基于“EVI-ESV”伊犁河谷生态环境评估及生态分区构建

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2024.04.016

生态环境学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 655-664.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2024.04.016

• 研究论文【环境科学】 • 上一篇

基于“EVI-ESV”伊犁河谷生态环境评估及生态分区构建

杨非凡(), 何浩^*()

新疆大学建筑工程学院，新疆乌鲁木齐 830017

收稿日期:2023-09-10 出版日期:2024-04-18 发布日期:2024-05-31
通讯作者: *何浩。E-mail: 58080863@qq.com
作者简介:杨非凡（1999年生），女，硕士研究生，主要从事生态环境遥感研究。E-mail: 404628217@qq.com
基金资助:
新疆大学博士科研启动基金项目(202109120012);2021年新疆自治区自然科学基金项目(2021D01C054)

Ecological Environment Assessment and Ecological Zoning Construction in the Ili River Valley Based on EVI-ESV

YANG Feifan(), HE Hao^*()

College of civil and architectural engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi,830017, P. R. China

Received:2023-09-10 Online:2024-04-18 Published:2024-05-31

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

矿山开采为中国经济发展做出贡献的同时也带来一系列生态问题，对区域生态环境进行实时、客观、准确的动态评价显得尤为重要。以伊犁河谷为例，基于2013、2015、2017、2019、2021年的Landsat8遥感影像、夜光遥感数据、土地利用数据和统计年鉴数据从生态脆弱性和生态系统服务价值两方面综合构建伊犁河谷生态分区，避免从单一角度考虑区域生态环境的不足，同时分析自然因素和社会因素对高脆弱-高供给和低脆弱-低供给区域的相关性，探究该区域的主要影响因子，为西北干旱区环境治理及合理利用自然环境的社会供给价值提供科学依据。结果表明，1）2013－2021年伊犁河谷矿区生态环境明显改善，极度脆弱区从2013年的6%下降到2021年的3%，整体逐渐转为微度和轻度脆弱的面积占谷地总面积的30%。2）在整个研究期内耕地、林地、裸地、人造地表生态系统呈上升趋势，这些大部分来源于草地。草地在所有土地利用类型中占比最高且生态供给值最高，均达到51%以上。3）高脆弱-高供给区（Ⅰ）生态分区呈带状分布于南部和东部地区，呈减小发展趋势，低脆弱-低供给区（Ⅲ）生态分区主要分布在北部和中部部分区域，该区域逐年递增且增加的区域大部分来源于第Ⅱ生态分区的转化。4）植被覆盖度、人均生产总值、牧羊单位密度是Ⅰ分区的主要影响因素，Ⅲ分区的主要影响因素为土地利用类型、植被覆盖度、湿度。以Ⅰ、Ⅲ分区的研究结果作为参考，对伊犁河谷的各种影响因素进行调控，生态环境将会得到明显改善。

关键词: 生态脆弱性, 生态系统服务价值, 生态分区, 驱动因子, 伊犁河谷, 时空变化

Abstract:

Mining activities contribute to China's economic development but also pose a series of ecological challenges. Real-time, objective, and accurate dynamic assessment of the regional ecological environment is crucial. Using the Ili River Valley as a case study, this study comprehensively constructed ecological zones based on Landsat 8 satellite images, nighttime light data, land-use data, and statistical yearbook data from 2013 to 2021. The ecological zones considered both ecological vulnerability and ecosystem service value, providing a multi-faceted perspective on regional ecological issues. The study analyzed the correlation between natural and social factors in high vulnerability-high supply and low vulnerability-low supply regions, exploring the main influencing factors to provide a scientific basis for environmental governance and rational use of the natural environment in the arid Northwest. Results show that: 1) ecological improvements in the Ili River Valley mining area from 2013 to 2021 were observed, with highly fragile areas decreasing from 6% in 2013 to 3% in 2021. Overall, the area was gradually transitioning to mild and light fragility, now constituting 30% of the valley's total area. 2) Cropland, forestland, bare land, and artificial surface ecosystems showed an increasing trend throughout the study period, mainly due to grassland exhibiting the highest proportion and ecological supply value exceeding 51%. 3) High vulnerability-high supply (Ⅰ) ecological zones were distributed in the southern and eastern regions in a strip pattern, showing a decreasing trend. Low vulnerability-low supply (Ⅲ) ecological zones were mainly found in the northern and central parts, increasing annually, with most expansion originating from the transformation of Ⅱ ecological zones. 4) Vegetation cover, per capita GDP, and livestock unit density were the main influencing factors in Zone I, while land-use type, vegetation cover, and humidity were crucial for Zone III. Drawing upon the findings from Zones Ⅰ and Ⅲ, a strategic regulation of the myriad factors impacting the Ili River Valley is projected to markedly enhance the ecological milieu.

