基于MCR模型和景观连通性的县域生态网络构建

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202108041

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） ›› 2023, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (4): 226-234.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202108041

基于MCR模型和景观连通性的县域生态网络构建

于颖¹(), 孟京辉¹^,^*(), 宋增明², 徐露³

1.北京林业大学林学院,北京 100083
2.北京国有林场GEF项目执行办,北京 100013
3.江西国有林场GEF项目执行办公室,江西南昌 330038

收稿日期:2021-08-23 修回日期:2021-11-28 出版日期:2023-07-30 发布日期:2023-07-20
通讯作者: * 孟京辉(jmeng@bjfu.edu.cn),教授。
作者简介:于颖(2994883465@qq.com)。
基金资助:
江西省科技创新专项项目(创新专项[2019]13号)

Construction of ecological network in Xinfeng based on MCR model and landscape connectivity

YU Ying¹(), MENG Jinghui¹^,^*(), SONG Zengming², XU Lu³

1. College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2. GEF Project Executive Office of Beijing State-owned Forest Farm, Beijing 100013, China
3. GEF Project Executive Office of Jiangxi State-owned Forest Farm, Nanchang 330038, China

Received:2021-08-23 Revised:2021-11-28 Online:2023-07-30 Published:2023-07-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探索构建生态网络以恢复破碎景观、提升景观连通性的新思路,为县域景观格局优化和生态红线保护提供科学依据。【方法】以江西信丰县为对象,基于景观格局构建生态风险指数,评估其生态风险水平,结合最小累积阻力模型(MCR)和景观连通性分析,确定生态源地、区分一般廊道和重要廊道,构建以信丰县为案例的县域潜在生态网络。【结果】信丰县城市建设用地和耕地集中区域的生态风险相对较高,而森林覆盖区域的生态风险相对较低;潜在生态网络由30个生态源地、67条生态廊道、25个生态节点构建而成;重要生态廊道在东西方向和南北方向生态斑块的沟通与连接中起到关键作用,一般生态廊道将多个相邻、分散的生态源地连接到一起。【结论】景观连通性分析不仅可用于确定斑块重要性,还可用于确定廊道重要性。生态风险评估与生态网络构建相结合,可加强县域生态网络的完整性和可靠性。

关键词: 景观生态风险, 生态网络, 最小累积阻力模型(MCR), 景观连通性

Abstract:

【Objective】This study aims to explore a new idea of building ecological network to restore broken landscape and improve landscape connectivity, and to provide scientific basis for landscape pattern optimization and ecological red line protection in Xinfeng County. 【Method】 Taking Xinfeng County, Jiangxi Provinceas as the object, an ecological risk index was constructed based on landscape pattern to assess the ecological risk level, combined with the minimum cumulative resistance model (MCR) and landscape connectivity analysis, the ecological sources were identified and the general,important corridors were distinguished, and the county potential ecological network was constructed with Xinfeng County as the case. 【Result】 The ecological risk of urban construction and cultivated concentration area was relatively high, while the forest cover area was relatively low; the potential ecological network was consisted by 30 ecological sources, 67 ecological corridors and 25 ecological nodes. Important ecological corridors play a key role in the communication and connection of ecological patches in the east-west and north-south directions, and general ecological corridors connect multiple adjacent and scattered ecological sources together in Xinfeng County. 【Conclusion】 Landscape connectivity analysis can be used to determine not only patch importance but also corridor importance. The combination of ecological risk assessments and ecological network construction strengthens the integrity and reliability of county ecological network.

Key words: landscape ecological risk, ecological network, minimum cumulative resistance model (MCR), landscape connectivity

中图分类号:

S731.2

于颖,孟京辉,宋增明,等. 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.

YU Ying, MENG Jinghui, SONG Zengming, XU Lu. Construction of ecological network in Xinfeng based on MCR model and landscape connectivity[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2023, 47(4): 226-234.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202108041.

