| Literature DB >> 25642691 |
Chen Lin1, Ronghua Ma2, Zhihu Su3, Qing Zhu4.
Abstract
Taihu Lake in China has suffered from severe eutrophication over the past 20 years which is partly due to significant land use/cover change (LUCC). There is an increasing need to detect the critical watershed region that significantly affects lake water degradation, which has great significance for environmental protection. However, previous studies have obtained conflicting results because of non-uniform lake indicators and inadequate time periods. To identify the sensitive LUCC indices and buffer distance regions, three lake divisions (Meiliang Lake, Zhushan Lake and Western Coastal region) and their watershed region within the Taihu Lake basin were chosen as study sites, the algal area was used as a uniform lake quality indicator and modeled with LUCC indices over the whole time series. Results showed that wetland (WL) and landscape index such as Shannon diversity index (SHDI) appeared to be sensitive LUCC indices when the buffer distance was less than 5 km, while agricultural land (AL) and landscape fragmentation (Ci) gradually became sensitive indices as buffer distances increased to more than 5 km. For the relationship between LUCC and lake algal area, LUCC of the WC region seems to have no significant effect on lake water quality. Conversely, LUCC within ML and ZS region influenced algal area of corresponding lake divisions greatly, while the most sensitive regions were found in 3 km to 5 km, rather than the whole catchment. These results will be beneficial for the further understanding of the relationship between LUCC and lake water quality, and will provide a practical basis for the identification of critical regions for lake.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25642691 PMCID: PMC4344684 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120201629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The location of study site and three lake divisions.
Figure 2The tendency of Land Use/Cover change (LUCC) over of each buffer regions since 1990–2012.
Statistical data of each land use proportion within the full temporal series.
| Region | Year | OF % | PF % | AL % | CL % | WL % | UL % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WC | 1980 | 27.49 | 1.02 | 41.02 | 17.02 | 13.40 | 0.05 |
| 1995 | 27.72 | 1.08 | 39.51 | 19.29 | 11.25 | 1.15 | |
| 2000 | 26.95 | 1.14 | 40.01 | 18.56 | 12.59 | 0.75 | |
| 2002 | 23.94 | 4.55 | 34.87 | 22.12 | 14.22 | 0.30 | |
| 2005 | 22.08 | 1.51 | 34.63 | 13.34 | 15.22 | 13.22 | |
| 2008 | 22.50 | 6.41 | 37.46 | 15.75 | 7.73 | 10.15 | |
| 2010 | 21.87 | 2.97 | 39.22 | 16.52 | 9.86 | 9.56 | |
| 2012 | 16.45 | 5.21 | 34.38 | 22.93 | 10.33 | 10.70 | |
| ML | 1980 | 18.14 | 3.21 | 46.54 | 22.30 | 6.33 | 3.48 |
| 1995 | 19.33 | 4.88 | 43.90 | 22.60 | 8.47 | 0.81 | |
| 2000 | 20.73 | 1.55 | 42.25 | 23.91 | 10.62 | 0.94 | |
| 2002 | 18.65 | 2.41 | 37.92 | 30.75 | 8.33 | 1.94 | |
| 2005 | 17.95 | 1.65 | 35.26 | 37.38 | 5.95 | 1.80 | |
| 2008 | 16.76 | 1.85 | 33.41 | 36.11 | 9.68 | 2.19 | |
| 2010 | 15.94 | 1.62 | 35.33 | 39.90 | 6.11 | 2.10 | |
| 2012 | 15.78 | 2.64 | 30.16 | 44.97 | 6.28 | 0.16 | |
| ZS | 1980 | 13.79 | 0.66 | 39.36 | 16.24 | 20.89 | 9.06 |
| 1995 | 14.00 | 0.72 | 37.57 | 17.87 | 22.19 | 7.66 | |
| 2000 | 12.21 | 0.79 | 33.77 | 24.49 | 22.48 | 6.26 | |
| 2002 | 11.02 | 2.82 | 28.68 | 28.68 | 23.13 | 5.67 | |
| 2005 | 12.58 | 0.75 | 26.98 | 30.67 | 19.89 | 9.13 | |
| 2008 | 11.55 | 0.98 | 27.92 | 31.08 | 18.39 | 10.08 | |
| 2010 | 10.33 | 0.76 | 26.55 | 34.30 | 17.16 | 10.90 | |
| 2012 | 11.00 | 3.79 | 25.66 | 36.09 | 18.39 | 5.07 |
Figure 3Proportions change tendency of different land use type classified by various buffer distances for three lake divisions.
Change tendencies of landscape indices among different buffer regions.
