多尺度的景观空间关系及景观格局与生态效应的变化研究
|
摘要
多尺度的景观空间关系及景观时空变化研究是景观生态规划研究的核心内容,对于揭示景观演替的机制与规律,探寻人类活动与生态环境演变之间的关系具有重要意义。本文借助3S技术研究了长江流域和武汉市不同景观幅度下多尺度的景观空间关系、景观格局及生态效应变化。其中,借助GIS平台研究了长江流域宏观尺度下的景观结构特点及其空间自相关特征；在武汉市Landsat TM遥感影像的景观分类制图方法研究的基础上,分析了1987—2007年单一尺度的武汉市中观景观格局指数变化及景观结构的转移变化。分别应用点格局分析的Ripley's K函数和空隙度分析方法研究了武汉市多尺度景观格局的特征变化和景观结构隔离度特征变化；研究了景观格局与生态支持力的时空耦合关系,并基于生态系统服务价值和空间可达性分析,探讨了提高武汉市城市生态支持力的途径。主要研究结论如下：
(1)长江流域的主要景观类型为林地、耕地和草地,三者占流域总面积的90%以上,而水域、城乡建设用地和其它未利用土地等景观类型所占比例较小。各省市之间景观结构差异较大,与一定的空间格局相联系,并形成了景观结构特征不同的4个大的区域。各景观类型比重属性值相似的省市在长江流域全局空间内聚集分布,空间邻接,呈极显著的全局空间正自相关。其中耕地、林地、草地、城乡建设用地和其它未利用土地分布特征的正空间自相关极显著,水域分布特征的空间正自相关显著,但各种景观类型空间分布的重心、格局、空间自相关构成及回归机制不同。各景观类型空间分布的局部空间自相关为高高(H-H)聚集或低低(L-L)聚集,高值为低值所包围或低值为高值所包围的空间孤立点不显著。可见各种景观类型在长江流域的空间分布具有明显的聚集性和区域特征,表现出空间自相关特性。
(2)武汉市Landsat TM遥感影像的景观分类制图方法研究结果表明,知识分类法在一定程度上避免“同物异谱”所造成的分类误差,实现较高的分类精度,是高效、可行的遥感影像景观分类方法之一。在实际操作中变量及阈值的确定是遥感影像知识分类的关键步骤。
(3)单一尺度的武汉市中观景观格局指数及变化研究发现,武汉市1987—200720年间武汉市水体、耕地和草地的面积大幅度下降,分别减少11.74%、12.27%和57,75%；与此同时,林地和城乡建设用地的面积则大幅增加,分别增加146.45%和187.31%。转移矩阵结果表明,水体的减少部分多数转变为耕地,耕地和草地是林地新增部分的最主要来源,而新增城乡建设用地多由耕地转变而来。同时,伴随快速城市化进程,土地利用综合动态变化加快,土地利用程度增加。1987年—2007年20年间武汉市各景观类型斑块分布范围更加广泛并且形状变得更加不规则,景观破碎化程度加重,景观多样性更加丰富,景观总体趋向多样和均匀。
(4)从武汉市多尺度景观格局特征及变化看,耕地是武汉市的景观基质,而林地、水体、草地、城乡建设用地和其它未利用土地等以斑块或者廊道的形式镶嵌其中。基于Ripley's K函数的武汉市多尺度景观格局特征及变化研究结果表明,林地、水体、草地和城乡建设用地等景观类型在所有研究尺度下均呈现出显著的聚集空间格局,但林地、草地和城乡建设用地的空间聚集性要强于水体。景观基质耕地在小尺度下呈现出聚集的空间格局,随着尺度的增大,逐渐变为随机、均匀的空间格局。1987年至2007年,林地、城乡建设用地等景观类型的面积逐次增大,而水体、草地和耕地等景观类型的面积逐次减少。各景观类型的景观空间格局特征也发生了改变,总体表现为林地和城乡建设用地空间聚集度降低,分布的均匀程度增加；草地、水体及耕地的空间分布变得更加不均匀,聚集程度增加。
(5)基于空隙度分析的武汉市各景观类型与其它景观类型的景观结构隔离度特征及变化研究结果表明,武汉市各景观类型的景观隔离度大小依次是草地、城乡建设用地、林地、水体和耕地。耕地呈现一定的随机或均匀的空间格局,景观隔离度较小；水体呈现的空间格局特征与耕地相似,但景观隔离度更高；草地、城乡建设用地和林地呈现一定的空间聚集分布特征,景观隔离度较大；1987—-2007,各景观类型的景观隔离度发生了不同程度的变化。林地和城乡建设用地的景观隔离度不断降低；草地景观类型的景观隔离度在1987年至1996年之间变小,但在1996年至2007年之间急剧变大；水体景观类型的景观隔离度在1987和1996两个年份之间变化不大,而在1996和2007两个年份之间景观隔离度增大；景观基质耕地的空隙度指数20年变化不大,景观隔离度变化不明显。
(6)基于生态系统服务价值全局数量角度和空间可达性角度的武汉市景观格局与城市生态支持力的时空耦合关系研究都表明,以城乡建设用地迅猛增加为特征的快速城市化进程剧烈地改变了城市的景观结构,造成了城市生态支持力的快速逐次下降和城市生态基础设施条件的恶化。空间上,城市中心的生态基础设施条件逐渐恶化,而生态基础设施条件较好的区域趋向于城市周边分布。因此,通过武汉市城市森林资源景观生态规划和湿地资源生态旅游规划等,可有效地保护和发展城市生态资源,为武汉市的快速健康发展提供足够的生态支持条件。
The study of multi-scale landscape spatial relationship and landscape spatio-temporal changes which are key contents of landscape ecological planning is significant to finding out the mechanism and laws of landscape succession and searching the relationship between hunman being activities and ecological environments. Landscape multi-scale spatial relationship and changes of landscape pattern and ecological effect were studied in the scale of Yangtze River Basin and Wuhan city using 3S technology. The landscape structure and its spatial autocorrelation characteristic in Yangtze River Basin were studied using GIS technique firststly. Landscape classification mapping was researched using the method of knowledge decision tree with a case study of Landsat TM images in Wuhan city. On the basis, the changes of landscape metrics and landscape structure transfer were studied in Wuhan city from 1987 to 2007. Then the characteristics and changes of landscape pattern in Wuhan were studied using Ripley's K function, an important method of point pattern analysis. And the characterictics and changes of landscape structural segregation of different landscape types was studied using lacunarity analysis method in the process of rapid urbanization of Wuhan city. Lastly spatio-temporal coupling between landscape structure and ecological supporting capacity were studied using the theory of ecosystem services value and spatial accessibility. Accordingly means of improving ecological supporting capacity were put forward. Major conclusions of the study were as following.
(1) The results showed that forestland, grassland and cropland were the dominating landscape types which accounted for more than 90 percent of the Yangtze River Basin's total area, while the area of water, urban & rural built-up land and other unused land were extremely small. Different provinces and municipalities in Yangtze River Basin shared sharply different landscape structures characteristic which could be divided into four zones in connection with a certain landscape spatial pattern. The provinces and municipalities with similar occupancy rate concerning all kinds of land use types globally clustered and adjoined in the basin, spatially auto-correlating significantly. But distribution centroid, pattern, spatial autocorrelation structure and regression characteristic were different about different land use types. Local spatial autocorrelation for spatial distribution about all land use types in the basin resulted from H-H clustering or L-L clustering, whereas spatial outlier was negligible. As a whole, the research demonstrated that the spatial distribution of all landscape types were distinctly of attributes of spatial clustering and regionality in the basin.
(2) The results of Wuhan TM landscape classification mapping from remote sensing images showed that landscape classification method based on expert knowledge for remote sensing images can avoid the errors that created by the phenomenon of the same objects with different spectrum to some extent, and it could achieve high classification accuracy as an efficient and feasible landscape classification method for remote sensing images. Variables and their threshold value were keys to the classification method based on expert knowledge in the operation.
(3) The results of landscape metrics and theie changes study in the middle scale of Wuhan city showed that the area of water, cropland and grassland decreased greatly from 1987 to 2007, shrinking 11.74%,12.27% and 57.75% respectively in the rapid urbanization process of Wuhan city. On the contrary, forestland and urban & rural built-up increased largely, jumping 146.45% and 187.31% respectively. Transfer matrix showed that decreased water was converted to cropland mostly, and cropland and grassland were major origin of additional forestland. In the meantime, landuse use comprehensive dynamics accelerated and land use intensity climbed distinctly. Meantime, all types of patches share a more dispersed distribution and irregular shapes and the whole landscape takes on a more fragmented pattern. Meanwhile, the whole landscape becomes more diversified and even due to similarity of area of different kinds of patches and flourishing land uses.
(4) The study of landscape pattern characteristics in Wuhan using Ripley's K function demonstrated that farmland made up of landscape matrix while water, forestland, grassland, urban & rural built-up land and so forth were patches or corridors, which spatially clumped significantly in all scales under current study. Landscape aggregation of water was inferior to forestland, grassland, urban & rural built-up land. Landscape matrix, farmland, clumped spatially in fine scales but became random or uniform in coarse scales. Meantime, the area of forestland and urban & rural built-up land increased largely while water, grassland and farmland decreased greatly from 1987 to 2007. In addition, the landscape spatial characteristics of all landscape types changed a lot variously. On the whole, landscape aggregation of forestland and urban & rural built-up land decreased and became more uniform. Meanwhile water, grassland and farmland took on a more uneven and clumped landscape pattern.