图/表 8

图1

表1

图2

图3

表2

图4

图5

表3

参考文献 41

[1]	FU B J, WANG S, SU C H, et al. Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services[J]. Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 2013, 5(1):4-10.DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.002.
[2]	ROCHE P K, CAMPAGNE C S. From ecosystem integrity to ecosystem condition:a continuity of concepts supporting different aspects of ecosystem sustainability[J]. Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 2017, 29:63-68.DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.009.
[3]	VASCONCELOS R, PUJOL-BUXÓ E, LLORENTE G A, et al. Micro-hotspots for conservation: an umbrella tree species for the unique socotran Reptile fauna[J]. Forests, 2020, 11(3):353.DOI: 10.3390/f11030353.
[4]	GAO Y, MA L, LIU J X, et al. Constructing ecological networks based on habitat quality assessment:a case study of Changzhou,China[J]. Sci Rep, 2017, 7:46073.DOI: 10.1038/srep46073.
[5]	XU E, LEUNG K, MORTON B, et al. An integrated environmental risk assessment and management framework for enhancing the sustainability of marine protected areas: the Cape d'Aguilar Marine Reserve case study in Hong Kong[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2015, 505:269-281.
[6]	SUTER G W, NORTON S B, BARNTHOUSE L W. The evolution of frameworks for ecological risk assessment from the red book ancestor[J]. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J, 2003, 9(5):1349-1360.DOI: 10.1080/10807030390240391.
[7]	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.
	MA Y Y, LIU Z F. Assessment of landscape ecological risk and its dynamic response with urbanization development of Jiangsu Province[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2021, 45(5):185-194.
[8]	彭建, 党威雄, 刘焱序, 等. 景观生态风险评价研究进展与展望[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(4):664-677.
	PENG J, DANG W X, LIU Y X, et al. Review on landscape ecological risk assessment[J]. Acta Geogr Sin, 2015, 70(4):664-677.DOI: 10.11821/dlxb201504013.
[9]	张思锋, 刘晗梦. 生态风险评价方法述评[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(10):2735-2744.
	ZHANG S F, LIU H M. Review of ecological risk assessment methods[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2010, 30(10):2735-2744.
[10]	MO W B, WANG Y, ZHANG Y X, et al. Impacts of road network expansion on landscape ecological risk in a megacity,China:a case study of Beijing[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2017, 574:1000-1011.DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.048.
[11]	PENG J, ZONG M L, HU Y N, et al. Assessing landscape ecological risk in a mining city:a case study in Liaoyuan City,China[J]. Sustainability, 2015, 7(7):8312-8334.DOI: 10.3390/su7078312.
[12]	NEPAL P, KHANAL N R, ZHANG Y L, et al. Land use policies in Nepal:an overview[J]. Land Degrad Dev, 2020, 31(16):2203-2212.DOI: 10.1002/ldr.3621.
[13]	陈璟如. 生态网络研究进展[J]. 产业与科技论坛, 2018, 17(8):123-125.
	CHEN J R. Research progress of ecological network[J]. Ind & Sci Tribune, 2018, 17(8):123-125.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5641.2018.08.065.
[14]	李中才, 徐俊艳, 吴昌友, 等. 生态网络分析方法研究综述[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(18):5396-5405.
	LI Z C, XU J Y, WU C Y, et al. A review of studies using ecological network analysis[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2011, 31(18):5396-5405.
[15]	BIONDI E, CASAVECCHIA S, PESARESI S, et al. Natura 2000 and the Pan-European Ecological Network:a new methodology for data integration[J]. Biodivers Conserv, 2012, 21(7):1741-1754.DOI: 10.1007/s10531-012-0273-7.
[16]	CONG P F, CHEN K X, QU L M, et al. Determination of landscape ecological network of wetlands in the Yellow River Delta[J]. Wetlands, 2020, 40(6):2729-2739.DOI: 10.1007/s13157-020-01357-7.
[17]	侍昊, 徐雁南. 基于景观连通性的城市绿地核心区规划方法研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 35(1):51-56.
	SHI H, XU Y N. Research on planning method of urban green space core region based on landscape connectivity[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2011, 35(5):51-56. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2011.01.012.
[18]	ZHANG Y J, SONG W. Identify ecological corridors and build potential ecological networks in response to recent land cover changes in Xinjiang,China[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(21):8960.DOI: 10.3390/su12218960.
[19]	XIAO S C, WU W J, GUO J, et al. An evaluation framework for designing ecological security patterns and prioritizing ecological corridors:application in Jiangsu Province,China[J]. Landscape Ecol, 2020, 35(11):2517-2534.DOI: 10.1007/s10980-020-01113-6.
[20]	廖森. 江西省信丰县水土流失的初步分析及防治建议[J]. 低碳世界, 2017(23):20-21.
	LIAO S. Preliminary analysis and prevention suggestions of soil erosion in Xinfeng County,Jiangxi Province[J]. Low Carbon World, 2017(23):20-21.DOI: 10.16844/j.cnki.cn10-1007/tk.2017.23.014.
[21]	李茂忠. 信丰县修复稀土矿区生态的技术措施及效益分析[J]. 中国水土保持, 2014(7):32-34.
	LI M Z. Technical measures and benefit analysis of ecological restoration in rare earth mining areas in Xinfeng County[J]. Soil Water Conserv China, 2014(7):32-34.DOI: 10.14123/j.cnki.swcc.2014.07.051.
[22]	郭和生. 信丰县铁石小流域开展生态修复的成效与启示[J]. 黑龙江水利科技, 2014, 42(12):263-264.
	GUO H S. Effect and enlightenment of ecological restoration in tieshi small watershed of Xinfeng County[J]. Heilongjiang Sci Technol Water Conserv, 2014, 42(12):263-264.DOI: 10.14122/j.cnki.hskj.2014.12.099.
[23]	国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 土地利用现状分类:GB/T 21010—2017[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2017.
	General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China. Current land use classification:GB/T 21010—2017[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2017.
[24]	张宏涛, 黄宏胜, 魏康宁, 等. 基于面向对象与规则的Sentinel-2A影像土地覆被分类:以江西省都昌县为例[J]. 测绘通报, 2020(6):111-117.
	ZHANG H T, HUANG H S, WEI K N, et al. Land coverage classification of Sentinel-2A image based on object-oriented and rules:a case study of Duchang County,Jiangxi Province[J]. Bull Surv Mapp, 2020(6):111-117.DOI: 10.13474/j.cnki.11-2246.2020.0191.
[25]	郜红娟, 韩会庆, 刘悦, 等. 1995—2015年贵州省陡坡土地利用景观干扰度变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(4):183-190.
	GAO H J, HAN H Q, LIU Y, et al. Changes in landscape disturbance degree of steep slope land use in Guizhou Province from 1995 to 2015[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2020, 44(4):183-190.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201907009.
[26]	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.
[27]	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 Health, 2018, 15(8):1691.DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15081691.
[28]	XUE L Q, ZHU B L, WU Y P, et al. Dynamic projection of ecological risk in the Manas River basin based on terrain gradients[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2019, 653:283-293.DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.382.
[29]	WANG B B, DING M J, LI S C, et al. Assessment of landscape ecological risk for a cross-border basin:a case study of the Koshi River basin,central Himalayas[J]. Ecol Indic, 2020, 117:106621.DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106621.
[30]	王涛, 肖彩霞, 刘娇, 等. 云南高原湖泊杞麓湖动态演变及景观生态风险评价[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2020, 37(1):9-17.
	WANG T, XIAO C X, LIU J, et al. Dynamic evolution and landscape ecological risks assessment of Qilu Lake in Yunnan Plateau[J]. J Zhejiang A & F Univ, 2020, 37(1):9-17.DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2020.01.002.
[31]	熊星, 唐晓岚, 刘澜, 等. 基于“源-汇”理论的传统乡村景观安全格局构建[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 43(6):143-151.
	XIONG X, TANG X L, LIU L, et al. Traditional rural landscape security pattern construction based on “Source-Sink” theory[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2019, 43(6):143-151.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201807044.
[32]	AN Y, LIU S L, SUN Y X, et al. Construction and optimization of an ecological network based on morphological spatial pattern analysis and circuit theory[J]. Landscape Ecol, 2021, 36(7):2059-2076.DOI: 10.1007/s10980-020-01027-3.
[33]	潘竟虎, 刘晓. 疏勒河流域景观生态风险评价与生态安全格局优化构建[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(3):791-799.
	PAN J H, LIU X. Landscape ecological risk assessment and landscape security pattern optimization in Shule River basin[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2016, 35(3):791-799.DOI: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201603.022.
[34]	陈南南, 康帅直, 赵永华, 等. 基于MSPA和MCR模型的秦岭(陕西段)山地生态网络构建[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(5):1545-1553.
	CHEN N N, KANG S Z, ZHAO Y H, et al. Construction of ecological network in Qinling Mountains of Shaanxi,China based on MSPA and MCR model[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2021, 32(5):1545-1553.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202105.012.
[35]	张玥, 许端阳, 李霞, 等. 中-老交通走廊核心区生态廊道构建与关键节点识别[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(6):1933-1943.
	ZHANG Y, XU D Y, LI X, et al. Construction of ecological corridors and identification of key nodes in the core area of China-Laos transportation corridors[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2020, 40(6):1933-1943.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201904040660.
[36]	刘家祁, 王光华, 黄小勇, 等. 构建五大体系,推进信丰脐橙产业转型发展[J]. 现代园艺, 2018(1):33-34.
	LIU J Q, WANG G H, HUANG X Y, et al. Constructing five systems to promote the transformation and development of Xinfeng navel orange industry[J]. Xiandai Hortic, 2018(1):33-34.DOI: 10.14051/j.cnki.xdyy.2018.01.016.
[37]	刘晖, 俞莹, 吴火亮, 等. 江西稀土矿山土壤修复与复绿的研究进展[J]. 南方林业科学, 2020, 48(6):74-78.
	LIU H, YU Y, WU H L, et al. Research progress of soil remediation and greening in Jiangxi rare earth mine[J]. South China For Sci, 2020, 48(6):74-78.DOI: 10.16259/j.cnki.36-1342/s.2020.06.016.
[38]	XU W X, WANG J M, ZHANG M, et al. Construction of landscape ecological network based on landscape ecological risk assessment in a large-scale opencast coal mine area[J]. J Clean Prod, 2021, 286:125523.DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125523.
[39]	SAURA S, PASCUAL-HORTAL L. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning:comparison with existing indices and application to a case study[J]. Landsc Urban Plan, 2007, 83(2/3):91-103.DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005.
[40]	LIU S L, DENG L, DONG S K, et al. Landscape connectivity dynamics based on network analysis in the Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve,China[J]. Acta Oecologica, 2014, 55:66-77.DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2013.12.001.
[41]	WILLIAMS J C, SNYDER S A. Restoring habitat corridors in fragmented landscapes using optimization and percolation models[J]. Environ Model Assess, 2005, 10(3):239-250.DOI: 10.1007/s10666-005-9003-9.

