Evaluation of Wetland Conservation Effectiveness Based on Landscape Pattern in Zhalong National Nature Reserve
-
摘要: 【目的】分析扎龙国家级自然保护区的湿地景观格局变化,探究其景观完整性与异质性特征,结合保护区的功能区划,对其各功能区景观动态进行评估,为扎龙保护区的湿地保护和管理提供科学参考。【方法】本研究基于2008年与2018年黑龙江省扎龙国家级自然保护区的TM影像数据,利用ArcGIS10.2.2软件分析保护区景观格局的时空变化情况,对土地利用变化转移进行统计,并利用Fragstats 4.2软件完成各指数的计算以及分析,结合实地调查,从景观尺度上对扎龙保护区各功能区的保护成效进行评估。【结果】研究结果表明,2008—2018年扎龙保护区沼泽地的斑块数量与斑块密度均大幅度减少,景观聚集度升高,边界密度和分离度均有所下降。草地、旱地、盐碱地作为扎龙保护区次要组成斑块,其斑块数量、斑块密度、边界密度均呈现少量下降的情况,分离度均呈现上升趋势。通过对景观多样性指数分析结果表明:在景观面积基本不变的情况下,2018年保护区的景观数量为762个、斑块密度0.35个/(100 hm2),均小于2008年的景观数量1 304个、斑块密度0.60个/(100 hm2);2008—2018年期间景观香农多样性指数由1.38降至1.32,香农均度指数由0.6下降至0.57,2008—2018年扎龙保护区的蔓延度指数由66.55%上升至68.33%。从保护区各功能区的景观面积来看,实验区面积最大为78 142.59 hm2,大于核心区71 403.12 hm2与缓冲区68 884.65 hm2。从景观数量上来看,实验区景观数量最高为595个,核心区最低为163个。由斑块密度可知,实验区斑块密度最大为0.76个/(100 hm2)。【结论】2008—2018年扎龙保护区景观多样性指数呈现下降趋势,景观完整性与连通性呈现上升趋势,景观的异质性呈现下降趋势,斑块类型趋于单一。保护区主要景观类型(沼泽地)聚集度升高,斑块间连通性增强,而次要斑块则出现破碎化趋势,连通性降低;2018年扎龙保护区功能区的景观完整性由高到低排序为核心区>缓冲区>实验区;异质性由低到高排序为核心区<缓冲区<实验区,核心区景观优于缓冲区与实验区,则说明核心区的保护成效较缓冲区与实验区更好。因此,应结合当地的社会经济情况,建议进一步加强缓冲区与实验区的保护,降低人为干扰,从而促进保护区各功能区的均衡发展。
-
关键词:
- 保护成效 /
- 功能分区 /
- 景观指数 /
- 扎龙国家级自然保护区
Abstract: 【Objectives】 To analyze the changes in wetland landscape pattern in Zhalong National Nature Reserve, explore its landscape integrity and heterogeneity characteristics, evaluate the landscape dynamics of each functional area in combination with the functional zoning of Zhalong National Nature Reserve, and provide scientific references for wetland protection and management in Zhalong National Nature Reserve. 【Methods】 Based on the TM image data of Zhalong National Nature Reserve in 2008 and 2018, this study used ArcGIS10.2.2 software to analyze the spatial-temporal changes in the landscape pattern and count land use change and transfer. Fragstats 4.2 software was used to complete the calculation and analysis of each index. Combined with the field investigation, the conservation effectiveness of each functional area of Zhalong National Nature Reserve was evaluated from the landscape scale. 【Results】 The results showed that the patch quantity and patch density of moorlands in Zhalong National Nature Reserve decreased significantly from 2008 to 2018, the landscape aggregation degree increased, and the boundary density and separation decreased. Grassland, dryland, and saline-alkali land were the secondary components of Zhalong National Nature Reserve, and their patch number, patch density, and boundary density all decreased slightly, with the boundary separation showing an upward trend. The results of the landscape diversity index analysis showed that: with the landscape area unchanged, the number of landscapes in the nature reserve in 2018 was 762, and the patch density was 0.35, which was lower than the number of landscapes in 2008 (1 304 and the patch density was 0.60). From 2008 to 2018, the Shannon diversity index decreased from 1.38 to 1.32, the Shannon evenness index decreased from 0.6 to 0.57, and the contagion index of Zhalong Reserve increased from 66.55 to 68.33 from 2008 to 2018. From the perspective of the landscape area of each functional area of the reserve, the maximum area of the experimental zone was 78 142.59 hm2, larger than the core zone (71 403.12 hm2) and the buffer zone (68 884.65 hm2). In terms of the number of landscapes, the maximum number of landscapes in the experimental zone waas 595, and the minimum number of landscapes in the core zone was 163. According to the patch density, the maximum patch density in the experimental zone was 0.76 (per 100 hm2). 