(5) The results of landscape structural segregation study using lacunarity analysis method showed that landscape segregation decreased successively from grassland, urban & rural built-up land, forestland, water and farmland. Landscape matrix, farmland, distributed randomly or uniformly in the whole landscape, sharing minor landscape segregation. Water shared similar landscape spatial pattern characterictic and greater landscape segregation in connection with farmland. Landscape segregation of grassland, urban & rural built-up land and forestland was marked, significantly clumped spatially in the city landscape. Landscape segregation of urban & rural built-up land and forestland decreased gradually from 1987 to 2007. Landscape segregation of grassland decreased from 1987 to 1996 and increased greatly from 1996 to 2007. Landscape segregation of water remained the same from 1987 to 1996 and increased from 1996 to 2007. The results of lacunarity analysis for landscape matrix farmland changed little, so its landscape segregation changed little.
(6) The results of changes of ecological effect resulted from landscape pattern changes demonstrated that that ecosystem services couldn't ecologically sustain and support the rapid urbanization process of Wuhan city from the two aspects of whole amount of ecosystem service value and spatial accessibility respectively. Ecological supporting capacity declined sharply in the city, and ecological infrastructure conditions of the city degenerated distinctly in the past two decades. Spatially, ecological infrastructure conditions of the city's heart region degraded and regions shared fine ecological background conditions moved to outer suburbs centrifugally. Accordingly more necessary measures, such as landscape ecological planning of urban forest resources and ecological tourism planning of urban wetland resources, should be taken to enhance the provisioning of ecosystem services to our society and maintain the city's healthy and rapid development.
(1)长江流域的主要景观类型为林地、耕地和草地,三者占流域总面积的90%以上,而水域、城乡建设用地和其它未利用土地等景观类型所占比例较小。各省市之间景观结构差异较大,与一定的空间格局相联系,并形成了景观结构特征不同的4个大的区域。各景观类型比重属性值相似的省市在长江流域全局空间内聚集分布,空间邻接,呈极显著的全局空间正自相关。其中耕地、林地、草地、城乡建设用地和其它未利用土地分布特征的正空间自相关极显著,水域分布特征的空间正自相关显著,但各种景观类型空间分布的重心、格局、空间自相关构成及回归机制不同。各景观类型空间分布的局部空间自相关为高高(H-H)聚集或低低(L-L)聚集,高值为低值所包围或低值为高值所包围的空间孤立点不显著。可见各种景观类型在长江流域的空间分布具有明显的聚集性和区域特征,表现出空间自相关特性。
(2)武汉市Landsat TM遥感影像的景观分类制图方法研究结果表明,知识分类法在一定程度上避免“同物异谱”所造成的分类误差,实现较高的分类精度,是高效、可行的遥感影像景观分类方法之一。在实际操作中变量及阈值的确定是遥感影像知识分类的关键步骤。
(3)单一尺度的武汉市中观景观格局指数及变化研究发现,武汉市1987—200720年间武汉市水体、耕地和草地的面积大幅度下降,分别减少11.74%、12.27%和57,75%；与此同时,林地和城乡建设用地的面积则大幅增加,分别增加146.45%和187.31%。转移矩阵结果表明,水体的减少部分多数转变为耕地,耕地和草地是林地新增部分的最主要来源,而新增城乡建设用地多由耕地转变而来。同时,伴随快速城市化进程,土地利用综合动态变化加快,土地利用程度增加。1987年—2007年20年间武汉市各景观类型斑块分布范围更加广泛并且形状变得更加不规则,景观破碎化程度加重,景观多样性更加丰富,景观总体趋向多样和均匀。
(4)从武汉市多尺度景观格局特征及变化看,耕地是武汉市的景观基质,而林地、水体、草地、城乡建设用地和其它未利用土地等以斑块或者廊道的形式镶嵌其中。基于Ripley's K函数的武汉市多尺度景观格局特征及变化研究结果表明,林地、水体、草地和城乡建设用地等景观类型在所有研究尺度下均呈现出显著的聚集空间格局,但林地、草地和城乡建设用地的空间聚集性要强于水体。景观基质耕地在小尺度下呈现出聚集的空间格局,随着尺度的增大,逐渐变为随机、均匀的空间格局。1987年至2007年,林地、城乡建设用地等景观类型的面积逐次增大,而水体、草地和耕地等景观类型的面积逐次减少。各景观类型的景观空间格局特征也发生了改变,总体表现为林地和城乡建设用地空间聚集度降低,分布的均匀程度增加；草地、水体及耕地的空间分布变得更加不均匀,聚集程度增加。
(5)基于空隙度分析的武汉市各景观类型与其它景观类型的景观结构隔离度特征及变化研究结果表明,武汉市各景观类型的景观隔离度大小依次是草地、城乡建设用地、林地、水体和耕地。耕地呈现一定的随机或均匀的空间格局,景观隔离度较小；水体呈现的空间格局特征与耕地相似,但景观隔离度更高；草地、城乡建设用地和林地呈现一定的空间聚集分布特征,景观隔离度较大；1987—-2007,各景观类型的景观隔离度发生了不同程度的变化。林地和城乡建设用地的景观隔离度不断降低；草地景观类型的景观隔离度在1987年至1996年之间变小,但在1996年至2007年之间急剧变大；水体景观类型的景观隔离度在1987和1996两个年份之间变化不大,而在1996和2007两个年份之间景观隔离度增大；景观基质耕地的空隙度指数20年变化不大,景观隔离度变化不明显。
(6)基于生态系统服务价值全局数量角度和空间可达性角度的武汉市景观格局与城市生态支持力的时空耦合关系研究都表明,以城乡建设用地迅猛增加为特征的快速城市化进程剧烈地改变了城市的景观结构,造成了城市生态支持力的快速逐次下降和城市生态基础设施条件的恶化。空间上,城市中心的生态基础设施条件逐渐恶化,而生态基础设施条件较好的区域趋向于城市周边分布。因此,通过武汉市城市森林资源景观生态规划和湿地资源生态旅游规划等,可有效地保护和发展城市生态资源,为武汉市的快速健康发展提供足够的生态支持条件。
The study of multi-scale landscape spatial relationship and landscape spatio-temporal changes which are key contents of landscape ecological planning is significant to finding out the mechanism and laws of landscape succession and searching the relationship between hunman being activities and ecological environments. Landscape multi-scale spatial relationship and changes of landscape pattern and ecological effect were studied in the scale of Yangtze River Basin and Wuhan city using 3S technology. The landscape structure and its spatial autocorrelation characteristic in Yangtze River Basin were studied using GIS technique firststly. Landscape classification mapping was researched using the method of knowledge decision tree with a case study of Landsat TM images in Wuhan city. On the basis, the changes of landscape metrics and landscape structure transfer were studied in Wuhan city from 1987 to 2007. Then the characteristics and changes of landscape pattern in Wuhan were studied using Ripley's K function, an important method of point pattern analysis. And the characterictics and changes of landscape structural segregation of different landscape types was studied using lacunarity analysis method in the process of rapid urbanization of Wuhan city. Lastly spatio-temporal coupling between landscape structure and ecological supporting capacity were studied using the theory of ecosystem services value and spatial accessibility. Accordingly means of improving ecological supporting capacity were put forward. Major conclusions of the study were as following.
(1) The results showed that forestland, grassland and cropland were the dominating landscape types which accounted for more than 90 percent of the Yangtze River Basin's total area, while the area of water, urban & rural built-up land and other unused land were extremely small. Different provinces and municipalities in Yangtze River Basin shared sharply different landscape structures characteristic which could be divided into four zones in connection with a certain landscape spatial pattern. The provinces and municipalities with similar occupancy rate concerning all kinds of land use types globally clustered and adjoined in the basin, spatially auto-correlating significantly. But distribution centroid, pattern, spatial autocorrelation structure and regression characteristic were different about different land use types. Local spatial autocorrelation for spatial distribution about all land use types in the basin resulted from H-H clustering or L-L clustering, whereas spatial outlier was negligible. As a whole, the research demonstrated that the spatial distribution of all landscape types were distinctly of attributes of spatial clustering and regionality in the basin.
(2) The results of Wuhan TM landscape classification mapping from remote sensing images showed that landscape classification method based on expert knowledge for remote sensing images can avoid the errors that created by the phenomenon of the same objects with different spectrum to some extent, and it could achieve high classification accuracy as an efficient and feasible landscape classification method for remote sensing images. Variables and their threshold value were keys to the classification method based on expert knowledge in the operation.
(3) The results of landscape metrics and theie changes study in the middle scale of Wuhan city showed that the area of water, cropland and grassland decreased greatly from 1987 to 2007, shrinking 11.74%,12.27% and 57.75% respectively in the rapid urbanization process of Wuhan city. On the contrary, forestland and urban & rural built-up increased largely, jumping 146.45% and 187.31% respectively. Transfer matrix showed that decreased water was converted to cropland mostly, and cropland and grassland were major origin of additional forestland. In the meantime, landuse use comprehensive dynamics accelerated and land use intensity climbed distinctly. Meantime, all types of patches share a more dispersed distribution and irregular shapes and the whole landscape takes on a more fragmented pattern. Meanwhile, the whole landscape becomes more diversified and even due to similarity of area of different kinds of patches and flourishing land uses.
