Ecological Security Patterns Assessment of Liao River Basin
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Assessment Methods and Data
2.1. Study Area
2.2. ESA Framework
2.3. Data Source
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Ecosystem Structure and Changes in LRB during 2000–2010
3.1.1. The Spatial Distribution and Change of Ecosystem Structure
3.1.2. Ecological Quality
3.1.3. Ecosystem Process
3.2. Ecosystem Security Pattern of LRB
4. Conclusions and Suggestions
- (1)
- The major ecological change observed in LRB was the significant increase in artificial land (2536.80 km2) and grasslands (1113.01 km2), whereby the increases in artificial land mainly came from cultivated land (2030.85 km2) and the increases in grasslands mainly came from barren land (611.26 km2) and cultivated land (322.91 km2). The URGZ and the DRCZ were the regions observed to experience the most intense and variable changes. In analyzing land cover variations and ecological changes, the changes in 2005–2010 were observed to be more frequent and intense than those in 2000–2005. In considering the spatial differences of ecological quality, the quality of the upstream region was observed to be the worse in the basin, whereas the cultivated land in the downstream area was considered to be high quality, and both the SWFZ and the SEFZ were considered to be good quality. The upstream region was determined to be the key area for improving basin ecological quality.
- (2)
- From an ecological services perspective, the upstream region (which contains two national ecological functional zones) was determined to be the priority area for basin service promotion, as the services offered in this area were lower and unable to satisfy regional developmental requirements.
- (3)
- Based on the “structure-quality-process” assessment framework, the ecological security patterns observed in the LRB were mainly the combination of “↑↓↓”, “↓↑↓”, “- - -”, “↑↑↑”, with the URGZ, the DRCZ, the SWFZ, and the SEFZ as the typical representational regions, respectively. Although the basin has been classed into four security patterns, the coordination of each region still needs to be improved.
- (1)
- The ecological change in the basin demonstrate that the social and economic activities in the area still require an extension of their geographical ranges, and illuminates the need for human activities to prioritize the effective use and conservation of high quality lands (e.g., higher quality cultivated land and grassland). It suggests that the human activities in the area should be focusing on intensive-efficient development and reducing the expanding development. The upstream and the downstream regions should be the priority areas for the regulation of ecosystem structure and quality.
- (2)
- The key areas for basin ecological security pattern optimizing are the URGZ and the DRCZ. The ecosystem services in these two regions were particularly unable to meet the demands of the regional sustainable development, and required an enhancement of ecosystem services conservation. In order to optimize the ecological security pattern in the URGZ, there is a need to improve the reconstruction of degenerated grasslands, to strictly manage grasslands, to enact grazing prohibition, to reuse farmland for grasslands, and so on. In order to ensure balanced development for the DRCZ, there is a need to improve the major ecosystem services of hydrological regulation and soil conservation, to reduce the impacts of natural disasters, and to enhance the ability of the ecosystem to resist disturbances. Simultaneously, the coordination of basin spatial development still needs to be improved.
- (3)
- The “structure-quality-process” analytical framework for the LRB ecological security pattern considered the internal relationships of ecosystem structure and processes; essentially, the basic methods for building and maintaining the basin ecological security pattern are the promotion of basic ecological structures, the stabilization of ecological quality, and the strengthening of ecosystem services conservation. Therefore, these are the basic measures for ensuring a well-structured and ecologically secure ecosystem in terms of considering the ecosystem structure, quality, and processes.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Eigenbrod, F.; Bell, V.A.; Davies, H.N.; Heinemeyer, A.; Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2011, 278, 3201–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Elmqvist, T.; Fragkias, M.; Goodness, J.; Güneralp, B.; Marcotullio, P.J.; McDonald, R.I.; Parnell, S.; Schewenius, M.; Sendstad, M.; Seto, K.C.; et al. (Eds.) Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; ISBN 978-94-007-7088-1. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, G.X.; Cheng, G.D.; Qian, J. Several problems in ecological security assessment research. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 14, 1551–1556. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, G.M.; Feng, J.; Che, Y.; Lin, X.; Hu, L.; Yang, S. The identification and assessment of ecological risks for land consolidation based on the anticipation of ecosystem stabilization: A case study in Hubei Province, China. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, G.M.; Zhang, S.; Yu, Q.W.; Fan, Y.; Zeng, Q.; Wu, L.; Zhou, R.R.; Nan, N.; Zhao, P.J. Assessing ecological security at the watershed scale based on RS/GIS: A case study from the Hanjiang River Basin. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2014, 28, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, Y. Study on Regional Land Use Change and Its Influence on Ecological Security. Ph.D. Thesis, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, L.; Susan, B.N. Assessing the relative severity of stressors at a watershed scale. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2004, 98, 323–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Watershed’96: Moving Ahead Together, Plenary Proceedings; 84-R-97-002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Baltimore, MD, USA, 1996.