【Conclusions】 The results showed that from 2008 to 2018, the landscape diversity index showed a downward trend, landscape integrity and connectivity showed an upward trend, landscape heterogeneity decreased, and patch types tended to be unitary in Zhalong Nature Reserve. The aggregation degree of the main landscape type (moorland) and the connectivity between patches increased, and the secondary fragmentation trend of patches and the connectivity decreased. In 2018, the landscape integrity of Zhalong National Nature Reserve ranked as core zone > buffer zone > experimental zone. The heterogeneity ranked as core zone < buffer zone < experimental zone. The landscape of the core zone was better than that of the buffer and experimental zones, indicating that the conservation effectiveness of the core zone was better than that of the buffer and experimental areas. Therefore, taking into account the local socio-economic conditions, it is recommended to further strengthen the protection of buffer zones and experimental areas and reduce human interference, to promote the balanced development of functional areas in reserves. -
表 1 2008—2018年土地利用变化转移矩阵
Table 1. Conversion matrix of land use types in Zhalong National Nature Reserve from 2008 to 2018
单位:hm2 2018年 2008年 沼泽地 草地 旱地 盐碱地 湖泊 农村居民点 林地 水库坑塘 水田 河 沼泽地 107 710.20 20 983.32 688.14 2 846.70 628.47 59.40 579.42 12.78 14.94 90 000 草地 2 407.86 19 304.19 317.88 1 300.77 135.00 45.72 140.76 0.45 10.35 0 旱地 736.65 1 128.24 17 720.10 796.05 77.94 219.33 266.13 0 0.72 9 900 盐碱地 1 789.47 2 953.35 631.62 15 257.88 222.03 124.83 16.11 5.13 9.45 18 000 湖泊 1 616.49 0 54.18 136.08 8 245.17 1.53 4.77 0 0 0 农村居民点 53.28 50.31 138.33 183.24 5.76 4.86 5.22 0 0.18 0 林地 21.78 16.65 291.96 27.54 0.63 4.41 796.77 0 0 0 水库坑塘 130.14 10.17 0 8.82 0 4.86 0 583.56 0 0 水田 297.99 737.01 3 571.92 48.60 0 1.98 3.96 76.68 401.67 0 河 14.40 0 3.42 3.24 0 0 0 0 0 766 800 表 2 2008年与2018年主要斑块景观指数对比
Table 2. Comparison among major patch landscape indices from 2008 to 2018
景观指数 沼泽地 草地 旱地 盐碱地 2008年 2018年 2008年 2018年 2008年 2018年 2008年 2018年 斑块数/个 450 39 180 135 156 149 154 130 斑块密度/[个·(100 hm2)−1] 0.21 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 边界密度/(m·hm−2) 11.50 9.38 10.23 6.48 6.09 5.94 6.41 6.33 聚集度 0.19 0.40 0.14 0.18 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.06 分离度 3.90 2.85 196.57 1 719.17 1 494.97 2 504.59 4 103.18 4 230.26 表 3 2008年与2018年扎龙保护区景观多样性指数
Table 3. Landscape diversity index in Zhalong National Nature Reserve from 2008 to 2018
年份 景观面积/hm2 景观数量/个 斑块密度/[个·(100 hm2)−1] CONTAG/% 景观丰度 SHDI SHEI 2008 218 550.24 1 304 0.60 66.55 10 1.38 0.60 2018 218 549.97 762 0.35 68.33 10 1.32 0.57 表 4 扎龙保护区各功能区景观指数
Table 4. Landscape indeices of functional zones in Zhalong National Nature Reserve
功能区 景观面积/hm2 景观数量/个 斑块密度
/[个·(100 hm2)−1]景观
丰度核心区 71 403.12 163 0.23 9 缓冲区 68 884.65 297 0.43 10 实验区 78 142.59 595 0.76 10 整体 218 550.00 762 0.35 10 -
[1] Mitsch W J, Hernandez M E. Landscape and Climate Change Threats to Wetlands of North and Central America[J]. Aquatic Sciences, 2013, 75(1): 133−149. doi: 10.1007/s00027-012-0262-7 [2] 李英华, 杨志峰, 崔保山. 广州南沙地区湿地生态特征现状分析[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 40(4): 534−539. [3] 周云凯, 白秀玲. 近17年鄱阳湖区景观格局动态变化研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2011, 20(11): 1653−1658. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2011.11.011 [4] 张宪洲, 何永涛, 沈振西, 等. 西藏地区可持续发展面临的主要生态环境问题及对策[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2015, 30(3): 306−312. [5] 曹明, 李俊生, 王伟, 等. 基于InVEST与倾向评分匹配模型评估秦岭国家级自然保护区水源涵养服务保护成效[J]. 