| Literature DB >> 35010806 |
Ziming Song1, Yingyue Sun1, Peng Chen1, Mingming Jia2.
Abstract
Suaeda salsa (S. salsa) is an important ecological barrier and tourism resource in coastal wetland resources, and assessing changes in its health is beneficial for protecting the ecological health of wetlands and increasing finances. The aim was to explore improvements in the degradation of S. salsa communities in the Liao River Estuary National Nature Reserve since a wetland restoration project was carried out in Panjin, Liaoning Province, China, in 2015. In this study, landscape changes in the reserve were assessed based on Sentinel-2 images classification results from 2016 to 2019. A pressure-state-response framework was constructed to assess the annual degradation of S. salsa communities within the wetlands. The assessment results show that the area of S. salsa communities and water bodies decreased annually from 2016 to 2019, and the increased degradation indicators indicate a state of continued degradation. The area of types such as aquaculture ponds and Phragmites australis communities did not change much, while the estuarine mudflats increased year by year. The causes of S. salsa community degradation include anthropogenic impacts from abandoned aquaculture ponds and sluice control systems but also natural impacts from changes in the tidal amplitude and soil properties of the mudflats. The results also indicate that the living conditions of S. salsa in the Liao River estuary wetlands are poor and that anthropogenic disturbance is necessary to restore the original vegetation abundance.Entities:
Keywords: Suaeda salsa; coastal wetland; ecological restoration assessment; pressure-state-response framework
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010806 PMCID: PMC8744744 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010546
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of the study area. (a) The location of the study area in Liaoning, China. (b) Study area boundary, Sentinel 2 satellite image band combinations are able to indicate alkali ponies, with rusty red being S. salsa and red indicating vegetation. (c–e) are field photographs of P. australis, S. salsa and crab holes within the S. salsa, respectively.
Information about the selected satellite image.
| Year | Images Acquisition Data | Cloud Coverage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 22 August 2016 | <10% |
| 2017 | 25 August 2017 | <10% |
| 2018 | 25 August 2018 | <10% |
| 2019 | 25 August 2019 | <10% |
Overall accuracy, Kappa coefficients and User accuracy of image classification.
| Year | Overall Accuracy | Kappa Accuracy | User Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.917 |
| 2017 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.933 |
| 2018 | 0.998 | 0.998 | 0.967 |
| 2019 | 0.998 | 0.998 | 0.917 |
Parameters and sources of the PSR model evaluation system.
| Criteria | Indicator | Data Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Pressure | Tidal flat disturbance index | The area of river changing into tidal flat |
| Temperature change | China Meteorological Data Service Center | |
| Precipitation | China Meteorological Data Service Center | |
| State | NDVI |
|
| Habitat quality index |
| |
| Contagion | Fragstats4.2 | |
| Area-weighted mean shape index | Fragstats4.2 | |
| Mean patch size | Fragstats4.2 | |
| Average elasticity |
| |
| Hydrological regulation index |
| |
| Response | Ecological protection index |
|
| Water to wetland area ratio |
|
Note: NIR: Near infrared band; RED: Red band; A: The normalized coefficient of habitat quality index of wetland ecosystem type nature reserve is 511.264; L: Woodland area; G: Grassland area; D: Cultivated land area; E: Artificial urban construction area; F: Unused land area; B: Water wetland area = 0.6 water surface area + 0.4 river beach; S: Total area of the study area; S: Area of type i features; P: The elastic distribution value of type i feature; W: Water surface area; T: Beach area; WL: Suitable index of wetland area in water area = A ((water surface + River Beach)/core area) A—normalization coefficient of suitable area index, with a reference value of 100; KL: Development interference index = An (artificial surface/core area); An: The normalized coefficient of water wetland area ratio and the reference value of water conservation ecological function area is 102.722.
The correlation matrix and weights of the indicators using the AHP method.
| Higher-Level Indicator | Lower-Level Indicator | Judgement Matrix | Priority | Weight | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure | 1 | 1/3 | 3 | 0.258 | ||||||
| State | 3 | 1 | 5 | 0.637 | ||||||
| Response | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1 | 0.105 | ||||||
| Pressure | Tidal flat disturbance index | 1 | 3/4 | 3/4 | 0.4 | 0.103 | ||||
| Temperature change | 4/3 | 1 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.077 | |||||
| Precipitation | 4/3 | 1 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.077 | |||||
| State | NDVI | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.127 |
| Habitat quality index | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.127 | |
| Contagion | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 0.081 | 0.052 | |
| Area-weighted mean shape index | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 0.06 | 0.038 | |
| Mean patch size | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 0.06 | 0.038 | |
| Average elasticity | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.127 | |
| Hydrological regulation index | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.127 | |
| Response | Ecological protection index | 1 | 3 | 0.75 | 0.079 | |||||
| Water to wetland area ratio | 1/3 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.027 | ||||||
Figure 2Technical process framework for the construction of the PSR model.
Figure 3Changes in landscape patterns in the study area from 2016 to 2019.
Area of each type (km2).
| Type | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water | 271.737 | 255.755 | 221.423 | 201.917 |
| Estuarine mudflats | 95.548 | 112.598 | 150.756 | 170.593 |
| Building land | 7.279 | 7.172 | 7.209 | 7.209 |
|
| 123.089 | 121.804 | 117.411 | 117.079 |
| Aquaculture ponds | 44.988 | 43.078 | 43.669 | 43.669 |
|
| 8.027 | 5.185 | 3.851 | 3.115 |
| Paddy field | 3.675 | 5.907 | 5.907 | 5.907 |
Information on each indicator of the PSR model from 2016 to 2019.
| Criteria | Indicator | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure | Tidal flat disturbance index | 2.543 | 17.344 | 35.712 | 45.301 |
| Temperature change | 11.41 | 12.07 | 11.26 | 11.953 | |
| Precipitation | 76.28 | 72.15 | 77.98 | 64.1 | |
| State | NDVI | 0.335 | 0.356 | 0.283 | 0.117 |
| Habitat quality index | 48.539 | 47.20821 | 44.823 | 43.617 | |
| Contagion | 59.372 | 58.328 | 53.783 | 56.746 | |
| Area-weighted mean shape index | 14,426.837 | 13,162.932 | 10,943.731 | 7306.996 | |
| Mean patch size | 25.573 | 25.328 | 25.324 | 25.255 | |
| Mean resilience | 0.766 | 0.764 | 0.759 | 0.755 | |
| Hydroregulation index | 0.369 | 0.364 | 0.354 | 0.347 | |
| Response | Ecological protection index | 50.389 | 50.403 | 50.472 | 50.863 |
| Water to wetland area ratio | 37.864 | 37.343 | 36.340 | 35.631 |
Figure 4(a) pressure indicators, (b) state indicators and (c) response indicators for the PSR model from 2016 to 2019.
Figure 5Comprehensive health index and area of S. salsa in wetlands from 2016 to 2019.