| Region | Year | B1 (1 km) | B3 (5 km) | B5 (10 km) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHDI | SHEI | FRAC | SHDI | SHEI | FRAC | SHDI | SHEI | FRAC | |||||
| WC | 1980 | 1.079 | 0.715 | 6.558 | 1.0724 | 1.269 | 0.725 | 2.691 | 1.0684 | 1.296 | 0.699 | 2.049 | 1.0548 |
| 1995 | 1.112 | 0.737 | 6.153 | 1.0625 | 1.295 | 0.737 | 2.610 | 1.0796 | 1.341 | 0.743 | 2.008 | 1.0684 | |
| 2000 | 1.183 | 0.735 | 12.677 | 1.0898 | 1.252 | 0.778 | 3.915 | 1.0783 | 1.311 | 0.732 | 2.661 | 1.0645 | |
| 2002 | 1.427 | 0.797 | 15.382 | 1.0373 | 1.409 | 0.820 | 4.456 | 1.0349 | 1.523 | 0.850 | 2.931 | 1.0347 | |
| 2005 | 1.190 | 0.740 | 12.137 | 1.0988 | 1.308 | 0.813 | 3.807 | 1.0775 | 1.360 | 0.759 | 2.606 | 1.0663 | |
| 2008 | 1.492 | 0.833 | 17.005 | 1.0397 | 1.429 | 0.837 | 5.290 | 1.0375 | 1.567 | 0.875 | 3.093 | 1.0388 | |
| 2010 | 1.042 | 0.648 | 16.870 | 1.087 | 1.329 | 0.757 | 5.329 | 1.0752 | 1.297 | 0.724 | 3.026 | 1.062 | |
| 2012 | 1.277 | 0.713 | 22.955 | 1.1173 | 1.455 | 0.812 | 5.770 | 1.0348 | 1.395 | 0.867 | 3.088 | 1.0328 | |
| ML | 1980 | 1.266 | 0.786 | 2.975 | 1.0427 | 1.375 | 0.732 | 1.785 | 1.0436 | 1.285 | 0.756 | 1.524 | 1.0254 |
| 1995 | 1.294 | 0.815 | 2.832 | 1.0578 | 1.435 | 0.783 | 1.699 | 1.0874 | 1.348 | 0.793 | 1.451 | 1.0545 | |
| 2000 | 1.288 | 0.801 | 3.498 | 1.0654 | 1.411 | 0.787 | 2.099 | 1.0623 | 1.317 | 0.735 | 1.792 | 1.0613 | |
| 2002 | 1.522 | 0.946 | 4.046 | 1.0418 | 1.588 | 0.886 | 2.427 | 1.0358 | 1.531 | 0.855 | 2.072 | 1.0338 | |
| 2005 | 1.240 | 0.770 | 6.640 | 1.0678 | 1.376 | 0.855 | 3.084 | 1.0492 | 1.316 | 0.735 | 3.401 | 1.0388 | |
| 2008 | 1.605 | 0.896 | 7.925 | 1.0433 | 1.635 | 0.913 | 4.455 | 1.0417 | 1.588 | 0.886 | 3.803 | 1.0403 | |
| 2010 | 1.230 | 0.764 | 8.448 | 1.0689 | 1.327 | 0.824 | 4.069 | 1.0471 | 1.278 | 0.713 | 3.327 | 1.037 | |
| 2012 | 1.466 | 0.911 | 8.257 | 1.0415 | 1.469 | 0.820 | 4.154 | 1.0363 | 1.401 | 0.782 | 3.254 | 1.0325 | |
| ZS | 1980 | 1.295 | 0.695 | 3.209 | 1.0145 | 1.201 | 0.755 | 1.925 | 1.0452 | 0.816 | 0.602 | 1.605 | 1.0351 |
| 1995 | 1.265 | 0.687 | 3.606 | 1.0257 | 1.235 | 0.812 | 2.164 | 1.0388 | 0.976 | 0.599 | 1.803 | 1.0537 | |
| 2000 | 1.316 | 0.734 | 5.654 | 1.0484 | 1.164 | 0.650 | 3.392 | 1.0587 | 0.944 | 0.527 | 2.827 | 1.0163 | |
| 2002 | 1.579 | 0.881 | 5.165 | 1.0422 | 1.513 | 0.844 | 3.099 | 1.0317 | 1.367 | 0.763 | 2.583 | 1.0353 | |
| 2005 | 1.330 | 0.959 | 5.104 | 1.0598 | 1.261 | 0.910 | 3.062 | 1.0458 | 1.108 | 0.799 | 2.552 | 1.0536 | |
| 2008 | 1.527 | 0.852 | 5.929 | 1.0785 | 1.388 | 0.774 | 3.557 | 1.0453 | 1.238 | 0.691 | 3.765 | 1.0721 | |
| 2010 | 1.321 | 0.953 | 6.235 | 1.0964 | 1.190 | 0.859 | 3.141 | 1.0564 | 1.071 | 0.773 | 3.117 | 1.0987 | |
| 2012 | 1.403 | 0.878 | 6.108 | 1.1025 | 1.476 | 0.824 | 3.065 | 1.0324 | 1.365 | 0.762 | 3.154 | 1.1163 | |
Figure 4Change tendency of algae area within the three lake divisions since 1990–2012.
Modeling result of LUCC indices and algae area as three divisions combined.
| Buffer Region | Distance to Lake | RMSE | Significant Factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Landscape | |||||
| B1 | 1 km | 24 | 0.44 | 6.78 | WL | SHDI |
| B2 | 3 km | 24 | 0.66 | 3.73 | WL, PF | SHDI |
| B3 | 5 km | 24 | 0.58 | 8.21 | WL, AL | -- |
| B4 | 7 km | 24 | 0.52 | 8.39 | AL | |
| B5 | 10 km | 24 | 0.50 | 7.53 | AL, WL | |
| B6 | 50 km | 24 | 0.23 | 9.04 | -- | |
Figure 5Scatter plots of algal area calculated by LUCC and algal area extracted by FAI for the B2 and B3 buffer regions.
Modeling result of LUCC and algae area as three divisions considered separately.
| Buffer Region | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B6 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Factor | Factor | Factor | Factor | Factor | |||||||
| WC | 0.67 | WL | 0.59 | WL | 0.42 | AL, WL | 0.43 | AL | 0.38 | 0.23 | AL, | |
| ML | 0.59 | WL, SHDI | 0.89 | WL, SHDI | 0.85 | WL, AL, | 0.80 | AL, WL, | 0.60 | 0.31 | ||
| ZS | 0.48 | WL | 0.82 | AL, WL, SHDI | 0.90 | AL, SHDI, | 0.55 | 0.60 | AL, | 0.20 | AL, | |
Figure 6Change tendency of Ci in land level and in land class level.