生物多样性, 2021, 29(5): 617−628. doi: 10.17520/biods.2020271 [6] Wittemyer G, Elsen P, Bean W T, et al. Accelerated Human Population Growth at Protected Area Edges[J]. Science, 2008, 321(5885): 123−126. doi: 10.1126/science.1158900 [7] Mehring M, Stoll-Kleemann S. How Effective Is the Buffer Zone? Linking Institutional Processes with Satellite Images from a Case Study in the Lore Lindu Forest Biosphere Reserve, Indonesia[J]. Ecology & Society, 2011, 16(4): 209−225. [8] 郭子良, 崔国发, 王小平, 等. 内蒙古阿鲁科尔沁国家级自然保护区景观动态及保护成效[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(8): 2649−2656. [9] 胡巍巍, 王根绪, 邓伟. 景观格局与生态过程相互关系研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2008, 27(1): 18−24. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2008.01.003 [10] 张明明, 张黎俊, 粟海军, 等. 草海国家级自然保护区景观格局变化与景观发展强度研究[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2019, 35(3): 300−306. [11] 李永进, 汤玉喜, 黎蕾, 等. 基于景观指数的洞庭湖自然保护区网络保护成效评估研究[J]. 自然保护地, 2022, 2(3): 24−34. doi: 10.12335/2096-8981.2021110801 [12] 廖芳均, 赵东升. 南岭国家级自然保护区森林景观格局变化与动态模拟[J]. 地理科学, 2014, 34(9): 1099−1107. [13] Prahalad V, Whitehead J, Latinovic A, et al. The Creation and Conservation Effectiveness of State-Wide Wetlands and Waterways and Coastal Refugia Planning Overlays for Tasmania, Australia[J]. Land Use Policy, 2019, 81: 502−512. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.009 [14] 郑姚闽, 张海英, 牛振国, 等. 中国国家级湿地自然保护区保护成效初步评估[J]. 科学通报, 2012, 57(4): 207−230. [15] 邹红菲, 吴庆明, 史蓉红. 扎龙湿地恢复初期丹顶鹤孵化期觅食生境选择[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2007, 35(7): 55−56,58. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2007.07.020 [16] 王志强, 陈志超, 郝成元. 基于HSI模型的扎龙国家级自然保护区丹顶鹤繁殖生境适宜性评价[J]. 湿地科学, 2009, 7(3): 197−201. [17] 王筠, 那晓东, 臧淑英. 人类活动干扰下4个时期松嫩平原丹顶鹤栖息地适宜性研究[J]. 湿地科学, 2018, 16(3): 438−444. [18] 吴庆明, 王磊, 朱瑞萍, 等. 基于MAXENT模型的丹顶鹤营巢生境适宜性分析: 以扎龙保护区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(12): 3758−3764. [19] 宫兆宁, 苏朔, 杜博, 等. 扎龙湿地丹顶鹤繁殖栖息地的选择及扩散[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(8): 1964−1975. [20] 周利军, 张雪萍. 扎龙国家级自然保护区景观格局变化研究[J]. 湿地科学, 2010, 8(1): 74−78. doi: 10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2010.01.001 [21] 冯夏清, 章光新. 自然−人为双重作用下扎龙湿地水文情势分析[J]. 资源科学, 2010, 32(12): 2316−2323. [22] 佟守正, 吕宪国, 苏立英, 等. 扎龙湿地生态系统变化过程及影响因子分析[J]. 湿地科学, 2008, 6(2): 179−184. [23] 崔丽娟, 张曼胤, 张岩, 等. 湿地恢复研究现状及前瞻[J]. 世界林业研究, 2011, 24(2): 5−9. [24] 彭建, 王仰麟, 张源, 等. 土地利用分类对景观格局指数的影响[J]. 地理学报, 2006, 61(2): 157−168. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.2006.02.005 [25] Brémaud P. Markov Chains[M]//Asmussen S. Applied Probability and Queues. New York: Springer, 2003. [26] 傅伯杰, 陈利顶, 马克明, 等. 景观生态学原理及应用[M]. 2版. 北京: 科学出版社, 2011. [27] 李亚洲, 张怡春. 扎龙湿地景观格局研究[J]. 吉林林业科技, 2006, 35(5): 20−22. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-7129.2006.05.005 [28] 沃晓棠, 孙彦坤. 扎龙湿地土地利用与土地覆盖变化分析[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2010, 41(1): 56−60. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9369.2010.01.012 [29] 周利军, 张雪萍, 陈设. 扎龙自然保护区土地利用变化与生态风险评价[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2009, 18(2): 186−190. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4574.2009.02.030 [30] 张莹, 雷国平, 林佳, 等. 扎龙自然保护区不同空间尺度景观格局时空变化及其生态风险[J]. 生态学杂志, 2012, 31(5): 1250−1256. [31] 刘红玉, 李兆富. 基于景观斑块谱特征分析的湿地景观变化对丹顶鹤栖息地影响研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2009, 24(4): 602−611. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-3037.2009.04.006 [32] 杨钦, 胡鹏, 王建华, 等. 1980—2018年扎龙湿地及乌裕尔河流域景观格局演变及其响应[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2020, 41(5): 77−88. [33] 陈莹. 扎龙自然保护区湿地格局动态变化研究[J]. 首都师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 35(5): 79−83. [34] Hull V, Xu W H, Liu W, et al. Evaluating the Efficacy of Zoning Designations for Protected Area Management[J]. Biological Conservation, 2011, 144(12): 3028−3037. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.007