Author Affiliations
1Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China2National Ecosystem Science Data Center, Beijing 100101, China3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China4College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China5Key Laboratory of Resource Utilization and Environmental Remediation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Location of the study area Note: Numbers 1 to 6 represent Dongmei, Caixia, Guzhou, Sancai, Hanwen, and Renhe small watersheds, respectively. The rocky desertification control project (referred to as RDCP) and the status of rocky desertification in all of the small watersheds were organized according to the “Huanjiang County Rock Desertification Comprehensive Management and Construction Project” and related implementation plans during 2008-2010. Due to the lag of the effect of project implementation, the RDCP activity during 2011-2013 was not considered in this study.
Fig. 2. Land use classification and mapping in Huanjiang County in (a) 2008 and (b) 2013
Fig. 3. NPP changes in Huanjiang County during 2008-2013. (a) Distribution of NPP values in the county, (b) Distribution of NPP values in non-rocky desertification area (NRDL) and the potential rocky desertification or rocky desertification land (P/RDL); (c) Distribution and (d) spatial pattern of the NPP change index (K). Red dots are the averages.
Fig. 4. Spatial patterns of effects of (a) LUCC, (b) ECF and (c) their interaction on NPP, and (d) statistics for the total effect of factors on the |K|≥0.21 (i.e. the third quantile of the NPP change index) area.
Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of (a) RDCP (see Fig. 1) and (b-g) vegetation restoration measures (referred to as VRM; i.e. closing hills for afforestation, artificial afforestation, and artificial grass) in each of the six small watersheds
Fig. 6. The relative contributions of LUCC, ECF change and their interaction on NPP changes in the region with obviously changed NPP, i.e. the third quantile of the NPP change index (|K|≥0.21 during 2008-2013; |K|≥0.23 during 2005-2011).
Reclassified type | MODIS land cover type 2 (UMD) |
---|
Water | Water bodies | Forests | Evergreen needleleaf forest, Evergreen broadleaf forest, Deciduous needleleaf forest, Deciduous broadleaf forest, Mixed forest | Shrublands | Closed shrublands, Open shrublands | Grasslands | Woody savannas, Savannas, Grasslands | Croplands | Croplands | Urban | Urban and built-up lands | Barren | Barren or sparsely vegetated lands |
|
Table 1. Landuse types in the reclassification
Region | K_LUCC | K_ECF | K_interaction | K mean |
---|
Effect | Contribution (%) | Effect | Contribution (%) | Effect | Contribution (%) |
---|
-0.36≤K<0.09 | 0.013 | 36.47 | 0.021 | 61.60 | 0.001 | 1.92 | 0.034 | 0.09≤K<0.15 | 0.037 | 30.28 | 0.080 | 65.90 | 0.005 | 3.82 | 0.121 | 0.15≤K<0.21 | 0.049 | 27.19 | 0.121 | 67.68 | 0.009 | 5.14 | 0.178 | |K|≥0.21 | 0.053 | 19.89 | 0.197 | 73.92 | 0.017 | 6.18 | 0.267 | Areas where LUCC occurs | 0.105 | 70.97 | 0.021 | 14.51 | 0.021 | 14.51 | 0.148 | Huanjiang County | 0.039 | 25.23 | 0.106 | 69.61 | 0.008 | 5.16 | 0.153 |
|
Table 2. Statistics of K that are attributed to land use and land cover change (referred to as LUCC), the environmental comprehensive factor (ECF), and their interaction.
2008-2013 | Forests | Shrublands | Grasslands | Croplands | 2008 |
---|
Forests | — | 0.21 | 585.16 | 15.46 | 600.83 | Shrublands | 6.01 | — | 39.50 | 1.93 | 47.44 | Grasslands | 748.30 | 1.29 | — | 130.08 | 879.67 | Croplands | 18.03 | 0.00 | 104.75 | — | 122.78 | 2013 | 772.34 | 1.50 | 729.41 | 147.47 | — |
|
Table 3. Land use transfer matrix (2008-2013) (unit: km2)
Regions | K | Watersheds | K of VRM | Areas (km2) |
---|
VRM | Non-RDCP |
---|
Region 1 | 0.174* | 0.161* | Guzhou | 0.151 | 18.43 | Dongmei | 0.131 | 13.16 | Caixia | 0.208 | 29.26 | Region 2 | 0.128** | 0.106** | Sancai | 0.108 | 27.41 | Hanwen | 0.162 | 26.08 | Region 3 | 0.137** | 0.078** | Renhe | 0.137 | 15.73 |
|
Table 4. Comparison of the NPP dynamic index (K) values between regions with the implementation of vegetation restoration measures and 1 km buffer areas outside of those governance regions in the six small watersheds