Dynamic Analysis of Wetland Landscape Ecological Security Pattern of Hainan Island in 1990‒2018

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.02.010

Ecology and Environment ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (2): 293-302.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.02.010

• Research Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles

Dynamic Analysis of Wetland Landscape Ecological Security Pattern of Hainan Island in 1990‒2018

LEI Jinrui(), CHEN Zongzhu^*(), CHEN Yiqing, CHEN Xiaohua, LI Yuanling, WU Tingtian

Hainan Academy of Forestry/Hainan Academy of Mangrove, Haikou 571100, China

Received:2019-11-15 Online:2020-02-18 Published:2020-04-01
Contact: CHEN Zongzhu

1990—2018年海南岛湿地景观生态安全格局演变

雷金睿(), 陈宗铸^*(), 陈毅青, 陈小花, 李苑菱, 吴庭天

海南省林业科学研究院/海南省红树林研究院,海南海口 571100

通讯作者: 陈宗铸
作者简介:雷金睿（1988年生）,男,助理研究员,硕士,研究方向为湿地植物与景观演变。E-mail: raykingre@163.com
基金资助:
海南省财政科技计划项目(KYYS-2019-12);海南省财政科技计划项目(KYYS-2018-32)

Abstract

Abstract:

Hainan Island was an important ecological function zone in China. In the context of national strategy, wetland landscape presents diversified utilization methods. Scientific assessment of the ecological security pattern of the wetland landscape in Hainan Island, and effective protection of wetland resources were important guarantees for achieving sustainable development. This paper takes Hainan Island as the research area, constructs Hainan Island wetland landscape ecological security evaluation system based on PSR model, uses AHP to determine index weight, and uses wetland interpretation data of Landsat remote sensing images in 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2018, and the indicators such as population and economy were data sources. With the support of remote sensing and GIS technology, the ecological security status and spatial distribution characteristics of Hainan Island wetland landscape from 1990 to 2018 were analyzed. The three major results are as follows: (1) From 1990 to 2018, the total area of wetland landscape in Hainan Island increased, and the total area increased from 944.36 km² in 1990 to 1337.57 km² in 2018. Among them, the artificial wetland showed a significant growth trend, while the natural wetland showed a decreasing trend, the largest increase in the wetland area of the city was Wenchang, Dongfang, Haikou and Danzhou. (2) The landscape ecological security index (LESI) of Hainan Island wetland was generally declining, the security level changes from critical security to a more dangerous state, and LESI changes greatly between 2010 and 2018. In 2018, there was an overall spatial pattern of “low LESI in the north and south cities of Hainan Island, and high LESI in the middle mountainous cities”. And (3) using natural breakpoint method, the variation range of LESI in Hainan Island wetland from 1990 to 2018 was divided into four levels. The largest decline in LESI value was Haikou, Sanya, Wenchang and Chengmai, four economically developed cities. The LESI values of the four middle cities of Baoting, Baisha, Ledong and Qiongzhong increased slightly. In order to maintain and strengthen the continuity and integrity of wetland ecological space, it was proposed to strictly implement the zoning and grading control of wetland resource planning and wetland ecological restoration project.

Key words: Hainan Island, wetland landscape, ecological security, pressure-state-response model, driving factors, wetland protection

摘要：

海南岛是中国重要的生态功能区,在国家战略背景下,湿地景观呈现多样化的利用方式。科学评估海南岛湿地景观生态安全格局,对湿地资源进行有效保护是实现可持续发展的重要保障。以海南岛为研究区,基于PSR模型构建海南岛湿地景观生态安全评价体系,采用层次分析法确定指标权重,利用1990、2000、2010、2018年4期Landsat遥感影像的湿地解译数据,以及人口、经济等指标为数据源,在遥感和GIS技术的支持下分析了1990—2018年海南岛湿地景观生态安全状况及其空间分布特征。结果表明,（1）1990—2018年间,海南岛湿地景观总面积呈增长趋势,总面积由1990年的944.36 km²增加到2018年的1337.57 km²。其中,人工湿地呈明显增长趋势,自然湿地则呈减少趋势;各市县湿地面积增长最多的是文昌、东方、海口和儋州等。（2）海南岛湿地景观生态安全指数（LESI）在总体上呈下降趋势,安全等级由临界安全演变为较危险状态,且在2010—2018年间LESI变化较大;至2018年,总体上呈现出“海南岛北部和南部市县的LESI低,中部山区市县的LESI高”的空间分布格局。（3）采用自然断点法将1990—2018年海南岛湿地LESI变化幅度分为4个级别,LESI值降幅最大的为海口、三亚、文昌、澄迈4个经济发达市县;保亭、白沙、乐东和琼中4个中部市县的LESI值则略微提升。提出严格实施湿地资源规划分区分级管控和湿地生态修复工程,维护和强化湿地生态空间的连续性和完整性。

