PDF(2690 KB)
Habitat suitability evaluation and ecological carrying capacity estimation of milu (Elaphurus davidianus)
Zhang Xian, Wu Yongbo, Xue Jianhui, Wang Libo
Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition) ›› 2026, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (4) : 165-173.
PDF(2690 KB)
PDF(2690 KB)
Habitat suitability evaluation and ecological carrying capacity estimation of milu (Elaphurus davidianus)
【Objective】This study evaluated the habitat suitability for milu(Elaphurus davidianus)and estimated its ecological capacity, aiming to provide a scientific basis for regulating milu population structure and restorating their habitat to better.【Method】Taking Dafeng Milu National Nature Reserve in Jiangsu Province as the research site, this study utilized high-resolution unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology as an alternative to traditional line-transect and quadrat survey methods to collect milu occurrence points data and generate land-use classification maps. Ten habitat evaluation factors were selected, and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied to determine their weights. Using ArcGIS software for weighted overlay analysis, the summer habitat distribution map of milu across different suitability grades was generated. The summer ecological carrying capacity of milu was estimated by combining the area proportions of different habitat grades with the nutritional content of herbaceous plants.【Result】Milu population in the reserve are primarily identified in grassland and bareland near water sources in the eastern part of the first grade stocking area, as well as in areas adjacent to Cynodon dactylon community and bareland in the southern part of the third grade stocking area. Due to internal population transfers, fewer milu are observed in the second grade stocking area. Bareland is the dominant land-use type, covering 34.97% of the reserve, followed by woodland (25.63%), while construction land account for the smallest proportion (0.43%). Grassland collectively occupy 18.08%, with Phragmites australis community being the largest (6.50%). The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for AHP-GIS model is 0.788 (> 0.75), confirming its applicability for evaluating summer habitat suitability. Suitable habitats (including high suitable, suitable, and low suitable habitats) are predominantly located in core areas encompassing water source, bareland, woodland, Phragmites australis community, and low grassland. High suitable habitats (about 235.87 hm2, 8.85% of the reserve) are concentrated in the northern part of the second grade core area and the central-southern part of the third grade core area. Low suitable habitats (about 965.09 hm2, 36.19%) represent the largest proportion; Unsuitable habitats (containing low unsuitable habitat and unsuitable habitat, about 862.17 hm2, 32.33% of the reserve) are mainly distributed in the western part of the first grade stocking area and the northern-central part of the third grade stocking area. The estimated summer spatial carrying capacity is approximately 894 individuals. Phragmites australis community exhibit the highest biomass (680.15 g/m2), Suaeda glauca have the highest crude protein (10.53%) and crude fat (3.07%) contents, and Pennisetum alopecuroides show the highest crude fiber content. The total energy provided by herbaceous plants is 2.856×109 kJ, corresponding to a nutritional carrying capacity of approximately 131 individuals.【Conclusion】The current population of milu in the reserve has reached 8 216 individuals, significantly exceeding the ecological carrying capacity; The translocation of a portion of milu from second grade core area to third grade core area, combined with vegetation restoration and the dredging of water systems, has yielded significant and positive outcomes. Future recommendations include enhancing the habitat suitability level for milu within the reserve, increasing the proportion of male milu to moderate population growth rates. Additionally, based on thorough research into potential habitat suitability areas, the establishment of new sub-population reserves will help alleviate the current ecological capacity pressure on the existing reserve.
habitat suitability / ecological carrying capacity / geographic information system (GIS) / analytic hierarchy process (AHP) / Dafeng Milu National Nature Reserve, Jiangsu Province
| [1] |
高文佳, 吴永波, 邹兴红. 江苏大丰滨海湿地麋鹿春夏秋季生境选择[J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(11):2682-2689.
|
| [2] |
杨超, 范韦莹, 蔡晓斌, 等. 基于MaxEnt模型的湖北石首麋鹿国家级自然保护区散养麋鹿夏季生境适宜性评价[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2022, 31(2):336-344.
|
| [3] |
王宝川, 刘晨, 田孟良. 应用层次分析法和地理信息系统技术对四川杜仲适宜栽培区区划[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2020, 48(9):20-25.
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
陈玉玲, 谢爱萍. 基于AHP+ArcGIS的大樱桃种植适宜性区划[J]. 经济林研究, 2021, 39(3):66-73.
|
| [6] |
曾浩威, 凌成星, 张军, 等. 基于融合MaxEnt和HSI模型的驼鹿生境适宜性评价[J]. 林业资源管理, 2023,(4):115-122.
|
| [7] |
胡继平, 杨筱, 姜鑫贵, 等. 基于层次分析法的野生动物及其栖息地生态影响评价研究[J]. 西部林业科学, 2022, 51(3):24-31.
