河岸带景观结构、功能及其关系研究
|
摘要
环境设计相关学科(景观设计,园林设计、生态设计)的设计目的是要获得设计作品的某些功能,然而其设计的对象只能是景观结构,功能无法被直接设计出来。这种设计目的和设计对象的差异给设计师提出了这样的问题：结构和功能的关系是什么?什么样的结构决定哪种功能?对于一种功能,哪些结构更加重要?这些问题在当前的设计界并没有得到很好地解决。本文以徐州地区河岸带景观为例探讨景观结构与功能之间的关系,以期为河岸带景观生态规划和设计提供理论支撑。
景观结构与尺度紧密相连,根据徐州市河岸带的特点,确定本文的研究对象为小尺度景观。河岸带是一类特殊的生态系统,除具有一般小尺度景观的结构外,还具有自身特殊的景观结构。本文在全面勘踏和了解徐州地区河岸带景观的基础上,构建了一个由12个具体景观结构指标构成的景观结构指标体系,并构建了一个由3个一级指标(生态功能、使用功能和美化功能),8个二级指标和14个三级指标组成的河岸带功能指标体系。选择了23个河岸带样点,对其景观结构指标和功能指标进行了测定或评估,获得了23个河岸带样点的景观结构和功能数据。并利用回归分析的方法研究了三个一级功能之间的关系。结果显示,对于城市河岸带,生态功能与使用功能呈显著的线性关系,美化功能与使用功能呈显著的线性关系,美化功能与生态功能之间没有统计学意义上的关系；对于农村河岸带,使用功能与美化功能呈显著的线性关系,在排除一个奇异点后,农村河岸带生态功能与美化功能也呈显著的线性关系,而生态功能与使用功能没有显著的统计学意义上的关系。
由于多元逐步回归分析考虑到了自变量之间的相互影响,其运算结果是在消除了多重共线性的基础上得到的,有利于我们从整体上把握结构对于功能的影响,其结论可以指导涉及多个景观结构的设计,因此多元逐步回归分析的结果更具现实意义。本文利用多元逐步回归分析来研究河岸带景观结构和功能之间的关系。结果显示：对于城市河岸带生态功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“植被层次””、“乔木胸径”以及“常绿乔灌木相对覆盖度”；对城市河岸带使用功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“建筑斑块密度”和“优势种相对覆盖度”；对于城市河岸带美化功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“优势种相对覆盖度”。对于农村河岸带生态功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“河岸带宽度”、“木本植物覆盖度”和“草本植物覆盖度”；没有景观结构对农村河岸带使用功能产生重要影响；对于农村河岸带美化功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“乔木胸径变异系数”、“优势种相对覆盖度”和“植被层次”。本文还进一步研究了二级和三级功能指标与河岸带景观结构之间的回归关系。
本文所得到的河岸带景观结构与功能关系的结论,对于河岸带的景观设计具有重要的指导意义,对于河岸带三个单一功能(生态功能、使用功能和美化功能)可以直接参考多元逐步回归分析的结论,对于以同时提高城市河岸带的多种功能的设计应重点调整的几个结构指标是：增加植被层次、选择大个体树木、增加人工构筑物数量、增加植被种类多样性以及增加落叶树种比例；对于以同时提高农村河岸带的生态功能和美化功能的设计应重点调整的几个结构指标是：增加河岸带宽度、提高木本和草本植物覆盖度、栽植个体大小基本一致的树木、增加植被种类数量以及提高植被层次。
同时,利用本文的结论可以快速、客观、定量地对景观生态设计的方案进行评估,可以有效地筛选出符合需要的设计方案。
本文的创新点包括三个方面：
(1)把景观生态学中结构与功能关系的理论应用到河岸带景观生态设计研究中；
(2)构建了河岸带景观功能和景观结构指标体系,定量地研究两者之间的关系,为河岸带的景观生态设计提供了科学的理论基础；
(3)根据景观功能与景观结构关系的研究结论,提出河岸带景观生态设计的方法。
The aim of environmental design related (landscape design, garden design or ecological design etc.) is to give some functions which will be benefited to human. However, we can't design these functions directly, while we can design landscape structures which carry landscape functions. The difference between design aim and design process puts forward the questions:What is the relationship between landscape structure and function? Which kind of structure does control a special function? For a specific function, which structures are more important for it? At present, these questions are not answered well by designers. This article tries to explore the relationships between landscape structures and functions by conducting a case study of the riparian zone in Xuzhou, China.
Landscape structures are related closely to scales. With studying the characteristics of riparian zones in Xuzhou, they belong to the small scale. Riparian zone is a special ecosystem which possesses some exclusive landscape structures. In this paper, based on the actual situation of riparian zones in Xuzhou, the author constructed a landscape structure indicator system which contained12specific landscape structure indicators. Meanwhile, the landscape function indicator system was constructed, which contained Level One indicators (ecological function, using function and beautifying function), eight Level Two indicators and14Level Three indicators.23sample areas of riparian zones were selected to survey or evaluate these indicators, and the data of these indicators were gathered. The relationships between three Level One function indicators were checked by regression analysis. The result showed that, for urban riparian zone, its ecological function and using function took a significantly linear relationship, beautifying function and using function took a significantly linear relationship, too, but beautifying function and ecological function took no statistically significant relationship; for rural riparian zone, its use function and beautifying function took a significantly linear relationship, with except the outlier, ecological function and use function, ecological function shared a linear relationship, but ecological function and use function were no statistically significant relationship.
Multiple stepwise regression analysis took the interactions between independent variables into account, and this method could remove the multi-collinearity of independent variables. This analysis was beneficial to understand the influence on landscape functions by landscape structures, comprehensively. And its results were meaningful to guide landscape design involved multi-structures. Thus, this paper used the method to explore the relationships between landscape structures and functions of riparian zones.
The results from multiple stepwise regression analysis showed that, for the urban riparian zone, the important landscape structures, to ecological function, were "vertical layers of vegetation","tree diameter at breast height" and "relative coverage of ever-green trees or shrubs", the important landscape structures, to using function, were "artificial elements density" and "relative coverage of dominant species"; and to beautifying function, it was "relative coverage of dominant species"; for the rural riparian zone, to ecological function, the important landscape structure were "vertical layers of vegetation","herbaceous plant coverage" and "woody plants coverage", no landscape structure was important to using function, to beautifying function, they were "variation coefficient of tree diameter at breast height","relative coverage of dominant species" and "vertical layers of vegetation".
The conclusions of the relationships between landscape structure and function were practical meaning to guide the design of riparian zone. To the design for a special function (ecological function, using function or beautifying function), it can be guided by the results of multiple stepwise regression analysis. To the design for comprehensive functions of riparian zone on urban area, the following structures should be manipulated:increasing the vertical layers of vegetation, selecting the bigger trees, increasing the quantities of artificial elements, multiplying the number of tree species and enhancing the ratio of deciduous trees. To the design for comprehensive functions (ecological function and beautifying function, not include using function) of riparian zone on rural area, the following structures should be manipulated:widening the riparian zone, enhancing the coverage of woody plants and grass, planting the trees with similar size, multiplying the number of tree species and increasing the vertical layers of vegetation.
The conclusions of this paper can evaluate landscape design schemes quickly, objectively and quantitatively, and can choose the good scheme with high-efficiency.
The creative findings in the paper are as follows:
(1)The theory of relationships between landscape function and landscape structure, applied in landscape ecology, was transferred to solve the problems of riparian ecological landscape design;
(2)This paper constructed the indicator systems of landscape function and landscape structure, respectively, and studied the relationships between them, which provide a scientific base for ecological landscape design of riparian zone;
(3)Based on the relationships between landscape functions and landscape structures, this paper gave some practical methods for riparian ecological landscape design.
景观结构与尺度紧密相连,根据徐州市河岸带的特点,确定本文的研究对象为小尺度景观。河岸带是一类特殊的生态系统,除具有一般小尺度景观的结构外,还具有自身特殊的景观结构。本文在全面勘踏和了解徐州地区河岸带景观的基础上,构建了一个由12个具体景观结构指标构成的景观结构指标体系,并构建了一个由3个一级指标(生态功能、使用功能和美化功能),8个二级指标和14个三级指标组成的河岸带功能指标体系。选择了23个河岸带样点,对其景观结构指标和功能指标进行了测定或评估,获得了23个河岸带样点的景观结构和功能数据。并利用回归分析的方法研究了三个一级功能之间的关系。结果显示,对于城市河岸带,生态功能与使用功能呈显著的线性关系,美化功能与使用功能呈显著的线性关系,美化功能与生态功能之间没有统计学意义上的关系；对于农村河岸带,使用功能与美化功能呈显著的线性关系,在排除一个奇异点后,农村河岸带生态功能与美化功能也呈显著的线性关系,而生态功能与使用功能没有显著的统计学意义上的关系。
由于多元逐步回归分析考虑到了自变量之间的相互影响,其运算结果是在消除了多重共线性的基础上得到的,有利于我们从整体上把握结构对于功能的影响,其结论可以指导涉及多个景观结构的设计,因此多元逐步回归分析的结果更具现实意义。本文利用多元逐步回归分析来研究河岸带景观结构和功能之间的关系。结果显示：对于城市河岸带生态功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“植被层次””、“乔木胸径”以及“常绿乔灌木相对覆盖度”；对城市河岸带使用功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“建筑斑块密度”和“优势种相对覆盖度”；对于城市河岸带美化功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“优势种相对覆盖度”。对于农村河岸带生态功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“河岸带宽度”、“木本植物覆盖度”和“草本植物覆盖度”；没有景观结构对农村河岸带使用功能产生重要影响；对于农村河岸带美化功能具有重要影响的景观结构是“乔木胸径变异系数”、“优势种相对覆盖度”和“植被层次”。本文还进一步研究了二级和三级功能指标与河岸带景观结构之间的回归关系。
本文所得到的河岸带景观结构与功能关系的结论,对于河岸带的景观设计具有重要的指导意义,对于河岸带三个单一功能(生态功能、使用功能和美化功能)可以直接参考多元逐步回归分析的结论,对于以同时提高城市河岸带的多种功能的设计应重点调整的几个结构指标是：增加植被层次、选择大个体树木、增加人工构筑物数量、增加植被种类多样性以及增加落叶树种比例；对于以同时提高农村河岸带的生态功能和美化功能的设计应重点调整的几个结构指标是：增加河岸带宽度、提高木本和草本植物覆盖度、栽植个体大小基本一致的树木、增加植被种类数量以及提高植被层次。
同时,利用本文的结论可以快速、客观、定量地对景观生态设计的方案进行评估,可以有效地筛选出符合需要的设计方案。
本文的创新点包括三个方面：
(1)把景观生态学中结构与功能关系的理论应用到河岸带景观生态设计研究中；
(2)构建了河岸带景观功能和景观结构指标体系,定量地研究两者之间的关系,为河岸带的景观生态设计提供了科学的理论基础；
(3)根据景观功能与景观结构关系的研究结论,提出河岸带景观生态设计的方法。
The aim of environmental design related (landscape design, garden design or ecological design etc.) is to give some functions which will be benefited to human. However, we can't design these functions directly, while we can design landscape structures which carry landscape functions. The difference between design aim and design process puts forward the questions:What is the relationship between landscape structure and function? Which kind of structure does control a special function? For a specific function, which structures are more important for it? At present, these questions are not answered well by designers. This article tries to explore the relationships between landscape structures and functions by conducting a case study of the riparian zone in Xuzhou, China.
