土地利用监测适宜尺度选择方法研究 ———以塔里木河流域为例
收稿日期: 2006-12-20
修回日期: 2007-03-12
网络出版日期: 2007-06-25
基金资助
国家自然科学基金项目(40571030); 中国科学院西部行动计划(KZCX2-XB2-03); 世界银行及国家重点工程项 目(TTTQ-126; TTTQ-128); 中科院知识创新工程项目
Choice of Appropr iate Scale for Land Use Monitoring: A Case of the Tarim River Basin
Received date: 2006-12-20
Revised date: 2007-03-12
Online published: 2007-06-25
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.40571030; Western Action Program of CAS (KZCX2-XB2-03); World Bank and National Key Project, No.TTTQ-126; No.TTTQ-128; Knowledge Innovation Program of CAS
适宜尺度选择是生态学、地理学等学科的重要问题之一。在不同的研究目的下, 尺度选择的方法和标准也随之变化。以塔里木河流域20 世纪50 年代土地利用数据为例, 将面积 作为尺度选择的参数, 统计斑块面积分布直方图, 然后计算9 种比例尺(1:2 000 000, 1:1 000 000, 1:500 000, 1:250 000, 1:100 000, 1:50 000, 1:25 000, 1:10 000 和1:5 000) 下的归一化尺度方差, 最后结合Shannon-Weaver 景观多样性指数、Simpson 多样性指数和分维 数补充归一化尺度方差的结果, 探讨塔里木河流域土地利用的空间分布特征和尺度规律。结果如下: ① 归一化尺度方差值显示塔里木河干流50 年代土地利用监测适宜尺度为1:50 000 比例尺(约20km×20km 网格大小), 除沙地适宜尺度在1:100 000 比例尺外, 有林地、灌木林地和盐碱地的适宜比例尺均在1:50 000 比例尺上; ② Shannon-Weaver 多样性指数、Simpson 多样性指数和分维数结果表明盐碱地的多样性指数的适宜尺度与归一化尺度方差结果相同, 沙地的多样性指数与归一化尺度方差的适宜尺度域相同, 有林地和灌木林地多样性指数最优尺度在1:10 000 比例尺与归一化尺度方差结果不同; ③ 沙地和盐碱地的分维数在1:10 000 比 例尺处有明显的上升, 沙地达到最大值1.35, 而在其他尺度分维数值接近, 有林地和灌木林地则在各个尺度分维数值接近, 且值不超过1.2。
赵金, 陈曦, 包安明, 段远斌 . 土地利用监测适宜尺度选择方法研究 ———以塔里木河流域为例[J]. 地理学报, 2007 , 62(6) : 659 -668 . DOI: 10.11821/xb200706011
After wastelands reclamation in the Tarim River Basin in recent 50 years, one third of the stream flow in the Tarim River (the longest continental river in China) has been cut off. The natural ecosystems are seriously degenerated, and the situation of land use is tempestuously changed. Therefore, it is urgent to resolve the problems that whether there exist the changing laws of scales and what kinds of scales are suitable in monitoring land use. Adaptive choice of scale is one of the important issues in ecology and geography. In different studies, the choice of methods and standards vary with purpose. This article summarized methods on how to choose appropriate scale based on land-use data of the Tarim River Basin in Xinjiang of China in the 1950s. Regarding the areas of land use types as the scales, the parameters are selected, the histograms of the areas of patches are charted, and then normalized scale variance calculated under 9 scales (1:2 000 000, 1:1 000 000, 1:500 000, 1: 250 000, 1:100 000, 1:50 000, 1:25 000, 1:10 000 and 1:5 000), furthermore, some landscape indexes of patch area counted to examine and add result of normalized scale variance as well, which include Shannon-Weaver's landscape diversity index, Simpson's diversity index and fractal dimension respectively. The scale laws of general land use and 4 main land use types including woodlands, shrub land, sandy land and saline or alkaline lands in the mainstream area of the Tarim River are lucubrated by interpreting the land use data in the 1950s. The result showed that: (1) Normalized scale variance of the Tarim River reached maximum at scale of 1:50 000 in the 1950s, that 20km×20km grid sizes, diversity of patch size at 1:50 000 richer than in other scale's, so 1:50 000 used as appropriate scale of the Tarim River. In addition to appropriate scale of sandy land at scale of 1:100 000, the optimal scale of woodland, shrub land and saline land is at 1:50 000. (2) Shannon-Weaver's diversity index, Simpson's diversity index and fractal dimension of saline land have the same results as normalized scale variance. Diversity indexes and normalized scale variance of sand land proved the appropriate scale being in the same scale domain. It is noticed that there is a significant difference in woodland and shrub land. The optimal scale of diversity indexes are at 1:10 000 rather than 1:50 000. (3) Fractal dimension of sandy land and saline land showed a marked increase and up to 1.35 at 1:10 000 and similar at other levels, however, fractal dimension of woodland and shrub land are close at all scale levels and no more than 1.2, which reveals that hierarchical structure areas of sandy land and saline land are probably changed at scale of 1:10 000, while woodlands and shruby lands's are distributed under the same hierarchical structure in the region.
