IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i20p3820-d274909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape Pattern Changes in the Xingkai Lake Area, Northeast China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaohui Liu

    (Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology (IGA), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China)

  • Yuan Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Geographic Information Science (Ministry of Education), School of Geographic Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China)

  • Guihua Dong

    (China National Environmental Monitoring Center (CNEMC), Beijing 100012, China)

  • Guanglei Hou

    (Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology (IGA), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China)

  • Ming Jiang

    (Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology (IGA), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China
    Jillin Provincial Joint Laboratory of Changbai Mountain Wetland and Ecology, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology (IGA), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China)

Abstract

Understanding landscape change is important for ecologically sustainable development. In this paper, we assessed the spatiotemporal variations of landscape pattern in the Xingkai Lake area using remote sensing data from 1982, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Landscape patterns of marshlands, paddy fields, dry farmlands, and their combinations were analyzed at class and landscape levels. We examined the stability of landscape types through principal component analysis based on class level indices for landscape types. The results indicated that marshland areas decreased significantly by 33.87% but paddy fields increased by 1.84 times from 1982 to 2015. The largest conversion of dry farmlands to paddy fields was 90.88 km 2 during the period 2010–2015. In contrast, the largest conversion of paddy fields to dry farmlands was 86.03 km 2 during the period 2000–2005. The difference in relative change revealed that dry farmlands had experienced a greater relative change than paddy fields since 2000. The interspersion and juxtaposition index decreased, while the number of patches grew. This showed that landscape fragmentation was increasing and the landscape pattern was becoming dispersed. Marshlands were more stable than paddy fields and dry farmlands across all time periods, except for the year 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaohui Liu & Yuan Zhang & Guihua Dong & Guanglei Hou & Ming Jiang, 2019. "Landscape Pattern Changes in the Xingkai Lake Area, Northeast China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3820-:d:274909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3820/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3820/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    2. Li, Yangfan & Sun, Xiang & Zhu, Xiaodong & Cao, Huhua, 2010. "An early warning method of landscape ecological security in rapid urbanizing coastal areas and its application in Xiamen, China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(19), pages 2251-2260.
    3. Jean-Baptiste Marre & Luke Brander & Olivier Thébaud & Jean Boncoeur & Sean Pascoe & Louisa Coglan & Nicolas Pascal, 2015. "Non-market use and non-use values for preserving ecosystem services over time: A choice experiment application to coral reef ecosystems in New Caledonia," Post-Print hal-01198831, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manuele Bettoni & Michael Maerker & Alberto Bosino & Calogero Schillaci & Sebastian Vogel, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Soil and Landscape Stability, Sensitivity and Resistivity," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    2. Dehua Li & Linghua Duo & Chenhao Bao & Xiaoping Zhang & Zili Zou, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Distribution and Fragmentation Driving Mechanism in Paddy Fields and Dryland of Urban Agglomeration in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Qingjian Zhao & Zuomin Wen & Shulin Chen & Sheng Ding & Minxin Zhang, 2019. "Quantifying Land Use/Land Cover and Landscape Pattern Changes and Impacts on Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    2. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    3. Dan Yu & Dongyan Wang & Wenbo Li & Shuhan Liu & Yuanli Zhu & Wenjun Wu & Yongheng Zhou, 2018. "Decreased Landscape Ecological Security of Peri-Urban Cultivated Land Following Rapid Urbanization: An Impediment to Sustainable Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Klasen, Stephan & Meyer, Katrin M. & Dislich, Claudia & Euler, Michael & Faust, Heiko & Gatto, Marcel & Hettig, Elisabeth & Melati, Dian N. & Jaya, I. Nengah Surati & Otten, Fenna & Pérez-Cruzado, Cés, 2016. "Economic and ecological trade-offs of agricultural specialization at different spatial scales," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 111-120.
    7. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    8. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Seyed Mostafa Hedayatnezhad Kashi & Saba Baharvandi, 2022. "The Assessment of Ecological Livability for Agricultural, Pasture, Forestry, Residential, and Tourism Activities; Study Area: North of Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-26, October.
    10. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    11. Florian V Eppink & Matthew Winden & Will C C Wright & Suzie Greenhalgh, 2016. "Non-Market Values in a Cost-Benefit World: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    12. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    13. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    14. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    15. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    16. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    17. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    18. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    19. Cumming, Graeme S. & Maciejewski, Kristine, 2017. "Reconciling community ecology and ecosystem services: Cultural services and benefits from birds in South African National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 219-227.
    20. Han, Baolong & Liu, Hongxiao & Wang, Rusong, 2015. "Urban ecological security assessment for cities in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei metropolitan region based on fuzzy and entropy methods," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 318(C), pages 217-225.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3820-:d:274909. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.