| Literature DB >> 30096816 |
Yongchao Liu1,2,3, Yongxue Liu4,5,6, Jialin Li7,8, Wanyun Lu9, Xianglin Wei10, Chao Sun11.
Abstract
Detailed analysis of the evolution characteristics of landscape ecological risk is crucial for coastal sustainable management and for understanding the potential environmental impacts of a man-made landform landscapes (MMLL). As a typical open coastal wetland, large-scale human activities (e.g., tidal reclamation, fishery activities, wind farm construction, and port construction) have substantially affected the evolution of the coastal ecological environment. Previous landscape ecological risk assessment studies have documented the effectiveness of assessing the quality of ecological environment processes. However, these studies have either focused on the noncoastal zone, or they have not considered the evolution of the spatial characteristics and ecological risk evolution of the landscape at an optimal scale. Here, we present a landscape ecological risk pattern (LERP) evolution model, based on two successive steps: first, we constructed an optimal scale method with an appropriate extent and grain using multi⁻temporal Landsat TM/OLI images acquired in the years 2000, 2004, 2008, 2013 and 2017, and then we calculated landscape ecological risk indices. Based on this model, the entire process of the spatiotemporal evolution of ecological risk patterns of the open coastal wetlands in Jiangsu, China, was determined. The principal findings are as follows: (1) The main landscape types in the study area are tidal flats and farmland, and the main features of the landscape evolution are a significant increase in aquafarming and a substantial decrease in the tidal flat area, while the landscape heterogeneity increased; (2) In the past 20 years, the areas of low and relatively low ecological risk in the study region were greatly reduced, while the areas of medium, relatively high, and high ecological risk greatly increased; the areas of high-grade ecological risk areas are mainly around Dongtai and Dafeng; (3) The area of ecological risk from low-grade to high-grade occupied 71.75% of the study area during 2000⁻2017. During the previous periods (2000⁻2004 and 2004⁻2008), the areas of low-grade ecological risk were transformed to areas of middle-grade ecological risk area, while during the later periods (2008⁻2013 and 2013⁻2017) there was a substantial increase in the proportion of areas of high-grade ecological risk. Our results complement the official database of coastal landscape planning, and provide important information for assessing the potential effects of MMLL processes on coastal environments.Entities:
Keywords: landscape ecological risk assessment; landscape patterns; open coastal wetlands; remote sensing and GIS; spatial heterogeneity
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30096816 PMCID: PMC6121314 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15081691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1(a–c) Location of the study area. The main natural wetlands of the open coastal wetlands in Jiangsu (OCWJ) comprise tidalflat (d-1); cordgrass and seawater (d-2); seepweed and reedbed (d-3); and farmland (d-4) [42], an exotic introduction from North America which outcompeted the native wetlands and became a dominant species after 1990. The area bounded by the yellow line (c) is the spatial heterogeneity of landscape space.
Details of the landsat remote sensing data used in this study (spatial resolution: 30 m).
| Satellite | Sensors | Path/Row | Date | Satellite | Sensors | Path/Row | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landsat 5 | TM | 120/36 | 13 December 2000 | Landsat 5 | TM | 119/37 | 06 December 2000 |
| Landsat 5 | TM | 120/36 | 08 December 2004 | Landsat 5 | TM | 119/37 | 15 November 2004 |
| Landsat 5 | TM | 120/36 | 19 December 2008 | Landsat 5 | TM | 119/37 | 13 January 2009 |
| Landsat 8 | OLI | 120/36 | 01 December 2013 | Landsat 8 | OLI | 119/37 | 10 December 2013 |
| Landsat 8 | OLI | 120/36 | 06 December 2017 | Landsat 8 | OLI | 119/37 | 22 December 2017 |
Figure 2Framework of the methodology used for the landscape ecological risk assessment.
