Study on the Relationship Between Cultivated Land Quality and Landscape Pattern Index--Taking Yingtan City of Jiangxi Province as An Example

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2023-0168

Abstract

Abstract:

Studying the relationship between cultivated land quality and landscape patterns can provide a scientific basis for strengthening the protection and enhancement of national cultivated land quality. Using 2022 cultivated land quality data in Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, the study comprehensively analyzed the overall cultivated land quality situation in Yingtan based on the cultivated land quality evaluation. Landscape pattern indices such as patch area, percent of landscape, edge density, patch density, landscape shape index, mean patch size, landscape division index, contagion index, and Shannon’s diversity index were selected to calculate in Fragstats 4.2 software, and then cultivated land area weighted average national natural level index, cultivated land area weighted average national use level index and cultivated land area weighted average national economic level index were correlated with the selected cultivated landscape pattern indices, respectively. It was concluded that the cultivated land quality national natural level index was significantly and negatively correlated with the edge density of cultivated land, with a correlation coefficient of -0.393 (P<0.01); the cultivated land quality national use level index was significantly and positively correlated with the mean patch size of cultivated land and the Shannon’s diversity index, with correlation coefficients of 0.343 (P<0.01) and 0.416 (P<0.01), respectively; the cultivated land quality national economic level index was significantly and negatively correlated with the edge density of cultivated land, with a correlation coefficient of -0.381 (P<0.01). Thus, there was a clear correlation between some of the landscape pattern indices and cultivated land quality, which could reflect to some extent the correlation between cultivated land quality and landscape pattern indices within the region. The results of the study can provide scientific references for the improvement and protection of cultivated land quality from the perspective of landscape pattern, and also have certain practical significance for the national level decision-making on the optimization of regional spatial layout of cultivated land.

Key words: cultivated land quality, landscape pattern index, correlation analysis, spatial heterogeneity, Yingtan City

ZOU Hengyu, YE Yingcong, KUANG Lihua. Study on the Relationship Between Cultivated Land Quality and Landscape Pattern Index--Taking Yingtan City of Jiangxi Province as An Example[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2024, 14(1): 44-52.

