4.7 Article

Degree of desertification based on normalized landscape index of sandy lands in inner Mongolia, China

期刊

GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION
卷 23, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01132

关键词

Landscape dynamics; Desertification degree; Desert; Normalized landscapes index; Desertification process

资金

  1. Science and Technology Major Project of Inner Mongolia [ZDZX2018054]
  2. National Natural Science Funds, P.R. China [31560146, 41562020, 41571090, 31960249]
  3. Science and Technology Project of Inner Mongolia [201802100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Desertification is one of the most serious ecological environmental problems over the past several decades in the arid regions. The quantitative assessment of the desertification degree in sandy lands has also been an essential part of landscape ecology. Based on the character of relief, we proposed a new indicator system, i.e., Normalized Landscapes Index (NLI) to calculate the dynamic trend of the desertification process. The data from three periods of Mu Us sandy land and Kubuqi sandy land in Inner Mongolia were used to verify the accuracy of this method. The results show that, from 1990s to 2010s, the NLI change amount of fixed sandy land and semi-fixed sandy land all had positive values while bare sandy land and water had all negative values for both regions. Over the past 20 years, the desertification reversal phenomenon occurs in Mu Us with the desertification process (DP) of -0.36%, while a positive development of desertification in Kubuqi with the DP of 0.01%. The NLI dynamic degree of two sandy lands had the same trend as land use dynamic degree, while NLI was more accurate than the landscape dynamic degree. These findings can provide an important method for comparing the desertification process of the desert and also the meaningful information for prevention and control of desertification and sustainable development for the sandy lands in the arid regions. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据