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
唐娜娜, 唐旭军. 基于景观质量评价的桂林漓江风景区生态优化设计[J]. 森林工程, 2024, 40(3):66-75.
|
| [12] |
刘国锋, 琚望静, 冶建明, 等. 基于AHP-GIS的西北干旱区聚落选址适宜性评价研究——以吐鲁番市为例[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2021, 42(8):129-139.
|
| [13] |
张树苗, 田恒玖, 李夷平, 等. 基于简化基因组测序的麋鹿遗传资源多样性及种群结构分析[J]. 野生动物学报, 2023, 44(4):788-797.
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
张付贤, 孟庆辉, 蒋志刚, 等. 麋鹿沧桑命运与未来保护展望[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(1):1-10.
|
| [16] |
杨丽雯, 张渊媛, 杨峥, 等. 基于最大熵模型的麋鹿潜在栖息地分析与保护对策[J]. 生态学杂志, 2024, 43(8):2539-2550.
|
| [17] |
梁兵宽, 李夷平, 陈颀, 等. 麋鹿非繁殖期生境适宜度评价指标探讨[J]. 林业资源管理, 2019,(3):41-48.
|
| [18] |
陈星, 张林源, 刘艳菊, 等. 基于FAHP的半散养及圈养麋鹿栖息环境评价指标体系构建[J]. 天津师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 35(3):169-173.
|
| [19] |
夏昕, 任静, 李立, 等. 洞庭湖区麋鹿再野化初期秋冬季生境选择[J]. 生物多样性, 2021, 29(8):1087-1096.
|
| [20] |
张旭, 王玲玲, 黄峰, 等. 长江中游地区麋鹿生境适宜性分析与生态廊道构建[J]. 华中师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 57(3):404-411.
|
| [21] |
郭兴健, 邵全琴. 基于无人机遥感的三江源国家公园藏野驴种群数量及生境时空变化研究[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(19):7886-7895.
|
| [22] |
安玉亭, 刘彬, 王立波, 等. 不同麋鹿干扰强度对栖息地土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(11):3571-3578.
|
| [23] |
丁晶晶, 薛欢, 朱立峰, 等. 江苏大丰野生麋鹿种群及其栖息地保护[J]. 野生动物学报, 2015, 36(3):265-269.
|
| [24] |
王淏林, 张怀胜, 朱建强, 等. 麋鹿食物组成及其分析方法研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1):150-165.
|
| [25] |
丁玉华. 达氏麋鹿[M]. 南京: 南京师范大学出版社, 2017.
|
| [26] |
刘金根, 薛建辉, 王磊, 等. 江苏大丰麋鹿自然保护区栖息地退化特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(8):1793-1798.
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
丁晶晶. 大丰野放麋鹿的活动区域格局及生境选择研究[D]. 南京: 南京师范大学, 2017.
|
| [29] |
丁玉华, 孙华金, 郭耕, 等. 麋鹿同性爬跨的行为研究[J]. 野生动物学报, 2020, 41(2):309-313.
|
| [30] |
李弛, 杨道德, 张玉铭, 等. 麋鹿夜间卧息地选择的季节变化[J]. 生物多样性, 2016, 24(9):1031-1038.
|
| [31] |
张朔. 基于AHP-GIS和MaxEnt模型预测气候变化下云南省小粒咖啡潜在生态适宜区分布[D]. 昆明: 昆明理工大学, 2022.
|
| [32] |
姚莉, 邓春秀, 唐彪, 等. 基于最大熵模型(Max Ent)和地理信息系统(GIS)的四川省眉山市东坡区晚熟柑橘适宜性评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(4):748-758.
|
| [33] |
李佳, 李言阔, 缪泸君, 等. 江西桃红岭国家级自然保护区梅花鹿生境适宜性评价[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(5):1274-1283.
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
徐安宏, 俞晓鹏. 大丰麋鹿保护现状与可持续发展策略探讨[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2019, 47(5):107-109.
|
| [36] |
朱怡, 吴永波, 周子尧, 等. 基于高光谱数据的互花米草营养成分反演[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2020, 42(9):92-99.
|
| [37] |
孟根同, 张明海, 周绍春. 黑龙江凤凰山国家级自然保护区野猪冬季容纳量及最适种群密度[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(3):957-963.
|
| [38] |
朱世兵, 靳勇超,
|
| [39] |
孟玉萍, 李坤, 张林源, 等. 北京麋鹿苑麋鹿采食量测定分析[J]. 特产研究, 2010, 32(4):39-42.
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
刘晶晶, 张舟, 张权, 等. 基于参数优化MaxEnt模型的气候变化下青头潜鸭(Aythya baeri)在长江流域的潜在适生区预测[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2025, 41(3): 295-307.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |