| Literature DB >> 33143179 |
Junhan Li1, Kaichun Zhou1, Huimin Dong2, Binggeng Xie1.
Abstract
Comprehending the dynamic change characteristics of land use/cover and the driving factors causing the change are prerequisites for protecting land resources. This paper analyzes changes in cultivated land, the driving factors that cause them, and their tremendous impact on landscape pattern changes in the Dongting Lake Basin. For this purpose, we used mathematical statistics, buffer analysis, trend analysis, landscape pattern index, and logistic regression model to analyze the land use data of the study area from 1980 to 2018. The results show that the cultivated land showed a decreasing trend, with the total area decreased by 4.76% (or 716.13 km2) from 1980 to 2018, and the activity of mutual transformation with other land use types decreased. The spatial distribution pattern of cultivated land and landscape shows the change characteristics gradually from Dongting Lake to the surroundings. Among the driving factors of cultivated land changes, the influence of human activities was gradually increasing, while the natural factors were decreasing. The cultivated land landscape pattern index and the overall landscape pattern index have a significant positive correlation, showing relatively consistent change trend and spatial distribution characteristics. We believe that the decrease of cultivated land area has a certain relationship with the increase of landscape fragmentation in the Dongting Lake Basin. Our research is expected to provide a reference for strengthening regional cultivated land management and rational development and utilization of regional land resources.Entities:
Keywords: cultivated land changes; driving force; landscape pattern; trend analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33143179 PMCID: PMC7662587 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217988
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location and topographic layout of the study area.
Figure 2Landscape types of Dongting Lake Basin.
Figure 3Change of cultivated land area in 1980–2018.
Figure 4Dynamic degree of cultivated land change in 1980–2018. (a) conversion between paddy field and other land types; (b) conversion between dry land and other land types; (c) conversion between cultivated land and other land types; (d) dynamic degree of cultivated land change.
Figure 5Distribution of cultivated land buffer zone. (a) proportion of cultivated land area to buffer area; (b) change of distribution density index.
Figure 6Trend analysis of increase and decrease
Driving factors of cultivated land changes
| Driving Factors | Unit | Describe |
|---|---|---|
| Elevation ( | m | Directly obtained DEM data. |
| Slope ( | 1–5 | The slope was calculated from DEM data. The slope was classified into 2°, 6°, 15°, and 25° as the discontinuous points (including upper but not lower) and assigned values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. |
| Temperature ( | °C | We interpolated the annual average temperature (or annual precipitation) of each meteorological station by kriging to obtain the grid data of annual average temperature (or annual precipitation) with a spatial resolution of 30 m, and finally calculated the grid data of continuous average temperature (or annual precipitation) for many years during the research period. |
| Precipitation ( | mm | |
| Distance to Dongting Lake ( | km | Calculate the nearest direct distance of each grid to Dongting lake (the core area in |
| Distance to the water source ( | km | The rivers and canals, lakes, and reservoirs on the maps of land use types in different periods ( |
| Distance to town ( | km | Extract the urban land on the land use type map of each period ( |
| Distance to a rural residential area ( | km | Extract the rural residential area on the land use type map of each period ( |
| Distance to other construction land ( | km | Extract the other construction land area on the land use type map of each period ( |
| Neighborhood enrichment of grassland ( | / | The first-class land use type was extracted from the land use map of each period, and the neighborhood abundance index was calculated according to the radius of 5 × 5 pixels. The cultivated land neighborhood abundance was not included in the index system because of its collinear with other driving factors. Similarly, unused land was not included in the indicator system due to its small distribution range and area. |
| Neighborhood enrichment of construction land ( | / | |
| Neighborhood enrichment of forest land ( | / | |
| Neighborhood enrichment of water area ( | / | |
| Population density ( | cap/km2 | The total resident population of each county divided by the county area. |
| GDP per capita ( | 103yuan/cap | The total GDP of each county divided by the total resident population of the county. |
| Rate of population change ( | % | It was calculated from the total population data of each period. |
| Rate of GDP change ( | % | It was calculated from the total GDP data of each period. |
Logistic regression results of cultivated land change in seven time series.
