| Literature DB >> 30832282 |
Zhenhua Wu1,2, Shaogang Lei3, Bao-Jie He4, Zhengfu Bian5,6, Yinghong Wang7, Qingqing Lu8, Shangui Peng9, Linghua Duo10.
Abstract
The ecological status of the semi-arid steppes in China is fragile. Under the long-term and high-intensity development of mining, the ecological integrity and biodiversity of steppe landscapes have been destroyed, causing soil pollution, grassland degradation, landscape function defect, and so on. Previous studies have mainly focused on ecosystem health assessment in mining areas. Landscape ecological health (LEH) pays more attention to the interactions between different ecosystems. Therefore, the ecological assessment of mining cities is more suitable on a landscape scale. Meanwhile, the existing LEH assessment index systems are not applicable in ecologically fragile areas with sparse population, underdeveloped economy, and in relatively small research areas. The purpose of this study was to construct a LEH assessment index system and evaluate the LEH of a mining city located in a semi-arid steppe. Xilinhot is a typical semi-arid steppe mining city in China. The contradictions between the human, land and ecological environment are serious. A new model Condition, Vigor, Organization, Resilience, and Ecosystem (CVORE) model was constructed that integrated five subsystems (services) from the perspectives of ecology, landscape ecology, mining science, and geography. This study used the CVORE model to systematically evaluate the LEH in Xilinhot city in terms of five LEH levels, including very healthy, healthy, sub-healthy, unhealthy and morbid landscape. Research results show that the areas of the very healthy, healthy, sub-healthy, unhealthy and morbid landscapes are 13.23, 736.35, 184.5, 66.76 and 20.63 km², respectively. The healthy landscapes area accounts for 72.08% and most grasslands are healthy. The sub-healthy landscapes are mainly located around areas with higher disturbances due to human activities. The morbid or unhealthy landscapes are concentrated in the mining areas. The proposed CVORE model can enrich the foundations for the quantitative assessment of Landscape Ecological Health of Mining Cities in Semi-arid Steppe (LEHMCSS). This study provided a new LEH assessment approach (CVORE model), which can support landscape ecological restoration, ecological environmental protection and urban planning of the semi-arid steppe mining cities.Entities:
Keywords: CVORE model; assessment of landscape ecological health; mining city; semi-arid Steppe
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30832282 PMCID: PMC6427308 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16050752
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Landscape ecological health assessment index system.
The landscape ecological significance of each landscape pattern indices.
| Name | Abbreviation | Landscape Ecological Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Aggregation index | AI | The AI is used to indicate the probability of appearance of different patches on the landscape map. The AI value increases with the increase of the aggregation degree. |
| Patch cohesion index | COHESION | As connectivity decreases, COHESION decreases. |
| Connection index | CONNECT | As the connectivity between patches increases, the value of CONNECT increases. |
| Contagion index | CONTAG | The CONTAG index is used to measure the ratio between the observed spread and the maximum possible spread under a given patch type number. When all patch types are maximally fragmented and intermittently distributed, the index value approaches 0. When the patch type is maximally clustered together, the index reaches 100. |
| Landscape shape index | LSI | With the increase of LSI, the patch becomes increasingly dispersed and the shape of the patch becomes more irregular. |
| Shannon’s diversity index | SHDI | In the landscape system, the more abundant the land use, the higher the degree of fragmentation, the more uncertain the information content, and the higher the SHDI value |
Figure 2Location of the Research Area. I: Open-pit Germanium Mine; II: West No. 2 Open-pit Mine; III: West No. 3 Open-pit Mine; IV: No. 1 Open-pit Mine; V: East No. 2 Open-pit Mine.
Figure 3Spatial distribution of sample plots and Layout of the quadrat. (a) Spatial distribution of sample plots; (b) Layout of the quadrat.
Figure 4Spatial distribution map of Condition.
Figure 5Spatial distribution of Vigor.
Figure 6Spatial distribution map of the Organization.
Figure 7Spatial distribution map of Resilience.
Figure 8The area of various landscapes.
Figure 9Spatial distribution of ecosystem services.
Figure 10Spatial distribution of landscape ecological health.
Area and proportion of each level of landscape ecological health.
| Type | Threshold | Area (km2) | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Very Healthy Landscape | >0.6 | 13.23 | 1.30 |
| Healthy Landscape | 0.4–0.6 | 736.35 | 72.08 |
| Sub-healthy Landscape | 0.3–0.4 | 184.50 | 18.06 |
| Unhealthy Landscape | 0.15–0.3 | 66.76 | 6.54 |
| Morbid Landscape | <0.15 | 20.63 | 2.02 |
| Total | - | 1021.47 | 100.00 |
Figure 11Buffer Analysis of Grassland LEH around Mining and Water Landscape.
Figure 12Analysis of landscape ecological health problems at any two points.