长江流域资源与环境 >> 2020, Vol. 29 >> Issue (1): 187-199.doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj202001017

• 生态环境 • 上一篇    下一篇

洞庭湖流域生长季气象特旱对植被覆盖的影响

雷倩1,章新平1, 2*,黎祖贤3,刘福基4,姚天次1,尚程鹏1,王学界1
  

  1. (1. 湖南师范大学 资源与环境科学学院,湖南 长沙 410081;2. 湖南师范大学地理空间大数据挖掘与应用
    湖南省重点实验室,湖南 长沙 410081;3.湖南省人工影响天气领导小组办公室,湖南 长沙 410118; 
    4. 无锡科技职业学院,江苏 无锡 214028)
  • 出版日期:2020-01-20 发布日期:2020-03-24

Impacts of Meteorological Extreme Drought during Growing Season on Vegetation Cover in Dongting Lake Basin

LEI Qian1, ZHANG Xin-ping1,2, LI Zu-xian3, LIU Fu-ji4, YAO Tian-ci1, SHANG Cheng-peng1, WANG Xue-jie1   

  1. (1. College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China; 2. Key Laboratory of 
    Geospatial Big Data Mining and Application, Hunan Province, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China; 3. Weather Modification
     Office of Hunan Province, Changsha 410118, China; 4. Wuxi Vocational College of Science and Technology, Wuxi 214028, China)
  • Online:2020-01-20 Published:2020-03-24

摘要: 基于洞庭湖流域2000~2017年97个气象站点的综合气象干旱指数(CI)和MODIS增强型植被指数(EVI)资料,结合植被类型数据,采用最大值合成、相关分析等方法,分析了近18年来洞庭湖流域生长季(4~10月)植被(自然和人工植被)EVI与特旱强度的时空变化特征,探讨了自然植被和人工植被对特旱响应的敏感性。结果表明:在年际变化上,自然植被和人工植被区域的特旱强度最大值和EVI的最小值均出现在2011年;在季节变化上,生长季特旱强度分布为秋>夏>春季,自然植被EVI值明显高于人工植被,季节分布均为夏>春>秋季;比较而言,人工植被对特旱的敏感性高于自然植被,但两类植被对特旱的敏感性均随植被生长阶段而变化,其中两种植被EVI与特旱强度之间的最显著相关性均出现在8月;特旱强度和EVI能够很好地反映2011年春旱和夏秋连旱的时空变化过程。

Abstract: Based on the comprehensive meteorological drought index (CI) at 97 meteorological stations and MODIS enhanced vegetation index (EVI) data between 2000 and 2017 in Dongting Lake Basin, the maximum value composites and correlation analysis methods were applied to analyze the spatial and temporal patterns of the EVI (natural and artificial vegetation) and extreme drought intensity during growing seasons (from April to October) over the recent 18 years and to examine the sensitivity of natural vegetation and artificial vegetation to extreme drought. The results show that the inter-annually maximum value of extreme drought intensity and the minimum value of EVI for both natural vegetation and artificial vegetation regions appeared in 2011. The extreme drought intensity during growing season was ranked as that in autumn > in summer > in spring, and EVI varied seasonally in an order of that in summer > in spring > in autumn, but the EVI values of natural vegetation were significantly higher than that of artificial vegetation. The sensitivity of artificial vegetation to extreme drought was higher than that of natural vegetation. However, the sensitivity of both vegetation types to extreme drought varied with vegetation growth stage, with the most significant correlation between the EVI and the extreme drought intensity in August. The extreme drought intensity and EVI can depict well the spatio-temporal evolutions of drought in spring and summer-autumn in 2011.

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 张 虹. 三峡重庆库区消落区基本特征与生态功能分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(3): 374 .
[2] 许乃银 | 张国伟 | 李 健 | 周治国. 基于GGE双标图和纤维长度选择的长江流域棉花区域试验环境评价[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2013, 22(06): 735 .
[3] 李丹, 郭生练, 洪兴骏, 郭靖. 汉江流域1960~2014年降雨极值时空变化特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(09): 1448 -1456 .
[4] 张英浩, 陈江龙, 程 钰. 环境规制对中国区域绿色经济效率的影响机理研究——基于超效率模型和空间面板计量模型实证分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(11): 2407 -2418 .
[5] 刘金科, 韩贵琳, 阳昆桦, 柳满. 九龙江流域河水溶解态碳的时空变化[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(11): 2578 -2587 .
[6] 潘 静, 沈建忠, 孙林丹, 熊 雷. 长江、赣江鲢幼鱼耳石核区元素指纹特征分析及其在群体识别中的应用研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(12): 2740 -2746 .
[7] 杨达源, 黄贤金, 施利锋, 李升峰. 1973~2017年扬中市江岸冲淤遥感监测及古河道塌江分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(12): 2796 -2804 .
[8] 何莎莎, 朱文博, 崔耀平, 何春龙, 叶露培, 冯小燕, 朱连奇, . 基于InVEST模型的太行山淇河流域土壤侵蚀特征研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(02): 426 -439 .
[9] 孔春芳 岳永财 徐凯. 2000-2015年江汉平原区域植被NPP时空特征及其对气候变化的响应[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 0, (): 0 .
[10] 朱文东 周廷刚 李洪忠 许燕燕 张兰. 基于OMI数据的成渝城市群对流层NO2浓度遥感监测[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 0, (): 0 .