1. Introduction
In the 21st century, the rapid expansion of urbanization and industrialization has led to significant detrimental impacts on ecological systems, including biodiversity depletion, degradation of ecosystem services, and increased ecological vulnerability [
1]. These challenges threaten the development of national economies and societies, highlighting the urgent need for ecosystem restoration and functional optimization. In response to these needs, the concept of Ecological Security Patterns (ESP) has been developed, serving as a strategic framework not only for landscape planning but also for management that directly addresses the relationship between landscape structure and ecological function [
2]. By focusing on the restoration of degraded ecosystems through structural optimization, ESP not only achieves rehabilitation but also bolsters resilience, providing a foundational approach for practical implementation. This strategy has not only guided practical applications but has also spurred further research into identifying and delineating urban ecological networks, thus advancing the design and enhancement of ecological networks in diverse geographical contexts such as plains and watersheds.
The research framework for ESP is structured around three critical phases: identification of ecological sources, creation of resistance surfaces, and extraction of ecological corridors [
3]. Among these, identifying ecological sources forms the foundation [
4]. Traditional methods often use land use data to identify areas rich in grassland and forest [
5], or utilize Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) models [
6]. However, these approaches sometimes fail to capture the complex dynamics of ecosystems. Traditional land use methods rely on static data and simplified classifications, missing temporal changes and interactions within ecosystems. Similarly, MSPA, while effective in mapping structural connectivity, focuses primarily on the physical arrangement of landscape elements and does not incorporate the ecological functionality or sensitivity of these areas. This limitation can lead to an incomplete representation of ecosystem dynamics, as MSPA cannot assess how well different areas support ecological processes and respond to environmental stressors. In this paper, we present a comprehensive evaluation of ecosystem services and sensitivities, aimed at precisely identifying critical ecological source areas [
7,
8]. Recognizing the complex interplay among ecosystems, we have selected regions noted for their robust service provision and minimal ecological sensitivity. Through integrating a synergistic quantification approach, we aim to maintain service continuity and enhance resilience against disturbances [
9]. Another critical phase involves constructing ecological resistance surfaces [
10]. Our method incorporates both natural and anthropogenic factors, including the Remote Sensing-based Ecological Index (RSEI) and road density, to reflect nuanced variations in land use and their interactions with human activities [
11]. This approach effectively maps the impediments faced by migrating species. Following the development of resistance surfaces, this research delineates ecological corridors using circuit theory. Ecological corridors are recognized as essential landscape features that facilitate the dispersal and migration of species and ensure the maintenance of ecological and evolutionary processes. These corridors often connect protected areas or habitats, enhancing biodiversity through the facilitation of animal migration, plant propagation, and genetic exchange [
12]. Circuit theory surpasses traditional least-cost path methods by capturing the randomness of species movement and quantitatively evaluating landscape barriers [
13]. Through refining Least-Cost Distance (LCD) models and implementing All-to-One configurations, our findings elucidate ecological connectivity and reveal the complex interdependencies within ecosystems [
14,
15]. By refining Least-Cost Distance (LCD) models, implementing All-to-One configurations, and other methods, our findings elucidate ecological connectivity and reveal the complex interdependencies within ecosystems. This provides a robust theoretical foundation for ecological restoration efforts [
16,
17].
Current methodologies are proficient in mapping the structural connectivity of ecosystems. However, they inadequately reflect the ecosystems’ ability to adapt to environmental, economic, and social changes. Consequently, to enhance the unification of the ecological security pattern and facilitate effective ecological restoration, we have integrated a comprehensive assessment of ecological resilience into our research framework [
18]. This integration enables us to identify and prioritize regions within the ecological network that are vital for restoration, with a particular focus on areas exhibiting weak ecological resilience. Targeted interventions in these areas aim to improve both the connectivity and robustness of the ecological network system. The enhancement of ecological resilience ensures that ecosystems not only preserve their functions under environmental stress but also recover swiftly, thus supporting the refinement of the ecological security pattern and the sustainability of ecological restoration efforts [
19]. Furthermore, this synergy between resilience assessment and ESP planning significantly bolsters the overall robustness of ecosystems and ensures their continued functionality and stability amid future environmental challenges [
20]. Therefore, augmenting the ecological resilience indicator is essential, serving both as a supplement to existing methodologies and as a crucial component of ecological safety and restoration strategies. It enables ecosystems to endure and adapt to ongoing environmental changes [
21]. This research not only identifies and prioritizes crucial restoration areas within the ecological network but also emphasizes targeted interventions in regions with diminished ecological resilience, enhancing system connectivity. This approach underscores the synergistic benefits of integrating resilience assessments with ecological network planning, markedly improving the ecosystem’s robustness.
The Ili Valley is a critical wetland in Central Asia, crucial for maintaining ecological stability in the region. The valley is not only a significant area for biodiversity and ecological conservation but is also a key hub for traditional livestock farming, and it is known for its abundant ecological resources [
22]. It provides crucial habitats for endangered species listed on the IUCN Red List, including the Ili pika (Ochotona iliensis, national protection level: second-class, IUCN status: EN—Endangered) [
23], and the four-clawed tortoise (Testudo horsfieldii, national protection level: first-class, IUCN status: VU—Vulnerable) [
24]. Additionally, the Ili Valley is home to globally recognized natural heritage sites such as Kanas and Nalati, reflecting its significant value in global biodiversity conservation and natural heritage preservation. However, as the region becomes a strategic economic corridor in the “Belt and Road” initiative, it faces ecological challenges such as declining biodiversity, increased risks to endangered species, and meadow degradation due to traditional grazing practices, underscoring the urgent need to balance economic development with ecological conservation [
25]. Through previous studies, we have identified several deficiencies in the management of the overall ecological security system of the Ili River Valley. For instance, the study by Wuşman et al. details the spatio-temporal changes in vegetation cover but does not adequately integrate these changes with broader ecological functions [
26]. Similarly, Sui’s work on habitat quality under future climate scenarios offers valuable predictive insights yet fails to fully integrate these predictions with actionable conservation strategies [
27]. While the research by Yu provides a focused analysis of the Ili River Valley’s vulnerability from the perspective of geological hazards, it largely neglects the broader ecological system’s interconnected elements and dynamics [
28]. These studies collectively provide a foundational understanding yet fall short of creating a comprehensive and actionable ecological conservation framework that meets both the immediate and strategic ecological needs of the Ili Valley. In contrast, this research advances existing knowledge by developing a robust, integrated approach that assesses the current state of ecological functions and aligns them with sustainable conservation strategies.
The construction of the Ecological Security Patterns (ESP) for the Ili River Valley focuses on several specific objectives: (1) Identify crucial ecological source areas by integrating evaluations of ecosystem services and ecological sensitivity; (2) Construct resistance surfaces and extract ecological corridors using circuit theory, employing various models to identify ecological nodes within the Ili Valley; (3) Ensure that the conservation outcomes of ecological source areas align with key biodiversity conservation areas, protect biodiversity, promote the restoration of degraded grasslands, and propose optimized strategies for implementing ESP. Additionally, the approach includes reserving ample space for future economic development.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, we applied a comprehensive methodology to assess and enhance the ESP of the Ili River Valley, resulting in significant findings:
1. Ecosystem Services and Sensitivity Analysis: We used the InVEST software to integrate six critical ecological factors—habitat quality, soil retention, water conservation, water yield, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity—with seven sensitivity factors—slope, aspect, elevation, water bodies, vegetation, soil type, and land use type. This integration effectively identified 15 key ecological source areas, accounting for 39.23% of the total area. These areas are primarily located in regions with high ecosystem service values and low ecological sensitivity, encompassing grasslands and forests of substantial ecological importance.
2. Ecological Resistance Surface and Corridor Identification: We used factors such as the Remote Sensing Ecological Index (RSEI), elevation, slope, road density, and land use type to create a resistance surface. Using the Linkage Mapper software, we identified 31 ecological corridors that facilitate species migration and biodiversity conservation. Additionally, the study recognized 96 ecological pinch points and 68 barrier points, which identified 32 priority ecological nodes for restoration, spanning a total area of 279.32 square kilometers, primarily along river basins and in areas of frequent human activity.
3. Ecological Resilience Analysis: By developing an ecological resilience assessment model incorporating natural, social, and economic factors, we discovered that most ecological source areas (81.8%) exhibit medium to high resilience, indicating robust stability and recovery potential for the ecosystems of the Ili River Valley.
The outcomes of this research not only provide a scientific foundation for ecological protection and sustainable development within the Ili River Valley but also provide effective methodologies and strategies for constructing the ESP in similar arid wetland regions. Through detailed assessment and optimization of key ecological source areas, corridors, and resilience, this paper underscores the critical role of ecosystem service functions, fosters the development of ecological networks, and establishes a strong basis for promoting sustainable ecological advancement.