[1] Marceau D J. The scale issue in the social and natural science. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 1999, 25: 347-356.
[2] Bai Yanchen, Wang Jinfeng. Uncertainty in Remote Sensing: Classification and Scale Effect Modeling. Beijing: Geological Press, 2003. 17-20.
[柏延臣, 王劲峰. 遥感信息的不确定性研究: 分类与尺度效应模型. 北京: 地质出版 社, 2003. 17-20.]
[3] Lu Yihe, Fu Bojie. Ecological scale and scaling. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2001, 21(12): 2096-2105.
[吕一河, 傅伯杰. 生 态学中的尺度及尺度转换方法. 生态学报, 2001, 21(12): 2096-2105.]
[4] Lu Xuejun, Zhou Chenghu, Zhang Hongyan et al. Analytical scheme on scale-structure of geographical space. Progress in Geography, 2004, 23(2): 107-114.
[鲁学军, 周成虎, 张洪岩等. 地理空间的尺度. 地理科学进展, 2004, 23(2): 107-114.]
[5] Tunner M G. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology, 1990, 4: 21-30.
[6] Openshaw S. A geographical solution to scale and aggregation problems in region building, partitioning and spatial modeling. Institute of British Geographers, Transactions, New Series, 1977, 2: 459-472.
[7] Openshaw S. An empirical study of some zone-design criteria. Environment and Planning A, 1978, 10: 781-794.
[8] Openshaw S. Ecological fallacies and the analysis of areal census data. Environment and Planning A, 1984, 16: 17-31.
[9] Fotheringham A S, Wong D W S. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environmental and Planning A, 1991, 23: 1025-1044.
[10] Arbia G, Benedeiti R, Espa G. Effect of the MAUP on image classification. Geographical System, 1996, 3: 123-141.
[11] Zhang Na. Scale issues in ecology: Concepts of scale and scale analysis. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26 (7): 2340-2355.
[张娜. 生态学中的尺度问题: 内涵与分析方法. 生态学报, 2006, 26(7): 2340-2355.]
[12] Chen Liding, Lu Yihe, Fu Bojie et al. A framework on landscape pattern analysis and scale change by using pattern recognition approach. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26(3): 663-670.
[陈利顶, 吕一河, 傅伯杰等. 基于模式识别的景 观格局分析与尺度转换研究框架. 生态学报, 2006, 26(3): 663-670.]
[13] Liu Suxia, Liu Changming. Concept of representative elementary length and its case application. Yangtze River, 1994, 25(8): 19-22.
[刘苏峡, 刘昌明. 代表单元尺度概念及其在洋河流域控制雨量站布设中的应用. 人民长江, 1994, 25 (8): 19-22.]
[14] Wood E F, Sivapalan M, Beven K. Similarity and scale in catchment storm response. Reviews of Geophysics, 1990, 28 (1): 1-18.
[15] Su Lihong, Li Xiaowen, Huang Yuxia. An review on scale in remote sensing. Advance in Earth Sciences, 2001, 16(4): 544-548.
[苏理宏, 李小文, 黄裕霞. 遥感尺度问题研究进展. 地球科学进展, 2001, 16(4): 544-548.]