Commonly-used landscape metrics.
| Level | Landscape Metric | Significance/Description | Themes/Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class | Number of patches (NP) | Total number of patches in the landscape | a Measure of configuration/standard method |
| Landscape shape index (LSI) | Landscape boundary and total edge within the landscape divided by the total area | a/b Measure of configuration/standard method | |
| Landscape division index (DIVISION) | Degree of plaque fragmentation in the landscape, describing the complexity of the landscape | a Diversity assessment/standard method | |
| Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI) | Heterogeneity of the landscape: the higher the landscape heterogeneity, the higher the diversity index | a Diversity assessment/standard method | |
| Percentage of the landscape (PLAND) | Percentage of the landscape comprising of the corresponding patch type | b Measure of configuration/standard method | |
| Patch density (PD) | Configuration metrics patch density | b Spatial differentiation/standard method | |
| Total Area (CA) | Sum of the areas of all patches belonging to a given class | b Measure of configuration/standard method | |
| Largest patch index (LPI) | Percentage of the landscape comprised by the largest patch of the corresponding patch type | b Measure of configuration/standard method | |
| Edge Density (ED) | Amount of edge relative to the landscape area | b Spatial differentiation/standard method | |
| landscape | Patch Cohesion Index (COHESION) | Measures the physical connectedness of the corresponding patch type | d Measure of configuration/moving window |
| Euclidean nearest neighbor distance mean index (ENN–MN) | Distance to the nearest neighboring patch of the same type, based on shortest edge-to-edge distance | d Measure of configuration /moving window | |
| Class/landscape | Shannon’s evenness index (SHEI) | Expresses the uniformity of distribution at different landscape levels | a/c Measure of configuration/standard method and moving window |
| Contagion index (CONTAG) | Measures the extent to which patch types are aggregated or clumped | a/c Measure of configuration/moving window |
Note: a applicable to grain and extent; b applicable to overall landscape pattern characteristics; c applicable to block to base ratio; d applicable to landscape heterogeneity.
Figure 3Changes of landscape metric values with grain (a–c) and changes in area landscape accuracy with different grain (d). With the increase in grain size, due to the boundary of the vector data and the changes of the properties of adjacent patches, scale turning points appear in the values of landscape metrics. Considering the distribution of inflection points and the calculation efficiency (a–c), 20–100 m was selected as the appropriate scale domain to determine the analysis grain for the next step (d). The block ratio of different moving windows is obtained (e).
Summary of landscape pattern indices for the study area.
| Year | Types | SEA | TID | SAL | FAR | AQU | DRY | BUI | REE | SEE | COR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 |
| 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.41 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 1.04 | 0.28 | |
|
| 2.13 | 8.37 | 3.28 | 9.40 | 3.50 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 1.62 | 1.12 | 1.39 | |
|
| 0.57 | 1.70 | 0.67 | 1.89 | 0.73 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.60 | 0.37 | |
|
| 0.07 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |
| 2004 |
| 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.38 | 1.41 | 0.74 | 1.35 | 0.29 | |
|
| 2.08 | 7.19 | 2.75 | 9.91 | 5.87 | 0.49 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 1.39 | |
|
| 0.55 | 1.47 | 0.56 | 2.00 | 1.20 | 0.22 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.66 | 0.37 | |
|
| 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | |
| 2008 |
| 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.33 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 1.03 | 0.30 | |
|
| 2.12 | 6.28 | 2.12 | 9.71 | 6.87 | 1.01 | 0.22 | 1.01 | 0.88 | 1.33 | |
|
| 0.54 | 1.30 | 0.44 | 1.95 | 1.39 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.34 | 0.53 | 0.36 | |
|
| 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |
| 2013 |
| 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.30 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.44 | 1.34 | 0.37 | |
|
| 2.47 | 4.90 | 1.39 | 10.34 | 7.61 | 1.03 | 0.67 | 1.27 | 0.52 | 1.35 | |
|
| 0.60 | 1.02 | 0.31 | 2.08 | 1.54 | 0.26 | 0.19 | 0.40 | 0.55 | 0.39 | |
|
| 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |
| 2017 |
| 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.45 | 0.22 | 0.45 | 1.42 | 0.27 | |
|
| 2.37 | 4.26 | 1.28 | 10.23 | 7.81 | 1.74 | 0.67 | 1.31 | 0.52 | 1.51 | |
|
| 0.58 | 0.89 | 0.29 | 2.06 | 1.58 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 0.41 | 0.58 | 0.39 | |
|
| 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
Notes: Fragility is the landscape fragility index; the values are as follows: SEA: seawater (0.13), TID: tidalflat (0.15), SAL: saltwork (0.09), FAR: farmland (0.11), AQU: aquafarm (0.16), DRY: drypool (0.18), BUI: building (0.02), REE: reedbed (0.04), SEE: seepweed (0.06), COR: cordgrass (0.07).