(4) The study of landscape pattern characteristics in Wuhan using Ripley's K function demonstrated that farmland made up of landscape matrix while water, forestland, grassland, urban & rural built-up land and so forth were patches or corridors, which spatially clumped significantly in all scales under current study. Landscape aggregation of water was inferior to forestland, grassland, urban & rural built-up land. Landscape matrix, farmland, clumped spatially in fine scales but became random or uniform in coarse scales. Meantime, the area of forestland and urban & rural built-up land increased largely while water, grassland and farmland decreased greatly from 1987 to 2007. In addition, the landscape spatial characteristics of all landscape types changed a lot variously. On the whole, landscape aggregation of forestland and urban & rural built-up land decreased and became more uniform. Meanwhile water, grassland and farmland took on a more uneven and clumped landscape pattern.
(5) The results of landscape structural segregation study using lacunarity analysis method showed that landscape segregation decreased successively from grassland, urban & rural built-up land, forestland, water and farmland. Landscape matrix, farmland, distributed randomly or uniformly in the whole landscape, sharing minor landscape segregation. Water shared similar landscape spatial pattern characterictic and greater landscape segregation in connection with farmland. Landscape segregation of grassland, urban & rural built-up land and forestland was marked, significantly clumped spatially in the city landscape. Landscape segregation of urban & rural built-up land and forestland decreased gradually from 1987 to 2007. Landscape segregation of grassland decreased from 1987 to 1996 and increased greatly from 1996 to 2007. Landscape segregation of water remained the same from 1987 to 1996 and increased from 1996 to 2007. The results of lacunarity analysis for landscape matrix farmland changed little, so its landscape segregation changed little.
(6) The results of changes of ecological effect resulted from landscape pattern changes demonstrated that that ecosystem services couldn't ecologically sustain and support the rapid urbanization process of Wuhan city from the two aspects of whole amount of ecosystem service value and spatial accessibility respectively. Ecological supporting capacity declined sharply in the city, and ecological infrastructure conditions of the city degenerated distinctly in the past two decades. Spatially, ecological infrastructure conditions of the city's heart region degraded and regions shared fine ecological background conditions moved to outer suburbs centrifugally. Accordingly more necessary measures, such as landscape ecological planning of urban forest resources and ecological tourism planning of urban wetland resources, should be taken to enhance the provisioning of ecosystem services to our society and maintain the city's healthy and rapid development.
引文
1.布仁仓,胡远满,常禹,等.景观指数之间的相关分析.生态学报,2005,25(10)：2764-2775
2.蔡博峰,于嵘.景观生态学中的尺度分析方法.生态学报,2008,28(5)：2279-2287
3.蔡运龙.土地利用/土地覆被变化研究：寻求新的综合途径.地理研究,2001,20(6)：645-652
4.曹杨,尚士友,杨景荣,吴利斌,刘海亮,栾奎峰.乌梁素海湿地时空动态演化.地理科学进展,2010,29(3)：307-311
5.曹宇,欧阳华,肖笃宁,等.基于APACK的额济纳大然绿洲景观空间格局分析.自然资源学报,2004,19(6)：776-785
6.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,1999a,54(3)：255-262
7.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,1999b,19(3)：298-303
8.曾辉,江子瀛,喻红,许国雄.深圳市龙华地区快速城市化过程中的景观结构研究Ⅲ农业用地结构及异质性分析.北京大学学报(自然科学版),2000a,36(2)：221-230
9.曾辉,江子瀛.深圳市龙华地区快速城市化过程中的景观结构研究——城市建设用地结构及异质性特征分析.应用生态学报,2000b,11(4)：567-572
10.曾辉,姜传明.深圳市龙华地区快速城市化过程中的景观结构研究林地的结构和异质性特征分析.生态学报,2000c,20(3)：378-383
11.曾辉,江子瀛,孔宁宁,高凌云.快速城市化景观格局的空间自相关特征分析以深圳市龙华地区为例.北京大学学报(自然科学版),2000d,36(6)：824-831
12.常学礼,邬建国.科尔沁沙地景观格局的特征分析.生态学报,1998,18(3)：225-232
13.陈列,赵秀海,张赞.长白山北坡椴树红松林空间分布及其空间关联.北京林业大学学报,2009,31(3)：6-10
14.陈爽,詹志勇.南京城市森林结构特征与管理对策.林业科学,2004,40(6)：158-164
15.陈百名,刘新卫,杨红.LUCC研究的最新进展评述.地理科学进展,2003,22(1)：22-29.
16.陈利顶,傅伯杰,赵文武.“源”“汇”景观理论及其生态学意义.生态学报,2006,26(5)：1444—1449
17.陈利顶,傅伯杰.景观连接度的生态学意义及其应用.生态学杂志,1996,15(4)：37-42
18.陈利顶,刘洋,吕一河,等.景观生态学中的格局分析：现状、困境与未来.生态学报,2008,28(11)：5521-5530
19.陈其春,吕成文,李壁成,等.县级尺度土地利用结构特征定量分析.农业工程学报,2009,25(1)：223-231
20.陈文波,肖笃宁,李秀珍.景观空间分析的特征和主要内容.生态学报,2002,22(7)：1135-1142
21.陈志强,陈健飞.福建土地利用/覆被人为影响指数及其变化的地统计学分析.资源科学,2008,30(11)：1700-1705
22.戴彬.张家界森林公园生态旅游环境容量分析.生态经济,2006(10)：300-302
23.党安荣,王晓栋,陈晓峰,等.ERDAS IMAGINE遥感图像处理方法.北京：清华大学出版社,2000
24.邓劲松,李君,余亮,王珂.快速城市化过程中杭州市土地利用景观格局动态.应用生态学报,2008,19(9)：2003-2008
25.段峥,宋现锋,石敏俊.密云县土地利用景观格局时空变化及驱动力分析.水土保持研究,2009,16(5)：55-59
26.冯育青,王邵军,阮宏华,等.苏州太湖湖滨湿地生态恢复模式与对策.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,33(5)：126-130
27.傅伯杰,陈利顶,马克明,王仰麟.景观生态学原理及应用.北京：科学出版社,2001
28.傅伯杰.土地评价的理论与实践.北京：中国科学技术出版社,1991
29..甘芳,周宇晶,危起伟,樊恩源,杜浩.水生野生动物自然保护区河流生态 系统服务功能价值评价——以长江湖北宜昌中华鲟自然保护区为例.自然资源学报,2010,25(4)：574-584
30.高杰,王志强,邵琦,等.Ripley's L指数与最近邻空间热点分析在流行病学标点地图分析中的应用.山东大学学报医学版,2009,47(3)：89-97
31.高凯.湿地景观设计研究.济南：山东建筑大学,2007
32.葛方龙,李伟峰,陈求稳.景观格局演变及其生态效应研究进展.生态环境2008,17(6)：2511-2519
33.郭泺,杜世宏,薛达元,江学顶.快速城市化进程中广州市景观格局时空分异特征的研究.北京大学学报(自然科学版),2009,45(1)：129-136
34.郭泺,夏北成,刘蔚秋,江学顶.城市化进程中广州市景观格局的时空变化与梯度分异.应用生态学报,2006,17(9)：1671-1676
35.郭福涛,胡海清,马志海.应用空间点模式方法研究大兴安岭雷击火空间分布格局.生态学报,2009,29(12)：6742-6747
36.郭建宏,钱莲文,彭道黎,等.中国区域可持续发展综合优势能力空间关联分析.长江流域资源与环境,2007,16(2)：157-162
37.郭丽英,王道龙,邱建军.环渤海区域土地利用景观格局变化分析.资源科学,2009,31(12)：2144-2149
38.郭泺,薛达元,杜世宏.景观生态空间格局——规划与评价.北京：中国环境科学出版社,2009
39.韩海辉,杨太保,王艺霖.近30年青海贵南县土地利用与景观格局变化.地理科学进展,2009,28(2)：207-215
40.韩美,张晓慧.黄河三角洲湿地主导生态服务功能价值估算.中国人口资源与环境,2009,19(6)：37-43
