基于生态重要性与敏感性的六盘山区生态保护修复分区

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2023.053

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

生态保护修复分区是采取差异化生态修复和构建国土空间生态安全格局的基础，选取具有重要生态地位和屏障作用的宁夏六盘山区，从生态系统“服务-问题”二维视角构建综合指标体系，引入InVEST模型、空间叠图和综合指标权重等量化分区方法，完成生态保护修复分区和明确生态修复策略。结果表明：（1）生态系统高度重要区占比33.4%，呈现“六盘山-南华山”走廊和“原州-彭阳”片区总体格局，是区域主要的生态功能供给区和优化提升区。（2）生态系统高度敏感区占比32.0%，集中于“海原-西吉”片区和原州东部片区，是区域主要的生态功能需求区和保育修复区。（3）生态保护区占比15.7%，以严格生态保护和监测管理推动结构优化和功能提升;生态修复区和保育区的占比分别为17.7%和26.1%，以水土流失治理和土地荒漠化防治为导向，综合提升生态效益和控制生态退化风险;生态调节区占比40.5%，以探索“两山”转化路径，全面优化、协调国土空间开发保护格局。研究结果可为六盘山区国土空间系统化、差异化生态保护修复提供空间指引。

关键词: 国土空间, 生态修复, 空间距离指数, InVEST模型, 六盘山

Abstract:

Establishing a benign, healthy, and high-quality territorial space through systematic, all-regions, all-elements, and whole-process ecological restoration is crucial from the perspective of the life community of mountains, rivers, forests, farmland, lakes, grass, and sand. However, identification and zoning of ecological conservation and restoration areas are prerequisites for adopting differentiated ecological restoration and constructing a high-quality ecological security pattern for the territorial space, which in turn ensures a stable and healthy development of the regional ecosystem. Currently, guidance and method support for territorial spatial zoning are urgent needs for implementing systematic ecological conservation and restoration in Ningxia, China. The Liupan Mountain area in Ningxia, with its key ecological position and rich ecological resources, plays an irreplaceable role in maintaining regional ecological security. In this study, taking the Liupan Mountain area as the research region, we construct a comprehensive indicator system that views ecosystems from a two-dimensional perspective of “service-problem”. This system optimizes and streamlines the dimensions, scales, and indicators previously used, addressing past simplifications. Based on this framework, we employ mainstream ecological restoration zoning methods, such as the InVEST model, spatial overlay mapping, and comprehensive index weighting. We apply a grid-based unit scale to quantitatively evaluate the importance and sensitivity of ecological services, ultimately completing ecological conservation and restoration zones and clarifying ecological restoration strategies. The key results of this study include the following: (1) The highly important areas of ecological services account for 33.4%, presenting a “south-north” corridor extending from Liupan Mountain to Nanhua Mountain, along with a centralized distribution within the “Yuanzhou-Pengyang” county territory. They serve as the main suppliers of ecological functions and present opportunities for optimization and upgrading within the region. (2) The highly sensitive area of the ecosystem accounts for 32.0%, which is concentrated in the “Haiyuan-Xiji” county territory and the eastern region of Yuanzhou County. They represent the main areas of ecological function demand and are the focus of conservation and restoration efforts in the region. (3) The proportion of ecological reserve zones is 15.7%, which requires strict ecological protection and monitoring management to promote structural optimization and functional upgrading within the ecosystem. Meanwhile, the proportion of ecological restoration zones and conservation zones accounted for 17.7% and 26.1%, respectively. They require comprehensive efforts to improve ecological benefits and control the risk of ecological degradation, which are guided by soil erosion control and land desertification prevention. The proportion of ecological regulation zones is 40.5%, exploring a transformation path for comprehensive optimization and coordination of the development and conservation pattern of the territorial space, particularly in the context of the “two mountains” initiative. The results of this study provide important spatial guidance for systematic and differentiated ecological conservation and restoration, as well as for the formulation of policies and project layout within the territorial space of the Liupan Mountain area.