关键词: 海南岛, 湿地景观, 生态安全, PSR模型, 驱动因素, 湿地保护

CLC Number:

LEI Jinrui, CHEN Zongzhu, CHEN Yiqing, CHEN Xiaohua, LI Yuanling, WU Tingtian. Dynamic Analysis of Wetland Landscape Ecological Security Pattern of Hainan Island in 1990‒2018[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2020, 29(2): 293-302.

雷金睿, 陈宗铸, 陈毅青, 陈小花, 李苑菱, 吴庭天. 1990—2018年海南岛湿地景观生态安全格局演变[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(2): 293-302.

Figures/Tables 9

References 47

[1]	ALVAREZ G, IRVINE K, VAN GRIENSVEN A, et al., 2013. Relationships between aquatic biotic communities and water quality in a tropical river-wetland system (Ecuador)[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 34: 115-127.
[2]	BAI Y, JIANG B, WANG M, et al., 2016. New ecological redline policy (ERP) to secure ecosystem services in China[J]. Land Use Policy, 55: 348-351. DOI URL
[3]	BDRINSON M M, ECKLES D, 2011. Department of Agriculture conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services: a synthesis[J]. Ecological Applications, 21: 116-127.
[4]	COPELAND H E, TESSMAN S A, GIRVETZ E H, et al., 2010. A geospatial assessment on the distribution, condition, and vulnerability of Wyoming's wetlands[J]. Ecological Indicators, 10(4): 869-879. DOI URL
[5]	DAVRANCHE A, LEFEBVRE G, POULIN B, 2010. Wetland monitoring using classification trees and SPOT-5 seasonal time series[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114(3): 552-562. DOI URL
[6]	GEDAN K B, KIRWAN M L, WOLANSKI E, 2011. The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm[J]. Climatic Change, 106: 7-29. DOI URL
[7]	HARMÁCKOVÁA Z V, VACKÁR D, 2015. Modelling regulating ecosystem services trade-offs across landscape scenarios in Trebonsko Wetlands Biosphere Reserve, Czech Republic[J]. Ecological Modelling, 295: 207-215. DOI URL
[8]	JIN H R, HUANG C Q, MEGAN W LANG, et al., 2017. Monitoring of wetland inundation dynamics in the Delmarva Peninsula using Landsat time-series imagery from 1985 to 2011, China[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 190: 26-41. DOI URL
[9]	LI Y F, SUN X, ZHU X D, et al., 2010. An early warning method of landscape ecological security in rapid urbanizing coastal areas and its application in Xiamen, China[J]. Ecological Modelling, 221(19): 2251-2260. DOI URL
[10]	LIN W P, GEN J W, XU D, et al., 2018. Wetland landscape pattern changes over a period of rapid development (1985-2015) in the ZhouShan Islands of Zhejiang province, China[J]. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 213: 148-159. DOI URL
[11]	MA L B, BO J, LI X Y, et al., 2019. Identifying key landscape pattern indices influencing the ecological security of inland river basin: The middle and lower reaches of Shule River Basin as an example[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 674: 424-438. DOI URL
[12]	MALEKMOHAMMADI B, JAHANISHAKIB F, 2017. Vulnerability assessment of wetland landscape ecosystem services using driver- pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) model[J]. Ecological Indicators, 82: 293-303. DOI URL
[13]	PICKARD B R, DANIEL J, MEHAFFEY M, et al., 2015. Enviro atlas: a new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management[J]. Ecosystem Services, 14: 45-55. DOI URL
[14]	SUN N, ZHU W, CHENG Q, 2018. GF-1 and Landsat observed a 40-year wetland spatiotemporal variation and its coupled environmental factors in Yangtze River estuary[J]. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 207: 30-39. DOI URL
[15]	WANG S D, ZHANG X Y, WU T X, et al., 2019. The evolution of landscape ecological security in Beijing under the influence of different policies in recent decades[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 646: 49-57. DOI URL
[16]	YE H, MA Y, DONG L M, 2011. Land Ecological Security Assessment for Bai Autonomous Prefecture of Dali Based Using PSR Model-with Data in 2009 as Case[J]. Energy Procedia, 5: 2172-2177. DOI URL
[17]	ZORRILLA-MIRAS P, PALOMO I, GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN E, et al., 2014. Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case study in the Doñana marshes (SW Spain)[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122: 160-174. DOI URL
[18]	陈昆仑, 齐漫, 王旭, 等, 2019. 1995-2015年武汉城市湖泊景观生态安全格局演化[J]. 生态学报, 39(5): 1725-1734.
	CHEN K L, QI M, WANG X, et al., 2019. Study of urban lake landscape ecological security pattern evolution in Wuhan, 1995-2015 [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(5): 1725-1734.
[19]	陈星, 周成虎, 2005. 生态安全: 国内外研究综述[J]. 地理科学进展, 24(6): 8-20.
	CHEN X, ZHOU C H, 2005. Review of the studies on ecologieal seuirty[J]. Progress in Geography, 24(6): 8-20.
[20]	杜培军, 陈宇, 谭琨, 2014. 湿地景观格局与生态安全遥感监测分析--以江苏滨海湿地为例[J]. 国土资源遥感, 26(1): 158-166.
	DU P J, CHEN Y, TAN K, 2014. Monitoring and analyzing wetland landscape pattern change and ecological security using remote sensing images: A case study of Jiangsu coastal wetland[J]. Remote Sensing For Land and Resources, 26(1): 158-166
[21]	宫兆宁, 张翼然, 宫辉力, 等, 2011. 北京湿地景观格局演变特征与驱动机制分析[J]. 地理学报, 66(1): 77-88.
	GONG Z N, ZHANG Y R, GONG H L, et al., 2011. Evolution of wetland landscape pattern and its driving factors in Beijing[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 66(1): 77-88.
[22]	国家林业局, 2015a. 中国湿地资源[M]. 总卷. 北京: 中国林业出版社.
	State forestry administration, 2015. China wetland resources[M]. Total volume. Beijing: China forestry press.
[23]	国家林业局, 2015b. 中国湿地资源[M]. 海南卷. 北京: 中国林业出版社.
	State forestry administration, 2015. China wetland resources[M]. Hainan volume. Beijing: China forestry press.
[24]	国家林业局湿地保护管理中心, 2013. 中国国际重要湿地生态状况评价公报[R]. 北京: 国家林业局.
	Wetland Conservation and Management Center, State Forestry Administration, 2013. Evaluation bulletin on ecological status of China's wetlands of international importance[M]. Beijing: State Forestry Administration.
[25]	侯鹏, 翟俊, 曹巍, 等, 2018. 国家重点生态功能区生态状况变化与保护成效评估--以海南岛中部山区国家重点生态功能区为例[J]. 地理学报, 73(3): 429-441. DOI
	HOU P, ZHAI J, CAO W, et al., 2018. Evaluation on ecosystem changes and protection of the national key ecological function zones in mountainous areas of central Hainan Island[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 73(3): 429-441.