Key words: ecological vulnerability, ecosystem service value, ecological zones, driving factor, Ili River Valley, temporal and spatial changes

中图分类号:

杨非凡, 何浩. 基于“EVI-ESV”伊犁河谷生态环境评估及生态分区构建[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(4): 655-664.

YANG Feifan, HE Hao. Ecological Environment Assessment and Ecological Zoning Construction in the Ili River Valley Based on EVI-ESV[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2024, 33(4): 655-664.

图/表 11

参考文献 25

[1]	ADGER W N, 2006. Vulnerability[J]. Global Environmental Change, 16(3): 268-281.
[2]	COSTANZA R, ANGE R, DE GROOT R, et al., 1977. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 387(6630): 253-260.
[3]	KWARTENG P, CHAVEZ A, 1989. Extracting spectral contrast in Landsat thematic mapper image data using selective principal component analysis[J]. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 55(1): 339-348.
[4]	LI J, LIANG J X, WU Y, et al., 2020. Quantitative evaluation of ecological cumulative effect in mining area using a pixel-based time series model of ecosystem service value[J]. Ecological Indicators, 3(9): 1-14.
[5]	SHAN W, JIN X B, REN J, et al., 2019. Ecological environment quality assessment based on remote sensing data for land consolidation[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(23): 1-13.
[6]	XIONG Y, XU W H, LU N, et al., 2021. Assessment of spatial-temporal changes of ecological environment quality based on RSEI and GEE: A case study in Erhai Lake Basin, Yunnan province, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 4(3): 1-10.
[7]	YI F, LU Q, LI Y H, et al., 2023. Ecological vulnerability assessment of natural oasis in arid areas: Application to Dunhuang, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 22(3): 1470-1496.
[8]	ZHANG M N, AO Y, LIU M, et al., 2022. Ecological security assessment based on ecosystem service value and ecological footprint in the Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 6(10): 1470-1492.
[9]	ZHANG Y, ZHENG M R, QIN B, 2023. Optimization of spatial layout based on ESV-FLUS model from the perspective of “Production-Living-Ecological”: A case study of Wuhan city[J]. Ecological Modelling, 22(3): 1-12.
[10]	成超男, 胡杨, 冯尧, 等, 2020. 基于CA-Markov模型的城市生态分区构建研究——以晋中主城区为例[J]. 生态学报, 40(4): 1455-1462.
	CHENG C N, HU Y, FENG Y, et al., 2020. Research on the construction of urban ecological zoning based on CA-Markov model: Taking the main urban area of Jinzhong as an example[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(4): 1455-1462.
[11]	曹辰, 杨国林, 锁旭宏, 等, 2022. 基于遥感生态指数的阜新市生态环境变化分析[J]. 西北林学院学报, 37(2): 200-207.
	CAO C, YANG G L, SUO X H, et al., 2022. Analysis of ecological environment changes in Fuxin city based on remote sensing ecological indices[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 37(2): 200-207.
[12]	范德芹, 邱玥, 孙文彬, 等, 2021. 基于遥感生态指数的神府矿区生态环境评价[J]. 测绘通报 (7): 23-28. DOI
	FAN D Q, QIU Y, SUN W B, et al., 2021. Evaluation of the ecological environment of the Shenfu mining area based on remote sensing ecological indices[J]. Bulletin of Surveying and Mapping (7): 23-28.
[13]	郭峰, 肖家光, 田鹏, 等, 2022. 大亚湾及大鹏半岛沿岸造礁石珊瑚现状与生态脆弱性评价[J]. 应用海洋学学报, 41(4): 568-582.
	GUO F, XIAO J G, TIAN P, et al., 2022. Status and ecological vulnerability assessment of reef-building corals in Daya Bay and Dapeng Peninsula coastal reefs[J]. Journal of Applied Oceanography, 41(4): 568-582.
[14]	何丽华, 李建松, 王熙, 等, 2022. 水源保护区的生态脆弱性及生态修复成效分析[J]. 测绘科学, 47(8): 59-69.
	HE L H, LI J S, WANG X, et al., 2022. Analysis of ecological vulnerability and effectiveness of ecological restoration in water source protection areas[J]. Science of Surveying and Mapping, 47(8): 59-69.
[15]	李茂林, 闫庆武, 李桂娥, 2022. 基于EVI的锡林郭勒生态脆弱性评价[J]. 测绘通报 (10): 21-27. DOI
	LI M L, YAN Q W, LI G E, 2022. EVI-based ecological vulnerability assessment of Xilingol[J]. Bulletin of Surveying and Mapping (10): 21-27.
[16]	马云飞, 李建平, 陈长胜, 等, 2023. 长白山地区遥感生态指数时空变化及其气候响应[J]. 沙漠与绿洲气象, 17(2): 91-97.
	MA Y F, LI J P, CHEN C S, et al., 2023. Spatial and temporal variations of remotely sensed ecological indices and their climatic response in the Changbaishan region[J]. Desert and Oasis Meteorology, 17(2): 91-97.
[17]	尼亚孜海尼木·肖开提江, 马倩, 包安明, 等, 2023. 基于地理探测器的艾比湖流域生态脆弱性评价及驱动力分析[J]. 水生态学杂志, 22(5): 1-15.
	XIAOKAITIJIANG N Y Z H N M, MA Q, BAO A M, et al., 2023. Geodetector-based ecological vulnerability assessment and driving force analysis of the Abbey Lake Basin[J]. Journal of Hydroecology, 22(5): 1-15.
[18]	乔斌, 曹晓云, 孙玮婕, 等, 2023. 基于生态系统服务价值和景观生态风险的生态分区识别与优化策略——以祁连山国家公园青海片区为例[J]. 生态学报, 43(3): 986-1004.
	QIAO B, CAO X Y, SUN W J, et al., 2023. Identification and optimisation strategies of ecological zoning based on ecosystem service value and landscape ecological risks: A case study of Qinghai area of Qilian Mountain National Park[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 43(3): 986-1004.
[19]	王舒, 张骞, 王子芳, 等, 2022. 基于GIS的三峡库区生态风险评估及生态分区构建[J]. 生态学报, 42(11): 4654-4664.
	WANG S, ZHANG Q, WANG Z F, et al., 2022. GIS-based ecological risk assessment and ecological zoning construction in the Three Gorges reservoir area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 42(11): 4654-4664.
[20]	武帅, 田冰, 顾世杰, 等, 2023. 基于PSRM模型的京津冀地区生态脆弱性时空演变[J]. 环境科学, 44(10): 5630-5640.
	WU S, TIAN B, GU S J, et al., 2023. Spatial and temporal evolution of ecological vulnerability in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region based on the PSRM model[J]. Environmental Science, 44(10): 5630-5640.
[21]	谢高地, 甄霖, 鲁春霞, 等, 2008. 一个基于专家知识的生态系统服务价值化方法[J]. 自然资源学报, 23(5): 911-919.
	XIE G D, ZHEN L, LU C X, et al., 2008. An expert knowledge-based approach to the valorisation of ecosystem services[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 23(5): 911-919.
[22]	徐涵秋, 2013a. 区域生态环境变化的遥感评价指数[J]. 中国环境科学, 33(5): 889-897.
	XU H Q, 2013a. Remote sensing evaluation index for regional ecological changes[J]. China Environmental Science, 33(5): 889-897.
[23]	徐涵秋, 2013b. 城市遥感生态指数的创建及其应用[J]. 生态学报, 33(24): 7853-7862.
	XU H Q, 2013b. Creation of an urban remote sensing ecological index and its application[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(24): 7853-7862.
[24]	云婧, 2022. 内蒙古黄河流域湿地景观格局变化及其对湿地生态系统服务价值的影响研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古大学:17-33.
	YUN J, 2022. Changes in landscape patterns of wetlands in the Yellow River Basin of Inner Mongolia and their impacts on the value of wetland ecosystem services[D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia University:17-33.
[25]	郑慧玲, 王永红, 马卫, 2022. 基于PSR模型的珠江三角洲生态环境脆弱性评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 42(4): 210-217.
	ZHENG H L, WANG Y H, MA W, 2022. Evaluation of ecological vulnerability of the Pearl River Delta based on PSR modelling[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 42(4): 210-217.

