CollectHomepage AdvertisementContact usMessage
  • May. 13, 2025

Arid Land Geography ›› 2025, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (4): 586-598.doi: 10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2024.354

• The Third Xinjiang Scientific Expedition • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Determining priority areas for county biodiversity conservation based on ecological security pattern: A case study of Burqin County

YAN Xiaomei1,2(), WANG Hongwei1,2(), LUO Kui3, DONG Kangning1,2, GUO Ruijie1,2, ZHENG Xudong1,2   

  1. 1. School of Geography and Remote Sensing Science, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, Xinjiang, China
    2. Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Urumqi 830017, Xinjiang, China
    3. Institute of International Rivers and Ecological Security, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, Yunnan, China
  • Received:2024-06-06 Revised:2024-11-05 Online:2025-04-25 Published:2025-04-18
  • Contact: WANG Hongwei E-mail:107552201129@stu.xju.edu.cn;wanghw_777@xju.edu.cn

Abstract:

Ecological security is fundamental to human well-being and long-term sustainability. However, the ongoing degradation of biological habitats has intensified ecological challenges, highlighting the urgent need for effective biodiversity conservation strategies. This study examines Burqin County in Xinjiang, China, to develop an ecological security framework by analyzing habitat quality dynamics and identifying priority conservation areas. Using the InVEST and PLUS models, we evaluated the spatiotemporal evolution of habitat quality from 2000 to 2030 and mapped ecological source areas. Circuit theory was applied to delineate ecological corridors, ecological pinch points, and key biodiversity conservation zones. Based on optimal corridor widths and conservation priorities, differentiated protection strategies were proposed. The key findings are as follows: (1) From 2000 to 2020, habitat quality in Burqin County remained at a moderate level, with an average habitat quality index of 0.4978. The trend initially showed a decline, followed by slight recovery, while projections indicate a continuous improvement in habitat quality from 2020 to 2030. (2) The study identified 1059.83 km2 of ecological source areas, 684.26 km2 of construction source areas, 69 ecological corridors, and 42 ecological pinch points. Resistance thresholds during source area expansion were used to partition the region into distinct ecological protection zones with prioritized conservation levels. These results were cross-validated with data from Xinjiang’s significant ecological protection areas. (3) Zone-specific ecological corridor widths were determined by considering the spatial distribution of wildlife species, ensuring accurate delineation of their extents.

Key words: habitat quality, ecological corridors, ecological security pattern, ecological reserve, differentiated protection strategy