| Literature DB >> 36142040 |
Xiaolu Yan1,2,3, Xinyuan Li1,2,3, Chenghao Liu1,2,3, Jiawei Li4, Jingqiu Zhong1,2,3,5.
Abstract
Ecosystem service (ES) bundles can be defined as the temporal and spatial co-occurrence of ESs. ES bundles are jointly driven by socio-ecological factors and form at different scales. However, in recent research, a few studies have analyzed the dynamic evolution and driving mechanisms of ES bundles at different scales. Therefore, this study explored the spatial patterns of six ESs supplied in Dalian (China) from 2005 to 2015 at three spatial scales, determining the distribution and evolution patterns of ES bundles and their responses to socio-ecological driving factors. Our results are as follows: (1) We identified four ES bundles representing ecological conservation, water conservation, ecological depletion, and food supply. The developmental trajectory of each ES bundle could be attributed to the combined effects of environmental conditions and urban expansion. In particular, the water conservation bundle and food supply bundle were changed to the ecological depletion bundle. Given the ongoing urbanization, the conflict between ESs has intensified. (2) The impact of socio-ecological driving factors on ES bundles vary with scale. At three spatial scales, the digital elevation model (DEM) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) had a great impact on ES bundles. Urbanization indicators also strongly explain the spatial distribution of ES bundles at the county and grid scales. The interaction factor detector shows that there is no combination of mutual weakening, indicating that the formation of ES bundles is driven by multiple factors in Dalian. Overall, this study used a more holistic approach to manage the ecosystem by studying the temporal-spatial dynamics of the multiple ESs.Entities:
Keywords: driving factors; dynamic evolution; ecosystem service bundles; multiple temporal–spatial scales
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36142040 PMCID: PMC9517224 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811766
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study area in China (a), topography (b), and land-use classification in 2015 (c).
Figure 2Conceptual research framework.
Data sources for ES evaluation.
| Data Category | ES Types | Data Source | Usage Details and Resolution | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FS | HQ | SC | LA | CSOP | WC | |||
| Land-use data | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | Land-use data was obtained by interpreting Landsat TM/ET/OLI data from the USGS website (accessed on 3 November 2020) ( | Interpreted and obtained thirteen types of land-use in Dalian from 2005 to 2015 (30 m × 30 m) |
| MODIS data | √ | Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) | NDVI (MODIS13Q1 dataset) (250 m × 250 m) | |||||
| NPP (MODIS17A3 dataset) (500 m × 500 m) | ||||||||
| Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data | √ | √ | Geospatial data cloud site ( | Based on the digital elevation model (DEM) data, extracted the slope and slope length by hydrology modeling (30 m × 30 m) | ||||
| Soil data | √ | √ | China soil map based on harmonized world soil database (HWSD) (v1.1) ( | Including current data on silt, clay, sand, and organic carbon (1 km × 1 km) | ||||
| Meteorological data | √ | √ | √ | China meteorological data network ( | Includes meteorological data such as precipitation, evaporation, average temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation from thirteen weather stations in and around Dalian (Text data–daily and monthly) | |||
| Socio economic data | √ | √ | Statistical yearbook of Dalian | Including annual food production, tourism income in the study area (Text data–yearly) | ||||
Indicators and methods used to measure each ES.
| ESs | Description | Unit | Evaluation Methods and Key References |
|---|---|---|---|
| FS | Crops (cereals, fruits, vegetables), livestock products (meat, eggs, milk), aquatic products (shrimp, crab, fish) | (t/hm2·a) | Food yield per unit area is assigned to the corresponding land-use grid [ |
| HQ | Distribution of habitat quality was quantified by combining the sensitivity of the landscape type and the intensity of external threats | Index (0–1) | based on the habitat quality module in the integrated valuation of ecosystem services and trade-offs (InVEST) model [ |
| SC | Quantification of the supply of soil conservation caused by vegetation through the effect of vegetation on reducing soil loss and sediment accumulation | (t/hm2·a) | Use of the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) model to estimate potential soil erosion and actual soil erosion [ |
| CSOP | Use of NPP data based on the principle of photosynthesis, in which 1 unit of organic matter can fix 1.63 units of carbon dioxide and production 1.2 units of oxygen | (g C/m2·a) | Estimation of NPP based on Carnegie–Ames–Stanford Approach (CASA) model [ |
| WC | Adoption of the principle of water balance, and calculate the flow rate coefficient, soil permeability, soil conservation, and hydraulic conductivity of Dalian to obtain water conservation | (mm·a) | Use of the InVEST model to quantify water yield [ |
| LA | Considering that the tourism industry can indirectly reflect landscape aesthetics, tourism income is used to characterize the service value of landscape aesthetics | (yuan/hm2·a) | The equivalent value per unit area method was used to assign the revised tourism revenue per unit area to the landscape category. |
Driving factors selected for this study.
| Category | Driving Factors | Spatial Resolution | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural factors | PRE—annual average precipitation | 1 km × 1 km | |
| MT—mean temperature | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| TSR—total solar radiation | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| NDVI—normalized difference vegetation index | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| SLOPE—terrain slope | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| DEM—digital elevation model | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| CLAY—percentage of clay in soil | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| OM—percentage of organic matter in soil | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| SAND—percentage of sand in soil | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| SILT—percentage of silt in soil | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| Human factors | POP—population density | 1 km × 1 km | |
| UR—urbanization rate | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| GDP—GDP per unit area | 1 km × 1 km | ||
| LUI—land-use intensity | 1 km × 1 km |
Type of interaction.
| Judgment Criteria | Type of Interaction |
|---|---|
| q(X1∩X2) < Min(q(X1), q(X2)) | Non-linear reduction |
| Min(q(X1), q(X2)) < q(X1∩X2) < Max(q(X1), q(X2)) | Single-factor nonlinearity reduction |
| q(X1∩X2) > Max(q(X1), q(X2)) | Double factor enhancement |
| q(X1∩X2) > q(X1) + q(X2) | Non-linear enhancement |
| q(X1∩X2) = q(X1) + q(X2) | Independent |
Figure 3Spatial patterns of ESs in Dalian at three scales of analysis; (a) county scale, (b) watershed scale, (c) 1 km grid scale.
Figure 4Spatial distribution of ES bundles in Dalian at the three scales of analysis from 2005 to 2015. Bundle 1–4 represents the bundles of ecological conservation, water conservation, ecological depletion, and food supply, respectively; (a) county scale, (b) watershed scale, (c) 1 km grid scale.
Figure 5Dynamic changes of ES bundles in Dalian from 2005 to 2015; (a) county scale, (b) watershed scale, (c) 1 km grid scale.
Figure 6Factor detector results; *** means that q value is significant at the 0.001 level; * means that q value is significant at the 0.05 level; (a) county scale, (b) watershed scale, (c) 1 km grid scale.
Figure 7Results of factor interaction in Dalian from 2005 to 2015; (a) county scale, (b) watershed scale, (c) 1 km grid scale.
Figure 8Comparison between NPP and NPP*; X: independent variable NPP; Y: dependent variable NPP*; R2: coefficient of determination. R2 between 0–1. the closer to 1, the better the regression fitting effect.
Figure 9Land-use changes in Dalian from 2005 to 2015.