基于多尺度情景的闽三角地区林地生态网络构建

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2023.10.004

生态环境学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (10): 1750-1759.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2023.10.004

基于多尺度情景的闽三角地区林地生态网络构建

肖瑶¹(), 刘渺渺¹, 梁冠敏¹, 胡喜生¹, 林森¹, 巫志龙¹^,²^,^*()

1.福建农林大学交通与土木工程学院，福建福州 350002
2.国家林业和草原局杉木工程技术研究中心，福建福州 350002

收稿日期:2023-07-30 出版日期:2023-10-18 发布日期:2024-01-16
通讯作者: *巫志龙。E-mail: 81698187@qq.com
作者简介:肖瑶（2000年生），女，硕士研究生，主要从事森林大数据与信息技术研究。E-mail: 723131934@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31971639);福建省自然科学基金项目(2019J01406);福建省工程索道工程技术研究中心开放课题基金项目(ptjh16006)

Construction of Forest Ecological Network in the Min River Delta Based on Multi-scale Scenarios

XIAO Yao¹(), LIU Miaomiao¹, LIANG Guanmin¹, HU Xisheng¹, LIN Sen¹, WU Zhilong¹^,²^,^*()

1. College of Transportation and Civil Engineering, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, P. R. China
2. National Forestry and Grassland Administration Engineering Research Center of Chinese Fir, Fuzhou 350002, P. R. China

Received:2023-07-30 Online:2023-10-18 Published:2024-01-16

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探索不同尺度情景下的区域生态网络构建，揭示其空间分布和特征差异，为区域生态规划和生物多样性保护提供理论依据。以闽三角地区为例，借助形态学空间格局分析（MSPA）探讨2000、2010和2020年森林景观结构动态变化；根据动物迁徙特点设置多尺度情景[小 (栖息地面积60 hm²，扩散距离10 km)、中 (300 hm²，30 km)、大 (500 hm²，60 km)、超大 (1000 hm²，100 km)]，利用Linkage Mapper提取不同尺度情景下的生态廊道和生态节点，分析生态网络的适用性和特征。结果表明，1）近20年来，闽三角地区林地核心区面积比重下降0.63%，破碎化程度增加；核心区主要分布在北部、西北部和西南部山地丘陵地带，而东部沿海地区核心区斑块较少。2）近20年来，修正中介中心性指数和斑块重要性指数均增大，说明闽三角地区生态源地连通性有所增强，且两个指数均随尺度的增大而增大，说明尺度越大，生态源地连通性越高。3）以2020年土地利用数据构建生态网络，小、中、大和超大尺度情景下提取生态源地分别为1.044×10⁴、1.005×10⁴、0.989×10⁴和0.964×10⁴ km²；生态廊道1006、305、208和118条；不同尺度情景下生态源地、生态廊道有明显的空间差异，尺度越大，建成区密集的中心区源地和廊道越少；不同尺度情景下生态网络连通性有明显差异，大尺度情景生态网络的网络封闭度、连通性和复杂程度均优于其他尺度。4）在小、中、大和超大尺度情景下识别生态节点分别有233、79、70和35处；生态节点随着尺度的增加，数量减少，越容易修复，表明小尺度物种更容易受人类活动的影响。

关键词: 多尺度情景, 生态网络, 形态学空间格局分析（MSPA）, 生态廊道, 生态节点, 闽三角地区

Abstract:

