Establishment and Optimization of Ecological Security Pattern in Bashang Area under the Background of

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2021.04.014

Abstract

Abstract:

Bashang area in Hebei Province is the core area of the "two-district" construction for the capital city Beijing,its establishment and optimization of ecological security pattern is of great significance for sustainable ecological development in local area and region of Beijing,Tianjin and Hebei.Ecological sources were extracted from habitat quality index calculated by InVEST model based on the land use data of 2018.The minimum cumulative resistance model was selected to build the minimum cumulative resistance surface.This paper divided ecological security zones into different levels,extracted ecological corridors,and developed ecological security pattern of Hebei Bashang area.The results showed that(1) The habitat quality in Bashang area was generally low,with over 50% of the area at a low level and 46% at medium and high level,presenting the characteristics of polarization of habitat quality,and imbalance in type and distribution,etc.;(2) The ecological source area accounted for 17.50% of the total area of Bashang,and more than 40% of the ecological source area was distributed in Weichang Manchu and Mongolian Autonomous County;(3) The total length of the ecological corridor was 640.86km,and there were 53 ecological nodes.The ecological security zones of high quality in Bashang area accounted for 25.92%,and the ecological security zones of low quality were mainly distributed in Zhangbei County and Kangbao County.The quality of ecological security in Bashang was not very high,the diversity of ecological system was low,the distribution of ecological resources was not balanced in space,and the difference of ecological quality between counties and districts was obvious.In the future,the ecological quality of low-grade ecological regions should be further improved,and a more stable ecological security pattern should be established.

Key words: Bashang plateau ecological protection zone, ecological source area, ecological security pattern, habitat quality, ecological corridor

CLC Number:

X171.4

WANG Yanfang, DAI Tingji, Liu Mengzhu, PEI Hongwei, GUO Xiaonan. Establishment and Optimization of Ecological Security Pattern in Bashang Area under the Background of "Two-District" Construction[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2021, 0(4): 104-113.

Figures/Tables 15

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.4

Fig.4

Tab.5

Fig.5

Fig.6

Tab.6

Fig.7

Tab.7

Fig.8

References 21

[1]	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
[2]	韩宗伟, 焦胜, 胡亮, 等. 廊道与源地协调的国土空间生态安全格局构建[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(10):2244-2256.
[3]	叶鑫, 邹长新, 刘国华, 等. 生态安全格局研究的主要内容与进展[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(10):3382-3392.
[4]	Fu Yangjun, Shi Xueyi, He Juan, et al. Identification and optimization strategy of county ecological security pattern:A case study in the Loess Plateau,China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2020, 112:106030. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106030
[5]	汤峰, 王力, 张涛. 基于生态保护红线和生态网络的县域生态安全格局构建[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(9):263-272.
[6]	黄木易, 岳文泽, 冯少茹. 基于MCR模型的大别山核心区生态安全格局异质性及优化[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(4):771-784.
[7]	董立龙. 建设首都“后花园” 撑起环境“生态伞”[N]. 河北日报, 2019-08-15(6).
[8]	Lin Qian, Mao Jiaying, Wu Jiansheng, et al. Ecological security pattern analysis based on InVEST and Least-cost path model:A case study of dongguan water village[J]. Sustainability, 2016, 8(2):172. doi: 10.3390/su8020172
[9]	郝月, 张娜, 杜亚娟, 等. 基于生境质量的唐县生态安全格局构建[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(3):1015-1024.
[10]	慕正隆. 河湟地区生态安全格局构建研究[D]. 兰州:西北师范大学, 2018.
[11]	刘孟竹, 张红娟, 王彦芳, 等. 基于土地利用的北方农牧交错带生境质量研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2021, 28(3):156-162.
[12]	刘方田, 许尔琪. 基于土地利用的新疆兵团与非兵团生境质量时空演变的对比[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(7):2341-2351.
[13]	张梦迪, 张芬, 李雄. 基于InVEST模型的生境质量评价——以北京市通州区为例[J]. 风景园林, 2020, 27(6):95-99.
[14]	吴健生, 曹祺文, 石淑芹, 等. 基于土地利用变化的京津冀生境质量时空演变[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(11):3457-3466.
[15]	吴茂全, 胡蒙蒙, 汪涛, 等. 基于生态安全格局与多尺度景观连通性的城市生态源地识别[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 3913:4720-4731.
[16]	吴可, 李寒冰, 韩博. 山东省生态安全格局识别及优化策略研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2020(3):89-94.
[17]	刘媛. 基于MCR模型的志丹县土地利用生态安全格局构建[D]. 西安:长安大学, 2017.
[18]	王君一. 天津市土地利用生态安全格局构建研究[D]. 天津:天津工业大学, 2019.
[19]	赵良飞, 王旭, 王永刚, 等. 基于MCR模型的神东矿区景观生态安全格局构建研究[J]. 能源环境保护, 2020, 34(6):81-88.
[20]	岳德鹏, 于强, 张启斌, 等. 区域生态安全格局优化研究进展[J]. 农业机械学报, 2017, 48(2):1-10.
[21]	邓金杰, 陈柳新, 杨成韫, 等. 高度城市化地区生态廊道重要性评价探索——以深圳为例[J]. 地理研究, 2017, 36(3):573-582. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201703014

最大影响距离/km	权重	威胁因子	衰退方式
7	1	居民点	指数
6	1	其他建设用地	指数
5	0.6	旱地	线性
2	0.3	裸地	线性

地类代码	生境类型	生境得分	旱地	居民点	其他建设用地	裸地
12	旱地	0.30	0.00	0.20	0.30	0.25
21	有林地	1.00	0.60	0.65	0.80	0.50
22	灌木地	1.00	0.60	0.70	0.85	0.45
23	疏林地	0.90	0.85	0.90	1.00	0.35
24	其他林地	0.90	0.60	0.75	0.85	0.40
31	高覆盖度草地	0.80	0.40	0.45	0.60	0.55
32	中覆盖度草地	0.75	0.45	0.50	0.65	0.50
33	低覆盖度草地	0.70	0.50	0.55	0.70	0.45
41	河渠	1.00	0.60	0.45	0.65	0.50
42	湖泊	0.85	0.75	0.75	0.55	0.60
43	水库坑塘	0.85	0.75	0.65	0.55	0.30
46	滩地	0.60	0.60	0.35	0.55	0.30
64	沼泽地	0.90	0.40	0.45	0.60	0.55

阻力因子	阻力值					权重
阻力因子	1	2	3	4	5	权重
距道路距离/m	>2000	1500~2000	1000~1500	500~1000	<500	0.06
植被覆盖度	0.78~0.99	0.67~0.78	0.56~0.67	0.34~0.56	-0.30~0.34	0.28
土地利用类型	林地、水域	草地	耕地	未利用地	建设用地	0.36
生境质量指数	0.89~1.00	0.86~0.89	0.80~0.86	0.20~0.80	0.00~0.20	0.18
距水域距离/m	<500	500~1000	1000~1500	1500~2000	>2000	0.12

生境质量类别	面积/km²	百分比/%
高等生境质量	4376.35	23.11
中高等生境质量	4336.14	22.90
中等生境质量	57.30	0.30
低等生境质量	9364.37	49.44
较低等生境质量	805.09	4.25

县名	面积/km²	百分比/%
丰宁满族自治县	472.58	14.26
沽源县	349.05	10.53
康保县	116.69	3.52
尚义县	922.63	27.84
围场满族蒙古族自治县	1329.98	40.14
张北县	122.51	3.70
总计	3313.44	100.00