长江流域安徽段生态系统服务价值与景观生态风险时空演变及其关联分析

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202108033

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2022, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (3): 31-40.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202108033

所属专题：长江大保护视域下的长江中游自然保护地及景观生态研究

• 专题报道：长江大保护视域下的长江中游自然保护地及景观生态研究（执行主编　王浩） • 上一篇下一篇

长江流域安徽段生态系统服务价值与景观生态风险时空演变及其关联分析

贾艳艳¹(), 唐晓岚²^,^*(), 任宇杰²

1.山东农业大学林学院,山东泰安 271018
2.南京林业大学风景园林学院,南京林业大学中国特色生态文明建设与林业发展研究院,江苏南京 210037

收稿日期:2021-08-19 接受日期:2021-12-13 出版日期:2022-05-30 发布日期:2022-06-10
通讯作者: 唐晓岚
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31270746);山东省自然科学基金项目(ZR2021QD124)

Spatial-temporal evolution and correlation analyses of ecosystem service values and landscape ecological risks in Anhui section of the Yangtze River basin

JIA Yanyan¹(), TANG Xiaolan²^,^*(), REN Yujie²

1. Forestry College, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
2. College of Landscape Architecture, Academy of Chinese Ecological Progress and Forestry Development Studies, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China

Received:2021-08-19 Accepted:2021-12-13 Online:2022-05-30 Published:2022-06-10
Contact: TANG Xiaolan

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】综合运用生态系统服务价值和景观生态风险评估,更好地为长江流域安徽段可持续发展提供决策支持,也为跨江区域生态环境管护提供一定参考。【方法】基于1995年、2005年和2015年安徽省土地利用数据,采用生态系统服务价值评估、景观生态风险评估和双变量空间自相关模型等方法,分析长江流域安徽段生态服务价值、生态风险时空变化及其关联特征。【结果】①1995—2015年研究区总生态系统服务价值呈减少趋势,减少率为0.54%;研究区以较高和中等生态服务价值等级为主,主要分布在长江沿岸、大别山区及皖南山区。②近20年长江流域安徽段生态风险整体呈升高趋势,以中、较低和低生态风险等级为主;空间上,较高和高风险区主要分布在长江沿岸及巢湖区域,并由集聚分布趋于连片扩张。③长江流域安徽段单位面积生态系统服务价值与生态风险之间存在空间正相关性,主要关系为高价值-高风险相关,即生态服务价值高的区域也是生态环境比较脆弱的区域,应特别关注。【结论】必须重视对湿地和林草景观的保护,加强以长江沿岸、巢湖区域为主的湿地生态保护和对大别山、皖南山区自然山体林草景观的保护与修复,将对提高长江流域安徽段生态系统服务功能和保护长江生态环境起着重要作用。

关键词: 生态系统服务价值, 生态风险, 时空关联, 长江流域安徽段

Abstract:

【Objective】The comprehensive application of ecosystem service values and landscape ecological risk assessments can provide better decision support for the sustainable development of the Anhui section of the Yangtze River basin. Moreover, it can provide a reference for ecological environment management and protection in the trans-river region. 【Method】Based on land use data from Anhui Province in 1995, 2005 and 2015, ecosystem service value assessment, landscape ecological risk assessment and bivariate spatial autocorrelation were used to analyze spatiotemporal changes in ecological service values and ecological risks and their correlation characteristics in the Anhui section. 【Result】(1) From 1995 to 2015, the total ecosystem service values in the study area showed a decreasing trend, with a decreasing rate of 0.54%. The study area was dominated by medium-high and medium levels of ecological service values, which were mainly distributed along the Yangtze River, Dabie Mountain area, and southern Anhui Mountain area. (2) Over the past 20 years, the ecological risk of the Anhui section showed an overall increasing trend, and the ecological risk level was mainly medium, medium-low and low. In terms of spatial distribution, the medium-high and high-risk areas were mainly distributed along the Yangtze River and Chaohu Lake region and tended to expand from a concentrated distribution to a continuous distribution. (3) There was a positive spatial correlation between ecosystem service value per unit area and ecological risk in Anhui Province, and the main relationship was a high value-high risk correlation. In other words, the regions with high ecological service value were also those with relatively fragile ecological environments, which should receive special attention. 【Conclusion】It is necessary to focus on the protection of wetlands and forest and grass landscapes, strengthen the ecological protection of wetlands along the Yangtze River and Chaohu Lake, and protect and restore the natural forest and grass landscape in Dabie Mountain and the southern Anhui mountains. This approach would help improve the ecosystem service function of the Anhui section and protect the ecological environment of the Yangtze River.

Key words: ecosystem service value(ESV), ecological risk, spatio-temporal correlation, Anhui section of the Yangtze River basin

中图分类号:

X171
S759.9

贾艳艳,唐晓岚,任宇杰. 长江流域安徽段生态系统服务价值与景观生态风险时空演变及其关联分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(3): 31-40.

JIA Yanyan, TANG Xiaolan, REN Yujie. Spatial-temporal evolution and correlation analyses of ecosystem service values and landscape ecological risks in Anhui section of the Yangtze River basin[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 46(3): 31-40.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202108033.

图/表 9

图1

图2

表1

表2

景观指数计算方法"

名称 name
景观破碎度指数(C_i) landscape fragmentation index	$C i = n i / A i$	反映景观破碎化程度,其值越大,景观单元内部稳定性越低,对应的生态风险越大^[22]	n_i为景观类型i的斑块数;A_i为景观类型i的总面积。A为景观总面积。Q_i=斑块i出现的网格数/总网格数;M_i=斑块i的数量/斑块总数;L_i=斑块i的面积/样方总面积。a、b、c为相应各景观指数的权重,a+b+c=1,根据研究区情况和相关研究成果^[25],对以上3个权重分别赋值0.5、0.3和0.2。参考相关研究^[25-26],并结合研究区景观类型特点,给景观类型脆弱度赋值:6=裸地,5=湿地,4=耕地,3=草地,2=林地,1=建设用地;归一化后得到各类型脆弱度指数F_i,分别为0.285 7、0.238 1、0.190 5、0.142 9、0.095 2、0.047 6
景观分离度指数(N_i) landscape isolation index	$N i = A 2 A i n i A$	反映斑块分布的分离程度,其值越大,斑块分布越分散,破碎化程度越高,生态系统稳定性越低,生态风险越大^[22]
景观优势度指数(D_i) landscape dominance index	$D i = (Q i + M i) / 4 + L i / 2$	衡量斑块在景观中的重要地位,其值越大,斑块对景观格局形成和变化的影响越大,对应的生态风险则越大^[25]
景观干扰度指数(S_i) landscape disturbance index	$S i = a C i + b N i + c D i$	反映不同景观所代表的生态系统受到干扰的程度,主要是人类活动
景观脆弱度指数(F_i) landscape vulnerability index	由专家打分归一化获得	表示不同景观类型对外界干扰的敏感性,其值越大,生态风险越大^[25]
景观损失度指数(R_i) landscape loss index	$R i = S i × F i$	衡量外界干扰造成的生态系统损失^[26]

