Spatio-temporal Changes in Wildlife Habitat Quality in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River from 1980 to 2100 based on the InVEST Model

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.005

Abstract

Abstract:

The Yangtze River (YZR) regions have experienced rapid changes after opening up to economic reforms, and human activities have changed the land cover, ecology, and wildlife habitat quality. However, the specific ways in which those influencing factors changed the habitat quality during different periods remain unknown. This study assessed the wildlife habitat quality of the middle and lower YZR in the past (1980-2018) and in future scenarios (2050, 2100). We analyzed the relationships between habitat quality and various topological social-economic factors, and then mapped and evaluated the changes in habitat quality by using the Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model. The results show that the slope (R = 0.502, P < 0.01, in 2015), elevation (R = 0.003, P < 0.05, in 2015), population density (R = -0.299, P < 0.01, in 2015), and NDVI (R = 0.366, P < 0.01, in 2015) in the study area were significantly correlated with habitat quality from 2000 to 2015. During the period of 1980-2018, 61.93% of the study area experienced habitat degradation and 38.07% of the study area had improved habitat quality. In the future, the habitat quality of the study area will decline under either the A2 scenario (high level of population density, low environmental technology input, and high traditional energy cost) or the B2 scenario (medium level of population density, medium green technology and lack of cooperation of regional governments). The results also showed that habitat in the lower reaches or north of the YZR had degraded more than in the middle reaches or the south of YZR. Therefore, regional development should put more effort into environmental protection, curb population growth, and encourage green technology innovation. Inter-province cooperation is necessary when dealing with ecological problems. This study can serve as a scientific reference for regional wildlife protection and similar investigations in different areas.

Key words: land use change, habitat quality, trade-off, InVEST model, scenario simulation

LI Qing, ZHOU Yong, Mary Ann CUNNINGHAM, XU Tao. Spatio-temporal Changes in Wildlife Habitat Quality in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River from 1980 to 2100 based on the InVEST Model[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(1): 43-55.

Figures/Tables 18

Table 1 Description of land use types

Type	Description
Arable land	Land for planting crops, including mature arable land, newly opened wasteland, leisure land, rotation rest land, rotation grass field; agricultural fruit, agricultural mulberry, agricultural and woodland mainly for planting crops; beach land and tidal flats cultivated for more than three years
Woodland	Land for growing trees, shrubs, bamboo, and coastal mangroves
Grassland	Lands occupied mainly by herbaceous plants
Water	Natural water body or artificial water body
Built-up land	Land for urban and rural settlements, and other industrial, mining, and transportation areas
Unused land	Land that has not been used, including sandy land, Gobi, salina, swampland, bare soil, bare rock, alpine desert, and tundra

Table 2 Simplified classification of each scenario under the future land use scenario

Scenario	Economic development	Population growth	Green technology	Energy consumption	Development modes
A1B	Fast	Low	High	Low	Global corporation
A2	Fast	High	Low	High	De-globalization
B1	Medium	Low	High	Medium	Global corporation
B2	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	De-globalization

Table 3 Threat factors and their maximum distance of influence, weight, and type of decay over space

Threat factors	Max distance of influence (km)	Weight	Type of decay over space
Built-up land	9	1	Exponential
Arable land	1	0.3	Exponential
Main road	4	0.4	Linear
Railroad	3	0.4	Linear

Table 4 The sensitivity of land use types to habitat threat factors

LULC	Habitat suitability	Built-up land	Arable land	Main road	Railway
Arable land	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.2
Woodland	1	0.7	0.4	0.6	0.8
Grassland	0.75	0.6	0.5	0.15	0.2
Waterbody	0.8	0.74	0.7	0.4	0.5
Built-up land	0	0	0	0	0
Unused land	0.3	0.14	0.1	0.1	0.15

Fig. 1 The location and altitude of the study area

Fig. 2 Changes in each land use type in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River from 1980 to 2018

Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of land use conversions of each different land type in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River from 1980 to 2018 Note: In the legend, ‘T’ is ‘transform to’; ‘A’ is ‘arable land’; ‘F’ is ‘woodland’; ‘G’ is ‘grass’; ‘W’ is ‘waterbody’; ‘B’ is ‘built-up land’; ‘U’ is ‘unused land’; so for the 3-letter codes, e.g., ‘FTA’ means woodland transform to arable land.

Table 5 Land conversion matrix from 1980 to 2018 (km2)

	Land use type	1980
	Land use type	Arable land	Woodland	Grassland	Waterbody	Built-up land	Unused land	Total acreage (2018)
2 0 1 8	Arable land	166066	38037	3964	9263	16664	281	234275
	Woodland	69847	276277	13978	3736	2300	84	366222
	Grassland	6277	17313	9429	834	278	18	34149
	Waterbody	19243	6574	1240	21225	2104	890	51276
	Construction land	43454	8482	847	3439	8265	84	64571
	Unused land	620	93	29	1104	42	594	2482
	Total acreage (1980)	305507	346776	29487	39601	29653	1951

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of land use types in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River from 2050 to 2100 for four scenarios: (a,b) A1B, (c,d) A2, (e,f) B1, and (g,h) B2.

