新疆生态脆弱性时空演变及驱动力分析

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2022.01.25

Abstract

Abstract:

Ecological vulnerability assessment is an important way to understand regional ecological conditions. There are great significance for regional ecological protection and construction. This study establishes ecological vulnerability evaluation index system based on the SRP model, analyze the spatial and temporal distribution characteristics and driving forces of ecological vulnerability in Xinjiang from 2000 to 2018. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) From 2000 to 2018, the ecological sensitivity index was generally at moderate sensitivity, showing high in the southeast and low in the northwest, and it was greatly affected by landscape fragmentation and soil erosion. The ecological resilience index was mainly affected by vegetation coverage, high in northwest and low in southeast, and it was relatively stable, mainly low-recovery states. The ecological stress index was mainly influenced by per capita GDP, agricultural dependence, and population density. It was high in the northern, southern mountainous areas and central Oasis and mountainous, and low in the southeast. (2) Ecological vulnerability was overall moderate to severely fragile level from 2000 to 2018 in Xinjiang. In north and south of Xinjiang, there are low vegetation coverage, low rainfall, and high aridity, so higher ecological fragility was observed. In contrast, the high-altitude areas dominated by woodlands and grasslands in central area are rich in biodiversity, and so ecological vulnerability was relatively low. Overall, the comprehensive index of ecological vulnerability showed an initial increasing trend, followed by a decrease. (3) Drivers of ecological vulnerability in Xinjiang, agricultural dependence, population density, and land reclamation rate of anthropogenic factors and habitat quality index, landscape fragmentation, landscape resilience index, and annual average precipitation of natural environmental factors are mainly single factors. The interaction of these factors, including habitat quality index, landscape resilience index, landscape fragmentation index, vegetation coverage, and regional human activities are the main driving forces.

Key words: SRP model, ecological vulnerability, spatiotemporal distribution, driving force, Xinjiang

SUN Guili,LU Haiyan,ZHENG Jiaxiang,LIU Yanyan,RAN Yajun. Spatio-temporal variation of ecological vulnerability in Xinjiang and driving force analysis[J].Arid Zone Research, 2022, 39(1): 258-269.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig. 1

Tab. 1

Tab. 2

Calculation formula and parameter description of SRP model"

指标名称	计算公式	参数说明
生境质量指数	$E = A bio × ∑ i = 1 6 β i × M i Z$	$A bio$ 为生境质量归一化系数（参考值为511.26）; $β i$ 为第i类土地利用类型权重（林地0.35,草地0.21;水域0.28;耕地0.11;建设用地0.04;未利用地0.01）; $M i$ 为区域内第i类土地利用类型面积; $Z$ 为各地州市总面积。
生态敏感性	$S = ∑ i = 1 n W 1 S i$	S为生态敏感性;W₁生态敏感性的权重;S_i生态敏感性指标值。
生态恢复力	$R = ∑ i = 1 n W 2 R i$	R为生态恢复力;W₂生态恢复力的权重;R_i生态恢复力指标值。
生态压力度	$P = ∑ i = 1 n W 3 S P i$	P为生态压力度;W₃生态压力度的权重;P_i生态压力度指标值。
生态脆弱性指数	$EV I n = x 1 PC 1 n + x 2 PC 2 n + x 3 PC 3 n + x 4 PC 4 n + x 5 PC 5 n +, …, + x k PC k n$	EVI_n为某一年的生态脆弱性指数,其值越大生态环境越脆弱,生态系统受到的破坏程度越明显;x₁, x₂, …, x_k为对应指标权重;PC1, PC2, …, PCk为累积贡献率大于85%的前k个主成分,n为年份。
生态脆弱性综合指数	$EVSI = ∑ i = 1 n P i A i s$	EVSI为生态脆弱性综合指数; $P i$ 为第i类脆弱性等级值,微度脆弱、轻度脆弱、中度脆弱、强度脆弱和重度脆弱的P值分别为1、2、3、4、5; $A i$ 为第i类脆弱性面积;s为区域总面积。

