田鹏,龚虹波,叶梦姚,史小丽,王丽佳,刘瑞清,童晨.东海区大陆海岸带景观格局变化及生态风险评价[J].海洋通报,2018,(6):695-706
东海区大陆海岸带景观格局变化及生态风险评价
Landscape pattern change and ecological risk assessment of the continental coast of the East China Sea
投稿时间:2018-06-09  修订日期:2018-10-18
DOI:10.11840/j.issn.1001-6392.2018.06.011
中文关键词:  景观格局  生态风险  海岸带  东海区
英文关键词:landscape pattern  ecological risk  coastal zone  East China Sea
基金项目:国家社科基金重大项目 (16ZDA050)
作者单位E-mail
田鹏 宁波大学 地理与空间信息技术系浙江 宁波 315211 tppyang@163.com 
龚虹波 宁波大学 公共管理系浙江 宁波 315211 ghb19@163.com 
叶梦姚 宁波大学 地理与空间信息技术系浙江 宁波 315211  
史小丽 宁波大学 学报编辑部浙江 宁波 315211  
王丽佳 宁波大学 地理与空间信息技术系浙江 宁波 315211  
刘瑞清 宁波大学 地理与空间信息技术系浙江 宁波 315211  
童晨 宁波大学 地理与空间信息技术系浙江 宁波 315211  
摘要点击次数: 31
全文下载次数: 16
中文摘要:
      基于 1990-2015 年东海区海岸带 6 期遥感影像数据,分析了景观格局的动态变化,构建景观生态风险指数,对不同时期研究区的生态风险进行了评价。结果表明: (1) 东海区海岸带景观以林地和耕地为主导,耕地面积急剧下降,而建设用地面积增长迅速,增长率为 155.55 %; (2) 研究区生态风险程度加深。1990-2010 年中生态风险区占主导地位,2015 年较高生态风险区上升为主导地位,占整个生态风险区面积的 33.39 %,至研究期末高生态风险区面积增加了 6 267.83 km2。空间上,生态风险高等级区呈现出向沿海地区扩展的趋势,沿海港口城市面临较严重的生态风险。省域和县级市尺度下的景观生态风险时空差异也较大; (3) 生态风险等级转换差异较大。生态风险转移主要是由低向高等级转换,且其生态风险等级年均转换速率呈上升趋势,由低到高等级方向转移是由高到低等级方向转移面积的 12.01 倍。
英文摘要:
      Based on the remote sensing image from 6 datasets over coastal zone of the East China Sea from 1990 to 2015, the dynamic changes of the landscape pattern were analyzed, and the landscape ecological risk index was established to evaluate the ecological risk of the study area in different periods. The results showed that: (1) The coastal landscape in the East China Sea was dominated by woodland and cultivated land, the cultivated land area decreased sharply, while the construction land area increased rapidly, with the growth rate of 155.55 %. (2) The degree of ecological risk in the study area deepened. From 1990 to 2010, the moderate ecological risk areas dominated, and the high ecological risk areas rose to the dominant position in 2015, accounting for 33.39 % of the total ecological risk areas. The area of the extremely high ecological risk areas increased by 6 267.83 km2 at the end of the study period. In space, ecological risks showed a trend of expansion to coastal areas, and coastal port cities faced more serious ecological risks. The spatial and temporal differences in landscape ecological risks at the provincial and county-level cities were also large. (3) The transformation of ecological risk level was quite different. The transfer of ecological risk level was mainly from low to high, and the annual average rate of ecological risk grade was on the rise. The transfer area from low to high level was 12.01 times of that from high to low level.
查看全文    下载PDF阅读器
关闭