基于景观格局的丘陵山区耕地生态风险评价

doi:10.12133/j.smartag.SA202306008

Smart Agriculture ›› 2024, Vol. 6 ›› Issue (3): 58-68.doi: 10.12133/j.smartag.SA202306008

• 专题--丘陵山区智慧农业技术与机械 • 上一篇下一篇

基于景观格局的丘陵山区耕地生态风险评价

张星山¹, 杨恒¹, 马雯秋¹, 杨敏丽¹, 王海翼¹, 尤泳¹, 惠云婷¹, 宫泽奇², 王天一¹^,³()

^1. 中国农业大学工学院, 北京 100083
^2. 中国科学院空天信息创新研究院, 北京 100094
^3. 中国农业大学农业无人机系统研究院, 北京 100193

收稿日期:2023-06-09 出版日期:2024-05-30
基金项目:
国家重点研发计划子课题(2021YFD1300503); 内蒙古自治区科技计划项目(2022YFSJ0039); 中国农业大学2115人才培育发展支持计划; 国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(42001199)
作者简介:
张星山，研究方向为无人机遥感。E-mail：zxs2206533046@163.com
通信作者:
王天一，博士，副教授，研究方向为精准农业、智慧草业、农业机械化、无人机遥感、机器学习、机器视觉。E-mail：tianyi.wang@cau.edu.cn

Ecological Risk Assessment of Cultivated Land Based on Landscape Pattern: A Case Study of Tongnan District, Chongqing

ZHANG Xingshan¹, YANG Heng¹, MA Wenqiu¹, YANG Minli¹, WANG Haiyi¹, YOU Yong¹, HUI Yunting¹, GONG Zeqi², WANG Tianyi¹^,³()

^1. College of Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
^2. Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, China
^3. College of Agricultural Unmanned System, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China

Received:2023-06-09 Online:2024-05-30
Foundation items:National Key Research and Development Program of China(2021YFD1300503); Science and Technology Project of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region(2022YFSJ0039); 2115 Talent Cultivation and Development Support Program of China Agricultural University; National Natural Science Foundation of China(42001199)
About author:
ZHANG Xingshan, E-mail: zxs2206533046@163.com
Corresponding author:
WANG Tianyi, E-mail: tianyi.wang@cau.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

[目的/意义] 丘陵山区农田宜机化整治会改变耕地景观格局、高程、坡度、微地貌等，评价其生态风险为后续整治工作提供数据参考具有重要意义。本研究的目的为评价丘陵山区农田宜机化整治对耕地生态风险的改变情况以及探究生态风险与耕地坡度之间的关系。 [方法] 以重庆市潼南区20个县为评价单元，基于2010年和2020年土地利用数据，采用ArcGIS 10.8和Excel软件计算景观格局指数，通过熵权法确定各指数的权重并构建生态风险评价模型，揭示生态风险时序空间变化特征；基于数理统计原理，对生态风险与坡度进行相关性分析，探究生态风险与坡度的关系。 [结果和讨论] 2010年和2020年两个时期，干扰度指数由0.97下降为0.94，耕地整体抗干扰能力增强；脆弱度指数由2.96增加为3.20，耕地结构更加脆弱；生态风险值由3.10下降为3.01，耕地生态安全性提高。两个时期生态风险区域主要以低风险区和较低风险区为主，低风险区面积增加6.44%，较低风险区面积增加6.17%，中风险区面积增加24.4%，较高风险区面积减少60.70%，高风险区面积增加16.30%，耕地生态安全区域相对增加。耕地坡度主要以2°~25°为主，耕地坡度小于15°时坡度面积占比与生态风险值呈负相关，耕地坡度大于15°时坡度面积占比与生态风险值呈正相关关系，坡度处于5°~8°、15°~25°、25°以上时坡度面积与生态风险值呈极显著相关。农田宜机化整治应重点关注潼南区南部区域，并集中于耕地坡度处于5°~8°和15°~25°区域。 [结论] 通过评价潼南区农田宜机化整治前后耕地生态风险并分析生态风险与耕地坡度的相关性，表明农田宜机化整治可以降低耕地生态风险，耕地坡度面积占比可作为精准指导农田宜机化整治的重要依据，潼南区宜机化整治工作应重点关注耕地坡度处于5°~8°和15°~25°区域。