Tab. 2

Tab. 3

Tab. 4

Tab. 5

Tab. 6

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Tab. 7

Fig. 6

Tab. 8

References 34

[1]	Turvey R. Vulnerability assessment of developing countries: The case of small island developing states[J]. Development Policy Review, 2007, 25(2): 243-264. doi: 10.1111/dpr.2007.25.issue-2
[2]	Mahapatra M, Ramakrishnan R, Rajawat A S. Coastal vulnerability assessment using analytical hierarchical process for South Gujarat coast, India[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 76(1): 139-159. doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1491-y
[3]	曹诗颂, 王艳慧, 段福洲, 等. 中国贫困地区生态环境脆弱性与经济贫困的耦合关系——基于连片特困区714个贫困县的实证分析[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(8): 2614-2622.
	[Cao Shisong, Wang Yanhui, Duan Fuzhou, et al. Coupling between ecological China: Empirical analysis vulnerability and economic poverty in contiguous destitute areas of 714 poverty-stricken counties[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 27(8): 2614-2622. ]
[4]	王贝贝, 丁明军, 管琪卉, 等. 基于格网的南昌市生态环境脆弱性评价[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(15): 5460-5472.
	[Wang Beibei, Ding Mingjun, Guan Qihui, et al. Gridded assessment of eco-environmental vulnerability in Nanchang city[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(15): 5460-5472. ]
[5]	王让会, 樊自立. 干旱区内陆河流域生态脆弱性评价——以新疆塔里木河流域为例[J]. 生态学杂志, 2001, 20(3): 63-68.
	[Wang Ranghui, Fan Zili. Ecological fragility assessment on continental river basin in arid zone taking Tarim River basin, Xinjiang as an example[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2001, 20(3): 63-68. ]
[6]	谢霞, 王宏卫. 艾比湖区域生态脆弱性评估与保护[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2012, 49(3): 531-536.
	[Xie Xia, Wang Hongwei, Eco-environmental vulnerability evaluation and countermeasures in Ebinur lake region[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 49(3): 531-536. ]
[7]	万洪秀, 孙占东, 王润. 博斯腾湖湿地生态脆弱性评价研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2006, 29(2): 248-254.
	[Wan Hongxiu, Sun Zhandong, Wang Run. Study on the evaluation of ecological frangibility of the wetlands in the Bosten Lake region[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2006, 29(2): 248-254. ]
[8]	师庆东, 王智, 贺龙梅, 等. 基于气候、地貌、生态系统的景观分类体系——以新疆地区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(12): 3359-3367.
	[Shi Qingdong, Wang Zhi, He Longmei, et al. Landscape classification system based on climate, landform, ecosystem: A case study of Xinjiang area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014, 34(12): 3359-3367. ]
[9]	张宁宁, 房世峰, 杜加强, 等. 基于LUCC的新疆沙尘源空间格局及转化机理分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2018, 41(5): 1053-1063.
	[Zhang Ningning, Fang Shifeng, Du Jiaqiang, et al. Transformation and spatio-temporal distribution of sand-dust sources in Xinjiang based on LUCC[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2018, 41(5): 1053-1063. ]
[10]	郭兵, 孔维华, 姜琳. 西北干旱荒漠生态区脆弱性动态监测及驱动因子定量分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(3): 412-424.
	[Guo Bing, Kong Weihua, Jiang Lin. Dynamic monitoring of ecological vulnerability in arid desert ecological region of Northwest China and the quantitative analysis of its driving forces[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2018, 33(3): 412-424. ]
[11]	新疆维吾尔自治区统计局. 国家统计局新疆调查总队. 新疆维吾尔自治区2018年国民经济和社会发展统计公报[N]. 新疆日报, 2019-03-22.
	[Statistics Bureau of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Xinjiang Survey Team National Bureau of Statistics. Statistical Communique of National Economic and Social Development in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in 2018[N]. Xinjiang Daily, 2019-03-22. ]
[12]	张启. 长白山地区土地利用/覆被变化对生态环境脆弱性的影响评价[D]. 延吉: 延边大学, 2019.
	[Zhang Qi. The Impact Assessment of Ecological Enviorment Vulnerability Based on Land Use/Cover Change in Changbai Mountain Area[D]. Yanji: Yanbian University, 2019. ]
[13]	马骏. 三峡库区重庆段生态脆弱性动态评价[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2014.
	[Ma Jun. Dynamic Evaluation of Ecological Vulnerability in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region in Chongqing Section, China[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2014. ]
[14]	刘正佳, 于兴修, 李蕾, 等. 基于SRP概念模型的沂蒙山区生态环境脆弱性评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(8): 2084-2090.
	[Liu Zhengjia, Yu Xingxiu, Li Lei, et al. Spatio-temporal change of ecological vulnerability in Yimeng Mountain based on SRP model and driving force analysis[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011, 22(8): 2084-2090. ]
[15]	韦晶, 郭亚敏, 孙林, 等. 三江源地区生态环境脆弱性评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(7): 1968-1975.
	[Wei Jing, Guo Yamin, Sun Lin, et al. Evaluation of ecological environment vulnerability in the Three-River Source region[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2015, 34(7): 1968-1975. ]
[16]	张行, 陈海, 史琴琴, 等. 陕西省景观生态脆弱性时空演变及其影响因素[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(2): 496-505.
	[Zhang Hang, Chen Hai, Shi Qinqin, et al. Spatio-temporal evolution and driving factors of landscape ecological vulnerability in Shaanxi Province[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020, 37(2): 496-505. ]
[17]	Zang Z, Zou X, Zuo P, et al. Impact of landscape patterns on ecological vulnerability and ecosystem service values: An empirical analysis of Yancheng Nature Reserve in China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 72: 142-152. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.019
