| Literature DB >> 35338223 |
Jia-Shuo Cao1,2, Yu-Qi Yang3, Zheng-Yu Deng1,2, Yuan-Dong Hu4,5.
Abstract
Shennongjia is one of the most important ecological function areas and ecologically vulnerable zones in the world. With the rapid development of social economies, especially tourism, the ecological environment of Shennongjia has experienced profound changes. Exploring the characteristics and changing trends of ecological environment in Shennongjia will help to analyze the causes of the damage to the ecological environment, and build a vulnerability analysis framework with multi-scale, multi-element, multi-flow, and multi-circulation characteristics, which provides an effective research paradigm and analysis tool for the study of regional ecological vulnerability. With the support of RS and GIS technology, this study uses spatial principal component analysis (SPCA) and the vulnerability scoring diagram (VSD) model to comprehensively and quantitatively analyze the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics and driving forces of ecological vulnerability in Shennongjia from 1996 to 2018. The VSD model was selected to decompose the vulnerability into three components of "exposure-sensitivity-adaptation", and 16 indicators were selected to construct an ecological vulnerability evaluation system in Shennongjia, and the evaluation data were organized in a progressive and detailed way. (1) During the study period, the overall ecological vulnerability of Shennongjia is in a mild vulnerability level, exhibiting differentiation characteristics of high in the northeast and low in the southwest. High vulnerability zones are mainly distributed in the main towns and roads. (2) The risk of ecological vulnerability of the entire region presents the characteristics of continuous decline. (3) Land-use types, population density, and vegetation coverage are the main factors driving the evolution of ecological vulnerability. (4) A high level of coupling coordination exists between ecological vulnerability and landscape patterns. Analyses of the ecological vulnerability of Shennongjia shows that the entire region is in a mild vulnerability level. The extreme vulnerability risk of the ecological environment shows polarization. The evolution of ecological environment in Shennongjia is the result of the interaction between human activities and natural environment. This study offers an effective way to assess ecological vulnerability and provides some strategies and guidance for improving ecological security.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35338223 PMCID: PMC8956742 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09205-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Location map of Shennongjia.
Description and source of evaluation indexes.
| Indicator | Method and explanation | Data sources |
|---|---|---|
| Land-use types | 125/38, 126/38 of Landsat 5 TM/Landsat 8 OLI image interpretation in 1996, 2007, 2018 Five categories: forest land; grassland; cultivated land; construction land; and water bodies | Website of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) ( |
| Slope | Extracted from the digital elevation model (DEM) | Website of USGS ( |
| Aspect | Extracted from the digital elevation model (DEM) | |
| Surface relief | Maximum elevation value − minimum elevation value in unit area | |
| Vegetation coverage | Mixed pixel decomposing model | Website of USGS ( |
| Average annual temperature | Spatial interpolation combined with regression equation calculation and interpolation residuals | Website of the China Meteorological Administration ( |
| Annual precipitation | ||
| Population density | Population/land area | Shennongjia Bureau of Statistics |
| Local fiscal revenue per capita | Local fiscal revenue/population | |
| Water distribution | Mapping of field research and historical data | Shennongjia Bureau of Water Resources and Lakes |
| Surface water resources | Monitoring statistics | |
| Quality of surface water | Monitoring statistics | |
| Industrial wastewater discharge | Monitoring statistics | |
| Domestic sewage discharge | Monitoring statistics | |
| Annual tourist reception | According to Shennongjia tourism management report statistics | Shennongjia Bureau of Culture and Tourism |
| National park policy | Organized according to field research and data collection | Shennongjia National Park Administration |
| Nature reserve policy |
Figure 2Ecological vulnerability evaluation index system of Shennongjia.
Standardized grading assignment of land-use types.
| Land-use types | Forest land | Grassland | Cultivated land | Construction land | Water bodies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assignment | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 2 |
Eigenvalue, contribution rate, and accumulated contribution rate of each principal component.
| Year | Principal component coefficient | Principal component | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 | PC6 | ||
| 1996 | Eigenvalues λ | 1.681 | 0.567 | 0.429 | 0.227 | 0.207 | 0.112 |
| Contribution rate (%) | 47.17 | 15.90 | 12.04 | 6.36 | 5.80 | 3.13 | |
| Accumulated contribution rate (%) | 47.17 | 63.07 | 75.11 | 81.47 | 87.27 | 90.40 | |
| 2007 | Eigenvalues λ | 1.864 | 0.861 | 0.435 | 0.258 | 0.186 | 0.149 |
| Contribution rate (%) | 46.13 | 21.32 | 10.77 | 6.39 | 4.61 | 3.69 | |
| Accumulated contribution rate (%) | 46.13 | 67.45 | 78.22 | 84.61 | 89.22 | 92.92 | |
| 2018 | Eigenvalues λ | 2.049 | 0.439 | 0.402 | 0.303 | 0.239 | 0.135 |
| Contribution rate (%) | 52.52 | 11.25 | 10.29 | 7.77 | 6.13 | 3.45 | |
| Accumulated contribution rate (%) | 52.52 | 63.77 | 74.06 | 81.84 | 87.97 | 91.42 | |
Ecological vulnerability grading standard of Shennongjia.
| Degree | Level | Standardized value | Characteristics of ecological vulnerability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Micro vulnerability | I | < 2.0 | The structure and function of the ecosystem are reasonable and complete, the ecosystem is stable, the ability of resisting external interference and self-recovery is strong, and there is no ecological abnormality |
| Mild vulnerability | II | 2.0–4.0 | The structure and function of the ecosystem are relatively complete, the ecosystem is relatively stable, the ability to resist external interference and self-recovery is strong, and there are potential ecological anomalies |
| Moderate vulnerability | III | 4.0–6.0 | The structure and function of the ecosystem can be maintained, the ecosystem is relatively unstable, it is sensitive to external interference, it possesses weak self-recovery ability, and there are a few ecological anomalies |
| Severe vulnerability | IV | 6.0–8.0 | The structure and function of the ecosystem are defective, the ecosystem is unstable, it is sensitive to external interference, it is difficult to recover after damage, and there are many ecological anomalies |
| Extreme vulnerability | V | ≥ 8.0 | The structure and function of the ecosystem are seriously degraded, the ecosystem is extremely unstable, it is extremely sensitive to external interference, and it is very difficult to recover after being damaged |
Figure 3Spatial and temporal distribution of ecological vulnerability in Shennongjia. Spatial and temporal distribution of ecological vulnerability for (a) 1996, (b) 2007, (c) 2018 in Shennongjia, China.
Figure 4Proportion of the area of vulnerable districts at all levels in Shennongjia.
Figure 5Dynamic changes of ecological vulnerability in Shennongjia. Changes in the ecological vulnerability of Shennongjia in different periods: (a) 1996–2007, (b) 2007–2018, (c) 1996–2018.
Figure 6Annual change of the comprehensive ecological vulnerability index. CEVI, comprehensive ecological vulnerability index.
Comprehensive ecological vulnerability index of towns.
| Year | Songbai | Muyu | Yangri | Hongping | Xinhua | Songluo | Jiuhu | Xiaguping | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 3.13 | 2.35 | 4.41 | 2.49 | 2.84 | 2.41 | 2.89 | 2.99 | 2.77 |
| 2007 | 2.92 | 2.32 | 4.17 | 2.48 | 2.95 | 2.27 | 2.79 | 3.25 | 2.71 |
| 2018 | 2.80 | 2.20 | 3.83 | 2.39 | 2.76 | 2.08 | 2.26 | 2.99 | 2.51 |
| Mean | 2.95 | 2.29 | 4.14 | 2.45 | 2.85 | 2.25 | 2.65 | 3.08 | 2.66 |
Figure 7Radar chart of the comprehensive ecological vulnerability index of towns.
Principal component loading and score.
| Index | 1996 | 2007 | 2018 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | |
| C1 | − 0.06 | 0.88a | − 0.05 | 0.11 | − 0.06 | 0.70a | − 0.05 | 0.02 | − 0.02 | 0.94a | − 0.31 | − 0.16 |
| C2 | − 0.04 | 0.11 | − 0.03 | − 0.04 | − 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.09 | − 0.04 | − 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.06 |
| C3 | 0.26 | − 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.01 | − 0.15 | − 0.01 | 0.20 | − 0.05 | − 0.13 | − 0.07 |
| C4 | 0.02 | 0.08 | − 0.01 | − 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.11 | − 0.26 | 0.34 | 0.00 | − 0.05 | 0.05 |
| C5 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.02 | − 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.02 | − 0.11 | − 0.14 | 0.31 | 0.13 | − 0.05 | 0.02 |
| C6 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.04 | − 0.28 | 0.15 | − 0.01 | − 0.31 | − 0.27 | 0.14 | − 0.09 | − 0.25 | − 0.10 |
| C7 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.01 | − 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.14 | − 0.01 | − 0.05 | 0.01 |
| C8 | − 0.04 | 0.13 | − 0.03 | − 0.01 | − 0.06 | 0.52 | − 0.05 | 0.02 | − 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.08 |
| C9 | 0.72a | 0.43 | 0.98a | 0.19 | 0.70a | 0.08 | 0.86a | 0.34 | 0.69a | 0.05 | 0.81a | − 0.53 |
| C10 | 0.26 | − 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.03 | − 0.03 | 0.11 | − 0.08 | − 0.17 | − 0.44 | − 0.06 |
| C11 | 0.25 | − 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.01 | − 0.19 | − 0.04 | 0.26 | − 0.05 | − 0.18 | − 0.05 |
| C12 | 0.41 | − 0.31 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.38 | 0.01 | − 0.32 | − 0.03 | 0.31 | − 0.10 | − 0.27 | − 0.17 |
| C13 | − 0.11 | − 0.32 | − 0.03 | 0.55a | − 0.10 | − 0.05 | − 0.38 | 0.64a | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.78a |
| C14 | 0.05 | − 0.05 | 0.01 | − 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.00 | − 0.08 | − 0.04 | 0.06 | − 0.02 | − 0.06 | − 0.01 |
| C15 | 0.11 | 0.35 | 0.02 | − 0.50 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.33 | − 0.45 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.07 |
| C16 | − 0.20 | 0.48 | − 0.17 | 0.44 | − 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.39 | 0.31 | − 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.38 | 0.12 |
aRepresents that the contribution of this ingredient is high.
Figure 8Scatter plot of linear regression of landscape pattern index and ecological vulnerability index. EVI, ecological vulnerability index.
Contribution of the landscape pattern index to the ecological vulnerability index.
| Year | Combination of independent variables | Partial regression sum of squares | Contribution rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 | 0.20988 | – |
| X1, X2, X3, X4 | 0.00038 (X5) | 0.18% | |
| X1, X2, X3, X5 | 0.13735 (X4) | 65.44% | |
| X1, X2, X4, X5 | 0.00002 (X3) | 0.01% | |
| X1, X3, X4, X5 | 0.00856 (X2) | 4.08% | |
| X2, X3, X4, X5 | 0.06357 (X1) | 30.29% | |
| 2007 | X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 | 10.09184 | – |
| X1, X2, X3, X4 | 0.03261 (X5) | 5.35% | |
| X1, X2, X3, X5 | 0.12079 (X4) | 38.05% | |
| X1, X2, X4, X5 | 0.01645 (X3) | 10.38% | |
| X1, X3, X4, X5 | 0.01380 (X2) | 4.40% | |
| X2, X3, X4, X5 | 0.13250 (X1) | 41.82% | |
| 2018 | X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 | 12.35475 | – |
| X1, X2, X3, X4 | 0.00363 (X5) | 0.46% | |
| X1, X2, X3, X5 | 0.01168 (X4) | 1.37% | |
| X1, X2, X4, X5 | 0.01226 (X3) | 1.49% | |
| X1, X3, X4, X5 | 0.00820 (X2) | 0.91% | |
| X2, X3, X4, X5 | 0.83736 (X1) | 95.77% |
X1—NP, X2—LPI, X3—DIVISION, X4—AI, X5—SHDI.
Figure 9Schematic diagram of ecological environment improvement. (a) Low vulnerability zone mainly includes the micro and Mild vulnerability areas in the evaluation results. (b) Middle vulnerability zone is the transitional zone, which is mainly composed of the surrounding area of the ecological source or the low-impedance area. (c) High vulnerability zone mainly includes the severe and extreme vulnerability areas in the evaluation results.