天津滨海新区湿地景观连接度距离阈值研究
|
摘要
在应用景观连接度研究景观格局变化时,选择适宜的距离阈值是关键。适宜的距离阈值有利于识别景观中的关键斑块并及时发现连接脆弱的区域,对景观格局动态分析、生态恢复研究等均具有重要意义。以天津市滨海新区湿地生态系统为研究对象,将研究区域划分为不同的焦点景观,焦点景观是依据研究区域栖息候鸟的生境面积而划分的面积大小相同的区域,并通过ArcGIS中的泰森多边形分析实现,焦点景观分析可为面积更大、结构更加复杂的景观分析提供新的思路。文章选取斑块间链接数(NL)、组分数(NC)、等效连接面积指数(ECA)、景观巧合概率指数(LCP)来表征景观连接度,设定100、200、400、600、800、1000、1500、2000、3000、5000、8000 m共11个距离阈值,探讨不同距离阈值下各指数的变化规律,对比分析研究区域整体景观斑块和焦点景观内各斑块的连接度指数随距离阈值变化的异同,最终确定研究区域最佳距离阈值。结果表明:(1)各焦点景观内斑块的景观连接度指数随距离阈值的变化趋势与研究区域整体景观斑块相似且对应的最佳距离阈值相同;(2)天津市滨海新区湿地景观连接度距离阈值的适宜范围是400—800 m,该区间内进行景观格局分析研究能够较为真实的反映出研究区域实际景观状况;(3)通过进一步研究,最终确定400 m为天津滨海新区湿地景观连接度最佳距离阈值。研究结果可为天津市滨海新区湿地景观研究提供参考,在实际研究中距离阈值的选择可根据具体研究目标、研究层次需求等进行适当调整。
When applying landscape connectivity to the study of landscape pattern changes, it is important to choose the appropriate distance threshold, which affects the analysis of landscape connectivity in the study area. If the distance threshold is set too low, the patches in the area will remain unconnected, and fragmentation will be severe, whereas if the distance threshold is set too high, the patches in the area are interconnected and grouped together. However, neither of these scenarios is likely to truly reflect the actual condition of the landscape in the study area. Using an appropriate distance threshold will facilitate the identification of key patches in the landscape and the discovery of vulnerable areas, both of which are important for the dynamic analysis of landscape patterns and ecological restoration studies. The present study investigated this principle using Landsat 8-OLI remote sensing images of a wetland ecosystem of the Tianjin Binhai New Area, taken on April 14, 2017. The research area was divided into different focal landscapes, in order to prevent software stalling and reductions in data processing speed that could have resulted from the large study area and provide a new analytical idea for this field. The focal landscape was the same size area, based on the habitat area of the migratory birds in the study area, and was analysed by Thiessen polygon analysis in ArcGIS. The number of links, number of components, equivalent connectivity area, and landscape coincidence probability were selected to characterize the landscape connectivity, and a total of 11 distance thresholds(100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, 5000, and 8000 m) were selected to draw the ‘Landscape Connectivity Index-Distance Threshold′ curve, which was used to study the trend of each index under different distance thresholds. By comparing the overall landscape patch and the focal landscape connectivity index with distance thresholds, the optimal distance threshold for the study area was determined.(1) The optimal distance thresholds selected by the two methods of focal landscape and overall landscape patch were the same, and the proposed method provides new ideas for future regional landscape analysis and more complex ecological landscape pattern research.(2) The range of 400—800 m can be used as suitable distance threshold ranges for the dynamic change of landscape pattern and restoration of ecosystems in the Binhai New Area. In this interval, the connectivity of the habitat patch in the study area was relatively stable, which clearly illustrates the distribution of the patches and helps to identify the important patches in the landscape.(3) Through further research, 400 m was finally selected as the optimal distance threshold for the connectivity of the wetland ecosystem in Tianjin Binhai New Area. These findings provide a reference for studying wetland landscapes in the Tianjin Binhai New Area. In addition, the selection of the distance threshold in practical research can be adjusted according to specific research objectives and research level requirements.