[18]	杨海娟, 温晓金, 刘焱序, 等. 秦岭土石山区土地利用程度对生态恢复力的影响评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2012, 32(4): 261-266.
	[Yang Haijuan, Wen Xiaojin, Liu Yanxu, et al. Impact evaluation of land use degree on ecological resilience in Qinling earth-rock mountainous area[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 32(4): 261-266. ]
[19]	王俊, 杨新军, 刘文兆. 半干旱区社会-生态系统干旱恢复力的定量化研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2010, 29(11): 1385-1390. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.11.028
	[Wang Jun, Yang Xinjun, Liu Wenzhao. Quantitative research on drought resilience of social-ecosystem in semi-arid area[J]. Progress in Geography, 2010, 29(11): 1385-1390. ] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.11.028
[20]	赵先贵, 马彩虹, 高利峰, 等. 基于生态压力指数的不同尺度区域生态安全评价[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2007, 15(6): 135-138.
	[Zhao Xiangui, Ma Caihong, Gao Lifeng, et al. Evaluation of regional ecological security at different ccales based on ecological pressure index[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2007, 15(6): 135-138. ]
[21]	姚雄, 余坤勇, 刘健, 等. 南方水土流失严重区的生态脆弱性时空演变[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(3): 735-745.
	[Yao Xiong, Yu Kunyong, Liu Jian, et al. Temporal and spatial evolution of ecological vulnerability in the severe soil erosion area in south China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 27(3): 735-745. ]
[22]	Fatemi F, Ardalan A, Aguirre B, et al. Social vulnerability indicator in disasters: Fingdings from a systematic review[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, 22: 219-227. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.006
[23]	王钰, 胡宝清. 西江流域生态脆弱性时空分异及其驱动机制研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2018, 20(7): 947-956. doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2018.170633
	[Wang Yu, Hu Baoqing. Study on the spatial and temporal differentiation of ecological vulnerability in Xijiang River basin and its driving mechanism[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2018, 20(7): 947-956. ] doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2018.170633
[24]	付刚, 白加德, 齐月, 等. 基于GIS的北京市生态脆弱性评价[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2018, 34(9): 830-839.
	[Fu Gang, Bai Jiade, Qi Yue, et al. Evaluation of ecological vulnerability in Beijing based on GIS[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2018, 34(9): 830-839. ]
[25]	张德君, 高航, 杨俊, 等. 基于GIS的南四湖湿地生态脆弱性评价[J]. 资源科学, 2014, 36(4): 874-882.
	[Zhang Dejun, Gao Hang, Yang Jun, et al. Evaluation of ecological vulnerability of Nansi lake wetland based on GIS[J]. Resources Science, 2014, 36(4): 874-882. ]
[26]	Wang J F, LI X H, Christakos G, et al. Geographical detectors-based health risk assessment and its application in the neural tube defects study of the Heshun region[J]. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2010, 24(1): 107-127. doi: 10.1080/13658810802443457
[27]	王劲峰, 徐成东. 地理探测器: 原理与展望[J]. 地理学报, 2017, 72(1): 116-134. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201701010
	[Wang Jinfeng, Xu Chendong. Geodetector: Principles and prospects[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(1): 116-134. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201701010
[28]	黄莹, 包安明, 刘海隆, 等. 基于景观格局的新疆生态脆弱性综合评价研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2009, 27(3): 261-266.
	[Huang Ying, Bao Anming, Liu Hailong, et al. Research on comprehensive evaluation of Xinjiang ecological vulnerability based on landscape pattern[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2009, 27(3): 261-266. ]
[29]	郭亚淑. 福州市土地利用/覆被变化对生态环境脆弱性的影响评价[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2016.
	[Guo Yashu. The Impact Assessment of Eco-environment Based on Land Use/Cover Change in Fuzhou City[D]. Fuzhou: Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 2016. ]
[30]	艾丽娅, 王少军, 张志. 1977—2017年锡林郭勒盟中部草原植被覆盖时空演变及预测[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019, 39(5): 249-256, 277, 347.
	[Ai Liya, Wang Shaojun, Zhang Zhi. . Spatio-temporal evolution and Spatio-temporal evolution and prediction of grassland vegetation coverage in central Xilin Gol League from 1977 to 2017[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 39(5): 249-256, 277, 347. ]
[31]	于琳. 新疆绿洲生态经济系统可持续发展研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2006.
	[Yu Lin. Research on Sustainable Development of Xinjiang Oasis Eco-economy System[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2006. ]
[32]	鲁大铭, 石育中, 李文龙, 等. 西北地区县域脆弱性时空格局演变[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(4): 404-415. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.04.002
	[Lu Daming, Shi Yuzhong, Li Wenlong, et al. Spatio-temporal change of vulnerability in counties of Northwest China[J]. Progress in Geography, 2017, 36(4): 404-415. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.04.002
[33]	茹克亚·萨吾提, 阿不都艾尼·阿不里, 李虎, 等. 基于遥感生态指数模型的阜康市生态环境动态变化监测与评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2020, 27(1): 283-289, 297.
	[Rukeya Sawuti, Abuduaini Abuli, Li Hu, et al. Dynamic monitoring and analysis fukang city based ecological environment in RSEI model[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conscrvation, 2020, 27(1): 283-289, 297. ]
[34]	Pei H, Fang S F, Lin L, et al. Methods and applications for ecological vulnerability evaluation in a hyper-arid oasis: A case study of the Turpan Oasis, China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2015, 74(2): 1449-1461. doi: 10.1007/s12665-015-4134-z