权重	年份
权重	2013	2015	2017	2019	2021
W₁	0.31	0.316	0.332	0.315	0.295
W₂	0.206	0.206	0.188	0.202	0.216
W₃	0.141	0.142	0.131	0.135	0.132
W₄	0.085	0.087	0.088	0.108	0.103
W₅	0.08	0.082	0.079	0.081	0.078
W₆	0.071	0.072	0.068	0.068	0.067
累计贡献率	0.892	0.904	0.886	0.908	0.89

权重	年份
权重	2013	2015	2017	2019	2021
W₁	0.31	0.316	0.332	0.315	0.295
W₂	0.206	0.206	0.188	0.202	0.216
W₃	0.141	0.142	0.131	0.135	0.132
W₄	0.085	0.087	0.088	0.108	0.103
W₅	0.08	0.082	0.079	0.081	0.078
W₆	0.071	0.072	0.068	0.068	0.067
累计贡献率	0.892	0.904	0.886	0.908	0.89

一级类型	二级类型	耕地	林地	草地	未利用地	水域
供给服务	食物生产	0.466	0.213	0.148	0.002	0.276
	原料生产	0.103	0.49	0.217	0.006	0.154
	水资源供给	-0.551	0.253	0.12	0.004	2.75
调节服务	气体调节	0.376	1.61	0.764	0.027	0.802
	气候调节	0.196	4.82	2.02	0.021	1.36
	净化环境	0.057	1.41	0.667	0.087	3.44
	水文调节	0.631	3.15	1.48	0.051	28.2
支持服务	土壤保持	0.219	1.96	0.931	0.032	0.684
	维持养分	0.065	0.15	0.072	0.002	0.053
	生物多样	0.072	1.79	0.846	0.03	2.2
文化服务	美学景观	0.032	0.783	0.373	0.013	1.42

一级类型	二级类型	耕地	林地	草地	未利用地	水域
供给服务	食物生产	0.466	0.213	0.148	0.002	0.276
	原料生产	0.103	0.49	0.217	0.006	0.154
	水资源供给	-0.551	0.253	0.12	0.004	2.75
调节服务	气体调节	0.376	1.61	0.764	0.027	0.802
	气候调节	0.196	4.82	2.02	0.021	1.36
	净化环境	0.057	1.41	0.667	0.087	3.44
	水文调节	0.631	3.15	1.48	0.051	28.2
支持服务	土壤保持	0.219	1.96	0.931	0.032	0.684
	维持养分	0.065	0.15	0.072	0.002	0.053
	生物多样	0.072	1.79	0.846	0.03	2.2
文化服务	美学景观	0.032	0.783	0.373	0.013	1.42

土地利用类型	年份
	2013		2015		2017		2019		2021
	供给值	比例/%	供给值	比例/%	供给值	比例/%	供给值	比例/%	供给值	比例/%
耕地	0.091	2.7	0.078	2.73	0.095	2.68	0.084	2.81	0.143	2.81
林地	0.711	21.0	0.587	20.7	0.726	20.6	0.651	21.7	1.1	21.5
草地	1.75	51.8	1.42	50.2	1.77	50.1	1.58	52.7	2.64	51.8
未利用地	0.004	0.11	0.003	0.094	0.003	0.088	0.004	0.139	0.007	0.132
水体	0.823	24.3	0.748	26.4	0.934	26.5	0.679	22.7	1.21	23.8
建设用地	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
总计	3.38	100	2.84	100	3.53	100	2.99	100	5.1	100