When applying landscape connectivity to the study of landscape pattern changes, it is important to choose the appropriate distance threshold, which affects the analysis of landscape connectivity in the study area. If the distance threshold is set too low, the patches in the area will remain unconnected, and fragmentation will be severe, whereas if the distance threshold is set too high, the patches in the area are interconnected and grouped together. However, neither of these scenarios is likely to truly reflect the actual condition of the landscape in the study area. Using an appropriate distance threshold will facilitate the identification of key patches in the landscape and the discovery of vulnerable areas, both of which are important for the dynamic analysis of landscape patterns and ecological restoration studies. The present study investigated this principle using Landsat 8-OLI remote sensing images of a wetland ecosystem of the Tianjin Binhai New Area, taken on April 14, 2017. The research area was divided into different focal landscapes, in order to prevent software stalling and reductions in data processing speed that could have resulted from the large study area and provide a new analytical idea for this field. The focal landscape was the same size area, based on the habitat area of the migratory birds in the study area, and was analysed by Thiessen polygon analysis in ArcGIS. The number of links, number of components, equivalent connectivity area, and landscape coincidence probability were selected to characterize the landscape connectivity, and a total of 11 distance thresholds(100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, 5000, and 8000 m) were selected to draw the ‘Landscape Connectivity Index-Distance Threshold′ curve, which was used to study the trend of each index under different distance thresholds. By comparing the overall landscape patch and the focal landscape connectivity index with distance thresholds, the optimal distance threshold for the study area was determined.(1) The optimal distance thresholds selected by the two methods of focal landscape and overall landscape patch were the same, and the proposed method provides new ideas for future regional landscape analysis and more complex ecological landscape pattern research.(2) The range of 400—800 m can be used as suitable distance threshold ranges for the dynamic change of landscape pattern and restoration of ecosystems in the Binhai New Area. In this interval, the connectivity of the habitat patch in the study area was relatively stable, which clearly illustrates the distribution of the patches and helps to identify the important patches in the landscape.(3) Through further research, 400 m was finally selected as the optimal distance threshold for the connectivity of the wetland ecosystem in Tianjin Binhai New Area. These findings provide a reference for studying wetland landscapes in the Tianjin Binhai New Area. In addition, the selection of the distance threshold in practical research can be adjusted according to specific research objectives and research level requirements.
引文
[1] Martensen A C,Pimentel R G,Metzger J P.Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest:Implications for conservation.Biological Conservation,2008,141(9):2184- 2192.
[2] Uezu A,Beyer D D,Metzger J P.Can agroforest woodlots work as stepping stones for birds in the Atlantic forest region?Biodiversity and Conservation,2008,17(8):1907- 1922.
[3] Boscolo D,Candia-Gallardo C,Awade M,Metzger J P.Importance of interhabitat gaps and stepping-stones for Lesser Woodcreepers (Xiphorhynchus fuscus) in the Atlantic Forest,Brazil.Biotropica,2008,40(3):273- 276.
[4] Holl K D,Aide T M.When and where to actively restore ecosystems?Forest Ecology and Management,2011,261(10):1558- 1563.
[5] 邬建国.景观生态学——概念和理论.生态学杂志,2000,19(1):42- 52.
[6] 陈春娣,贾振毅,吴胜军,童笑笑,周文佐,陈若漪,张超林.基于文献计量法的中国景观连接度应用研究进展.生态学报,2017,37(10):3243- 3255.
[7] Robichaud I,Villard M A,Machtans C S.Effects of forest regeneration on songbird movements in a managed forest landscape of Alberta,Canada.Landscape Ecology,2002,17(3):247- 262.
[8] Forman R T T,Baudry J.Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology.Environmental Management,1984,8(6):495- 510.
[9] Wu J G,Vankat J L,Barlas Y.Effects of patch connectivity and arrangement on animal metapopulation dynamics:A simulation study.Ecological Modelling,1993,65(3/4):221- 254.
[10] 陈利顶,刘雪华,傅伯杰.卧龙自然保护区大熊猫生境破碎化研究.生态学报,1999,19(3):291- 297.
[11] Saura S,Pascual-Hortal L.A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning:Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study.Landscape and Urban Planning,2007,83(2/3):91- 103.
[12] 张宇,李丽,吴巩胜,周跃,覃顺萍,王小明.基于生境斑块的滇金丝猴景观连接度分析.生态学报,2016,36(1):51- 58.
[13] Lindborg R,Eriksson O.Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity.Ecology,2004,85(7):1840- 1845.
[14] Borthagaray A I,Brazeiro A,Giménez L.Connectivity and patch area in a coastal marine landscape:Disentangling their influence on local species richness and composition.Austral Ecology,2009,34(6):641- 652.
[15] 逄谦.基于图论的盐城滨海湿地丹顶鹤生境连接度变化及恢复研究[D].南京:南京农业大学,2014.
[16] 李雯雯,李丽,吴巩胜,张宇,代云川,周跃.评估不同尺度下农牧地对滇金丝猴景观连接度的影响.生态学报,2016,36(24):8136- 8144.
[17] 齐珂,樊正球.基于图论的景观连接度量化方法应用研究——以福建省闽清县自然森林为例.生态学报,2016,36(23):7580- 7593.