This study explores the construction of regional ecological networks under different scale scenarios, reveals their spatial distribution and characteristic differences, and provides a theoretical basis for regional ecological planning and biodiversity protection. Taking the Fujian delta region as an example, we used Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) to explore the dynamic changes in forest landscape structure in 2000, 2010 and 2020. We set up multi-scale scenarios based on animal migration characteristics (small [habitat area 60 hm², dispersion distance 10 km], Medium [300 hm², 30 km], large [500 hm², 60 km], and ultra-large [1000 hm², 100 km]). We used Linkage Mapper to extract ecological corridors and ecological nodes under different scale scenarios, and analyze the applicability and characteristics of the ecological network. The results show 1) in the past 20 years, the proportion of the core area of forestland in the Fujian delta region has decreased by 0.63%, and the degree of fragmentation has increased; the core area is mainly distributed in the mountainous and hilly areas in the north, northwest and southwest, while the core area in the eastern coastal area has fewer blocks. 2) In the past 20 years, both the modified betweenness centrality index and the plaque importance index have increased, indicating that the ecological source connectivity in the Fujian delta region has increased, and both indices increased with the increase of scale. This shows that the larger the scale, the higher the connectivity of ecological source areas. 3) The ecological network was constructed using land use data in 2020. The extracted ecological source areas under small, medium, large, and ultra-large scale scenarios were 1.044×10⁴ km², 1.005×10⁴ km², 0.989×10⁴ km² and 0.964×10⁴ km², respectively; there were 1006, 305, 208 and 118 ecological corridors, showing apparent spatial differences in ecological source areas and corridors under different scale scenarios. Larger scales corresponded to smaller source areas and corridors in dense central areas of built-up areas. There were obvious differences in the connectivity of ecological networks under different scale scenarios. The network closure, connectivity, and complexity of the ecological network in large-scale scenarios were better than those at other scales. 4) We identified 233, 79, 70 and 35 ecological nodes under small, medium, large, and ultra-large scale scenarios, respectively; as the scale increases, the number of ecological nodes decreases and they become easier to repair, indicating that small-scale species are more susceptible to the impact of human activities.

Key words: multi-scale scenarios, ecological network, Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA), ecological corridor, ecological node, Fujian delta region

中图分类号:

X171.1

肖瑶, 刘渺渺, 梁冠敏, 胡喜生, 林森, 巫志龙. 基于多尺度情景的闽三角地区林地生态网络构建[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(10): 1750-1759.

XIAO Yao, LIU Miaomiao, LIANG Guanmin, HU Xisheng, LIN Sen, WU Zhilong. Construction of Forest Ecological Network in the Min River Delta Based on Multi-scale Scenarios[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(10): 1750-1759.

图/表 13

参考文献 41

[1]	BOWMAN J, JAEGER J A G, FAHRIG L, 2002. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size[J]. Ecology, 83(7): 2049-2055. DOI URL
[2]	GRASSMAN L I, TEWES M E, SILVY N J, et al., 2006. Spatial organization and diet of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in north-central Thailand[J]. Journal of Zoology, 266(1): 45-54. DOI URL
[3]	HADDAD N M, BRUDVIG L A, CLOBERT J, et al., 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems[J]. Science Advances, 1(2): e1500052. DOI URL
[4]	JIANG H, PENG J, ZHAO Y, et al., 2022. Zoning for ecosystem restoration based on ecological network in mountainous region[J]. Ecological Indicators, 142: 109138. DOI URL
[5]	KREUTER U P, HARRIS H G, MATLOCK M D, et al., 2001. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas[J]. Ecological Economics, 39(3): 333-346. DOI URL
[6]	LI H L, PENG J, LIU Y X, et al., 2017. Urbanization impact on landscape patterns in Beijing city, China: A spatial heterogeneity perspective[J]. Ecological Indicators, 82: 50-60. DOI URL
[7]	LI J, SHAN R, YUAN W H, 2023. Constructing the landscape ecological security pattern in the Dawen River basin in China: A framework based on the circuit principle[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6): 5181. DOI URL
[8]	MCRAE B H, DICKSON B G, KEITT T H, et al., 2008. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation[J]. Ecology, 89(10): 2712-2724. DOI PMID
[9]	MINOR E S, LOOKINGBILL T R, 2010. A multiscale network analysis of protected-area connectivity for mammals in the United States[J]. Conservation Biology, 24(6): 1549-1558. DOI PMID
[10]	NOSS R F, QUIGLEY H B, HORNOCKER M G, et al., 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains[J]. Conservation Biology, 10(4): 949-963. DOI URL
[11]	SPANOWICZ A G, JAEGER J A G, 2019. Measuring landscape connectivity: On the importance of within-patch connectivity[J]. Landscape Ecology, 34(10): 2261-2278. DOI
[12]	SHI F N, LIU S L, SUN Y X, et al., 2020. Ecological network construction of the heterogeneous agro-pastoral areas in the upper Yellow River basin[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 302: 107069. DOI URL
[13]	SIMMONDS J S, SONTER L J, WATSON J E M, et al., 2020. Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target-based approach for ecological compensation[J]. Conservation Letters, 13(2): e12695. DOI URL
[14]	SHEN Z, WU W, TIAN S Q, et al., 2022. A multi-scale analysis framework of different methods used in establishing ecological networks[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 228: 104579. DOI URL
[15]	TANNIER C, BOURGEOIS M, HOUOT H, et al., 2016. Impact of urban developments on the functional connectivity of forested habitats: A joint contribution of advanced urban models and landscape graphs[J]. Land Use Policy, 52: 76-91. DOI URL
[16]	VOGT P, RIITTERS K H, IWANOWSKI M, et al., 2007. Mapping landscape corridors[J]. Ecological Indicators, 7(2): 481-488. DOI URL
[17]	WU J S, ZHANG S Y, WEN H H, et al., 2022. Research on multi-scale ecological network connectivity: Taking the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area as a case study[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22): 15268. DOI URL
[18]	ZHOU Y K, NING L X, BAI X L, 2018. Spatial and temporal changes of human disturbances and their effects on landscape patterns in the Jiangsu coastal zone, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 93: 111-122. DOI URL
[19]	陈瑾, 赵超超, 赵青, 等, 2023. 基于MSPA分析的福建省生态网络构建[J]. 生态学报, 43(2): 1-12.
	CHEN J, ZHAO C C, ZHAO Q, et al., 2023. Construction of ecological network in Fujian Province based on morphological spatial pattern analysis[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 43(2): 1-12. DOI URL
[20]	杜箫宇, 吕飞南, 王春雨, 等, 2023. 基于MSPA-Conefor-MCR的县域尺度生态网络构建——以延庆区为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(4): 1073-1082. DOI
	DU X Y, LÜ F N, WANG C Y, et al., 2023. Construction of ecological network based on MSPA-Conefor-MCR at the county scale: A case study in Yanqing district, Beijing, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 34(4): 1073-1082. DOI
[21]	付刚, 肖能文, 乔梦萍, 等, 2017. 北京市近二十年景观破碎化格局的时空变化[J]. 生态学报, 37(8): 2551-2562.
	FU G, XIAO N W, QIAO M P, et al., 2017. Spatial-temporal changes of landscape fragmentation patterns in Beijing in the last two decades[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(8): 2551-2562.
[22]	黄苍平, 尹小玲, 黄光庆, 等, 2018. 厦门市同安区生态安全格局构建[J]. 热带地理, 38(6): 874-883. DOI
	HUANG C P, YIN X L, HUANG G Q, et al., 2018. Construction of ecological security pattern of Tong’an district, Xiamen city[J]. Tropical Geography, 38(6): 874-883. DOI
[23]	胡其玉, 陈松林, 2021. 基于生态系统服务供需的厦漳泉地区生态网络空间优化[J]. 自然资源学报, 36(2): 342-355.
	HU Q Y, CHEN S L, 2021 Optimizing the ecological networks based on the supply and demand of ecosystem services in Xiamen-Zhangzhou-Quanzhou region[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 36(2): 342-355. DOI
[24]	陆禹, 佘济云, 陈彩虹, 等, 2015. 基于粒度反推法的景观生态安全格局优化——以海口市秀英区为例[J]. 生态学报, 35(19): 6384-6393.
	LU Y, SHE J Y, CHEN C H, et al., 2015. Landscape ecological security pattern optimization based on the granularity inverse method: A case study in Xiuying district, Haikou[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(19): 6384-6393.
