Effect of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Changes in Net Primary Productivity in Karst Areas of Southwest China: A Case Study of Huanjiang Maonan Autonomous County

Mengyu ZHANG; Li ZHANG; Xiaoli REN; Honglin HE; Yan LV; Junbang WANG; Huimin YAN

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2020.06.008

Journal of Resources and Ecology, Volume. 11, Issue 6, 606(2020)

Effect of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Changes in Net Primary Productivity in Karst Areas of Southwest China: A Case Study of Huanjiang Maonan Autonomous County

Mengyu ZHANG^1,2,3, Li ZHANG^1,2,4、*, Xiaoli REN^1,2, Honglin HE^1,2,4, Yan LV^1,2,3, Junbang WANG¹, and Huimin YAN⁵

Author Affiliations

¹Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

²National Ecosystem Science Data Center, Beijing 100101, China

³University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

⁴College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

⁵Key Laboratory of Resource Utilization and Environmental Remediation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

show less

Figures & Tables(10)

Fig. 1. Location of the study area Note: Numbers 1 to 6 represent Dongmei, Caixia, Guzhou, Sancai, Hanwen, and Renhe small watersheds, respectively. The rocky desertification control project (referred to as RDCP) and the status of rocky desertification in all of the small watersheds were organized according to the “Huanjiang County Rock Desertification Comprehensive Management and Construction Project” and related implementation plans during 2008-2010. Due to the lag of the effect of project implementation, the RDCP activity during 2011-2013 was not considered in this study.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 2. Land use classification and mapping in Huanjiang County in (a) 2008 and (b) 2013

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 3. NPP changes in Huanjiang County during 2008-2013. (a) Distribution of NPP values in the county, (b) Distribution of NPP values in non-rocky desertification area (NRDL) and the potential rocky desertification or rocky desertification land (P/RDL); (c) Distribution and (d) spatial pattern of the NPP change index (K). Red dots are the averages.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 4. Spatial patterns of effects of (a) LUCC, (b) ECF and (c) their interaction on NPP, and (d) statistics for the total effect of factors on the |K|≥0.21 (i.e. the third quantile of the NPP change index) area.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of (a) RDCP (see Fig. 1) and (b-g) vegetation restoration measures (referred to as VRM; i.e. closing hills for afforestation, artificial afforestation, and artificial grass) in each of the six small watersheds

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 6. The relative contributions of LUCC, ECF change and their interaction on NPP changes in the region with obviously changed NPP, i.e. the third quantile of the NPP change index (|K|≥0.21 during 2008-2013; |K|≥0.23 during 2005-2011).

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1.
Landuse types in the reclassification

View table

View in Article

Table 1.
Landuse types in the reclassification

Reclassified type	MODIS land cover type 2 (UMD)
Water	Water bodies
Forests	Evergreen needleleaf forest, Evergreen broadleaf forest, Deciduous needleleaf forest, Deciduous broadleaf forest, Mixed forest
Shrublands	Closed shrublands, Open shrublands
Grasslands	Woody savannas, Savannas, Grasslands
Croplands	Croplands
Urban	Urban and built-up lands
Barren	Barren or sparsely vegetated lands

Table 2.
Statistics of K that are attributed to land use and land cover change (referred to as LUCC), the environmental comprehensive factor (ECF), and their interaction.

View table

View in Article

Table 2.
Statistics of K that are attributed to land use and land cover change (referred to as LUCC), the environmental comprehensive factor (ECF), and their interaction.