[18] 陈春娣,吴胜军,Douglas M C,吕明权,温兆飞,姜毅,陈吉龙.阻力赋值对景观连接模拟的影响.生态学报,2015,35(22):7367- 7376.
[19] Szabó S,Novák T,Elek Z.Distance models in ecological network management:a case study of patch connectivity in a grassland network.Journal for Nature Conservation,2012,20(5):293- 300.
[20] Hernández A,Miranda M,Arellano E C,Saura S,Ovalle C.Landscape dynamics and their effect on the functional connectivity of a Mediterranean landscape in Chile.Ecological Indicators,2015,48(1):198- 206.
[21] Teixeira T S M,Weber M M,Dias D,Lorini M L,Esbérard C E L,Novaes R L M,Cerqueira R,Vale M M.Combining environmental suitability and habitat connectivity to map rare or Data Deficient species in the Tropics.Journal for Nature Conservation,2014,22(4):384- 390.
[22] Laita A,M?nkk?nen M,Kotiaho J S.Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network.Biological Conservation,2010,143(5):1212- 1227.
[23] Xun B,Yu D Y,Liu Y P.Habitat connectivity analysis for conservation implications in an urban area.Acta Ecologica Sinica,2014,34(1):44- 52.
[24] Keitt T H,Urban D L,Milne B T.Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes.Conservation Ecology,1997,1(1):4.
[25] Neel M C.Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemic plant species Astragalus albens (Fabaceae).Biological Conservation,2008,141(4):938- 955.
[26] 孟伟庆,李洪远,郝翠,莫训强.近30年天津滨海新区湿地景观格局遥感监测分析.地球信息科学学报,2010,12(3):436- 443.
[27] Saura S,Torné J.Conefor Sensinode 2.2:A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity.Environmental Modelling & Software,2009,24(1):135- 139.
[28] 刘常富,周彬,何兴元,陈玮.沈阳城市森林景观连接度距离阈值选择.应用生态学报,2010,21(10):2508- 2516.
[29] 赵清贺,马丽娇,刘倩,丁圣彦,卢训令,曹梓豪,张祎帆.黄河中下游典型河岸缓冲带植被景观连接度及其网络构建.中国生态农业学报,2017,25(7):983- 992.
[30] Pascual-Hortal L,Saura S.Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices:towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation.Landscape Ecology,2006,21(7):959- 967.
[31] Saura S,Estreguil C,Mouton C,Rodríguez-Freire M.Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends:Application to European forests (1990- 2000).Ecological Indicators,2011,11(2):407- 416.
[32] Bodin ?,Saura S.Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers:integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments.Ecological Modelling,2010,221(19):2393- 2405.
[33] Saura S,Rubio L.A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape.Ecography,2010,33(3):523- 537.
[34] 蒙吉军,王晓东,尤南山,朱利凯.黑河中游生态用地景观连接性动态变化及距离阈值.应用生态学报,2016,27(6):1715- 1726.
[35] 姜磊,岳德鹏,曹睿,任慧君.北京市朝阳区景观连接度距离阈值研究.林业调查规划,2012,37(2):18- 22,32- 32.
[36] 侍昊,徐雁南.基于景观连通性的城市绿地核心区规划方法研究.南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2011,35(1):51- 56.
[2] Uezu A,Beyer D D,Metzger J P.Can agroforest woodlots work as stepping stones for birds in the Atlantic forest region?Biodiversity and Conservation,2008,17(8):1907- 1922.
[3] Boscolo D,Candia-Gallardo C,Awade M,Metzger J P.Importance of interhabitat gaps and stepping-stones for Lesser Woodcreepers (Xiphorhynchus fuscus) in the Atlantic Forest,Brazil.Biotropica,2008,40(3):273- 276.
[4] Holl K D,Aide T M.When and where to actively restore ecosystems?Forest Ecology and Management,2011,261(10):1558- 1563.
[5] 邬建国.景观生态学——概念和理论.生态学杂志,2000,19(1):42- 52.
[6] 陈春娣,贾振毅,吴胜军,童笑笑,周文佐,陈若漪,张超林.基于文献计量法的中国景观连接度应用研究进展.生态学报,2017,37(10):3243- 3255.
[7] Robichaud I,Villard M A,Machtans C S.Effects of forest regeneration on songbird movements in a managed forest landscape of Alberta,Canada.Landscape Ecology,2002,17(3):247- 262.
[8] Forman R T T,Baudry J.Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology.Environmental Management,1984,8(6):495- 510.
[9] Wu J G,Vankat J L,Barlas Y.Effects of patch connectivity and arrangement on animal metapopulation dynamics:A simulation study.Ecological Modelling,1993,65(3/4):221- 254.
