西气东输管道沿线河西走廊地区生态系统评价与生态安全保障体系建设

doi:10.13826/j.cnki.cn65-1103/x.2003.04.003

干旱区地理 ›› 2003, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (4): 309-315.doi: 10.13826/j.cnki.cn65-1103/x.2003.04.003

西气东输管道沿线河西走廊地区生态系统评价与生态安全保障体系建设

高启晨¹, 陈利顶¹, 姜昌亮¹, 李国强¹, 丘君¹, 高安²

1 中国科学院生态环境研究中心,北京 100085;
2 中国科学院寒区旱区环境与工程研究所,兰州 730000

收稿日期:2002-05-20 修回日期:2003-08-01 出版日期:2003-04-25 发布日期:2025-12-22
作者简介:高启晨(1974–）,男,博士研究生,主要从事景观生态学研究.E-mail：gaoqichen@sohu.com
基金资助:
中国科学院中国石油天然气股份有限公司科学研究与技术开发项目(XQSGQS053）资助

Ecosystem Assessment and Ecological Security System Design for Hexi Corridor Region along the West—East Gas Pipeline Project (WEPP）

GAO Qi-chen¹, CHEN Li-ding¹, JIANG Chang-liang¹, LI Guo-qiang¹, QIU Jun¹, GAO An²

1 Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences,CAS,Beijing 100085,China;
2 Cold and A rid Regions Environmental Engineering Research,CAS,Lanzhou 730000,China

Received:2002-05-20 Revised:2003-08-01 Published:2003-04-25 Online:2025-12-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 西气东输管道沿线河西走廊地区是典型的荒漠–绿洲–戈壁区,具有干湿交错带、农牧交错带、森林边缘带以及沙漠边缘带等多种环境脆弱带,管道施工造成地表土壤、植被的破坏,加剧荒漠化过程,还会诱发沙尘暴,使地区生态环境进一步恶化,直接影响到管道的安全运行,从区域生态安全和管道安全双重角度提出区域的生态安全保障体系具有重要意义。以西气东输管道沿线河西走廊地区为例,对管道沿线两侧各10km内进行了生态系统制图分析,识别出该区的主要生态系统类型,并对其中主要的3种生态系统进行了评价。在此基础上,针对几种典型生态系统区如裸地生态系统、绿洲生态系统、戈壁半灌木矮半灌木荒漠生态系统地区提出来了生态安全保障体系,具有保障区域生态安全和管道安全运行双重意义。

关键词: 西气东输工程, 河西走廊地区, 生态系统评价, 生态安全

Abstract: Because the Hexi Corridor Region along WEPP is typical of desert-oasis-Gobi region with vulnerable environment for all kinds of ecotones such as dry-wet ecotone,agro-pasture ecotone,forest edge region and desert edge region,WEPP will bring destruction to vegetation and soil of the region,aggravating desertification, inducing sandstorm,deteriorating the regional ecological environment and endangering the safety for the running of WEPP.So it is very important to build ecological security system for both ecological safety and pipeline safety.Based on the Arcview GIS platform,main ecosystems are identified along the pipeline within10km on each side,and ecosystem assessment is focused on the main 3ecosystems：Gobi Gray-brown-desert soil sem-i andshor-t shrub desert ecosystem taking account of 34.65％ of the total assessing area,oasis ecosystem with 20.58％,and the barren land ecosystem with19.43％,So the ecological security systems are aiming at these ecosystems,which is important to both ecological security for the region and the safety running for WEPP.
The desert systems are divided into two kinds of transferring zone：middle-low hill areas and desert area, and Straw lattice design (30m wide） is used in the desert area,but to the former,the main problem is the gravity erosion,and the gully detention project and fixation project of gully should be done.The oasis ecosystems are divided into three zones：small areas of sand land and sand dunes area,farmland area and ecotone area,and to the first one,gravels are used for pipe gully burying preventing sands from erosing,and two belts on the sand dunes are sand barrier and artificial bush belt and natural restoration belt; to the second one,the main measure is that soil be excavated and buried on layers; to the third one,three belts designed according to the distances away from the pipeline are sand barrier belt (0~5m）,sand barrier and artificial bush forest belt (5~50m） and the closing belt for reservation (50~1000m） in the Gobi area,and the opposite three belt in the oasis are grass planted belt (0~50m）,artificial bush forest belt (5~50m） and the closing belt for reservation.The Gobi Graybrown-desert soil Sem-i and-short-shrub desert ecosystems are divided into two kinds：Gobi plain area and mountain front Gobi area,and to the former,on each side of the pipeline,three belt designed are gravel barrier belt (0~5m）,artificial enclosed grass belt (5~50m） and natural restoration belt (50~500m）,to the latter a ridge on the pipe built to reserve water for the recovery of vegetation,and three belts designed are current collector belt for restoration and project belt for restoration.Along the ridge,flood discharge passages be built every some distances.

Key words: WEPP, Hexi Corridor, Ecosystem assessment, Ecological security

中图分类号:

X171

高启晨, 陈利顶, 姜昌亮, 李国强, 丘君, 高安. 西气东输管道沿线河西走廊地区生态系统评价与生态安全保障体系建设[J]. 干旱区地理, 2003, 26(4): 309-315.

GAO Qi-chen, CHEN Li-ding, JIANG Chang-liang, LI Guo-qiang, QIU Jun, GAO An. Ecosystem Assessment and Ecological Security System Design for Hexi Corridor Region along the West—East Gas Pipeline Project (WEPP）[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2003, 26(4): 309-315.

参考文献

[1] 李华忠,陈波,徐泽海.河西地区绿洲“自然–农业经济系统的初步分析[J].干旱区资源与环境,1990,4(1):100~110.
[2] 钱正英. 河西走廊生态危机与对策[J].中国水利,2002,8:6~8.
[3] 王根绪,程国栋,沈永平.近50年来河西走廊区域生态环境变化特征与综合防治对策[J].自然资源学报,2002,17(10):78~85.
[4] 南忠仁,赵传燕.甘肃河西区域生态系统特征分析与生态环境退化探讨[J].西北师范大学学报(自然科学版),1993,29(1):49~54.
[5] 杜巧玲,后立胜,许学工.河西走廊生态环境治理与保护[J].水土保持研究,2002,9(3):191~193.
[6] 袁丽侠. 宁夏土地沙质荒漠化成因与防治对策研究[J].自然灾害学报,2002,11(2):132~137.
[7] Regal P J.Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of transgenic organisms[J].Molecular Ecology,1994(3):5~13.
[8] Metz P L,Stickema W J,Nap J P.A transgene-centered approach to the biosafety of transgenic phosphinothricin-tolerent plants[J].Molecular Breeding,1998,4(4):335~341.
[9] Meer P van der,Van der Meer P.Potential long-term ecological impact of genetically modified organisms:a survey of literature, guidelines and legislation[J].Nature and Environment Series, 1992,(65).
[10] Hammes W P,Herte C.Aspects of the safety assessment of genetically modified microorganisms[J]. Ernahrung,1997,21(10):64~68.
[11] Samersov V,Trepashko L.Power consumption of systems of plans protectionas criterion of their ecological safety[J].Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection,1998,31(4):335~340.
[12] Dyson J S.Ecological safety of pataquat with particular reference to soil[J].Planter.1997,73(5):467~468,471~474,477~478.
[13] Okey B W.Systems approaches and properties.and agro-ecosystem health[J].Journal of Environmental Management,1996,48(2):187~199.
[14] 肖笃宁,陈文波,郭福良.论生态安全的基本概念和研究内容[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(3):354~358.
[15] 陈利顶,傅伯杰.榆林地区无定河流域土地生系统态分类与评价[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1996,2(2):57~65.
[16] 石培基,李鸣骥,陶希东.武威绿洲农业生态环境恢复与重建对策[J].农业环境保护,2000,9(6):64~367.
[17] 蒙吉军,龙花楼,刘松.绿洲农业生态经济系统的结构与功能分析–以张掖绿洲为例[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(2):213~217.
[18] 赵成义,王玉朝,李国振.荒漠一绿洲边缘区研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(3):93~97.
[19] 王玉朝,赵成义.绿洲–荒漠生态脆弱带研究[J].干旱区地理, 2001,24(2):182~188.
[20] 周华荣,潘伯荣,海热提·涂尔逊.新疆生态环境现状综合评价研究.干旱区地理,2001,24(1):23~29.
[21] 王雪芹,赵从举.古尔班通古特沙漠工程防护体系内的蚀积变化与植被的自然恢复[J].干旱区地理,2002(3):201~207.
[22] 陈亚宁,李卫红,杨思全,等.新亚欧大陆桥新疆段环境地质灾害研究.干旱区地理,2001,24(1):30~36.
[23] 钱亦兵,雷加强,徐新文.吐乌大公路建设对生态环境的不良影响及对策.干旱区地理,2001,24(2):172~176.
[24] 于云江,鲁春霞.青藏线客城区段沙害成因与防治途径的研究. 干旱区地理,2001,24(3):236~242.

西气东输管道沿线河西走廊地区生态系统评价与生态安全保障体系建设

Ecosystem Assessment and Ecological Security System Design for Hexi Corridor Region along the West—East Gas Pipeline Project (WEPP）

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	许静, 杨斌. 甘肃省新型城镇化与生态安全耦合协同及其驱动因素非平稳性[J]. 干旱区地理, 2025, 48(8): 1432-1444.
[2]	罗小梅, 文琦, 施琳娜, 吴昕燕, 安丰平, 王振亭. 多维视角下中国北方农牧交错带县域收缩识别及影响因素分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2025, 48(7): 1267-1278.
[3]	闫晓梅, 王宏卫, 罗魁, 董康宁, 郭瑞杰, 郑旭东. 基于生态安全格局确定县域生物多样性保护的优先区域——以布尔津县为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2025, 48(4): 586-598.
[4]	张杰, 屈建军, 陈海, 石金鑫, 马羽赫, 刘迪. 基于电路理论的生态安全格局时空演变与影响因素研究——以陕北黄土高原为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2025, 48(3): 494-505.
[5]	戴文渊, 张清华, 史权, 张志超, 张瑞萍, 郑志祥, 张芮. 2003—2022年黄河流域甘肃段水生态安全协同驱动机制研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2025, 48(11): 1939-1950.
[6]	李雪敏, 王菲菲, 武振国, 张耘恺, 潘越明. 基于生态位与Lotka-Volterra模型的内蒙古生态安全状况研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2025, 48(11): 1995-2004.
[7]	蒙慧敏, 占车生, 胡实, 林忠辉. 大型灌区土壤水盐运移模拟研究进展[J]. 干旱区地理, 2024, 47(9): 1566-1576.
[8]	黄秋淞, 何浩. 耦合生态系统服务和景观连通性的环塔里木盆地绿洲区生态安全格局研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2024, 47(10): 1745-1754.
[9]	张齐飞, 陈亚宁, 孙从建, 向燕芸, 郝海超. 塔里木河流域水储量变化及绿洲生态安全评估[J]. 干旱区地理, 2024, 47(1): 1-14.
[10]	杨荣美, 周宏, 张燕妮, 卢训贤, 王娜娜. 基于熵权TOPSIS方法与模糊物元模型的河西走廊地区旅游生态安全评估[J]. 干旱区地理, 2024, 47(1): 117-126.
[11]	李洪庆,杨瑀,张俊红. 雅鲁藏布江山南宽谷流域生态安全格局构建[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(9): 1503-1513.
[12]	田柳兰, 王珊珊, 毋兆鹏. 基于多时相遥感数据的乌鲁木齐市生态安全格局构建[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(7): 1155-1165.
[13]	张萨日郎, 乌兰图雅, 布和, 咏梅, 斯琴朝克图, 张卫青. 近40 a蒙古高原土地沙漠化研究的文献计量学分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(12): 1984-1994.
[14]	李伊彤,荣丽华,李文龙,程磊. 生态重要性视角下东北林区县域生态安全格局研究——以呼伦贝尔市阿荣旗为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(5): 1615-1625.
[15]	张晓东,赵志鹏,赵银鑫,高学花,马玉学,刘乃静,吉卫波. 银川市景观生态风险评价与生态安全格局优化构建[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(5): 1626-1636.