Landscape structures are related closely to scales. With studying the characteristics of riparian zones in Xuzhou, they belong to the small scale. Riparian zone is a special ecosystem which possesses some exclusive landscape structures. In this paper, based on the actual situation of riparian zones in Xuzhou, the author constructed a landscape structure indicator system which contained12specific landscape structure indicators. Meanwhile, the landscape function indicator system was constructed, which contained Level One indicators (ecological function, using function and beautifying function), eight Level Two indicators and14Level Three indicators.23sample areas of riparian zones were selected to survey or evaluate these indicators, and the data of these indicators were gathered. The relationships between three Level One function indicators were checked by regression analysis. The result showed that, for urban riparian zone, its ecological function and using function took a significantly linear relationship, beautifying function and using function took a significantly linear relationship, too, but beautifying function and ecological function took no statistically significant relationship; for rural riparian zone, its use function and beautifying function took a significantly linear relationship, with except the outlier, ecological function and use function, ecological function shared a linear relationship, but ecological function and use function were no statistically significant relationship.
Multiple stepwise regression analysis took the interactions between independent variables into account, and this method could remove the multi-collinearity of independent variables. This analysis was beneficial to understand the influence on landscape functions by landscape structures, comprehensively. And its results were meaningful to guide landscape design involved multi-structures. Thus, this paper used the method to explore the relationships between landscape structures and functions of riparian zones.
The results from multiple stepwise regression analysis showed that, for the urban riparian zone, the important landscape structures, to ecological function, were "vertical layers of vegetation","tree diameter at breast height" and "relative coverage of ever-green trees or shrubs", the important landscape structures, to using function, were "artificial elements density" and "relative coverage of dominant species"; and to beautifying function, it was "relative coverage of dominant species"; for the rural riparian zone, to ecological function, the important landscape structure were "vertical layers of vegetation","herbaceous plant coverage" and "woody plants coverage", no landscape structure was important to using function, to beautifying function, they were "variation coefficient of tree diameter at breast height","relative coverage of dominant species" and "vertical layers of vegetation".
The conclusions of the relationships between landscape structure and function were practical meaning to guide the design of riparian zone. To the design for a special function (ecological function, using function or beautifying function), it can be guided by the results of multiple stepwise regression analysis. To the design for comprehensive functions of riparian zone on urban area, the following structures should be manipulated:increasing the vertical layers of vegetation, selecting the bigger trees, increasing the quantities of artificial elements, multiplying the number of tree species and enhancing the ratio of deciduous trees. To the design for comprehensive functions (ecological function and beautifying function, not include using function) of riparian zone on rural area, the following structures should be manipulated:widening the riparian zone, enhancing the coverage of woody plants and grass, planting the trees with similar size, multiplying the number of tree species and increasing the vertical layers of vegetation.
The conclusions of this paper can evaluate landscape design schemes quickly, objectively and quantitatively, and can choose the good scheme with high-efficiency.
The creative findings in the paper are as follows:
(1)The theory of relationships between landscape function and landscape structure, applied in landscape ecology, was transferred to solve the problems of riparian ecological landscape design;
(2)This paper constructed the indicator systems of landscape function and landscape structure, respectively, and studied the relationships between them, which provide a scientific base for ecological landscape design of riparian zone;
(3)Based on the relationships between landscape functions and landscape structures, this paper gave some practical methods for riparian ecological landscape design.
引文
Acker, S.A., Sabin, T.E., Ganio, L.M., McKee, W.A. Development of old-growth structure and timber volume growth trends in maturing Douglas-fir stands [J]. Forest Ecological Management,1998,104:265-280.
Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Cervigni, R., Moran, D. Total economic value of forests in Mexico [J]. Ambio,1995,24(5):286-296.
Andrea, G., Veronique, V., Lorenzo, B., Willy, B., Peter, A. V. Model-based assessment of shading effect by riparian vegetation on river water quality [J]. Ecological Engineering,2009,35(1):92-104.
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,69: 115-125.
Bachofen, H., Zingg, A. Effectiveness of structure improvement thinning on stand structure in subalpine Norway spruce (Piceaabies(L.)Karst.) stands [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2001,145:137-149.
Baessler, C., Klotz, S. Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on landscape structure and arable weed vegetation over the last 50 years [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2006,115:43-50.
Bakker, J.P., Berendse, F. Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities [J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,1999, 14:63-68.
Barro, S.C., Bright, A.D. Public views on ecological restoration:a snapshot from the Chicago area [J]. Restoration Management Notes,1998,16(1):59-65.
Barton, D.C. Stream water response to timber harvest:riparian buffer width effectiveness [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2011,261(6):979-988.
Berger, A.L., Puettmann, K.J. Overstorey composition and stand structure influence herbaceous plant diversity in the mixed Aspen forest of northern Minnesota [J]. The American Midland Naturalist,2000,143:111-125.
Beschta, R.L. Debris removal and its effect on sedimentation in an Oregon Coast stream [J]. Northwest Science,1979,53:71-77.
Bilby, R.E. Role of organic debris dams in regulating the export of dissolved and particulate matter from a forested watershed [J]. Ecology,1981,62(6): 1234-1243.
Bilby, R.E., Ward, J.W. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washingto. Canadian [J] Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,1991,48: 2499-2508.
Bisson, P.A., Bilby, R.E., Bryant, M.D., Dolloff, C.A., Grette, G.B., House, R.A., Murphy, M.L., Koski, K. V., Sedell, J.R. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest:past, present, and futtxe [A]. In:E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (Editors), Streamside Management:Forestry and Fishery Interactions[C]. Contrib. No.57 Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattk, WA,1987, p.143-190.
Bjerke, T., Ostdahl, T., Thrane, C., Strumse, E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation [J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2006,5:35-44.
Boothroyd, I.K.G., Quinn, J.M., Langer, E.R.L., Costley, K.J. Steward, G. Riparian buffers mitigate effects of pine plantation logging on New Zealand streams.1. Riparian vegetation structure, stream geomorphology and periphyton [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2004,194(1-3):199-213.
Borin, M., Bigon, E. Abatement of NO3-N concentration in agricultural water by arrow buffer strips [J]. Environmental Pollution,2002,117:165-168.
Breuste, J.H. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,68:439-452.
Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method:a case study for Kemaliye [J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2008,141:121-129.
Buongiorno, J., Dahir, S., Lu, H., Lin, C. Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands [J]. Forest Science,1994,40:83-103.
Caissie, D., Satish, N.G., El-Jabi, N. Predicting water temperatures using a deterministic model:application on Miramichi River catchments (New Brunswick Canada) [J]. Journal of Hydrology,2007,336(3-4):303-15.
Carlson, A. Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes:seeing and knawing [A]. In:Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.), Forests and Landscapes—Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics [C]. IUFRO Research Series. CABI, Wallingford,2001, p.31-41.
Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., Chen, B., Zhou, J.B., Yang, Z.F., Zhou, Y. Net ecosystem services value of wetland:environmental economic account [J]. Communication in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation,2009,14:2837-2843.
Clay, G.R., Daniel, T.C. Scenic landscape assessment:the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,49:1-13.
Cooper, A.B. Nitrate depletion in the riparian zone and stream channel of a small headwater catchment [J]. Hydrobiologia,1990,202:13-26.
Correll, D.L. Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones [J]. Ecological Engineering,2005,24:433-439.
Daniels, R.B., Gilliam, J.W. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and riparian filters [J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal,1996,60(1): 246-251.
Daniel, T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54:267-281.
Darveau, M., Beauchesne. P., Belanger, L., Huot, J., LaRue, P. Riparian forest strips as habitat for breeding birds in boreal forest [J]. Journal of Wildlife Management, 1995,59:67-78.
Davies-Colley, R.J., Donnison, A.M., Speed, D.J. Towards a mechanistic understanding of pond disinfection [J]. Water Science and Technology,2000,42 (10-11):149-158.
Dawson, F.H., Kern-Hansen, U. The effect of natural and artificial shade on the macrophytes of lowland streams and the use of shade as a management technique [J]. International Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie,1979,64(4):437-455.
Dillaha, T.A., Reneau, R.B., Mostaghimi, S., Lee, D. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural non-point source pollution control [J]. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers,1989,32(4):513-519.