[25]	刘世梁, 侯笑云, 尹艺洁, 等, 2017. 景观生态网络研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 37(12): 3947-3956.
	LIU S L, HOU X Y, YIN Y J, et al., 2017. Research progress on landscape ecological networks[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(12): 3947-3956.
[26]	刘佳, 尹海伟, 孔繁花, 等, 2018. 基于电路理论的南京城市绿色基础设施格局优化[J]. 生态学报, 38(12): 4363-4372.
	LIU J, YIN H W, KONG F H, et al., 2018. Structure optimization of circuit theory-based green infrastructure in Nanjing, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(12): 4363-4372.
[27]	刘伊萌, 杨赛霓, 倪维, 等, 2020. 生态斑块重要性综合评价方法研究——以四川省为例[J]. 生态学报, 40(11): 3602-3611.
	LIU Y M, YANG S N, NI W, et al., 2020. Comprehensive assessment method on ecological patch importance: A case study in Sichuan Province, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(11): 3602-3611.
[28]	刘晓阳, 魏铭, 曾坚, 等, 2021. 闽三角城市群生态网络分析与构建[J]. 资源科学, 43(2): 357-367. DOI
	LIU X Y, WEI M, ZENG J, et al., 2021. Ecological network analysis and construction: A case study of the urban agglomeration of the Min River Delta, China[J]. Resources Science, 43(2): 357-367. DOI
[29]	李平星, 邹露, 2022. 基于土地利用变化的生态廊道识别和建设成本研究——以南京东郊地区为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 31(2): 277-285. DOI
	LI P X, ZOU L, 2022. Identification and construction cost of ecological corridors based on land use change: The case of eastern suburb Nanjing[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 31(2): 277-285.
[30]	倪庆琳, 侯湖平, 丁忠义, 等, 2020. 基于生态安全格局识别的国土空间生态修复分区——以徐州市贾汪区为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 35(1): 204-216. DOI
	NI Q L, HOU H P, DING Z Y, et al., 2020. Ecological remediation zoning of territory based on the ecological security pattern recognition: Taking Jiawang district of Xuzhou city as an example[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 35(1): 204-216. DOI URL
[31]	覃彬桂, 林伊琳, 赵俊三, 等, 2023. 基于InVEST模型和电路理论的昆明市国土空间生态修复关键区域识别[J]. 中国环境科学, 43(2): 809-820.
	QIN B G, LIN Y L, ZHAO J S, et al., 2023. Identification of key areas for the ecological restoration of territorial space in Kunming based on the InVEST model and circuit theory[J]. China Environmental Science, 43(2): 809-820.
[32]	宋利利, 秦明周, 2016. 整合电路理论的生态廊道及其重要性识别[J]. 应用生态学报, 27(10): 3344-3352. DOI
	SONG L L, QIN M Z, 2016. Identification of ecological corridors and its importance by integrating circuit theory[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 27(10): 3344-3352.
[33]	邬建国, 2007. 景观生态学-格局、过程、尺度与等级[M]. 第2版. 北京: 高等教育出版社: 23.
	WU F G. 2007. Landscape ecology-pattern, process, scale and hierarchy[M]. 2nd edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press: 23.
[34]	韦家怡, 李铖, 吴志峰, 等, 2022. 粤港澳大湾区生态安全格局及重要生态廊道识别[J]. 生态环境学报, 31(4): 652-662. DOI
	WEI J Y, LI C, WU Z F, et al., 2022. Identifying ecological security patterns and prioritizing ecological corridors in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 31(4): 652-662.
[35]	王正伟, 王宏卫, 杨胜天, 等, 2022. 基于生态系统服务功能的新疆绿洲生态安全格局识别及优化策略——以拜城县为例[J]. 生态学报, 42(1): 91-104.
	WANG Z W, WANG H W, YANG S T, et al., 2022. Identification and optimization strategy of ecological security pattern of oasis in Xinjiang based on ecosystem service function: Taking Baicheng County as an example[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 42(1): 91-104.
[36]	许峰, 尹海伟, 孔繁花, 等, 2015. 基于MSPA与最小路径方法的巴中西部新城生态网络构建[J]. 生态学报, 35(19): 6425-6434.
	XU F, YIN H W, KONG F H, et al., 2015. Developing ecological networks based on MSPA and the least-cost path method: A case study in Bazhong western new district[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(19): 6425-6434.
[37]	许静, 廖星凯, 甘崎旭, 等, 2023. 基于MSPA与电路理论的黄河流域甘肃段生态安全格局构建[J]. 生态环境学报, 32(4): 805-813. DOI
	XU J, LIAO X K, GAN Q X, et al., 2023. Construction of ecological security pattern based on MSPA and circuit theory in Gansu section of the Yellow River basin[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 32(4): 805-813.
[38]	殷炳超, 何书言, 李艺, 等, 2018. 基于陆海统筹的海岸带城市群生态网络构建方法及应用研究[J]. 生态学报, 38(12): 4373-4382.
	YIN B C, HE S Y, LI Y, et al., 2018. Development and application of an ecological network model for a coastal megalopolis based on land-sea integration[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(12): 4373-4382.
[39]	余慈衔, 王柳柱, 赵晟, 等, 2023. 基于MSPA和MCR模型的舟山岛生态安全格局构建及优化[J]. 海洋通报, 42(1):102-111.
	YU C X, WANG L Z, ZHAO S, et al., 2023. Construction and optimization of ecological security pattern in Zhoushan Island based on MSPA and MCR model[J]. Marine Science Bulletin, 42(1): 102-111.
[40]	杨帅琦, 何文, 王金叶, 等, 2023. 基于MCR模型的漓江流域生态安全格局构建[J]. 中国环境科学, 43(4): 1824-1833.
	YANG S Q, HE W, WANG J Y, et al., 2023. Ecological security pattern construction in Lijiang River basin based on MCR model[J]. China Environment Science, 43(4): 1824-1833.
[41]	翟香, 兰安军, 廖艳梅, 等, 2022. 基于生态安全格局的国土空间生态修复关键区域定量识别——以贵州省为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 29(6): 322-329, 343.
	ZHAI X, LAN A P, LIAO Y M, et al., 2022. Quantitative identification of key areas of land space ecological restoration based on the ecological security pattern: A case study of Guizhou Province[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 29(6): 322-329, 343.