[26]	雷金睿, 陈宗铸, 吴庭天, 等, 2019. 1989-2015年海口城市热环境与景观格局的时空演变及其相互关系[J]. 中国环境科学, 39(4): 1734-1743.
	LEI J R, CHEN Z Z, WU T T, et al., 2019. Spatio-temporal evolution and interrelationship between thermal environment and landscape patterns of Haikou city, 1989-2015 [J]. China Environmental Science, 39(4): 1734-1743.
[27]	李月臣, 2008. 中国北方13省市区生态安全动态变化分析[J]. 地理研究, 27(5): 1150-1160.
	LI Y C, 2008. The dynamic changes of ecological security in northern China[J]. Geographical Research, 27(5): 1150-1160.
[28]	李悦, 袁若愚, 刘洋, 等, 2019. 基于综合权重法的青岛市湿地生态安全评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 38(3): 847-855.
	LI Y, YUAN R Y, LIU Y, et al., 2019. Ecological security evaluation of wetlands in Qingdao -based on the comprehensive weighting method[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 38(3): 847-855.
[29]	廖柳文, 秦建新, 2016. 环长株潭城市群湿地生态安全研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 18(9): 1217-1226. DOI
	LIAO L W, QIN J X, 2016. Ecological security of wetland in Chang-Zhu-Tan urban agglomeration[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 18(9): 1217-1226.
[30]	刘吉平, 董春月, 盛连喜, 等, 2016. 1955-2010年小三江平原沼泽湿地景观格局变化及其对人为干扰的响应[J]. 地理科学, 36(6): 879-887. DOI
	LIU J P, DONG C Y, SHENG L X, et al., 2016. Landscape pattern change of the marsh and its response to human disturbance in the Small Sanjiang Plain, 1955-2010 [J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 36(6): 879-887.
[31]	刘吉平, 梁晨, 马长迪, 2018. 孤立湿地功能研究进展[J]. 地理科学, 38(8): 1357-1363. DOI
	LIU J P, LIANG C, MA C D, 2018. The prospect for study on isolated wetland functions[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 38(8): 1357-1363.
[32]	刘艳艳, 吴大放, 王朝晖, 2011. 湿地生态安全评价研究进展[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 27(1): 69-75.
	LIU Y Y, WU D F, WANG Z H, 2011. Research review on ecological security assessment of wetland[J]. Geography and Geo-Information Scienc, 27(1): 69-75.
[33]	吕建树, 吴泉源, 张祖陆, 等, 2012. 基于RS和GIS的济宁市土地利用变化及生态安全研究[J]. 地理科学, 32(8): 928-935. DOI
	LU J S, WU Q Y, ZHANG Z L, et al., 2012. Land use change and ecological security assessment in Jining city based on RS and GIS[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 32(8): 928-935.
[34]	庞雅颂, 王琳, 2014. 区域生态安全评价方法综述[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 24(3): 340-344.
	PANG Y S, WANG L, 2014. A review of regional Ecological Security Evaluation[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 24(3): 340-344.
[35]	钱逸凡, 刘道平, 楼毅, 等, 2019. 我国湿地生态状况评价研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 39(9): 3372-3382.
	QIAN Y F, LIU P D, LOU Y, et al., 2019. A review of wetland ecological status evaluation in China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(9): 3372-3382.
[36]	时卉, 杨兆萍, 韩芳, 等, 2013. 新疆天池景区生态安全度时空分异特征与驱动机制[J]. 地理科学进展, 32(3): 475-485. DOI
	SHI H, YANG Z P, HAN F, et al., 2013. Characteristics of temporal-spatial differences in landscape ecological security and the driving mechanism in Tianchi scenic zone of Xinjiang[J]. Progress in Geography, 32(3): 475-485. DOI
[37]	宋豫秦, 曹明兰, 2010. 基于RS和GIS的北京市景观生态安全评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 21(11): 2889-2895.
	SONG Y Q, CAO M L, 2010. Landscape ecological security assessment of Beijing city based on RS and GIS[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 21(11): 2889-2895.
[38]	隋燕, 张丽, 穆晓东, 等, 2018. 海南岛海岸线变迁遥感监测与分析[J]. 海洋学研究, 36(2): 36-43.
	SUI Y, ZHANG L, MU X D, et al., 2018. Coastline change monitoring and analysis with remote sensing in Hainan Island[J]. Journal of Marine Sciences, 36(2): 36-43.
[39]	王泉泉, 王行, 张卫国, 等, 2019. 滇西北高原湿地景观变化与人为、自然因子的相关性[J]. 生态学报, 39(2): 726-738.
	WANG Q Q, WANG H, ZHANG W G, et al., 2019. The correlations between wetland landscape and social-natural factors on Northwestern Yunnan Plateau[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(2): 726-738.
[40]	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.
	WU J G, 2007. Landscape ecology - pattern, process, scale and rank[M]. 2nd edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
[41]	吴健生, 张茜, 曹祺文, 2017. 快速城市化地区湿地生态安全评价--以深圳市为例[J]. 湿地科学, 15(3): 321-328.
	WU J S ZHANG X, CAO Q W, 2017. Ecological security assessment of wetlands in rapidly urbanizing areas: a case study of Shenzhen, China[J]. Wetland Science, 15(3): 321-328.
[42]	吴文挺, 田波, 周云轩, 等, 2016. 中国海岸带围垦遥感分析[J]. 生态学报, 36(16): 5007-5016.
	WU W T, TIAN B, ZHOU Y X, et al., 2016. The trends of coastal reclamation in China in the past three decades[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(16): 5007-5016.
[43]	谢余初, 巩杰, 张玲玲, 2015. 基于PSR模型的白龙江流域景观生态安全时空变化[J]. 地理科学, 35(6): 790-797. DOI
	XIE Y C, GONG J, ZHANG L L, 2015. Dynamics of landscape ecological security based on PSR model in the Bailongjiang riverwatershed[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 35(6): 790-797.
[44]	杨永兴, 2002. 国际湿地科学研究的主要特点、进展与展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 21(2): 111-120.
	YANG Y X, 2002. Main characteristics, progress and prospect of international wetland science research[J]. Progress in Geography, 21(2): 111-120.
[45]	张猛, 曾永年, 2018. 长株潭城市群湿地景观时空动态变化及驱动力分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 34(1): 241-249.
	ZHANG M, ZENG Y N, 2018. Temporal and spatial dynamic changes and driving forces analysis of wetland landscape of Chang-Zhu-Tan urban agglomeration[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 34(1): 241-249.
[46]	朱卫红, 苗承玉, 郑小军, 等, 2014. 基于3S 技术的图们江流域湿地生态安全评价与预警研究[J]. 生态学报, 34(6): 1379-1390.
	ZHU W H, MIAO C Y, ZHENG X J, et al., 2014. Study on ecological safety evaluation and warning of wetlands in Tumen River watershed based on 3S technology[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34(6): 1379-1390.
[47]	邹发生, 宋晓军, 江海声, 等, 1999. 海南岛的湿地类型及其特点[J]. 热带地理, 19(3): 204-207.
	ZOU F S, SONG X J, JIANG H S, et al., 1999. Types and characteristics of the wetland of Hainan Island[J]. Tropical Geography, 19(3): 204-207.

