Evolution of Land Use Landscape Patterns in Karst Watersheds of Guizhou Plateau and Its Ecological Security Evaluation

Abstract

Landscape ecological safety is of great significance in maintaining ecological balance, ecological protection, economic development, and promoting the sustainable use of regional land resources. This study collects three-phase remote sensing (RS) image data of 2000, 2010, and 2020 to elucidate the spatial and temporal changes in land use of the Guizhou Plateau Karst Watershed. We construct a landscape ecological security index using the ArcGIS and landscape pattern index method. With the spatial autocorrelation theory, we analyze the evolution of watershed landscape patterns and changes in characteristics of ecological security. The results show that the cultivated land is being converted to construction land in the watershed from 2000 to 2020. The percentage of the patch area of the constructed land is increasing. However, the patch cohesion of the cultivated land, grassland, and watershed is decreasing. The ecological safety of the Nanming River Basin landscape is in a positive trend, clustering in the central urban areas. The growth rate of the landscape ecological safety index increased by 5.80% from 2000 to 2020, and the aggregation of the ecological safety index was dominated by high–high aggregation and low–low aggregation, which was spatially positively correlated with the spatial aggregation effect. The findings provide a scientific reference for managing ecological balance and optimizing the land resource allocation in karst watersheds.

Identifying the Relationships between Landscape Pattern and Ecosystem Service Value from a Spatiotemporal Variation Perspective in a Mountain–Hill–Plain Region

“…Referring to relevant studies in the literature [55][56][57][58][59], based on the ecological significance of different landscape pattern indexes, many representative indicators that have already been formed are selected by combining the landscape characteristics of the Yihe River Basin and our actual needs in this study. The common indicators are selected based on the level of patch type and landscape scale: percentage of landscape (PLAND), landscape shape index (LSI), patch density (PD), patch cohesion index (COHESION), mean patch size (MPS), landscape division index (DIVISION), largest patch index (LPI), perimeter-area fractal dimension (PAFRAC), aggregation index (AI), Shannon diversity index (SHDI), contagion index (CONTAG), and edge density (ED) (Table 1).…”

Spatiotemporal Variations and Determinants of Supply–Demand Balance of Ecosystem Service in Saihanba Region, China

“…In this study, landscape indicators such as NP, IJI, and COHESIVE were used to represent landscape fragmentation, complexity, and physical connectivity, respectively [59,60]. Landscape fragmentation in some areas of SHB reflects intense human intervention, which usually has a negative effect on ESBI (Table 2).…”

Karst of Gunung Sewu Land Use and Land Covers Dynamics: Spatio-Temporal Analysis

“…Apart from the intrinsic characteristics, the ecological fragility and vulnerability of karst areas are also driven by their land use and land cover (LULC) (Li & Geng, 2022;Xiao & Weng, 2007). LULC is a result of human activity in adapting and altering their surroundings to satisfy their needs, making it one of the fundamental aspects of resource utilization and environmental management, ultimately involving regional development activities (Abebe et al, 2022;Liu et al, 2020).…”