Table 6 The relations between habitat quality and its impact factors from 2000 to 2015

Year	Slope	Aspect	Altitude	Population	GDP	NDVI
2000	0.509^**	-	0.0101^*	-0.302^**	-	0.369^**
2010	0.501^**	-	0.0036^*	-0.296^**	-	0.365^**
2015	0.502^**	-	0.003^*	-0.299^**	-	0.366^**

Fig. 5 Changes in each land type in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River from 2050 to 2100 (′103 km2)

Fig. 6 Spatial-temporal distribution of habitat quality in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River from 1980 to 2018

Fig. 7 Average values of habitat quality in each of the study area provinces from 1980 to 2018

Fig. 8 Spatial distribution of changes in habitat quality in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River during different time segments from 1980 to 2018

Fig. 9 The proportions of areas with different change levels in habitat quality in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River from 1980 to 2018

Fig. 10 Changes in the average habitat quality value in the middle and lower Yangtze River from 1980 to 2100 under the four different scenarios

Fig. 11 Spatial distribution of habitat quality in the middle and lower Yangtze River in 2050 and 2100 under different scenarios (A1B, A2, B1, B2)

Fig. 12 Spatial distribution of changes in habitat quality in the middle and lower Yangtze River in 2100 for different scenarios (A1B, A2, B1, B2)

References 44

[1]	Abbott B W, Bishop K, Zarnetske J P, et al. 2019. Human domination of the global water cycle absent from depictions and perceptions. Nature Geoscience, 12(7):533-540. DOI URL
[2]	Amato K R, Yeoman C J, Kent A, et al. 2013. Habitat degradation impacts black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) gastrointestinal microbiomes. The ISME Journal, 7(7):1344-1353. DOI URL PMID
[3]	Bagalwa M. 2013. The impact of land use on water quality of the Lwiro River, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 31(1):137-143. DOI URL
[4]	Barter M, Cao L, Lei G, et al. 2006. WWF-China waterbird surveys in the lower Yangtze floodplain in 2004 and 2005. Threatened Waterfowl Specialist Group News, 88.
[5]	Aneseyee A B, Noszczyk T, Soromessa T, et al. 2020. The InVEST habitat quality model associated with land use/cover changes: A qualitative case study of the winike watershed in the Omo-gibe Basin, Southwest Ethiopia. Remote Sensing, 2(7):1103. DOI: 10.3390/rs12071103.
[6]	Chen Z Y. 2019. A brief overview of ecological degradation of the Nile Delta: What we can learn. In: Coasts and Estuaries. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814003-1.00013-7.
[7]	Chu L, Sun T, Wang T, et al. 2018. Evolution and prediction of landscape pattern and habitat quality based on CA-Markov and InVEST model in Hubei section of Three Gorges Reservoir Area (TGRA). Sustainability, 10(11):3854. DOI: 10.3390/su10113854. DOI URL
[8]	Dai L, Li S, Lewis B J, et al. 2019. The influence of land use change on the spatial-temporal variability of habitat quality between 1990 and 2010 in Northeast China. Journal of Forestry Research, 30(6):2227-2236. DOI URL
[9]	Erdozain M, Thompson D, Porter T M, et al. 2019. Metabarcoding of storage ethanol vs. conventional morphometric identification in relation to the use of stream macroinvertebrates as ecological indicators in forest management. Ecological Indicators, 101:173-184. DOI URL
[10]	Fishar M R, Williams W P. 2008. The development of a Biotic Pollution Index for the River Nile in Egypt. Hydrobiologia, 598(1):17-34. DOI URL
[11]	Gaffin S R, Xing X, Yetman G. 2002. Country-level GDP and downscaled projections based on the SRES A1, A2, B1, and B2 marker scenarios, 1990-2100. Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).
[12]	Gupta B K, Sarkar U K, Bhardwaj S K. 2012. Assessment of habitat quality with relation to fish assemblages in an impacted river of the Ganges basin, northern India. The Environmentalist, 32(1):35-47. DOI URL
[13]	Hack J, Molewijk D, Beißler M R. 2020. A conceptual approach to modeling the geospatial impact of typical urban threats on the habitat quality of river corridors. Remote Sensing, 12(8):1345. DOI: 10.3390/ rs12081345. DOI URL
[14]	Jiang W, Deng Y, Tang Z, et al. 2017. Modelling the potential impacts of urban ecosystem changes on carbon storage under different scenarios by linking the CLUE-S and the InVEST models. Ecological Modelling, 345:30-40. DOI URL
[15]	Johnson M D. 2007. Measuring habitat quality: A review. The Condor, 109(3):489-504. DOI URL
[16]	Li X, Hou X, Song Y, et al. 2019. Assessing changes of habitat quality for shorebirds in stopover sites: A case study in Yellow River Delta, China. Wetlands, 39(1):67-77. DOI URL
[17]	Liang W, Yang M. 2019. Urbanization, economic growth and environmental pollution: Evidence from China. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 21:1-9.
[18]	Liu J, Liu M, Zhuang D, et al. 2003. Study on spatial pattern of land-use change in China during 1995-2000. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences, 46(4):373-384.
[19]	Liu X, Liang X, Li X, et al. 2017. A future land use simulation model (FLUS) for simulating multiple land use scenarios by coupling human and natural effects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 168:94-116. DOI URL
[20]	Liu Y, Zhou Y, Du Y. 2019. Study on the spatio-temporal patterns of habitat quality and its terrain gradient effects of the middle of the Yangtze River Economic Belt based on InVEST model. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 28(10):2429-2440. (in Chinese)
[21]	Manangkalangi E, Rahardjo M F, Hadiaty R K, et al. 2019. Distribution and abundance of the arfak rainbowfish, Melanotaenia arfakensis Allen, 1990 in Prafi River system, Manokwari, West Papua: Due to habitat degradation? IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 12-43.
[22]	Monsen N E, Cloern J E, Burau J R. 2007. Effects of flow diversions on water and habitat quality: Examples from California’s highly manipulated Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 5(5):1-16.
[23]	Nadakavukaren A, Caravanos J. 2020. Our global environment: A health perspective. Long Grove, USA: Waveland Press.
[24]	Nakicenovic N, Alcamo j, Grubler A, et al. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios (SRES), a special report of Working Group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[25]	Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1):4-11. DOI URL
[26]	Niemi G J, McDonald M E. 2004. Application of ecological indicators. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35:89-111.
[27]	Öckinger E, Dannestam Å, Smith H G. 2009. The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93(1):31-37. DOI URL
[28]	Pettorelli N, Gaillard J, Duncan P, et al. 2001. Population density and small-scale variation in habitat quality affect phenotypic quality in roe deer. Oecologia, 128(3):400-405. DOI URL PMID
[29]	Powers R P, Jetz W. 2019. Global habitat loss and extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates under future land-use-change scenarios. Nature Climate Change, 9(4):323-329. DOI URL
[30]	Pulliam H R. 2000. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters, 3(4):349-361. DOI URL
[31]	Rao C S, Kareemulla K, Krishnan P, et al. 2019. Agro-ecosystem based sustainability indicators for climate resilient agriculture in India: A conceptual framework. Ecological Indicators, 105:621-633. DOI URL
[32]	Smith J L D, Ahearn S C, McDougal C. 1998. Landscape analysis of tiger distribution and habitat quality in Nepal. Conservation Biology, 12(6):1338-1346. DOI URL
[33]	Sharp R, Tallis H T, Ricketts T, et al. 2018. InVEST 3.7.0. user’s guide. The Natural Capital Project.
[34]	Upadhaya S, Dwivedi P. 2019. Conversion of forestlands to blueberries: Assessing implications for habitat quality in Alabaha river watershed in Southeastern Georgia, United States. Land Use Policy, 89:104229. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104229. DOI URL
[35]	Van H B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 47(4):893-901.
[36]	Wang H, Tang L, Qiu Q, et al. 2020. Assessing the impacts of urban expansion on habitat quality by combining the concepts of land use, landscape, and habitat in two urban agglomerations in China. Sustainability, 12(11):4346. DOI: 10.3390/su12114346. DOI URL
[37]	Whittington J, Low P, Hunt B. 2019. Temporal road closures improve habitat quality for wildlife. Scientific Reports, 9(1):1-10. URL PMID
[38]	Xu G, Huang X, Zhong T, et al. 2015. Assessment on the effect of city arable land protection under the implementation of China’s National General Land Use Plan (2006-2020). Habitat International, 49:466-473. DOI URL
[39]	Xu L, Chen S S, Xu Y, et al. 2019. Impacts of land-use change on habitat quality during 1985-2015 in the Taihu Lake Basin. Sustainability, 11(13):1-21. DOI URL
[40]	Zhang X, Zhou J, Li G, et al. 2020. Spatial pattern reconstruction of regional habitat quality based on the simulation of land use changes from 1975 to 2010. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 30(4):601-620. DOI URL
[41]	Zhong L, Wang J. 2017. Evaluation on effect of land consolidation on habitat quality based on InVEST model. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 33(1):250-255.
[42]	Zhou B, Yu X, Chen L, et al. 2010. Soil erosion simulation in mountain areas of Beijing based on InVEST model. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 17(6):9-13.
[43]	Zhou S, Zhang M. 2011. An integrated analysis into the causes of ungulate mortality in the Wanda Mountains (Heilongjiang Province, China) and an evaluation of habitat quality. Biological Conservation, 144(10):2517-2523. DOI URL
[44]	Zhu C, Zhang X, Zhou M, et al. 2020. Impacts of urbanization and landscape pattern on habitat quality using OLS and GWR models in Hangzhou, China. Ecological Indicators, 117:106654. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ecolind.2020.106654. DOI URL