关键词: 农田宜机化整治, 耕地, 生态风险评价, 景观格局

Abstract:

[Objective] Farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization in hilly and mountainous areas can alter the landscape pattern, elevation, slope and microgeomorphology of cultivated land. It is of great significance to assess the ecological risk of cultivated land to provide data reference for the subsequent farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization. This study aims to assess the ecological risk of cultivated land before and after farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization in hilly and mountainous areas, and to explore the relationship between cultivated land ecological risk and cultivated land slope. [Methods] Twenty counties in Tongnan district of Chongqing city was selected as the assessment units. Based on the land use data in 2010 and 2020 as two periods, ArcGIS 10.8 and Excel software were used to calculate landscape pattern indices. The weights for each index were determined by entropy weight method, and an ecological risk assessment model was constructed, which was used to reveal the temporal and spatial change characteristics of ecological risk. Based on the principle of mathematical statistics, the correlation analysis between cultivated land ecological risk and cultivated land slope was carried out, which aimed to explore the relationship between cultivated land ecological risk and cultivated land slope. [Results and Discussions] Comparing to 2010, patch density (PD), division (D), fractal dimension (FD), and edge density (ED) of cultivated land all decreased in 2020, while meant Patch Size (MPS) increased, indicating an increase in the contiguity of cultivated land. The mean shape index (MSI) of cultivated land increased, indicating that the shape of cultivated land tended to be complicated. The landscape disturbance index (U) decreased from 0.97 to 0.94, indicating that the overall resistance to disturbances in cultivated land has increased. The landscape vulnerability index (V) increased from 2.96 to 3.20, indicating that the structure of cultivated land become more fragile. The ecological risk value of cultivated land decreased from 3.10 to 3.01, indicating the farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization effectively improved the landscape pattern of cultivated land and enhanced the safety of the agricultural ecosystem. During the two periods, the ecological risk areas were primarily composed of low-risk and relatively low-risk zones. The area of low-risk zones increased by 6.44%, mainly expanding towards the northern part, while the area of relatively low-risk zones increased by 6.17%, primarily spreading towards the central-eastern and southeastern part. The area of moderate-risk zones increased by 24.4%, mainly extending towards the western and northwestern part, while the area of relatively high-risk zones decreased by 60.70%, with some new additions spreading towards the northeastern part. The area of high-risk zones increased by 16.30%, with some new additions extending towards the northwest part. Overall, the ecological safety zones of cultivated relatively increased. The cultivated land slope was primarily concentrated in the range of 2° to 25°. On the one hand, when the cultivated land slope was less than 15°, the proportion of the slope area was negatively correlated with the ecological risk value. On the other hand, when the slope was above 15°, the proportion of the slope area was positively correlated with the ecological risk value. In 2010, there was a highly significant correlation between the proportion of slope area and ecological risk value for cultivated land slope within the ranges of 5° to 8°, 15° to 25°, and above 25°, with corresponding correlation coefficients of 0.592, 0.609, and 0.849, respectively. In 2020, there was a highly significant correlation between the proportion of slope area and ecological risk value for cultivated land slope within the ranges of 2° to 5°, 5° to 8°, 15° to 25°, and above 25°, with corresponding correlation coefficients of 0.534, 0.667, 0.729, and 0.839, respectively. [Conclusions] The assessment of cultivated land ecological risk in Tongnan district of Chongqing city before and after the farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization, as well as the analysis of the correlation between ecological risk and cultivated land slope, demonstrate that the farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization can reduce cultivated land ecological risk, and the proportion of cultivated land slope can be an important basis for precision guidance in the farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization. Considering the occurrence of moderate sheet erosion from a slope of 5° and intense erosion from a slope of 10° to 15°, and taking into account the reduction of ecological risk value and the actual topographic conditions, the subsequent farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization in Tongnan district should focus on areas with cultivated land slope ranging from 5° to 8° and 15° to 25°.