景观类型	生态学含义
核心区	前景像元中较大的生境斑块, 可为物种提供较大的栖息地,对生物多样性保护具有重要意义, 是生态网络中的潜在源地
孤岛	彼此不相连的孤立、破碎的小斑块、板块内外沟通交流的可能性较小
孔隙	核心区与内部非潜在源地之间的过渡区域, 即核心区内部边缘
边缘	核心区与外界非潜在源地之间的过渡区域, 即核心区外部边缘
环道	连接同一核心区, 是核心区内物种迁移的通道
桥接区	连接不同核心区, 可代表生态网络中连接源地的通道
支线	只有一端与边缘区、桥接区、环道或者孔隙相连的区域

景观类型	生态学含义
核心区	前景像元中较大的生境斑块, 可为物种提供较大的栖息地,对生物多样性保护具有重要意义, 是生态网络中的潜在源地
孤岛	彼此不相连的孤立、破碎的小斑块、板块内外沟通交流的可能性较小
孔隙	核心区与内部非潜在源地之间的过渡区域, 即核心区内部边缘
边缘	核心区与外界非潜在源地之间的过渡区域, 即核心区外部边缘
环道	连接同一核心区, 是核心区内物种迁移的通道
桥接区	连接不同核心区, 可代表生态网络中连接源地的通道
支线	只有一端与边缘区、桥接区、环道或者孔隙相连的区域

评价因子	划分标准	电阻值	权重
土地利用类型	林地草地耕地未利用土地建设用地和水域	1 5 8 9 10	0.25
坡度/(°)	<5 5‒15 15‒25 25‒35 >35	1 7 8 9 10	0.15
与建设用地的距离/m	>2000 1500‒2000 1000‒1500 500‒1000 <500	1 7 8 9 10	0.32
与道路距离/m	>1500 1000‒1500 500‒1000 100‒500 <100	1 7 8 9 10	0.28

评价因子	划分标准	电阻值	权重
土地利用类型	林地草地耕地未利用土地建设用地和水域	1 5 8 9 10	0.25
坡度/(°)	<5 5‒15 15‒25 25‒35 >35	1 7 8 9 10	0.15
与建设用地的距离/m	>2000 1500‒2000 1000‒1500 500‒1000 <500	1 7 8 9 10	0.32
与道路距离/m	>1500 1000‒1500 500‒1000 100‒500 <100	1 7 8 9 10	0.28

年份	不同景观类型面积占比/%
年份	孤岛	孔隙	边缘	环道	桥接区	支线	核心区
2000	0.01	4.39	7.29	0.03	0.09	0.52	87.67
2010	0.01	4.21	7.98	0.03	0.1	0.57	87.10
2020	0.01	4.16	8.06	0.04	0.11	0.59	87.04

基于多尺度情景的闽三角地区林地生态网络构建

Construction of Forest Ecological Network in the Min River Delta Based on Multi-scale Scenarios

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 13

参考文献 41

相关文章 5

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

不同尺度情景	栖息地面积/hm²	物种扩散距离/km
小尺度	60	10
中尺度	300	30
大尺度	500	60
超大尺度	1000	100

不同尺度情景	指数 (平均值)	年份
不同尺度情景	指数 (平均值)	2000	2010	2020
小尺度	B ¹⁾	0.409	0.477	0.478
小尺度	D²⁾	0.590	0.596	0.600
中尺度	B	1.448	1.628	1.593
中尺度	D	1.561	1.801	1.778
大尺度	B	2.031	2.396	2.379
大尺度	D	2.182	2.447	2.444
超大尺度	B	3.418	3.343	3.880
超大尺度	D	3.767	3.752	3.824

年份	不同阻力面面积占比/%
年份	低阻力面	中阻力面	高阻力面
2000	31.35	38.93	29.72
2010	16.45	49.55	34.00
2020	31.38	33.82	34.80

要素	因素	不同尺度情景
要素	因素	小尺度	中尺度	大尺度	超大尺度
生态源地	数量/个	460	134	92	55
生态源地	面积/(10⁴ km²)	1.044	1.005	0.989	0.964
生态廊道	数量/条	1006	305	208	118
生态廊道	长度/(10³ km)	1.595	0.931	0.626	0.323

生态网络指数	不同尺度情景
生态网络指数	小尺度	中尺度	大尺度	超大尺度
α	0.586	0.626	0.641	0.589
β	2.164	2.223	2.237	2.107
γ	0.724	0.752	0.762	0.728

[1]	蔡国俊, 袁桂香, 符辉. 基于文献计量分析的生态网络研究现状和趋势[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1690-1699.
[2]	韦家怡, 李铖, 吴志峰, 张莉, 吉冬青, 程炯. 粤港澳大湾区生态安全格局及重要生态廊道识别[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(4): 652-662.
[3]	杨贤房, 陈朝, 郑林, 万智巍, 陈永林, 王远东. 稀土矿区不同土地利用类型土壤细菌群落特征及网络分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(4): 793-801.
[4]	李平星, 邹露. 基于土地利用变化的生态廊道识别和建设成本研究——以南京东郊地区为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 277-285.
[5]	王宇姝, 盛海彦, 罗莎莎, 胡月明, 余玲玲. 环青海湖4种生境土壤中原核微生物群落结构及分子网络特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(7): 1393-1403.