Assessing the Health of Inland Wetland Ecosystems over Space and Time in China

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Wetland is a unique natural landscape pattern, which provides a variety of important functions and services for human societies. With the rapid develop of the economy and accelerated urbanization, the inland wetlands are faced with series of problems, including reduced area, weakened wetland functions, and deterioration of the wetland ecosystem environment. Therefore, it is necessary to quantitatively assess the ecological health of China’s inland wetlands, which is key to the sustainable development of ecosystems. However, most assessments of wetland ecosystems only examine single wetlands or watershed wetlands, and there are few assessments of wetland health at the national level. In this paper, based on land cover data, climate data, and social and economic data, an assessment system of inland wetland health is established by using the Pressure-State-Effect-Response (PSER) model, which includes 15 assessment indicators. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to define the indicator weights. Then we assessed the ecosystem health of the inland wetlands of China in 2010 and 2018, which produced three main results. (1) Unlike ecosystem health evaluated by administrative districts, wetland ecosystem health (WEH) evaluation based on the grid could provide additional details of wetland health. (2) The area of inland wetlands increased by 16328 km ² in 2018 compared to 2010, and the average wetland ecosystem health index in 2018 was 3.45, compared to an index value of 3.24 in 2010. (3) In 2018, wetlands in the better, good, moderate and poor conditions represented about 26.3%, 46.4%, 26.9% and 0.5% of the total, respectively. These results provide a practical guide for protecting and managing wetland system resources and reliable information for land use planning and development.

Key words: wetland, ecosystem health, Pressure-State-Effect-Response, AHP

YAO Yunxiao, WANG Wen, YANG Wenting, ZHANG Qihao. Assessing the Health of Inland Wetland Ecosystems over Space and Time in China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(5): 650-657.

Figures/Tables 6

References 37

[1]	Albert D A, Minc L D. 2004. Plants as regional indicators of Great Lakes coastal wetland health. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 7(2):233-247.
[2]	Chen J, Chen J, Liao A P, et al. 2015. Global land cover mapping at 30 m resolution: A POK-based operational approach. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 103(9): 7‒27.
[3]	Chen W, Cao C X, Liu D, et al. 2019. An evaluating system for wetland ecological health: Case study on nineteen major wetlands in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region, China. Science of the Total Environment, 666(2): 1080-1088.
[4]	Chen Z H, Wang J. 2005. Establishing an ecosystem health model in arid and semi-arid area by using remote sensing data. Remote Sensing Technology and Application, 20(6): 558-562. (in Chinese)
[5]	Costanza R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. In: Costanza R, Norton B G, Haskell B D. (eds.) Ecosystem health: New goals for environmental management. Washington DC, USA:Island Press: 239-256.
[6]	Decleer K, Wouters J, Jacobs S, et al. 2016. Mapping wetland loss and restoration potential in Flanders (Belgium) an ecosystem service perspective. Ecology and Society, 21(4): 46-78.
[7]	Ekumah B, Armah F A, Afrifa E K A, et al. 2020. Geospatial assessment of ecosystem health of coastal urban wetlands in Ghana. Ocean & Coastal Management, 193(11): 105226‒105236.
[8]	Geng G B. 2014. China's wetland protection is not optimistic - the results of the second national wetland resources survey released. Green China, 4(3):8-11. (in Chinese)
[9]	Hou H, Estoque R C, Murayama Y. 2016. Spatiotemporal analysis of urban growth in three African capital cities: A grid-cell-based analysis using remote sensing data. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 123(8): 381-391
[10]	Jiang W G, Li J, Li J H, et al. 2005. Assessment of wetland ecosystem health in the Liaohe River Delta. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 25(3): 408-414. (in Chinese)
[11]	Kerr J T, Ostrovsky M. 2003. From space to species: Ecological applications for remote sensing. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(6): 299-305
[12]	Lee S Y, Dunn R J K, Young R A, et al. 2006. Impact of urbanization on coastal wetland structure and function. Austral Ecology, 31(2): 149‒163.
[13]	Li J, Zhang C, Zhu D H, et al. 2007. Research on the relief zonal approach of Beijing based on spatial technology. Review of China Agricultural Science and Technology, 9(2): 126‒129. (in Chinese)
[14]	Liang L T, Zhai B, Duan L Q. 2017. Theory and methodology for the construction of agricultural environmental quality evaluation system based on household production behavior: Based on the PSER model. Journal of Henan University (Natural Science), 47(5): 505‒513. (in Chinese)
[15]	Ludwig J A, Bastin G N, Chewings V H, et al. 2007. Leakiness: A new index for monitoring the health of arid and semiarid landscapes using remotely sensed vegetation cover and elevation data. Ecological Indicators, 7(2): 442‒454.
[16]	Mao D H, Wang Z M, Du B J, et al. 2020. National wetland mapping in China: A new product resulting from object-based and hierarchical classification of Landsat 8 OLI images. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 164(3): 11-25.
[17]	Mao D H, Wang Z M, Wu J G, et al. 2018. China’s wetlands loss to urban expansion. Land Degradation and Development, 29(8): 2644‒2657
[18]	Mo M H, Wang X L, Wu H J, et al. 2009. Ecosystem health assessment of Honghu Lake Wetland of China using artificial neural network approach. Chinese Geographical Science, 19(4): 349-356
[19]	NBS (National Bureau of Statistics. 2011. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyque ry.htm?cn=E0103&zb=A0201&reg=150000&sj=2011 .
[20]	Niu M X, Wang J, XU B D. 2017. Assessment of the ecosystem health of the Yellow River Estuary based on the Pressure-State-Response model. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(3): 943-952. (in Chinese)
[21]	Ogden J C, Baldwin J D, Bass O L, et al. 2014. Waterbirds as indicators of ecosystem health in the coastal marine habitats of southern Florida: 1. Selection and justification for a suite of indicator species. Ecological Indicators, 44(3): 148-163
[22]	Pattison-Williams J K, Pomeroy J W, Badiou P, et al. 2018. Wetlands, flood control and ecosystem services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: A case study in Saskatchewan, Canada. Ecological Economics, 147(12): 36-47.
[23]	Péron G, Ferrand Y, Leray G, et al. 2013. Waterbird demography as indicator of wetland health: The French-wintering common snipe population. Biological Conservation, 164(4): 123-128
[24]	Qian Y F, Liu D P, Lou Y, et al. 2019. A review of wetland ecological status evaluation in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(9): 3372‒3382. (in Chinese)
[25]	Rapport D J, Costanza R, Mcmichael A J. 1998. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13(10): 397‒402.
[26]	Rapport D J, Regier H A, Hutchinson T C. 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress. The American Naturalist, 125(5): 617-640
[27]	Sharma R C, Rawat J S. 2009. Monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates as bioindicator for assessing the health of wetlands: A case study in the Central Himalayas, India. Ecological Indicators, 9(1): 118‒128.
[28]	Smeets E, Weterings R. 1999. Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. Denmark: European Environment Agency.
[29]	Sun T T, Lin W P, Chen G S, et al. 2016. Wetland ecosystem health assessment through integrating remote sensing and inventory data with an assessment model for the Hangzhou Bay, China. Science of the Total Environment, 566- 567:627-640.
[30]	Tung H L, Tsai H T, Lee C M. 2005. A study of DSR indicator framework for sustainable development in Taiwan. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(1): 29‒39.
[31]	Turner R K, Adger W N, Lorenzoni I, et al. 1998. Towards integrated modelling and analysis in coastal zones: Principles and practice: LOICZ Core Project Office, Netherland: Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ).
[32]	Walz R. 2000. Development of environmental indicator systems: Experiences from Germany. Environmental Management, 25(6): 613-623
[33]	Wang Y H, Zhou D M, Sun Y H. 2011. Assessment of the ecological health of wetlands in Honghe supported by RS and GIS techniques. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31(13): 3590‒3600. (in Chinese)
[34]	Yang J, Li X M, Zhang Y S, et al. 2008. Assessment on urban ecological security spatial differences based on causal network: A case of Dalian City. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(6): 2774‒2783. (in Chinese)
[35]	Yao P P, Wang W, Sun R, et al. 2018. Ecosystem health assessment of wetlands in the Yangtze River Basin. Meteorological and Environmental Sciences, 41(1): 12-18. (in Chinese)
[36]	Yu G M, Yu Q W, Hu L M, et al. 2013. Ecosystem health assessment based on analysis of a land use database. Applied Geography, 44(7): 154-164
[37]	Zhou F, Su W C, Zhang F T. 2019. Influencing indicators and quantitative assessment of water resources security in karst region based on PSER model—The case of Guizhou. Sustainability, 11(20):5671. DOI: 10.3390/su11205671.