Key words: farmland consolidation for agricultural mechanization, cultivated land, ecological risk assessment, landscape pattern

中图分类号:

X826

张星山, 杨恒, 马雯秋, 杨敏丽, 王海翼, 尤泳, 惠云婷, 宫泽奇, 王天一. 基于景观格局的丘陵山区耕地生态风险评价[J]. 智慧农业(中英文), 2024, 6(3): 58-68.

ZHANG Xingshan, YANG Heng, MA Wenqiu, YANG Minli, WANG Haiyi, YOU Yong, HUI Yunting, GONG Zeqi, WANG Tianyi. Ecological Risk Assessment of Cultivated Land Based on Landscape Pattern: A Case Study of Tongnan District, Chongqing[J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(3): 58-68.

图/表 7

图1

表1

景观格局指数生态学意义及计算方法

景观格局指数	生态学意义	计算方法
斑块密度（PD）	描述景观斑块破碎程度	PD=n/A （1）
分离度（D）	描述景观斑块个体空间分离程度	D= $12 n A$ （2）
分维数（FD）	描述景观斑块形状复杂程度	FD= $2 l n (s / 4) l n A$ （3）
边界密度（ED）	描述景观斑块被分割程度	ED=s/A （4）
平均形状指数（MSI）	描述景观斑块的平均复杂程度	MSI= $∑ i = 1 n L S I n n$ （5）
平均斑块面积（MPS）	描述景观斑块大小	MPS=A/n （6）