阻力因子 resistance factor	分级范围/m classification index	阻力值(RV) resistance value	权重 weight
海拔 elevation	<300	5
	[300,400)	30
	[400,600)	60	0.2
	[600,800)	80
	≥800	100
坡度 slope	<5°	1
	[5°,15°)	10
	[15°,25°)	50	0.2
	[25°,35°)	80
	≥35°	100
生态风险指数 ERI	[0.053 5,0.074 5)	10
	[0.074 5,0.087 2)	30
	[0.087 2,0.098 9)	50	0.6
	[0.098 9,0.110 9)	80
	[0.110 9,0.143 6)	100

风险等级区 risk level area	生态风险指数范围 range of ERI	面积/hm² area	比例/% proportion
低生态风险区 low ecological risk area	[0.053 5,0.074 5)	43 937.08	15.33
较低生态风险区 lower ecological risk area	[0.074 5,0.087 2)	69 396.60	24.21
中等生态风险区 medium ecological risk area	[0.087 2,0.098 9)	58 969.25	20.57
较高生态风险区 higher ecological risk area	[0.098 9,0.110 9)	78 855.47	27.51
高生态风险区 high ecological risk area	[0.110 9,0.143 6)	35 496.37	12.38
总计total	—	286 654.78	100.00

序号No.	长度/m length	dPC_sum	排名rank
1	34 691.00	271.73	1
2	35 383.71	269.97	2
3	27 659.31	143.25	3
4	29 928.58	131.74	4
5	25 121.15	125.33	5
6	16 938.89	124.92	6
7	26 932.42	118.57	7
8	24 515.94	108.01	8
9	17 740.42	90.21	9
10	17 611.16	72.76	10

基于MCR模型和景观连通性的县域生态网络构建

Construction of ecological network in Xinfeng based on MCR model and landscape connectivity

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 41

相关文章 3

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	程鹏;桑和会;唐丽影;罗宁;张新法;余本付;黄存忠. 安徽省森林生态网络体系[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2002, 26(05): 44-48.