| Literature DB >> 36232239 |
Shili Guo1, Xian Deng2, Jiaxuan Ran1, Xiangyu Ding3.
Abstract
With ongoing economic and social development, natural habitats are becoming increasingly fragmented, blocking habitat connections and reducing landscape connectivity. The study of changes in ecological connectivity can provide valuable information for habitat and landscape restoration, which are necessary for sustainable regional development. Despite the growing interest in this issue, studies that reveal the change in ecological connectivity in the compounded areas of ecological vulnerability and deep poverty are still lacking. In this paper, one of the most underdeveloped and ecologically fragile southwestern ethnic regions of China, the Sanzhou region of Sichuan Province, was the study area. Based on a vector map of current land-use status and vector data on ecosystem factors and nature reserves in 2010 and 2015, the change in ecological connectivity was analyzed using the minimum cumulative resistance model using GIS spatial analysis method. Firstly, ecological sources were identified based on the distribution of ecological functional areas. Secondly, the ecological resistance surface based on ecosystem service value is revised by integrating the three dimensions of topography and hydrology, ecological environment and development, and utilization intensity. Finally, the ecological connectivity of ethnic areas in southwest China in 2010 and 2015 was compared and analyzed through the perspective of ecological resistance. The results show that: (1) From 2010 to 2015, the overall ecological connectivity decreased. (2) There were six areas of high ecological resistance featuring human activity and ecological degradation: the Anning River Valley in Liangshan Prefecture, Ganzi, Dege and Luho counties in Ganzi Prefecture, and Ruoergai and Hongyuan counties in Aba Prefecture. (3) Low ecological resistance areas were more numerous and widely distributed, forming an ecological protection barrier for the three autonomous prefectures, and regulating and protecting their natural environments. It is necessary to maintain and strengthen this protection; accordingly, measures are proposed to improve ecological connectivity. This study provides a reference for achieving ecological security and harmonious coexistence between humans and nature in this region.Entities:
Keywords: ecological connectivity; ecological resistance; ecosystem service; ethnic areas; minimum cumulative resistance model; spatial and temporal patterns
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36232239 PMCID: PMC9566035 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Map of the study area and ecological source sites.
Figure 2Diagram of the research procedures.
Ecological resistance surface index parameters.
| Resistance Factor | Evaluation Factor | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Topography and hydrology | Elevation | 0.04 |
| Slope | 0.04 | |
| Distance from river | 0.12 | |
| Ecological environment | Land-use type | 0.14 |
| Value of ecological services | 0.16 | |
| Development and utilization | Distance from town | 0.28 |
| Distance from road | 0.12 |
Ranks and resistance values of each evaluation factor of the topographic and hydrological dimensions of the study area.
| Resistance Factor | Evaluation Factor | Level | Resistance Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topography and hydrology | Elevation | ≤2248 m | 5 |
| 2248–3099 m | 4 | ||
| 3099–3788 m | 3 | ||
| 3788–4332 m | 2 | ||
| >4332 m | 1 | ||
| Slope | ≤5° | 5 | |
| 5–8° | 4 | ||
| 8–15° | 3 | ||
| 15–25° | 2 | ||
| >25° | 1 | ||
| Distance from river | ≤2 km | 1 | |
| 2–4 km | 2 | ||
| 4–6 km | 3 | ||
| 6–8 km | 4 | ||
| >8 km | 5 |
Figure 3Characteristics of assessment indicators for topography and hydrology dimension in the study area. (a) Ranks of the elevation; (b) Ranks of the slope; (c) Ranks of the distance from river.
Rank and resistance values of each evaluation factor in the ecological environment dimension of the study area.
| Resistance Factor | Evaluation Factor | Level | Resistance Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecological environment | Land-use type | Built Land | 5 |
| Unbuilt Land | 3 | ||
| Cropland | 3 | ||
| Grassland | 2 | ||
| Forest land | 1 | ||
| Watersheds | 1 | ||
| Value of ecological services | High | 1 | |
| Medium | 2 | ||
| Low | 3 |
Figure 4Characteristics of assessment indicators for ecological environment dimension in the study area. (a)The type of land use; (b) The ecological service value.
Classification of ecological service types.
| Tier 1 Type | Tier 2 Type | Comparison with Constaza Classification | Definition of Ecological Services |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supply Service | Food production | Food production | Conversion of solar energy into plant and animal products that can be consumed |
| Raw material production | Raw material production | Conversion of solar energy into bioenergy for human use in buildings and other applications | |
| Regulation Service | Gas regulation | Gas regulation | Ecosystems maintain the balance of chemical components of the atmosphere, absorbing SO2, fluoride, and nitrogen oxides |
| Climate regulation | Climate regulation | Regulation of regional climate, such as increasing precipitation and decreasing temperature | |
| Hydrological regulation | Water conditioning, water supply | Freshwater filtration, retention and storage functions of ecosystems and supply of freshwater | |
| Waste treatment | Waste disposal | Preparation and biological role in the removal and decomposition of excess nutrients and compounds, dust retention | |
| Support Services | Soil maintenance | Erosion control can maintain sediment, soil formation, nutrient cycling | Organic matter accumulation and the role of vegetative root material and organisms in soil conservation, nutrient cycling and accumulation |
| Maintaining biodiversity | Pollination, biological control, habitat, genetic resources | Genetic origin and evolution of wild plants and animals, wild plant and animal habitats | |
| Cultural Services | Providing aesthetic landscapes | Recreation, culture | Landscapes with (potential) recreational use, cultural and artistic value |
Ratings and resistance values of each evaluation factor of development and utilization intensity in the study area.
| Resistance Factor | Evaluation Factor | Level | Resistance Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development and utilization intensity | Distance from town | ≤2 km | 5 |
| 2–3 km | 4 | ||
| 3–4 km | 3 | ||
| 4–5 km | 2 | ||
| >5 km | 1 | ||
| Distance from road | ≤0.5 km | 5 | |
| 0.5–1 km | 4 | ||
| 1–2 km | 3 | ||
| 2–5 km | 2 | ||
| >5 km | 1 |
Figure 5Characteristics of assessment indicators for development and utilization intensity dimension in the study area. (a) Ranks of the distance from town; (b) Ranks of the distance from road.
Figure 6Map of the minimum cumulative resistance surface of the ecological source site.
Figure 7Scattered distribution of minimum cumulative resistance Moran.
Figure 8Minimum cumulative resistance LISA aggregation.