目标层 Object layer	准则层 Criterion layer	指标层 Indicators layer	正向/负向Positive/negative	数据来源 Data sources	权重值 Weight value
景观生态安全 (A) Landscape ecological security (A)	景观状态 (B₁) Landscape state 0.5396	景观破碎度 Landscape fragment (C₁)	负向 Negative	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.1854
		景观多样性 Landscape diversity (C₂)	负向 Negative	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.0471
		景观连接度 Landscape connectivity (C₃)	正向 Positive	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.0837
		分维数 Landscape fractal dimension (C₄)	负向 Negative	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.0837
		自然与人工湿地面积比 Area ratio of natural wetland and constructed wetland (C₅)	正向 Positive	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.1396
	景观压力 (B₂) Landscape pressure 0.2970	城市化水平 Urbanization level (C₆)	负向 Negative	统计数据 Statistic data	0.0486
		人口密度 Population density (C₇)	负向 Negative	统计数据 Statistic data	0.0882
		人均GDP GDP per head (C₈)	负向 Negative	统计数据 Statistic data	0.1603
	景观响应 (B₃) Landscape response 0.1634	自然保护地面积占比 Area ratio of nature reserve (C₉)	正向 Positive	行业数据 Industry data	0.0817
	景观响应 (B₃) Landscape response 0.1634	湿地保护资金投入 Investment in wetland protection (C₁₀)	正向 Positive	行业数据 Industry data	0.0817

