in the Dajiuhu Peatland[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(4): 706-714.

图/表 9

参考文献 45

[1]	ALBERTO M C R, WASSMANN R, BURESH R J, et al., 2014. Measuring methane flux from irrigated rice fields by eddy covariance method using open-path gas analyzer[J]. Field Crops Research, 160: 12-21. DOI URL
[2]	BALCOMBE P, SPEIRS J F, BRANDON N P, et al., 2018. Methane emissions: Choosing the right climate metric and time horizon[J]. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 20(10): 1323-1339. DOI URL
[3]	BOUCHARD V, FREY S D, GILBERT J M, et al., 2007. Effects of macrophyte functional group richness on emergent freshwater wetland functions[J]. Ecology, 88(11): 2903-2914. PMID
[4]	BRIDGHAM S, MEGONIGAL P, KELLER J, et al., 2006. The carbon balance of north American wetlands[J]. Wetlands, 26(6): 889-916. DOI URL
[5]	CHEN H, LIU X W, XUE D, et al., 2021. Methane emissions during different freezing-thawing periods from a fen on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: Four years of measurements[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 297: 108279. DOI URL
[6]	CHENG J X, XU L G, WU J H, et al., 2022. Responses of ecosystem respiration and methane fluxes to warming and nitrogen addition in a subtropical littoral wetland[J]. CATENA, 215: 106335. DOI URL
[7]	DENG Y C, CUI X Y, LÜKE C, et al., 2013. Aerobic methanotroph diversity in Riganqiao peatlands on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau[J]. Environmental Microbiology Reports, 5(4): 566-574. DOI PMID
[8]	DISE N B, VERRY E S, 2001. Suppression of peatland methane emission by cumulative sulfate deposition in simulated acid rain[J]. Biogeochemistry, 53(2): 143-160. DOI URL
[9]	DREW T S, GREG F, DOROTHY M K, et al., 2009. Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions[J]. Science, 326(5953): 716-718. DOI PMID
[10]	DUMAN T, SCHÄFER K V R, 2018. Partitioning net ecosystem carbon exchange of native and invasive plant communities by vegetation cover in an urban tidal wetland in the New Jersey Meadowlands (USA)[J]. Ecological Engineering, 114: 16-24. DOI URL
[11]	FENG X, DEVENTER M J, LONCHAR R, et al., 2020. Climate sensitivity of peatland methane emissions mediated by seasonal hydrologic dynamics[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(17): e2020GL088875.
[12]	FORSTER P V, RAMASWAMY P, ARTAXO T, et al., 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing:In:climate change 2007: The physical science basis. contribution of working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate changes[R]. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 131-215.
[13]	FORTUNIAK K, PAWLAK W, BEDNORZ L, et al., 2017. Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes of a temperate mire in Central Europe[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 232: 306-318. DOI URL
[14]	HUANG X, SILVENNOINEN H, KLøVE B, et al., 2021. Modelling CO₂ and CH₄ emissions from drained peatlands with grass cultivation by the BASGRA-BGC model[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 765: 144385. DOI URL
[15]	JOABSSON A, CHRISTENSEN T R, WALLéN B, 1999. Influence of vascular plant photosynthetic rate on CH₄ emission from peat monoliths from southern boreal Sweden[J]. Polar Research, 18(2): 215-220. DOI URL
[16]	KARAKURT I, AYDIN G, AYDINER K, 2012. Sources and mitigation of methane emissions by sectors: A critical review[J]. Renewable Energy, 39(1): 40-48. DOI URL
[17]	LE MER J, ROGER P, 2001. Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils: A review[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 37(1): 25-50. DOI URL
[18]	LIU H Y, GU Y S, HUANG X Y, et al., 2019. A 13,000-year peatland palaeohydrological response to the ENSO-related Asian monsoon precipitation changes in the middle Yangtze Valley[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 212: 80-91. DOI URL
[19]	LIU H Y, GU Y S, GE J W, et al., 2022. The response of the Dajiuhu peatland ecosystem to hydrological variations: implications for carbon sequestration and peatlands conservation[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 612(Part C): 128307. DOI URL
[20]	MALTBY E, IMMIRZI P, 1993. Carbon dynamics in peatlands and other wetland soils regional and global perspectives[J]. Chemosphere, 27(6): 999-1023. DOI URL
[21]	McNICOL G, KNOX S H, GUILDERSON T P, et al., 2020. Where old meets new: An ecosystem study of methanogenesis in a reflooded agricultural peatland[J]. Global Change Biology, 26(2): 772-785. DOI PMID
[22]	MIAO G F, NOORMETS A, DOMEC J C, et al., 2017. Hydrology and microtopography control carbon dynamics in wetlands: implications in partitioning ecosystem respiration in a coastal plain forested wetland[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 247: 343-355. DOI URL
[23]	PENG S, LIN X, THOMPSON R L, et al., 2022. Wetland emission and atmospheric sink changes explain methane growth in 2020[J]. Nature, 612(7940): 477-482. DOI
[24]	PULLENS J W M, SOTTOCORNOLA M, KIELY G, et al., 2016. Carbon fluxes of an alpine peatland in Northern Italy[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 220: 69-82. DOI URL