Primary indicators	Secondary indicators	Measures	Positive/ Negative
Pressure	Artificial pressure	Population density (people.km^-2)	‒
		GDP per unit area (yuan km^-2)	‒
		Urbanization rate (%)	‒
		Pressure of cultivated land (%)	‒
		Distance to road (m)	+
State	Vigor	Average annual precipitation (mm)	+
		Geomorphic types	+
		Shrub and grass rate (%)	+
		Terrain slope (°)	‒
	Organizational structure	Patch density	+
	Organizational structure	Mean fractal dimension	+
Effect	Resilience	Surrounding patch types	+
	Nature response	Land degradation rate (%)	‒
	Nature response	Soil erosion (t)	‒
Response	Wetland response	Wetland area change rate (%)	+

Primary indicators	Secondary indicators	Measures	Positive/ Negative
Pressure	Artificial pressure	Population density (people.km^-2)	‒
		GDP per unit area (yuan km^-2)	‒
		Urbanization rate (%)	‒
		Pressure of cultivated land (%)	‒
		Distance to road (m)	+
State	Vigor	Average annual precipitation (mm)	+
		Geomorphic types	+
		Shrub and grass rate (%)	+
		Terrain slope (°)	‒
	Organizational structure	Patch density	+
	Organizational structure	Mean fractal dimension	+
Effect	Resilience	Surrounding patch types	+
	Nature response	Land degradation rate (%)	‒
	Nature response	Soil erosion (t)	‒
Response	Wetland response	Wetland area change rate (%)	+

Vegetation coverage (%)	Slope
Vegetation coverage (%)	< 5°	5°-8°	8°-15°	15°-25°	25°-35°	> 35°
> 75	Not obvious	Micro	Micro	Micro	Micro	Micro
60-75	Micro	Mild	Mild	Mild	Moderate	High
45-60	Micro	Mild	Mild	Moderate	High	Strong
30-45	Micro	Mild	Moderate	High	Strong	Extremely strong
< 30	Micro	Moderate	High	Strong	Extremely strong	Severe

Vegetation coverage (%)	Slope
Vegetation coverage (%)	< 5°	5°-8°	8°-15°	15°-25°	25°-35°	> 35°
> 75	Not obvious	Micro	Micro	Micro	Micro	Micro
60-75	Micro	Mild	Mild	Mild	Moderate	High
45-60	Micro	Mild	Mild	Moderate	High	Strong
30-45	Micro	Mild	Moderate	High	Strong	Extremely strong
< 30	Micro	Moderate	High	Strong	Extremely strong	Severe

Rank	Better	Good	Moderate	Poor
WEHI	WEHI≥4	4>WEHI≥3	3>WEHI≥2	2>WEHI
Area (km²)	84275.72	148684.2	86198.36	1602.2