Key words: territorial space, ecological restoration, spatial distance index, InVEST model, Liupan Mountain area

包玉斌,黄涛,王耀宗,胡胜,吕林涛,唐谊娟,顾继升. 基于生态重要性与敏感性的六盘山区生态保护修复分区[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(11): 1778-1791.

BAO Yubin,HUANG Tao,WANG Yaozong,HU Sheng,LYU Lintao,TANG Yijuan,GU Jisheng. Zoning for ecological conservation and restoration in Liupan Mountain area based on ecological importance and sensitivity evaluation[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2023, 46(11): 1778-1791.

图/表 12

图1

图2

表1

生态重要性评价方法"

生态系统服务	权重	评估模型/方法	基本原理及计算公式
生境维持	0.417	InVEST-Habitat Quality model	$Q x j = H j 1 - D z x j D z x j + k z$ 式中：Q_xj为土地利用类型j中栅格x的生境质量;D_xj为土地利用类型j中栅格x所受胁迫水平;k为半饱和常数，通常取D_xj最大值的一半;H_j为土地利用类型j的生境适合性;z为归一化常量^[30]。
产水服务	0.316	InVEST-Water Yield model	$Y j x = 1 - A E T x j P x × P x$ ， $A E T x j P x = 1 + ω x × R x j 1 + ω x × R x j + 1 / R x j$ ， $R x j = k × E T 0 P x$ 式中：Y_jx为土地利用类型j中栅格x的年产水量（mm）;P_x为栅格单元x的年均降雨量（mm）;AET_xj为土地利用类型j中栅格x的年平均蒸散发量（mm）;R_xj为土地利用类型j中栅格x的干燥指数，表示潜在蒸发量与降雨量的比值;ω_x为修正植被年可利用水量与降水量的比值;k为植被系数，由植被叶面积指数计算^[29];ET₀为潜在蒸散发量（mm）^29]。植被年可利用水量利用土壤质地经验公式计算^[29]。
土壤保持	0.146	InVEST-Sediment Delivery Ratio model	$S C x = R x × K x × L S x × (1 - C x × P x) + S R x$ ， $S R x = E x ∑ y = 1 x - 1 S E y ∏ z = y + 1 x - 1 (1 - E z)$ 式中：SC_x和SR_x分别为栅格x的土壤保持量（t·hm^-2·a^-1）和泥沙持留量（t·hm^-2·a^-1）;SE_y为上坡栅格y产生的泥沙量（t·hm^-2·a^-1）;E_x为栅格x的泥沙持留率^[28];E_z为上坡栅格z的泥沙持留量（t·hm^-2·a^-1）;R_x、K_x、LS_x、C_x和P_x分别为栅格x的降雨侵蚀力因子（MJ·mm·hm^-2·h^-1·a^-1）、土壤可蚀性因子、坡度坡长因子、植被覆盖因子和水土保持措施因子。
固碳服务	0.082	CASA模型-NPP法	$N P P x, t = A P A R x, t × ξ x, t$ 式中：NPP(x, t)为栅格x的植被在t时段内的净初级生产力（g C·m^-2·a^-1）;APAR(x, t)为栅格x在t时段内植被所吸收的光和有效辐射;ξ(x, t)为栅格x的植被在t时段内的光能转化率^[27]。
粮食供给	0.038	NDVI配比法	$C r o p m n = (N D V I m n / N D V I s u m_n) × C r o p n$ 式中：Crop_mn为第n个县第m个栅格的粮食供给服务（t·a^-1）;NDVI_mn为该栅格全年中的NDVI最大值;NDVI_{sum_}_n为第n个县的NDVI全年最大值的和;Crop_n为第n个县的粮食年产量（t·a^-1）^[27]。

表1

表2

生态敏感性评价方法"