[25]	SÁ M M F, SCHAEFER C E G R, LOUREIRO D C, et al., 2019. Fluxes of CO2, CH4, and N2O in tundra-covered and Nothofagus forest soils in the Argentinian Patagonia[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 659: 401-409. DOI URL
[26]	STRöM L, MASTEPANOV M, CHRISTENSEN T R, 2005. Species-specific effects of vascular plants on carbon turnover and methane emissions from wetlands[J]. Biogeochemistry, 75(1): 65-82. DOI URL
[27]	TANG W, XU Y J, MA Y M, et al., 2021. Hot spot of CH₄ production and diffusive flux in rivers with high urbanization[J]. Water Research, 204: 117624. DOI URL
[28]	TOLLEFSON J, 2022. Scientists raise alarm over ‘dangerously fast’ growth in atmospheric methane[J]. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00312-2. DOI
[29]	TONG C, BASTVIKEN D, TANG K W, et al., 2021. Annual CO₂ and CH₄ fluxes in coastal earthen ponds with Litopenaeus vannamei in southeastern China[J]. Aquaculture, 545: 737229. DOI URL
[30]	VAN DER NAT F-J W A, MIDDELBURG J J, 1998. Seasonal variation in methane oxidation by the rhizosphere of Phragmites australis and Scirpus lacustris[J]. Aquatic Botany, 61(2): 95-110. DOI URL
[31]	WANG L W, GE J W, FENG L, et al., 2022. The Synergism between methanogens and methanotrophs and the nature of their contributions to the seasonal variation of methane fluxes in a wetland: the case of Dajiuhu subalpine peatland[J]. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 39(8): 1375-1385. DOI
[32]	WANG R C, WANG H M, XI Z Q, et al., 2022. Hydrology driven vertical distribution of prokaryotes and methane functional groups in a subtropical peatland[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 608: 127592. DOI URL
[33]	WONG G X, HIRATA R, HIRANO T, et al., 2018. Micrometeorological measurement of methane flux above a tropical peat swamp forest[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 256-257: 353-361. DOI URL
[34]	WOODCOCK N, 1997. Climate change 1995. The science of climate change. Contribution of working group I to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change[J]. Geological Magazine, 134(2): 269-281.
[35]	WU J Q, WANG H Y, LI G, et al., 2021. Responses of CH₄ flux and microbial diversity to changes in rainfall amount and frequencies in a wet meadow in the Tibetan Plateau[J]. CATENA, 202: 105253. DOI URL
[36]	XIAO J Y, XIAO X Y, ZHANG M H, et al., 2015. Late pleistocene montane vegetation and climate history from the Dajiuhu Basin in the western Hubei Province of central China[J]. Review of Palaeobotany & Palynology, 222: 22-32.
[37]	XU X Y, ZHANG M M, XIONG Y S, et al., 2020. The influence of soil temperature, methanogens and methanotrophs on methane emissions from cold waterlogged paddy fields[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 264: 110421. DOI URL
[38]	耿世聪, 陈志杰, 张军辉, 等, 2013. 长白山三种主要林地土壤甲烷通量[J]. 生态学杂志, 32(5): 1091-1096.
	GENG S C, CHEN Z J, ZHANG J H, et al., 2013. Soil methane fluxes of three forest types in Changbai mountain of northeast China[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 32(5): 1091-1096.
[39]	何方杰, 韩辉邦, 马学谦, 等, 2019. 隆宝滩沼泽湿地不同区域的甲烷通量特征及影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 28(4): 803-811. DOI URL
	HE F J, HAN H B, MA X Q, et al., 2019. Characteristics and influence factors of CH₄ flux in different areas of Longbaotan marsh wetland[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 28(4): 803-811.
[40]	李永福, 葛继稳, 翁闻畅, 等, 2019. 神农架大九湖泥炭湿地二氧化碳和甲烷排放化学计量比研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 26(4): 20-30.
	LI Y F, GE J W, WENG W C, et al., 2019. Stoichiometry ratio of CO₂ and CH₄ emissions in Dajiuhu peat wetland of Shennongjia[J]. Safety and Environemntal Engineering, 26(4): 20-30.
[41]	栾军伟, 崔丽娟, 宋洪涛, 等, 2012. 国外湿地生态系统碳循环研究进展[J]. 湿地科学, 10(2): 235-242.
	LUAN J W, CUI L J, SONG H T, et al., 2012. Foreign research progress on carbon cycle in wetland ecosystems[J]. Wetland Science, 10(2): 235-242.
[42]	罗涛, 伦子健, 顾延生, 等, 2015. 神农架大九湖湿地植物群落调查与生态保护研究[J]. 湿地科学, 13(2): 153-160.
	LUO T, LUN Z J, GU Y S, et al., 2015. Plant community survey and ecological protection of Dajiuhu wetlands in Shennongjia area[J]. Wetland Science, 13(2): 153-160.
[43]	马己安, 冯克鹏, 李王成, 等, 2020. 压砂地和裸地对比条件下地温与含水率变化差异性分析[J]. 节水灌溉, (7): 63-68.
	MA J A, FENG K P, LI W C, et al., 2020. Analysis of the difference between ground temperature and moisture content under the comparison between gravel-mulched land and bare land[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, (7): 63-68.
[44]	申格, 徐斌, 金云翔, 等, 2016. 若尔盖高原湿地研究进展[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 32(4): 104-110.
	SHEN G, XU B, JIN Y X, et al., 2016. Multi-model suitability assessment of construction land in Tsinling mountains based on the niche theory: A case study of Shangzhou, Shangluo[J]. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 32(4): 104-110.
[45]	张涵, 唐常源, 禤映雪, 等, 2022. 珠江口红树林土壤甲烷和二氧化碳通量特征及其影响因素研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 31(5): 939-948. DOI URL
	ZHANG H, TANG C Y, XUAN Y X, et al., 2022. The regular pattern and influencing factors of CO₂ and CH₄ fluxes from mangrove soil[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 31(5): 939-948.