| Driving Factors | 1980–1990 | 1990–1995 | 1995–2000 | 2000–2005 | 2005–2010 | 2010–2015 | 2015–2018 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| exp( |
| exp( |
| exp( |
| exp( |
| exp( |
| exp( |
| exp( | |
|
| −0.006 | 0.994 | −0.004 | 0.996 | −0.003 | 0.997 | * | * | −0.003 | 0.997 | * | * | * | * |
|
| −4.078 | 0.017 | −2.668 | 0.069 | −1.399 | 0.247 | −0.610 | 0.543 | −2.018 | 0.133 | * | * | * | * |
|
| −4.740 | 0.009 | −3.066 | 0.047 | −1.943 | 0.143 | −0.867 | 0.420 | −2.295 | 0.101 | * | * | * | * |
|
| −4.089 | 0.017 | −2.797 | 0.061 | −1.553 | 0.212 | −0.929 | 0.395 | −2.096 | 0.123 | * | * | * | * |
|
| −2.087 | 0.124 | −2.051 | 0.129 | −0.849 | 0.428 | −0.721 | 0.486 | −1.362 | 0.256 | * | * | * | * |
|
| −2.628 | 0.072 | 2.215 | 9.162 | −2.029 | 0.131 | 0.489 | 1.631 | −0.684 | 0.505 | 0.659 | 1.932 | * | * |
|
| 0.004 | 1.004 | −0.003 | 0.997 | −0.002 | 0.998 | −0.001 | 0.999 | −0.002 | 0.998 | −0.002 | 0.998 | 0.001 | 1.001 |
|
| −0.024 | 0.976 | −0.014 | 0.986 | −0.006 | 0.994 | −0.003 | 0.997 | −0.005 | 0.995 | 0.010 | 1.011 | 0.002 | 1.002 |
|
| −0.177 | 0.838 | −0.056 | 0.945 | −0.053 | 0.948 | −0.020 | 0.980 | −0.056 | 0.946 | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.034 | 1.034 |
|
| −0.013 | 0.987 | * | * | 0.010 | 1.010 | 0.008 | 1.008 | −0.015 | 0.985 | −0.037 | 0.964 | −0.043 | 0.958 |
|
| 0.161 | 1.174 | 0.439 | 1.551 | 0.020 | 1.020 | −0.075 | 0.927 | 0.102 | 1.108 | −0.015 | 0.985 | * | * |
|
| −0.008 | 0.992 | 0.026 | 1.026 | 0.014 | 1.014 | −0.006 | 0.994 | * | * | −0.034 | 0.966 | −0.039 | 0.962 |
|
| 0.055 | 1.057 | 0.118 | 1.125 | 0.088 | 1.092 | 0.104 | 1.109 | 0.072 | 1.074 | 0.096 | 1.101 | 0.096 | 1.100 |
|
| 0.065 | 1.067 | 0.259 | 1.296 | 0.167 | 1.182 | 0.256 | 1.292 | 0.183 | 1.200 | 0.368 | 1.445 | 0.358 | 1.430 |
|
| 0.530 | 1.698 | 3.028 | 20.648 | 2.691 | 14.751 | 2.972 | 19.531 | 2.037 | 7.670 | 3.289 | 26.810 | 3.023 | 20.551 |
|
| 0.720 | 2.055 | 1.351 | 3.863 | 1.283 | 3.608 | 1.615 | 5.028 | 1.158 | 3.184 | 1.964 | 7.128 | 1.947 | 7.006 |
|
| 0.001 | 1.001 | −0.001 | 0.999 | 0.002 | 1.002 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.001 | 1.001 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.001 | 1.001 |
|
| 0.195 | 1.215 | 0.128 | 1.136 | −0.078 | 0.925 | 0.036 | 1.037 | 0.015 | 1.015 | 0.020 | 1.021 | 0.002 | 1.002 |
|
| −0.003 | 0.997 | 0.005 | 1.005 | 0.010 | 1.010 | −0.021 | 0.979 | −0.017 | 0.983 | −0.023 | 0.978 | 0.041 | 1.042 |
|
| 0.003 | 1.003 | −0.002 | 0.998 | −0.001 | 0.999 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| ROC | 0.723 | 0.882 | 0.866 | 0.889 | 0.803 | 0.945 | 0.922 | |||||||
| Percentage correct 0 | 70.96 | 83.50 | 86.67 | 85.32 | 83.84 | 87.88 | 85.70 | |||||||
| Percentage correct 1 | 60.94 | 78.55 | 74.30 | 83.52 | 65.36 | 90.62 | 86.99 | |||||||
| Overall percentage | 65.95 | 81.02 | 80.49 | 84.42 | 74.60 | 89.25 | 86.35 | |||||||
Notes: * means that the independent variable statistical test is not significant. Others pass the 95% confidence significance test.
Figure 7Relationship curve between landscape pattern index and cultivated land area by static window method. (a) SHAPE_AM, area-weighted mean shape index; (b) FRAC_MN, mean fractal dimension index; (c) PD, patch density; (d) COHESION, patch cohesion index.
Figure 8Change of landscape pattern indexes by moving window method. (a) Class-level landscape pattern indexes change; (b) Landscape-level landscape pattern indexes change.
Figure 9Trend analysis of landscape pattern index (SHAPE_AM, area-weighted mean shape index; FRAC_MN, mean fractal dimension index; PD, patch density; COHESION, patch cohesion index).
Correlation of landscape pattern index between class and landscape level.
| Landscape Pattern Index | 1980 | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHAPE_AM | 0.812 | 0.809 | 0.814 | 0.808 | 0.808 | 0.803 | 0.798 | 0.800 |
| FRAC_MN | 0.816 | 0.813 | 0.817 | 0.812 | 0.810 | 0.804 | 0.801 | 0.802 |
| PD | 0.603 | 0.602 | 0.603 | 0.600 | 0.605 | 0.613 | 0.615 | 0.621 |
| COHESION | 0.062 | 0.056 | 0.057 | 0.055 | 0.054 | 0.059 | 0.063 | 0.067 |
Notes: SHAPE_AM, area-weighted mean shape index; FRAC_MN, mean fractal dimension index; PD, patch density; COHESION, patch cohesion index.
Figure 10Time-series correlation of landscape pattern index (SHAPE_AM, area-weighted mean shape index; FRAC_MN, mean fractal dimension index; PD, patch density; COHESION, patch cohesion index).
Correlation of landscape pattern index between class and landscape level (%).
| Trend of Cultivated Land | Trend of Landscape Pattern Index | Class Level | Landscape Level | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHAPE_AM | FRAC_MN | PD | COHESION | SHAPE_AM | FRAC_MN | PD | COHESION | ||
| Non-significant | Non-significant | 91.36 | 91.38 | 97.62 | 96.71 | 88.24 | 87.47 | 93.78 | 88.04 |
| Decrease | 3.64 | 3.69 | 0.82 | 1.81 | 4.80 | 5.27 | 1.43 | 7.60 | |
| Increase | 5.00 | 4.92 | 1.56 | 1.48 | 6.96 | 7.26 | 4.79 | 4.36 | |
| Decrease | Non-significant | 57.11 | 39.72 | 77.63 | 10.73 | 51.1 | 52.72 | 60.20 | 42.27 |
| Decrease | 14.42 | 11.05 | 9.55 | 88.51 | 16.64 | 17.14 | 6.67 | 42.87 | |
| Increase | 28.46 | 49.23 | 12.82 | 0.76 | 32.25 | 30.14 | 33.12 | 14.86 | |
| Increase | Non-significant | 67.96 | 44.36 | 89.87 | 13.39 | 54.76 | 55.36 | 84.56 | 49.47 |
| Decrease | 16.84 | 43.73 | 1.94 | 0.81 | 23.32 | 22.76 | 8.49 | 24.04 | |
| Increase | 15.21 | 11.91 | 8.19 | 85.8 | 21.92 | 21.87 | 6.95 | 26.49 | |
Notes: SHAPE_AM, area-weighted mean shape index; FRAC_MN, mean fractal dimension index; PD, patch density; COHESION, patch cohesion index.