于田绿洲景观格局及生态弹性度研究
|
摘要
本文从景观生态学的角度出发，以遥感影像及其它相关资料为本底数据，结合GIS的数据输入、输出、管理和空间分析的强大功能，采用定性与定量、现状与动态相结合的分析方法，对克里雅河流域于田绿洲的景观时空分布及演变进行了初步的研究，并对生态弹性度进行探讨，得出以下结论：
（1）自1976年以来的20多年，本研究区以荒漠为基质、以克里雅河为廊道、以农田和草地为主体斑块的宏观分布格局基本未变。虽然荒漠呈缩小趋势，且其它各类景观也都不同程度地发生了变化，但从大的背景来看，该区极端干旱气候及其所引起的水分变化决定了这种格局存在的必然性和长期性，要使其发生可观变化需要一定的外在干扰力度和足够长的时期。
（2）1976-1999年，共有4类景观面积增加，分别是：水体、高草、中草和低草。其中低草和中草变化值较大。它们的变化可能与近年来降水量的增加、蒸发量的减少以及灌溉农业的发展而导致地下水位升高有较大联系，而水体的扩大可能还与当地水利设施的修建有关，例如：河道的修缮或是水库、池塘的增多。除去上述4类剩余的景观都有不同程度的减少。荒漠减少幅度最大，其中有较大部分转化为草地，还有部分转化为农田；盐碱地相对自身减少较多，且转化剧烈，与其它各类景观之间都可以建立转化关系；湿地近一半萎缩，人类破坏程度较大；耕地变化和缓，基本维持原有水平。
（3）多样性指数分析结果表明：各景观总体多样性、均匀度逐年增大，优势度逐年减少，景观趋于多样化，景观异质性程度增大。对本研究区而言，在足够长的时间段之后，以荒漠为绝对优势的生态景观将逐渐减小，取而代之的可能是以农田、草地和荒漠相对均衡的准平衡发展。
（4）景观破碎化指数分析结果表明：盐碱地破碎度、分离度增大，嵌块个
数时增时减；水体由断流、散乱趋于集中和相连；农田分离度发生较大变化，由原来的集中片区扩散到更大范围；湿地破碎度前期维持同一水平，后期陡增，且分离度不断增大，总体表现分散，说明受外界自然和人为因素的干扰在增大；三类草地中，高草地的破碎度、分离度最大，中草和低草相对要小，而且低草破碎度逐年减少，愈来愈趋于整体化；荒漠是基质，面积最大，连接性最好，因此破碎度和分离度都最小。
（5）景观形状指数分析结果表明：荒漠分维数和伸长数总体最高，低草次之，高中草和农田居中，水体、湿地以及盐碱地最小。这个顺序恰恰反向说明了景观受人类干扰程度的大小。
（6）从景观转移变化过程来看，70-80年代，农田、水体、湿地、高草和低草的转移都十分剧烈，中草次之，荒漠最差；到了80-90年代，水体和湿地转移仍很剧烈，但其他类型的景观转移相对趋缓。前后相互联系，可以看到水体和湿地始终受到较大程度的人为干扰，这与“水是干旱区绿洲的命脉”、“没有水便没有绿洲的存在”是相照应的。干旱区人类在生产活动中，不断地以消耗和牺牲仅有的水资源得以生存和发展。
（7）景观动态演化结果表明：20世纪70-80年代，景观相互之间转化剧烈；其中水体、湿地相互之间以及向农田和中、低草转化较多；高草转化最为剧烈。草地面积大幅度增加，且向着有利的方向发展，荒漠也大面积减少。总之，这一时期有利于生态环境趋好的景观类型面积是增加的，大环境有所改善。20世纪80-90年代，各个景观类型之间转化趋缓，荒漠缩小减幅，草地、水体增加，湿地继续萎缩。但从整体看，整个大环境仍得到进一步的改善和提高。
（8）运用马尔珂夫链模型进行景观变化趋势预测，农田、水体、湿地、高草和中草持续增加，而低草、盐碱地和荒漠进一步减少。整个区域呈现荒漠、草地和农田三足鼎立之势。
（9）总体上，从80年代末90年代初开始的生态保护，封沙育草取得了较
大的成绩。草地面积的扩大和荒漠面积的缩小意味着绿洲稳定性增强，一方面阻止了沙漠化进程，另一方面减少了绿洲遭受风沙危害的侵袭。
（10）景观生态弹性度逐年提高，生态系统对扰动和压力的缓冲与调节能力不断增强。其主要原因可以归结为荒漠大幅度减少，草地面积迅速增加以及农田、水体的适量扩大。
总之，从研究区的生态景观格局特征、景观格局的动态演化和生态弹性度的研究都表明自20世纪70年代中期以来，研究区生态环境逐渐趋向好的方向发展。虽然目前总体状况处于较低水平，但是趋好的发展方向有益于为人类可持续发展奠定一个良好的环境基础。
From the point of view of Landscape Ecology, based on the Remote Sensing Image and the other relative data, combined with the function of input, output, management and spatial analysis of GIS, and adopting qualitative and quantitative, present and dynamic methods, this paper preliminarily discusses the landscape pattern, its dynamic change and ecological resilience of Yutian Oasis in Keliya Catchments. It draws a conclusion as follows.
