4.5 Article

Land-cover changes of biome transition zones in Loess Plateau of China

期刊

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING
卷 252, 期 -, 页码 129-140

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.07.039

关键词

Holdridge life zone model; Biome transition zone; Spatial distribution; Land-cover change; Loess Plateau

类别

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB421105, 2010CB950904]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China [40801150]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation [41271406]
  4. Youth Science Founds of State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environment Information System, CAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Holdridge life zone (HLZ) model has been improved to help classify the biome transition zone (BTZ) in China's Loess Plateau. A positive and negative transformation index of land-cover (PNTIL) was developed to quantitatively evaluate the land-cover changes in every type of BTZ. Three bioclimatic datasets, with a spatial resolution of 1 km x 1 km, were used to classify the BTZ type in Loess Plateau. These include the mean annual biotemperature (MAB), average total annual precipitation (TAP) and potential evapotranspiration ratio (PER). In 1985, 1995 and 2005 land cover data was used to analyze the changes within BTZs. The results show that there are 14 BTZ types, which account for 25.21% of the total land-cover area in Loess Plateau. From 1985 to 2005, cultivated land decreased 0.93% per decade; on average wetland and water areas, woodland and grassland increased 3.47%, 0.24% and 0.06% respectively per decade. During this period the total rate of whole BTZ land-cover transformation decreased from 28.53% to 21.91%. Overall the total positive and negative transformed areas of land cover in BTZs displayed a decreasing trend. Moreover, the results indicate that the transition zones may have exhibited a greater change and landscape diversity than the adjacent biomes in Loess Plateau from 1985 to 2005. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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