[10] 陈利顶,刘雪华,傅伯杰.卧龙自然保护区大熊猫生境破碎化研究.生态学报,1999,19(3):291- 297.
[11] Saura S,Pascual-Hortal L.A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning:Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study.Landscape and Urban Planning,2007,83(2/3):91- 103.
[12] 张宇,李丽,吴巩胜,周跃,覃顺萍,王小明.基于生境斑块的滇金丝猴景观连接度分析.生态学报,2016,36(1):51- 58.
[13] Lindborg R,Eriksson O.Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity.Ecology,2004,85(7):1840- 1845.
[14] Borthagaray A I,Brazeiro A,Giménez L.Connectivity and patch area in a coastal marine landscape:Disentangling their influence on local species richness and composition.Austral Ecology,2009,34(6):641- 652.
[15] 逄谦.基于图论的盐城滨海湿地丹顶鹤生境连接度变化及恢复研究[D].南京:南京农业大学,2014.
[16] 李雯雯,李丽,吴巩胜,张宇,代云川,周跃.评估不同尺度下农牧地对滇金丝猴景观连接度的影响.生态学报,2016,36(24):8136- 8144.
[17] 齐珂,樊正球.基于图论的景观连接度量化方法应用研究——以福建省闽清县自然森林为例.生态学报,2016,36(23):7580- 7593.
[18] 陈春娣,吴胜军,Douglas M C,吕明权,温兆飞,姜毅,陈吉龙.阻力赋值对景观连接模拟的影响.生态学报,2015,35(22):7367- 7376.
[19] Szabó S,Novák T,Elek Z.Distance models in ecological network management:a case study of patch connectivity in a grassland network.Journal for Nature Conservation,2012,20(5):293- 300.
[20] Hernández A,Miranda M,Arellano E C,Saura S,Ovalle C.Landscape dynamics and their effect on the functional connectivity of a Mediterranean landscape in Chile.Ecological Indicators,2015,48(1):198- 206.
[21] Teixeira T S M,Weber M M,Dias D,Lorini M L,Esbérard C E L,Novaes R L M,Cerqueira R,Vale M M.Combining environmental suitability and habitat connectivity to map rare or Data Deficient species in the Tropics.Journal for Nature Conservation,2014,22(4):384- 390.
[22] Laita A,M?nkk?nen M,Kotiaho J S.Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network.Biological Conservation,2010,143(5):1212- 1227.
[23] Xun B,Yu D Y,Liu Y P.Habitat connectivity analysis for conservation implications in an urban area.Acta Ecologica Sinica,2014,34(1):44- 52.
[24] Keitt T H,Urban D L,Milne B T.Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes.Conservation Ecology,1997,1(1):4.
[25] Neel M C.Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemic plant species Astragalus albens (Fabaceae).Biological Conservation,2008,141(4):938- 955.
[26] 孟伟庆,李洪远,郝翠,莫训强.近30年天津滨海新区湿地景观格局遥感监测分析.地球信息科学学报,2010,12(3):436- 443.
[27] Saura S,Torné J.Conefor Sensinode 2.2:A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity.Environmental Modelling & Software,2009,24(1):135- 139.
[28] 刘常富,周彬,何兴元,陈玮.沈阳城市森林景观连接度距离阈值选择.应用生态学报,2010,21(10):2508- 2516.
[29] 赵清贺,马丽娇,刘倩,丁圣彦,卢训令,曹梓豪,张祎帆.黄河中下游典型河岸缓冲带植被景观连接度及其网络构建.中国生态农业学报,2017,25(7):983- 992.
[30] Pascual-Hortal L,Saura S.Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices:towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation.Landscape Ecology,2006,21(7):959- 967.
[31] Saura S,Estreguil C,Mouton C,Rodríguez-Freire M.Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends:Application to European forests (1990- 2000).Ecological Indicators,2011,11(2):407- 416.
[32] Bodin ?,Saura S.Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers:integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments.Ecological Modelling,2010,221(19):2393- 2405.
[33] Saura S,Rubio L.A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape.Ecography,2010,33(3):523- 537.
[34] 蒙吉军,王晓东,尤南山,朱利凯.黑河中游生态用地景观连接性动态变化及距离阈值.应用生态学报,2016,27(6):1715- 1726.
[35] 姜磊,岳德鹏,曹睿,任慧君.北京市朝阳区景观连接度距离阈值研究.林业调查规划,2012,37(2):18- 22,32- 32.
[36] 侍昊,徐雁南.基于景观连通性的城市绿地核心区规划方法研究.南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2011,35(1):51- 56.