2000—2020年黄河流域土地生态质量及其变化趋势预测

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2022.634

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

黄河流域生态保护对我国高质量发展具有重要战略意义。从生态本底、生态结构、生态效益、生态胁迫4方面构建土地生态质量评价指标体系，基于理想点法对2000、2005、2010、2015、2020年黄河流域土地生态质量进行评价，结合Slope趋势预测及F显著性检验模型对2025年黄河流域土地生态质量变化趋势进行预测，并对预测结果进行冷热点分析，以探究2025年流域土地生态质量发展趋势集聚区。结果表明：（1） 2000—2020年黄河流域土地生态质量呈东南部、西南部整体高于东北部、西北部的分布特征。（2） 2000—2020年黄河流域土地生态质量整体较低，但呈自东南部向西北部逐渐好转的态势。（3） 2000年黄河流域土地生态本底质量较差的中上游区域质量上升空间大，好转现象明显。（4） 2025年黄河流域土地生态质量呈上升趋势的区域主要集聚在流域甘肃段东部和中部、宁夏段南部，位于黄土高原生态功能保护区；土地生态质量可能会下降的区域，部分集聚于流域青海段西南部的黄河源生态功能保护区，部分集聚于流域内蒙古段西北部。黄河流域西北部要持续推进生态治理，为区域高质量发展奠定生态基础，流域东南部在加强生态保护和监测的同时继续推进经济发展，实现经济与生态互相促进的良性发展。

关键词: 土地生态质量, 理想点法, Slope趋势预测, 黄河流域

Abstract:

This paper constructs an index system for evaluating land ecological quality in the Yellow River Basin in terms of ecological basis, ecological structures, ecological benefits, ecological stresses, and evaluates the land ecological quality of the basin from 2000 to 2020 by using the ideal point method. On this basis, we combined the Slope trend prediction model and F significance test model to predict the change trends of land ecological quality in the basin in 2025, and analyzed the clustering characteristics of the predicted change trends. The results show that: (1) The land ecological quality in the southeastern and southwestern parts of the Yellow River Basin is higher than that in the northeastern and northwestern parts. (2) The overall land ecological quality of the Yellow River Basin is low from 2000 to 2020, but shows a gradual improvement from the southeast to the northwest. (3) The quality of the middle and upper reaches of the Yellow River Basin, where the background land ecological quality is poor, has much room for improvement. (4) Land ecological quality in the Yellow River Basin may rise in 2025 is mainly concentrated in the eastern and central part of the Gansu section and the southern part of the Ningxia section of the basin, located in the Loess Plateau ecological function protection zone. The cases where the ecological quality of land is likely to decline are partly clustered in the southwestern part of the Qinghai section of the basin in the Yellow River source ecological function reserve, and partly in the northwestern part of the Inner Mongolia section of the basin. The northwestern part of the Yellow River Basin should continue to promote ecological treatment, laying the ecological foundation for regional high-quality development, and the southeastern part of the basin should continue to promote economic development while strengthening ecological protection and monitoring, so as to achieve the benign development of mutual promotion of economy and ecology.

Key words: land ecological quality, ideal point method, Slope trend prediction model, the Yellow River Basin

刘佳琪, 周璐红, 席小雅. 2000—2020年黄河流域土地生态质量及其变化趋势预测[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(10): 1654-1662.

LIU Jiaqi, ZHOU Luhong, XI Xiaoya. Land ecological quality and its change trend prediction in the Yellow River Basin from 2000 to 2020[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2023, 46(10): 1654-1662.

图/表 6

表1

图1

图2

表2

图3

图4

参考文献 23

[1]	彭慧, 昌亭, 薛红琳, 等. 土地生态评价研究综述[J]. 国土资源科技管理, 2013, 30(6): 28-35.
	[Peng Hui, Chang Ting, Xue Honglin, et al. Review of land ecological evaluation research[J]. Scientific and Technological Mannagment of Land and Resources, 2013, 30(6): 28-35. ]
[2]	陈士银. 土地生态评价研究进展[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2020(2): 42, 52.
	[Chen Shiyin. Research progress on evaluation for land ecosystem[J]. Agricultural Development and Equipment, 2020(2): 42, 52. ]
[3]	张正华, 吴发启, 王健, 等. 土地生态评价研究进展[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2005, 20(4): 104-107, 111.
	[Zhang Zhenghua, Wu Faqi, Wang Jian, et al. Research progress on evaluation for land ecosystem[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2005, 20(4): 104-107, 111. ]
[4]	高晓媚. 毛乌素沙地采煤塌陷区土地生态质量变化及评价研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古师范大学, 2021.
	[Gao Xiaomei. Study on the change and evaluation of land ecological quality in coal mining subsidence area of Mu Us Sandy Land[D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Normal university, 2021. ]
[5]	Messing I, Fagerstrom M H H, Chen L D, et al. Criteria for land suitability evaluation in a small catchment on the Loess Plateau in China[J]. Catena, 2003, 54(1-2): 215-234. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00066-3
[6]	麻小婷, 南灵, 何岩岩. 基于云模型的土地生态质量评价及障碍因素诊断——以陕西省榆林市为例[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(24): 345-351.
	[Ma Xiaoting, Nan Ling, He Yanyan. Evaluation of land ecological quality and diagnosis of obstacle factors based on cloud model: Taking Yulin of Shaanxi Province as an example[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(24): 345-351. ]
[7]	田艳芳, 周虹宏. 上海市城市生态环境质量综合评价[J]. 生态经济, 2021, 37(6): 185-192.
	[Tian Yanfang, Zhou Honghong. Comprehensive evaluation of urban ecological environment quality in Shanghai[J]. Ecological Economy, 2021, 37(6): 185-192. ]
[8]	巴音达拉. 基于熵值法和景观模型的精河县生态环境质量评价及预测研究[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆大学, 2008.
	[Ba Yindala. Study on the quality assessment of ecological environment and prediction in Jinghe based on entropy-righe method and landscape model[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang University, 2008. ]
[9]	杨卫泽, 韩之俊. 基于TOPSIS的宜居生态市评价研究[J]. 环境保护, 2008(14): 31-32.
	[Yang Weize, Han Zhijun. Evaluation of livable eco-city based on TOPSIS[J]. Environmental Protection, 2008(14): 31-32. ]
[10]	徐美, 朱翔, 刘春腊. 基于RBF的湖南省土地生态安全动态预警[J]. 地理学报, 2012, 67(10): 1411-1422. doi: 10.11821/xb201210011
	[Xu Mei, Zhu Xiang, Liu Chunla. Early-warning of land ecological security in Hunan Province based on RBF[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012, 67(10): 1411-1422. ] doi: 10.11821/xb201210011
[11]	宋艳华, 王令超, 王自威, 等. 基于开放式生态足迹模型的土地生态承载力研究——以黄河河南段地区为例[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(22): 210-218.
	[Song Yanhua, Wang Lingchao, Wang Ziwei, et al. Study on land ecological carrying capacity based on open ecological footprint model: Taking coastal area of Yellow River in Henan Province as an example[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 49(22): 210-218. ]
[12]	余敦, 陈文波. 基于物元模型的鄱阳湖生态经济区土地生态安全评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(10): 2681-2685. pmid: 22263474
	[Yu Dun, Chen Wenbo. Land ecological safety in Poyang Lake eco-economic zone: An evaluation based on matter-element model[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011, 22(10): 2681-2685. ] pmid: 22263474
[13]	陈震. 土地生态质量遥感评价模型与方法研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2020.
	[Chen Zhen. Study on remote assessment model and method of land ecological quality: A case study of the city of Guang’an[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing), 2020. ]
[14]	奥勇, 蒋嶺峰, 白召弟, 等. 基于格网GIS的黄河流域土地生态质量综合评价[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(1): 164-175.
	[Ao Yong, Jiang Lingfeng, Bai Zhaodi, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of land ecological quality in the Yellow River Basin based on Grid-GIS[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(1): 164-175. ]
[15]	习近平. 在黄河流域生态保护和高质量发展座谈会上的讲话[J]. 水资源开发与管理, 2019, 46(11): 1-4.
	[Xi Jinping. Speech at the symposium on ecological and quality development in the Yellow River Basin[J]. Water Resources Development and Management, 2019, 46(11): 1-4. ]
[16]	王文川, 薛沛, 刘素华. 1999—2018年河南省植被覆盖时空演变分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(2): 243-248, 264.
	[Wang Wenchuan, Xue Pei, Liu Suhua. Spatiotemporal evolution of vegetation cover in Henan Province from 1999 to 2018[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 29(2): 243-248, 264. ]
[17]	Qin W M, Liu Y, Wang L C, et al. Characteristic and driving factors of aerosol optical depth over mainland China during 1980—2017[J]. Remote Sensing, 2018, 10(7): 1064, doi: 10.3390/rs10071064.
[18]	陆云波, 王伦澈, 牛自耕, 等. 2000—2017年中国区域地表反照率变化及其影响因子[J]. 地理研究, 2022, 41(2): 562-579. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020210005
	[Lu Yunbo, Wang Lunzhe, Niu Zigeng, et al. Variations of land surface albedo and its influencing factors in China from 2000 to 2017[J]. Geographical Research, 2022, 41(2): 562-579. ] doi: 10.11821/dlyj020210005
[19]	吴炳伦. 深圳市植被覆盖度动态变化及驱动力分析[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2020.
	[Wu Binglun. Analysis of dynamic changes and driving forces of vegetation fractional coverage in Shenzhen[D]. Changsha: Central South University of Forestry and Techology, 2020. ]
[20]	马世五, 谢德体, 张孝成, 等. 三峡库区生态敏感区土地生态安全预警测度与时空演变——以重庆市万州区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(24): 8227-8240.
	[Ma Shiwu, Xie Deti, Zhang Xiaocheng, et al. Measures of land ecological security early warning and its spatial-temporal evolution in the ecologically sensitive area of the Three Gorges Reservoir area: A case study of Wanzhou District, Chongqing City[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(24): 8227-8240. ]
[21]	王晓蕾, 石守海. 基于GEE的黄河流域植被时空变化及其地形效应研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2022, 24(6): 1087-1098. doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.210685
	[Wang Xiaolei, Shi Shouhai. Spatio-temporal changes of vegetation in the Yellow River Basin and related effect of landform based on GEE[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2022, 24(6): 1087-1098. ] doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.210685
[22]	董旭, 郭可佳, 杨亚丽, 等. 黄河流域生态保护和高质量发展: 过去、现在与未来[J]. 郑州航空工业管理学院学报, 2022, 40(3): 55-63.
	[Dong Xu, Guo Kejia, Yang Yali, et al. Ecological conservation and high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin: Past, present and future[J]. Journal of Zhengzhou Institute of Aeronautical Industry Management, 2022, 40(3): 55-63. ]
[23]	高志远, 程柳, 张小红. 黄河流域经济发展-生态环境-水资源耦合协调水平评价[J]. 统计与决策, 2022, 38(9): 123-127.
	[Gao Zhiyuan, Cheng Liu, Zhang Xiaohong. Evaluation of coupling coordination level of economic development, ecological development and water resources in the Yellow River Basin[J]. Statistics & Decision, 2022, 38(9): 123-127. ]

目标层	准则层（权重）	指标层（权重）	指标性质
黄河流域土地生态质量评价	生态本底（0.375）	降水量（0.0727）	+
		温度（0.1111）	+
		地形起伏（0.0174）	-
		NDVI（0.0869）	+
		NPP（0.0869）	+
	生态结构（0.375）	林地比例（0.1734）	+
		草地比例（0.0732）	+
		建设用地比例（0.0732）	-
		水体比例（0.0276）	+
		湿地比例（0.0276）	+
	生态效益（0.125）	生态服务价值（0.125）	+
	生态胁迫（0.125）	人口密度（0.075）	-
		夜间灯光（0.025）	-
		GDP（0.025）	-

2000年土地生态质量级别	2005年土地生态质量级别								转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
2000年土地生态质量级别	高	较高		中等		较低		低	转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
高	83.51	5.00		6.93		4.33		0.23	16.49	-	16.49
较高	16.88	57.79		14.85		6.66		3.82	42.21	16.88	25.33
中等	3.00	5.28		77.51		10.06		4.15	22.49	8.28	14.21
较低	1.07	1.82		16.56		70.85		9.70	29.15	19.45	9.70
低	0.09	2.01		7.66		21.46		68.78	31.22	31.22	-
2005年土地生态质量级别	2010年土地生态质量级别								转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
2005年土地生态质量级别	高		较高		中等		较低	低	转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
高	96.35		3.59		0.03		0.01	0.02	3.65	-	3.65
较高	10.96		86.49		2.28		0.21	0.06	13.51	10.96	2.55
中等	0.03		4.17		92.33		3.41	0.06	7.67	4.20	3.47
较低	0.03		0.07		14.50		83.96	1.44	16.04	14.60	1.44
低	0.00		0.09		0.24		18.23	81.44	18.56	18.56	-
2010年土地生态质量级别	2015年土地生态质量级别								转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
2010年土地生态质量级别	高		较高		中等		较低	低	转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
高	96.83		3.08		0.05		0.01	0.03	3.17	-	3.17
较高	19.02		78.87		1.73		0.13	0.25	21.13	19.02	2.11
中等	0.08		9.60		87.41		2.66	0.25	12.59	9.68	2.91
较低	0.02		0.67		28.08		69.76	1.47	30.24	28.77	1.47
低	0.00		0.25		0.67		26.47	72.61	27.39	27.39	-
2015年土地生态质量级别	2020年土地生态质量级别								转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
2015年土地生态质量级别	高		较高		中等		较低	低	转移总和	质量提升	质量降低
高	50.79		13.51		23.99		10.48	1.23	49.21	-	49.21
较高	14.55		31.42		37.12		12.75	4.16	68.58	14.55	54.03
中等	6.44		8.54		52.00		26.39	6.63	48.00	14.98	33.02
较低	2.42		2.94		27.32		52.85	14.47	47.15	32.68	14.47
低	0.46		2.28		18.03		27.38	51.85	48.15	48.15	-