Dong, J., Chen, J., Brosofske, K.D., Naiman, R.J. Modelling air temperature gradients across managed small streams in western Washington [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1998,53:309-321.
Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, M.S., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,78:465-474.
Edwards, E.D., Huryn, A.D. Effect of riparian land use on contributions of terrestrial invertebrates to streams [J]. Hydrobiology,1996,337:151-159.
Ensign, S.H., Mallin, M.A. Stream water quality changes following timber harvest in a coastal plain swamp forest [J]. Water Resource,2001,35(14):338-339.
Frank, T.B, Christopher, A.P., Edward, J. H. A riparian zone in southern Illinois as a potential dispersal corridor for reptiles and amphibians [J]. Biological Conservation,1998,86(2):107-115.
Freitas, S.R., Mello, M.C.S., Cruz, C.B.M. Relationships between forest structure and vegetation indices in Atlantic Rainforest [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2005,218:353-362.
Fridley, J.D. The influence of species diversity on ecosystem productivity:how, where, and why? [J]. Oikos,2001,93:514-526.
Gobster, P.H. The urban savanna:reuniting ecological preference and function [J]. Restoration Management Notes,1994,12(1):64-71.
Gobster, P.H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management [J]. Landscape Journal,1999,18(1):54-64.
Gobster P. H., Nassauer J. I., Daniel T. C, Fry G. The shared landscape:what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? [J]. Landscape Ecology,2007,22:959-972.
Gove, J.H., Patil, G.P., Taillie, C. A mathematical programming model for maintaining structural diversity in uneven-aged forest stands with implications to other formulations [J]. Ecological Modelling,1995,79:11-19.
Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., Mekee, W.A., Cummins, K.W. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones [J]. Bioscience,1991,41:540-557.
Griffiths, G.H. Land mosaics:the ecology of landscapes and regions [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,1995.
Gurnell, A.M., Edwrds, P. J., Petts, G.E., Ward, J.V. Conceptual model for alpine proglacial river channel evolution under changing climatic conditions [J]. Catena.1999,38(2):223-242.
Hands, D.E., Brown, R.D. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites [J]. Landscape and urban planning,2002,58:57-70.
Harrison, R.L. Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design [J]. Conservation Biology,1992,6(2):293-295.
Hartig, T., Evans, G.W. Psychological foundations of nature experience [A]. In T. Garling, R.G. Golledge (Eds), Behavior and Environment:Psychological and Geographical Approaches [C]. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,1993, p. 427-457.
Hefting, M., Clenert, J.C., Bienkowski, P., Dowrick, D., Guenat, C, Butturini, A., Topa, S., Pinay, G., Verhoeven, J.T.A.. The role of vegetation and litter in the nitrogen dynamics of riparian buffer zones (in Europe) [J]. Ecological Engineering,2005,24 (5):465-482.
Hill, W.R., Ryon, M.G., Schilling, E.M. Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers [J]. Ecology,1995,76: 1297-1309.
Holloway, G.L., Smith, W.P. A meta-analysis of forest age and structure effects on northern flying squirrel densities [J]. Journal of Wildland Management,2011,75: 668-674.
Howell, J., Benson, D., McDougall, L. Developing a strategy for rehabilitating riparian vegetation of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, Sydney, Australia [J]. Pacific Conservation Biology,1994,1:257-271.
Howell, S.E., Laska, S.B. The changing face of the environmental coalition [J]. Environment and Behavior,1992,24:134-144.
Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscape [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2012,104:66-74.
Hulbert, S. H. Functional importance vs. keystoneness:reformulating some questions in theoretical biocenology [J]. Australian Journal of Ecology,1997,22,369-382.
Junk, W.J. Flood tolerance and tree distribution in central Amazonia floodplain [A]. In:Tropical Forest Botanical Dynamics, Speciation and Diversity (Ed. ByHolm-Nielsen L. B, Nielsen I. C and Balsley. H) [C]. Orlando, Florida, USA: Academic Press,1989.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. The Experience of nature:a psychological perspective [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,1989.
Kaplan, S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment [A]. In: Preiser, W.F.E. (Ed.), Environmental Design Research [C]. Stroudsburg, Pa., Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1973.
Kaplan, S. An informal model for the prediction of preference [A]. In:Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions and Resources [C]. Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.G.Y. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Stroudsburg,1975,92-101.
Kaplan, S. Perception and landscape:conception and misconception. In:proceedings of Our National Landscape [M]. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35,1979,241-248.
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., Wendt, J.S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material [J]. Perception and Psychophysics,1972,12:354-356.
Kappelle, M., Geuze, T., Leal, M.E., Cleef, A.M. Successional age and forest structure in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest [J]. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1996,12:681-698.
Karjalainen, E. Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland [J]. Landscape Research,1996,21:159-173.
Kimmins, J.P.H. Biodiversity, beauty and the beast:are beautiful forests sustainable, are sustainable forests beautiful, and is small always ecologically desirable? [J]. The Forestry Chronicle,1999,75:955-960.
Kinouchi, T., Yagi, H., Miyamoto, M. Increase in stream temperature related to anthropogenic heat input from urban wastewater [J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2006,335 (1-2):78-88.
Lane, R.R., Mashriqui H.S., Kemp G.P. Day, J.W., Day, J.N., Hamilton, A. Potential nitrate removal from a river diversion into a Mississippi delta forested wetland [J]. Ecological Engineering,2003,20 (3):237-249.
Larcher, W. Physiological plant ecology [M]. Berling:Spring-Verlag,1975.
Leeds-Harrison, P.B., Quinton, J.N., Walker, M.J. Grassed buffer strips for the control of nitrate leaching to surface waters in headwater catchments [J]. Ecological Engineering,1999,12(3-4):299-313.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schupbach, B., Junge, X. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape:the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2010,98:99-109.
Lorenz, E.N. Deterministic nonperiodic flow [J]. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1963,20(2):130-141.
Lowrance, R. Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a coastal plain riparian forest [J]. Journal of Environmental Quality,1992,21:401-405.
Lowrance, R., Altier, L.S., Newbold, J.D., Schnabel, R.R., Groffman, P., Denver, J.M., Correll, D.L., Gilliam, J.W., Robinson, J.L., Brinsfield, R.B., Staver, K.W., Lucas, W., Todd, A.H. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds [J]. Environment Management,1997,21(5):687-712.
Lowrance, R., Leonard, R, Sheridan, J. Managing riparian ecosystems to control non-point pollution [J]. Soil and water conservation,1985,40(1):87-97.
MacArthur, R.H., MacArthur, J.W. On bird species diversity [J]. Ecology,1961,42: 594-598.
Malanson, G.P. Riparian Landscapes [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Mander, R.T., Kuusemets, V., Lohmus, K., Mauring, T. Efficiency and dimensioning of riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments [J]. Ecological Engineering,1997,8:299-324.
McGranahan, D.A. Landscape influence on recent rural migration in the U.S. [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2008,85:228-240.
McElhinny, C, Gibbons, P., Brack, C, Bauhus, J. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity:Its definition and measurement [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2005,218:1-24.
Meleason, M.A., Quinn, J.M. Influence of riparian buffer width on air temperature at Whangapoua Forest, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2004,191:365-371.
Menard, S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences [M]. Thousand Oaks:Sage,1995, p.7-106.
Miller, W., Collins, M.G., Steiner, F.R., Cook, E. An approach for greenway suitability analysis [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1998,42:91-105.
Molnarova, K., Sklenicka, P., Stiborek, J., Svobodova, K., Salek, M., Brabec, E. Visual preferences for wind turbines:Location, numbers and respondent characteristics [J]. Applied Energy,2012,92:269-278.
Murphy, M.L., Koski, K.V. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management [J]. North America Journal of Fishery Management,1989,9:427-436.
Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., Pollock, M. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity [J]. Ecological Application,1993,3(2):209-212.
Nakamura, F., Yamada, H. Effects of pasture development on the ecological functions of riparian forests in Hokkaido in northern Japan [J]. Ecological Engineering, 2005,24:539-550.
Nassauer, J.I. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes [A]. In:Gobster, P.H. (Ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings [C]. United States Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report NC-163,1993, p.55-72.
Nilsson, C. Conservation management of riparian communities [A]. In:Hansson, L. (Ed.), Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation [C]. Elevier Applied Science, London,1992, p.352-372.
Nohl, W. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54: 223-237.
Osborne, L.L., Kovacic, D.A. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality restoration and stream management [J]. Freshwater Biology,1993,29(2): 243-251.
Palone, R.S., Todd, A.H. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook:A Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers [M]. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,1998.
Pan, X.L., Deng, W. Advances in riparian buffers in agricultural catchments [J]. Journal of Agro-environment Science,2003,22(2):244-247.
Parkes, D., Newell, G., Cheal, D. Assessing the quality of native vegetation:The "habitat hectares" approach [J]. Ecological Management and Restoration,2003, 4(S1):S29-S38.
Parsons, R. Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canard or curiosity [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32: 227-244.
Peterjohn, W.T., Correll, D.L. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural water shed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest [J]. Ecology,1984,65:1466-1475.
Pfluger, Y., Rackham, A., Larned, S. The aesthetic value of river flows:An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2010,95:68-78.
Pierre, Y., Julien. River mechanics [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Poole, G.C., Berman, C.H. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation [J]. Environmental Management 2001,27 (6):787-802.
Real, E., Arce, C, Sabucedo, J. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2000,20:355-373.
Richardson, C.J. Mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention capacity in fresh water wetlands [J]. Science,1985,228:1424-1427.
Robert, C, Petersen, J.R. The RCE:A riparian, channel and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape [J]. Freshwater Biology,1992, 27(2):295-306.
Rudzitis, G. Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west [J]. Rural Development Perspectives,1999,14(2):9-13.