(1) Since 1976, the study area has appeared desert as matrix, Keliya River as covered way and farm field and grassland as main patch. This pattern almost has not changed. Though desert decreased and other landscape types altered to some extent, from the point of the whole background, this pattern will exit inevitably and long due to the extreme drought climate and slim water. Only some certain disturbance and spending a long time can change it considerably.
(2) From 1976 to 1999, the area of water, h-grass, m-grass and l-grass increased. The big change of grassland has a relationship with increased precipitation, decreased evaporation and rising groundwater level because of the development of irrigation agriculture. While the expansion of water may be due to the building of water conservancy facilities, such as repair of strand or the increase of reservoir and pond. Except the above four types, the others all decreased. Desert reduced obviously. It converted to grassland mostly and farm field partly. Salina reduced enormously for itself. And it converted to all other types. Wetland was destroyed so seriously that half of it has disappeared. Farm field hasn’t changed much.
(3) Analysis on the diversity index shows that the diversity and evenness gradually increase while dominance decline. The heterogeneity degree enhanced. As far as this study area is concerned, within a period of time the pattern with desert existing predominantly will be changed. Finally the farm field, grassland and desert will evenly develop.
(4) Analysis on the fragmentation shows that salina fragmentates most; water incline to concentrate and link; farm field detract to wider range; wetland was disturbed more and more; among the three type grasslands the fragmentation of h-grass is the biggest. L-grass is apt to integrate; desert is the matrix and connectivity is the best.
(5) Analysis on the form index shows that the fraction and spread of desert is the biggest wholly; l-grass is next; high and low grass and farm field is in the middle; water, wetland and salina is the smallest. The order just indicates the degree of landscape’s being disturbance.
(6) Seeing from the process of landscape conversion, farm field, water, wetland, h-grass and l-grass convert violently, m-grass next and desert last between 1970s and 1980s; while between 1980s and 1990s, water and wetland still convert violently, but the other types drive to slow. Connected with the former and the latter, it can be seen that water and wetland are always disturbed highly degree. It is the mirror that water is the vitals of arid oasis and no water no oasis. In arid area, people exist and develop at the cost of consuming the only water resource.
(7) Dynamic evolution results show that 1970s-1980s landscape convert violently. In this period, all types that are good to the environment increased. The whole environment got improved. While 1980s-1990s the process of conversion slowed down. Desert decreased with small amplitude; grassland and water increased;
wetland went on shrink. The whole environment got further improvement.
(8) The forecast the trend of landscape with Markov Chain Model indicates that farm field; water, h-grass and m-grass will go on increasing while l-grass, salina and desert declining. The study area will mainly consist of desert, grassland and farm field.
