Cargando…
The variation differences of cultivated land ecological security between flatland and mountainous areas based on LUCC
The purpose of this study was to explore the correlations between land use/cover change and cultivated land ecological security in flatland and mountainous areas. Firstly, the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of land use/cover change are described in conjunction with ArcGIS10.5 software base...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675101/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31369632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220747 |
Sumario: | The purpose of this study was to explore the correlations between land use/cover change and cultivated land ecological security in flatland and mountainous areas. Firstly, the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of land use/cover change are described in conjunction with ArcGIS10.5 software based on remote sensing images of 2005 and 2015. Then, by establishing a pressure-support framework as an assessment indicator system and developing an improved BP neural network model via a genetic algorithm with the help of MATLAB2016a, the spatiotemporal dynamic changes of cultivated land ecological security in Yuxi City from 2005 to 2015 are evaluated. The results showed that the transformation of farmland area accounted for a large proportion of increased constructive land and land use/cover spatial variations were significantly different among counties, which manifested the changes in farmland and the construction land in flatland areas but also facilitated a mutual transformation of forest and grass in mountainous areas. Moreover, ecological security status presented a clear difference among counties due to their different land use/cover changes. The ecological security state of the flatland expressed a higher ecological pressure and lower ecological support, so the security grade was IV. Otherwise, the ecological security was superior and the security grade was level II or I in the mountainous areas. Thus, protection strategies for ecological security should be differentiated in the flatland areas and mountainous areas due to their different ecological security status brought by land use/cover change. |
---|