数据名称	数据来源	数据处理
DEM数据	地理空间数据云（http://www.gscloud.cn）,分辨率为30 m	选取的地形因子主要包括高程、坡度、地形起伏度等因子,采用ArcGIS 10.2的Spatial Analyst 模块的Slope和Surface Analysis工具对新疆DEM影像计算坡度和地形起伏度。
年平均降水量	中国气象数据网（http://data.cma.cn/）	选取新疆37个国家一般气象站每月气象数据,温度和降水数据以月为尺度的点数据,时间周期为2000年、2005年、2010年、2015年和2018年,采用反距离权重法对月气象点数据进行插值,得到5期共60个月的气象因子栅格数据。
≥10 ℃积温栅格数据	中国气象数据网（http://data.cma.cn/）
人口密度	《中国统计年鉴》（2001—2019）、《新疆统计年鉴》（2001—2019）、新疆国民经济和社会发展统计公报^[11]	通过统计年鉴、国民经济和社会发展统计公报,统计整理得到新疆各地州的社会经济指标数据,采用反距离权重法进行插值,得到2000年、2005年、2010年、2015年和2018年5期的社会经济栅格数据。
人均GDP
人均耕地面积
第二产业比重
归一化植被指数（NDVI）土地利用数据干燥度土壤侵蚀数据	中国科学院资源环境科学数据中心（http://www.resdc.cn）,分辨率为30 m	通过像元二分模型和栅格计算器计算研究区归一化植被指数。
归一化植被指数（NDVI）土地利用数据干燥度土壤侵蚀数据	中国科学院资源环境科学数据中心（http://www.resdc.cn）,分辨率为30 m	所有空间数据统一重采样为1 km×1 km,为保证采用的指标具有良好的空间重合性,所有栅格数据均统一到同一投影和坐标系（Albers地图投影和Krasovsky-1940坐标系）。

总目标层	子目标层	准则层	指标层	属性
新疆生态脆弱性指数	生态敏感性	地形因子	高程	+
			坡度	+
			地形起伏度	+
		地表因子	土地垦殖率	+
			景观破碎度	+
			土壤侵蚀程度	+
		气象因子	干燥度	+
			年均降水量	-
			≥10 ℃积温	-
	生态恢复力	植被因子	植被覆盖度	-
			景观恢复力指数	-
			生境质量指数	-
	生态压力度	社会因子	人口密度	+
			农业依赖度	+
			人均GDP	+
			人均耕地面积	+
			第二产业比重	+