41.胡健波,徐文铎,陈玮,等.沈阳城市森林常见树种的物候特征.生态学杂志,2006,25(12)：1455-1459
42.胡艳琳,戚仁海,由文辉,等.城市森林生态系统生态服务功能的评价.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,29(3)：111-114
43.胡志斌,何兴元,陈玮.沈阳市城市森林结构与效益分析.应用生态学报,2003,14(12)：2018-2022
44.滑永春,彭道黎.延庆县土地利用景观格局的变化.东北林业大学学报,2010,38(2)：50-52
45.黄金良,林杰,张明锋,涂振顺.基于梯度分析的福建典型沿海港湾区域景观格局研究.资源科学,2008,30(11)：1760-1767
46.霍霄妮,李红,孙丹峰,等.北京耕作土壤重金属含量的空间自相关分析.环境科学学报,2009,29(6)：1339-1344
47.姜广辉,张凤荣,谭雪晶,等.北京市平谷区农村居民点用地生态服务功能分析.农业工程学报,2009,25(5)：210-216
48.姜欢欢,李继红,范文义,等.三峡库区秭归县景观格局变化及模拟预测.应用生态学报,2009,20(2)：474-479
49.李波,宋晓媛,谢花林,等.北京市平谷区生态系统服务价值动态.应用生态学报,2008,19(10)：2251-2258
50.李彤,吴骅.采用决策树分类技术对北京市土地覆盖现状进行研究.遥感技术与应用,2004,19(6)：485-487
51.李锋,刘旭升,王如松.城市森林研究进展及发展战略.生态学杂志,2003,22(4)：55-59
52.李海梅,何兴元,陈玮.中国城市森林研究现状及发展趋势.生态学杂志,2004,23(2)：55-59
53.李华.武汉市城市森林景观格局与动态研究.武汉：华中农业大学,2009
54.李会琴,侯林春,肖拥军,等.基于RS、GIS的黄土高原环境脆弱区生态旅游适宜度评价——以山西省中阳县为例.测绘科学,2009,34(6)：300-302
55.李团胜,石玉琼.景观生态学.北京：化学工业出版社,2009：2-2
56.李卫锋,王仰麟,彭建,李贵才.深圳市景观格局演变及其驱动因素分析.应用生态学报,2004,15(8)：1403-1410
57.李卫海,李阳兵,周焱,等.1991年～2006年贵阳市土地利用变化及其驱动因素分析.资源科学,2008,30(12)：1890-1896
58.李秀珍,布仁仓,常禹,等.景观格局指标对不同景观格局的反应.生态学报,2004,24(1)：121-134
59.梁二,王小彬,蔡典雄,等.河南省土壤有机碳分布空间自相关分析.应用生 态学报,2007,18(6)：1305-1310
60.廖孟仪.利用空隙度分析做为景观生态空间尺度分析方法初探.资源与环境学术研讨会,2007,花莲
61.林媚珍,马秀芳,杨木壮,等.广东省1987年至2004年森林生态系统服务功能价值动态评估.资源科学,2009,31(6)：980-984
62.刘江,崔胜辉,邱全毅,张国钦,黄云凤.滨海半城市化地区景观格局演变——以厦门市集美区为例.应用生态学报,2010,21(4)：856-862
63.刘俊,陆玉麒.经济快速发展地区土地利用结构的时空演变——以苏锡常地区为例.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(4)：307-313
64.刘明,王克林.洞庭湖流域中上游地区景观格局变化及其驱动力.应用生态学报,2008,19(6)：1317-1324
65.刘滨谊,温全平,刘颂.城市森林规划的现状与发展.中国城市林业,2008(01)：16-21
66.刘常富,李海梅,何兴元,等.城市森林概念探析.生态学杂志,2003,22(5)：146-149
67.刘传胜,张万昌,雍斌,陈坰烽.和田绿洲景观异质性及其特征尺度的遥感研究.遥感应用,2008(3)：39-44
68.刘纪远.中国资源环境遥感宏观调查与动态研究.北京：科学技术出版社,1996：158-188
69.刘贤赵,王巍.烟台沿海地区土地利用景观格局演变研究.农业工程学报,2007,23(10)：79-86
70.卢志军,王巍,张文辉,李红,曹庆,党高弟,何东,Scott Franklin.巴山木竹发笋和大熊猫取食的时空格局及相关性分析.生物多样性,2009,17(1)：1-9
71.鲁为华,朱进忠,王东江,靳瑰丽,余博.天山北坡两种退化梯度下伊犁绢蒿种群空间分布的点格局分析.草业学报,2009,18(5)：142-149
72.吕一河,陈利顶,傅伯杰.景观格局与生态过程的耦合途径分析.地理科学进展,2007,26(3)：1-10
73.孟斌,张景秋,王劲峰,张文忠,郝卫秋.空间分析方法在房地产市场研究中的应用——以北京市为例.地理研究,2005,24(6)：954-964
74.欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济评价.应用生态学报,1999,10(5)：635-640
75.欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究.生态学报,1999,19(5)：607-613
76.彭军超,钱乐祥,角媛梅,李明杰.近16 a增城市土地景观格局变化.东北林业大学学报,2008,36(10)：30-32
77.邱炳文,王钦敏,陈崇成,等.福建省土地利用多尺度空间自相关分析.自然资源学报,2007,22(2)：311-320
78.申卫军,邬建国,任海,林永标,李明辉.空间幅度变化对景观格局分析的影响.生态学报,2003,23(11)：2219-2231
79.申卫军,邬建国,林永标,.,任海,李勤奋.空间粒度变化对景观格局分析的影响.生态学报,2003,23(12)：2506-2519
80.宋国宝,李政海,高吉喜,等.西双版纳地区土地利用的空间分析.应用生态学报,2006,17(6)：1009-1013
81.宋广莹.武汉市城市湖泊湿地植物多样性研究.武汉：华中农业大学,2008
82.唐华俊,吴文斌,杨鹏,等.土地利用／土地覆被变化(LUCC)模型研究进展.地理学报,2009,64(4)：456-468
83.田光进,张增祥,张国平,等.基于遥感与GIS的海口市景观格局动态演化.生态学报,2002,22(7)：1028-1034
84.王立龙,陆林.湿地生态旅游研究进展.应用生态学报,2009,20(6)：1517-1524
85.王健,田光进,全泉.广州市城市化过程的景观动态格局及尺度效应.生态科学,28(1)：78-84
86.王磊,孙启武,郝朝运,等.皖南山区南方红豆杉种群不同龄级立木的点格局分析.应用生态学报,2010,21(2)：272-278
87.王力,牛铮,尹君,等.基于遥感技术的小城镇土地利用变化分析——以黄骅镇为例.资源科学,2006,28(5)：68-75
88.王原,吴泽民,张浩,等.基于RS和GIS的马鞍山市分区城市森林景观格局综合评价.北京林业大学学报,2008,30(4)：47-52
89.王红娟,姜加虎,黄群.基于知识的洞庭湖湿地遥感分类方法.长江流域资源 与环境,2008,17(3)：370-373
90.王思远,刘纪远,张增祥,等.中国土地利用时空特征分析.地理学报,2001,56(6)：631-639
91.王玉洁,李俊祥,吴健平,宋永昌.上海浦东新区城市化过程景观格局变化分析.应用生态学报,2006,17(1)：36-40
92.魏静,郑小刚,葛京凤.石家庄西部太行山区景观格局时空变化.生态学报,2007,27(5)：1993-2001
93.吴楚材,吴章文,郑群明,等.生态旅游定义辨析.中南林业科技大学学报,2009,29(5)： 1-6
94.邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级.北京：高等教育出版社,2000
95.邬建国.景观生态学：格局、过程、尺度与等级(第二版).北京：高等教育出版社,2007
96.邬建国.景观生态学——概念与理论.生态学杂志,2000,19(1)：42-52
97.邬建国.景观生态学中的十大研究论题.生态学报,2004,24(9)：2074-2076
98.吴昌广,周志翔,王鹏程,肖文发,滕明君,彭丽.基于最小费用模型的景观连接度评价.应用生态学报,2009,20(8)：2042-2048
99.吴大千,刘建,贺同利,等.基于土地利用变化的黄河三角洲生态服务价值损益分析.农业工程学报,2009,25(8)：256—261
100.吴琼.武汉市城市森林结构规划研究.武汉：华中农业大学,2009
101.伍星,沈珍瑶,刘瑞民,等.土地利用变化对长江上游生态系统服务价值的影响.农业工程学报,2009,25(8)：236-241
102.夏兵,余新晓,宁金魁,王小平,秦永胜,陈峻崎.近20年北京地区景观格局演变研究.北京林业大学学报,2008,30(Supp.2):60-66
103.肖笃宁,李秀珍.当代景观生态学的进展和展望.地理科学,1997,17(4)：356-364
104.肖笃宁,李秀珍,高峻,等.景观生态学.北京：科学出版社,2005
105.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估.自然资源学报,2003,18(2)：189-196
106.谢高地,肖玉,甄霖,等.我国粮食生产的生态服务价值研究.中国生态农 业学报,2005,13(3)：10-13
107.谢花林,刘黎明,李波,等.土地利用变化的多尺度空间自相关分析——以内蒙古翁牛特旗为例.地理学报,2006,61(4)：389-400
108.谢志霄,肖笃宁.城郊景观动态模型研究.应用生态学报,1994,7(1)：77-81
109.熊黑钢,张雅.新疆石河子市土地利用数量变化研究.水土保持研究,2007,14(6)：414-423
110.徐丽华,岳文泽,曹宇.上海市城市土地利用景观的空间尺度效应.应用生态学报,2007,18(12)：2827-2834
111.徐丽华,岳文泽.上海市人口分布格局动态变化的空间统计研究.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(3)：222-228
112.徐煜辉,卢峰,孙国春.基于景观生态战略的重庆市喀斯特峡谷型风景名胜区规划问题思考.中国园林,2006(12)：37-41
113.杨璐,胡振琪,李新举,等.邹城市矿粮复合区土地利用变化及生态系统服务价值分析.农业工程学报,2007,23(12)：70-75
114.杨山,陈升.大城市城乡耦合地域空间演变及其景观格局——以无锡市为例.生态学报,2009,29(12)：6482-6489
115.杨爽,冯晓明,陈利顶.土地利用变化的时空分异特征及驱动机制——以北京市海淀区、延庆县为例.生态学报,2009,29(8)：4501-4511
116.杨存建,徐美.遥感信息机理的水体提取方法的探讨.地理研究,1998,17(增刊)：86-89
117.杨存建,周成虎.TM影像的居民地信息提取方法研究.遥感学报,2000,4(2)：146-150
118.杨存建,周成虎.基于知识的遥感图像分类方法的探讨.地理学与国土研究,2001,17(1)：72-77
119.杨洪晓,张金屯,吴波,李晓松,张友炎.毛乌素沙地油蒿种群点格局分析.植物生态学报,2006,30(4)：563-570
120.杨英宝,江南,苏伟忠,郑国强.RS与GIS支持下的南京市景观格局动态变化研究.长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(1)：34-39
121.杨英宝,江南,苏伟忠.南京城市景观空间格局的变化分析.南京林业大学 学报(自然科学版),2004,28(6)：39-42
122.杨振山,蔡建明,高晓路.利用探索式空间数据解析北京城市空间经济发展模式.地理学报,2009,64(8)：944-955
123.杨彦锋,徐红罡.对我国生态旅游标准的理论探讨.旅游学刊,2007,22(4)：73-78
124.于开芹,冯永军,郑九华,等.城乡交错带土地利用变化及其生态效应.农业工程学报,2009,25(3)：213-218
125.于明洋,崔健.土地利用遥感信息的自动分类研究——以济南市南部山区为例.山东建筑大学学报,2009,24(6)：506-509
126.俞孔坚,乔青,李迪华,等.基于景观安全格局分析的生态用地研究——以北京市东三乡为例.应用生态学报,2009,20(8)：1932-1939
127.岳文泽,徐建华,谈文琦,赵晶,苏方林.城市景观多样性的空间尺度分析——以上海市外环线以内区域为例.生态学报,2005,25(1)：122-128
128.臧淑英,计爽,李雁,等.资源型城市土地利用/土地覆被变化过程的图谱研究.北京林业大学学报,2007,29(Supp.2)：232-237
129.张浩,马蔚纯,HO Hon Hing.基于LUCC的城市生态安全研究进展.生态学报,2007,27(5)：2109-2117
130.张健,郝占庆,宋波,等.长白山阔叶红松林中红松与紫椴的空间分布格局及其关联性.应用生态学报,2007,18(8)：1681-1687
131.张娜.生态学中的尺度问题：内涵与分析方法.生态学报,2006,26(7)：2340-2353
132.张颖,王群,王万茂.中国产业结构与用地结构相互关系的实证研究.中国土地科学,2007,21(2)：4-11
133.张会儒,蔡小虎.景观格局及动态研究进展.西南林学院学报,2008,28(1)：23-28
134.张金屯.植物种群空间分布的点格局分析.植物生态学报,1998,22(4)：344-349
135.张维生.黑龙江省森林空间自相关分析.东北林业大学学报,2008,36(10)：16-18
136.张笑楠,王克林,张明阳,张伟,凡非得.人类活动影响下喀斯特区域景观 格局梯度分析.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(12):1188-1192
137.赵清,郑国强,黄巧华.南京城市森林景观格局特征与空间结构优化.地理学报,2007,62(8)：870-878
138.赵锐锋,陈亚宁,李卫红,等.塔里木河干流区土地覆被变化与景观格局分析.地理学报,2009,64(1)：96-109
139.赵玉涛,余新晓,关文斌.景观异质性研究评述.应用生态学报,2002,13(4)：495-500
140.郑建蕊,蒋卫国,周廷刚,侯鹏,李雪.洞庭湖区湿地景观指数选取与格局分析.长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(3)：305-310
141.郑忠明,李华,周志翔,徐永荣,滕明君.城市化背景下近30年武汉市湿地的景观变化.生态学杂志,2009,28(8)：1619-1623
1,42.周龙虎,骆剑承,杨晓梅,等.遥感影像地学理解与分析.北京：科学出版社,2001：74-78
143.周志翔.景观生态学基础.北京：中国农业出版社,2007
144.庄优波,杨锐.黄山风景区分区规划研究.中国园林,2006(12)：32-36
145. Alexander Buyantuyev, Wu Jianguo, Corinna Gries. Multiscale analysis of the urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of USA:Time, space and thematic resolution. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 94, Issues 3-4,15 March 2010, Pages 206-217
146. BESAG J E. Comments on Ripley's paper. Journal of Royal Statistic Socciety(Series B),1977,39:193-195
147. Beyer, H. L.2004. Hawth's Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. Available at http://www.spatialecology.com/htools.
148. Cain D H, Ritters K H, Orvis K. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics.Landscape Ecology,1997,12:199-212
149. C.Y. Jim, Wendy Y. Chen. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities,2009,26(4):187-194
150. Ceballos Lascurain H. The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal,1987,1:13-14
151. Chia-Tsung Yeh, Shu-Li Huang. Investigating spatiotemporal patterns of landscape diversity in response to urbanization. Landscape and Urban Planning Volume 93, Issues 3-4,15 December 2009, Pages 151-162
152. Costanza R, d'Arge R, Groot R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature,1997,387:253-260
153. Crist P J, Kohley T W, Oakleaf J. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool. Landscape Ecology,2000,15(1):47-62
154. Cullinan V I, Thomas J M. A comparison of quantitative methods for examining landscape pattern and scale.Landscape Ecology,1992,7(3):211-228
155. Dale MRT, Fortin M J. Spatial Autocorrelation and Statistical Tests:Some Solutions. Journal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statistics,2009,14(2): 188-206
156. De Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R. M. J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics,2002,41(3):393-408.
157. Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araujo MB, etc. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data:a review. ECOGRAPHY,2007,30(5):609-628
158. Farina A. Principles and method in landscape ecology. London:Chapman and Hall, 1998
159. Farina A. Principles and methods in landscape ecology. New York:Chapman&Hall, 1998:115-126
160. Felix H, Angela L, Eckhard M, et al. Landscape metrics for assessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation. Environmental Management,2001,27(1):91-107
161. Font X, Sanabria R, Skinner E. SustainableTourism and Ecotourism Certification: Raising Standards and Benefits. Journal of Ecotourism,2003,2(3):213-218
162. Forman R T T. Landscape mosaics:the ecology of landscape and regions. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995
163. Forman R T T. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape ecology,1995,10:133-142
164. Forman RTT, Godorn M. Landscape ecology. New York:John Wiley &Sons,1986
165. Francisco J. Escobedo, David J. Nowak. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest.Landscape and Urban Planning,2009,90(3-4):102-110
166. Francisco M, Regol F C, Paulo G. Temporal (1958-1995) pattern of ckmnge in a cultural landscape of Northwestern Portugal:Implications for fire occurrence. Landscape Ecology,2001,16:557-567
167. Kyushik Oh, Seunghyun Jeong. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning,2007,82(1-2):25-32
168. Lausch A, tterzog F. Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change:isssues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecological Indicators,2002,2:3-15.
169. Li H, Wu J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology,2004,19: 389-399
170. Li H B, Reynolds J F. A simulation experiment to quality spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps.Ecology,1994,75(8):2446-2455
171. Liu Miao, Hu Yuanman, Chang Yu, etc. Land Use and Land Cover Change Analysis and Prediction in the Upper Reaches of the Minjiang River, China. Environmental Management,2009,43:899-907
172. LIU zhong-gang, LI Man-chun, SUN Yan, et al. Study on spatial autocorrelation of urban land price distribution in Changzhou city of Jiangsu province. Chinese Geographical Science,2006,16(2):160-164
173. M. R. T. Dale. Lacunarity analysis of spatial pattern:A comparison. Landscape Ecology,2000(15):467-478
174. McGarigal, K., S. A. Cushman, M. C. Neel, and E. Ene.2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
175. Mcintyre N E, Wiens J A. A novel use of the lacunarity index to discern landscape function. Landscape ecology,2000,15:313-321
176. O'Weill R V, De Angelis D L, Waide J B, et al. A hierarchical concept of ecosystem. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1986.
177. Pengyu Zhu, Yaoqi Zhang. Demand for urban forests in United States cities.Landscape and Urban Planning,2008,84(3-4):293-300
178. Pickett S T A, Cadenasso M L. Landscape ecology:Spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science,1995,269:331-334
179. Pinliang Dong. Lacunarity analysis of raster datasets and 1D,2D, and 3D point patterns. Computers & Geosciences 2009,35:2100-2110
180. Pinliang Dong. Lacunarity for spatial heterogeneity measurement in GIS. Geographic Information Sciences,2000,6(1):20-26
181. Richard L. O'Driscoll. Description of spatial pattern in seabird distributions along line transects using neighbour K statistics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser,1998,165:81-94
182. Risser P G, Karr J R, Forman R T T. Landscape ecology:directions and approaches, 1984
183. Roy E. Plotnick, Robert H. Gardner, Robert V. O'Neill. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology,1993,8(3):201-211
184. Roy E. Plotnick, Robert H. Gardner, William W. Hargrove, Karen Prestegaard, Martin Perlmutter. Lacunarity analysis:A general technique for the analysis of spatial patterns. PHYSICAL REVIEW E,1996,53(5):5461-5468
185. Seto K C, Fragkias M. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urban land-use change in four cities of China with time landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology, 2005,20:871-888
186. Tischendoff L. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology,2001,16:235-254
187. Turner M G, O'Neill R V, Gardner R H, et al. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology,1989,3:153-162
188. Turner M G, Dale V H, Gardner R H. Predicting across scales:Theory development and testing. Landscape Ecology,1989,3:245-252
189. Turner M G. Landscape ecology:The effect of pattern on process. Annual Riview of Ecology and Systematics,1989,20:171-197
190. Turner M G. Landscape ecology:what is the state of the science?. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst,2005,36:319-344
191. Turner M G. Landscape ecology in North America:past, present, and future. Ecology,2005,86(8):1967-1974
192Wagner H H, Fortin M J. Spatial analysis of landscapes:concepts and statistics. Ecology,2005,86(8):1975-1987
193. Wu J, Loucks O L. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics:A paradigm shift in ecology. Quraterly Review of Biology,1995,70:439-466
194. Wiens J A. On the use of grain and grain size in ecology. Functional ecology,1990, 4:720
195. With K A, King A W. Dispersal success on fractal landscapes:A consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape ecology,1999,14:73-82
196. Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, TUELLER P T. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology,2002,17:761-782
197. Wu J. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis:scaling relations. Landscape Ecology,2004,19:125-138
198. Wu J. Past, present and future of landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology,2007, 22(10):1433-1435
199. Wu J, Ye qi. Dealing with scale in landscape analysis:An overview. Geographic Information Sciences 2000,6(1):1-5
200. Wu X Ben, Daniel Z Sui. An initial exploration of a lacunarity-based segregation measure. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,2001(28):433-446
201. Wu XB, Sui DZ.2002. GIS-based lacunarity analysis for assessing urban residential segregation. Proceedings of the 2002 ESRI International User Conference
202. Xu Kai, Kong Chunfang, Liu Gang, et al. Changes of urban wetlands in Wuhan, China, from 1987 to 2005. Progress in Physical Geography,2010,34(2):207-220
2.蔡博峰,于嵘.景观生态学中的尺度分析方法.生态学报,2008,28(5)：2279-2287
3.蔡运龙.土地利用/土地覆被变化研究：寻求新的综合途径.地理研究,2001,20(6)：645-652
4.曹杨,尚士友,杨景荣,吴利斌,刘海亮,栾奎峰.乌梁素海湿地时空动态演化.地理科学进展,2010,29(3)：307-311
5.曹宇,欧阳华,肖笃宁,等.基于APACK的额济纳大然绿洲景观空间格局分析.自然资源学报,2004,19(6)：776-785
6.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,1999a,54(3)：255-262
7.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,1999b,19(3)：298-303
8.曾辉,江子瀛,喻红,许国雄.深圳市龙华地区快速城市化过程中的景观结构研究Ⅲ农业用地结构及异质性分析.北京大学学报(自然科学版),2000a,36(2)：221-230
9.曾辉,江子瀛.深圳市龙华地区快速城市化过程中的景观结构研究——城市建设用地结构及异质性特征分析.应用生态学报,2000b,11(4)：567-572
10.曾辉,姜传明.深圳市龙华地区快速城市化过程中的景观结构研究林地的结构和异质性特征分析.生态学报,2000c,20(3)：378-383
11.曾辉,江子瀛,孔宁宁,高凌云.快速城市化景观格局的空间自相关特征分析以深圳市龙华地区为例.北京大学学报(自然科学版),2000d,36(6)：824-831
12.常学礼,邬建国.科尔沁沙地景观格局的特征分析.生态学报,1998,18(3)：225-232
13.陈列,赵秀海,张赞.长白山北坡椴树红松林空间分布及其空间关联.北京林业大学学报,2009,31(3)：6-10
14.陈爽,詹志勇.南京城市森林结构特征与管理对策.林业科学,2004,40(6)：158-164
15.陈百名,刘新卫,杨红.LUCC研究的最新进展评述.地理科学进展,2003,22(1)：22-29.
16.陈利顶,傅伯杰,赵文武.“源”“汇”景观理论及其生态学意义.生态学报,2006,26(5)：1444—1449
17.陈利顶,傅伯杰.景观连接度的生态学意义及其应用.生态学杂志,1996,15(4)：37-42
18.陈利顶,刘洋,吕一河,等.景观生态学中的格局分析：现状、困境与未来.生态学报,2008,28(11)：5521-5530
19.陈其春,吕成文,李壁成,等.县级尺度土地利用结构特征定量分析.农业工程学报,2009,25(1)：223-231
20.陈文波,肖笃宁,李秀珍.景观空间分析的特征和主要内容.生态学报,2002,22(7)：1135-1142
21.陈志强,陈健飞.福建土地利用/覆被人为影响指数及其变化的地统计学分析.资源科学,2008,30(11)：1700-1705
22.戴彬.张家界森林公园生态旅游环境容量分析.生态经济,2006(10)：300-302
23.党安荣,王晓栋,陈晓峰,等.ERDAS IMAGINE遥感图像处理方法.北京：清华大学出版社,2000
24.邓劲松,李君,余亮,王珂.快速城市化过程中杭州市土地利用景观格局动态.应用生态学报,2008,19(9)：2003-2008
25.段峥,宋现锋,石敏俊.密云县土地利用景观格局时空变化及驱动力分析.水土保持研究,2009,16(5)：55-59
26.冯育青,王邵军,阮宏华,等.苏州太湖湖滨湿地生态恢复模式与对策.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,33(5)：126-130
27.傅伯杰,陈利顶,马克明,王仰麟.景观生态学原理及应用.北京：科学出版社,2001
28.傅伯杰.土地评价的理论与实践.北京：中国科学技术出版社,1991
29..甘芳,周宇晶,危起伟,樊恩源,杜浩.水生野生动物自然保护区河流生态 系统服务功能价值评价——以长江湖北宜昌中华鲟自然保护区为例.自然资源学报,2010,25(4)：574-584
30.高杰,王志强,邵琦,等.Ripley's L指数与最近邻空间热点分析在流行病学标点地图分析中的应用.山东大学学报医学版,2009,47(3)：89-97
31.高凯.湿地景观设计研究.济南：山东建筑大学,2007
32.葛方龙,李伟峰,陈求稳.景观格局演变及其生态效应研究进展.生态环境2008,17(6)：2511-2519
33.郭泺,杜世宏,薛达元,江学顶.快速城市化进程中广州市景观格局时空分异特征的研究.北京大学学报(自然科学版),2009,45(1)：129-136
34.郭泺,夏北成,刘蔚秋,江学顶.城市化进程中广州市景观格局的时空变化与梯度分异.应用生态学报,2006,17(9)：1671-1676
35.郭福涛,胡海清,马志海.应用空间点模式方法研究大兴安岭雷击火空间分布格局.生态学报,2009,29(12)：6742-6747
36.郭建宏,钱莲文,彭道黎,等.中国区域可持续发展综合优势能力空间关联分析.长江流域资源与环境,2007,16(2)：157-162
37.郭丽英,王道龙,邱建军.环渤海区域土地利用景观格局变化分析.资源科学,2009,31(12)：2144-2149
38.郭泺,薛达元,杜世宏.景观生态空间格局——规划与评价.北京：中国环境科学出版社,2009
39.韩海辉,杨太保,王艺霖.近30年青海贵南县土地利用与景观格局变化.地理科学进展,2009,28(2)：207-215
40.韩美,张晓慧.黄河三角洲湿地主导生态服务功能价值估算.中国人口资源与环境,2009,19(6)：37-43
41.胡健波,徐文铎,陈玮,等.沈阳城市森林常见树种的物候特征.生态学杂志,2006,25(12)：1455-1459
42.胡艳琳,戚仁海,由文辉,等.城市森林生态系统生态服务功能的评价.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,29(3)：111-114
43.胡志斌,何兴元,陈玮.沈阳市城市森林结构与效益分析.应用生态学报,2003,14(12)：2018-2022
44.滑永春,彭道黎.延庆县土地利用景观格局的变化.东北林业大学学报,2010,38(2)：50-52
45.黄金良,林杰,张明锋,涂振顺.基于梯度分析的福建典型沿海港湾区域景观格局研究.资源科学,2008,30(11)：1760-1767
46.霍霄妮,李红,孙丹峰,等.北京耕作土壤重金属含量的空间自相关分析.环境科学学报,2009,29(6)：1339-1344
47.姜广辉,张凤荣,谭雪晶,等.北京市平谷区农村居民点用地生态服务功能分析.农业工程学报,2009,25(5)：210-216
48.姜欢欢,李继红,范文义,等.三峡库区秭归县景观格局变化及模拟预测.应用生态学报,2009,20(2)：474-479
49.李波,宋晓媛,谢花林,等.北京市平谷区生态系统服务价值动态.应用生态学报,2008,19(10)：2251-2258
50.李彤,吴骅.采用决策树分类技术对北京市土地覆盖现状进行研究.遥感技术与应用,2004,19(6)：485-487
51.李锋,刘旭升,王如松.城市森林研究进展及发展战略.生态学杂志,2003,22(4)：55-59
52.李海梅,何兴元,陈玮.中国城市森林研究现状及发展趋势.生态学杂志,2004,23(2)：55-59
53.李华.武汉市城市森林景观格局与动态研究.武汉：华中农业大学,2009
54.李会琴,侯林春,肖拥军,等.基于RS、GIS的黄土高原环境脆弱区生态旅游适宜度评价——以山西省中阳县为例.测绘科学,2009,34(6)：300-302
55.李团胜,石玉琼.景观生态学.北京：化学工业出版社,2009：2-2
56.李卫锋,王仰麟,彭建,李贵才.深圳市景观格局演变及其驱动因素分析.应用生态学报,2004,15(8)：1403-1410
57.李卫海,李阳兵,周焱,等.1991年～2006年贵阳市土地利用变化及其驱动因素分析.资源科学,2008,30(12)：1890-1896
58.李秀珍,布仁仓,常禹,等.景观格局指标对不同景观格局的反应.生态学报,2004,24(1)：121-134
59.梁二,王小彬,蔡典雄,等.河南省土壤有机碳分布空间自相关分析.应用生 态学报,2007,18(6)：1305-1310
60.廖孟仪.利用空隙度分析做为景观生态空间尺度分析方法初探.资源与环境学术研讨会,2007,花莲
61.林媚珍,马秀芳,杨木壮,等.广东省1987年至2004年森林生态系统服务功能价值动态评估.资源科学,2009,31(6)：980-984
62.刘江,崔胜辉,邱全毅,张国钦,黄云凤.滨海半城市化地区景观格局演变——以厦门市集美区为例.应用生态学报,2010,21(4)：856-862
63.刘俊,陆玉麒.经济快速发展地区土地利用结构的时空演变——以苏锡常地区为例.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(4)：307-313
64.刘明,王克林.洞庭湖流域中上游地区景观格局变化及其驱动力.应用生态学报,2008,19(6)：1317-1324
65.刘滨谊,温全平,刘颂.城市森林规划的现状与发展.中国城市林业,2008(01)：16-21
66.刘常富,李海梅,何兴元,等.城市森林概念探析.生态学杂志,2003,22(5)：146-149
67.刘传胜,张万昌,雍斌,陈坰烽.和田绿洲景观异质性及其特征尺度的遥感研究.遥感应用,2008(3)：39-44
68.刘纪远.中国资源环境遥感宏观调查与动态研究.北京：科学技术出版社,1996：158-188
69.刘贤赵,王巍.烟台沿海地区土地利用景观格局演变研究.农业工程学报,2007,23(10)：79-86
70.卢志军,王巍,张文辉,李红,曹庆,党高弟,何东,Scott Franklin.巴山木竹发笋和大熊猫取食的时空格局及相关性分析.生物多样性,2009,17(1)：1-9
71.鲁为华,朱进忠,王东江,靳瑰丽,余博.天山北坡两种退化梯度下伊犁绢蒿种群空间分布的点格局分析.草业学报,2009,18(5)：142-149
72.吕一河,陈利顶,傅伯杰.景观格局与生态过程的耦合途径分析.地理科学进展,2007,26(3)：1-10
73.孟斌,张景秋,王劲峰,张文忠,郝卫秋.空间分析方法在房地产市场研究中的应用——以北京市为例.地理研究,2005,24(6)：954-964
74.欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济评价.应用生态学报,1999,10(5)：635-640
75.欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究.生态学报,1999,19(5)：607-613
76.彭军超,钱乐祥,角媛梅,李明杰.近16 a增城市土地景观格局变化.东北林业大学学报,2008,36(10)：30-32
77.邱炳文,王钦敏,陈崇成,等.福建省土地利用多尺度空间自相关分析.自然资源学报,2007,22(2)：311-320
78.申卫军,邬建国,任海,林永标,李明辉.空间幅度变化对景观格局分析的影响.生态学报,2003,23(11)：2219-2231
79.申卫军,邬建国,林永标,.,任海,李勤奋.空间粒度变化对景观格局分析的影响.生态学报,2003,23(12)：2506-2519
80.宋国宝,李政海,高吉喜,等.西双版纳地区土地利用的空间分析.应用生态学报,2006,17(6)：1009-1013
81.宋广莹.武汉市城市湖泊湿地植物多样性研究.武汉：华中农业大学,2008
82.唐华俊,吴文斌,杨鹏,等.土地利用／土地覆被变化(LUCC)模型研究进展.地理学报,2009,64(4)：456-468
83.田光进,张增祥,张国平,等.基于遥感与GIS的海口市景观格局动态演化.生态学报,2002,22(7)：1028-1034
84.王立龙,陆林.湿地生态旅游研究进展.应用生态学报,2009,20(6)：1517-1524
85.王健,田光进,全泉.广州市城市化过程的景观动态格局及尺度效应.生态科学,28(1)：78-84
86.王磊,孙启武,郝朝运,等.皖南山区南方红豆杉种群不同龄级立木的点格局分析.应用生态学报,2010,21(2)：272-278
87.王力,牛铮,尹君,等.基于遥感技术的小城镇土地利用变化分析——以黄骅镇为例.资源科学,2006,28(5)：68-75
88.王原,吴泽民,张浩,等.基于RS和GIS的马鞍山市分区城市森林景观格局综合评价.北京林业大学学报,2008,30(4)：47-52
89.王红娟,姜加虎,黄群.基于知识的洞庭湖湿地遥感分类方法.长江流域资源 与环境,2008,17(3)：370-373
90.王思远,刘纪远,张增祥,等.中国土地利用时空特征分析.地理学报,2001,56(6)：631-639
91.王玉洁,李俊祥,吴健平,宋永昌.上海浦东新区城市化过程景观格局变化分析.应用生态学报,2006,17(1)：36-40
92.魏静,郑小刚,葛京凤.石家庄西部太行山区景观格局时空变化.生态学报,2007,27(5)：1993-2001
93.吴楚材,吴章文,郑群明,等.生态旅游定义辨析.中南林业科技大学学报,2009,29(5)： 1-6
94.邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级.北京：高等教育出版社,2000
95.邬建国.景观生态学：格局、过程、尺度与等级(第二版).北京：高等教育出版社,2007
96.邬建国.景观生态学——概念与理论.生态学杂志,2000,19(1)：42-52
97.邬建国.景观生态学中的十大研究论题.生态学报,2004,24(9)：2074-2076
98.吴昌广,周志翔,王鹏程,肖文发,滕明君,彭丽.基于最小费用模型的景观连接度评价.应用生态学报,2009,20(8)：2042-2048
99.吴大千,刘建,贺同利,等.基于土地利用变化的黄河三角洲生态服务价值损益分析.农业工程学报,2009,25(8)：256—261
100.吴琼.武汉市城市森林结构规划研究.武汉：华中农业大学,2009
101.伍星,沈珍瑶,刘瑞民,等.土地利用变化对长江上游生态系统服务价值的影响.农业工程学报,2009,25(8)：236-241
102.夏兵,余新晓,宁金魁,王小平,秦永胜,陈峻崎.近20年北京地区景观格局演变研究.北京林业大学学报,2008,30(Supp.2):60-66
103.肖笃宁,李秀珍.当代景观生态学的进展和展望.地理科学,1997,17(4)：356-364
104.肖笃宁,李秀珍,高峻,等.景观生态学.北京：科学出版社,2005
105.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估.自然资源学报,2003,18(2)：189-196
106.谢高地,肖玉,甄霖,等.我国粮食生产的生态服务价值研究.中国生态农 业学报,2005,13(3)：10-13
107.谢花林,刘黎明,李波,等.土地利用变化的多尺度空间自相关分析——以内蒙古翁牛特旗为例.地理学报,2006,61(4)：389-400
108.谢志霄,肖笃宁.城郊景观动态模型研究.应用生态学报,1994,7(1)：77-81
109.熊黑钢,张雅.新疆石河子市土地利用数量变化研究.水土保持研究,2007,14(6)：414-423
110.徐丽华,岳文泽,曹宇.上海市城市土地利用景观的空间尺度效应.应用生态学报,2007,18(12)：2827-2834
111.徐丽华,岳文泽.上海市人口分布格局动态变化的空间统计研究.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(3)：222-228
112.徐煜辉,卢峰,孙国春.基于景观生态战略的重庆市喀斯特峡谷型风景名胜区规划问题思考.中国园林,2006(12)：37-41
113.杨璐,胡振琪,李新举,等.邹城市矿粮复合区土地利用变化及生态系统服务价值分析.农业工程学报,2007,23(12)：70-75
114.杨山,陈升.大城市城乡耦合地域空间演变及其景观格局——以无锡市为例.生态学报,2009,29(12)：6482-6489
115.杨爽,冯晓明,陈利顶.土地利用变化的时空分异特征及驱动机制——以北京市海淀区、延庆县为例.生态学报,2009,29(8)：4501-4511
116.杨存建,徐美.遥感信息机理的水体提取方法的探讨.地理研究,1998,17(增刊)：86-89
117.杨存建,周成虎.TM影像的居民地信息提取方法研究.遥感学报,2000,4(2)：146-150
118.杨存建,周成虎.基于知识的遥感图像分类方法的探讨.地理学与国土研究,2001,17(1)：72-77
119.杨洪晓,张金屯,吴波,李晓松,张友炎.毛乌素沙地油蒿种群点格局分析.植物生态学报,2006,30(4)：563-570
120.杨英宝,江南,苏伟忠,郑国强.RS与GIS支持下的南京市景观格局动态变化研究.长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(1)：34-39
121.杨英宝,江南,苏伟忠.南京城市景观空间格局的变化分析.南京林业大学 学报(自然科学版),2004,28(6)：39-42
122.杨振山,蔡建明,高晓路.利用探索式空间数据解析北京城市空间经济发展模式.地理学报,2009,64(8)：944-955
123.杨彦锋,徐红罡.对我国生态旅游标准的理论探讨.旅游学刊,2007,22(4)：73-78
124.于开芹,冯永军,郑九华,等.城乡交错带土地利用变化及其生态效应.农业工程学报,2009,25(3)：213-218
125.于明洋,崔健.土地利用遥感信息的自动分类研究——以济南市南部山区为例.山东建筑大学学报,2009,24(6)：506-509
126.俞孔坚,乔青,李迪华,等.基于景观安全格局分析的生态用地研究——以北京市东三乡为例.应用生态学报,2009,20(8)：1932-1939
127.岳文泽,徐建华,谈文琦,赵晶,苏方林.城市景观多样性的空间尺度分析——以上海市外环线以内区域为例.生态学报,2005,25(1)：122-128
128.臧淑英,计爽,李雁,等.资源型城市土地利用/土地覆被变化过程的图谱研究.北京林业大学学报,2007,29(Supp.2)：232-237
129.张浩,马蔚纯,HO Hon Hing.基于LUCC的城市生态安全研究进展.生态学报,2007,27(5)：2109-2117
130.张健,郝占庆,宋波,等.长白山阔叶红松林中红松与紫椴的空间分布格局及其关联性.应用生态学报,2007,18(8)：1681-1687
131.张娜.生态学中的尺度问题：内涵与分析方法.生态学报,2006,26(7)：2340-2353
132.张颖,王群,王万茂.中国产业结构与用地结构相互关系的实证研究.中国土地科学,2007,21(2)：4-11
133.张会儒,蔡小虎.景观格局及动态研究进展.西南林学院学报,2008,28(1)：23-28
134.张金屯.植物种群空间分布的点格局分析.植物生态学报,1998,22(4)：344-349
135.张维生.黑龙江省森林空间自相关分析.东北林业大学学报,2008,36(10)：16-18
136.张笑楠,王克林,张明阳,张伟,凡非得.人类活动影响下喀斯特区域景观 格局梯度分析.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(12):1188-1192
137.赵清,郑国强,黄巧华.南京城市森林景观格局特征与空间结构优化.地理学报,2007,62(8)：870-878
138.赵锐锋,陈亚宁,李卫红,等.塔里木河干流区土地覆被变化与景观格局分析.地理学报,2009,64(1)：96-109
139.赵玉涛,余新晓,关文斌.景观异质性研究评述.应用生态学报,2002,13(4)：495-500
140.郑建蕊,蒋卫国,周廷刚,侯鹏,李雪.洞庭湖区湿地景观指数选取与格局分析.长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(3)：305-310
141.郑忠明,李华,周志翔,徐永荣,滕明君.城市化背景下近30年武汉市湿地的景观变化.生态学杂志,2009,28(8)：1619-1623
1,42.周龙虎,骆剑承,杨晓梅,等.遥感影像地学理解与分析.北京：科学出版社,2001：74-78
143.周志翔.景观生态学基础.北京：中国农业出版社,2007
144.庄优波,杨锐.黄山风景区分区规划研究.中国园林,2006(12)：32-36
145. Alexander Buyantuyev, Wu Jianguo, Corinna Gries. Multiscale analysis of the urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of USA:Time, space and thematic resolution. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 94, Issues 3-4,15 March 2010, Pages 206-217
146. BESAG J E. Comments on Ripley's paper. Journal of Royal Statistic Socciety(Series B),1977,39:193-195
147. Beyer, H. L.2004. Hawth's Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. Available at http://www.spatialecology.com/htools.
148. Cain D H, Ritters K H, Orvis K. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics.Landscape Ecology,1997,12:199-212
149. C.Y. Jim, Wendy Y. Chen. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities,2009,26(4):187-194
150. Ceballos Lascurain H. The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal,1987,1:13-14
151. Chia-Tsung Yeh, Shu-Li Huang. Investigating spatiotemporal patterns of landscape diversity in response to urbanization. Landscape and Urban Planning Volume 93, Issues 3-4,15 December 2009, Pages 151-162
152. Costanza R, d'Arge R, Groot R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature,1997,387:253-260
153. Crist P J, Kohley T W, Oakleaf J. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool. Landscape Ecology,2000,15(1):47-62
154. Cullinan V I, Thomas J M. A comparison of quantitative methods for examining landscape pattern and scale.Landscape Ecology,1992,7(3):211-228
155. Dale MRT, Fortin M J. Spatial Autocorrelation and Statistical Tests:Some Solutions. Journal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statistics,2009,14(2): 188-206
156. De Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R. M. J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics,2002,41(3):393-408.
157. Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araujo MB, etc. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data:a review. ECOGRAPHY,2007,30(5):609-628
158. Farina A. Principles and method in landscape ecology. London:Chapman and Hall, 1998
159. Farina A. Principles and methods in landscape ecology. New York:Chapman&Hall, 1998:115-126
160. Felix H, Angela L, Eckhard M, et al. Landscape metrics for assessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation. Environmental Management,2001,27(1):91-107
161. Font X, Sanabria R, Skinner E. SustainableTourism and Ecotourism Certification: Raising Standards and Benefits. Journal of Ecotourism,2003,2(3):213-218
162. Forman R T T. Landscape mosaics:the ecology of landscape and regions. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995
163. Forman R T T. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape ecology,1995,10:133-142
164. Forman RTT, Godorn M. Landscape ecology. New York:John Wiley &Sons,1986
165. Francisco J. Escobedo, David J. Nowak. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest.Landscape and Urban Planning,2009,90(3-4):102-110
166. Francisco M, Regol F C, Paulo G. Temporal (1958-1995) pattern of ckmnge in a cultural landscape of Northwestern Portugal:Implications for fire occurrence. Landscape Ecology,2001,16:557-567
167. Kyushik Oh, Seunghyun Jeong. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning,2007,82(1-2):25-32
168. Lausch A, tterzog F. Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change:isssues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecological Indicators,2002,2:3-15.
169. Li H, Wu J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology,2004,19: 389-399
170. Li H B, Reynolds J F. A simulation experiment to quality spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps.Ecology,1994,75(8):2446-2455
171. Liu Miao, Hu Yuanman, Chang Yu, etc. Land Use and Land Cover Change Analysis and Prediction in the Upper Reaches of the Minjiang River, China. Environmental Management,2009,43:899-907
172. LIU zhong-gang, LI Man-chun, SUN Yan, et al. Study on spatial autocorrelation of urban land price distribution in Changzhou city of Jiangsu province. Chinese Geographical Science,2006,16(2):160-164
173. M. R. T. Dale. Lacunarity analysis of spatial pattern:A comparison. Landscape Ecology,2000(15):467-478
174. McGarigal, K., S. A. Cushman, M. C. Neel, and E. Ene.2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
175. Mcintyre N E, Wiens J A. A novel use of the lacunarity index to discern landscape function. Landscape ecology,2000,15:313-321
176. O'Weill R V, De Angelis D L, Waide J B, et al. A hierarchical concept of ecosystem. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1986.
177. Pengyu Zhu, Yaoqi Zhang. Demand for urban forests in United States cities.Landscape and Urban Planning,2008,84(3-4):293-300
178. Pickett S T A, Cadenasso M L. Landscape ecology:Spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science,1995,269:331-334
179. Pinliang Dong. Lacunarity analysis of raster datasets and 1D,2D, and 3D point patterns. Computers & Geosciences 2009,35:2100-2110
180. Pinliang Dong. Lacunarity for spatial heterogeneity measurement in GIS. Geographic Information Sciences,2000,6(1):20-26
181. Richard L. O'Driscoll. Description of spatial pattern in seabird distributions along line transects using neighbour K statistics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser,1998,165:81-94
182. Risser P G, Karr J R, Forman R T T. Landscape ecology:directions and approaches, 1984
183. Roy E. Plotnick, Robert H. Gardner, Robert V. O'Neill. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology,1993,8(3):201-211
184. Roy E. Plotnick, Robert H. Gardner, William W. Hargrove, Karen Prestegaard, Martin Perlmutter. Lacunarity analysis:A general technique for the analysis of spatial patterns. PHYSICAL REVIEW E,1996,53(5):5461-5468
185. Seto K C, Fragkias M. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urban land-use change in four cities of China with time landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology, 2005,20:871-888
186. Tischendoff L. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology,2001,16:235-254
187. Turner M G, O'Neill R V, Gardner R H, et al. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology,1989,3:153-162
188. Turner M G, Dale V H, Gardner R H. Predicting across scales:Theory development and testing. Landscape Ecology,1989,3:245-252
189. Turner M G. Landscape ecology:The effect of pattern on process. Annual Riview of Ecology and Systematics,1989,20:171-197
190. Turner M G. Landscape ecology:what is the state of the science?. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst,2005,36:319-344
191. Turner M G. Landscape ecology in North America:past, present, and future. Ecology,2005,86(8):1967-1974
192Wagner H H, Fortin M J. Spatial analysis of landscapes:concepts and statistics. Ecology,2005,86(8):1975-1987
193. Wu J, Loucks O L. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics:A paradigm shift in ecology. Quraterly Review of Biology,1995,70:439-466
194. Wiens J A. On the use of grain and grain size in ecology. Functional ecology,1990, 4:720
195. With K A, King A W. Dispersal success on fractal landscapes:A consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape ecology,1999,14:73-82
196. Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, TUELLER P T. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology,2002,17:761-782
197. Wu J. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis:scaling relations. Landscape Ecology,2004,19:125-138
198. Wu J. Past, present and future of landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology,2007, 22(10):1433-1435
199. Wu J, Ye qi. Dealing with scale in landscape analysis:An overview. Geographic Information Sciences 2000,6(1):1-5
200. Wu X Ben, Daniel Z Sui. An initial exploration of a lacunarity-based segregation measure. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,2001(28):433-446
201. Wu XB, Sui DZ.2002. GIS-based lacunarity analysis for assessing urban residential segregation. Proceedings of the 2002 ESRI International User Conference
202. Xu Kai, Kong Chunfang, Liu Gang, et al. Changes of urban wetlands in Wuhan, China, from 1987 to 2005. Progress in Physical Geography,2010,34(2):207-220