Ecological risk assessment of Lhasa River Basin on the Tibetan Plateau

Tianhua, 张天华 Zhang; Tong, 王彤 Wang; Qiongzhong, 黄琼中 Huang; Jingsheng, 王景升 Wang; Xiaoting, 包小婷 Bao; Wenjing, 刘文婧 Liu; Lubin, 丁陆彬 Ding; Chao, 李超 Li

doi:10.5846/stxb201806121308

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, ecological risk assessment method is used to analyze ecological risk from the perspective of risk sources and risk receptors [15] , and grade scoring method is used to quantify risk sources and ecological environment. After calculating relative risk value, ecological security is determined [16] , and ecological security pattern is constructed on this basis.However, the ecological risk method currently lacks complete evaluation guidelines, and there are many intrinsic factors involved in ecological risk, so the universality of evaluation indicators needs to be further verified.…”

Section: Ecological Risk Determination Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on Ecological Security Evaluation Index System of the Yellow River Basin

Tian

Feng

et al. 2023

E3S Web of Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an important energy base and ecological barrier in China, the ecological security of the Yellow River Basin has a very important strategic position in the pattern of high-quality development, but it is threatened by human activities and climate change. In order to evaluate the degree of ecological security in the Yellow River Basin and clarify the influencing factors of ecological security, this paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the existing ecological security assessment methods and models. On this basis, the system dynamics model is used to describe the process of ecological security threats, identify the key factors that threaten ecological security, and then sort out the ecological security assessment indicators. The ecological security assessment model composed of pressure(P), state(S), hidden dangers(D), response(R) and management (M) (PSDRM) indicators is constructed, and the ecological security assessment methods and processes are improved to provide theoretical guidance and technical support for improving the ecological security assessment of the basin.

show abstract

Section: Ecological Risk Determination Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on Ecological Security Evaluation Index System of the Yellow River Basin

Tian

Feng

et al. 2023

E3S Web of Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The spatial distribution patterns of different land-use types in different years are generally consistent (Figure 4). Seni District and Jiali County in the upper reaches of the Lhasa River Basin have high elevations and sparse populations, with land-use types dominated by grassland and unused land; Dangxiong County in the middle reaches is the largest pastoral county in the Lhasa River Basin [65], with grassland, unused land, and glacial snow dominating as the land-use types; the lower reaches are characterized by lower altitudes, dense populations, developing industry, agriculture, and the service economy, a rich variety of land-use types, a concentrated distribution of cropland, forest, waterbody, wetland, and building land, and a scattered distribution of grassland, glacier snow, and unused land. Compared with the areas of waterbody, wetland, and building land in 2010, those in 2020 had increased by 11.43%, 0.1%, and 204.91%, respectively, and the areas of cropland, forested land, grassland, glacial snow, and unused land decreased by 8.88%, 0.82%, 0.17%, 3.08%, and 0.06%, respectively, with building land having the largest growth rate and being mainly transformed from cropland, forest, and grassland, corresponding to the largest rate of cropland area shrinkage.…”

Section: Verification Of Model Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Scenario Prediction of Land-Use Changes and Ecosystem Service Values in the Lhasa River Basin Based on the FLUS-Markov Model

Qi,

Yu,

2024

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quantitative evaluation and prediction of ecosystem service value (ESV) in the Lhasa River Basin can provide a basis for ecological environment assessment and land-use optimization and adjustment in the future. Previous studies on the ESV in the Lhasa River Basin have focused mainly on static assessment and evolution analysis based on historical data, and have not considered future development trends. Moreover, most of the current driving factors selected in land use and ESV prediction studies are homogeneous, and do not reflect the geographical and cultural characteristics of the study area well. With the Lhasa River Basin as the research focus, 20 driving factors were selected according to the characteristics of the plateau alpine area, and the land-use changes under three developmental orientations, namely, natural evolution, ecological protection, and agricultural development, were predicted for the year 2030 with the FLUS-Markov model. Based on these predictions, the values of ecosystem services were calculated, and their spatiotemporal dynamic characteristics were analyzed. The results show that the model has high accuracy in simulating land-use change in the Lhasa River Basin, with a kappa coefficient of 0.989 and an overall accuracy of 99.33%, indicating a high applicability. The types of land use in the Lhasa River basin are dominated by the existence of grassland, unused land, and forest, with a combined proportion of 94.3%. The change trends of each land-use type in the basin under the three scenarios differ significantly, with grassland, cropland, and building land showing the most significant changes. The area of cropland increased only in the agricultural development scenario; the areas of forest and grassland increased only in the ecological protection scenario; and the expansion of building land was most effectively controlled in the ecological protection scenario. The ESV increased in all three scenarios, and the spatial distribution of the ESV per unit area in the middle and lower reaches was greater than that in the upper reaches. The ESV was the greatest in the ecological protection scenario, with grasslands, forests, and water bodies contributing more to the ESV of the basin. This study provides decision-making references for the effective utilization of land resources, ecological environmental protection planning, and urban construction in the Lhasa River Basin in the future.

show abstract