目标层 Object layer	准则层 Criterion layer	指标层 Indicators layer	正向/负向Positive/negative	数据来源 Data sources	权重值 Weight value
景观生态安全 (A) Landscape ecological security (A)	景观状态 (B₁) Landscape state 0.5396	景观破碎度 Landscape fragment (C₁)	负向 Negative	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.1854
		景观多样性 Landscape diversity (C₂)	负向 Negative	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.0471
		景观连接度 Landscape connectivity (C₃)	正向 Positive	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.0837
		分维数 Landscape fractal dimension (C₄)	负向 Negative	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.0837
		自然与人工湿地面积比 Area ratio of natural wetland and constructed wetland (C₅)	正向 Positive	遥感数据 Remote sensing data	0.1396
	景观压力 (B₂) Landscape pressure 0.2970	城市化水平 Urbanization level (C₆)	负向 Negative	统计数据 Statistic data	0.0486
		人口密度 Population density (C₇)	负向 Negative	统计数据 Statistic data	0.0882
		人均GDP GDP per head (C₈)	负向 Negative	统计数据 Statistic data	0.1603
	景观响应 (B₃) Landscape response 0.1634	自然保护地面积占比 Area ratio of nature reserve (C₉)	正向 Positive	行业数据 Industry data	0.0817
	景观响应 (B₃) Landscape response 0.1634	湿地保护资金投入 Investment in wetland protection (C₁₀)	正向 Positive	行业数据 Industry data	0.0817