Figures/Tables 8

References 56

[1]	项骁野, 王佑汉, 李谦, 等. 中国耕地保护与粮食安全研究进展可视化分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2022, 43(10):267-277.
[2]	刘利花, 张丙昕, 刘向华. 粮食安全与生态安全双视角下中国省域耕地保护补偿研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(19):252-263.
[3]	陈印军, 肖碧林, 方琳娜, 等. 中国耕地质量状况分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(17):3557-3564. doi: doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2011.17.008
[4]	沈仁芳, 陈美军, 孔祥斌, 等. 耕地质量的概念和评价与管理对策[J]. 土壤学报, 2012, 49(6):1210-1217.
[5]	庞英, 张全景, 叶依广. 中国耕地资源利用效益研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2004(5):34-38.
[6]	陈印军, 王晋臣, 肖碧林, 等. 我国耕地质量变化态势分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2011, 32(2):1-5.
[7]	陈文波, 肖笃宁, 李秀珍. 景观指数分类、应用及构建研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002(1):121-125.
[8]	邬建国. 景观生态学——概念与理论[J]. 生态学杂志, 2000(1):42-52.
[9]	YUAN X, SHAO Y, WEI X, et al. Study on the potential of cultivated land quality improvement based on a geological detector[J]. Geological journal, 2018,53.
[10]	YUAN X, SHAO Y, LI Y, et al. Cultivated land quality improvement to promote revitalization of sandy rural areas along the Great Wall in northern Shaanxi Province, China[J]. Journal of rural studies, 2019.
[11]	宋戈, 刘燕妮, 张文琦, 等. 基于可改良限制因子的耕地质量等别提升潜力研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(14):261-269.
[12]	徐明岗, 卢昌艾, 张文菊, 等. 我国耕地质量状况与提升对策[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2016, 37(7):8-14.
[13]	关瑜, 陈影, 叶静, 等. 耕地质量多维评价与利用分区——以黄骅市为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(3):334-343,350.
[14]	张英, 冯雪珂, 任少宝, 等. 耕地质量和产能评价指标体系研究——以广西宾阳县为例[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021, 38(6):1039-1050.
[15]	匡丽花, 叶英聪, 赵小敏, 等. 基于农用地分等修正的土地整治项目对耕地质量的影响评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(17):198-205.
[16]	李昊, 银敏华, 马彦麟, 等. 种植规模与细碎化对小农户耕地质量保护行为的影响——以蔬菜种植中农药、化肥施用为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2022, 36(7):74-84
[17]	李博, 王瑞梅. 土地产权稳定性对农户耕地质量保护行为影响综述[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(5):909-920. doi: 10.18402/resci.2021.05.05
[18]	吴璟, 昝梦莹, 王征兵. 感知价值对农户参与耕地质量保护意愿的影响——以陕西省为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2020, 34(6):66-74.
[19]	LI W, YONG Z, QING L, et al. Application of three deep machine-learning algorithms in a construction assessment model of farmland quality at the county scale: Case study of Xiangzhou, Hubei Province, China[J]. Agriculture, 2021, 11(1).
[20]	CHONG Z, YONG Z, JINHUI J, et al. Spatial characteristics of cultivated land quality accounting for ecological environmental condition: A case study in hilly area of northern Hubei province, China[J]. Science of the total environment, 2021,774.
[21]	张超, 高璐璐, 郧文聚, 等. 遥感技术获取耕地质量评价指标的研究进展分析[J]. 农业机械学报, 2022, 53(1):1-13.
[22]	王来刚, 郭燕, 贺佳, 等. 遥感数据辅助下县域耕地质量评价与空间分布研究[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2022, 43(12):137-146.
[23]	王丽, 周勇, 李晴, 等. 基于随机森林的耕地质量评价智能模型及其应用研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(5):1279-1292.
[24]	刘彦文, 刘成武, 何宗宜, 等. 基于像元尺度耕地质量局部空间自相关的基本农田划定[J]. 农业机械学报, 2019, 50(5):260-268,319.
[25]	张晗, 赵小敏, 欧阳真程, 等. 基于空间自相关的耕地质量空间差异特征及耕地保护分区——以江西省上高县为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 2018, 25(1):304-312.
[26]	秦罗义, 白晓永, 王世杰, 等. 近40年来贵州普定典型喀斯特高原景观格局变化[J]. 生态学杂志, 2014, 33(12):3349-3357.
[27]	吴莉, 侯西勇, 徐新良, 等. 山东沿海地区土地利用和景观格局变化[J]. 农业工程学报, 2013, 29(5):207-216,293.
[28]	陈奕彤, 熊康宁, 肖时珍, 等. 中国丹霞赤水世界自然遗产景观格局时空演变及驱动因素分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2018, 25(6):314-321.
[29]	李卫锋, 王仰麟, 彭建. 深圳市景观格局演变及其驱动因素分析[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004(8):1403-1410.
[30]	张月, 张飞, 周梅, 等. 干旱区内陆艾比湖区域景观生态风险评价及时空分异[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(1):233-242.
[31]	陈心怡, 谢跟踪, 张金萍. 海口市海岸带近30年土地利用变化的景观生态风险评价[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(3):975-986.
[32]	JIANG P, LI M, SHENG Y. Spatial regulation design of farmland landscape around cities in China: A case study of Changzhou City[J]. Cities, 2020, 97(C).
[33]	JIANG P, LI M, LV J. The causes of farmland landscape structural changes in different geographical environments[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019,685.
[34]	ZHOU B B, LV L. Understanding the dynamics of farmland loss in a rapidly urbanizing region: a problem-driven, diagnostic approach to landscape sustainability[J]. Landscape ecology, 2020, 35(11).
[35]	WEN S, HUIZHONG Z, RUI Z, et al. Study on cultivated land quality evaluation from the perspective of farmland ecosystems[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2022,139.
[36]	QINGWEI Z, SHIXIN W, XIAO H, et al. Monitoring the impacts of cultivated land quality on crop production capacity in arid regions[J]. Catena, 2022,214.
[37]	ANASTASIIA Z, OLEKSANDR Z, TETYANA F, et al. The Relationship between landscape diversity and crops productivity: Landscape scale study[J]. Journal of landscape ecology, 2021, 14(1):39-58.
[38]	LIANG X, LI Y, RAN C, et al. Study on the transformed farmland landscape in rural areas of southwest China: A case study of Chongqing[J]. Journal of rural studies, 2020,76.
[39]	钱凤魁, 逄然然, 于洋, 等. 辽宁省不同地貌区耕地景观格局与耕地质量空间关联特征及作用机制[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2023, 31(1):113-124.
[40]	沈立宏, 张超, 桑玲玲, 等. 利用网格法确定县域农田整治优先度[J]. 农业工程学报, 2012, 28(18):241-247,296.
[41]	韩逸, 郭熙, 江叶枫, 等. 南方丘陵区耕地质量与景观格局指数相关性分析[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2018, 34(5):1057-1065.
[42]	郭莎莎, 胡守庚, 瞿诗进. 长江中游地区多尺度耕地景观格局演变特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(7):1637-1646.
[43]	游士兵, 严研. 逐步回归分析法及其应用[J]. 统计与决策, 2017(14):31-35.
[44]	刘立祥. 线性回归模型中自变量的选择与逐步回归方法[J]. 统计与决策, 2015(21):80-82.
[45]	李秀珍, 布仁仓, 常禹, 等. 景观格局指标对不同景观格局的反应[J]. 生态学报, 2004(1):123-134.
[46]	布仁仓, 胡远满, 常禹, 等. 景观指数之间的相关分析[J]. 生态学报, 2005(10):2764-2775.
[47]	陈利顶, 刘洋, 吕一河, 等. 景观生态学中的格局分析:现状、困境与未来[J]. 生态学报, 2008(11):5521-5531.
[48]	黄晓玉, 王兰会. SPSS 24.0统计分析[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2021:238.
[49]	陈帷胜, 冯秀丽, 马仁锋, 等. 耕地破碎度评价方法与实证研究——以浙江省宁波市为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2016, 30(5):80-87.
[50]	李春雨, 加鹏华, 王树涛, 等. 阜平县不同海拔梯度下耕地土壤养分现状与分布特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(1):197-204.
[51]	孙晓兵, 孔祥斌, 温良友, 等. 华北集约化农区耕地细碎化特征及其整治模式研究——以河北曲周为例[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2019, 40(4):556-564.
[52]	李鑫, 欧名豪, 肖长江, 等. 基于景观指数的细碎化对耕地生产效率影响研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2012, 21(6):707-713.
[53]	陈茜, 何真, 方鹤楠, 等. 耕地景观破碎化同区域粮食产量变化的相关性探析[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2023, 62(3):1-7.
[54]	曹丽萍, 罗志军, 冉凤维, 等. 基于耕地质量和空间集聚格局的县域基本农田划定[J]. 水土保持研究, 2018, 25(4):349-355+364.
[55]	陈彦光. 基于Moran统计量的空间自相关理论发展和方法改进[J]. 地理研究, 2009, 28(6):1449-1463.
[56]	郭龙, 张海涛, 陈家赢, 等. 基于协同克里格插值和地理加权回归模型的土壤属性空间预测比较[J]. 土壤学报, 2012, 49(5):1037-1042.