生态敏感性	评估模型/方法	基本原理及计算公式
地质灾害	综合因子权重法	$G H S I = G H 归一化 = ∑ i = 1 n W i × F i$ 式中：GHSI为地质灾害敏感性综合指数;GH_归一化为地质灾害加权叠加值;i为敏感性因子（i=1, 2, …, 10）;F_i为影响因子分值，本文选取断裂带距离（km）、土地利用类型、坡度（°）、地震核密度（个·km^-2）、距采矿地距离（km）、地形起伏度、距公路距离（km）、距河流湖库距离（km）、多年平均降水量（mm）、坡向共10个因子^[31,33];W_i为因子权重（由AHP法确定，λ_max=10.199，CI=0.022，RI=1.490，CR=0.015<0.1，通过一致性检验，权重值依次为0.140、0.129、0.121、0.110、0.101、0.093、0.086、0.079、0.073、0.068）^[31,33]。
水土流失	InVEST-Sediment Delivery Ratio model	$S E S I = U S L E 归一化 = R x × K x × L S x × C x × P x$ 式中：SESI为水土流失敏感性指数;USLE_归一化为栅格x的土壤侵蚀量（t·hm^-2·a^-1）;R_x、K_x、LS_x、C_x和P_x分别为栅格x的降雨侵蚀力因子（MJ·mm·hm^-2·h^-1·a^-1）、土壤可蚀性因子、坡度坡长因子、植被覆盖因子和水土保持措施因子^[28]。
土地荒漠化	NDVI植被指数法	$L D S I = V F 归一化 = (N D V I - N D V I m n) / (N D V I m x - N D V I m n)$ 式中：LDSI为土地荒漠化敏感性指数，参照已有研究^[32]，采用植被覆盖度VF_归一化表征（%）;NDVI为归一化植被指数;NDVI_mn和NDVI_mx分别为归一化植被指数的最小值和最大值。
生境退化	InVEST-Habitat Quality model	$H D S I = D x j 归一化 = ∑ r = 1 R ∑ y = 1 Y r w r / ∑ r = 1 R w r r y × i r x y × β x × S j r$ 式中：HDSI为生境退化敏感性指数;D_xj_归一化为生境类型j中栅格x的退化值;R为生境威胁因子;y为威胁因子r图层像元总数;Y_r为威胁因子所占像元数;w_r为威胁因子权重，取值0~1;r_y为像元y的威胁因子值（0或1）;i_rxy为像元y的威胁因子值r_y的生境胁迫水平，采用线性或指数距离衰减函数计算;β_x为像元x的可达性水平（0~1）;S_jr为生境类型j对胁迫因子r的敏感性（0~1）^[30]。
气候特征	InVEST-Water Yield model	$C S I = A E T x j P x 归一化 = 1 + ω x × R x j 1 + ω x × R x j + 1 / R x j$ 式中：CSI为气候敏感性指数，由地表年平均实际蒸散量与降水量的比值表征，经归一化获取^[29];各参数意义同表1产水服务公式。
综合生态敏感性	空间距离指数法	$C E S I = G H S I - G H S I m a x 2 + (S E S I - S E S I m a x) 2 + L D S I - L D S I m a x 2 + H D S I - H D S I m a x 2 + C S I - C S I m a x 2$ 式中：CESI为综合生态敏感性指数，其值越小，表示生态敏感性越高;GHSI、SESI、LDSI、HDSI、CSI为各生态敏感性指数;GHSI_max、SESI_max、LDSI_max、HDSI_max、CSI_max为各生态敏感性指数最大值^[32]。

表2

表3

表4

图3

表5

图4

表6

图5

表7

参考文献 33

[1]	易行, 白彩全, 梁龙武, 等. 国土生态修复研究的演进脉络与前沿进展[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(1): 37-52. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200105
	[ Yi Xing, Bai Caiquan, Liang Longwu, et al. The evolution and frontier development of land ecological restoration research[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(1): 37-52. ] doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200105
[2]	王聪, 伍星, 傅伯杰, 等. 重点脆弱生态区生态恢复模式现状与发展方向[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(20): 7333-7343.
	[ Wang Cong, Wu Xing, Fu Bojie, et al. Ecological restoration in the key ecologically vulnerable regions: Current situstion and development direction[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(20): 7333-7343. ]
[3]	彭建, 赵会娟, 刘焱序, 等. 区域生态安全格局构建研究进展与展望[J]. 地理研究, 2017, 36(3): 407-419. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201703001
	[ Peng Jian, Zhao Huijuan, Liu Yanxu, et al. Research progress and prospect on regional ecological security pattern construction[J]. Geographical Research, 2017, 36(3): 407-419. ] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201703001
[4]	赵威, 薛领. 区域发展战略对国土空间格局演化的影响——以云南省为例[J]. 资源科学, 2022, 44(6): 1252-1266. doi: 10.18402/resci.2022.06.12
	[ Zhao Wei, Xue Ling. Impact of regional development strategies on territorial spatial evolution: A case study of Yunnan Province[J]. Resources Science, 2022, 44(6): 1252-1266. ] doi: 10.18402/resci.2022.06.12
[5]	马彩虹, 安斯文, 文琦, 等. 基于土地利用转移流的国土空间格局演变及其驱动机制研究——以宁夏原州区为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(3): 925-934.
	[ Ma Caihong, An Siwen, Wen Qi, et al. Evolution of territorial spatial pattern and its driving mechanism based on land use transfer flow: A case of Yuanzhou District in Ningxia[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(3): 925-934. ]
[6]	张萌, 刘吉平, 赵丹丹. 吉林省西部生态安全格局构建[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(6): 1676-1685.
	[ Zhang Meng, Liu Jiping, Zhao Dandan. Construction of ecological security pattern in western Jilin Province[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2021, 44(6): 1676-1685. ]
[7]	陈昕, 彭建, 刘焱序, 等. 基于“重要性-敏感性-连通性”框架的云浮市生态安全格局构建[J]. 地理研究, 2017, 36(3): 471-484. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201703006
	[ Chen Xin, Peng Jian, Liu Yanxu, et al. Constructing ecological security patterns in Yunfu City based on the framework of importance-sensitivity-connectivity[J]. Geographical Research, 2017, 36(3): 471-484. ] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201703006
[8]	张亮, 岳文泽, 陈阳. 基于斑块复合属性特征的城市生态安全格局构建——以杭州市为例[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(11): 4632-4640.
	[ Zhang Liang, Yue Wenze, Chen Yang. Construction of urban ecological security pattern based on of patch composite characteristics: A case study of Hangzhou[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(11): 4632-4640. ]
[9]	黄心怡, 赵小敏, 郭熙, 等. 基于生态系统服务功能和生态敏感性的自然生态空间管制分区研究[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(3): 1065-1076.
	[ Huang Xinyi, Zhao Xiaomin, Guo Xi, et al. The natural ecological spatial management zoning based on ecosystem service function and ecological sensitivity[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(3): 1065-1076. ]
[10]	俞孔坚, 李海龙, 李迪华, 等. 国土尺度生态安全格局[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(10): 5163-5175.
	[ Yu Kongjian, Li Hailong, Li Dihua, et al. National scale ecological security pattern[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(10): 5163-5175. ]
[11]	侯鹏, 王桥, 申文明, 等. 生态系统综合评估研究进展: 内涵、框架与挑战[J]. 地理研究, 2015, 34(10): 1809-1823. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201510001
	[ Hou Peng, Wang Qiao, Shen Wenming, et al. Progress of integrated ecosystem assessment: Concept, framework and challenges[J]. Geographical Research, 2015, 34(10): 1809-1823. ] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201510001
[12]	杨庆媛, 张浩哲, 唐强. 基于适应性循环模型的重庆市国土空间生态修复分区[J]. 地理学报, 2022, 77(10): 2583-2598. doi: 10.11821/dlxb202210011
	[ Yang Qingyuan, Zhang Haozhe, Tang Qiang. Ecological restoration zoning of territorial space in Chongqing City based on adaptive cycle model[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2022, 77(10): 2583-2598. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb202210011
[13]	赵文祯, 韩增林, 闫晓露, 等. 基于生态系统服务多情景权衡的生态安全格局构建——以大连市瓦房店为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(3): 546-562. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200304
	[ Zhao Wenzhen, Han Zenglin, Yan Xiaolu, et al. Ecological security pattern construction based on multi-scenario trade-off of ecosystem services: A case study of Wafangdian, Dalian[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(3): 546-562. ] doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200304
[14]	徐智超, 刘华民, 韩鹏, 等. 内蒙古生态安全时空演变特征及驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(11): 4354-4366.
	[ Xu Zhichao, Liu Huamin, Han Peng, et al. Analysis of the characteristics and driving forces of the temporal and spatial evolution of ecological security in Inner Mongolia[J]. Acta Eeologica Sinica, 2021, 41(11): 4354-4366. ]
[15]	王晓玉, 冯喆, 吴克宁, 等. 基于生态安全格局的山水林田湖草生态保护与修复[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(23): 8725-8732.
	[ Wang Xiaoyu, Feng Zhe, Wu Kening, et al. Eeological conservation and restoration of life community theory based on the construction of ecological security pattern[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(23): 8725-8732. ]
[16]	宋伟, 韩赜, 刘琳. 山水林田湖草生态问题系统诊断与保护修复综合分区研究——以陕西省为例[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(23): 8975-8989.
	[ Song Wei, Han Ze, Liu Lin. Systematic diagnosis of ecological problems and comprehensive zoning of ecological conservation and restoration for an integrated ecosystem of mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands in Shaanxi Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(23): 8975-8989. ]
[17]	孙传谆, 王梓辰, 李景刚, 等. 基于生态系统多维特征的粤港澳大湾区国土空间生态保护修复分区研究[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(5): 2061-2073.
	[ Sun Chuanzhun, Wang Zichen, Li Jinggang, et al. Ecological protection and restoration zoning of territorial space in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay area based on multidimensional ecosystem features[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2023, 43(5): 2061-2073. ]
[18]	蔡海生, 陈艺, 查东平, 等. 基于主导功能的国土空间生态修复分区的原理与方法[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(15): 261-270.
	[ Cai Haisheng, Chen Yi, Zha Dongping, et al. Principle and method for ecological restoration zoning of territorial space based on the dominant function[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2020, 36(15): 261-270. ]
[19]	曾晨, 程轶皎, 吕天宇. 基于生态系统健康的国土空间生态修复分区——以长江中游城市群为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2022, 37(12): 3118-3135. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20221207
	[ Zeng Chen, Cheng Yijiao, Lü Tianyu. Research on land-space ecological restoration zoning based on ecosystem health: A case study of the urban agglomeration in the middle reaches along the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2022, 37(12): 3118-3135. ] doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20221207
[20]	许闯胜, 刘伟, 宋伟, 等. 差异化开展国土空间生态修复的思考[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(2): 384-394. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20210209
	[ Xu Chuangsheng, Liu Wei, Song Wei, et al. Thoughts on differentially carrying out land ecological restoration[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2021, 36(2): 384-394. ] doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20210209
[21]	丹宇卓, 彭建, 张子墨, 等. 基于“退化压力-供给状态-修复潜力”框架的国土空间生态修复分区——以珠江三角洲为例[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(23): 8451-8460.
	[ Dan Yuzhuo, Peng Jian, Zhang Zimo, et al. Territorially ecological restoration zoning based on the framework of degradation pressure, supply state and restoration potential: A case study in the Pearl River Delta region[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(23): 8451-8460. ]
[22]	谢余初, 张素欣, 林冰, 等. 基于生态系统服务供需关系的广西县域国土生态修复空间分区[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(1): 217-229. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200118
	[ Xie Yuchu, Zhang Suxin, Lin Bing, et al. Spatial zoning for land ecological consolidation in Guangxi based on the ecosystem services supply and demand[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(1): 217-229. ] doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200118
[23]	马世发, 劳春华, 江海燕. 基于生态安全格局理论的国土空间生态修复分区模拟——以粤港澳大湾区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(9): 3441-3448.
	[ Ma Shifa, Lao Chunhua, Jiang Haiyan. Ecological restoration zoning of territorial space based on the pattern simulation of eco-security scenario: A case study of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(9): 3441-3448. ]
[24]	熊善高, 秦昌波, 于雷, 等. 基于生态系统服务功能和生态敏感性的生态空间划定研究——以南宁市为例[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(22): 7899-7911.
	[ Xiong Shangao, Qin Changbo, Yu Lei, et al. Methods to identify the boundary of ecological space based on ecosystem service functions and ecological sensitivity: A case study of Nanning City[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(22): 7899-7911. ]
[25]	岳文泽, 侯丽, 夏皓轩, 等. 基于生态系统服务供需平衡的宁夏固原生态修复分区与优化策略[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(1): 149-158. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202112.024
	[ Yue Wenze, Hou Li, Xia Haoxuan, et al. Territorially ecological restoration zoning and optimization strategy in Guyuan City of Ningxia, China: Based on the balance of ecosystem service supply and demand[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2022, 33(1): 149-158. ] doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202112.024
[26]	包玉斌. 基于InVEST模型的宁夏生物多样性保护优先区域生境评估与生态廊道构建[J]. 宁夏大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 43(3): 318-324.
	[ Bao Yubin. Habitat evaluation and ecological corridor construction of priority area for biodiversity conservation in Ningxia based on InVEST model[J]. Journal of Ningxia University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 43(3): 318-324. ]
[27]	毛诚瑞, 代力民, 齐麟, 等. 基于生态系统服务的流域生态安全格局构建——以辽宁省辽河流域为例[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(18): 6486-6494.
	[ Mao Chengrui, Dai Limin, Qilin, et al. Constructing ecological security pattern based on ecosyatem services:A case study in Liaohe River Basin, Liaoning Province, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(18): 6486-6494. ]
[28]	包玉斌. 基于InVEST模型的陕北黄土高原生态服务功能时空变化研究[D]. 西安: 西北大学, 2015.
	[ Bao Yubin. Temporal and spatial change of ecological services on Loess Plateau of Shaanxi by InVEST model[D]. Xi’an: Northwest University, 2015. ]
[29]	包玉斌, 李婷, 柳辉, 等. 基于InVEST模型的陕北黄土高原水源涵养功能时空变化[J]. 地理研究, 2016, 35(4): 664-676. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201604006
	[ Bao Yubin, Li Ting, Liu Hui, et al. Spatial and temporal changes of water conservation of Loess Plateau in northern Shaanxi Province by InVEST model[J]. Geographical Research 2016, 35(4): 664-676. ] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201604006
[30]	包玉斌, 刘康, 李婷, 等. 基于InVEST模型的土地利用变化对生境的影响——以陕西省黄河湿地自然保护区为例[J]. 干旱区研究, 2015, 32(3): 622-629.
	[ Bao Yubin, Liu Kang, Li Ting, et al. Effects of land use change on habitat based on InVEST model: Taking Yellow River Wetland Nature Reserve in Shaanxi Province as an example[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2015, 32(3): 622-629. ]
[31]	胡胜, 曹明明, 李婷, 等. 基于AHP和GIS的陕西省地震次生地质灾害危险性评价[J]. 第四纪研究, 2014, 34(2): 336-345.
	[ Hu Sheng, Cao Mingming, Li Ting, et al. Danger assessment of earthquake-induced geological disasters in Shaanxi Province based on AHP and GIS[J]. Quaternary Sciences, 2014, 34(2): 336-345. ]
[32]	赵正嫄, 张云龙, 李婷, 等. 基于空间距离指数的青藏高原生态敏感性综合评价及时空演变分析[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(18): 7403-7416.
	[ Zhao Zhengyuan, Zhang Yunlong, Li Ting, et al. Comprehensive evaluation and spatio-temporal variations of ecological sensitivity on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau based on spatial distance index[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42(18): 7403-7416. ]
[33]	裴艳茜, 邱海军, 胡胜, 等. 中巴经济走廊地质灾害敏感性分析[J]. 第四纪研究, 2018, 38(6): 1369-1383.
	[ Pei Yanqian, Qiu Haijun, Hu Sheng, et al. Susceptibility analysis of geo-hazards in China-Pakistan economic corridor[J]. Quatemary Sciences, 2018, 38(6): 1369-1383. ]

等级分区	低度重要区	中度重要区	高度重要区
低度敏感区	低敏感低重要区（生态调节区）	低敏感中重要区（生态调节区）	低敏感高重要区（生态保护区）
中度敏感区	中敏感低重要区（生态调节区）	中敏感中重要区（生态保育区）	中敏感高重要区（生态修复区）
高度敏感区	高敏感低重要区（生态调节区）	高敏感中重要区（生态保育区）	高敏感高重要区（生态修复区）

生态重要性评价因子	统计类型	一般重要	较重要	中度重要	高度重要	极重要
生境质量	面积/km²	3641.5	3891.3	3863.4	3664.3	3619.6
生境质量	比重/%	19.5	20.8	20.7	19.6	19.4
产水服务	面积/km²	3666.1	3655.5	4173.2	3634.1	3551.2
产水服务	比重/%	19.6	19.6	22.3	19.5	19.0
土壤保持	面积/km²	847.3	8473.6	3336.8	3300.4	2722.0
土壤保持	比重/%	4.5	45.3	17.9	17.7	14.6
固碳服务	面积/km²	3693.8	3865.4	3843.6	3709.4	3567.9
固碳服务	比重/%	19.8	20.6	20.6	19.9	19.1
粮食供给	面积/km²	3547.0	4002.8	3844.1	3699.0	3587.2
粮食供给	比重/%	19.0	21.4	20.6	19.8	19.2
综合评价	面积/km²	3576.1	3940.2	3724.7	3762.0	3677.1
综合评价	比重/%	19.1	21.2	19.9	20.1	19.7

生态敏感性评价因子	统计类型	一般敏感	较敏感	中度敏感	高度敏感	极敏感
水土流失	面积/km²	806.6	14345.8	2202.9	879.8	445.1
水土流失	比重/%	4.3	76.8	11.8	4.7	2.4
地质灾害	面积/km²	3716.2	3874.6	3867.3	3636.1	3586.0
地质灾害	比重/%	19.9	20.7	20.7	19.5	19.2
土地荒漠化	面积/km²	3705.3	3725.0	3735.9	3767.3	3746.7
土地荒漠化	比重/%	19.8	19.9	20.0	20.2	20.1
生境退化	面积/km²	3682.3	3736.6	3835.1	3681.0	3745.2
生境退化	比重/%	19.7	20.0	20.6	19.7	20.0
气候敏感性	面积/km²	3682.1	3795.8	3618.9	3925.6	3657.8
气候敏感性	比重/%	19.7	20.3	19.4	21.0	19.6
综合评价	面积/km²	3680.2	3798.1	3815.4	3830.7	3555.8
综合评价	比重/%	19.7	20.3	20.4	20.5	19.1

类型	等级/分区	面积/km²	比重/%
生态重要性	高度重要	6238.7	33.4
	中度重要	6239.8	33.4
	低度重要	6201.7	33.2
生态敏感性	高度敏感	5970.7	32.0
	中度敏感	6473.0	34.7
	低度敏感	6236.5	33.3
生态修复分区	生态保护区	2930.2	15.7
	生态修复区	3307.4	17.7
	生态保育区	4881.5	26.1
	生态调节区	7561.1	40.5

土地利用类型		生态保护区		生态修复区		生态保育区		生态调节区		合计
一级	二级	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%
森林	阔叶林、针叶林、针阔混交林、稀疏林	361.6	12.3	10.4	0.3	-	-	-	-	372.0	2.0
灌丛	阔叶灌丛、稀疏灌丛	1070.7	36.5	543.1	16.4	124.5	2.5	15.7	0.2	1753.9	9.4
草地	草甸、草原、草丛、稀疏草地	1220.5	41.7	2714.1	82.1	3691.1	75.6	415.8	5.5	8041.4	43.0
湿地	沼泽、湖泊、河流、水库	11.4	0.4	29.8	0.9	28.2	0.6	3.9	0.1	73.2	0.4
农田	耕地、园地	258.2	8.8	10.1	0.3	1037.7	21.3	5862.4	77.5	7168.4	38.4
城镇	居住地、城市绿地、工矿交通	7.8	0.3	-	-	-	-	411.9	5.4	419.7	2.2
其他	裸地、荒漠	-	-	-	-	-	-	851.6	11.3	851.6	4.6
合计		2930.2	100.0	3307.5	100.0	4881.5	100.0	7561.2	100.0	18680.2	100.0