崩岗侵蚀发生风险评估方法的对比研究——以广东省为例
详细信息    查看全文 | 推荐本文 |
  • 英文篇名:Comparative Study on Risk Assessment Methods for Collapse Gully Erosion ∶ A Case of Guangdong Province
  • 作者:孙昆 ; 程冬兵 ; 贺佳杰 ; 赵元凌
  • 英文作者:SUN Kun;CHENG Dongbing;HE Jiajie;Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute;Huazhong Agricultural University;
  • 关键词:崩岗侵蚀 ; 风险评估 ; 信息量法 ; Logistic回归分析法 ; 广东省
  • 英文关键词:collapse gully erosion;;risk assessment;;information acquisition analysis;;Logistic regression analysis;;Guangdong Province
  • 中文刊名:ZGSB
  • 英文刊名:Soil and Water Conservation in China
  • 机构:长江科学院;华中农业大学;
  • 出版日期:2018-03-05
  • 出版单位:中国水土保持
  • 年:2018
  • 期:No.432
  • 基金:水利部公益性行业科研专项经费项目(201501047);; 中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费资助项目(CKSF2016262/TB)
  • 语种:中文;
  • 页:ZGSB201803020
  • 页数:5
  • CN:03
  • ISSN:41-1144/TV
  • 分类号:57-60+75
摘要
崩岗侵蚀是我国南方红壤区的一种特殊侵蚀类型,评估和预判崩岗侵蚀格局对开展相关防控工作具有导向意义。基于崩岗侵蚀发生风险理念,采用信息量法和Logistic回归分析法分别对广东省崩岗风险格局开展了研究,并分析探讨了两种评估方法及具体指标计算的应用表现。结果表明,广东省东北部和西部崩岗发生风险值较高,西南部和中部风险值相对较低。不同评估方法绘制的风险值分布格局基本一致,但信息量法计算结果的精度高于Logistic回归分析法,是两种方法中的优选方案。
        Collapse gully erosion is a specific type of soil erosion in the red soil region of southern China. It has the guiding significance to evaluate and prejudge the pattern of collapse gully erosion for carrying out relevant prevention and control work. Based on the idea of risk assessment,the paper studied the pattern of collapse gully erosion of Guangdong Province by using the methods of information acquisition analysis and the Logistic regression analysis and analyzed the application of the two assessment methods and the calculation of specific indicators. The outcomes show that the risk value of collapse gully erosion occurrence is higher in the northeastern and western areas of Guangdong and the risk value of the southwestern and central regions is relatively lower. The risk distribution patterns plotted different evaluation methods are basically consistent. The precision of the result calculated by information acquisition analysis is higher than that of the Logistic regression analysis which is the preferred solution of the two.
引文
[1]金菊良,郦建强,周玉良,等.旱灾风险评估的初步理论框架[J].灾害学,2014(3):1-10.
    [2]ANGIMA S D,STOTT D E,O’NEILL M K,et al.Soil erosion prediction using RUSLE for central Kenyan highland conditions[J].Agriculture Ecosystems&Environment,2003,97(1-3):295-308.
    [3]戴露莹,王飞儿,俞洁.基于GIS的东苕溪典型小流域土壤侵蚀风险评估[J].农业环境科学学报,2012,31(9):1777-1784.
    [4]李晓松,吴炳方,王浩,等.区域尺度海河流域水土流失风险评估[J].遥感学报,2011,15(2):372-387.
    [5]陈嘉林.福建省典型崩岗区潜在性崩岗风险评估与预测[D].福州:福建农林大学,2015:8-16.
    [6]VRIELING A,STERK G,BEAULIEU N.Erosion risk mapping:a methodological case study in the Colombian Eastern Plains[J].Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,2002,57(3):158-163.
    [7]潘树林,冉玲.金沙江宜宾段土壤侵蚀潜在危险度[J].宜宾学院学报,2012,12(12):81-84.
    [8]王文娟,邓荣鑫,张树文.东北典型黑土区沟蚀发生风险评价研究[J].自然资源学报,2014,29(12):2058-2067.
    [9]李家存.基于RS和GIS的区域坡地重力侵蚀危险性评价研究[D].北京:中国科学院遥感应用研究所,2006:94-99.
    [10]邓欧,李亦秋,冯仲科,等.基于空间Logistic的黑龙江省林火风险模型与火险区划[J].农业工程学报,2012,28(8):200-205.
    [11]王济川,郭志刚.Logistic回归模型方法与应用[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001:98-100.

© 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