Schulhof, R. Public perceptions of native vegetation [J]. Restoration Management Notes,1989,7(2):69-72.
Sevenant, M., Antrop, M. Cognitive characters and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2009,8:2889-2899.
Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.). Forests and landscapes—linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics [C]. IUFRO Research Series 6, CABI Publishing in Association with IUFRO,2001.
Sheets, V.L., Manzer, C.D. Affect, cognition and urban vegetation [J]. Environmental Behavior,1991,3:285-304.
Shirley, S.M. Movement of forest birds across river and clear cut edges of varying riparian buffer strip widths [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2006,223: 190-199.
Simberlo, D., Cox, J. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors [J]. Conservation Biology,1987,1(1):63-71.
Smith, M. D., Knapp, A. K. Dominant species maintain ecosystem function with non-random species loss [J]. Ecology Letters,2003,6,509-517.
Spies, T.A., Franklin, J.F. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-Fir forests in Oregon and Washington [A]. In:Aubry, K.B., Brookes, M.H., Agee, J.K., Anthony, R.G., Franklin, J.F. (Eds.), Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-Fir Forests [C]. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon,1991, p.91-109.
Stamps, A.E. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics:a meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Planning Literature,1999,14(2):155-175.
Steel, B., List, P., Schindler, B. Conflicting values about federal forests:A comparison of national and Oregon publics [J]. Society and Natural Resources,1994,7: 137-153.
Strumse, E. Socio-economic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1996, 16:1-15.
Sullivan, T.P., Sullivan, D.S., Lindgren, P.M.F. Stand structure and small mammals in young Lodgepole Pine forest:l0year results after thinning [J]. Ecological Applications,2001,11:1151-1173.
Swanson, F.J., Johnson, S.L., Gregory, S.V., Acker, S.A. Flood disturbance in a forested mountain landscape [J]. Bioscience,1998,48:681-689.
Syversen, N. Effect and design of buffer zones in the Nordic climate [J]. Ecological Engineering,2005,24 (5):483-490.
Tahvanainen, L., Tyrvainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorelab, N., Kolehmainenc, O. Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,53:53-70.
Tanabe, S., Toda, M.J., Vinokurova, A.V. Tree shape, forest structure and diversity of drosophilid community:comparison between boreal and temperate birch forests [J]. Ecological Research,2001,16:369-385.
Thibodeau, F.R., Ostro, B.D. An economic analysis of wetland protection [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1981,12:19-30.
Tveit, M. S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2009, 90:2882-2888.
Tyrvainen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management [J]. Urban Forestry Urban Greening,2003,1:135-149.
Ulrich, R.S. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes [A]. In:Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis [C]. Washington, DC:Island Press,1993, p.73-137.
Uuttera, J., Tokola, T., Maltamo, M. Differences in the structure of primary and managed forests in East Kalimantan Indonesia [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2000,129:63-74.
Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S. New wilderness in the Netherlands:an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,78:362-372.
Van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A.J. The influence of planned-change context on the evaluation of natural landscapes [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1998,43: 1-10.
Van Sickle, J., Gregory, S.V. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from falling trees [J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,1990,20(10):1593-1601.
Vought, L.B.M., Dahl, J., Pedersen, C.L., Lacoursiere, J.O. Nutrient retention in riparian ecotones [J]. Ambio,1994,23(6):342-348.
Vouligny, E., Domon, G., Ruiz, J. An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents:Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use [J]. Land Use Policy,2012,26:890-900.
Watson, J., Freudenberger, D., Paull, D. An assessment of the focal-species approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia [J]. Conservation Biology,2001,15:1364-1373.
Weller, D.E., Correll, D.L., Jordan, T.E. Dentrification in riparian forests receiving agricultural runoff [A]. In:Mitsch, W.J. (Ed.), Global Wetlands [C]. Old World and New. Elsevier, Amsterdam,1994, p.117-131.
Welsch, D.J. Riparian Forest Buffers:function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources [M]. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North eastern Area, State and Private Forestry, Forest Resources Management,1991.
Whigham, D.F. Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment [J]. The Science of the Total Environment,1999,240: 31-40.
White, L.J., Ladson, A.R. An index of stream condition:field manual [M]. Melbourne: Department of Natural Resources and Environment,1999, p.1-33.
Wikstrom, P., Eriksson, L.O. Solving the stand management problem under biodiversity-related considerations [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2000, 126:361-376.
Williams, K.J.H., Cary, J.W. Landscape preference, ecological quality and biodiversity protection [J]. Environment and Behavior,2002,34(2):258-275.
With, K.A., King, A.W. Dispersal success on fractal landscapes:a consequence of lacunarity thresholds [J]. Landscape Ecology,1999,14:73-82.
Yao, Y., Zhu, X., Xu, Y., Yang, H., Wu, X., Li, Y., Zheng, Y. Assessing the visual quality of green landscaping in rural residential areas:the case of Changzhou, China [J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.2012,184(2):951-967
Yapp, G., Walker, J., Thackway, R. Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services [J]. Ecological Complexity,2010,7:292-301.
Zenner, E.K. Do residual trees increase structural complexity in Pacific Northwest coniferous forests? [J]. Ecological Applications,2000,10:800-810.
Zhao, J., Luo, P., Wang, R. Cai, Y. Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters [J]. Journal of Environmental. Engeering and Landscape management, DOI:10.3846/16486897.2012.695738.
Ziegler, S.S. A comparison of structural characteristics between old growth and post fire second growth hemlock-hard wood forests in Adirondack Park, New York, USA [J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography,2000,9:373-389.
McNeely, J. A.保护世界生物多样性.生物多样性译丛(一)[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1992,1-194.
Solbrig,0. T.生物多样性——有关的科学问题与合作研究建议.生物多样性译丛(一)[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1992,195-236.
白慧强,李全平.河岸带研究现状与存在问题探讨[J].科技情报开发与经济,2007,17_(22)：165-167.
保继刚,楚义芳,彭华.旅游地理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1993.
蔡晓明.生态系统生态学[M].北京：科学出版社,2000.
柴思宇.我国城市园林树种规划现状研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2011.
车克钧,傅辉恩,王金叶.祁连山水源林生态系统结构与功能的研究[J].林业科学,1998,34(5)：29-37.
陈吉泉.河岸植被特征及其在生态系统和景观中的作用[J].应用生态学报,1996,7(4)：439-448.
陈灵芝.中国的生物多样性——现状与保护对策[M].北京：科学出版社,1993,1-5.
陈玲燕.多重共线性下的线性回归方法综述[J].市场研究,2008,(4)：39-41.
陈鑫峰.京西山区森林景观评价和风景游憩林营建研究——兼论太行山区的森林游憩业建设[D].北京：北京林业大学,2000.
陈鑫峰,沈国舫.森林游憩的几个重要概念辨析[J].世界林业研究,2000,13(2)：69-73.
陈永宗.黄河粗泥沙来源及侵蚀产沙机理研究文集[M].北京：气象出版社,1989.
陈廷贵,张金屯.物种多样性与环境关系的研究I.丰富度、均匀度和物种多样性指数[J].应用与环境生物学报,20006,(5)：406-411.辞海[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,2001.
达良俊,李艳艳,章君果,王娟.关于上海城市“地标性”植物群落建设的思考 [J].城市问题,2009,169(8)：37-39.
丁九敏,刘玉石.景观生态学在河岸生态修复中的应用[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(28)：13837-13838.
董君明.浅谈植被在生态系统中的作用[J].生物学通报,1992, (6)：19.
傅伯杰,陈利顶,马克明.景观生态学原理与应用(第二版)[M],科学出版社,2011.
付健.基于社会心理承载力的香山公园游客管理研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2010.
龚建勇,史培行.乡土植物在园林绿化中的应用与分析[J].安徽农业科学,2010,38(13)：7049-7050,7089.
顾程华,陈亮明,李金花.浏阳大围山高山湿地的保护与开发[J].江西林业科技,2006,(2)：36-38.
郭二辉,孙然好,陈利顶.河岸植被缓冲带主要生态服务功能研究的现状与展望[J].生态学杂志,2011,30(8)：1830-1837.
郭光占,哈登龙,杜文芝,赵海燕.鸡公山旅游现状及其旅游价值评估[J].现代农业科技,2009,14：368-370.
郭会哲,樊巍,宋绪忠.河岸带植被结构功能及修复技术研究进展[J].河南林业科技,2005,25(4)：11-13.
韩冰,吴钦孝,刘向东,江有科,赵鸿雁.油松林枯落物层防止溅蚀的研究[J].水土保持研究,1994,(3)：14-18.
胡俊山,杨玲.高校招生人数影响因素的多元线性回归分析[J].保山学院学报,2010,(2)：33-38.
黄凯,郭怀成,刘永,郁亚娟,周丰.河岸带生态系统退化机制及其恢复研究进展[J].应用生态学报,2007,16(6)：1373-1382.
黄萌.富营养化对水生生态系统的污染生态效应[J].科技情报开发与经济,2006,16(10)：137-138.
蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式[M].北京：中国水利水电出版社,1997.
江明喜,党海山,黄汉东,陶勇,金霞.三峡库区香溪河流域河岸带种子植物区系研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2004,13(2)：179-182.
江苏省植物研究所.江苏植物志[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,1977.
李冬,王青春,邓红兵.二道河河岸带珍稀植物的分布格局[J].江西农业大学学报,2005,27(6)：885-889.
李林,曹文华,毕海普.基于SMART原则的企业安全文化评价体系研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2007,17(2)：121-128.
李素英,王计平.城市带状公园的景观结构分析[J].城市规划,2010,34(2)：74-77.
李振基,陈圣宾.群落生态学[M],北京：气象出版社,2011.
刘承江,张恒庆.森林生态服务功能价值评估方法研究[J].辽宁林业科技,2008,(6)：33-36.
刘汉洪,彭旺元.南岳衡山“旅游公害”及其防治对策[J].旅游学刊,1991,6(1)：35-38.
刘惠清,徐嘉巍.景观生态学[M].哈尔滨：东北师范大学出版社,2008.
刘艳锋,王莉.BSTEM模型的原理、功能模块及其应用研宄[J].中国水土保持,2010,10：24-27.
柳易林.洞庭湖湿地生态系统生态服务功能价值评估与生态功能区划[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2005.
鲁茂,贺昌政.几种处理多重共线性方法的比较研究[J].统计与决策,2007,241(7)：8-10.
卢圣,侯芳梅.植物造景[M].北京：气象出版社,2004.
牛建明,李博.生态系统多样性评估方法的初步探讨——草地生物多样性研究[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古大学出版社,1995,56-62.
彭国甫,李树丞,盛明科.应用层次分析法确定政府绩效评估指标权重研究[J].中国软科学,2004,(6)：136-139.
饶良懿,崔建国.河岸植被缓冲带生态水文功能研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2008,6(4)：121-128.
任现增.六盘山旅游资源的旅游价值评价[J].资源与产业,2009,11(5)：43-50.
上官铁梁,贾志力,张峰,张龙胜,宋伯为.汾河河岸植被类型及其利用与保护[J].河南科学,1999,17(6)：83-86.
石莎,马风云,刘立超,周宜君,冯金朝.沙坡头地区不同植被结构对沙地土壤水分的[J].中央民族大学学报(自然科学版),2004,13(2)：137-142.
宋力,何兴元,徐文铎,张洁.城市森林景观美景度的测定[J].生态学报,2006,25(6)：621-624.
宋永昌.植被生态学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001.
孙风云,李俊英,史萌,谷清媛,梁亚男,姚鹏.城市公园林缘景观美学质量评价[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2010,41(6)：736-739.
孙儒泳,李博,诸葛阳,尚玉昌.普通生态学[M].高等教育出版社,1992.
谭超,邱静.近40年来北江干流界滩河段河床演变及河岸稳定性分析[J].广东水利水电,2010,8：10-14.
陶冶.生态美学主旨与当代人和自然关系的审美建构[D].沈阳：沈阳师范大学,2011.
万艳春,刘月琴.粘性河岸稳定性计算模型对比[J].华南理工大学学报(自然科学版),2004,32(11)：70-74.
王晗生,刘国彬.植被结构及其防止土壤侵蚀作用分析[J].干旱区资源与环境,1999,13(2)：62-68.
王家生,孔丽娜,林木松.闵凤阳河岸带特征和功能研究综述[J].长江科学院院报,2011,(11)：28-35.
王龙,邵东国,郑江丽,吴玉婷.健康长江评价指标体系与标准研究[J].中国水利,2007,12：12-15.
王敏,吴建强,黄沈发,吴健.不同坡度缓冲带径流污染净化效果及其最佳宽度[J].生态学报,2009,28(10)：4951-4956.
王蒲吉,王占岐,孟蒲伟.农用地节约集约利用评价指标体系研究[J].资源开发与市场,2007,23(4)：303-307.
王雁,陈鑫峰.心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用[J].林业科学,1999,35(5)：110-117.
魏波,张建新,吴绍华.农用地生态功能价值的评估——以宜兴农用地系统固定C02释放02生态价值评估为例[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(19)：5847-5849.
邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2000,33-36.
吴建军,柯金虎,陈文光,边卓平.浙北平原乡镇农业生态系统结构与功能现状及其相关性研究[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(6)：705-708.
吴钦孝,刘向东,苏宁虎,赵鸿雁.山杨次生林枯枝落叶蓄积量及其水文作用[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(1)：71-76.
武小钢,蔺银鼎,闫海冰,郝兴宇.城市绿地降温增湿效应与其结构特征相关性研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2008,16(6)：1469-1473.
夏继红,林俊强,姚莉,王丹.河岸带的边缘结构特征与边缘效应[J].河海大学学报(自然科学版),2010,38(2)：215-219.
夏继红,严忠民.生态河岸带的概念及功能[J].水利水电技术,2006,7(5)：14-18.
徐化成.景观生态学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1996.
徐州市水利局.徐州市水利志[M].徐州：中国矿业大学出版社,2004.
颜兵文,肖瑞龙.河岸带的功能与管理研究[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(27)：11970-11972.
颜兵文.长株潭湘江河岸带景观生态规划研究[D].株洲：中南林学院,2005.
颜兵文,彭重华,胡希军.河岸植被缓冲带规划及重建研究——以长株潭湘江河岸带为例[J].西南林学院学报,2008,28(1)：57-60.
阎传海.苏北低山丘陵森林植被多样性研究[J].山地研究,1997,15(3)：157-161.
杨有,李晓虹.多重共线性的逐步回归检验分析[J].重庆三峡学院学报,2006,22(3)：39-41.
殷晖.基于植被结构参数对林冠截留模型的改进[D].北京：北京林业大学,2009.
俞孔坚.国际“城市美化运动”之于中国的教训(上)——渊源、内涵与蔓延[J].中国园林,2000,67(16)：27-33.
俞孔坚.生存的艺术：定位当代景观设计学[J].建筑学报,2006,(10)：39-43.
俞孔坚.风景评价的数量化方法——中国东部山地湖泊风景评价的数量化模型[M].青年风景师(文集),城市设计情报资料,1988,42-52.
俞孔坚,吉庆萍.专家与公众景观审美差异研究及对策[J].中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
俞孔坚.论景观概念及其研究发展[J].北京林业大学学报,1987,(4)：433-439.
余新晓,牛建植,关文彬,冯仲科.景观生态学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2006.
袁鼎生.生态艺术哲学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
曾立雄,黄志霖,肖文发,雷静品,潘磊.河岸植被缓冲带的功能及其设计与管理[J].林业科学,2010,46(2)：128-133.
张凤凤,李土生,卢剑波.河岸带净化水质及其生态功能与恢复研究进展[J].农业环境科学学报,2007,26(增刊)：459-464.
张建春.河岸带功能及其管理[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(6)：143-146.
张金屯.数量生态学[M].北京：科学出版社,2011.
张菊,陈振楼,刘杰.上海河流氮负荷的年际变化及其水体富营养化的原因探讨[J].环境污染与防治,2005,(1)：29-34.
章文波,符素华,刘宝元.目估法测量植被覆盖度的精度分析[J].北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2001,37(3)：402-408.
张纵,施侠,徐晓清.城市河流景观整治中的类自然化形态探析[J].浙江林学院学报,2006,23(2)：202-206.
赵春玲,李志刚,吕海军,李涛,胡天华,翟吴,王海林,李永新,王志诚,常振林,焦荣峰,石红岩,徐荷萍.中德合作宁夏贺兰山封山育林育草项目区植被覆盖度监测[J].宁夏农林科技,2000,增刊：6-14.
赵金香,王兆林,刘艳青.浅析水体富营养化[J].环境科学动态,2003,(1)：28-30.
赵警卫,蔡永立,罗萍嘉.徐州地区河岸带绿化结构及植物多样性分析[J].水土保持通报,2011,31(6)：207-212.
中国科学院中国植物志编辑委员会.中国植物志[M].北京：科学出版社,1996.
周立晨,施文,薛文杰,王天厚,葛振鸣,周慧,仲阳康.上海园林绿地植被结构与温湿度关系浅析[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(9)：1102-1105.
左俊杰,蔡永立,罗坤,郭纪光,季夏薇.上海地区河岸带结构：类型、分布及改进[J].水资源保护,2009,25(6)：24-28.
Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Cervigni, R., Moran, D. Total economic value of forests in Mexico [J]. Ambio,1995,24(5):286-296.
Andrea, G., Veronique, V., Lorenzo, B., Willy, B., Peter, A. V. Model-based assessment of shading effect by riparian vegetation on river water quality [J]. Ecological Engineering,2009,35(1):92-104.
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,69: 115-125.
Bachofen, H., Zingg, A. Effectiveness of structure improvement thinning on stand structure in subalpine Norway spruce (Piceaabies(L.)Karst.) stands [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2001,145:137-149.
Baessler, C., Klotz, S. Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on landscape structure and arable weed vegetation over the last 50 years [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2006,115:43-50.
Bakker, J.P., Berendse, F. Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities [J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,1999, 14:63-68.
Barro, S.C., Bright, A.D. Public views on ecological restoration:a snapshot from the Chicago area [J]. Restoration Management Notes,1998,16(1):59-65.
Barton, D.C. Stream water response to timber harvest:riparian buffer width effectiveness [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2011,261(6):979-988.
Berger, A.L., Puettmann, K.J. Overstorey composition and stand structure influence herbaceous plant diversity in the mixed Aspen forest of northern Minnesota [J]. The American Midland Naturalist,2000,143:111-125.
Beschta, R.L. Debris removal and its effect on sedimentation in an Oregon Coast stream [J]. Northwest Science,1979,53:71-77.
Bilby, R.E. Role of organic debris dams in regulating the export of dissolved and particulate matter from a forested watershed [J]. Ecology,1981,62(6): 1234-1243.
Bilby, R.E., Ward, J.W. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washingto. Canadian [J] Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,1991,48: 2499-2508.
Bisson, P.A., Bilby, R.E., Bryant, M.D., Dolloff, C.A., Grette, G.B., House, R.A., Murphy, M.L., Koski, K. V., Sedell, J.R. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest:past, present, and futtxe [A]. In:E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (Editors), Streamside Management:Forestry and Fishery Interactions[C]. Contrib. No.57 Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattk, WA,1987, p.143-190.
Bjerke, T., Ostdahl, T., Thrane, C., Strumse, E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation [J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2006,5:35-44.
Boothroyd, I.K.G., Quinn, J.M., Langer, E.R.L., Costley, K.J. Steward, G. Riparian buffers mitigate effects of pine plantation logging on New Zealand streams.1. Riparian vegetation structure, stream geomorphology and periphyton [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2004,194(1-3):199-213.
