2012
DOI: 10.5846/stxb201110311624
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Response of river water quality to background characteristics of landscapes in Taihu Lake basin

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There was a significant negative correlation between forest land, grassland, and water quality indicators, while arable land and construction land showed a strong positive correlation (Zhang, Cheng & Xiang, 2011; Yang et al, 2017). However, due to the multi-scale and distribution pattern of land use (Tu, 2011; Zhou et al, 2012), there is a significant scale correlation between LULC changes and water quality indicators, which leads to uncertainty about the relationship between land use patterns and river water quality. From the saliency of spatial influence, the sub-basin scale is significantly higher than the riparian buffer scale (Sliva & Williams, 2001; Jarvie, Oguchi & Neal, 2002; Woli et al, 2004; Li, Xu & Li, 2012), and some studies have reached the opposite conclusion (Sahu & Gu, 2009; Li et al, 2009; Huang et al, 2011; Ou, Wang & Geng, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was a significant negative correlation between forest land, grassland, and water quality indicators, while arable land and construction land showed a strong positive correlation (Zhang, Cheng & Xiang, 2011; Yang et al, 2017). However, due to the multi-scale and distribution pattern of land use (Tu, 2011; Zhou et al, 2012), there is a significant scale correlation between LULC changes and water quality indicators, which leads to uncertainty about the relationship between land use patterns and river water quality. From the saliency of spatial influence, the sub-basin scale is significantly higher than the riparian buffer scale (Sliva & Williams, 2001; Jarvie, Oguchi & Neal, 2002; Woli et al, 2004; Li, Xu & Li, 2012), and some studies have reached the opposite conclusion (Sahu & Gu, 2009; Li et al, 2009; Huang et al, 2011; Ou, Wang & Geng, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%