表2

表3

表4

图3

表5

图4

参考文献 29

[1]	OUYANG Z Y, ZHENG H, XIAO Y, et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital[J]. Science, 2016, 352(6292):1455-1459.DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2295. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2295
[2]	陈利顶, 景永才, 孙然好. 城市生态安全格局构建:目标、原则和基本框架[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(12):4101-4108.
	CHEN L D, JING Y C, SUN R H. Urban eco-security pattern construction:targets,principles and basic framework[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018, 38(12):4101-4108.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201802270395. doi: 10.5846/stxb201802270395
[3]	李辉, 周启刚, 李斌, 等. 近30年三峡库区生态系统服务价值与生态风险时空变化及相关性研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2021, 30(3):654-666.
	LI H, ZHOU Q G, LI B, et al. Spatiotemporal change and correlation analysis of ecosystem service values and ecological risk in Three Gorges reservoir area in the past 30 years[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2021, 30(3):654-666.DOI: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj202103013. doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj202103013
[4]	COSTANZA R, D’ARGE R, DE GROOT R, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Ecol Econ, 1998, 25(1):3-15.DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2
[5]	LAUTENBACH S, KUGEL C, LAUSCH A, et al. Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data[J]. Ecol Indic, 2011, 11(2):676-687.DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007
[6]	COSTANZA R, DE GROOT R, SUTTON P, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services[J]. Glob Environ Change, 2014, 26:152-158.DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
[7]	SHAH S M, LIU G Y, YANG Q, et al. Emergy-based valuation of agriculture ecosystem services and dis-services[J]. J Clean Prod, 2019, 239:118019.DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118019. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118019
[8]	于德永, 郝蕊芳. 生态系统服务研究进展与展望[J]. 地球科学进展, 2020, 35(8):804-815.
	YU D Y, HAO R F. Research progress and prospect of ecosystem services[J]. Adv Earth Sci, 2020, 35(8):804-815.DOI: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166. 2020.069. doi: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166. 2020.069
[9]	李青圃, 张正栋, 万露文, 等. 基于景观生态风险评价的宁江流域景观格局优化[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(7):1420-1437. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201907011
	LI Q P, ZHANG Z D, WAN L W, et al. Landscape pattern optimization in Ningjiang River basin based on landscape ecological risk assessment[J]. Acta Geogr Sin, 2019, 74(7):1420-1437.DOI: 10.11821/dlxb201907011. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201907011
[10]	XING L, HU M S, WANG Y. Integrating ecosystem services value and uncertainty into regional ecological risk assessment:a case study of Hubei Province,central China[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2020, 740:140126.DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140126. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140126
[11]	李俊翰, 高明秀. 滨州市生态系统服务价值与生态风险时空演变及其关联性[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(21):7815-7828.
	LI J H, GAO M X. Spatiotemporal evolution and correlation analysis of ecosystem service values and ecological risk in Binzhou[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(21):7815-7828.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201809061899. doi: 10.5846/stxb201809061899
[12]	欧阳晓, 朱翔, 贺清云. 基于生态系统服务和生态系统健康的生态风险评价:以长株潭城市群为例[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(16):5478-5489.
	OUYANG X, ZHU X, HE Q Y. Incorporating ecosystem services with ecosystem health for ecological risk assessment:case study in Changsha-Zhuzhou-Xiangtan urban agglomeration,China[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2020, 40(16):5478-5489.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201907071428. doi: 10.5846/stxb201907071428
[13]	陈峰, 李红波, 张安录. 基于生态系统服务的中国陆地生态风险评价[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(3):432-445. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201903003
	CHEN F, LI H B, ZHANG A L. Ecological risk assessment based on terrestrial ecosystem services in China[J]. Acta Geogr Sin, 2019, 74(3):432-445.DOI: 10.11821/dlxb201903003. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201903003
[14]	付梦娣, 唐文家, 刘伟玮, 等. 基于生态系统服务视角的生态风险评估及生态修复空间辨识:以长江源区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(10):3846-3855.
	FU M D, TANG W J, LIU W W, et al. Ecological risk assessment and spatial identification of ecological restoration from the ecosystem service perspective:a case study in source region of Yangtze River[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2021, 41(10):3846-3855.DOI: 10.5846/stxb202004200948. doi: 10.5846/stxb202004200948
[15]	宫继萍, 石培基, 杨雪梅. 黑河中游土地生态价值及生态风险动态研究:以甘肃省民乐县为例[J]. 土壤, 2012, 44(5):846-852.
	GONG J P, SHI P J, YANG X M. Changes of land ecosystem value and ecological risk in middle reaches of Heihe River:a case study in Minle County of Gansu Province[J]. Soils, 2012, 44(5):846-852.DOI: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2012.05.009. doi: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2012.05.009
[16]	JIA Y Y, TANG X L, LIU W. Spatial-temporal evolution and correlation analysis of ecosystem service value and landscape ecological risk in Wuhu City[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(7):2803.DOI: 10.3390/su12072803. doi: 10.3390/su12072803
[17]	黄晓梅, 程先富. 安徽省沿江地区暴雨洪涝灾害危险性评估[J]. 安徽师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 42(2):151-158.
	HUANG X M, CHENG X F. Evaluation about the flood hazard mainly caused by rainstorms in the area along the Yangtze River in Anhui Province[J]. J Anhui Norm Univ (Nat Sci),2019, 42(2):151-158.DOI: 10.14182/J.cnki.1001-2443.2019.02.009. doi: 10.14182/J.cnki.1001-2443.2019.02.009
[18]	欧阳志云, 朱春全. 长江流域生物多样性格局与保护图集[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2011.
[19]	刘纪远, 宁佳, 匡文慧, 等. 2010-2015年中国土地利用变化的时空格局与新特征[J]. 地理学报, 2018, 73(5):789-802. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201805001
	LIU J Y, NING J, KUANG W H, et al. Spatio-temporal patterns and characteristics of land-use change in China during 2010-2015[J]. Acta Geogr Sin, 2018, 73(5):789-802.DOI: 10.11821/dlxb201805001. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201805001
[20]	谢高地, 张彩霞, 张雷明, 等. 基于单位面积价值当量因子的生态系统服务价值化方法改进[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(8):1243-1254.
	XIE G D, ZHANG C X, ZHANG L M, et al. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area[J]. J Nat Resour, 2015, 30(8):1243-1254.DOI: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.08.001. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.08.001
[21]	CHEN W X, ZHAO H B, LI J F, et al. Land use transitions and the associated impacts on ecosystem services in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in China based on the geo-informatic Tupu method[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2020, 701:134690.DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134690. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134690
[22]	贾艳艳, 唐晓岚, 刘振威, 等. 长江沿岸芜湖区段景观生态风险时空演变分析[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(11):78-87.
	JIA Y Y, TANG X L, LIU Z W, et al. Analysis on spatiotemporal evolution of landscape ecological risk in Wuhu section along the Yangtze River[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2019, 39(11):78-87.DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2019.11.012. doi: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2019.11.012
[23]	唐晓岚, 包文渊, 贾艳艳, 等. 太湖风景区古村古镇景观生态风险分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42(2):105-112.
	TANG X L, BAO W Y, JIA Y Y, et al. Study on ancient village and town landscape ecological risk in Taihu scenic area[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2018, 42(2):105-112.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201702034. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201702034
[24]	LIU Y C, LIU Y X, LI J L, et al. Evolution of landscape ecological risk at the optimal scale:a case study of the open coastal wetlands in Jiangsu,China[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Heal, 2018, 15(8):1691.DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15081691. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15081691
[25]	黄木易, 何翔. 近20年来巢湖流域景观生态风险评估与时空演化机制[J]. 湖泊科学, 2016, 28(4):785-793.
	HUANG M Y, HE X. Landscape ecological risk assessment and its mechanism in Chaohu basin during the past almost 20 years[J]. J Lake Sci, 2016, 28(4):785-793.DOI: 10.18307/2016.0411. doi: 10.18307/2016.0411
[26]	奚世军, 安裕伦, 李阳兵, 等. 基于景观格局的喀斯特山区流域生态风险评估:以贵州省乌江流域为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(3):712-721.
	XI S J, AN Y L, LI Y B, et al. Ecological risk assessment of Karst mountain watershed based on landscape pattern: a case study of Wujiang River basin in Guizhou Province[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2019, 28(3):712-721.DOI: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201903022. doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201903022
[27]	ANSELIN L. Local indicators of spatial association: LISA[J]. Geogr Anal, 1995, 27(2):93-115.DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x.
[28]	ORD J K, GETIS A. Local spatial autocorrelation statistics:distributional issues and an application[J]. Geogr Anal, 1995, 27(4):286-306.DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00912.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00912.x.
[29]	WARTENBERG D. Multivariate spatial correlation:a method for exploratory geographical analysis[J]. Geogr Anal, 1985, 17(4):263-283.DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1985.tb00849.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1985.tb00849.x.

生态系统服务类型 ecosystem service function		耕地 cultivated land	林地 forest land	草地 grass land	湿地 wetland	裸地 bare land
供给服务 provisioning services	食物生产 food production	2 270.19	227.02	681.06	454.04	22.70
	原料生产 raw material	227.02	5 902.50	113.51	90.81	0.00
调节服务 regulating services	气体调节 gas regulation	1 135.10	7 945.68	1 816.15	2 043.17	0.00
	气候调节 climate reservation	2 020.47	6 129.52	2 043.17	19 932.30	0.00
	水源涵养 water conservation	1 362.12	7 264.62	1 816.15	40 727.27	68.11
	废物处理 waste treatment	3 723.12	2 973.95	2 973.95	41 272.11	22.70
支持服务 supporting services	土壤保持 soil conversation	3 314.48	8 853.75	4 426.88	1 952.37	45.40
	生物多样性保护 biodiversity conservation	1 611.84	7 400.83	2 474.51	5 675.48	771.87
文化服务 cultural service	美学景观 aesthetic landscape	22.70	2 905.85	90.81	11 237.46	22.70
合计 total		15 687.04	49 603.72	16 436.20	123 385.01	953.48

景观类型 landscape type	1995		2005		2015
景观类型 landscape type	面积/km² area	占比/%proportion	面积/km² area	占比/%proportion	面积/km² area	占比/%proportion
耕地 cultivated land	31 664.81	47.56	31 221.78	46.90	30 455.00	45.74
林地 forest land	22 354.74	33.58	22 355.84	33.58	22 304.50	33.50
草地 grass land	4 975.00	7.47	4 961.85	7.45	4 960.02	7.45
湿地 wetland	4 688.91	7.04	4 742.21	7.12	4 765.99	7.16
建设用地 construction land	2 889.23	4.34	3 291.01	4.94	4 073.65	6.12
裸地 bare land	4.25	0.01	4.25	0.01	17.78	0.03

项目 item				各年份ESV/×10⁶元 ESV in each year			变化率/% change rate
项目 item				1995	2005	2015	1995—2005	2005—2015	1995—2015
景观类型 landscape type		耕地 cultivated land		49 672.70	48 977.72	47 774.86	-1.40	-2.46	-3.82
		林地 forest land		110 887.85	110 893.30	110 638.61	0.00	-0.23	-0.22
		草地 grass land		8 177.01	8 155.39	8 152.39	-0.26	-0.04	-0.30
		湿地 wetland		57 854.06	58 511.78	58 805.16	1.14	0.50	1.64
		裸地 bare land		0.41	0.41	1.70	0.00	318.00	318.00
		总体情况 general		226 592.03	226 538.60	225 372.72	-0.02	-0.51	-0.54
生态系统服务类型 types of ecosystem services	供给服务 provisioning		食物生产food production	8 247.75	8 148.72	7 974.47	-1.20	-2.14	-3.31
			原料生产raw materials	14 012.80	14 003.72	13 956.20	-0.06	-0.34	-0.40
	调节服务 regulating		气体调节gas regulation	23 218.18	23 177.27	23 053.96	-0.18	-0.53	-0.71
			气候调节climate reservation	30 462.72	30 477.44	30 338.07	0.05	-0.46	-0.41
			水源涵养water conservation	40 553.18	40 708.34	40 663.20	0.38	-0.11	0.27
			废物处理waste treatment	39 269.03	39 320.51	39 117.38	0.13	-0.52	-0.39
	支持服务 supporting		土壤保持soil conversation	33 405.42	33 264.14	32 968.42	-0.42	-0.89	-1.31
			生物多样性保护 biodiversity conservation	25 540.79	25 497.20	25 349.69	-0.17	-0.58	-0.75
	文化服务 cultural		美学景观aesthetic landscape	11 882.16	11 941.26	11 951.33	0.50	0.08	0.58
	总体情况 general			226 592.03	226 538.60	225 372.72	-0.02	-0.51	-0.54

项目 item	等级 grades	面积占比/% area proportion			变化率/% change rate
项目 item	等级 grades	1995	2005	2015	1995—2005	2005—2015	1995—2015
生态系统服务价值 ESV	低 low ESV	20.91	20.96	21.96	0.25	4.78	5.04
	较低medium-low ESV	14.49	14.39	14.05	-0.68	-2.36	-3.03
	中medium ESV	27.57	27.53	27.31	-0.15	-0.83	-0.97
	较高 medium-high ESV	33.20	33.23	32.77	0.08	-1.37	-1.29
	高 high ESV	3.83	3.89	3.91	1.59	0.54	2.14
生态风险指数 ERI	低 low ERI	28.41	26.88	23.46	-5.37	-12.73	-17.41
	较低 medium-low ERI	33.43	27.86	26.67	-16.65	-4.27	-20.22
	中 medium ERI	24.37	25.39	29.69	4.20	16.92	21.84
	较高 medium-high ERI	10.38	14.64	13.84	41.04	-5.48	33.32
	高 high ERI	3.42	5.23	6.34	52.98	21.37	85.67

长江流域安徽段生态系统服务价值与景观生态风险时空演变及其关联分析

Spatial-temporal evolution and correlation analyses of ecosystem service values and landscape ecological risks in Anhui section of the Yangtze River basin

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 29

相关文章 8

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	李思荣, 苏同向. 基于保护政策影响的抚仙湖流域景观格局变化及生态系统服务价值响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(3): 145-154.
[2]	于颖, 孟京辉, 宋增明, 徐露. 基于MCR模型和景观连通性的县域生态网络构建[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(4): 226-234.
[3]	戚丽萍, 栾兆擎, 魏勉, 闫丹丹, 李静泰, 么秀颖, 刘垚, 谢思荧, 盛昱凤. 基于土地利用的江苏省各市生态系统服务价值时空变化研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(4): 200-208.
[4]	马颖忆, 刘志峰. 江苏省景观生态风险评估及其与城镇化的动态响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(5): 185-194.
[5]	唐晓岚,包文渊,贾艳艳,刘德保. 太湖风景区古村古镇景观生态风险分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(02): 105-112.
[6]	吕国屏,廖承锐,徐雁南,张婷,李海东. 基于CAMarkov模型的喀斯特地区县域生态系统服务价值动态模拟[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2017, 41(05): 49-56.
[7]	郜红娟,罗绪强,韩会庆,王后阵. 贵州山区公路沿线生态系统服务价值变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 40(01): 135-141.
[8]	王岽,徐京京,周亮广,吴见. 安徽省生态系统服务价值变化及其趋势预测[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2015, 39(04): 88-94.