Knowledge Resource Center for Ecological Environment in Arid Area
| 中国生态系统脆弱性遥感评价方法研究 | |
| 其他题名 | Study of Ecosystem Vulnerability Evaluation over China based on Remote Sensing |
| 郭兵 | |
| 出版年 | 2016 |
| 学位类型 | 博士 |
| 导师 | 周艺 |
| 学位授予单位 | 中国科学院大学 |
| 中文摘要 | 生态系统脆弱性是指我国全国或区域尺度生态系统的脆弱程度，由沙漠化脆弱性、土壤侵蚀脆弱性、石漠化脆弱性、盐渍化脆弱性等要素构成，是影响国家主体功能的重要因素之一。中国是世界上脆弱生态类型最多、生态脆弱区分布最广、生态系统脆弱性表现较为明显的国家之一，主要表现为土壤退化、土地沙漠化、盐渍化严重、水体污染突出、水资源匮乏、大气环境恶化。生态系统脆弱性的时空差异性是导致我国经济发展不平衡和贫富差距的重要原因之一,很大程度上影响了我国社会的和谐、可持续发展。因此开展生态系统脆弱性评价研究,深入剖析生态系统脆弱性的形成原因和驱动机制,指导生态脆弱区保护及生态环境的恢复与治理,为生态环境监管提供决策依据和技术支持,实现生态脆弱区生态系统完整性的维护和人与自然的和谐发展,是贯彻落实科学发展观、牢固树立生态文明观念、促进经济社会可持续的必然要求。本研究以地球信息科学思想为指导，结合国家主体功能区遥感应用方法与示范，以《全国主体功能区规划》和《生态环境状况评价技术规范》为参照，以多源遥感影像数据、资源环境站点观测数据、社会经济统计数据等资料为分析基础，在分析总结了国内外研究的相关遥感监测成果和监测指标的基础上，定量提取了生态系统脆弱性遥感监测指标，在全国范围内分区建立了生态系统脆弱性评价体系，获取了2000、2005、2010年三期的生态系统脆弱性，在此基础上对近十年全国生态系统脆弱性时空变化分异格局及规律进行进一步探讨，最后分析和对比了不同自然和人为因子对生态系统脆弱性变化的影响，以期为全国生态环境保护和地理国情监测提供空间信息支撑和决策参考依据。主要结论如下：（1） 在生态系统脆弱性分区过程中，本研究于立足主体功能区战略，以我国宏观尺度上的生态系统为研究对象, 在充分考虑了我国生态地域分异规律、生态系统服务功能、区域生态环境敏感性和人类活动对生态环境的胁迫等要素的基础上,结合前人研究中的生态分区方案，建立了一套科学的全国生态系统脆弱性分区方案：Ⅰ 青藏高原高寒生态脆弱区、Ⅱ 西北干旱荒漠生态脆弱区、Ⅲ 北方半干旱荒漠草原生态脆弱区、Ⅳ 中东部湿润半湿润生态脆弱区、Ⅴ 西南山地喀斯特生态脆弱区。该方案基于计算机分类和专家知识，并结合国内外生态分区相关研究成果，以县级行政边界为基本单元进行边界划分，在一定程度增加了分区方案的可重复操作性，也便于后期相关研究的应用，为全国以及区域的生态环境整治和功能区遥感监测提供决策依据。（2） 青藏高原高寒生态区的生态系统脆弱性近十年来总体上处于中度脆弱状态，并且脆弱性大小自东南向西北呈现增加趋势：极度脆弱区和重度脆弱区主要分布于噶尔县中北部、那曲县大部、格尔木县、治多县北部，主要与降水（降水稀少）、气温（气温较低）、第一产业结构（畜牧业无序发展）等因素相关；中度脆弱区则主要分布于治多县的南部、玛沁县、雅鲁藏布江流域的上游，主要原因在于地形与区位因子（位于高寒区，地形起伏大），降水（降水稀少）以及该地区剧烈的冻融侵蚀，生态系统结构和功能单一。轻度和微度脆弱区则主要集中于青藏高原东南部，该区域的生态系统脆弱性大小分布主要与地形区位因子、季风环流（印度洋西南季风）、气候（降水充沛，气温适宜）相关。近十年该地区总体的生态系统脆弱性表现为先增加后减小的趋势，具体表现为：2000-2005年青藏高原高寒生态区的生态脆弱性状况加剧，而在2005-2010年生态系统状况则表现为一定程度的改善。青藏高原高寒生态区的生态脆弱性时空变化分异格局与其地形区位因子、气候、人类活动有显著地相关性。（3） 西北干旱荒漠生态区的生态系统脆弱性总体上呈现自东向西递减的趋势，西部地区则呈现E字型格局：新疆西部山地、天山山地、阿尔泰山、喀喇昆仑山及昆仑山北麓由于受海洋暖湿气流的影响，降水较多，生态系统脆弱性较小；吐鲁番盆地-塔里木盆地东缘-柴达木盆地西北部、哈密盆地则由于深居内陆，成为中国最干旱的地带，也是西北干旱荒漠生态区生态系统脆弱性最大的区域。近十年西北干旱荒漠化生态区的生态系统脆弱性表现为一定程度的降低，生态环境质量有所改善：2005年西北干旱荒漠生态区的生态系统脆弱性相比2000呈现总体稳定，局部改善的变化趋势，主要表现为微度和轻度脆弱区面积增加，分别为0.16万km2和6.81.万km2，重度和极度脆弱区面积有一定幅度的减小，分别为1.94万km2和5.12.万km2；2010年生态系统脆弱性相比2005呈现总体稳定，局部恶化的趋势，主要表现为微度和轻度脆弱区面积略有增加，分别为1.79万km2 和2.38万km2 ，但是中度和极度脆弱区面积也有一定幅度的增加，分别为4.59万km2 和11.26万km2。西北干旱荒漠生态脆弱区的生态系统脆弱性时空变化分异格局主要是受气候、地形地貌、人类活动等因素的交互影响。（4）北方半干旱荒漠草原生态区的生态系统脆弱性总体上呈现自西向东递减的趋势，其主要与人类活动、太平洋暖湿气流等因素相关。银川平原的平均生态系统脆弱性较低，主要与该地区的地形地貌、气候以及人类活动相关。河套平原地区生态系统脆弱性较高，主要取决于该地区的气候类型及人类开发活动（第一产业）。土默特平原位于内蒙古中部，主要包括黄灌区和大黑河灌区，地表水和地下水资源丰富，矿化度低，适合农业发展，因此总体上该地区生态系统状况较好。而大青山以北的内蒙古高原和浑善达克沙地的生态系统脆弱性较高，主要原因在于该地区降水稀少，植被稀疏，多荒漠和荒漠草原分布，风沙大，河网密度较低，沙漠化、盐渍化严重，因此该地区生态系统状况较差。2000-2010年，北方半干旱荒漠草原生态区生态系统脆弱性呈现减小趋势： 2005年生态系统脆弱性相比2000年略有减小，主要表现为2005年平均生态系统脆弱性值为3.50相比2000年的3.53有所减小；微度脆弱区的面积有一定幅度增加，为1.27万km2，极度脆弱区面积减小，为0.38万km2。2010年生态系统脆弱性相比2005年有一定程度的减小，主要表现为2010年该地区平均生态系统脆弱性值为3.48比2005年3.50略有减小；微度脆弱区面积增加（0.11万km2），轻度和极度脆弱区面积减小，分别为0.72万km2、1.33万km2。近十年北方半干旱荒漠草原生态区的生态系统脆弱性时空变化格局受人类活动和降水影响显著。（5）近十年来中东部湿润半湿润生态区的生态系统脆弱性总体上表现为北方大于南方，西部大于东部，其格局主要是受气候（降水自南向北递减，自动向西递减）、地形（三级阶梯，自西向东海拔逐渐升高）、地貌（自西向东为平原-高原、丘陵、低矮山地）、植被及人类活动的影响。重度和极度脆弱区主要分布于黄土高原、内蒙古高原东南部、山东丘陵的西部，中度脆弱区主要分布于东北平原和华北平原地区，轻度脆弱区主要分布于四川盆地、秦岭山区、太行山地区、淮河流域等区域，微度脆弱区则主要分布于长江以南。 2000-2010年近十年间，中东部湿润半湿润生态区生态系统脆弱性呈现为加剧趋势，主要表现为：微度、轻度脆弱区面积减小，分别为37.83万km2、8.72万km2，中度、重度和极度脆弱区面积增加，分别为33.65万km2、11.06万km2、2.55万km2。近十年中东部湿润半湿润生态区的生态系统脆弱性时空变化格局受人类活动影响较为显著。（6）西南山地喀斯特石漠化生态区重度和极度脆弱区主要集中分布于中部和北部，主要原因是该地区岩溶发育强烈，植被覆盖度低，水土流失严重，大量岩石裸露，加上该地区成土过程缓慢，土层浅薄，生态系统自身恢复能力差，此外该地区生产力水平低，贫困人口多，环境保护意识差，人类活动干扰强度大。微度和轻度脆弱区则主要分布于研究区的东南部和西南部，东南部地区降水充沛，植被覆盖度高，水土流失和石漠化强度较低，加上人类的生态保护措施（退耕还林等），生态环境较好。2000-2010年，西南山地喀斯特生态区的生态系统脆弱性表现为轻微增加：中度、重度和极度脆弱区面积增加，分别为2.75 万km2、2.14万 km2、0.06 万km2；微度和轻度脆弱区则有一定幅度的减小，分别为3.96万 km2、0.99万 km2。近十年西南山地喀斯特生态区的生态系统脆弱性时空变化格局受人类活动和地形地貌影响较为显著。 |
| 英文摘要 | Ecosystem vulnerability was referred to the vulnerable levels of ecosystem at the national or regional scale in China, which was composed of desertification vulnerability, soil erosion vulnerability, stony desertification vulnerability and salinization vulnerability. The ecosystem vulnerability of China was the most obvious, which was indicated by the soil degradation, desertification, salinization, water pollution, lack of water resources. The spatial and temporal differences of ecosystem vulnerability was one of the important reasons that leaded to the imbalance of economic development and the gap between the rich and the poor, which greatly affected the harmonious and sustainable development of our society. Study on the vulnerability assessment of ecosystem could provide decision-making basis and technical support for ecological environment supervision and realize the harmonious development between human and nature.Combined with the remote sensing application method and demonstration of national main functional area, the study was conducted with the "national main functional area planning" and "technical specification of ecological environmental status assessment” as reference based on the data of multi-source remote sensing images, the observation data of resource environment and social economic statistics. The monitoring indicators were reversed and the ecosystem vulnerability assessment systems were established for different sub-regions based on analysis and summarization of the domestic and foreign research about the monitoring results and indicators. Then the ecosystem vulnerability of 2000, 2005 and 2010 were calculated. Finally the spatial and temporal variation patterns of the ecosystem vulnerability during the past ten years were discussed and the effects of different natural and human factors on the changes of ecosystem vulnerability were analyzed and compared, which could provide spatial information support and decision reference for the national ecological environmental protection and geographical condition monitoring.(1)Based on the Project of The Major Function Oriented Zones, we have established a scientific partition scheme of national ecosystem vulnerability that aimed to the ecological system on the macro scale, fully considering the law of ecological and geographical distribution, ecosystem service function, regional eco-environmental sensitivity, human activities and partition schemes in previous studies. The partition scheme was composed of alpine ecological fragile region in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (AEFRQTP), arid desert ecological fragile region in Northwest China (ADEFRNC), semi-arid desert grassland ecological fragile region in northern China (SADGEFRNC), humid and semi humid ecological fragile region in middle-east China(HSEFRMEC) and karst mountainous ecological fragile region in the southwestern China(KMEFRSC), which could provide a decision-making basis for national and regional ecological environment regulation. (2) The ecosystem vulnerability of alpine ecosystem in AEFRQTP was moderate on the whole in recent ten years, and the vulnerability increased from the southeast to the northwest. The extremely and severe vulnerable zones were mainly distributed in middle-northern Gar County, Nagqu County, Golmud County, northern Zhidoi County, which was mainly related with precipitation (rare rainfall), temperature (low temperature), the first industrial structure(disorderly development of animal husbandry). The moderate vulnerable zones were mainly concentrated in southern Zhidoi County, Maqin County, the upstream of Yarlung Zangbo River basin and the main reasons lay in the terrain and the location factors (located in the alpine zone), precipitation (rare rainfall) , the severe freeze-thaw erosion, and the single ecological system structure and function. The slight and mild vulnerable zones were mainly concentrated in the southeastern part of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and the ecosystem vulnerability distribution patterns had significant relations with topographic location factors, the monsoon circulation (Indian Ocean monsoon), and the climate factors(rainfall and temperature).During the past ten years, the ecosystem vulnerability in the region increased at first and then decreased, which was indicated by the fact that during 2000-2005, the ecosystem vulnerability was aggravated while the condition of ecosystem during 2005-2010 was improved to a certain degree. The temporal and spatial change patterns of ecosystem vulnerability had a significant correlation with the topographic location factors, climate and human activities.(3) The ecosystem vulnerability of the arid desert ecosystem in ADEFRNC showed a decreasing trend from east to west in general while that of western part region presented a pattern of “E”. The ecosystem vulnerability of western mountain in Xinjiang, Tianshan Mountains, Altai Mountains, the Karakorum and Kunlun Mountain was slight due to the influence of warm and humid air from ocean and more precipitation. However, the zones of Turpan Basin-east margin of Tarim Basin-northwestern Qaidam Basin and Hami basin had the severest vulnerability due to the unique location.During the past ten years, the ecosystem condition of ADEFRNC was improved to some extent and the quality of the ecological environment was improved. It could be indicated by the fact that: the ecosystem vulnerability in 2000 had degraded compared with that of 2005, which was indicated by the increased areas of slightly and mildly vulnerable zones. Meanwhile, the ecosystem conditions of 2010 had been improved slightly compared with that of 2005 with the increased areas of slightly and mildly vulnerable zones. The temporal and spatial change patterns of ecosystem vulnerability in ADEFRNC were mainly influenced by the factors of climate, topography, landform, human activities and so on.(4) The ecosystem vulnerability of SADGEFRNC decreased from west to east, which was related with the human activities, Pacific warm moist air flow and other factors. The ecosystem vulnerability of Yinchuan plain was relatively slight, which was mainly related to the topography, climate and human activities. The ecosystem vulnerability of Hetao Plain was severe, which mainly depended on the region's climate and human activities (the first industry). The surface and ground water resources were rich, whicn was not suitable for the development of mineralization, and therefore the overall ecosystem condition of Tumote plain was better. During 2000-2010a, the ecosystem vulnerability of SADGEFRNC showed a decreasing trend. The ecosystem vulnerability of 2005 was slightly reduced compared with that of 2000 with the increased area of slight vulnerability and the decreased area of severe vulnerability. The ecosystem vulnerability of 2010 was reduced compared with that of 2005 to some extend with the increased area of slight and mild vulnerability. During the past ten years, the temporal and spatial variation patterns of ecosystem vulnerability in SADGEFRNC were significantly affected by human activities and precipitation.(5) Over the past decade, the ecosystem vulnerability of HSEFRMEC increased form south to north and from east to west, which was mainly influenced by climate factors (precipitation decreased from south to north and from east to west), topography (three level ladders, the altitude increased from east to the west), vegetation and human activities. The zones of severe and extreme vulnerability were mainly distributed in Western Loess Plateau, southeastern Inner Mongolia Plateau and western Shandong hilly. Zones of moderate vulnerability were mainly concentrated in Northeast Plain and North China Plain. Meanwhile, zones of mild vulnerability were mainly distributed in Sichuan Basin, Qinling Mountain area, Taihang mountain area, and Huaihe River Basin while slightly vulnerable region was mainly distributed in the south of the Yangtze River basin.During the past ten years, there was an increasing trend in ecosystem vulnerability of HSEFRMEC with the increased areas of slightly and mildly vulnerable zones and the decreased areas of moderate, intensive and severe vulnerability. In the past ten years, the temporal and spatial change patterns of the ecosystem vulnerability were significantly affected by human activities.(6) Zones of severe and extreme vulnerability in KMEFRSC were mainly distributed in the middle and north region, the main reason included strongly developed karst in the area, low vegetation coverage, serious soil erosion, slow soil-forming process, low productivity level, poor population, awareness of environmental protection, and the strong human disturbance. Zones of slight and mild vulnerability were mainly distributed in the southeast and southwest parts, which were influenced by the abundant precipitation, high vegetation coverage, slight levels of soil erosion and rock desertification, and ecological protection measures (such as returning farmlands to forests).During 2000-2010a, there was slightly trend in ecosystem vulnerability of ecological system in KMEFRSC with the increasing area of moderate, intensive, and severe vulnerability and decreasing area of slight and mild vulnerability. During the past ten years, the spatial and temporal change patterns of the ecosystem vulnerability in this region were significantly affected by human activities and topography. |
| 中文关键词 | 生态系统脆弱性 ; 指标体系 ; 遥感 ; 分区 ; 动态监测 |
| 英文关键词 | Ecosystem vulnerability Indicator system Remote sensing Partition |
| 语种 | 中文 |
| 国家 | 中国 |
| 来源学科分类 | 地图学与地理信息系统 |
| 来源机构 | 中国科学院遥感与数字地球研究所 |
| 资源类型 | 学位论文 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.177/qdio/handle/2XILL650/287807 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | 郭兵. 中国生态系统脆弱性遥感评价方法研究[D]. 中国科学院大学,2016. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
| 个性服务 |
| 推荐该条目 |
| 保存到收藏夹 |
| 导出为Endnote文件 |
| 谷歌学术 |
| 谷歌学术中相似的文章 |
| [郭兵]的文章 |
| 百度学术 |
| 百度学术中相似的文章 |
| [郭兵]的文章 |
| 必应学术 |
| 必应学术中相似的文章 |
| [郭兵]的文章 |
| 相关权益政策 |
| 暂无数据 |
| 收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