表1

表2

2010年和2020年重庆市潼南区各评价单元耕地景观格局指数计算结果

评价单元	年份	PD	D	FD	U	ED	MSI	MPS	V	ERI
柏梓镇	2010	0.15	1.61	0.19	0.59	1.58	1.39	6.89	3.19	1.90
柏梓镇	2020	0.11	1.57	0.17	0.56	1.40	1.42	8.76	3.68	2.07
宝龙镇	2010	0.10	1.59	0.15	0.55	1.85	1.61	10.52	4.42	2.45
宝龙镇	2020	0.20	1.57	0.22	0.62	1.78	1.35	4.95	2.72	1.68
别口镇	2010	0.67	1.86	0.41	0.98	3.13	1.28	1.48	2.18	2.14
别口镇	2020	0.48	1.82	0.35	0.86	2.89	1.31	2.09	2.26	1.93
崇龛镇	2010	0.13	1.66	0.18	0.60	1.90	1.52	7.63	3.57	2.14
崇龛镇	2020	0.12	1.58	0.18	0.57	1.57	1.45	8.10	3.58	2.05
古溪镇	2010	0.11	1.64	0.16	0.58	1.71	1.42	9.38	3.99	2.31
古溪镇	2020	0.13	1.61	0.18	0.59	1.57	1.32	7.47	3.36	1.97
花岩镇	2010	0.20	1.51	0.22	0.59	1.80	1.36	5.10	3.49	2.07
花岩镇	2020	0.04	1.42	0.10	0.46	1.54	4.60	27.25	9.47	4.40
龙形镇	2010	0.15	1.65	0.19	0.61	1.87	1.40	6.59	3.23	1.97
龙形镇	2020	0.09	1.57	0.15	0.55	1.53	1.45	10.54	4.29	2.35
米心镇	2010	0.17	1.64	0.21	0.62	1.95	1.43	5.76	2.99	1.85
米心镇	2020	0.33	1.71	0.29	0.73	2.23	1.35	3.04	2.29	1.68
群力镇	2010	0.21	1.51	0.23	0.60	1.55	1.31	4.82	2.52	1.52
群力镇	2020	0.14	1.49	0.19	0.55	1.46	1.34	7.29	3.23	1.78
上和镇	2010	0.33	1.84	0.29	0.78	2.90	1.40	3.00	2.57	2.00
上和镇	2020	0.24	1.78	0.24	0.70	2.52	1.39	4.22	2.78	1.95
寿桥镇	2010	0.24	1.61	0.25	0.65	2.21	1.42	4.16	2.79	1.82
寿桥镇	2020	0.18	1.59	0.21	0.61	2.13	2.12	5.51	3.01	1.84
双江镇	2010	0.19	1.67	0.22	0.64	1.83	1.30	5.22	2.75	1.76
双江镇	2020	0.14	1.59	0.19	0.58	1.48	1.29	7.19	3.21	1.87
太安镇	2010	0.14	1.72	0.18	0.62	2.26	1.54	7.33	3.61	2.24
太安镇	2020	0.32	1.68	0.28	0.72	2.06	1.34	3.09	2.25	1.63
塘坝镇	2010	0.43	1.71	0.33	0.79	2.05	1.24	2.32	1.94	1.54
塘坝镇	2020	0.53	1.69	0.37	0.85	1.97	1.23	1.88	1.77	1.50
田家镇	2010	0.50	1.68	0.35	0.83	2.09	1.25	2.01	1.87	1.54
田家镇	2020	0.29	1.61	0.27	0.68	1.76	1.28	3.51	2.18	1.48
卧佛镇	2010	1.04	1.99	0.51	1.22	3.94	1.24	0.96	2.37	2.90
卧佛镇	2020	1.01	1.97	0.50	1.20	3.73	1.26	0.99	2.28	2.73
五桂镇	2010	6.43	2.58	1.27	4.24	9.98	1.26	0.16	4.84	20.54
五桂镇	2020	5.98	2.48	1.22	3.98	8.89	1.25	0.17	4.35	17.31
小渡镇	2010	0.28	1.69	0.27	0.70	2.01	1.28	3.56	2.33	1.63
小渡镇	2020	0.27	1.76	0.26	0.71	2.32	1.32	3.75	2.51	1.79
新胜镇	2010	2.04	2.18	0.71	1.82	5.64	1.25	0.49	2.99	5.44
新胜镇	2020	2.39	2.20	0.77	2.01	5.85	1.25	0.42	3.06	6.16
玉溪镇	2010	1.52	1.75	0.62	1.41	2.47	1.22	0.66	1.61	2.26
玉溪镇	2020	1.28	1.76	0.57	1.28	2.48	1.22	0.78	1.65	2.12
平均值	2010	0.75	1.76	0.35	0.97	2.74	1.36	4.40	2.96	3.10
平均值	2020	0.71	1.72	0.34	0.94	2.56	1.53	5.55	3.20	3.01

