| Literature DB >> 23970833 |
Juan Huang1, Jinyan Zhan, Haiming Yan, Feng Wu, Xiangzheng Deng.
Abstract
It has been widely accepted that there is a close relationship between the land use type and water quality. There have been some researches on this relationship from the perspective of the spatial configuration of land use in recent years. This study aims to analyze the influence of various land use types on the water quality within the Chaohu Lake Basin based on the water quality monitoring data and RS data from 2000 to 2008, with the small watershed as the basic unit of analysis. The results indicated that there was significant negative correlation between forest land and grassland and the water pollution, and the built-up area had negative impacts on the water quality, while the influence of the cultivated land on the water quality was very complex. Besides, the impacts of the landscape diversity on the indicators of water quality within the watershed were also analyzed, the result of which indicated there was a significant negative relationship between them. The results can provide important scientific reference for the local land use optimization and water pollution control and guidance for the formulation of policies to coordinate the exploitation and protection of the water resource.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23970833 PMCID: PMC3736410 DOI: 10.1155/2013/329187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1The Chaohu Lake Basin. Water quality points are shown in the figure. Upstream catchment of each water quality sampling point and land use types were delineated.
Water quality of Chaohu Lake between 2000 and 2007.
| River | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanfei River | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | V | V | Bad V |
| Shiwuli River | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V |
| Pai River | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V |
| Hangbu River | IV | II | III | III | IV | IV | III | IV |
| Baishitian River | IV | III | IV | III | IV | III | IV | IV |
| Zhao River | III | III | III | III | IV | IV | IV | IV |
| Tuogao River | III | III | IV | III | III | IV | III | III |
| Yuxi River | IV | III | III | IV | II | IV | III | IV |
| Shuangqiao River | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V | Bad V |
Descriptive statistics for the study area, including water quality and land use characteristics.
| Categories | Variable | Obs | Mean | Min | Max | S.D. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water quality | CODmn (mg/L) | 81 | 5.18 | 2.7 | 7.8 | 1.09 |
| NH3–N (mg/L) | 81 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 1.61 | 0.39 | |
| TP (mg/L) | 81 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.57 | 0.19 | |
| TN (mg/L) | 81 | 2.23 | 1.04 | 6.48 | 1.11 | |
| DO (mg/L) | 81 | 8.22 | 6.69 | 9.65 | 0.58 | |
|
| ||||||
| Land use | Cultivated land (%) | 81 | 0.47 | 0.32 | 0.80 | 0.12 |
| Forest land (%) | 81 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.02 | |
| Grassland (%) | 81 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.67 | 0.02 | |
| Water area (%) | 81 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.16 | |
| Built-up area (%) | 81 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.08 | |
|
| ||||||
| Landscape metrics | Shannon | 81 | 2.83 | 1.76 | 3.85 | 0.50 |
S.D.: standard deviation.
Figure 2Water quality change from 2000 to 2008 in the study area.
LUCC of the Chaohu Lake Basin between 1995 and 2005.
| Year | Statistics variable | Cultivated land | Forest land | Grassland | Water area | Built-up land | Nonuse land |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | Area (km2) | 17153.11 | 5781.29 | 1817.64 | 2009.12 | 2165.91 | 1.32 |
| Proportion (%) | 59.30% | 19.98% | 6.28% | 6.95% | 7.49% | 0.00% | |
| 2000 | Area (km2) | 16960.22 | 5770.15 | 1817.34 | 2015.09 | 2364.22 | 1.32 |
| Proportion (%) | 58.63% | 19.95% | 6.28% | 6.97% | 8.17% | 0.00% | |
| 2005 | Area (km2) | 16850.80 | 5764.96 | 1816.65 | 2019.72 | 2474.93 | 1.32 |
| Proportion (%) | 58.25% | 19.93% | 6.28% | 6.98% | 8.56% | 0.00% |
The correlation coefficients between different land uses and water quality variables at the scale of the whole watershed.
| Variables (%) | ln (TN) | ln (TP) | ln (CODmn) | ln (NH3–N) | ln (DO) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| coef. | coef. | coef. | coef. | coef. | |
| Cultivated land | −0.46 | −0.42 | −0.08 | 0.31 | 0.06 |
| Forest land | −4.11** | −9.59*** | −5.47*** | −9.26*** | 0.31 |
| Grassland | −6.52*** | −7.87*** | −2.93*** | −8.83*** | 0.54 |
| Water area | −0.30 | 0.26 | 0.29* | 1.22** | 0.0029 |
| Built-up area | 0.86 | 1.54** | 0.70** | 2.60*** | −0.27* |
| Constant | 1.20*** | −1.44*** | 1.69*** | −1.04*** | 2.08*** |
|
| 0.49 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.69 | 0.36 |
***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1.
The correlation coefficients between landscape matrix and water quality variables at the scale of the whole watershed.
| Variables (%) | ln (TN) | ln (TP) | ln (CODmn) | ln (NH3–N) | ln (DO) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| coef. | coef. | coef. | coef. | coef. | |
| Shannon | −0.410*** | −0.633*** | −0.296*** | −0.650*** | 0.0435*** |
| Constant | 1.866*** | −0.00560 | 2.463*** | 1.232*** | 1.981*** |
***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1.