主成分	2000年			2005年			2010年			2015年			2018年
主成分	特征值	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%	特征值	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%	特征值	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%	特征值	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%	特征值	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%
1	0.17	37.79	37.79	0.18	38.67	38.67	0.16	37.06	37.06	0.16	37.39	37.39	0.17	36.04	36.04
2	0.10	23.07	60.86	0.11	22.73	61.39	0.10	23.18	60.25	0.10	23.02	60.40	0.10	20.62	56.65
3	0.06	14.37	75.23	0.06	12.77	74.17	0.07	15.61	75.85	0.05	12.58	72.98	0.06	11.73	68.38
4	0.03	6.29	81.52	0.03	6.66	80.83	0.03	6.34	82.19	0.03	6.70	79.68	0.04	8.38	76.76
5	0.02	5.05	86.57	0.03	5.57	86.40	0.02	4.89	87.08	0.03	6.16	85.84	0.03	6.29	83.05
6	0.02	3.77	90.34	0.02	4.05	90.44	0.01	3.28	90.36	0.02	4.10	89.94	0.02	4.95	88.00
7	0.01	2.72	93.06	0.01	2.98	93.42	0.01	2.75	93.11	0.02	3.68	93.63	0.02	4.25	92.25
8	0.01	2.27	95.33	0.01	2.49	95.91	0.01	2.36	95.47	0.01	2.06	95.69	0.02	3.23	95.48
9	0.01	1.37	96.70	0.01	1.40	97.31	0.01	1.46	96.93	0.01	1.49	97.18	0.01	1.35	96.83
10	0.01	1.12	97.81	0.01	1.21	98.52	0.00	1.08	98.01	0.00	1.06	98.24	0.01	1.26	98.09
11	0.00	0.78	98.59	0.00	0.47	98.99	0.00	0.65	98.67	0.00	0.53	98.76	0.00	0.88	98.97
12	0.00	0.63	99.22	0.00	0.30	99.29	0.00	0.41	99.07	0.00	0.34	99.10	0.00	0.37	99.34
13	0.00	0.25	99.47	0.00	0.26	99.55	0.00	0.34	99.42	0.00	0.31	99.42	0.00	0.28	99.61
14	0.00	0.24	99.71	0.00	0.22	99.77	0.00	0.24	99.66	0.00	0.28	99.70	0.00	0.21	99.82
15	0.00	0.21	99.91	0.00	0.16	99.93	0.00	0.20	99.86	0.00	0.13	99.83	0.00	0.11	99.93
16	0.00	0.05	99.96	0.00	0.05	99.98	0.00	0.09	99.95	0.00	0.12	99.95	0.00	0.05	99.98
17	0.00	0.04	100	0.00	0.02	100	0.00	0.05	100	0.00	0.05	100	0.00	0.02	100

等级	取值范围	敏感性	恢复力	压力度	脆弱性
1级	≤0.2	微度敏感	恢复力弱	生态压力小	微度脆弱
2级	0.2~0.4	轻度敏感	恢复力较弱	生态压力较小	轻度脆弱
3级	0.4~0.6	中度敏感	恢复力一般	生态压力中等	中度脆弱
4级	0.6~0.8	重度敏感	恢复力较强	生态压力较大	强度脆弱
5级	>0.8	极度敏感	恢复力强	生态压力大	重度脆弱

生态脆弱性指数	指标	权重
生态敏感性指数	高程	0.130
	坡度	0.033
	地形起伏度	0.073
	土地垦殖率	0.037
	景观破碎度	0.241
	土壤侵蚀程度	0.221
	干燥度	0.150
	年均降水量	0.045
	≧10 ℃积温	0.070
生态恢复力指数	植被覆盖度	0.574
	景观恢复力指数	0.184
	生境质量指数	0.142
生态压力度指数	人均耕地面积	0.035
	农业依赖度	0.323
	人均GDP	0.267
	人口密度	0.315
	第二产业比重	0.059

Spatio-temporal variation of ecological vulnerability in Xinjiang and driving force analysis

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 14

References 34

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

	脆弱等级	2018年
	脆弱等级	微度脆弱	轻度脆弱	中度脆弱	重度脆弱	极度脆弱
2000年	微度脆弱	36117.16	12027.91	5579.62	200.47	0.00
	轻度脆弱	91913.32	105010.38	62277.87	35148.24	2973.57
	中度脆弱	41128.79	115768.69	108251.23	84228.82	34847.54
	重度脆弱	5846.90	38589.56	80587.03	127295.40	88137.89
	极度脆弱	601.40	5212.10	26795.52	246505.43	296655.16

交互类型	q值	交互类型	q值
农业依赖度∩景观恢复力	0.325	景观破碎度∩生境质量指数	0.270
农业依赖度∩景观破碎度	0.455	景观破碎度∩植被覆盖度	0.246
农业依赖度∩生境质量指数	0.446	景观破碎度∩人口密度	0.308
农业依赖度∩植被覆盖度	0.333	景观破碎度∩土地垦殖率	0.110
农业依赖度∩年均降水量	0.114	生境质量指数∩植被覆盖度	0.322
农业依赖度∩土地垦殖率	0.276	生境质量指数∩人口密度	0.114
农业依赖度∩高程	0.057	生境质量指数∩土地垦殖率	0.257
景观恢复力∩景观破碎度	0.172	第二产业比重∩年均降水量	0.119
景观恢复力∩生境质量指数	0.453	植被覆盖度∩人口密度	0.279
景观恢复力∩植被覆盖度	0.295	植被覆盖度∩土地垦殖率	0.323
景观恢复力∩人口密度	0.361	人均GDP∩年均降水量	0.113
景观恢复力∩土地垦殖率	0.124	人口密度∩土地垦殖率	0.090

[1]	LI Xiaofeng, HUI Tingting, LI Yaoming, MAO Jiefei, WANG Guangyu, FAN Lianlian. Effects of different grazing management strategies on plant diversity in the mountain grassland of Xinjiang, China [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2024, 41(1): 124-134.
[2]	CHEN Aijun,Yin . Spatiotemporal distribution of precipitation in five Central Asian countries based on FY-4A quantitative precipitation estimates [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(9): 1369-1381.
[3]	WANG Xiang, LYU Haishen, ZHU Yonghua, GUO Chenyu. Application and comparison of two channel flood routing methods in Xinjiang mountainous areas [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(8): 1240-1247.
[4]	WANG Chao, MA Zhancang, PAN Chengnan, WU Xingyue, SONG Wendan, YAN Ping. New records of Amaranthus in Xinjiang [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(8): 1280-1288.
[5]	Gulistan ANWAR, Turgun NURDIN, Dilhumar ABDUKERIM, Mamtimin SULAYMAN. New records of mosses of Leskeaceae to Xinjiang [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(8): 1289-1293.
[6]	LI Hong, LI Zhongqin, CHEN Puchen, PENG Jiajia. Spatio-temporal variation of snow cover in Altai Mountains of Xinjiang in recent 20 years and its influencing factors [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(7): 1040-1051.
[7]	MENG Chengfeng, ZHONG Tao, ZHENG Jianghua, WANG Nan, LIU Zexuan, REN Xiangyuan. Analysis of temporal and spatial characteristics and driving forces of Kunlun glacial lakes [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(7): 1094-1106.
[8]	QI Runze, PAN Jinghu. Spatial and temporal evolution of ecological vulnerability and its influencing factors in the Hehuang area [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(6): 1002-1013.
[9]	XU Junli, HAN Haidong, WANG Jian. Recharge sources and potential source areas of atmospheric PM_2.5 in Xinjiang [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(6): 874-884.
[10]	XUE Yibo, HUANG Shuangyan, ZHANG Xiaoxiao, LEI Jiaqiang, LI Shengyu. Study on the strong winter airborne dustfall mixed rain and snow events in Xinjiang, China in 2018 [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(5): 681-690.
[11]	ZHAO Keming, SUN Mingjing, LI Xia, SHI Junjie, AN Dawei, XU Tingting. Comparison of the distribution and applicability of two typical atmospheric diffusion indices in Xinjiang [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(5): 691-702.
[12]	ZHAO Yuzhi,YANG Jianjun. Spatio-temporal pattern of water resource carrying capacity, coupling and coordination of subsystems in southern Xinjiang [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(2): 213-223.
[13]	DONG Hanlin, WANG Wenting, XIE Yun, Aydana YESINALI, JIANG Yuantian, XU Jiaqi. Climate dry-wet conditions, changes, and their driving factors in Xinjiang [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(12): 1875-1884.
[14]	WU Xiaodan,LUO Min,MENG Fanhao,SA Chula,YIN Chaohua,BAO Yuhai. New characteristics of spatio-temporal evolution of extreme climate events in Xinjiang under the background of warm and humid climate [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2022, 39(6): 1695-1705.
[15]	JIANG Lei,ZHAO Yi,ZHANG Pengwei,HE Liang,BAI Xiang. Study on influence degree of phreatic evaporation based on hydrogen and oxygen isotope characteristics [J]. Arid Zone Research, 2022, 39(6): 1793-1800.