Borin, M., Bigon, E. Abatement of NO3-N concentration in agricultural water by arrow buffer strips [J]. Environmental Pollution,2002,117:165-168.
Breuste, J.H. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,68:439-452.
Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method:a case study for Kemaliye [J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2008,141:121-129.
Buongiorno, J., Dahir, S., Lu, H., Lin, C. Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands [J]. Forest Science,1994,40:83-103.
Caissie, D., Satish, N.G., El-Jabi, N. Predicting water temperatures using a deterministic model:application on Miramichi River catchments (New Brunswick Canada) [J]. Journal of Hydrology,2007,336(3-4):303-15.
Carlson, A. Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes:seeing and knawing [A]. In:Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.), Forests and Landscapes—Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics [C]. IUFRO Research Series. CABI, Wallingford,2001, p.31-41.
Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q., Chen, B., Zhou, J.B., Yang, Z.F., Zhou, Y. Net ecosystem services value of wetland:environmental economic account [J]. Communication in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation,2009,14:2837-2843.
Clay, G.R., Daniel, T.C. Scenic landscape assessment:the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,49:1-13.
Cooper, A.B. Nitrate depletion in the riparian zone and stream channel of a small headwater catchment [J]. Hydrobiologia,1990,202:13-26.
Correll, D.L. Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones [J]. Ecological Engineering,2005,24:433-439.
Daniels, R.B., Gilliam, J.W. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and riparian filters [J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal,1996,60(1): 246-251.
Daniel, T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54:267-281.
Darveau, M., Beauchesne. P., Belanger, L., Huot, J., LaRue, P. Riparian forest strips as habitat for breeding birds in boreal forest [J]. Journal of Wildlife Management, 1995,59:67-78.
Davies-Colley, R.J., Donnison, A.M., Speed, D.J. Towards a mechanistic understanding of pond disinfection [J]. Water Science and Technology,2000,42 (10-11):149-158.
Dawson, F.H., Kern-Hansen, U. The effect of natural and artificial shade on the macrophytes of lowland streams and the use of shade as a management technique [J]. International Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie,1979,64(4):437-455.
Dillaha, T.A., Reneau, R.B., Mostaghimi, S., Lee, D. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural non-point source pollution control [J]. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers,1989,32(4):513-519.
Dong, J., Chen, J., Brosofske, K.D., Naiman, R.J. Modelling air temperature gradients across managed small streams in western Washington [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1998,53:309-321.
Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, M.S., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,78:465-474.
Edwards, E.D., Huryn, A.D. Effect of riparian land use on contributions of terrestrial invertebrates to streams [J]. Hydrobiology,1996,337:151-159.
Ensign, S.H., Mallin, M.A. Stream water quality changes following timber harvest in a coastal plain swamp forest [J]. Water Resource,2001,35(14):338-339.
Frank, T.B, Christopher, A.P., Edward, J. H. A riparian zone in southern Illinois as a potential dispersal corridor for reptiles and amphibians [J]. Biological Conservation,1998,86(2):107-115.
Freitas, S.R., Mello, M.C.S., Cruz, C.B.M. Relationships between forest structure and vegetation indices in Atlantic Rainforest [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2005,218:353-362.
Fridley, J.D. The influence of species diversity on ecosystem productivity:how, where, and why? [J]. Oikos,2001,93:514-526.
Gobster, P.H. The urban savanna:reuniting ecological preference and function [J]. Restoration Management Notes,1994,12(1):64-71.
Gobster, P.H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management [J]. Landscape Journal,1999,18(1):54-64.
Gobster P. H., Nassauer J. I., Daniel T. C, Fry G. The shared landscape:what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? [J]. Landscape Ecology,2007,22:959-972.
Gove, J.H., Patil, G.P., Taillie, C. A mathematical programming model for maintaining structural diversity in uneven-aged forest stands with implications to other formulations [J]. Ecological Modelling,1995,79:11-19.
Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., Mekee, W.A., Cummins, K.W. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones [J]. Bioscience,1991,41:540-557.
Griffiths, G.H. Land mosaics:the ecology of landscapes and regions [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,1995.
Gurnell, A.M., Edwrds, P. J., Petts, G.E., Ward, J.V. Conceptual model for alpine proglacial river channel evolution under changing climatic conditions [J]. Catena.1999,38(2):223-242.
Hands, D.E., Brown, R.D. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites [J]. Landscape and urban planning,2002,58:57-70.
Harrison, R.L. Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design [J]. Conservation Biology,1992,6(2):293-295.
Hartig, T., Evans, G.W. Psychological foundations of nature experience [A]. In T. Garling, R.G. Golledge (Eds), Behavior and Environment:Psychological and Geographical Approaches [C]. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,1993, p. 427-457.
Hefting, M., Clenert, J.C., Bienkowski, P., Dowrick, D., Guenat, C, Butturini, A., Topa, S., Pinay, G., Verhoeven, J.T.A.. The role of vegetation and litter in the nitrogen dynamics of riparian buffer zones (in Europe) [J]. Ecological Engineering,2005,24 (5):465-482.
Hill, W.R., Ryon, M.G., Schilling, E.M. Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers [J]. Ecology,1995,76: 1297-1309.
Holloway, G.L., Smith, W.P. A meta-analysis of forest age and structure effects on northern flying squirrel densities [J]. Journal of Wildland Management,2011,75: 668-674.
Howell, J., Benson, D., McDougall, L. Developing a strategy for rehabilitating riparian vegetation of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, Sydney, Australia [J]. Pacific Conservation Biology,1994,1:257-271.
Howell, S.E., Laska, S.B. The changing face of the environmental coalition [J]. Environment and Behavior,1992,24:134-144.
Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscape [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2012,104:66-74.
Hulbert, S. H. Functional importance vs. keystoneness:reformulating some questions in theoretical biocenology [J]. Australian Journal of Ecology,1997,22,369-382.
Junk, W.J. Flood tolerance and tree distribution in central Amazonia floodplain [A]. In:Tropical Forest Botanical Dynamics, Speciation and Diversity (Ed. ByHolm-Nielsen L. B, Nielsen I. C and Balsley. H) [C]. Orlando, Florida, USA: Academic Press,1989.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. The Experience of nature:a psychological perspective [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,1989.
Kaplan, S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment [A]. In: Preiser, W.F.E. (Ed.), Environmental Design Research [C]. Stroudsburg, Pa., Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1973.
Kaplan, S. An informal model for the prediction of preference [A]. In:Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions and Resources [C]. Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.G.Y. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Stroudsburg,1975,92-101.
Kaplan, S. Perception and landscape:conception and misconception. In:proceedings of Our National Landscape [M]. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35,1979,241-248.
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., Wendt, J.S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material [J]. Perception and Psychophysics,1972,12:354-356.
Kappelle, M., Geuze, T., Leal, M.E., Cleef, A.M. Successional age and forest structure in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest [J]. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1996,12:681-698.
Karjalainen, E. Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland [J]. Landscape Research,1996,21:159-173.
Kimmins, J.P.H. Biodiversity, beauty and the beast:are beautiful forests sustainable, are sustainable forests beautiful, and is small always ecologically desirable? [J]. The Forestry Chronicle,1999,75:955-960.
Kinouchi, T., Yagi, H., Miyamoto, M. Increase in stream temperature related to anthropogenic heat input from urban wastewater [J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2006,335 (1-2):78-88.
Lane, R.R., Mashriqui H.S., Kemp G.P. Day, J.W., Day, J.N., Hamilton, A. Potential nitrate removal from a river diversion into a Mississippi delta forested wetland [J]. Ecological Engineering,2003,20 (3):237-249.
Larcher, W. Physiological plant ecology [M]. Berling:Spring-Verlag,1975.
Leeds-Harrison, P.B., Quinton, J.N., Walker, M.J. Grassed buffer strips for the control of nitrate leaching to surface waters in headwater catchments [J]. Ecological Engineering,1999,12(3-4):299-313.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schupbach, B., Junge, X. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape:the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2010,98:99-109.
Lorenz, E.N. Deterministic nonperiodic flow [J]. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1963,20(2):130-141.
Lowrance, R. Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a coastal plain riparian forest [J]. Journal of Environmental Quality,1992,21:401-405.
Lowrance, R., Altier, L.S., Newbold, J.D., Schnabel, R.R., Groffman, P., Denver, J.M., Correll, D.L., Gilliam, J.W., Robinson, J.L., Brinsfield, R.B., Staver, K.W., Lucas, W., Todd, A.H. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds [J]. Environment Management,1997,21(5):687-712.
Lowrance, R., Leonard, R, Sheridan, J. Managing riparian ecosystems to control non-point pollution [J]. Soil and water conservation,1985,40(1):87-97.
MacArthur, R.H., MacArthur, J.W. On bird species diversity [J]. Ecology,1961,42: 594-598.
Malanson, G.P. Riparian Landscapes [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Mander, R.T., Kuusemets, V., Lohmus, K., Mauring, T. Efficiency and dimensioning of riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments [J]. Ecological Engineering,1997,8:299-324.
McGranahan, D.A. Landscape influence on recent rural migration in the U.S. [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2008,85:228-240.
McElhinny, C, Gibbons, P., Brack, C, Bauhus, J. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity:Its definition and measurement [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2005,218:1-24.
Meleason, M.A., Quinn, J.M. Influence of riparian buffer width on air temperature at Whangapoua Forest, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2004,191:365-371.
Menard, S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences [M]. Thousand Oaks:Sage,1995, p.7-106.
Miller, W., Collins, M.G., Steiner, F.R., Cook, E. An approach for greenway suitability analysis [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1998,42:91-105.
Molnarova, K., Sklenicka, P., Stiborek, J., Svobodova, K., Salek, M., Brabec, E. Visual preferences for wind turbines:Location, numbers and respondent characteristics [J]. Applied Energy,2012,92:269-278.
Murphy, M.L., Koski, K.V. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management [J]. North America Journal of Fishery Management,1989,9:427-436.
Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., Pollock, M. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity [J]. Ecological Application,1993,3(2):209-212.
Nakamura, F., Yamada, H. Effects of pasture development on the ecological functions of riparian forests in Hokkaido in northern Japan [J]. Ecological Engineering, 2005,24:539-550.
Nassauer, J.I. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes [A]. In:Gobster, P.H. (Ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings [C]. United States Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report NC-163,1993, p.55-72.
Nilsson, C. Conservation management of riparian communities [A]. In:Hansson, L. (Ed.), Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation [C]. Elevier Applied Science, London,1992, p.352-372.
Nohl, W. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54: 223-237.
Osborne, L.L., Kovacic, D.A. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality restoration and stream management [J]. Freshwater Biology,1993,29(2): 243-251.
Palone, R.S., Todd, A.H. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook:A Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers [M]. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,1998.
Pan, X.L., Deng, W. Advances in riparian buffers in agricultural catchments [J]. Journal of Agro-environment Science,2003,22(2):244-247.
Parkes, D., Newell, G., Cheal, D. Assessing the quality of native vegetation:The "habitat hectares" approach [J]. Ecological Management and Restoration,2003, 4(S1):S29-S38.
Parsons, R. Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canard or curiosity [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32: 227-244.
Peterjohn, W.T., Correll, D.L. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural water shed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest [J]. Ecology,1984,65:1466-1475.
Pfluger, Y., Rackham, A., Larned, S. The aesthetic value of river flows:An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2010,95:68-78.
Pierre, Y., Julien. River mechanics [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Poole, G.C., Berman, C.H. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation [J]. Environmental Management 2001,27 (6):787-802.
Real, E., Arce, C, Sabucedo, J. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2000,20:355-373.
Richardson, C.J. Mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention capacity in fresh water wetlands [J]. Science,1985,228:1424-1427.
Robert, C, Petersen, J.R. The RCE:A riparian, channel and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape [J]. Freshwater Biology,1992, 27(2):295-306.
Rudzitis, G. Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west [J]. Rural Development Perspectives,1999,14(2):9-13.
Schulhof, R. Public perceptions of native vegetation [J]. Restoration Management Notes,1989,7(2):69-72.
Sevenant, M., Antrop, M. Cognitive characters and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2009,8:2889-2899.
Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.). Forests and landscapes—linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics [C]. IUFRO Research Series 6, CABI Publishing in Association with IUFRO,2001.
Sheets, V.L., Manzer, C.D. Affect, cognition and urban vegetation [J]. Environmental Behavior,1991,3:285-304.
Shirley, S.M. Movement of forest birds across river and clear cut edges of varying riparian buffer strip widths [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2006,223: 190-199.
Simberlo, D., Cox, J. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors [J]. Conservation Biology,1987,1(1):63-71.
Smith, M. D., Knapp, A. K. Dominant species maintain ecosystem function with non-random species loss [J]. Ecology Letters,2003,6,509-517.
Spies, T.A., Franklin, J.F. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-Fir forests in Oregon and Washington [A]. In:Aubry, K.B., Brookes, M.H., Agee, J.K., Anthony, R.G., Franklin, J.F. (Eds.), Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-Fir Forests [C]. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon,1991, p.91-109.
Stamps, A.E. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics:a meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Planning Literature,1999,14(2):155-175.
Steel, B., List, P., Schindler, B. Conflicting values about federal forests:A comparison of national and Oregon publics [J]. Society and Natural Resources,1994,7: 137-153.
Strumse, E. Socio-economic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1996, 16:1-15.
Sullivan, T.P., Sullivan, D.S., Lindgren, P.M.F. Stand structure and small mammals in young Lodgepole Pine forest:l0year results after thinning [J]. Ecological Applications,2001,11:1151-1173.
Swanson, F.J., Johnson, S.L., Gregory, S.V., Acker, S.A. Flood disturbance in a forested mountain landscape [J]. Bioscience,1998,48:681-689.
Syversen, N. Effect and design of buffer zones in the Nordic climate [J]. Ecological Engineering,2005,24 (5):483-490.
Tahvanainen, L., Tyrvainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorelab, N., Kolehmainenc, O. Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,53:53-70.
Tanabe, S., Toda, M.J., Vinokurova, A.V. Tree shape, forest structure and diversity of drosophilid community:comparison between boreal and temperate birch forests [J]. Ecological Research,2001,16:369-385.
Thibodeau, F.R., Ostro, B.D. An economic analysis of wetland protection [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1981,12:19-30.
Tveit, M. S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2009, 90:2882-2888.
Tyrvainen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management [J]. Urban Forestry Urban Greening,2003,1:135-149.
Ulrich, R.S. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes [A]. In:Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis [C]. Washington, DC:Island Press,1993, p.73-137.
Uuttera, J., Tokola, T., Maltamo, M. Differences in the structure of primary and managed forests in East Kalimantan Indonesia [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2000,129:63-74.
Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S. New wilderness in the Netherlands:an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,78:362-372.
Van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A.J. The influence of planned-change context on the evaluation of natural landscapes [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1998,43: 1-10.
Van Sickle, J., Gregory, S.V. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from falling trees [J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,1990,20(10):1593-1601.
Vought, L.B.M., Dahl, J., Pedersen, C.L., Lacoursiere, J.O. Nutrient retention in riparian ecotones [J]. Ambio,1994,23(6):342-348.
Vouligny, E., Domon, G., Ruiz, J. An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents:Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use [J]. Land Use Policy,2012,26:890-900.
Watson, J., Freudenberger, D., Paull, D. An assessment of the focal-species approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia [J]. Conservation Biology,2001,15:1364-1373.
Weller, D.E., Correll, D.L., Jordan, T.E. Dentrification in riparian forests receiving agricultural runoff [A]. In:Mitsch, W.J. (Ed.), Global Wetlands [C]. Old World and New. Elsevier, Amsterdam,1994, p.117-131.
Welsch, D.J. Riparian Forest Buffers:function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources [M]. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North eastern Area, State and Private Forestry, Forest Resources Management,1991.
Whigham, D.F. Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment [J]. The Science of the Total Environment,1999,240: 31-40.
White, L.J., Ladson, A.R. An index of stream condition:field manual [M]. Melbourne: Department of Natural Resources and Environment,1999, p.1-33.
Wikstrom, P., Eriksson, L.O. Solving the stand management problem under biodiversity-related considerations [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2000, 126:361-376.
Williams, K.J.H., Cary, J.W. Landscape preference, ecological quality and biodiversity protection [J]. Environment and Behavior,2002,34(2):258-275.
With, K.A., King, A.W. Dispersal success on fractal landscapes:a consequence of lacunarity thresholds [J]. Landscape Ecology,1999,14:73-82.
Yao, Y., Zhu, X., Xu, Y., Yang, H., Wu, X., Li, Y., Zheng, Y. Assessing the visual quality of green landscaping in rural residential areas:the case of Changzhou, China [J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.2012,184(2):951-967
Yapp, G., Walker, J., Thackway, R. Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services [J]. Ecological Complexity,2010,7:292-301.
Zenner, E.K. Do residual trees increase structural complexity in Pacific Northwest coniferous forests? [J]. Ecological Applications,2000,10:800-810.
Zhao, J., Luo, P., Wang, R. Cai, Y. Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters [J]. Journal of Environmental. Engeering and Landscape management, DOI:10.3846/16486897.2012.695738.
Ziegler, S.S. A comparison of structural characteristics between old growth and post fire second growth hemlock-hard wood forests in Adirondack Park, New York, USA [J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography,2000,9:373-389.
McNeely, J. A.保护世界生物多样性.生物多样性译丛(一)[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1992,1-194.
Solbrig,0. T.生物多样性——有关的科学问题与合作研究建议.生物多样性译丛(一)[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1992,195-236.
白慧强,李全平.河岸带研究现状与存在问题探讨[J].科技情报开发与经济,2007,17_(22)：165-167.
保继刚,楚义芳,彭华.旅游地理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1993.
蔡晓明.生态系统生态学[M].北京：科学出版社,2000.
柴思宇.我国城市园林树种规划现状研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2011.
车克钧,傅辉恩,王金叶.祁连山水源林生态系统结构与功能的研究[J].林业科学,1998,34(5)：29-37.
陈吉泉.河岸植被特征及其在生态系统和景观中的作用[J].应用生态学报,1996,7(4)：439-448.
陈灵芝.中国的生物多样性——现状与保护对策[M].北京：科学出版社,1993,1-5.
陈玲燕.多重共线性下的线性回归方法综述[J].市场研究,2008,(4)：39-41.
陈鑫峰.京西山区森林景观评价和风景游憩林营建研究——兼论太行山区的森林游憩业建设[D].北京：北京林业大学,2000.
陈鑫峰,沈国舫.森林游憩的几个重要概念辨析[J].世界林业研究,2000,13(2)：69-73.
陈永宗.黄河粗泥沙来源及侵蚀产沙机理研究文集[M].北京：气象出版社,1989.
陈廷贵,张金屯.物种多样性与环境关系的研究I.丰富度、均匀度和物种多样性指数[J].应用与环境生物学报,20006,(5)：406-411.辞海[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,2001.
达良俊,李艳艳,章君果,王娟.关于上海城市“地标性”植物群落建设的思考 [J].城市问题,2009,169(8)：37-39.
丁九敏,刘玉石.景观生态学在河岸生态修复中的应用[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(28)：13837-13838.
董君明.浅谈植被在生态系统中的作用[J].生物学通报,1992, (6)：19.
傅伯杰,陈利顶,马克明.景观生态学原理与应用(第二版)[M],科学出版社,2011.
付健.基于社会心理承载力的香山公园游客管理研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2010.
龚建勇,史培行.乡土植物在园林绿化中的应用与分析[J].安徽农业科学,2010,38(13)：7049-7050,7089.
顾程华,陈亮明,李金花.浏阳大围山高山湿地的保护与开发[J].江西林业科技,2006,(2)：36-38.
郭二辉,孙然好,陈利顶.河岸植被缓冲带主要生态服务功能研究的现状与展望[J].生态学杂志,2011,30(8)：1830-1837.
郭光占,哈登龙,杜文芝,赵海燕.鸡公山旅游现状及其旅游价值评估[J].现代农业科技,2009,14：368-370.
郭会哲,樊巍,宋绪忠.河岸带植被结构功能及修复技术研究进展[J].河南林业科技,2005,25(4)：11-13.
韩冰,吴钦孝,刘向东,江有科,赵鸿雁.油松林枯落物层防止溅蚀的研究[J].水土保持研究,1994,(3)：14-18.
胡俊山,杨玲.高校招生人数影响因素的多元线性回归分析[J].保山学院学报,2010,(2)：33-38.
黄凯,郭怀成,刘永,郁亚娟,周丰.河岸带生态系统退化机制及其恢复研究进展[J].应用生态学报,2007,16(6)：1373-1382.
黄萌.富营养化对水生生态系统的污染生态效应[J].科技情报开发与经济,2006,16(10)：137-138.
蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式[M].北京：中国水利水电出版社,1997.
江明喜,党海山,黄汉东,陶勇,金霞.三峡库区香溪河流域河岸带种子植物区系研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2004,13(2)：179-182.
江苏省植物研究所.江苏植物志[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,1977.
李冬,王青春,邓红兵.二道河河岸带珍稀植物的分布格局[J].江西农业大学学报,2005,27(6)：885-889.
李林,曹文华,毕海普.基于SMART原则的企业安全文化评价体系研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2007,17(2)：121-128.
李素英,王计平.城市带状公园的景观结构分析[J].城市规划,2010,34(2)：74-77.
李振基,陈圣宾.群落生态学[M],北京：气象出版社,2011.
刘承江,张恒庆.森林生态服务功能价值评估方法研究[J].辽宁林业科技,2008,(6)：33-36.
刘汉洪,彭旺元.南岳衡山“旅游公害”及其防治对策[J].旅游学刊,1991,6(1)：35-38.
刘惠清,徐嘉巍.景观生态学[M].哈尔滨：东北师范大学出版社,2008.
刘艳锋,王莉.BSTEM模型的原理、功能模块及其应用研宄[J].中国水土保持,2010,10：24-27.
柳易林.洞庭湖湿地生态系统生态服务功能价值评估与生态功能区划[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2005.
鲁茂,贺昌政.几种处理多重共线性方法的比较研究[J].统计与决策,2007,241(7)：8-10.
卢圣,侯芳梅.植物造景[M].北京：气象出版社,2004.
牛建明,李博.生态系统多样性评估方法的初步探讨——草地生物多样性研究[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古大学出版社,1995,56-62.
彭国甫,李树丞,盛明科.应用层次分析法确定政府绩效评估指标权重研究[J].中国软科学,2004,(6)：136-139.
饶良懿,崔建国.河岸植被缓冲带生态水文功能研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2008,6(4)：121-128.
任现增.六盘山旅游资源的旅游价值评价[J].资源与产业,2009,11(5)：43-50.
上官铁梁,贾志力,张峰,张龙胜,宋伯为.汾河河岸植被类型及其利用与保护[J].河南科学,1999,17(6)：83-86.
石莎,马风云,刘立超,周宜君,冯金朝.沙坡头地区不同植被结构对沙地土壤水分的[J].中央民族大学学报(自然科学版),2004,13(2)：137-142.
宋力,何兴元,徐文铎,张洁.城市森林景观美景度的测定[J].生态学报,2006,25(6)：621-624.
宋永昌.植被生态学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001.
孙风云,李俊英,史萌,谷清媛,梁亚男,姚鹏.城市公园林缘景观美学质量评价[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2010,41(6)：736-739.
孙儒泳,李博,诸葛阳,尚玉昌.普通生态学[M].高等教育出版社,1992.
谭超,邱静.近40年来北江干流界滩河段河床演变及河岸稳定性分析[J].广东水利水电,2010,8：10-14.
陶冶.生态美学主旨与当代人和自然关系的审美建构[D].沈阳：沈阳师范大学,2011.
万艳春,刘月琴.粘性河岸稳定性计算模型对比[J].华南理工大学学报(自然科学版),2004,32(11)：70-74.
王晗生,刘国彬.植被结构及其防止土壤侵蚀作用分析[J].干旱区资源与环境,1999,13(2)：62-68.
王家生,孔丽娜,林木松.闵凤阳河岸带特征和功能研究综述[J].长江科学院院报,2011,(11)：28-35.
王龙,邵东国,郑江丽,吴玉婷.健康长江评价指标体系与标准研究[J].中国水利,2007,12：12-15.
王敏,吴建强,黄沈发,吴健.不同坡度缓冲带径流污染净化效果及其最佳宽度[J].生态学报,2009,28(10)：4951-4956.
王蒲吉,王占岐,孟蒲伟.农用地节约集约利用评价指标体系研究[J].资源开发与市场,2007,23(4)：303-307.
王雁,陈鑫峰.心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用[J].林业科学,1999,35(5)：110-117.
魏波,张建新,吴绍华.农用地生态功能价值的评估——以宜兴农用地系统固定C02释放02生态价值评估为例[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(19)：5847-5849.
邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2000,33-36.
吴建军,柯金虎,陈文光,边卓平.浙北平原乡镇农业生态系统结构与功能现状及其相关性研究[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(6)：705-708.
吴钦孝,刘向东,苏宁虎,赵鸿雁.山杨次生林枯枝落叶蓄积量及其水文作用[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(1)：71-76.
武小钢,蔺银鼎,闫海冰,郝兴宇.城市绿地降温增湿效应与其结构特征相关性研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2008,16(6)：1469-1473.
夏继红,林俊强,姚莉,王丹.河岸带的边缘结构特征与边缘效应[J].河海大学学报(自然科学版),2010,38(2)：215-219.
夏继红,严忠民.生态河岸带的概念及功能[J].水利水电技术,2006,7(5)：14-18.
徐化成.景观生态学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1996.
徐州市水利局.徐州市水利志[M].徐州：中国矿业大学出版社,2004.
颜兵文,肖瑞龙.河岸带的功能与管理研究[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(27)：11970-11972.
颜兵文.长株潭湘江河岸带景观生态规划研究[D].株洲：中南林学院,2005.
颜兵文,彭重华,胡希军.河岸植被缓冲带规划及重建研究——以长株潭湘江河岸带为例[J].西南林学院学报,2008,28(1)：57-60.
阎传海.苏北低山丘陵森林植被多样性研究[J].山地研究,1997,15(3)：157-161.
杨有,李晓虹.多重共线性的逐步回归检验分析[J].重庆三峡学院学报,2006,22(3)：39-41.
殷晖.基于植被结构参数对林冠截留模型的改进[D].北京：北京林业大学,2009.
俞孔坚.国际“城市美化运动”之于中国的教训(上)——渊源、内涵与蔓延[J].中国园林,2000,67(16)：27-33.
俞孔坚.生存的艺术：定位当代景观设计学[J].建筑学报,2006,(10)：39-43.
俞孔坚.风景评价的数量化方法——中国东部山地湖泊风景评价的数量化模型[M].青年风景师(文集),城市设计情报资料,1988,42-52.
俞孔坚,吉庆萍.专家与公众景观审美差异研究及对策[J].中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
俞孔坚.论景观概念及其研究发展[J].北京林业大学学报,1987,(4)：433-439.
余新晓,牛建植,关文彬,冯仲科.景观生态学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2006.
袁鼎生.生态艺术哲学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
曾立雄,黄志霖,肖文发,雷静品,潘磊.河岸植被缓冲带的功能及其设计与管理[J].林业科学,2010,46(2)：128-133.
张凤凤,李土生,卢剑波.河岸带净化水质及其生态功能与恢复研究进展[J].农业环境科学学报,2007,26(增刊)：459-464.
张建春.河岸带功能及其管理[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(6)：143-146.
张金屯.数量生态学[M].北京：科学出版社,2011.
张菊,陈振楼,刘杰.上海河流氮负荷的年际变化及其水体富营养化的原因探讨[J].环境污染与防治,2005,(1)：29-34.
章文波,符素华,刘宝元.目估法测量植被覆盖度的精度分析[J].北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2001,37(3)：402-408.
张纵,施侠,徐晓清.城市河流景观整治中的类自然化形态探析[J].浙江林学院学报,2006,23(2)：202-206.
赵春玲,李志刚,吕海军,李涛,胡天华,翟吴,王海林,李永新,王志诚,常振林,焦荣峰,石红岩,徐荷萍.中德合作宁夏贺兰山封山育林育草项目区植被覆盖度监测[J].宁夏农林科技,2000,增刊：6-14.
赵金香,王兆林,刘艳青.浅析水体富营养化[J].环境科学动态,2003,(1)：28-30.
赵警卫,蔡永立,罗萍嘉.徐州地区河岸带绿化结构及植物多样性分析[J].水土保持通报,2011,31(6)：207-212.
中国科学院中国植物志编辑委员会.中国植物志[M].北京：科学出版社,1996.
周立晨,施文,薛文杰,王天厚,葛振鸣,周慧,仲阳康.上海园林绿地植被结构与温湿度关系浅析[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(9)：1102-1105.
左俊杰,蔡永立,罗坤,郭纪光,季夏薇.上海地区河岸带结构：类型、分布及改进[J].水资源保护,2009,25(6)：24-28.
© 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 |