Figure 4Landscape classification during five periods from 2000–2017 in the open coastal wetlands in Jiangsu, China. (a) Map of landscape types in the year 2000; (b) map of landscape types in the year 2004; (c) map of landscape types in the year 2008; (d) map of landscape types in the year 2013; (e) map of landscape types in the year 2017.
Figure 5Overall characteristics of landscape types. (a) CA; (b) PLAND; (c) PD; (d) LPI; (e) ED; and (f) LSI. To fully reflect the characteristics of the landscape pattern and to reduce the redundancy of the pattern information, the landscape metrics at landscape level were selected, and the characteristics of the landscape pattern were analyzed using the FRAGSTATS 4.2 selection method.
Figure 6(a–e) Comparison of the landscape heterogeneity of COHESION during five intervals from 2000–2017. The degree of mosaicism of the landscape pattern is represented by the degree of COHESION. The greater the COHESION value, the higher the degree of patch connectivity of the landscape and the lower the degree of spatial mosaic; (f–j) Comparison of the landscape heterogeneity of ENN–MN during five intervals from 2000–2017. Distance analysis of the landscape is expressed by ENN–MN. The larger the value of ENN–MN, the greater the distance between the landscapes type blocks and the more scattered the distribution.
Figure 7Evolution of the spatial distribution of ecological risk index grades of the open coastal wetlands in Jiangsu (OCWJ) during the five periods from 2000–2017. (a) Map of the spatial distribution of ecological risk index grades in the year 2000; (b) map of the spatial distribution of ecological risk index grades in the year 2004; (c) map of the spatial distribution of ecological risk index grades in the year 2008; (d) map of the spatial distribution of ecological risk index grades in the year 2013; (e) map of the spatial distribution of ecological risk index grades in the year 2017.
Figure 8Changes in the areas of different ecological risk grades from 2000–2017. Based on the analysis of the ecological risk level of open coastal wetlands in Jiangsu, the area occupied by the ecological risk grades of 106 risk communities in the study area were analyzed statistically.
Transition matrix for changes in the area (km2) of landscape types in the OCWJ during 2000–2017.
| Year 2017 | EXL | LOW | REL | MED | REH | HIG | EXH | TOT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year 2000 | |||||||||
| EXL | 483.71 | 66.12 | 17.59 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 567.42 | |
| LOW | 1.63 | 6.98 | 124.74 | 331.74 | 273.45 | 88.15 | 0 | 826.68 | |
| REL | 0 | 0 | 70.72 | 108.82 | 262.80 | 144.20 | 23.22 | 609.75 | |
| MED | 0 | 0 | 1.56 | 36.99 | 119.01 | 99.83 | 10.03 | 267.42 | |
| REH | 0 | 0 | 26.05 | 18.48 | 59.85 | 121.29 | 92.01 | 317.68 | |
| HIG | 0 | 0 | 112.13 | 67.17 | 164.55 | 71.02 | 27.72 | 442.60 | |
| EXH | 0 | 0 | 37.74 | 132.85 | 103.64 | 86.44 | 2.78 | 363.44 | |
| TOT | 485.34 | 73.10 | 390.52 | 696.05 | 983.29 | 610.93 | 155.76 | 3394.98 | |
Notes: EXL: extremely low; LOW: low; REL: relatively low; MED: medium, REH: relatively high; HIG: high; EXH: extremely high; TOT: total.
Figure 9Annual transfer rates of different ecological risk grades during 2000–2014, 2004–2008, 2008–2013, and 2013–2017 (km2/year). (a) Map of annual transfer rates of different ecological risk grades transposed from EXL, LOW, and REL; (b) map of annual transfer rates of different ecological risk grades transposed from MED, REH, HIG, and EXH. Notes: EXL: extremely low; LOW: low; REL: relatively low; MED: medium, REH: relatively high; HIG: high; EXH: extremely high.