Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (1): 43-55.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.005
• Animal Ecology • Previous Articles Next Articles
LI Qing1(), ZHOU Yong1,*(
), Mary Ann CUNNINGHAM2, XU Tao1
Received:
2020-07-31
Accepted:
2020-09-20
Online:
2021-01-30
Published:
2021-03-30
Contact:
ZHOU Yong
About author:
LI Qing, E-mail: Supported by:
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.005
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 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 |
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 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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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. 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.
Land use type | 1980 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Table 5 Land conversion matrix from 1980 to 2018 (km2)
Land use type | 1980 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
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** |
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. 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
[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 |
[1] | XIE Hualin, CHEN Qianru. Land Use and Ecological Civilization: A Collection of Empirical Studies [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(2): 137-142. |
[2] | CHEN Qianru, XIE Hualin. Research Progress and Discoveries Related to Cultivated Land Abandonment [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(2): 165-174. |
[3] | FENG Yanyun, ZHAO Yuluan, YANG Zhimou, XUE Chaolang, LIU Yan. Spatio-temporal Differentiation of Trade-offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services in Typical Mountain Areas of China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(2): 268-279. |
[4] | ZHANG Mengyu, ZHANG Li, REN Xiaoli, HE Honglin, LV Yan, WANG Junbang, YAN Huimin. Effect of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Changes in Net Primary Productivity in Karst Areas of Southwest China: A Case Study of Huanjiang Maonan Autonomous County [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(6): 606-616. |
[5] | GAO Min, XIAO Yan, HU Yunfeng. Evaluation of Water Yield and Soil Erosion in the Three-River-Source Region under Different Land-Climate Sce-narios [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(1): 13-26. |
[6] | WU Baiqiu,WANG Junbang,QI Shuhua,WANG Shaoqiang,LI Yingnian. Review of Methods to Quantify Trade-offs among Ecosystem Services and Future Model Developments [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(2): 225-233. |
[7] | LI Haiping, QI Yanan, QU Yunying. Use a Spatial Analysis Model to Assess Habitat Quality in Lashihai Watershed [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018, 9(6): 622-631. |
[8] | WEN Yihui, LIU Guihuan, WU Rui. Eco-compensati on in Guanting Reservoir Watershed Based on Spatiotemporal Variations of Water Yield and Purification Services [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018, 9(4): 416-425. |
[9] | XING Yuanyuan, WANG Yongdong, YOU Yuan, SONG Qin, HARE Malicha Loje, JORRO Zinabu Bora, JIRMA Guyo Huka. Dynamic Changes of the Bush Encroachment in Low Altitude Area of Ethiopia [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018, 9(3): 281-289. |
[10] | LV Ligang, LI Yongle, SUN Yan. The Spatio-temporal Pattern of Regional Land Use Change and Eco-environmental Responses in Jiangsu, China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(3): 268-276. |
[11] | WANG Xiaoli, DAI Erfu, ZHU Jianjia. Spatial Patterns of Forest Ecosystem Services and Influencing Factors in the Ganjiang River Basin [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(6): 439-452. |
[12] | Songlin Mu, Yifeng Zhang, Dhruba Bijaya G.C.. Land Use Changes of Valleys Based on Topographic Factors in Beijing Mountainous Regions of China* [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(1): 68-76. |
[13] | LIU Wenchao, LIU Jiyuan, YAN Changzhen, QIN Yuanwei, YAN Huimin. Cropland Dynamics and Their Influence on the Productivity in Northern Shaanxi, China, for the Past 20 Years: Based on Remotely Sensed Data [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014, 5(3): 272-279. |
[14] | CHEN Xiaoyue. Short-interval Land Use Change Detection with Microwave Remote Sensing Data [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014, 5(2): 185-192. |
[15] | HU Ruishan, DONG Suocheng. Land Use Dynamics and Landscape Patterns in Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2013, 4(2): 141-148. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||