[16] Zhao Wenwu, Fu Bojie, Chen Liding. Some fundamental issues in scaling. Advance in Earth Sciences, 2002, 17(6): 905-911.
[赵文武, 傅伯杰, 陈利顶. 尺度推绎研究中的几点基本问题. 地球科学进展, 2002, 17(6): 905-911.]
[17] Welch R. Spatial resolution requirements for urban studies. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 1982, 3: 139-146.
[18] Johnson D D, Howarth P J. The effects of spatial resolution on land cover/land use theme extraction from airborne digital data. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 1987, 13: 68-74.
[19] Li Jun, Zhuang Dafang. Study on the appropriate scale of geo-spatial data. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2002, 57(suppl.): 52-59.
[李军, 庄大方. 地理空间数据的适宜尺度分析. 地理学报, 2002, 57(增刊): 52-59.]
[20] Li Jun, Zhou Chenghu. Appropriate grid for terrain based landslide risk assessment in Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Journal of Remote Sensing, 2003, 7(2): 86-92.
[李军, 周成虎. 基于栅格GIS 滑坡风险评价方法中格网大小选取分 析. 遥感学报, 2003, 7(2):86-92.]
[21] Woodcock C E. The factor of scale in remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment, 1987, 21(3): 11-332.
[22] Marceau D J, Gratton D J. Remote sensing and the measurement of the geographical entities in a forested environment: 2. The optimal spatial resolution. Remote Sensing of Environment, 1994, 49(2): 105-117.
[23] Ju Junchang, Gopala S, Kolaczyk E D. On the choice of spatial and categorical scale in remote sensing land cover classification. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2005, 96: 62-77.
[24] Rahman A F, Gamon A J, Sims A D et al. Optimum pixel size for hyperspectral studies of ecosystem function in southern California chaparral and grassland. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2003, 84(2): 192-207.
[25] Phinn S R, Menges Carl, Hill G J E et al. Optimizing remotely sensed solutions for monitoring, modeling, and managing coastal environments. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2000, 73: 117-132.
[26] Garrigues S, Allard D, Baret F et al. Quantifying spatial heterogeneity at the landscape scale using variogram models. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2006, 103: 81-96.
[27] Zhang Yongmin, Zhou Chenghu, Zheng Chunhui et al. Spatial land use patterns in Guyuan County: Simulation and analysis at multi-scale levels. Resources Science, 2006, 28(2): 88-96.
[ 张永民, 周成虎, 郑纯辉等. 沽源县土地利用 格局的多尺度模拟与分析. 资源科学, 2006, 28(2): 88-96.]
[28] Marceau D J, Hay G J. Remote sensing contributions to the scale issue. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 1999, 25 (4): 357-366.
[29] Hyppanen H. Spatial autocorrelation and optimal spatial resolution of optical remote sensing data in boreal forest environment. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 1996, 17(17): 3441-3452.
[30] Atkinson P M, Curran P J. Choosing an appropriate spatial resolution for remote sensing investigations. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 1997, 63(12): 1345-1351.
[31] Atkinson P M. Defining an optimal size of support for remote sensing investigations, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 1995, 33(3): 768-776.
[32] Wang G X, Gertner G, Xiao X et al. Appropriate plot size and spatial resolution for mapping multiple vegetation types. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 2001, 67(5): 575-584.
[33] Stein A, Riley J, Halberg N. Issues of scale for environmental indicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2001, 82: 215-232.
[34] Colombo S, Chica-Olmo M, Abarca F et al. Variographic analysis of tropical forest cover from multi-scale remotely sensed imagery. Photograammetry & Remote Sensing, 2004, 58: 330-341.
[35] Moellering H, Tobler W. Geographical variances. Geographical Analysis, 1972, 4: 34-64.
[36] Townshend J R G, Justice C O. Selecting the spatial resolution of satellite sensors required for global monitoring of land transformations. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 1988, 9: 187-236.
[37] Townshend J R G, Justice C O. The spatial variation of vegetation changes at very coarse scales. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 1990, 11: 149-157.
[38] Barnsley M J, Barr S L. Scaling and generalisation in land cover mapping from satellite sensors. In: P R van Gardingen, Foody G M, Curran P J. Scaling-up from Cell to Landscape. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 173-199.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |