黄河三角洲国家级自然保护区生态敏感性评价

基于GIS下的网格分析,建立了结合生境适宜性评价和人为干扰特征分析的生态敏感性评价模型.首先建立被列为世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)红色名录濒危等级(截止到2007)的水禽数据库,并结合相关文献及实地调查,识别评价所选物种的生境需求.再基于GIS下的200m×200m网格系统,依据生境适宜性评价模型,从景观水平上进行生境现状评价,提出"综合生境适宜性的概念"并计算综合生境适宜性指数, 再根据综合指数进行生境适宜性评价;然后从已建立的数据库中选取典型物种鹤类作为指示种,同样基于200m×200m的网格,借助GIS技术分析研究区内的人为干扰因子(道路和油井)造成的生境损失;最后在以上的研究基础上,将生境适宜性评价和人为干扰特征分析的结果叠加运算进行生态敏感性分析.结果表明:研究区生态敏感性整体上较高,总的分布规律是靠近沿海的区域敏感性较高,内陆区域的敏感性较低;并按生态敏感度的高低,将研究区划分为极敏感区、敏感区、较敏感区、一般敏感区和不敏感区5个等级,其中极敏感区和敏感区面积共占研究区面积的55.74%,较敏感区约占16.26%,一般敏感区和不敏感区各占22.81%和5.19%.此外,为更有效地保护重要生境,对照保护区现有的功能分区,并结合评价结果,讨论了功能分区调整的相关建议.

The ecological sensitivity evaluation in Yellow River Delta National Natural Reserve

Based on the grid analysis of GIS, with the combination of habitat suitability assessment and human interference analysis, the ecological sensitivity evaluation model was established. Firstly, the endangered water-birds in Yellow River Delta NNR were prioritized as a database according to IUCN 2007 Red List, and the habitat preference was identified and evaluated through literatures review and field survey. By establishing GIS-based 200m×200m girding system, the existing habitat was evaluated on landscape-level, and a Comprehensive Habitat Suitability Index (CHSI) was developed and calculated by habitat suitability assessment model. Based on CHSI, the habitat suitability was evaluated and graded. Secondly, the typical species Cranes was selected from the established database as indicator species and the habitat loss rate of indicator species associated with anthropogenic interference (roads and oil wells) was also analyzed on 200m×200m grids by GIS. Finally, on the basis of results from habitat suitability evaluation and human interference analysis, ecological sensitivity analysis was conducted by Overlying Operation. The results showed that: the ecological sensitivity of study area was quite high on the whole; the overall distribution was high in the coastal region low in the inland region, ranking in five classes of extreme sensitivity, fair sensitivity, moderate sensitivity, sensitivity and no sensitivity. In the area, extreme sensitivity zone and fair sensitivity zone accounted for about 55.74% in all, moderate sensitivity zone was about 16.2%, sensitivity zone and no sensitivity zone accounted for 22.81% and 5.19%, respectively. In addition, compared with existing function zones of reserve and combined with the research results, related suggestions for adjusting function zones were proposed aiming at enhancing the conservation efficacy of critical habitats.