东北地区植被物候对气候变化的响应

使用1982—2003年GIMMS-NDVI数据和气候数据,借助GIS空间分析和统计分析方法,分析了东北地区不同植被物候期与气候变化的关系。结果表明:22年东北地区年均温度以升高趋势为主,年降水量以减少趋势为主;针叶林、针阔叶混交林、阔叶林、草甸和沼泽植被生长季开始日期提前受春季温度升高影响显著(P<0.05)。春季降水对植被生长季开始日期变化影响较小,仅对针叶林生长季开始日期的推迟有显著的影响(P<0.05)。植被生长季结束日期受温度变化影响较小,仅草原植被生长季结束日期提前受秋季温度降低影响显著(P<0.05)。降水对东北地区植被生长季结束日期的变化影响高于温度。随着秋季降水量的减少,针阔叶混交林、草原和农田植被生长季结束日提前(P<0.05)。草丛生长季结束日期提前受夏季降水减少的影响显著(P<0.05);农田生长季结束日期提前亦受夏季和9月降水量减少的显著影响(P<0.05)。阔叶林和沼泽植被生长季延长受春季温度升高影响显著(P<0.05);灌丛植被生长季缩短受春季降水量减少影响显著(P<0.05);草丛和农田植被生长季延长受夏季降水量增加影响显著(P<0.05)。     

东北地区植被物候期遥感模拟与变化规律

使用1982—2003年GIMMS-NDVI数据,借助GIS空间分析功能,提取东北地区不同植被NDVI时间序列数据,使用分段式Logistic函数模拟了东北地区不同植被物候期,分析了1982—2003年不同植被物候期的变化趋势。结果表明:针叶林、阔叶林、草丛、草甸和沼泽植被生长季开始日期提前,生长季延长,其中沼泽植被生长季开始日期提前和生长季延长的趋势明显,针叶林次之;结束日期的变化趋势表现不一,针叶林和沼泽植被生长季结束日期推迟,阔叶林、草丛和草甸植被呈现微弱提前趋势;针阔混交林、灌丛、草原和农田植被生长季开始日期推迟,生长季缩短,其中农田植被生长季开始日期推迟和生长季缩短的趋势明显,草原次之;针阔混交林、灌丛、草原和农田4种植被生长季结束日期呈现提前的变化趋势,其中灌丛结束日期的提前趋势明显。     

中国东北地区植被NDVI对气候变化的响应

结合1982—2003年GIMMS-NDVI数据集和GIS技术,应用基于像元的相关分析方法,分析了东北地区植被NDVI对气候变化的响应。结果表明：1）1982—2003年,东北地区年平均气温呈上升趋势,而年降水量呈下降趋势;东北地区植被NDVI与年平均气温呈显著正相关的像元占12.84%,主要分布在松嫩平原南部、三江平原中部和西辽河平原,植被类型为农田、阔叶林、草原。植被NDVI与年平均气温几乎不存在显著负相关性;植被NDVI与年降水呈显著和极显著正相关的像元比例为4.55%,主要植被类型为草原和农田;植被NDVI与年降水量呈显著负相关的像元比例为7.52%,主要植被类型为针叶林和阔叶林。2）东北地区植被与生长季气温显著正相关和显著负相关的比例分别为3.96%和4.35%;植被与生长季降水显著正相关和显著负相关的比例分别为8.81%和8.54%。3）东北地区58.21%的植被像元与春季气温显著或极显著正相关,主要分布在大兴安岭中部、小兴安岭、长白山及完达山-张广才岭等地区,主要植被类型为阔叶林、农田、针叶林和草甸;植被NDVI与春季气温几乎不存在显著负相关性。植被NDVI与春季降水呈显著正相关和显著负相关的比例分别为4.81%和1.67%。4）东北地区植被NDVI与夏季气温和降水呈显著相关的比例明显少于春季,与夏季气温正相关的比例为7.61%,与夏季降水显著负相关的比例为6.29%。秋季气温和降水对东北地区植被NDVI影响较小,其中植被NDVI与秋季气温显著正相关的像元占植被像元总数的6.05%,几乎不存在与秋季气温显著负相关的植被像元;植被NDVI与秋季降水显著负相关的比例为5.43%,几乎不存在与秋季降水显著正相关的植被像元。     

西南地区不同植被类型归一化植被指数与气候因子的相关分析

基于中国西南地区1982—2006年的归一化植被指数(NDVI)遥感数据集和气象数据,运用GIS技术对年均气温、年降水量和干旱指数进行插值,分析了西南地区不同植被类型(沼泽、灌丛、草丛、草原、草甸、针叶林、阔叶林、高山植被、栽培植被)NDVI的年际变化及其与气候因子的相关性.结果表明:研究期间,西南地区NDVI、年均气温、年降水量总体呈上升趋势,其中,年均气温的上升趋势达极显著水平,干旱指数则呈下降趋势;在9种植被类型中,沼泽和草丛NDVI呈下降趋势,且草丛的下降趋势达显著水平,其他7种植被类型的NDVI均呈上升趋势,且针叶林、草甸和高山植被的NDVI上升趋势达显著水平,灌丛NDVI呈极显著上升趋势.9种植被类型所在地区的年均气温均显著上升;年降水量的变化均不显著;沼泽、草丛和栽培植被所在地区的干旱指数呈上升趋势,草甸和高山植被所在地区的干旱指数显著下降,其他4种植被类型所在地区的干旱指数呈不明显的下降趋势.研究区灌丛和针叶林NDVI与年均气温呈显著正相关,灌丛和草甸NDVI与干旱指数呈显著负相关.在保持其他2个气候因子不变的情况下,针叶林、阔叶林、高山植被NDVI与年均气温的相关性最大,草丛NDVI与年降水...     

青藏高原沼泽湿地植被NDVI时空变化及其对气候变化的响应

基于2000—2017年逐旬MODIS NDVI数据和逐月气温、降水数据,分析了青藏高原不同类型沼泽湿地植被生长季NDVI时空变化特征及其对气候变化的响应。研究结果表明：青藏高原沼泽植被生长季多年平均NDVI自西北向东南逐渐增加;沼泽植被生长季平均NDVI在2000—2017年总体呈现显著上升趋势 (0.010/10a) ,生长季NDVI呈上升趋势的面积占整个研究区面积的78.25%。青藏高原沼泽植被生长季NDVI与降水量总体上呈现弱的相关性,表明降水并不是影响该地区沼泽植被生长的主要因素。青藏高原沼泽植被生长主要受气温影响,气温升高能明显促进沼泽植被的生长。此外,首次发现白天和夜晚温度升高对青藏高原沼泽植被生长具有不对称性影响,其中夜晚增温对沼泽植被生长的促进效果更加显著。在全球白天和夜晚不对称增温的背景下,白天和夜晚温度对青藏高原沼泽植被的不对称影响应当引起重视,尤其是在利用模型模拟未来气候变化对该地区沼泽植被影响时。     

黄土高原不同植被覆被类型NDVI对气候变化的响应

植被与气候是目前研究生态与环境的重要内容。为探究黄土高原地区植被与气候因子之间的响应机制,利用线性趋势分析、Pearson相关分析、多元线性回归模型以及通径分析的方法,对黄土高原2000—2015年全区和不同植被覆被类型区内NDVI与气候因子的变化趋势以及相互作用关系进行分析。植被覆被分类数据和植被指数数据分别来源于ESA CCI-LC(The European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative Land Cover)以及MODND1T/NDVI(Normalized Difference Vegetation Index)。结果表明:(1) 2000—2015年黄土高原全区植被年NDVI_(max)显著增加的区域占总面积的74.25%,不同植被覆被类型年NDVI_(max)分别为常绿阔叶林常绿针叶林落叶阔叶林落叶针叶林镶嵌草地农田镶嵌林地草地灌木,并且都呈显著增加趋势,其中常绿阔叶林和农田增加幅度最大,为0.012/a。(2)黄土高原全区NDVI与气温、日照、降水和相对湿度等气候因子之间没有显著相关性,但在不同植被覆被类型区,气候因子对NDVI存在显著作用,且不同植被覆被类型差异明显。(3)在全区和不同植被覆被类型区NDVI仅对降水的响应比较一致,气温无论在整个区域尺度还是不同植被覆被类型区对植被的影响均不显著。(4)常绿阔叶林、落叶阔叶林、常绿针叶林及镶嵌林地等以乔木为主的植被覆被类型受年均相对湿度和年总日照时数的显著负效应驱动,草地、镶嵌草地等以草本为主的植被覆被类型则受到年总降水量的显著正效应影响。这说明对植被类型进行区分,更有利于揭示气候对植被的作用机制。     

1982-2003年东北林区森林植被NDVI与水热条件的相关分析

以气象站点为研究单元,将1982—2003年东北林区森林植被月平均、季平均和年平均NDVI数据与其对应的水热条件(温度和降水)进行相关、偏相关和复相关分析。结果表明:温度是影响东北林区森林植被NDVI的最主要气候因子。春季、秋季不同森林植被平均NDVI与温度和降水呈极显著相关(P<0.01),其与温度的相关性高于其与降水的相关性。寒温带针叶林NDVI在生长季与温度和降水呈极显著相关(P<0.01),其与降水的相关性略高于其与温度的相关性,而全年温度对寒温带针叶林生长的影响高于降水。寒温带针叶林NDVI在4月份与降水的时滞偏相关性高于其他月份,相关系数达-0.385。温带针阔叶混交林NDVI在4—7月与温度的时滞偏相关性较高,相关系数分别为0.581,0.490,-0.266和-0.297。暖温带落叶阔叶林NDVI在4月份与温度的时滞偏相关性高于其他月份,相关系数为0.571;在7月份与降水时滞偏相关性高于其他月份,相关系数为-0.367。森林植被生长增长阶段NDVI受综合水热条件(温度和降水)的滞后影响显著。     