表2

图2

表 3

图3

表4

参考文献 34

1	陈建. 我国丘陵山区应对农机化两大困境的新对策——基于宜机化土地整治[J]. 农机化研究, 2019, 41(4): 1-4, 63.
	CHEN J. A new countermeasure against two severe difficulties in agricultural mechanization in China’s hilly and mountainous areas: Based on land consolidation for fitting large-medium farm machinery[J]. Journal of agricultural mechanization research, 2019, 41(4): 1-4, 63.
2	陈建. 重庆宜机化土地整治: 跳出农机抓农机[J]. 农机质量与监督, 2018(5): 15-16.
	CHEN J. Mechanized land improvement in Chongqing: Jumping out of agricultural machinery and grasping agricultural machinery[J]. Agricultural machinery quality & supervision, 2018(5): 15-16.
3	陈荣蓉. 重庆丘陵山区农村土地整治工程及其景观效应[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2012.
	CHEN R R. Rural land consolidation and its landscape ecological effect in hilly-mountainous region of Chongqing[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2012.
4	徐羽, 钟业喜, 冯兴华, 等. 鄱阳湖流域土地利用生态风险格局[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(23): 7850-7857.
	XU Y, ZHONG Y X, FENG X H, et al. Ecological risk pattern of Poyang Lake Basin based on land use[J]. Acta ecologica sinica, 2016, 36(23): 7850-7857.
5	王文杰, 张永福, 王慧杰. 基于GIS干旱区绿洲县域土地利用变化生态风险分析——以新疆泽普县为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 2016, 23(6): 216-220, 2.
	WANG W J, ZHANG Y F, WANG H J. Analysis on ecological risk of land use at county level in the arid oasis base on GIS: A case study in Zepu of Xinjiang[J]. Research of soil and water conservation, 2016, 23(6): 216-220, 2.
6	虞继进, 陈雪玲, 陈绍杰. 基于遥感和PSR模型的城市景观生态安全评价——以福建省龙岩市为例[J]. 国土资源遥感, 2013, 25(1): 143-149.
	YU J J, CHEN X L, CHEN S J. Urban landscape ecological security assessment based on remote sensing and PSR model: A case study in Longyan city, Fujian province[J]. Remote sensing for land & resources, 2013, 25(1): 143-149.
7	滑永春, 陈家豪, 孙小添, 等. 内蒙古段黄河流域景观生态风险分析[J]. 自然资源遥感, 2023(2): 220-229.
	HUA Y C, CHEN J H, SUN X T, et al. Analysis of landscape ecology risk of the Yellow River Basin in Inner Mongolia[J]. Remote sensing for natural resources, 2023(2): 220-229.
8	李青圃, 张正栋, 万露文, 等. 基于景观生态风险评价的宁江流域景观格局优化[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(7): 1420-1437.
	LI Q P, ZHANG Z D, WAN L W, et al. Landscape pattern optimization in Ningjiang River Basin based on landscape ecological risk assessment[J]. Acta geographica sinica, 2019, 74(7): 1420-1437.
9	吴金华, 张伟, 刘小玲. 基于RRM模型的神木县土地整治规划生态风险评价[J]. 中国土地科学, 2014, 28(3): 76-82.
	WU J H, ZHANG W, LIU X L. Ecological risk assessment in land reclamation plan of Shenmu County based on relative risk model[J]. China land sciences, 2014, 28(3): 76-82.
10	宋涛. 县级土地整治规划生态风险评价——以武安市为例[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2016.
	SONG T. Ecological risk assessment of land renovation plan at County level: A case of Wu'an city[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences, 2016.
11	乔蕻强, 程文仕, 乔伟栋, 等. 基于相对风险模型的土地利用变化生态风险定量评价——以石羊河流域为例[J]. 中国沙漠, 2017, 37(1): 198-204.
	QIAO H Q, CHENG W S, QIAO W D, et al. Evaluation of ecological risk of land use change based on the RRM model: A case in the Shiyanghe River Basin[J]. Journal of desert research, 2017, 37(1): 198-204.
12	曹玉红, 陈晨, 张大鹏, 等. 皖江城市带土地利用变化的生态风险格局演化研究[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(13): 4773-4781.
	CAO Y H, CHEN C, ZHANG D P, et al. Evolution of ecological risk pattern of land use change in Wanjiang City Belt[J]. Acta ecologica sinica, 2019, 39(13): 4773-4781.
13	张正峰, 杨红, 谷晓坤. 土地整治对平原区及丘陵区田块利用的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2013, 29(3): 1-8.
	ZHANG Z F, YANG H, GU X K. Effects of land consolidation in plains and hills on plots use[J]. Transactions of the Chinese society of agricultural engineering, 2013, 29(3): 1-8.
14	孙瑞, 金晓斌, 项晓敏, 等. 土地整治对耕地细碎化影响评价指标适用性分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(13): 279-287.
	SUN R, JIN X B, XIANG X M, et al. Applicability analysis of indices in assessment on effect of land consolidation on cultivated land fragmentation[J]. Transactions of the Chinese society of agricultural engineering, 2018, 34(13): 279-287.
15	裴欢, 魏勇, 王晓妍, 等. 耕地景观生态安全评价方法及其应用[J]. 农业工程学报, 2014, 30(9): 212-219.
	PEI H, WEI Y, WANG X Y, et al. Method of cultivated land landscape ecological security evaluation and its application[J]. Transactions of the Chinese society of agricultural engineering, 2014, 30(9): 212-219.
16	韩逸, 郭熙, 江叶枫, 等. 南方丘陵区耕地质量与景观格局指数相关性分析[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2018, 34(5): 1057-1065.
	HAN Y, GUO X, JIANG Y F, et al. Correlation analysis between cultivated land quality and landscape pattern index in south hilly areas[J]. Jiangsu journal of agricultural sciences, 2018, 34(5): 1057-1065.
17	张限, 周旭, 吴贵琼, 等. 遵义市耕地破碎化时空变化与成因分析[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2022, 50(11): 154-160.
	ZHANG X, ZHOU X, WU G Q, et al. Spatial and temporal changes and cause analysis of cropland fragmentation in Zunyi city[J]. Guizhou agricultural sciences, 2022, 50(11): 154-160.
18	杨斌, 王占岐, 姚小薇, 等. 鄂西北山区土地利用的地形梯度效应与空间结构特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(2): 313-321.
	YANG B, WANG Z Q, YAO X W, et al. Terrain gradient effect and spatial structure characteristics of land use in mountain areas of northwestern Hubei province[J]. Resources and environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2019, 28(2): 313-321.
19	蒋佩荪, 何忠, 敖方源, 等. 重庆市潼南区农田宜机化改造推动农业机械化发展的实践与思考[J]. 农业工程, 2019, 9(9): 16-18.
	JIANG P S, HE Z, AO F Y, et al. Practice and consideration on promoting agricultural mechanization development by agricultural mechanization reform in Tongnan district of Chongqing city[J]. Agricultural engineering, 2019, 9(9): 16-18.
20	刘希朝, 李效顺, 蒋冬梅. 基于土地利用变化的黄河流域景观格局及生态风险评估[J]. 农业工程学报, 2021, 37(4): 265-274.
	LIU X Z, LI X S, JIANG D M. Landscape pattern identification and ecological risk assessment using land-use change in the Yellow River Basin[J]. Transactions of the Chinese society of agricultural engineering, 2021, 37(4): 265-274.
21	XU W Y, JIN X B, LIU J, et al. Analysis of influencing factors of cultivated land fragmentation based on hierarchical linear model: A case study of Jiangsu Province, China[J]. Land use policy, 2021, 101: ID 105119.
22	LIU J, JIN X B, XU W Y, et al. Influential factors and classification of cultivated land fragmentation, and implications for future land consolidation: A case study of Jiangsu Province in Eastern China[J]. Land use policy, 2019, 88: ID 104185.
23	TIAN Y H, JIM C Y, TAO Y, et al. Landscape ecological assessment of green space fragmentation in Hong Kong[J]. Urban forestry & urban greening, 2011, 10(2): 79-86.
24	YU Q Y, HU Q, VAN VLIET J, et al. GlobeLand30 shows little cropland area loss but greater fragmentation in China[J]. International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation, 2018, 66: 37-45.
25	LIANG J L, PAN S P, CHEN W X, et al. Cultivated land fragmentation and its influencing factors detection: A case study in Huaihe River Basin, China[J]. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021, 19(1): ID 138.
26	WEI L, LUO Y, WANG M, et al. Essential fragmentation metrics for agricultural policies: Linking landscape pattern, ecosystem service and land use management in urbanizing China[J]. Agricultural systems, 2020, 182: ID 102833.
27	SKLENICKA P, JANOVSKA V, SALEK M, et al. The farmland rental paradox: Extreme land ownership fragmentation as a new form of land degradation[J]. Land use policy, 2014, 38: 587-593.
28	陈利顶, 李秀珍, 傅伯杰, 等. 中国景观生态学发展历程与未来研究重点[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(12): 3129-3141.
	CHEN L D, LI X Z, FU B J, et al. Development history and future research priorities of landscape ecology in China[J]. Acta ecologica sinica, 2014, 34(12): 3129-3141.
29	娄妮, 王志杰, 何嵩涛. 基于景观格局的阿哈湖国家湿地公园景观生态风险评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2020, 27(1): 233-239.
	LOU N, WANG Z J, HE S T. Assessment on ecological risk of aha lake national wetland park based on landscape pattern[J]. Research of soil and water conservation, 2020, 27(1): 233-239.
30	田鹏, 龚虹波, 叶梦姚, 等. 东海区大陆海岸带景观格局变化及生态风险评价[J]. 海洋通报, 2018, 37(6): 695-706.
	TIAN P, GONG H B, YE M Y, et al. Landscape pattern change and ecological risk assessment of the continental coast of the East China Sea[J]. Marine science bulletin, 2018, 37(6): 695-706.
31	韩振华, 李建东, 殷红, 等. 基于景观格局的辽河三角洲湿地生态安全分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(3): 701-705.
	HAN Z H, LI J D, YIN H, et al. Analysis of ecological security of wetland in Liaohe River delta based on the landscape pattern[J]. Ecology and environmental sciences, 2010, 19(3): 701-705.
32	王千, 金晓斌, 周寅康. 河北省耕地生态安全及空间聚集格局[J]. 农业工程学报, 2011, 27(8): 338-344.
	WANG Q, JIN X B, ZHOU Y K. Cultivated land ecological security and spatial aggregation pattern in Hebei Province [J]. Transactions of the Chinese society of agricultural engineering, 2011, 27(8): 338-344.
33	中华人民共和国自然资源部. 第三次全国国土调查技术规程: TD/T 1055-2019 [S]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2019
34	汤国安, 宋佳. 基于DEM坡度图制图中坡度分级方法的比较研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20(2): 157-160, 192.
	TANG G A, SONG J. Comparison of slope classification methods in slope mapping from DEMs[J]. Journal of soil and water conservation, 2006, 20(2): 157-160, 192.

年份	低风险		较低风险		中风险		较高风险		高风险
年份	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%	面积/km²	比重/%
2010	310.68	22.32	482.16	34.62	217.77	15.64	214.66	15.42	167.19	12.01
2020	330.79	23.75	511.90	36.76	271.08	19.47	84.36	6.06	193.43	13.96
风险面积变化大小/km²	20.11		29.74		53.31		-130.30		26.24
风险面积变化率/%	6.44		6.17		24.48		-60.70		16.30

坡度等级	相关系数
坡度等级	2010年	2020年
一级	-0.374	-0.471^*
二级	-0.438^*	-0.534^**
三级	-0.592^**	-0.677^**
四级	-0.320	-0.049
五级	0.609^**	0.729^**
六级	0.849^**	0.839^**

[1]	李豪, 杜雨秋, 肖星竹, 陈彦羲. 基于深度学习的四川盆地丘陵区县域耕地遥感识别研究[J]. 智慧农业(中英文), 2024, 6(3): 34-45.
[2]	陈爱莲, 赵思健, 朱玉霞, 孙伟, 张晶, 张峭. 遥感技术在种植收入保险中的应用场景及研究进展[J]. 智慧农业(中英文), 2022, 4(1): 57-70.

基于景观格局的丘陵山区耕地生态风险评价

Ecological Risk Assessment of Cultivated Land Based on Landscape Pattern: A Case Study of Tongnan District, Chongqing

在线阅读

知网下载

本地下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 34

相关文章 2

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价