水平	指数
斑块类型	斑块面积(CA)
	斑块所占景观比例(PLAND)
	斑块密度(PD)
	边界密度(ED)
	景观形状指数(LSI)
	平均斑块大小(MPS)
景观类型	蔓延度指数(CONTAG)
	景观分离度(DIVISION)
	香农多样性指数(SHDI)

水平	指数
斑块类型	斑块面积(CA)
	斑块所占景观比例(PLAND)
	斑块密度(PD)
	边界密度(ED)
	景观形状指数(LSI)
	平均斑块大小(MPS)
景观类型	蔓延度指数(CONTAG)
	景观分离度(DIVISION)
	香农多样性指数(SHDI)

耕地质量等别	等别	斑块面积/hm²	斑块占景观面积比例/%	PD/（个/km²）	ED/(m/hm²)	LSI	MPS/hm²
国家自然等	8	41379.43	47.77	42.96	306.31	41.89	2.33
	9	38169.05	44.06	46.37	318.85	41.70	2.16
	10	3774.34	4.36	52.34	337.84	120.06	1.91
	11	3034.37	3.50	109.34	432.18	181.15	0.91
	12	246.34	0.28	166.37	539.22	876.68	0.60
	13	20.46	0.02	40.39	111.17	510.83	2.48
	平均值	14437.33	16.67	76.31	340.92	295.39	1.31
国家利用等	4	5439.48	6.28	30.34	292.75	109.79	3.30
	5	13467.34	15.55	39.16	281.84	59.83	2.55
	6	19643.85	22.68	40.23	292.94	57.70	2.49
	7	25109.42	28.99	39.37	327.59	57.89	2.54
	8	11634.94	13.43	51.39	329.60	80.16	1.95
	9	1320.38	1.52	95.59	411.55	281.74	1.05
	10	4762.69	5.50	94.17	415.19	182.13	1.06
	11	3437.19	3.97	95.67	413.41	170.08	1.05
	12	1795.22	2.07	49.28	328.61	165.91	2.03
	13	13.48	0.02	35.25	158.76	788.43	2.84
	平均值	8662.39	10.00	57.05	325.22	195.36	1.75
国家经济等	3	304.66	0.35	22.49	351.78	534.03	4.45
	4	3316.49	3.83	34.36	315.36	119.18	2.91
	5	4401.67	5.08	44.58	315.24	136.92	2.24
	6	16849.39	19.45	41.23	292.97	55.39	2.43
	7	28470.24	32.87	39.48	315.85	48.52	2.53
	8	18469.27	21.32	38.16	305.81	62.46	2.62
	9	4623.12	5.34	44.66	320.58	126.89	2.24
	10	2467.22	2.85	94.25	410.28	233.90	1.06
	11	3954.67	4.57	111.49	465.37	218.99	0.90
	12	3631.89	4.19	60.67	348.58	113.77	1.65
	13	135.37	0.16	3.46	24.99	51.71	28.90
	平均值	7874.91	9.09	48.62	315.17	154.70	2.06

耕地质量等别	等别	斑块面积/hm²	斑块占景观面积比例/%	PD/（个/km²）	ED/(m/hm²)	LSI	MPS/hm²
国家自然等	8	41379.43	47.77	42.96	306.31	41.89	2.33
	9	38169.05	44.06	46.37	318.85	41.70	2.16
	10	3774.34	4.36	52.34	337.84	120.06	1.91
	11	3034.37	3.50	109.34	432.18	181.15	0.91
	12	246.34	0.28	166.37	539.22	876.68	0.60
	13	20.46	0.02	40.39	111.17	510.83	2.48
	平均值	14437.33	16.67	76.31	340.92	295.39	1.31
国家利用等	4	5439.48	6.28	30.34	292.75	109.79	3.30
	5	13467.34	15.55	39.16	281.84	59.83	2.55
	6	19643.85	22.68	40.23	292.94	57.70	2.49
	7	25109.42	28.99	39.37	327.59	57.89	2.54
	8	11634.94	13.43	51.39	329.60	80.16	1.95
	9	1320.38	1.52	95.59	411.55	281.74	1.05
	10	4762.69	5.50	94.17	415.19	182.13	1.06
	11	3437.19	3.97	95.67	413.41	170.08	1.05
	12	1795.22	2.07	49.28	328.61	165.91	2.03
	13	13.48	0.02	35.25	158.76	788.43	2.84
	平均值	8662.39	10.00	57.05	325.22	195.36	1.75
国家经济等	3	304.66	0.35	22.49	351.78	534.03	4.45
	4	3316.49	3.83	34.36	315.36	119.18	2.91
	5	4401.67	5.08	44.58	315.24	136.92	2.24
	6	16849.39	19.45	41.23	292.97	55.39	2.43
	7	28470.24	32.87	39.48	315.85	48.52	2.53
	8	18469.27	21.32	38.16	305.81	62.46	2.62
	9	4623.12	5.34	44.66	320.58	126.89	2.24
	10	2467.22	2.85	94.25	410.28	233.90	1.06
	11	3954.67	4.57	111.49	465.37	218.99	0.90
	12	3631.89	4.19	60.67	348.58	113.77	1.65
	13	135.37	0.16	3.46	24.99	51.71	28.90
	平均值	7874.91	9.09	48.62	315.17	154.70	2.06

耕地质量等别	CONTAG/%	DIVISION/%	SHDI
国家自然等	56.38	99.76	5.11
国家利用等	50.06	99.71	5.02
国家经济等	50.28	99.71	4.53