22年来西北不同类型植被NDVI变化与气候因子的关系

 为了研究气候变化对西北地区不同类型植被的影响,利用NASA GIMMS 1982～2003年逐月归一化植被指数（Normalized difference vegetation index, NDVI）数据集和西北地区138个气象站点同期的气温和降水资料,计算了各站22年月平均气温和降水与NDVI的相关系数。同时, 选西北 地区森林、草原、绿洲和雨养农业4类有代表性的植被类型为研究区,对各类植被NDVI与气温和降水的相关关系进行分析。研究结果表明：除无 植被的戈壁沙漠地区外,西北地区NDVI与气温和降水均有较好的相关性。除祁连山中部地区外,西北地区NDVI与气温的相关系数大于降水。天 山、阿尔泰山和秦岭的NDVI与气温相关系数最高,而青海东北部NDVI与降水相关系数最高。西北地区各种类型植被对气候变化反映敏感。其敏 感度因植被类型不同和同类植被所处的地理位置不同而有差异;纬度较高的新疆林区与温度相关性最高,高寒草甸次之。在植被生长最旺盛的 夏季（6～8月）,22年来西北地区各林区的NDVI均呈下降趋势。其中西北东部林区下降趋势显著,与这些地区的降水减少和气温增加有关。草 原区植被以上升趋势为主,高寒草甸和盐生草甸上升趋势最为显著,气温升高是这些地区植被生长加速的原因 之一。西北绿洲是NDVI增加极为 显著的地区,以新疆绿洲NDVI上升趋势最大。气候变暖是近年绿洲NDVI增加的主要驱动力之一,绿洲面积扩大、种植结构调整和种植品种变化 等人为因素对绿洲NDVI增加的作用不可忽视,这种作用在新疆表现的尤为突出。雨养农业区NDVI年际 间波动较大,各区域间变化不太一致。 NDVI的波动与降水变化有很好的正相关,与气温变化有很好的负相关,近年来西北东部气温升高和降水的减少是雨养农业区NDVI下降的原因, 农业措施的实施也改变了植被生长对气候条件的依赖性。     

黄河上游玛曲县气候变化对植被的影响研究

利用1982年至2003年NASAGIMMS逐月归一化植被指数（NDVI）数据集和玛曲县气温、降水资料,对玛曲县近22年来NDVI变化和气候变化特征及其相互关系进行分析,以揭示黄河上游地区植被对全球变暖的区域响应.结果表明：（1）玛曲县植被变化在不同时段表现出较大差异,NDVI年际变化略有增加.（2）夏季是NDVI增长最快的季节,春季NDVI在20世纪90年代后期到本世纪初呈下降趋势,秋、冬季NDVI呈下降趋势.（3）返青期和NDVI值在春季达到同一水平值的时间及夏季达到峰值的时间逐年提前,说明生长季提前是该地区植被对全球变暖的主要响应表现.（4）玛曲县近22年来植被的NDVI变化在中等盖度水平（0.3～0.5）呈增加趋势,高盖度水平（≥0.7）的植被呈下降趋势,而在年代间变化水平上,气温和降水对植被生长都有影响,其中气温要比降水更显著;玛曲县降水和气温在季节尺度上对NDVI的影响不明显,除夏季气温与夏季NDVI关系密切之外,其他季节的关系均不明显.（5）按植被变化特点,将NDVI变化斜率最大值0.005定义为返青期指标,发现该地区牧草返青期的变化主要受温度条件影响,随气候变暖,返青期提前,其变化规律为4～5月份平均气温每10年升高0.6℃,返青期每10年提前3 d.     

1982～2003年东北地区植被覆盖变化特征分析

利用1982~2003年GIMMS-NDVI数据集和GIS技术,结合多种统计分析方法,定量分析了东北地区植被覆盖时空变化规律。结果显示:(1)1982~2003年东北地区森林、草地和农田植被年内变化曲线均为单峰型,峰值都出现在夏季,森林植被年内NDVI变化曲线峰值最高,农田次之,草地最低。(2)22年期间,森林植被覆盖呈下降趋势;草地和农田植被覆盖总体亦呈下降趋势,但西辽河平原草地和松嫩平原农田植被覆盖呈上升趋势;相同植被类型比较,长白山东北部林地、西辽河平原草地、松嫩平原农田植被覆盖均比较稳定。(3)1982~2003年,东北地区植被覆盖总体呈缓慢下降趋势,其中1982~1992年,东北地区植被覆盖呈增加趋势,植被覆盖增加的面积为545 435 km2,占东北地区总面积的43.91%;植被覆盖减少面积为96 491 km2,占总面积的7.77%;1993~2003年,东北地区植被覆盖呈减少趋势,植被覆盖减少的面积为626 839 km2,占东北地区总面积的50.45%,植被覆盖增加的面积较少,仅为27 025 km2,占总面积的2.18%,且呈零星分布。研究表明,人类活动和自然因素的变化是东北地区植被覆盖下降的主要原因。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor