Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Manas River Basin: Application of the CC-PSR Model Improved by Coupling Coordination Degree
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Data
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources
3. Methods
3.1. Constructing the Assessment Indicator System
3.2. CC-PSR Ecosystem Health Assessment Model
3.2.1. CC-PSR Ecosystem Health Index
3.2.2. Establishing a Coupling Coordination Coefficient
3.3. Indicator Calculation
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Ecosystem Health Conditions
4.2. Regional Carbon Footprint, Water Footprint, Ecological Footprint, and Corresponding Carrying Capacity
4.3. Landscape Pattern Analysis
4.4. Ecosystem Resilience and Landscape Disturbances
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tilman, D.; Knops, J.; Wedin, D.; Reich, P.; Ritchie, M.; Siemann, E. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 1997, 277, 1300–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, D.C.; Hendrix, P.F.; Odum, E.P. Ecosystem health: An overview. Soil Chem. Ecosyst. Health 1998, 52, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization; World Health Organization: New York, NY, USA, 1995; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; Norton, B.G.; Haskell, B.D. Ecosystem health: New goals for environmental management. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Ecosystem Health and Medicine, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 19–22 June 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Rapport, D.J. Evaluating ecosystem health. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Stress Recovery 1992, 1, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.L.; Wang, R.S.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Su, H.Q.; Wang, P.; Alan, J.; Rober, C.F.; Mark, B.; Geoff, S. Ecosystem health towards sustainability. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2015, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, C.X.; Nathan, J. A review of measuring ecosystem resilience to disturbance. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 053008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundberg, J.; Moberg, F. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: Implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 2003, 6, 0087–0098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcox, B.A. Ecosystem health in practice: Emerging areas of application in environment and human health. Ecosyst. Health 2001, 7, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R. Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 45, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapport, D.J.; Costanza, R.; McMichael, A.J. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallick, J.; AlQadhi, S.; Talukdar, S.; Pradhan, B.; Bindajam, A.A.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Dajam, A.S. A novel technique for modeling ecosystem health condition: A case study in Saudi Arabia. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rong, H.; Huang, X.T.; Ye, X.Y.; Pan, Z.; Wang, H.; Luo, B.; Liu, D.M.; Hu, X.X. County Ecosystem Health Assessment Based on the VORS Model: A Case Study of 183 Counties in Sichuan Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapport, D.J.; Singh, A. An EcoHealth-based framework for State of Environment Reporting. Ecol. Indic. 2006, 6, 409–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harwell, M.A.; Gentile, J.H.; McKinney, L.D.; Tunnell Jr, J.W.; Dennison, W.C.; Kelsey, R.H.; Tunnell, J. Conceptual Framework for Assessing Ecosystem Health. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2019, 15, 544–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ashraf, A.; Haroon, M.A.; Ahmad, S.; Abowarda, A.S.; Wei, C.; Liu, X. Use of remote sensing-based pressure-state-response framework for the spatial ecosystem health assessment in Langfang, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 89395–89414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashif, I.; Mehebub, S.; Joe, R.; Gopala, A.; Ouseen, G.; Sudha, D.; Archana, C.; Haroon, S. A sustainable solution to manage ecosystem health of wetlands in urban and peri-urban areas of Lucknow district, India using geospatial techniques and community based pragmatic approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 2023, 414, 137646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, S.; Qian, J.; Xu, B.; Tu, Z.; Zhang, W.; Ma, X.; Liang, Y. Spatiotemporal changes of ecosystem health and their driving mechanisms in alpine regions on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 143, 109396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, M. Assessment of Urban Ecosystem Health Based on Information Entropy Method. J. Nanning Norm. Univ. (Natual Sci. Ed.) 2021, 38, 122–128. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Full Text of Xi Jinping’s Report at 19th CPC National Congress. Available online: http://www.china.org.cn/chinese/2017-11/06/content_41852215.htm (accessed on 21 June 2024).
- Ge, Q.S.; Fang, C.L.; Jiang, D. Geographical missions and coupling ways between human and nature for the Beautiful China Initiative. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2020, 75, 1109–1119. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wei, H.J.; Xu, Z.H.; Liu, H.M.; Ren, J.H.; Fan, W.G.; Lu, N.C.; Dong, X.B. Evaluation on dynamic change and interrelations of ecosystem services in a typical mountain-oasis-desert region. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 917–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, R.R.; Dong, X.B.; Wang, X.C.; Zhang, P.; Liu, M.X.; Zhang, Y. Study on the relationship among the urbanization process, ecosystem services and human well-being in an arid region in the context of carbon flow: Taking the Manas river basin as an example. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 132, 108248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Z.W. Research on Ecosystem Service Function of Manas River Basin Based on InVEST Model. Master’s Thesis, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China, 2022. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Xu, S.N.; Yang, J.C.; Li, Y.L. Fluctuations of discharge rate of Manas River and its response to climatic changes during the recently 50 years. Geogr. Geo-Inf. Sci. 2004, 20, 65–68. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Feng, Y.X.; Luo, G.P.; Lu, L.; Zhou, D.C.; Han, Q.F.; Xu, W.Q.; Yin, C.Y.; Zhu, L.; Dai, L.; Li, Y.Z.; et al. Effects of land use change on landscape pattern of the Manas River watershed in Xinjiang, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 64, 2067–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Fan, W.; Wei, H.; Zhang, P.; Ren, J.; Gao, Z.; Ulgiati, S.; Kong, W.; Dong, X. Evaluation and simulation of the impact of land use change on ecosystem services based on a carbon flow model: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 117–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Wei, H.; Fan, W.; Wang, X.; Zhang, P.; Ren, J.; Lu, N.; Gao, Z.; Dong, X.; Kong, W. Relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being changes based on carbon flow—A case study of the Manas River Basin, Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 37, 100934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.M.; Feng, B. Problems and Development Ideas in the Construction of Modern Agricultural Demonstration Zones: A Case Study of Beiquan Town. Xinjiang Agric. Reclam. Technol. 2012, 35, 51–53. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.; Huang, X. The 30 m annual land cover dataset and its dynamics in China from 1990 to 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 2021, 13, 3907–3925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, S.; Ding, Y.; Liu, W.; Li, Z. 1 km monthly temperature and precipitation dataset for China from 1901 to 2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2019, 11, 1931–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, S. 1-km Monthly Potential Evapotranspiration Dataset in China (1990–2021); National Tibetan Plateau Data Center: Beijing, China, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nachtergaele, F.; van Velthuizen, H.; Verelst, L.; Wiberg, D.; Henry, M.; Chiozza, F.; Yigini, Y.; Aksoy, E.; Batjes, N.; Boateng, E.; et al. Harmonized World Soil Database Version 2.0; FAO; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA): Laxenburg, Austria, 2023; ISBN 978-92-5-137499-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, J.; Song, G. Soil Type Database of China: A nationwide soil dataset based on the Second National Soil Survey. China Sci. Data 2016, 1, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, F.; Wei, S.; Zhang, J.; Hu, B. Depth-to-bedrock map of China at a spatial resolution of 100 meters. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Running, S.; Zhao, M. MOD17A3HGF MODIS/Terra Net Primary Production Gap-Filled Yearly L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid V006; NASA EOSDIS Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center: Sioux Falls, SD, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Peng, S.S.; Piao, S.L.; Yu, J.S.; Liu, Y.W.; Wang, T.; Zhu, G.F.; Dong, J.W.; Miao, C.Y. A review of geographical system models. Prog. Geogr. 2018, 37, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.T. Ecological health assessment of Gannan Rangeland dynamically in past 13 years. Master’s Thesis, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China, 2016. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Wiedmann, T.; Barrett, J. A review of the ecological footprint indicator—Perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1645–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakajima, E.S.; Ortega, E. Carrying capacity using emergy and a new calculation of the ecological footprint. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 1200–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Napper, S. Ecosystem resilience. Biologist 2007, 54, 64. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, H.; Yang, J.J.; Xia, G.Z.; Lin, T. Spatio-temporal Differentiation of Coupling Coordination between Ecological Footprint and Ecosystem Service Functions in the Aksu Region, Xinjiang, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomal, M. Evaluation of coupling coordination degree and convergence behaviour of local development: A spatiotemporal analysis of all Polish municipalities over the period 2003–2019. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 71, 102992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China Products Carbon Footprint Factors Database. Available online: https://lca.cityghg.com/ (accessed on 14 October 2023).
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 9781849775526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Industrial and Domestic Water Quota of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Available online: https://slt.xinjiang.gov.cn/xjslt/c114555/202304/d1e94f7c4fd74632a015557d1d63556b.shtml (accessed on 3 October 2023).
- Agricultural Irrigation Water Quota of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Available online: http://xjdrc.xinjiang.gov.cn/xjfgw/c108396/202401/697df71fe4934b77999bea14e690bd8f.shtml (accessed on 3 October 2023).
- Waterfootprint Assessment Tool. Available online: https://www.waterfootprintassessmenttool.org/ (accessed on 7 October 2023).
- Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/bz/bzwb/shjbh/shjzlbz/200206/t20020601_66497.shtml (accessed on 7 October 2023).
- Wackernagel, M.; Onisto, L.; Bello, P.; Linares, A.C.; Falfán, I.S.L.; Garcia, J.M.; Guerrero, A.I.S.; Guerrero, M.G.S. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, W.; Zhou, H.; Chai, C.; Ma, J. Analysis to ecological footprints and its driving forces of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps from 2001 to 2015. Ecol. Sci. 2019, 38, 211–217. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, N.; Niu, C.P. Analysis on the Dynamic Evolution of the Sustainable Development of Economy in Xinjiang—Based on Ecological Footprint Model. J. Shihezi Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci.) 2017, 31, 11–18. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Fernández-Martínez, M.; Sardans, J.; Chevallier, F.; Ciais, P.; Obersteiner, M.; Vicca, S.; Canadell, J.G.; Bastos, A.; Friedlingstein, P.; Sitch, S.; et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 2019, 9, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piao, S.; He, Y.; Wang, X.; Chen, F. Estimation of China’s terrestrial ecosystem carbon sink: Methods, progress and prospects. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2022, 65, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Guo, X.; Chuai, X.; Xie, F.; Yang, F.; Gao, R.; Ji, X. Reexamine China’s terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance under land use-type and climate change. Land Use Policy 2021, 102, 105275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Liu, W.; Scanlon, B.R.; Zhang, L.; Pan, M. Local and global factors controlling water-energy balances within the Budyko framework. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2013, 40, 6123–6129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, B.H.; Kasimu, A.; Reheman, R.; Zhao, Y.Y. Ecological carrying capacity evolution and ecological sensitivity analysis of urban agglomeration in the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains. Acta Ecol. 2023, 43, 1399–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, B.J.; Chen, L.D. Landscape diversity types and their ecological significance. Acta Geogr. Sin. 1996, 51, 454–462. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- McGarigal, K. FRAGSTATS Help; University of Massachusetts: Amherst, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, Q.; Wang, Q.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.F. Evaluation of landscape connectivity in China’s coastal terrestrial nature reserves based on an improved minimum cumulative resistance model. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2021, 76, 2830–2840. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Altamirano, A.; Gonzalez-Suhr, C.; Marien, C.; Catalán, G.; Miranda, A.; Prado, M.; Tits, L.; Vieli, L.; Meli, P. Landscape Disturbance Gradients: The Importance of the Type of Scene When Evaluating Landscape Preferences and Perceptions. Land 2020, 9, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeAngelis, D.L. Energy flow, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem resilience. Ecology 1980, 61, 764–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Dong, X.; Liu, H.; Wei, H.; Fan, W.; Lu, N.; Xu, Z.; Ren, J.; Xing, K. Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, H.; Xu, H.; Fu, J.; Fan, Z.; Xu, X. Suitable oasis scale in a typical continental river basin in an arid region of China: A case study of the Manas River Basin. Quat. Int. 2013, 286, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Y.X.; Luo, G.P.; Han, Q.F.; Xu, W.Q. Evaluation of land use change degree and ecological security in the Manas River Basin, Xinjiang, China. Russ. J. Ecol. 2014, 45, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, H.; Liu, H.; Xu, Z.; Ren, J.; Lu, N.; Fan, W.; Zhang, P.; Dong, X. Linking ecosystem services supply, social demand and human well-being in a typical mountain–oasis–desert area, Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.; Yang, G.; Su, J.; Li, X.L.; Liu, B.; He, X.L.; Qiao, C.L.; Li, P.F.; Wang, C.X.; Zhao, L. Soil quality evaluation of returning farmland to Manas River irrigation area under the constraints of the “Three Red Lines” strategy of water resources. Arid Zone Res. 2022, 39, 1942–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xinjiang Water Resources Bulletin. Available online: https://slt.xinjiang.gov.cn/xjslt/c114491/202305/407588b681854bf6b01f63725441f9b6.shtml (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Liu, Y.; Zhang, P.; Nie, L.; Xu, J.; Lu, X.; Li, S. Exploration of the Snow Ablation Process in the Semiarid Region in China by Combining Site-Based Measurements and the Utah Energy Balance Model—A Case Study of the Manas River Basin. Water 2019, 11, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Styers, D.M.; Chappelka, A.H.; Marzen, L.J.; Somers, G.L. Developing a land-cover classification to select indicators of forest ecosystem health in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Zhou, Y.M.; Zhang, Q.W.; Yi, S.Z. Ecosystem Health: Theory, Concept and Assessment Methods. Adv. Earth Sci. 2011, 8, 887–896. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Kruse, M. Ecosystem health indicators. Encycl. Ecol. 2019, 1, 407–414. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, R.; Dong, X.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Gao, Y. Study on the Sustainable Development of an Arid Basin Based on the Coupling Process of Ecosystem Health and Human Wellbeing Under Land Use Change—A Case Study in the Manas River Basin, Xinjiang, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, K.; Wang, H.; Ma, C.; Wu, C.; Zheng, X.; Ling, X. Carbon sinks and carbon emissions balance of land use transition in Xinjiang, China: Differences and compensation. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 22456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Wang, Y.; Mamtimin, A.; Liu, Y.; Gao, J.; Song, M.; Aihaiti, A.; Wen, C.; Yang, F.; Huo, W.; et al. Research on Improving the Accuracy of SIF Data in Estimating Gross Primary Productivity in Arid Regions. Land 2024, 13, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criterion | Factor | Indicator | Indicator Nature | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pressure | Land Demand for Ecosystems | Ecological footprint | - | 0.083 |
Material Demand for Ecosystems | Carbon footprint | - | 0.030 | |
Water footprint | - | 0.063 | ||
State | The Material Carrying Capacity of Ecosystems | Carbon sequestration | + | 0.041 |
Water yield | + | 0.084 | ||
The Spatial Carrying Capacity of Ecosystems | Ecological carrying capacity | + | 0.091 | |
Stability of Landscape Space Structure | Shannon’s diversity index | + | 0.063 | |
Shannon’s evenness index | + | 0.063 | ||
Landscape contagion | + | 0.066 | ||
Landscape connectance | + | 0.082 | ||
Response | Anti-Disturbance Ability of Ecosystems | Ecosystem resilience | + | 0.045 |
Landscape disturbance degree | - | 0.040 | ||
Ecological Management | Forestland expansion | + | 0.106 | |
Construction land expansion | - | 0.025 | ||
Environmental protection investment | + | 0.118 |
Ecological footprint—Ecological carrying capacity |
Carbon footprint—Carbon sequestration |
Water footprint—Water yield |
Shannon’s diversity index—Shannon’s evenness index |
Landscape contagion index—Landscape connectance index |
Ecosystem resilience—Landscape disturbance degree |
Forestland expansion—Construction land expansion |
Environmental protection investment—Local fiscal expenditure |
0 < C ≤ 0.32 | 0.32 < C ≤ 0.41 | 0.41 < C ≤ 0.67 | 0.67 < C ≤ 0.84 | 0.84 < C ≤ 1 |
Imbalance | Moderate imbalance | Low coordination | Moderate coordination | Advanced coordination |
Indicator | Formula | Calculation Instructions | Variable Descriptions | Source of Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|
Carbon footprint | The carbon footprint calculation relied on the coefficient method. The annual greenhouse gas emissions from industrial, agricultural, energy, transportation, and citizen life were calculated for both upstream production and downstream consumption. | Ei represents the greenhouse gas emissions of the i-th category products or services (t•CO2-eq). Pi represents the supply quantity for the i-th category of product or service. Fi represents the greenhouse gas emission factor for the i-th category of products/services. | [44] | |
Water footprint | Water footprint refers to the amount of water resources required for all products and services consumed in a region. This study calculated the blue water footprint, green water footprint, and gray water footprint of various industries based on the “Water Footprint Assessment Manual” | WFtotal represents the total water footprint of the region. WFblue, WFgreen, and WFgrey represent blue water footprint, green water footprint, and gray water footprint, respectively. All units are in m3. | [45,46,47,48,49] | |
Ecological footprint | To measure the sustainable utilization of land resources, the total demand for various productive lands by the regional population was calculated through the ecological footprint method. | EF represents the ecological footprint (hm2). N represents the population. ef represent the per capita ecological footprint (hm2/person). λi represents the equilibrium factor of the i-th type of land. aai is the area of the i-th type of biological productive land per capita (hm2/person). ci is the annual per capita production of the i-th type of consumer goods. ki represents the annual production of the i-th category of consumer goods in the region. | [50,51,52] | |
Carbon sequestration | Without considering other factors, carbon sequestration can be represented by net ecosystem productivity (NEP) [53,54], and it was calculated using the equation NEP = NPP − Rh. | NEP represents the annual net ecosystem productivity (t/yr). NPP represents the annual net primary production (t/yr). Rh is theannual soil heterotrophic respiration (t/yr), and Rs is the annual soil respiration (t/yr). T and P represent temperature (°C) and precipitation (mm), respectively. | [55] | |
Water yield | According to the principle of water balance, the annual water yield was calculated by subtracting actual evapotranspiration (including land surface evapotranspiration and vegetation transpiration) from precipitation at the scale of grid [56]. | Y(x) represents the annual water yield (m3) of grid x. AET(x) is the annual actual evapotranspiration (m3) of grid x, and P(x) is the annual precipitation (m3) of the grid. | ||
Ecological carrying capacity | Ecological carrying capacity is the ability of the natural environment to provide various types of ecological capital for the local population [50]. The ecological carrying capacity was determined by calculating the unit yield of each category of biological productive land. | EC represents the ecological carrying capacity (hm2). N represents the population. ec is the per capita ecological carrying capacity (hm2/person). The ai is the area of the i-th type of biological productive land per capita (hm2/person). yi is the yield factor for the i-th type of biological productive land. | [57] | |
Shannon’s diversity index | Landscape diversity refers to the diversity of landscape units in terms of structure and function, which reflects the complexity of regional landscapes. Landscape diversity has a significant impact on the material cycling, energy flow, as well as species migration and habitat within a region [58]. The method used to calculate landscape diversity was the Shannon Landscape Diversity Index (SHDI). The larger the value is, the more abundant the landscape patch types per unit area in the region. | SHDI is the Shannon Landscape Diversity Index (value range greater than 0). Pi represents the proportion of the landscape occupied by patch type i. | ||
Shannon’s evenness index | Landscape evenness describes the degree of uniformity in the spatial distribution of different landscape types and was calculated using Shannon’s Landscape Evenness Index (SHEI). A higher value indicates a more uniform distribution of various landscape patches [59]. Good landscape diversity and evenness are beneficial for maintaining the stability of ecological space. | SHEI is the Shannon Landscape Diversity Index (0 ≤ SHEI ≤ 1). Pi represents the proportion of the landscape occupied by patch type i. n represents the number of patch types present in the landscape. | ||
Contagion index | The Contagion Index measures the degree of clumping and dispersion in landscape distribution. The higher the CONTAG index is, the higher the degree of aggregation of landscape patches. Conversely, when the CONTAG index is lower, the landscape patches are more disaggregated [59]. | CONTAG represents the Contagion Index, which is measured in percentage. P(i,j) represents the probability that patch types i and j are adjacent. n represents the number of patch types present in the landscape. | ||
Connectance index | Connectance index measures the degree of connectivity between landscape patches [60]. It assesses the organic connections between landscape elements in space, ecological processes, and ecological functions. Good landscape connectivity is beneficial for maintaining ecological corridors, which allow for the diffusion and exchange of species [58]. | CONNECT represents the Contagion Index in percent. cijk represents the connection between patch j and k of the corresponding patch type i. ni represents the number of patches in the landscape of the corresponding patch type. | ||
Landscape disturbance | Landscape disturbance is based on the principles of landscape ecology, weighting and summing the landscape fragmentation, landscape division and patch density to reflect the disturbances experienced by the landscape [61]. | LD represents landscape disturbance degree. PD, DIV, and SPL, respectively represent patch density, landscape division and landscape fragmentation. w1, w2, and w3 are the weights of PD, DIV, and SPL, with values of 0.3, 0.5, and 0.2, respectively. | ||
Ecosystem resilience | Ecosystem resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem to maintain its original state after being impacted by an external disturbance [62]. It mainly includes two aspects: the ecosystem resilience strength and resilience [63]. | ER is ecosystem resilience. ε is the adjustment coefficient (the value is 0.01 according to reference). μ is the resilience strength coefficient of the ecosystem. ECOres is the ecological system resilience limit. H is the landscape diversity index. V is the vegetation index. C1 is the annual precipitation change rate, C2 is the annual temperature change rate. Si is the resilience score of land type i. Pi is the proportion of land type i. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xiao, R.; Qiao, Y.; Dong, X.; Ren, H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, P.; Ye, Q.; Xiao, X. Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Manas River Basin: Application of the CC-PSR Model Improved by Coupling Coordination Degree. Land 2024, 13, 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081336
Xiao R, Qiao Y, Dong X, Ren H, Wang X, Zhang P, Ye Q, Xiao X. Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Manas River Basin: Application of the CC-PSR Model Improved by Coupling Coordination Degree. Land. 2024; 13(8):1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081336
Chicago/Turabian StyleXiao, Ruiming, Yuxuan Qiao, Xiaobin Dong, Huize Ren, Xuechao Wang, Peng Zhang, Qiaoru Ye, and Xiaomin Xiao. 2024. "Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Manas River Basin: Application of the CC-PSR Model Improved by Coupling Coordination Degree" Land 13, no. 8: 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081336