年份	日均通量/ (μmol∙m⁻²∙d⁻¹)	通量极大值/ (μmol∙m⁻²∙d⁻¹)	通量极小值/ (μmol∙m⁻²∙d⁻¹)	年排放量/ (g∙m⁻²∙a⁻¹)	年昼排放量/ (g∙m⁻²∙a⁻¹)	年夜排放量/ (g∙m⁻²∙a⁻¹)	昼 (夜) 通量占比极大 (小) 值/%	夜 (昼) 通量占比极大 (小) 值/%	昼通量占比/%	夜通量占比/%
2016	912.96	2916.72	−70.08	5.35	3.09	2.26	74.59	48.82	57.76	42.24
2017	1318.08	4832.88	−109.68	7.70	4.55	3.14	81.85	50.54	59.09	40.91
2018	1834.56	5387.28	−49.20	10.71	6.57	4.14	67.22	44.59	61.34	39.66
2019	1670.88	7650.72	−1796.16	8.93	4.54	4.39	70.12	54.31	50.84	49.16

年份	日均通量/ (μmol∙m⁻²∙d⁻¹)	通量极大值/ (μmol∙m⁻²∙d⁻¹)	通量极小值/ (μmol∙m⁻²∙d⁻¹)	年排放量/ (g∙m⁻²∙a⁻¹)	年昼排放量/ (g∙m⁻²∙a⁻¹)	年夜排放量/ (g∙m⁻²∙a⁻¹)	昼 (夜) 通量占比极大 (小) 值/%	夜 (昼) 通量占比极大 (小) 值/%	昼通量占比/%	夜通量占比/%
2016	912.96	2916.72	−70.08	5.35	3.09	2.26	74.59	48.82	57.76	42.24
2017	1318.08	4832.88	−109.68	7.70	4.55	3.14	81.85	50.54	59.09	40.91
2018	1834.56	5387.28	−49.20	10.71	6.57	4.14	67.22	44.59	61.34	39.66
2019	1670.88	7650.72	−1796.16	8.93	4.54	4.39	70.12	54.31	50.84	49.16

昼/夜通量	模型	未标准化系数		标准化系数	显著性
昼/夜通量	模型	B	标准误差	Beta	显著性
CH₄昼通量	常量	0.018	0.007		0.009
	t_a	0.000	0.000	0.176	0.071
	t_s	0.001	0.000	0.418	0.000
	SWC	0.000	0.000	−0.054	0.145
	Prcp	0.001	0.003	0.008	0.778
	RH	0.000	0.000	−0.086	0.071
	PAR	0.000	0.000	−0.176	0.001
CH₄夜通量	常量	0.017	0.011		0.137
	t_a	0.000	0.000	0.246	0.007
	t_s	0.001	0.000	0.244	0.004
	SWC	0.000	0.000	−0.149	0.002
	Prcp	0.255	0.121	0.081	0.035
	RH	0.000	0.000	0.101	0.071
	PAR	0.000	0.000	0.039	0.552

昼/夜通量	模型	未标准化系数		标准化系数	显著性
昼/夜通量	模型	B	标准误差	Beta	显著性
CH₄昼通量	常量	0.018	0.007		0.009
	t_a	0.000	0.000	0.176	0.071
	t_s	0.001	0.000	0.418	0.000
	SWC	0.000	0.000	−0.054	0.145
	Prcp	0.001	0.003	0.008	0.778
	RH	0.000	0.000	−0.086	0.071
	PAR	0.000	0.000	−0.176	0.001
CH₄夜通量	常量	0.017	0.011		0.137
	t_a	0.000	0.000	0.246	0.007
	t_s	0.001	0.000	0.244	0.004
	SWC	0.000	0.000	−0.149	0.002
	Prcp	0.255	0.121	0.081	0.035
	RH	0.000	0.000	0.101	0.071
	PAR	0.000	0.000	0.039	0.552

研究范围	甲烷通量/ (μmol∙m⁻²∙h⁻¹)	年排放量/ (g∙m⁻¹)	参考文献
青藏高原日干桥泥炭湿地	249.48	34.96	Chen et al., 2021
意大利邦东尼峰高原泥炭湿地	126.00	17.66	Pullens et al., 2016
北欧泥炭湿地	0.69‒114.58	0.10‒15.96	Huang et al., 2021
马来西亚马姆达鲁国家公园泥炭湿地	86.40	12.11	Wong et al., 2018
福建省闽江口山峪塘湿地	1412.50	197.98	Tong et al., 2021
青海省隆宝滩沼泽湿地	56.61	7.93	何方杰等, 2019
波兰别布扎河湿地	176.23	24.70	Fortuniak et al., 2017
广东省珠江口红树林	18.97	2.65	张涵等, 2022
阿根廷巴塔哥尼亚山毛榉林	4.38	0.61	2019
青海省尕海湿生草甸	2.26‒8.67	0.32‒1.22	Wu et al., 2021
菲律宾拉古纳稻田土	241.20	33.60	Alberto et al., 2014
江河岸带	372.08	52.15	Tang et al., 2021

大九湖泥炭湿地甲烷通量变异特征及影响因素

Variation Pattern and Influential Factors of Methane Flux in the Dajiuhu Peatland

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 45

相关文章 6

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	孙建波, 畅文军, 李文彬, 张世清, 李春强, 彭明. 香蕉不同生育期根际微生物生物量及土壤酶活的变化研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(6): 1169-1174.
[2]	何瑞, 蒋然, 杨芳, 张心凤, 林键銮, 朱小平, 彭松耀. 茂名近岸海域中、小型浮游动物群落特征及其与环境因子的关系[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(1): 142-150.
[3]	袁伟皓, 王华, 夏玉宝, 曾一川, 邓燕青, 李媛媛, 张心悦. 基于GAM模型的鄱阳湖叶绿素a与水质因子相关性分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(8): 1716-1723.
[4]	邓慧颖, 陈立新, 余永江, 王宏. 武夷山市臭氧分布特征及其与气象要素关系分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(7): 1428-1435.
[5]	王永志, 刘胜林. 黄河三角洲芦苇湿地生态系统碳通量动态特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(5): 949-956.
[6]	马炳鑫, 靖娟利, 徐勇, 何宏昌, 刘兵. 2000—2019年滇黔桂岩溶区植被NPP时空变化及与气候变化的关系研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(12): 2285-2293.