欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

生态学杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (2): 576-586.doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202402.042

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

大运河无锡段监控区生态脆弱性的时空变化及其驱动要素

乐志1,夏钰颉1*,姚迪2   

  1. 1南京林业大学风景园林学院, 南京 210000; 2东南大学建筑设计研究院有限公司, 南京 210000)
  • 出版日期:2024-02-06 发布日期:2024-02-07

Spatiotemporal variations of ecological vulnerability and driving factors in the monitoring district of the Wuxi section of the Grand Canal of China.

YUE Zhi1, XIA Yujie1*, YAO Di2   

  1. (1School of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210000, China; 2Southeast University Architectural Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd., Nanjing 210000, China).

  • Online:2024-02-06 Published:2024-02-07

摘要: 为科学识别大运河无锡段国土空间管控范围内运河生态脆弱区域,本研究以大运河无锡段为研究区,采用脆弱性域图模型(vulnerability scoping diagram,VSD)建立暴露性、敏感性和适应性3个维度的评价指标体系,对2010-2020年的无锡市域范围生态脆弱性进行时空变化分析。研究发现,已有模型无法高效解析运河管控区内的生态脆弱性梯度化。因此,结合大运河无锡段监控区内24个生态脆弱性指标的主成分分析,揭示大运河管控区内生态脆弱性变化的主要趋势。结果表明:在时间尺度上,2010-2020年,大运河无锡段生态脆弱度极高脆弱区占比减少至18.8%,并发生了大比例的由高脆弱向中等脆弱的转移,低脆弱区占比增加至21.91%,总体脆弱度减少;在空间尺度上,研究区内生态脆弱度主要表现为惠山区的轻微退化,滨湖区的局部退化,梁溪区、锡山区的明显改善和新吴区的基本维持;VSD模型揭示的生态脆弱性显著退化区域大多位于建成区边缘地带,这导致位于城市中心区的大运河无锡段监控区内生态脆弱性变化不显著,未提示显著的生态脆弱性变化区域;监控区内近10年的主要变化趋势均为降低生态系统暴露度,提高维持能力方向。该区域整体处于生态脆弱性维持或改善的趋势中,故市域范围的VSD模型很难直接揭示其内部脆弱性梯度变化;在监控区范围内,存在局部不符合上述脆弱性改善趋势的空间范围,通过组合监控区内5种不利趋势的空间分布,选择了3种及以上不利趋势对应空间和生态控制区的重叠区域作为亟需保护的滨河生态区的候选范围;结合对滨河生态区的环境分析和卫片判读,指出该区域存在农村区域治理资金相对稀缺,治理资金主要针对工业污染,非管控对象的耕地、果林、林地等斑块显著退化和特定生态服务能力降低3个主要问题,并针对性提出保护措施。


关键词: 生态脆弱性, 脆弱性域图模型, 时空变化, 驱动要素

Abstract: To identify ecologically vulnerable areas within the territorial space control scope of the Wuxi section of the Grand Canal, we used the vulnerability scoping diagram (VSD) model to establish an evaluation index system with three dimensions, including exposure, sensitivity, and adaptability. Further, we analyzed the spatiotemporal variations of ecological vulnerability in the Wuxi section of the Grand Canal from 2010 to 2020. Current models could not efficiently analyze the gradient of ecological vulnerability in the monitoring district of the Wuxi section of the Grand Canal. Therefore, the principal component analysis (PCA) was implemented with 24 ecological vulnerability indicators to determine the crucial vulnerable items in the monitoring district. The results showed that the proportion of extremely vulnerable areas in the Wuxi section of the Grand Canal decreased to 18.8% from 2010 to 2020. A large proportion shifted from high vulnerability to medium vulnerability. The proportion of low vulnerability areas increased to 21.91%, with an overall decreased vulnerability. Spatially, the ecological vulnerability in the study area was mainly manifested as slight degradation in Huishan District, partial degradation in Binhu District, obvious improvement in Liangxi District and Xishan District, and basic maintenance in Xinwu District. The significant degradation areas of ecological vulnerability as shown by the VSD model were mostly located in the fringes of builtup areas. The change of ecological vulnerability in the monitoring area of Wuxi section of the Grand Canal located in the urban center was not significant, making it difficult to locate vulnerable areas. The reduction of ecosystem exposure and the improvement of maintenance capacity were the main trends in the monitoring area in the past 10 years. As the whole region was in the trend of maintaining or improving the ecological vulnerability, it is difficult for the VSD model to directly reveal the change of the internal vulnerability gradient of the region. In the monitoring district, some areas were not in line with the above-mentioned vulnerability improvement trend. By combining the spatial distribution of five adverse trends in the monitoring district, the overlapping area of the corresponding space of three or more adverse trends and the ecological control area were selected as the candidate area of the riverside ecological area in urgent need of protection. The environment analysis and satellite image interpretation of the riverside ecological area showed that rural regional governance funds were relatively scarce, and that the governance funds were mainly targeted at three major problems: industrial pollution, significant degradation of cropland, orchard and forest patches of non-controlled objects, and the reduction of specific ecological service ability. Accordingly, specific protection measures for the ecologically vulnerable areas were put forward.


Key words: ecological vulnerability, vulnerability scoping diagram (VSD) model, spatiotemporal variation, driving factor