黄土高原矿区生态系统服务价值的时空变化——以平朔矿区为例

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2023.363

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

开展矿区生态系统服务价值的时空分析对保护矿区生态环境、提升矿区生态系统功能具有重要意义。基于遥感数据和土地利用数据，采用3S技术、价值当量法和生态贡献度等方法，对黄土高原典型矿区——平朔矿区1990—2020年生态系统服务价值进行研究。结果表明：（1） 1990—2020年平朔矿区6种土地利用类型面积变化迥异，耕地面积减少最大（1122.72 hm²），建设用地面积增加最大（2044.23 hm²）。（2）平朔矿区生态系统服务价值呈先下降后上升态势，由1990年的19562.43×10⁴元减少到2010年的11265.40×10⁴元，再增加到2020年的15755.47×10⁴元，1990—2010年下降的主要原因是建设用地和草地的生态系统服务价值大幅减少，2010—2020年增加的主要原因是矿区实施了大量生态恢复治理工程。（3） 1990—2020年平朔矿区除保持土壤价值增加外，其他各单项生态服务价值均有不同程度的减少，其中水源涵养、净化环境、生物多样性价值减少幅度较大，分别减少了115.84%、69.92%、18.29%。（4） 1990—2020年平朔矿区生态系统服务价值的空间分布呈现南北高、中部低的特征。（5）平朔矿区草地、建设用地和林地的生态贡献度分别是-41.52%、-34.49%和-10.09%，三者是主要的贡献因子和敏感因子。

关键词: 生态系统服务价值, 时空变化, 平朔矿区, 黄土高原

Abstract:

Spatiotemporal changes in ecosystem service value are crucial for protecting the ecological environment and enhancing the ecosystem functionality within mining areas. Based on remote sensing and land-use data, ecosystem service value (ESV) was quantitatively analyzed in the Pingshuo mining area of the Loess Plateau of China from 1990 to 2020 using the 3S (GIS, RS, GPS) technique, a standard equivalent method, and ecological contribution rate. The results showed the following facts: (1) Shifts in land-use type from 1990 to 2020, notably the most substantial decrease occurring in farmland (1122.72 hm²) and a corresponding increase in built-up land (2044.23 hm²) to its highest. (2) A decline in total ESV from 19562.43×10⁴ Yuan in 1990 to 11265.40×10⁴ Yuan in 2010, primarily attributed to reduced ESV in built-up land and grassland. However, a subsequent increase to 15755.47×10³ Yuan in 2020 was observed, which was attributed to the implementation of ecological programs. (3) Varied decreases in individual ESV components, with water retention, purified environment, and biodiversity values decreased by 115.84%, 69.92%, and 18.29%, respectively, over 1990—2020, excluding soil retention, which remained constant. (4) ESV spatial distribution in the Pingshuo mining area, exhibiting higher values in the north/south and lower in the middle. (5) Ecological contribution rates of grassland, built-up land, and forestland in 1990—2020, standing at -41.52%, -34.49%, and -10.09%, respectively. These factors emerged as the main contributors and sensitive elements in the Pingshuo mining area.

Key words: ecosystem service value, spatiotemporal change, Pingshuo mining area, Loess Plateau

孟宪文, 曹君, 薛占金. 黄土高原矿区生态系统服务价值的时空变化——以平朔矿区为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2024, 47(3): 455-464.

MENG Xianwen, CAO Jun, XUE Zhanjin. Spatiotemporal changes of the ecosystem service value for mining area in Loess Plateau: A case of Pingshuo mining area[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2024, 47(3): 455-464.

图/表 10

图1

表1

表2

图2

表3

表4

表5

图3

表6

表7

参考文献 33

[1]	谢高地, 张彩霞, 张昌顺, 等. 中国生态系统服务的价值[J]. 资源科学, 2015, 37(9): 1740-1746.
	[Xie Gaodi, Zhang Caixia, Zhang Changsun, et al. The value of ecosystem services in China[J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(9): 1740-1746.]
[2]	MA Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being[M]. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.
[3]	钱彩云, 巩杰, 张金茜, 等. 甘肃白龙江流域生态系统服务变化及权衡与协同关系[J]. 地理学报, 2018, 73(5): 868-879. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201805007
	[Qian Caiyun, Gong Jie, Zhang Jinxi, et al. Change and tradeoffs-synergies analysis on watershed ecosystem services: A case study of Bailongjiang Watershed, Gansu[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2018, 73(5): 868-879.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201805007
[4]	Daily G C. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems[M]. Washington DC: Island Press, 1997.
[5]	Costanza R, d’Arge R, Groot R. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 1997, 387(6630): 253-260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0
[6]	马丽娜, 张飞云, 翟玉鑫, 等. 1980—2020年新疆土地利用变化下生态系统服务价值时空演变分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(2): 253-263.
	[Ma Lina, Zhang Feiyun, Zhai Yuxin, et al. Temporal and spatial evolution of ecosystem service value under land use change in Xinjiang from 1980 to 2020[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2023, 46(2): 253-263.]
[7]	Yuan Y, Bai Z K, Zhang J J, et al. Investigating the trade-offs between the supply and demand for ecosystem services for regional spatial management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 325: 116591, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116591.
[8]	沈佳莹, 刘辉, 温小乐, 等. 高标准农田生态系统服务价值评估——以福建省永泰县同安镇片区为例[J]. 亚热带资源与环境学报, 2019, 14(4): 86-92.
	[Shen Jiaying, Liu Hui, Wen Xiaole, et al. Ecosystem service evaluation of high standard farmland: Taking some area of the Tong'an Town, Yongtai County, Fujian Province as an Example[J]. Journal of Subtropical Resources and Environment, 2019, 14(4): 86-92.]
[9]	郝梦雅, 任志远, 孙艺杰, 等. 关中盆地生态系统服务的权衡与协同关系动态分析[J]. 地理研究, 2017, 36(3): 592-602. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201703016
	[Hao Mengya, Ren Zhiyuan, Sun Yijie, et al. The dynamic analysis of trade-off and synergy of ecosystem services in the Guanzhong Basin[J]. Geographical Research, 2017, 36(3): 592-602.] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201703016
[10]	汪晓珍, 吴建召, 吴普侠, 等. 2000—2015年黄土高原生态系统水源涵养、土壤保持和NPP服务的时空分布与权衡/协同关系[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(4): 114-121.
	[Wang Xiaozhen, Wu Jianzhao, Wu Puxia, et al. Spatial and temporal distribution and trade-off of water conservation, soil conservation and NPP services in the ecosystems of the Loess Plateau from 2000 to 2015[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 35(4): 114-121.]
[11]	Ma S H, Wen Z Z. Optimization of land use structure to balance economic benefits and ecosystem services under uncertainties: A case study in Wuhan, China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 311: 127537, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127537.
[12]	Yang M H, Gao X D, Kadambot H M, et al. Spatiotemporal exploration of ecosystem service, urbanization, and their interactive coercing relationship in the Yellow River Basin over the past 40 years[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 858: 159757, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159757.
[13]	漆信贤, 黄贤金, 赖力. 基于Meta分析的中国森林生态系统生态服务功能价值转移研究[J]. 地理科学, 2018, 38(4): 522-530. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.04.005
	[Qi Xinxian, Huang Xianjin, Lai Li. An empirical study of Meta-analytical value transfer of forest ecosystem services in China[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018, 38(4): 522-530.] doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.04.005
[14]	Maestre F T, Bagousse P Y, Delgado B M, et al. Grazing and ecosystem service delivery in global drylands[J]. Science, 2022, 378: 915-920. doi: 10.1126/science.abq4062 pmid: 36423285
[15]	张翼然, 周德民, 刘苗. 中国内陆湿地生态系统服务价值评估——以71个湿地案例点为数据[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(13): 4279-4286.
	[Zhang Yiran, Zhou Demin, Liu Miao. Ecosystem service valuation research of Chinese inland wetlands based on case study[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(13): 4279-4286.]
[16]	江波, 陈媛媛, 肖洋, 等. 白洋淀湿地生态系统最终服务价值评估[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(8): 2497-2505.
	[Jiang Bo, Chen Yuanyuan, Xiao Yang, et al. Evaluation of the economic value of final ecosystem services from the Baiyangdian wetland[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(8): 2497-2505.]
[17]	Lester S E, Costello C. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning[J]. Marine Policy, 2013, 38: 80-89. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.022
[18]	Li F Z, Yin X X, Shao M. Natural and anthropogenic factors on China’ s ecosystem services: Comparison and spillover effect perspective[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 324: 116064, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116064.
[19]	霍冉, 徐向阳, 高俊莲, 等. 煤炭资源型城市生态系统服务空间特征及其与居民福祉关系[J]. 土壤通报, 2020, 51(1): 31-39.
	[Huo Ran, Xu Xiangyang, Gao Junlian, et al. Spatial patterns of ecosystem services and their relationships with residents’ well-being of coal resource-based cities[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2020, 51(1): 31-39.]
[20]	Pan H H, Wang J Q, Du Z Q, et al. Spatiotemporal evolution of ecosystem services and its potential drivers in coalfields of Shanxi Province, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2023, 148: 110109, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110109.
[21]	Blanco C F, Marques A, Bodegom P M. An integrated framework to assess impacts on ecosystem services in LCA demonstrated by a case study of mining in Chile[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018, 30: 211-219. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.011
[22]	白中科, 赵景逵, 李晋川, 等. 大型露天煤矿生态系统受损研究——以平朔露天煤矿为例[J]. 生态学报, 1999, 19(6): 870-875.
	[Bai Zhongke, Zhao Jingkui, Li Jinchuan, et al. Ecosystem damage in a large opencast coal mine: A case study on Pingshuo surface coal mine, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1999, 19(6): 870-875.]
[23]	朱九龙. 河南义马煤矿矿区生态系统服务价值动态演化过程分析[J]. 地域研究与开发, 2016, 35(2): 145-149.
	[Zhu Jiulong. Analysis of dynamic evolution process of ecosystem service value of Yima coal-mining area in Henan Province[J]. Areal Research and Development, 2016, 35(2): 145-149.]
[24]	薛占金, 秦作栋, 程芳琴. 晋西北地区土地沙漠化时空格局及其驱动因素[J]. 中国环境科学, 2020, 40(12): 5428-5435.
	[Xue Zhanjin, Qin Zuodong, Cheng Fangqin. Spatial-temporal patterns and driving factors of aeolian desertification in northwest Shanxi Province[J]. China Environmental Science, 2020, 40(12): 5428-5435.]
[25]	Xue Z J, Qin Z D, Li H J, et al. Evaluation of aeolian desertification from 1975 to 2010 and its causes in northwest Shanxi Province, China[J]. Global Planetary and Change, 2013, 107: 102-108. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.05.001
[26]	谢高地, 鲁春霞, 冷允法. 青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J]. 自然资源学报, 2003, 18(2): 189-196.
	[Xie Gaodi, Lu Chunxia, Leng Yunfa. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2003, 18(2): 189-196.] doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2003.02.010
[27]	谢高地, 甄霖, 鲁春霞, 等. 一个基于专家知识的生态系统服务价值化方法[J]. 自然资源学报, 2008, 23(5): 911-919.
	[Xie Gaodi, Zhen Lin, Lu Chunxia, et al. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2008, 23(5): 911-919.] doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2008.05.019
[28]	谢高地, 张彩霞, 张雷明, 等. 基于单位面积价值当量因子的生态系统服务价值化方法改进[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(8): 1243-1254.
	[Xie Gaodi, Zhang Caixia, Zhang Leiming, et al. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(8): 1243-1254.] doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.08.001
[29]	薛明皋, 邢路, 王晓艳. 中国土地生态系统服务当量因子空间修正及价值评估[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018, 32(9): 81-88.
	[Xue Minggao, Xing Lu, Wang Xiaoyan. Spatial correction and evaluation of ecosystem services in China[J]. China Land Science, 2018, 32(9): 81-88.]
[30]	邓楚雄, 钟小龙, 谢炳庚, 等. 洞庭湖区土地生态系统的服务价值时空变化[J]. 地理研究, 2019, 38(4): 844-855. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020170999
	[Deng Chuxiong, Zhong Xiaolong, Xie Binggeng, et al. Spatial and temporal changes of land ecosystem service value in Dongting Lake area[J]. Geographical Research, 2019, 38(4): 844-855.] doi: 10.11821/dlyj020170999
[31]	龙精华, 张卫, 付艳华, 等. 鹤岗矿区生态系统服务价值[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(5): 1728-1737.
	[Long Jinghua, Zhang Wei, Fu Yanhua, et al. The value of ecosystem services in Hegang coal mining area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(5): 1728-1737.]
[32]	张发, 玉素甫江·如素力, 艾尔肯·图尔逊. 基于土地利用的博斯腾湖流域生态系统服务价值时空变化[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41 (13): 5254-5265.
	[Zhang Fa, Rusuli Yusufujiang, Tuersun Aierken. Spatio-temporal change of ecosystem service value in Bosten Lake watershed based on land use[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(13): 5254-5265.]
[33]	黄木易, 方斌, 岳文泽, 等. 近20 a来巢湖流域生态服务价值空间分异机制的地理探测[J]. 地理研究, 2019, 38(11): 2790-2803. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020181075
	[Huang Muyi, Fang Bin, Yue Wenze, et al. Spatial differentiation of ecosystem service values and its geographical detection in Chaohu Basin during 1995—2017[J]. Geographical Research, 2019, 38(11): 2790-2803.]

数据类型	数据要求及处理	数据来源
土地利用数据	选取1990年和2000年Landsat TM影像、2010年和2020年Landsat OLI影像，空间分辨率均为30 m。利用Erdas 9.1软件的多波段遥感数据融合方法，对各期影像进行（TM 4-3-2波段合成，OLI 5-4-3波段合成）标准假彩色合成，二次多项式校正，最邻近法重采样，校正误差控制在1个像元以内^[24]。利用ArcMap 9.3软件进行土地利用的人机交互判读与提取，解译显示精度控制为1∶100000，拓扑和改错处理在ArcInfo 9.3环境下完成，形成图形数据库和属性数据库^[24]。为了提高解译结果的准确性，笔者于2020年9月20—25日进行野外实地调查，随机抽取不同地类各20个样点，进行GPS定位、相机拍摄景观照片，对照相应地点的遥感影像，现场确定地类，与解译结果进行对比分析，4期解译精度都在92%以上，满足研究要求。本研究土地利用划分为耕地、林地、草地、水域、建设用地及未利用地6大类	International Scientific Data Service Platform 网址为： http://datamirror.csdb.cn/
土壤数据	基于世界土壤数据库（HWSD）的中国土壤数据集（v1.1），分辨率为1 km	Harmonized World Soil Database 网址为： http://www.fao.org/
社会经济统计数据	粮食作物种类、面积、产量、价格等	《朔州市统计年鉴》《全国农产品成本收益资料汇编》及实地调研

一级类型	二级类型	耕地	林地	草地	水域	建设用地	未利用地
供给服务	食物生产	790.58	176.71	353.43	744.07	0.00	0.00
供给服务	原料生产	372.04	399.94	520.85	213.92	0.00	0.00
调节服务	气体调节	623.16	1131.43	1832.28	716.17	-831.90	167.42
	气候调节	334.83	3934.28	4845.77	2129.91	0.00	502.25
	水源涵养	251.12	3115.81	3552.94	95092.40	-8550.70	27.90
	净化环境	93.01	1190.52	1599.76	5161.99	-2087.80	93.01
支持服务	保持土壤	957.99	1599.75	2232.22	864.98	4455.90	18.60
支持服务	生物多样性	120.91	1460.24	2027.59	2371.73	0.00	18.60
文化服务	美学景观	55.81	641.76	892.89	1757.87	0.00	93.01
总计		3599.45	13650.44	17857.73	109053.04	-7004.20	920.79

类型	1990年		2000年		2010年		2020年
类型	面积/hm²	比例/%	面积/hm²	比例/%	面积/hm²	比例/%	面积/hm²	比例/%
耕地	31734.81	83.51	31234.12	82.19	27653.52	72.77	30612.09	80.56
林地	1042.15	2.74	950.15	2.50	473.20	1.25	735.03	1.93
草地	4103.62	10.80	3864.24	10.18	2604.12	6.85	3138.32	8.26
水域	2.12	0.01	5.13	0.01	63.25	0.17	15.04	0.04
建设用地	930.06	2.45	1632.12	4.29	6735.56	17.73	2974.29	7.83
未利用地	187.24	0.49	314.24	0.83	470.35	1.23	525.23	1.38
合计	38000.00	100.00	38000.00	100.00	38000.00	100.00	38000.00	100.00

类型		耕地	林地	草地	水域	建设用地	未利用地	合计
ESV/10⁴元	1990	11422.79	1422.58	7328.13	23.12	-651.43	17.24	19562.43
	2000	11242.57	1296.99	6900.66	55.94	-1143.17	28.93	18381.93
	2010	9953.75	645.94	4650.37	689.76	-4717.72	43.31	11265.40
	2020	11018.67	1003.35	5604.33	164.02	-2083.25	48.36	15755.47
ESV变化量/10⁴元	1990—2000	-180.72	-125.59	-427.47	32.82	-491.74	11.69	-1180.50
	2000—2010	-1288.82	-651.05	-2250.29	633.82	-3574.55	14.38	-7116.53
	2010—2020	1064.92	357.41	953.96	-525.74	2634.47	5.05	4490.07
	1990—2020	-404.12	-419.23	-1723.80	140.90	-1431.82	31.12	-3806.96
ESV变化率/%	1990—2000	-1.56	-8.83	-5.83	141.95	-75.49	67.80	-6.03
	2000—2010	-11.46	-50.19	-32.61	113.30	-31.26	49.71	-38.72
	2010—2020	10.69	55.33	20.51	-76.22	55.84	11.66	39.85
	1990—2020	-3.53	-29.47	-23.52	609.42	-219.79	180.51	-19.46

类型	年份	供给服务		调节服务				支持服务		文化服务	合计
类型	年份	食物生产	原料生产	气体调节	气候调节	水源涵养	净化环境	保持土壤	生物多样性	美学景观	合计
ESV/10⁴元	1990	2672.49	1436.12	2773.31	3470.96	1805.05	884.37	4538.83	1368.78	612.52	19562.43
	2000	2623.05	1401.41	2631.78	3310.71	1107.42	686.63	4735.07	1301.71	584.15	18381.93
	2010	2291.34	1184.74	1706.02	2418.02	-3389.50	-639.09	6313.82	947.34	432.71	11265.40
	2020	2545.16	1332.07	2331.31	2864.51	-285.96	265.96	5078.33	1118.33	505.76	15755.47
ESV变化量/10⁴元	1990—2000	-49.44	-34.71	-141.53	-160.25	-697.63	-197.74	196.24	-67.07	-28.37	-1180.50
	2000—2010	-331.71	-216.67	-925.76	-892.69	-4496.92	-1325.72	1578.75	-354.37	-151.44	-7116.53
	2010—2020	253.82	147.33	625.29	446.49	3103.54	905.05	-1235.49	170.99	73.05	4490.07
	1990—2020	-127.33	-104.05	-442.00	- 606.45	-2091.01	-618.41	539.50	-250.45	-106.76	-3806.96
ESV变化率/%	1990—2000	-1.85	-2.40	-5.10	-4.60	-40.00	-22.40	4.32	-4.90	-4.60	-6.04
	2000—2010	-12.64	-15.46	-35.17	-26.96	-406.07	-193.07	33.34	-27.22	-25.92	-38.71
	2010—2020	11.07	12.44	36.65	18.46	-91.56	-141.61	-19.56	18.04	16.88	39.85
	1990—2020	-4.76	-7.24	-15.93	-17.47	-115.84	-69.92	11.88	-18.29	-17.43	-19.46