Region	K_LUCC		K_ECF		K_interaction		K mean
Region	Effect	Contribution (%)	Effect	Contribution (%)	Effect	Contribution (%)	K mean
-0.36≤K<0.09	0.013	36.47	0.021	61.60	0.001	1.92	0.034
0.09≤K<0.15	0.037	30.28	0.080	65.90	0.005	3.82	0.121
0.15≤K<0.21	0.049	27.19	0.121	67.68	0.009	5.14	0.178
\|K\|≥0.21	0.053	19.89	0.197	73.92	0.017	6.18	0.267
Areas where LUCC occurs	0.105	70.97	0.021	14.51	0.021	14.51	0.148
Huanjiang County	0.039	25.23	0.106	69.61	0.008	5.16	0.153

Table 3.
Land use transfer matrix (2008-2013) (unit: km²)

View table

View in Article

Table 3.
Land use transfer matrix (2008-2013) (unit: km²)

2008-2013	Forests	Shrublands	Grasslands	Croplands	2008
Forests	—	0.21	585.16	15.46	600.83
Shrublands	6.01	—	39.50	1.93	47.44
Grasslands	748.30	1.29	—	130.08	879.67
Croplands	18.03	0.00	104.75	—	122.78
2013	772.34	1.50	729.41	147.47	—

Table 4.
Comparison of the NPP dynamic index (K) values between regions with the implementation of vegetation restoration measures and 1 km buffer areas outside of those governance regions in the six small watersheds

View table

View in Article

Table 4.
Comparison of the NPP dynamic index (K) values between regions with the implementation of vegetation restoration measures and 1 km buffer areas outside of those governance regions in the six small watersheds

Regions	K		Watersheds	K of VRM	Areas (km²)
Regions	VRM	Non-RDCP	Watersheds	K of VRM	Areas (km²)
Region 1	0.174*	0.161*	Guzhou	0.151	18.43
			Dongmei	0.131	13.16
			Caixia	0.208	29.26
Region 2	0.128**	0.106**	Sancai	0.108	27.41
Region 2	0.128**	0.106**	Hanwen	0.162	26.08
Region 3	0.137**	0.078**	Renhe	0.137	15.73

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Mengyu ZHANG, Li ZHANG, Xiaoli REN, Honglin HE, Yan LV, Junbang WANG, Huimin YAN. Effect of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Changes in Net Primary Productivity in Karst Areas of Southwest China: A Case Study of Huanjiang Maonan Autonomous County[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(6): 606

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Received: Mar. 18, 2020

Accepted: Jun. 1, 2020

Published Online: Apr. 23, 2021

The Author Email: ZHANG Li (li.zhang@igsnrr.ac.cn)

DOI:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2020.06.008

Topics

Resource Economy

Research Articles

Table 1. Landuse types in the reclassification

Table 1. Landuse types in the reclassification

Table 2. Statistics of K that are attributed to land use and land cover change (referred to as LUCC), the environmental comprehensive factor (ECF), and their interaction.

Table 2. Statistics of K that are attributed to land use and land cover change (referred to as LUCC), the environmental comprehensive factor (ECF), and their interaction.

Table 3. Land use transfer matrix (2008-2013) (unit: km2)

Table 3. Land use transfer matrix (2008-2013) (unit: km2)

Table 4. Comparison of the NPP dynamic index (K) values between regions with the implementation of vegetation restoration measures and 1 km buffer areas outside of those governance regions in the six small watersheds

Table 4. Comparison of the NPP dynamic index (K) values between regions with the implementation of vegetation restoration measures and 1 km buffer areas outside of those governance regions in the six small watersheds

Table 1.
Landuse types in the reclassification

Table 1.
Landuse types in the reclassification

Table 2.
Statistics of K that are attributed to land use and land cover change (referred to as LUCC), the environmental comprehensive factor (ECF), and their interaction.

Table 2.
Statistics of K that are attributed to land use and land cover change (referred to as LUCC), the environmental comprehensive factor (ECF), and their interaction.

Table 3.
Land use transfer matrix (2008-2013) (unit: km²)

Table 3.
Land use transfer matrix (2008-2013) (unit: km²)

Table 4.
Comparison of the NPP dynamic index (K) values between regions with the implementation of vegetation restoration measures and 1 km buffer areas outside of those governance regions in the six small watersheds

Table 4.
Comparison of the NPP dynamic index (K) values between regions with the implementation of vegetation restoration measures and 1 km buffer areas outside of those governance regions in the six small watersheds