(9) As a whole the ecological protection and trees-planting-to-fix-sand initially at the late 1980s and early 1990s made the great progress. The enlargement of grassland and diminution of desert means the stability’s increase in oasis. It prevented the proces
（1）自1976年以来的20多年，本研究区以荒漠为基质、以克里雅河为廊道、以农田和草地为主体斑块的宏观分布格局基本未变。虽然荒漠呈缩小趋势，且其它各类景观也都不同程度地发生了变化，但从大的背景来看，该区极端干旱气候及其所引起的水分变化决定了这种格局存在的必然性和长期性，要使其发生可观变化需要一定的外在干扰力度和足够长的时期。
（2）1976-1999年，共有4类景观面积增加，分别是：水体、高草、中草和低草。其中低草和中草变化值较大。它们的变化可能与近年来降水量的增加、蒸发量的减少以及灌溉农业的发展而导致地下水位升高有较大联系，而水体的扩大可能还与当地水利设施的修建有关，例如：河道的修缮或是水库、池塘的增多。除去上述4类剩余的景观都有不同程度的减少。荒漠减少幅度最大，其中有较大部分转化为草地，还有部分转化为农田；盐碱地相对自身减少较多，且转化剧烈，与其它各类景观之间都可以建立转化关系；湿地近一半萎缩，人类破坏程度较大；耕地变化和缓，基本维持原有水平。
（3）多样性指数分析结果表明：各景观总体多样性、均匀度逐年增大，优势度逐年减少，景观趋于多样化，景观异质性程度增大。对本研究区而言，在足够长的时间段之后，以荒漠为绝对优势的生态景观将逐渐减小，取而代之的可能是以农田、草地和荒漠相对均衡的准平衡发展。
（4）景观破碎化指数分析结果表明：盐碱地破碎度、分离度增大，嵌块个
数时增时减；水体由断流、散乱趋于集中和相连；农田分离度发生较大变化，由原来的集中片区扩散到更大范围；湿地破碎度前期维持同一水平，后期陡增，且分离度不断增大，总体表现分散，说明受外界自然和人为因素的干扰在增大；三类草地中，高草地的破碎度、分离度最大，中草和低草相对要小，而且低草破碎度逐年减少，愈来愈趋于整体化；荒漠是基质，面积最大，连接性最好，因此破碎度和分离度都最小。
（5）景观形状指数分析结果表明：荒漠分维数和伸长数总体最高，低草次之，高中草和农田居中，水体、湿地以及盐碱地最小。这个顺序恰恰反向说明了景观受人类干扰程度的大小。
（6）从景观转移变化过程来看，70-80年代，农田、水体、湿地、高草和低草的转移都十分剧烈，中草次之，荒漠最差；到了80-90年代，水体和湿地转移仍很剧烈，但其他类型的景观转移相对趋缓。前后相互联系，可以看到水体和湿地始终受到较大程度的人为干扰，这与“水是干旱区绿洲的命脉”、“没有水便没有绿洲的存在”是相照应的。干旱区人类在生产活动中，不断地以消耗和牺牲仅有的水资源得以生存和发展。
（7）景观动态演化结果表明：20世纪70-80年代，景观相互之间转化剧烈；其中水体、湿地相互之间以及向农田和中、低草转化较多；高草转化最为剧烈。草地面积大幅度增加，且向着有利的方向发展，荒漠也大面积减少。总之，这一时期有利于生态环境趋好的景观类型面积是增加的，大环境有所改善。20世纪80-90年代，各个景观类型之间转化趋缓，荒漠缩小减幅，草地、水体增加，湿地继续萎缩。但从整体看，整个大环境仍得到进一步的改善和提高。
（8）运用马尔珂夫链模型进行景观变化趋势预测，农田、水体、湿地、高草和中草持续增加，而低草、盐碱地和荒漠进一步减少。整个区域呈现荒漠、草地和农田三足鼎立之势。
（9）总体上，从80年代末90年代初开始的生态保护，封沙育草取得了较
大的成绩。草地面积的扩大和荒漠面积的缩小意味着绿洲稳定性增强，一方面阻止了沙漠化进程，另一方面减少了绿洲遭受风沙危害的侵袭。
（10）景观生态弹性度逐年提高，生态系统对扰动和压力的缓冲与调节能力不断增强。其主要原因可以归结为荒漠大幅度减少，草地面积迅速增加以及农田、水体的适量扩大。
总之，从研究区的生态景观格局特征、景观格局的动态演化和生态弹性度的研究都表明自20世纪70年代中期以来，研究区生态环境逐渐趋向好的方向发展。虽然目前总体状况处于较低水平，但是趋好的发展方向有益于为人类可持续发展奠定一个良好的环境基础。
From the point of view of Landscape Ecology, based on the Remote Sensing Image and the other relative data, combined with the function of input, output, management and spatial analysis of GIS, and adopting qualitative and quantitative, present and dynamic methods, this paper preliminarily discusses the landscape pattern, its dynamic change and ecological resilience of Yutian Oasis in Keliya Catchments. It draws a conclusion as follows.
(1) Since 1976, the study area has appeared desert as matrix, Keliya River as covered way and farm field and grassland as main patch. This pattern almost has not changed. Though desert decreased and other landscape types altered to some extent, from the point of the whole background, this pattern will exit inevitably and long due to the extreme drought climate and slim water. Only some certain disturbance and spending a long time can change it considerably.
(2) From 1976 to 1999, the area of water, h-grass, m-grass and l-grass increased. The big change of grassland has a relationship with increased precipitation, decreased evaporation and rising groundwater level because of the development of irrigation agriculture. While the expansion of water may be due to the building of water conservancy facilities, such as repair of strand or the increase of reservoir and pond. Except the above four types, the others all decreased. Desert reduced obviously. It converted to grassland mostly and farm field partly. Salina reduced enormously for itself. And it converted to all other types. Wetland was destroyed so seriously that half of it has disappeared. Farm field hasn’t changed much.
(3) Analysis on the diversity index shows that the diversity and evenness gradually increase while dominance decline. The heterogeneity degree enhanced. As far as this study area is concerned, within a period of time the pattern with desert existing predominantly will be changed. Finally the farm field, grassland and desert will evenly develop.
(4) Analysis on the fragmentation shows that salina fragmentates most; water incline to concentrate and link; farm field detract to wider range; wetland was disturbed more and more; among the three type grasslands the fragmentation of h-grass is the biggest. L-grass is apt to integrate; desert is the matrix and connectivity is the best.
(5) Analysis on the form index shows that the fraction and spread of desert is the biggest wholly; l-grass is next; high and low grass and farm field is in the middle; water, wetland and salina is the smallest. The order just indicates the degree of landscape’s being disturbance.
(6) Seeing from the process of landscape conversion, farm field, water, wetland, h-grass and l-grass convert violently, m-grass next and desert last between 1970s and 1980s; while between 1980s and 1990s, water and wetland still convert violently, but the other types drive to slow. Connected with the former and the latter, it can be seen that water and wetland are always disturbed highly degree. It is the mirror that water is the vitals of arid oasis and no water no oasis. In arid area, people exist and develop at the cost of consuming the only water resource.
(7) Dynamic evolution results show that 1970s-1980s landscape convert violently. In this period, all types that are good to the environment increased. The whole environment got improved. While 1980s-1990s the process of conversion slowed down. Desert decreased with small amplitude; grassland and water increased;
wetland went on shrink. The whole environment got further improvement.
(8) The forecast the trend of landscape with Markov Chain Model indicates that farm field; water, h-grass and m-grass will go on increasing while l-grass, salina and desert declining. The study area will mainly consist of desert, grassland and farm field.
(9) As a whole the ecological protection and trees-planting-to-fix-sand initially at the late 1980s and early 1990s made the great progress. The enlargement of grassland and diminution of desert means the stability’s increase in oasis. It prevented the proces
引文
[1] 傅伯杰.土地生态系统的特征及其研究的主要方面.生态学杂志,1985,4(1):32~34
[2] Vink A P A. Landscape Ecology and Land Use.London: Longman, 1983
[3] Naveh Z, Lieberman A S. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application (2nd edition). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984
[4] Forman R T T and Godron M. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986
[5] Haber W. Using landscape Ecology in Planning and Management. In: Zonneveld I S and Forman R T T eds. Changing Landscape: an Ecological Perspective. New York: Springer Verlag, 1990:217~232
[6] 肖笃宁,李秀珍.当代景观生态学进展和展望.地理科学,1997,17(4):356~364
[7] 伍业钢,李哈滨.景观生态学的理论发展.刘建国主编,当代生态学博论.北京:中国科学技术出版社,1992:30~39
[8] 李哈滨, J F Franklin.景观生态学——生态学领域里的新概念构架.生态学进展,1988,5(1):23~33
[9] P Greig-Smith. Quantitative Plant Ecology (3rd ed). University of California Press, Berkeley, U.S.A.1983
[10] P G Risser.Landscape Ecology: State-of-Art.In: Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance.(M G Turner ed). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987:3~14
[11] R H Gardner and R V O’Neill. Pattern, Process and Predictability: The use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In: Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, U.S.A, 1991:289~308
[12] Risser P G, Karr J R, Forman R T T. Landscape Ecology: Direction and Approaches. Illinois natural history survey special publication number 2, Champaign, Illinois, 1984
[13] 徐化成.景观生态学.北京:中国林业出版社,1996
[14] Felix Herzog et al. Landscape metrics for assessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation. Environmental Management.,2001,27(1):91~107
[15] Jose A. Atauri. The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopteron in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecology,
2001,16(2): 147~159
[16] Simon Bell. Landscape pattern, perception and visualization in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001(54)201~211
[17] Robert J. Miltner et al. The biotic integrity of streams in urban and suburbanizing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning.,2004(69):87~100
[18] M. Arriaza, J.F. Canas-Ortega. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004(69): 115~125
[19] Nathalic C Steiner et al. Effects of landscape patterns on species richness——a modeling approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2003(98): 353~361
[20] Bryan D. Baker. Landscape pattern, spatial behavior and a dynamic state variable model. Ecological Modelling, 1996(89): 147~160
[21] Jerry A. Griffith. Geographic Techniques and recent application of remote sensing to landscape—Water Quality Studies. Water, Arid and Soil Pollution, 2002(138): 181~197
[22] Paul Opdam et al. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation, 2004(117): 285~297
[23] Robert H. Giles et al. Key elements of landscape pattern measures. Environmental Management, 1999,23(4): 477~481
[24] 肖笃宁,赵羿,孙中伟等.沈阳西郊景观结构变化的研究.应用生态学报,1990,1(1):75～84
[25] 肖笃宁,孙中伟.城市景观空间格局变化的研究方法及实例.城市环境与城市生态,1990,3(1):12～16
[26] 徐岚,赵羿.利用马尔柯夫过程预测东陵区土地利用格局的变化.应用生态学报,1993,4(3):272～277
[27] 谢志霄,肖笃宁.城郊景观动态模型研究.应用生态学报,1996,7(1):77～82
[28] 傅伯杰.黄土区农业景观空间格局分析.生态学报,1995,15(2):113～120
[29] 陈利顶,傅伯杰.黄河三角洲地区人类活动对景观结构的影响分析.生态学报,1996,16(4):337～344
[30] 曾辉,邵楠,郭庆华.珠江三角洲东部常平地区景观异质性研究.地理学报,1999,54(3):255～262
[31] 曾辉,郭庆华,喻红.东莞市风岗镇景观人工改造活动的空间分析.生态学报,1999,19(3):298～303
[32] 张金屯, Picktt S T A.城市化对森林植被、土壤和景观的影响.生态学报,1999,19(5):654～658
[33] 彭少麟.边缘效应对森林景观的影响.见:肖笃宁主编.景观生态学理论、方法及应用.北京:中国林业出版社,1991:181～185
[34] 徐化成.大兴安岭北部林区原始林景观结构的研究.见:盛伟彤,徐孝庆主编.森林环境持续发展学术讨论会论文集.北京:中国林业出版社,1994:117～122
[35] 刘先银,徐化成,郑均宝等.河北省山海关林场景观格局与动态的研究.见:徐化成,郑均宝主编.封山育林研究.北京:中国林业出版社,1994:106～112
[36] 郭晋平,阳含熙,薛俊杰等.关帝山森林景观异质性及其动态研究.应用生态学报,1990,10(2):167～171
[37] 郭晋平,阳含熙,张芸香.关帝山林区景观要素空间分布及其动态研究.生态学报,1999,19(4):468～473
[38] 郭晋平,张芸香.关帝山林区景观要素空间关联度与景观格局分析.林业科学,1999,35(5):28～33
[39] 郭晋平,薛俊杰,李志强等.森林景观恢复过程中景观要素斑块规模的变化.生态学报,2000,20(2):218～223
[40] 郭晋平,王俊田,李世光.关帝山林区景观要素沿环境梯度分布趋势的研究.植物生态学报,2000,24(2):135～140
[41] 臧润国,刘静艳,董大方.林隙动态与森林生物多样性.北京:中国林业出版社,1999
[42] 马克明,傅伯杰,周华锋.北京东灵山地区森林的物种多样性与景观格局多样性研究.生态学报,1999,19(1):1～7
[43] 马克明,傅伯杰.北京东灵山地区景观格局及破碎化评价.植物生态学报,2000,24(3):320～326.
[44] 马克明,傅伯杰.北京东灵山区景观类型空间邻接与分布规律.生态学报,2000,20(5):748～752
[45] 刘灿然,陈灵芝.北京地区植被景观中斑块形状的分布特征.植物学报,1999,41(2):199～205
[46] 刘灿然,陈灵芝.北京地区植被景观中斑块形状的指数分析.生态学报,2000,20(4):559～567
[47] 刘灿然,陈灵芝.北京地区植被景观中斑块形状的分形分析.植物学报,1999,24(2):129～134.
[48] 常学礼,邬建国.科尔沁沙地景观格局特征分析.生态学报,1998,18(3):225～232
[49] 吴波,慈龙骏.毛乌素沙地景观格局变化研究.生态学报,2001,21(2):191～196
[50] 贾宝全,慈龙骏,杨晓晖等.石河子莫索湾垦区绿洲景观格局变化分析.生态学报,2001,21(1):34～40
[51] 贾宝全,慈龙骏,任一萍.绿洲景观动态变化分析.生态学报,2001,21(11):1947～1951
[52] 王根绪,程国栋.干旱荒漠绿洲景观空间格局及其受水资源条件的影响分析.生态学报,2000,20(3):363～368
[53] 王根绪,程国栋,沈永平.干旱区受水资源胁迫的下游绿洲动态变化趋势分析——以黑河流域额济纳绿洲为例.用生态学报,2002,13(5):564～568
[54] 王宪礼,布仁仓,胡远潢等.辽河三角洲湿地景观破碎化分析.应用生态学报,1996,7(3):299～304
[55] 王宪礼.辽河三角洲湿地景观格局化分析.生态学报,1997,17(3):317～323
[56] 李秀珍,肖笃宁,胡远潢等.辽河三角洲湿地景观格局对养分去除功能影响的模拟.地理学报,2001,56(1):32～43
[57] 李晓文,肖笃宁,胡远潢.辽河三角洲滨海湿地景观规划预案设计及其实施的确定.生态学报,2001,21(3):353～363
[58] 李晓文,肖笃宁,胡远潢.辽河三角洲滨海湿地景观规划各预案对批示物种生境适宜性的影响.生态学报,2001,214):550～560
[59] 李晓文,肖笃宁,胡远潢.辽河三角洲滨海湿地景观规划各预案对指示物种生态承载力的影响.生态学报,2001,21(5):709～715
[60] 贾宝全,慈龙骏.绿洲景观生态研究.北京:科学出版社,2003:1~4,67~68
[61] 张惠远,蔡运龙,万军.基于ＴＭ影像的喀斯特山地景观变化研究.山地学报,2000,18(1):18～25
[62] 张惠远,王仰麟.山地景观规划——以西南喀斯特地区为例.山地学报,2000,18(5):445～452.
[63] 方创林.河西走廊绿洲生态系统的动态模拟研究.生态学报,1996,16(4):389～398
[64] Pickett S T A. Cacanasso M L. Landscape Ecology, spatial heterogeneity in ecological system. Science, 1995,269(21):331～334
[65] 和田概况.新疆:和田地区地方志编辑室,1986:105~106
[66] http://www.xjyt.gov.cn & http://www.xjht.gov.cn
[67] 于田县人民政府统计局编,于田县主要经济指标统计表，1996-1999年
[68] 肖笃宁,布仁仓,李秀珍.生态空间理论与景观异质性.生态学报,1997,17(5):453~460
[69] 肖笃宁.景观空间结构的指标体系和研究方法.见:肖笃宁主编,景观生态学理论、方法及应用.北京:中国林业出版社
[70] 高吉喜.可持续发展理论探索.北京:中国环境科学出版社,2001:22~27
[71] 吴正.风沙地貌学.北京:科学出版社,1987
[72] 肖笃宁,李秀珍等.景观生态学.北京:科学出版社,2003:83~88
[73] 徐建华.现代地理学中的数学方法.北京:高等教育出版社,2002:93~98
[2] Vink A P A. Landscape Ecology and Land Use.London: Longman, 1983
[3] Naveh Z, Lieberman A S. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application (2nd edition). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984
[4] Forman R T T and Godron M. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986
[5] Haber W. Using landscape Ecology in Planning and Management. In: Zonneveld I S and Forman R T T eds. Changing Landscape: an Ecological Perspective. New York: Springer Verlag, 1990:217~232
[6] 肖笃宁,李秀珍.当代景观生态学进展和展望.地理科学,1997,17(4):356~364
[7] 伍业钢,李哈滨.景观生态学的理论发展.刘建国主编,当代生态学博论.北京:中国科学技术出版社,1992:30~39
[8] 李哈滨, J F Franklin.景观生态学——生态学领域里的新概念构架.生态学进展,1988,5(1):23~33
[9] P Greig-Smith. Quantitative Plant Ecology (3rd ed). University of California Press, Berkeley, U.S.A.1983
[10] P G Risser.Landscape Ecology: State-of-Art.In: Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance.(M G Turner ed). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987:3~14
[11] R H Gardner and R V O’Neill. Pattern, Process and Predictability: The use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In: Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, U.S.A, 1991:289~308
[12] Risser P G, Karr J R, Forman R T T. Landscape Ecology: Direction and Approaches. Illinois natural history survey special publication number 2, Champaign, Illinois, 1984
[13] 徐化成.景观生态学.北京:中国林业出版社,1996
[14] Felix Herzog et al. Landscape metrics for assessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation. Environmental Management.,2001,27(1):91~107
[15] Jose A. Atauri. The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopteron in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecology,
2001,16(2): 147~159
[16] Simon Bell. Landscape pattern, perception and visualization in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001(54)201~211
[17] Robert J. Miltner et al. The biotic integrity of streams in urban and suburbanizing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning.,2004(69):87~100
[18] M. Arriaza, J.F. Canas-Ortega. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004(69): 115~125
[19] Nathalic C Steiner et al. Effects of landscape patterns on species richness——a modeling approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2003(98): 353~361
[20] Bryan D. Baker. Landscape pattern, spatial behavior and a dynamic state variable model. Ecological Modelling, 1996(89): 147~160
[21] Jerry A. Griffith. Geographic Techniques and recent application of remote sensing to landscape—Water Quality Studies. Water, Arid and Soil Pollution, 2002(138): 181~197
[22] Paul Opdam et al. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation, 2004(117): 285~297
[23] Robert H. Giles et al. Key elements of landscape pattern measures. Environmental Management, 1999,23(4): 477~481
[24] 肖笃宁,赵羿,孙中伟等.沈阳西郊景观结构变化的研究.应用生态学报,1990,1(1):75～84
[25] 肖笃宁,孙中伟.城市景观空间格局变化的研究方法及实例.城市环境与城市生态,1990,3(1):12～16
[26] 徐岚,赵羿.利用马尔柯夫过程预测东陵区土地利用格局的变化.应用生态学报,1993,4(3):272～277
[27] 谢志霄,肖笃宁.城郊景观动态模型研究.应用生态学报,1996,7(1):77～82
[28] 傅伯杰.黄土区农业景观空间格局分析.生态学报,1995,15(2):113～120
[29] 陈利顶,傅伯杰.黄河三角洲地区人类活动对景观结构的影响分析.生态学报,1996,16(4):337～344
[30] 曾辉,邵楠,郭庆华.珠江三角洲东部常平地区景观异质性研究.地理学报,1999,54(3):255～262
[31] 曾辉,郭庆华,喻红.东莞市风岗镇景观人工改造活动的空间分析.生态学报,1999,19(3):298～303
[32] 张金屯, Picktt S T A.城市化对森林植被、土壤和景观的影响.生态学报,1999,19(5):654～658
[33] 彭少麟.边缘效应对森林景观的影响.见:肖笃宁主编.景观生态学理论、方法及应用.北京:中国林业出版社,1991:181～185
[34] 徐化成.大兴安岭北部林区原始林景观结构的研究.见:盛伟彤,徐孝庆主编.森林环境持续发展学术讨论会论文集.北京:中国林业出版社,1994:117～122
[35] 刘先银,徐化成,郑均宝等.河北省山海关林场景观格局与动态的研究.见:徐化成,郑均宝主编.封山育林研究.北京:中国林业出版社,1994:106～112
[36] 郭晋平,阳含熙,薛俊杰等.关帝山森林景观异质性及其动态研究.应用生态学报,1990,10(2):167～171
[37] 郭晋平,阳含熙,张芸香.关帝山林区景观要素空间分布及其动态研究.生态学报,1999,19(4):468～473
[38] 郭晋平,张芸香.关帝山林区景观要素空间关联度与景观格局分析.林业科学,1999,35(5):28～33
[39] 郭晋平,薛俊杰,李志强等.森林景观恢复过程中景观要素斑块规模的变化.生态学报,2000,20(2):218～223
[40] 郭晋平,王俊田,李世光.关帝山林区景观要素沿环境梯度分布趋势的研究.植物生态学报,2000,24(2):135～140
[41] 臧润国,刘静艳,董大方.林隙动态与森林生物多样性.北京:中国林业出版社,1999
[42] 马克明,傅伯杰,周华锋.北京东灵山地区森林的物种多样性与景观格局多样性研究.生态学报,1999,19(1):1～7
[43] 马克明,傅伯杰.北京东灵山地区景观格局及破碎化评价.植物生态学报,2000,24(3):320～326.
[44] 马克明,傅伯杰.北京东灵山区景观类型空间邻接与分布规律.生态学报,2000,20(5):748～752
[45] 刘灿然,陈灵芝.北京地区植被景观中斑块形状的分布特征.植物学报,1999,41(2):199～205
[46] 刘灿然,陈灵芝.北京地区植被景观中斑块形状的指数分析.生态学报,2000,20(4):559～567
[47] 刘灿然,陈灵芝.北京地区植被景观中斑块形状的分形分析.植物学报,1999,24(2):129～134.
[48] 常学礼,邬建国.科尔沁沙地景观格局特征分析.生态学报,1998,18(3):225～232
[49] 吴波,慈龙骏.毛乌素沙地景观格局变化研究.生态学报,2001,21(2):191～196
[50] 贾宝全,慈龙骏,杨晓晖等.石河子莫索湾垦区绿洲景观格局变化分析.生态学报,2001,21(1):34～40
[51] 贾宝全,慈龙骏,任一萍.绿洲景观动态变化分析.生态学报,2001,21(11):1947～1951
[52] 王根绪,程国栋.干旱荒漠绿洲景观空间格局及其受水资源条件的影响分析.生态学报,2000,20(3):363～368
[53] 王根绪,程国栋,沈永平.干旱区受水资源胁迫的下游绿洲动态变化趋势分析——以黑河流域额济纳绿洲为例.用生态学报,2002,13(5):564～568
[54] 王宪礼,布仁仓,胡远潢等.辽河三角洲湿地景观破碎化分析.应用生态学报,1996,7(3):299～304
[55] 王宪礼.辽河三角洲湿地景观格局化分析.生态学报,1997,17(3):317～323
[56] 李秀珍,肖笃宁,胡远潢等.辽河三角洲湿地景观格局对养分去除功能影响的模拟.地理学报,2001,56(1):32～43
[57] 李晓文,肖笃宁,胡远潢.辽河三角洲滨海湿地景观规划预案设计及其实施的确定.生态学报,2001,21(3):353～363
[58] 李晓文,肖笃宁,胡远潢.辽河三角洲滨海湿地景观规划各预案对批示物种生境适宜性的影响.生态学报,2001,214):550～560
[59] 李晓文,肖笃宁,胡远潢.辽河三角洲滨海湿地景观规划各预案对指示物种生态承载力的影响.生态学报,2001,21(5):709～715
[60] 贾宝全,慈龙骏.绿洲景观生态研究.北京:科学出版社,2003:1~4,67~68
[61] 张惠远,蔡运龙,万军.基于ＴＭ影像的喀斯特山地景观变化研究.山地学报,2000,18(1):18～25
[62] 张惠远,王仰麟.山地景观规划——以西南喀斯特地区为例.山地学报,2000,18(5):445～452.
[63] 方创林.河西走廊绿洲生态系统的动态模拟研究.生态学报,1996,16(4):389～398
[64] Pickett S T A. Cacanasso M L. Landscape Ecology, spatial heterogeneity in ecological system. Science, 1995,269(21):331～334
[65] 和田概况.新疆:和田地区地方志编辑室,1986:105~106
[66] http://www.xjyt.gov.cn & http://www.xjht.gov.cn
[67] 于田县人民政府统计局编,于田县主要经济指标统计表，1996-1999年
[68] 肖笃宁,布仁仓,李秀珍.生态空间理论与景观异质性.生态学报,1997,17(5):453~460
[69] 肖笃宁.景观空间结构的指标体系和研究方法.见:肖笃宁主编,景观生态学理论、方法及应用.北京:中国林业出版社
[70] 高吉喜.可持续发展理论探索.北京:中国环境科学出版社,2001:22~27
[71] 吴正.风沙地貌学.北京:科学出版社,1987
[72] 肖笃宁,李秀珍等.景观生态学.北京:科学出版社,2003:83~88
[73] 徐建华.现代地理学中的数学方法.北京:高等教育出版社,2002:93~98
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |