| Literature DB >> 25258734 |
Ying Wang1, Xiangmei Li2, Jiangfeng Li1.
Abstract
This research examined the spatiotemporal patterns of land-use/cover and the dynamics of ecological capacity in response to land-use/cover change in Wuhan city, central China. The data were derived from five years' remote-sensed images, that is, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. This paper used an integrated approach of remote sensing and GIS techniques, ecological capacity and the bilateral dynamic degree models. The results are as follows. (1) From 1990 to 2010, remarkable changes in land-use/cover have occurred within the studied area, and the most prominent characteristics of the changes were continuous decline of arable land and rapid increase of built-up land. (2) The total ecological capacity dropped from 450.55 × 10(4) ghm(2) in 1990 to 447.35 × 10(4) ghm(2) in 2010. The eastern, western, and southern parts had higher ecological capacity whereas the northwestern hilly areas and the central district had lower ecological capacity. (3) Due to the conversion from arable land to built-up land, the ecological capacity losses during 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, and 2005-2010 were 155.52 × 10(2) ghm(2), 114.12 × 10(2) ghm(2), 455.48 × 10(2) ghm(2), and 325.26 × 10(2) ghm(2), respectively. The study would contribute to better understanding of the effects of land-use dynamics and the evolution of ecological capacity, which can provide scientific basis for land management and environment protection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25258734 PMCID: PMC4167453 DOI: 10.1155/2014/794323
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1The location of Wuhan city in CCEZ and its landscape.
Figure 2LULC maps of 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 in the Wuhan city.
Figure 3LULC in the Wuhan city from 1990 to 2010.
The bilateral dynamic degree of LULC changes from 1990 to 2010 in Wuhan city (unit: %).
| Periods | 1990–1995 | 1995–2000 | 2000–2005 | 2005–2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pasture | 5.59 | 6.30 | 36.50 | 16.87 |
| Arable land | 3.40 | 3.01 | 11.06 | 4.13 |
| Built-up land | 12.38 | 13.98 | 43.63 | 20.38 |
| Forest | 2.32 | 2.17 | 16.51 | 1.94 |
| Water area | 7.19 | 6.94 | 17.79 | 7.13 |
| Unused land | 16.24 | 27.42 | 34.71 | 24.30 |
| Integrated bilateral dynamic degree | 4.78 | 4.83 | 15.89 | 6.31 |
Changes of ecological capacity from 1990 to 2010 in Wuhan city (104 ghm2).
| LULC types | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pasture | 0.07 (0.0%) | 0.07 (0.0%) | 0.07 (0.0%) | 0.07 (0.0%) | 0.06 (0.0%) |
| Arable land | 302.49 (59.1%) | 296.58 (58.0%) | 294.16 (57.3%) | 287.12 (56.2%) | 281.35 (55.3%) |
| Built-up land | 15.71 (3.1%) | 17.58 (3.4%) | 18.75 (3.7%) | 22.38 (4.4%) | 25.83 (5.1%) |
| Forest | 15.92 (3.1%) | 15.79 (3.1%) | 15.86 (3.1%) | 15.72 (3.1%) | 15.64 (3.1%) |
| Water area | 177.80 (34.7%) | 181.62 (35.5%) | 184.19 (35.9%) | 185.27 (36.3%) | 185.47 (36.5%) |
| Unused land | 0.0 (0.0%) | 0.0 (0.0%) | 0.0 (0.0%) | 0.0 (0.0%) | 0.0 (0.0%) |
| Biodiversity conservation 12% | 61.44 | 61.40 | 61.56 | 61.27 | 61.00 |
| Total | 450.55 | 450.24 | 451.47 | 449.29 | 447.35 |
| Per capita | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.53 |
Figure 4Spatial distribution of total ecological capacity of Wuhan city during 1990–2010.
The difference matrix of EC coefficients among different LULC types.
| LULC types | Pasture | Arable land | Built-up land | Forest | Water area | Unused land |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pasture | — | 5.589 | 2.747 | 1.907 | 10.611 | −0.095 |
| Arable land | −5.589 | — | −2.842 | −3.682 | 5.022 | −5.684 |
| Built-up land | −2.747 | 2.842 | — | −0.840 | 7.864 | −2.842 |
| Forest | −1.907 | 3.682 | 0.840 | — | 8.704 | −2.002 |
| Water area | −10.611 | −5.022 | −7.864 | −8.704 | — | −10.706 |
| Unused land | 0.095 | 5.684 | 2.842 | 2.002 | 10.706 | — |
The transfer matrix of ecological capacity from 1990 to 2010 in Wuhan city (unit: 102 ghm2).
| Periods | LULC types | Pasture | Arable land | Built-up land | Forest | Water area | Unused land | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990–1995 | Pasture | — | 1.31 | 2.02 | 0.42 | 5.69 | 0.00 | 9.45 |
| Arable land | −5.48 | — | −155.52 | −18.54 | 365.11 | −43.02 | 148.03 | |
| Built-up land | −0.05 | 3.38 | — | −0.02 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 3.52 | |
| Forest | −1.05 | 34.90 | 1.03 | — | 6.79 | −0.57 | 42.16 | |
| Water area | −8.20 | −135.48 | −75.25 | −5.69 | — | −38.10 | −254.53 | |
| Unused land | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 29.67 | — | 31.19 | |
|
| ||||||||
| 1995–2000 | Pasture | — | 1.00 | 4.75 | 1.06 | 3.80 | 0.00 | 10.60 |
| Arable land | −1.49 | — | −114.12 | −31.53 | 246.61 | −4.16 | 96.79 | |
| Built-up land | −1.64 | 53.39 | — | −0.72 | 14.83 | −0.78 | 66.73 | |
| Forest | −1.71 | 6.92 | 2.56 | — | 9.94 | 0.00 | 19.41 | |
| Water area | −0.23 | −145.83 | −134.99 | −0.16 | — | −1.60 | −282.59 | |
| Unused land | 0.00 | 39.18 | 3.24 | 0.01 | 189.33 | — | 231.76 | |
|
| ||||||||
| 2000–2005 | Pasture | — | 21.80 | 5.85 | 5.89 | 63.01 | −0.01 | 96.54 |
| Arable land | −24.92 | — | −455.48 | −172.62 | 644.40 | −28.35 | −12.04 | |
| Built-up land | −1.85 | 186.28 | — | −3.84 | 62.20 | −1.66 | 242.98 | |
| Forest | −5.04 | 168.68 | 9.14 | — | 74.54 | −0.66 | 251.70 | |
| Water area | −33.13 | −509.70 | −238.17 | −54.94 | — | −57.03 | −859.84 | |
| Unused land | 0.02 | 30.88 | 6.51 | 0.86 | 62.01 | — | 100.26 | |
|
| ||||||||
| 2005–2010 | Pasture | — | 12.75 | 4.60 | 7.24 | 3.76 | 0.00 | 28.34 |
| Arable land | −2.83 | — | −325.26 | −0.53 | 201.81 | −2.76 | −126.74 | |
| Built-up land | 0.00 | 11.64 | — | −0.15 | 118.28 | −1.85 | 127.93 | |
| Forest | 0.00 | 31.44 | 0.50 | — | 5.14 | −0.21 | 36.87 | |
| Water area | −22.76 | −179.04 | −164.54 | 0.00 | — | −9.41 | −352.99 | |
| Unused land | 0.08 | 14.07 | 6.76 | 2.92 | 85.68 | — | 109.42 | |