基于“EVI-ESV”伊犁河谷生态环境评估及生态分区构建

Ecological Environment Assessment and Ecological Zoning Construction in the Ili River Valley Based on EVI-ESV

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 25

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

自变量	高脆弱-高供给区 (Ⅰ)				低脆弱-低供给区 (Ⅲ)
	EVI		ESV		EVI		ESV
	r	p	r	p	r	p	r	p
植被覆盖度	-0.529^**	0	0.387^**	0	-0.369^**	0	0.229^**	0
土地利用类型	-0.128^*	0.012	0.107^**	0	-0.498^**	0	0.401^**	0
人均生产总值	0.287^**	0	-0.393^**	0	0.161^**	0	-0.202^**	0
土壤湿度	-0.133^**	0.009	0.15^**	0	-0.251^**	0	0.194^**	0
牧羊单位密度	0.167^**	0	-0.152^**	0	0.188^**	0	-0.089^*	0.038
热度	0.273^**	0	-0.038^*	0.039	0.043	0.167	-0.078	0.06
坡度	0.098^*	0.029	-0.049^*	0.021	0.083^*	0.049	-0.061	0.131
坡向	0.069^*	0.035	-0.052^*	0.018	0.053	0.126	-0.039	0.238
人口分布	0.001	0.966	-0.002	0.921	0.001	0.976	0.001	0.912

[1]	张淼, 王桂霞, 王昌伟, 贺艳云, 许艳芳, 李琪, 许杨, 张俊骁, 张桂芹. 济南市区黑碳污染变化特征及来源解析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(4): 560-572.
[2]	李霞, 陈永昊, 陈喆, 张国壮, 唐梦雅. 中国沿海地区植被NDVI时空变化及驱动力分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(2): 180-191.
[3]	李荣杰, 李惠梅, 武非非, 赵明德, 王诗涵, 孙雪颖. 青海湖流域生态系统服务空间分异规律及驱动力研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(2): 301-309.
[4]	翁升恒, 张玉琴, 姜冬昕, 潘卫华, 李丽纯, 张方敏. 福建省森林植被NEP时空变化及影响因子分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 845-856.
[5]	于菲, 曾海龙, 房怀阳, 付玲芳, 林澍, 董家豪. 典型感潮河网浮游藻类功能群时空变化特征及水质评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 756-765.
[6]	王成武, 罗俊杰, 唐鸿湖. 基于InVEST模型的太行山沿线地区生态系统碳储量时空分异驱动力分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 215-225.
[7]	肖成志, 计扬, 李建忠, 张志, 巴仁基, 曹亚廷. 岷江上游生态脆弱性时空分异及驱动因子交互效应分析——以杂谷脑河流域为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(10): 1760-1770.
[8]	付蓉, 武新梅, 陈斌. 城市地表温度空间分异及驱动因子差异性分析——以合肥市为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 110-122.
[9]	郑晓豪, 陈颖彪, 郑子豪, 郭城, 黄卓男, 周泳诗. 湖北省生态系统服务价值动态变化及其影响因素演变[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 195-206.
[10]	李梦华, 韩颖娟, 赵慧, 王云霞. 基于地理探测器的宁夏植被覆盖度时空变化特征及其驱动因子分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(7): 1317-1325.
[11]	刘香华, 王秀明, 刘谞承, 张音波, 刘飘. 基于外溢生态系统服务价值的广东省生态补偿机制研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(5): 1024-1031.
[12]	郝永佩, 宋晓伟, 赵文珺, 向发敏. 汾渭平原大气污染时空分布及相关因子分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(3): 512-523.
[13]	石智宇, 王雅婷, 赵清, 张连蓬, 朱长明. 2001-2020年中国植被净初级生产力时空变化及其驱动机制分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(11): 2111-2123.
[14]	付乐, 迟妍妍, 于洋, 张丽苹, 刘斯洋, 王夏晖, 许开鹏, 王晶晶, 张信. 2000—2020年黄河流域土地利用变化特征及影响因素分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(10): 1927-1938.
[15]	余玉洋, 宋丰艺, 张世杰. 2000—2020年河南省NDVI时空变化及其驱动因素定量分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(10): 1939-1950.