安全等级 Security level	景观生态安全指数LESI Landscape ecological security index	安全状态 Security state
I	[0, 0.4)	危险 (差) Dangerous
II	[0.4, 0.5)	较危险 (较差) More dangerous
III	[0.5, 0.6)	临界安全 (一般) Critical safety
IV	[0.6, 0.7)	较安全 (良好) Safer
V	[0.7, 1.0]	安全 (好) Safe

安全等级 Security level	景观生态安全指数LESI Landscape ecological security index	安全状态 Security state
I	[0, 0.4)	危险 (差) Dangerous
II	[0.4, 0.5)	较危险 (较差) More dangerous
III	[0.5, 0.6)	临界安全 (一般) Critical safety
IV	[0.6, 0.7)	较安全 (良好) Safer
V	[0.7, 1.0]	安全 (好) Safe

类型 Type	人工湿地 Constructed wetland/km²				自然湿地 Natural wetland/km²				湿地总面积 Total area of wetlands/km²
年份 Year	1990	2000	2010	2018	1990	2000	2010	2018	1990	2000	2010	2018
白沙 Baisha	19.81	16.40	24.22	25.37	5.31	5.87	5.35	6.05	25.13	22.27	29.56	31.42
保亭 Baoting	3.48	5.38	6.73	8.99	1.79	1.99	1.94	2.54	5.26	7.37	8.67	11.54
昌江 Changjiang	13.15	12.50	17.16	20.47	17.46	13.37	17.86	15.43	30.62	25.87	35.02	35.89
澄迈 Chengmai	14.73	19.67	19.51	21.44	31.41	30.93	35.96	30.03	46.14	50.60	55.48	51.47
儋州 Danzhou	109.65	104.18	142.03	144.90	68.78	67.74	57.50	62.51	178.43	171.93	199.53	207.41
定安 Dingan	14.96	20.08	13.41	18.60	7.70	8.26	8.24	6.58	22.66	28.34	21.65	25.18
东方 Dongfang	26.43	102.23	94.96	114.16	33.25	17.30	22.41	18.16	59.68	119.53	117.36	132.33
海口 Haikou	33.06	47.46	59.98	64.86	87.03	92.10	89.54	84.81	120.09	139.56	149.53	149.67
乐东 Ledong	62.23	67.38	68.62	72.92	24.40	14.88	16.58	28.08	86.62	82.26	85.20	101.00
临高 Lingao	16.01	16.76	15.08	15.94	13.61	12.72	9.06	9.63	29.62	29.48	24.15	25.57
陵水 Lingshui	11.56	15.93	18.77	22.28	36.67	36.31	35.22	37.25	48.23	52.24	54.00	59.53
琼海 Qionghai	20.30	33.37	28.41	43.26	21.17	27.55	22.35	24.89	41.47	60.93	50.75	68.15
琼中 Qiongzhong	4.01	9.91	4.63	21.87	7.81	7.16	6.23	6.86	11.81	17.08	10.86	28.73
三亚 Sanya	14.75	28.10	39.39	47.16	34.44	25.11	18.78	24.88	49.19	53.20	58.18	72.04
屯昌 Tunchang	8.21	11.16	9.47	13.06	1.76	2.21	1.13	2.33	9.97	13.37	10.60	15.39
万宁 Wanning	30.36	42.78	42.77	60.70	57.94	58.04	61.81	53.31	88.30	100.81	104.57	114.02
文昌 Wenchang	20.76	76.15	123.89	154.75	64.29	57.65	45.57	43.56	85.05	133.80	169.46	198.31
五指山 Wuzhishan	0.42	2.39	1.78	2.52	5.67	5.64	5.16	7.41	6.09	8.04	6.93	9.93
总面积 Total area	423.87	631.83	730.90	873.26	520.49	484.84	460.70	464.31	944.36	1116.67	1191.60	1337.57

Dynamic Analysis of Wetland Landscape Ecological Security Pattern of Hainan Island in 1990‒2018

1990—2018年海南岛湿地景观生态安全格局演变

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 47

Related Articles 10

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

年份 Year	1990	2000	2010	2018
景观状态 Landscape state	0.5051	0.4669	0.4814	0.4928
景观压力 Landscape pressure	0.9362	0.8818	0.7475	0.5389
景观响应 Landscape response	0.1661	0.2447	0.3538	0.3806
LESI	0.5777	0.5538	0.5396	0.4882
安全状态 Security state	临界安全 Critical safety	临界安全 Critical safety	临界安全 Critical safety	较危险 More dangerous

[1]	XU Jing, LIAO Xingkai, GAN Qixu, ZHOU Maoxian. Construction of Ecological Security Pattern Based on MSPA and Circuit Theory in Gansu Section of the Yellow River Basin [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(4): 805-813.
[2]	ZHANG Pingjiang, DANG Guofeng. Construction of Ecological Security Pattern of Tao River Basin Based on MCR Model and ant Colony Algorithm [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(3): 481-491.
[3]	FU Rong, WU Xinmei, CHEN Bin. Analysis on the Spatial Stratified Heterogeneity and Driving Factors Differences of the Urban Land Surface Temperature: A Case Study of Hefei [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(1): 110-122.
[4]	WEI Jiayi, LI Cheng, WU Zhifeng, ZHANG Li, JI Dongqing, CHENG Jiong. Identifying Ecological Security Patterns and Prioritizing Ecological Corridors in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(4): 652-662.
[5]	WEI Jianbing, ZHENG Hong, CHENG Yulu, WANG Yang. Advances in Research of Ecological Security Patterns, Based on CiteSpace [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(4): 835-844.
[6]	YI Lang, SUN Ying, YIN ShaoHua, WEI Xiao. Construction of Ecological Security Pattern: Concept, Framework and Prospect [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(4): 845-856.
[7]	QI Jing, DENG Wei, ZHOU Yu, LIU Ting, LUO Xu. China's Ecological Conservation Redline: Evaluation Method and Application of Protection Effect in Chongqing [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(7): 1532-1540.
[8]	WANG Yiquan, ZHOU Zhang, LI Yide, CHEN Dexiang, ZHANG Tao, YANG Fan. The Spatial-temporal Pattern and Influencing Factors of Negative Air Ions in Tropical Forests, Hainan, China [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(5): 898-906.
[9]	WANG Lixia, SHI Yuanli, ZHANG Hongwei, BI Xiaoling, SHEN Wenming, MA Wandong. Analysis of Vegetation Ecological Function Changes and Driving Factors in Farming-pastoral Ecotone in Northern China from 2000 to 2020 [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(10): 1990-1998.
[10]	LEI Jinrui, CHEN Zongzhu, CHEN Yiqing, CHEN Xiaohua, LI Yuanling, WU Tingtian. Landscape Pattern Changes and Driving Factors Analysis of Wetland in Hainan Island during 1990-2018 [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2020, 29(1): 59-70.