- Committee on Watershed Management, National Research Council. New Strategies for American’s Watersheds; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
- Zhao, J.; Liu, X.; Dong, R.; Shao, G. Landsenses ecology and ecological planning toward sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World 2016, 23, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.L. A study on landed of Weinan district. J. Nat. Resour. 1995, 4, 372–379. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, D.N. The formation and development of modern landscape science. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 1999, 4, 379–384. [Google Scholar]
- Portieljeet, R.; Jacobsen, T.H.; Jensen, K.S. Risk analysis using stochastic reliability methods applied to two cases of deterministic. Water Res. 2000, 34, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, D.N.; Chen, W.B. On the basic concepts and contents of ecological security. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2002, 13, 354–358. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, K.J. Security Patterns and Surface Model in Landscape Ecological Planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 36, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, K.J.; Wang, S.S.; Li, D.H.; Qian, Q. Ecological baseline for Beijing’s urban sprawl: Basic ecosystem services and their security patterns. City Plan. Rev. 2010, 34, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
- Ren, H.J. Regional Ecological Security Pattern Evaluation and Construction. Master’s Thesis, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.L.; Zhao, Y.B.; Han, D. The Spatial structure of landscape ecosystem: Concept, indices and case studies. Adv. Earth Sci. 1999, 4, 235–241. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, D.N.; Brencang; Li, X.Z. Spatial ecology and landscape heterogeneity. Acta Ecol. Sin. 1997, 17, 453–461. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.X.; Wang, J.Y.; Liang, T. Analysis of land use change in Taihu basin in the past 18 years. Geospat. Inf. 2009, 7, 48–51. [Google Scholar]
- Schroevers, P.J. The need of an ecological quality-concept. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1983, 3, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, X.Y.; Ma, K.M.; Fu, B.J.; Niu, S.K. The regional pattern for ecological security (RPES): Designing principles and method. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2004, 5, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar]
- Kremen, C. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ouyang, Z.Y.; Zheng, H. Ecological mechanisms of ecosystem service. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2009, 29, 6183–6188. [Google Scholar]
- National Ecological-Functional Zoning; The Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP); The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS): Beijing, China, 2008.
- Xie, X.F.; Wu, T.; Xiao, C.; Jiang, G.J.; Bian, H.J.; Ma, Y.; Chen, J.H. Ecological security assessment of the Dongyang River Watershed using PSR modeling. Resour. Sci. 2014, 36, 1702–1711. [Google Scholar]
Unit | Land Type | Lower | Low | Middle | High | Higher | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LAI | - | Forest | 0–0.5 | 0.5–1 | 1–2 | 2–5 | 5–∞ |
VC | % | Grass land | 0–20 | 20–40 | 40–60 | 60–80 | 80–100 |
NPP | Mg·C/ha·yr | Cultivated land | 0–6 | 6–12 | 12–18 | 18–24 | 24–∞ |
Forest | Grassland | Wetland | Cultivated Land | Artificial Land | Other Type | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forest | 96,770.08 | 10.78 | 12.10 | 118.55 | 61.32 | 15.61 |
Grassland | 24.28 | 59,590.77 | 69.66 | 88.94 | 271.45 | 42.25 |
Wetland | 27.29 | 164.00 | 5788.76 | 256.13 | 157.81 | 61.91 |
Cultivated land | 165.02 | 322.91 | 242.08 | 127,213.70 | 2030.85 | 135.63 |
Artificial land | 4.99 | 4.06 | 9.80 | 20.29 | 12,581.02 | 2.64 |
Other type | 5.17 | 611.26 | 17.10 | 79.48 | 15.37 | 7063.64 |
Ecosystem Type | Parameters | Lower | Low | Middle | High | Higher | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forest | Areas (km2) | 30,768.88 | 23,412.31 | 22,325.88 | 20,401.25 | 32.69 | 96,941.01 |
Ratio (%) | 31.74 | 24.15 | 23.03 | 21.05 | 0.03 | 100.00 | |
Grassland | Areas (km2) | 22,255.69 | 37,359.56 | 1076.94 | 7.31 | 0 | 60,699.5 |
Ratio (%) | 36.67 | 61.55 | 1.77 | 0.01 | 0 | 100.00 | |
Cultivated land | Areas (km2) | 4521.75 | 33,345.63 | 85,380.75 | 6806.19 | 28.25 | 130,082.57 |
Ratio (%) | 3.48 | 25.63 | 65.64 | 5.23 | 0.02 | 100.00 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, C.; Wang, C.; Yan, Y.; Shan, P.; Li, J.; Chen, J. Ecological Security Patterns Assessment of Liao River Basin. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072401
Zhao C, Wang C, Yan Y, Shan P, Li J, Chen J. Ecological Security Patterns Assessment of Liao River Basin. Sustainability. 2018; 10(7):2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072401
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Chunli, Chenxing Wang, Yan Yan, Peng Shan, Jiaxun Li, and Jianguo Chen. 2018. "Ecological Security Patterns Assessment of Liao River Basin" Sustainability 10, no. 7: 2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072401
APA StyleZhao, C., Wang, C., Yan, Y., Shan, P., Li, J., & Chen, J. (2018). Ecological Security Patterns Assessment of Liao River Basin. Sustainability, 10(7), 2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072401