黄河三角洲湿地生物多样性保护工程植被修复效果评估

庞博; 杨文鑫; 崔保山; 张树岩; 谢湉; 宁中华; 高放; 张洪山

doi:10.13205/j.hjgc.202301026

黄河三角洲湿地生物多样性保护工程植被修复效果评估

doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202301026

1. 北京师范大学环境学院水环境模拟国家重点实验室, 北京 100875;
2. 山东黄河三角洲国家级自然保护区管理委员会, 山东东营 257091

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金重点项目（U2243208，U1901212）；国家自然科学基金青年项目（51909006）

详细信息

作者简介:
庞博(1996-),男,博士研究生,主要研究方向为湿地生态学和生态修复。202031180019@mail.bnu.edu.cn

通讯作者:
崔保山(1967-),男,博士,教授,主要研究方向为湿地生态学和生态修复。cuibs@bnu.edu.cn

计量
- 文章访问数: 156
- HTML全文浏览量: 7
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-10-08
- 网络出版日期: 2023-03-23

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF VEGETATION RESTORATION IN THE YELLOW RIVER DELTA WETLAND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT

1. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China;
2. Shandong Yellow River Delta National Nature Reserve Administration Committee, Dongying 257091, China

摘要

摘要: 开展修复效果的跟踪监测和评估是湿地生态修复的重要环节。跟踪监测可以观察湿地恢复状态和过程，找出修复过程潜在问题以便及时调整修复手段和技术的运用，从而提高修复效率，亦可为评价湿地修复效果提供数据支持。通过野外生态监测、遥感反演等手段，对黄河三角洲湿地生物多样性保护工程的植被修复效果进行评估。结果表明：南、北岸修复区土壤含水率分别提升45.86%和25.17%，土壤盐度分别下降70.51%和64.71%；南、北岸修复区的植被盖度分别提升5%和54%；NDVI指数分别提升48.4%和44.1%，修复区植被种类趋于多样，植被群落结构得到改善。不同生态修复措施对植被恢复均有效，效果差异不显著。修复区植被以芦苇为优势种，优势度为0.748，其他植被的优势度较低，植被总体盖度、芦苇密度和株高与未修复区相比差异不大。总体来说，北岸修复区植被尚未恢复至较高水平，南岸修复区植被恢复效果良好。建议在生态修复工程实施时应减轻对原生物种的破坏，实施后应关注植被恢复的滞后性，加强湿地管理以及外来物种入侵防治。该成果将为我国滨海湿地生态修复提供数据和技术参考。
- 生态修复 /
- 滨海湿地 /
- 生态补水 /
- 植被恢复 /
- NDVI
Abstract: Follow-up monitoring and evaluation of restoration effects are important aspects of wetland ecological restoration. Follow-up monitoring can observe the state and process of wetland restoration, identify potential problems in the restoration process and adjust the application of restoration techniques in time to improve the restoration efficiency, and also provide data for evaluating the restoration effects of wetlands. In this study, the effect of vegetation restoration in the Yellow River Delta wetland biodiversity conservation project was evaluated through field ecological monitoring and remote sensing inversion. The results showed that the soil moisture content in the south and north restoration areas was increased by 45.86% and 25.17% respectively, and the soil salinity decreased by 70.51% and 64.71% respectively; the vegetation coverage in the south and north restoration areas was increased by 5% and 54% respectively; NDVI was increased by 48.4% and 44.1% respectively. The vegetation species in the restoration area tended to be diversified and the vegetation community structure was improved. Different restoration methods were effective for vegetation restoration, but the differences in effects were not significant. Reed was the dominant species of vegetation in the restoration area, with a dominance of 0.748, while the dominance of other vegetation was low. The overall vegetation cover, reed density and plant height in the restored area were not significantly different from those of the unrestored area. As a whole, the vegetations situation in the north restored area had not yet recovered to a high level, while vegetation in the south restored area had been recovered well. The damage to native species should be mitigated when the ecological restoration project is implemented, the lag of vegetation recovery should be paid attention to after the implementation, and the wetland management as well as the invasion prevention of alien species should be strengthened. This study can provide data and technical references for the ecological restoration of coastal wetlands in China.
- ecological restoration /
- coastal wetlands /
- ecological water replenishment /
- vegetation restoration /
- NDVI

HTML全文

参考文献(29)

[1]	LIU Z Z, FAGHERAZZI S, CUI B S. Success of coastal wetlands restoration is driven by sediment availability[J]. Communications Earth & Environment, 2021, 2(1):44.
[2]	李裕红. 我国滨海湿地生物多样性保护的难点与对策[J]. 中华环境, 2019(6):45-47.
[3]	SCHUERCH M, SPENCER T, TEMMERMAN S, et al. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise[J]. Nature, 2018, 561(7722):231-234.
[4]	JANKOWSKI K L, TORNQVIST T E, FERNANDES A M. Vulnerability of Louisiana's coastal wetlands to present-day rates of relative sea-level rise[J]. Nature Communication, 2017, 8(1):14792.
[5]	崔保山, 谢湉, 王青, 等. 大规模围填海对滨海湿地的影响与对策[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2017, 32(4):418-425.
[6]	GOLDBERG L, LAGOMASINO D, THOMAS N, et al. Global declines in human-driven mangrove loss[J]. Global Change Biology, 2020, 26(10):5844-5855.
[7]	LI X, BELLERBY R, CRAFT C, et al. Coastal wetland loss, consequences, and challenges for restoration[J]. Anthropocene Coasts, 2018:1-15.
[8]	LIU Z Z, CUI B S, HE Q. Shifting paradigms in coastal restoration:six decades' lessons from China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 566/567:205-214.
[9]	庞博, 崔保山, 蔡燕子, 等. 我国滨海湿地生态修复参照区选取方法研究[J]. 环境生态学, 2020, 2(1):1-9 , 25.
[10]	WANG Q, DUARTE C, SONG L, et al. Effects of ecological restoration using non-native mangrove kandelia obovata to replace invasive spartina alterniflora on intertidal macrobenthos community in maoyan island (Zhejiang, China)[J]. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2021, 9(8):788.
[11]	隋皓辰, 马旭, 闫家国, 等. 滨海湿地盐沼植被修复中的种子产品制作过程及其有效性[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(12):2601-2614.
[12]	WANG Q, XIE T, LUO M, et al. How hydrological connectivity regulates the plant recovery process in salt marshes[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2021, 58(6):1314-1324.
[13]	SUN R, WANG D, CAO H, et al. Ecological pervious concrete in revetment and restoration of coastal Wetlands:a review[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 303:124590.
[14]	李伟, 崔丽娟, 赵欣胜, 等. 北京翠湖湿地北京翠湖湿地生境恢复及效果评估生境恢复及效果评估[J]. 湿地科学与管理, 2013, 9(3):17-21.
[15]	QIU D D, MA X, YAN J G, et al. Biogeomorphological processes and structures facilitate seedling establishment and distribution of annual plants:implications for coastal restoration[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 756:143842.
[16]	BERTOLIN C, da MOSTO J. Restoring for the climate:a review of coastal wetland restoration research in the last 30 years[J]. Restoration Ecology, 2021, 29(7):e13438.
[17]	陈彬, 俞炜炜, 陈光程, 等. 滨海湿地生态修复若干问题探讨[J]. 应用海洋学学报, 2019, 38(4):464-473.
[18]	LI S Z, XIE T, PENNINGS S C, et al. A comparison of coastal habitat restoration projects in China and the United States[J]. Scientific Reports, 2019, 9(1):14388.
[19]	KENTULA M E. Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2000, 15(3):199-209.
[20]	JONES K, PAN X, GARZA A, et al. Multi-level assessment of ecological coastal restoration in South Texas[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2010, 36(4):435-440.
[21]	ZEDLER J B. Coastal mitigation in southern California:the need for a regional restoration strategy[J]. Ecological Applications, 1996, 6(1):84-93.
[22]	BERGEN A, ALDERSON C, BERGFORS R, et al. Restoration of a Spartina alterniflora salt marsh following a fuel oil spill, New York City, NY[J]. Wetlands Ecology & Management, 2000, 8(2/3):185-195.
[23]	SUDING K N. Toward an era of restoration in ecology:successes, failures, and opportunities ahead[J]. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 2011, 42(1):465-487.
[24]	ZHAO Q Q, BAI J H, HUANG L B, et al. A review of methodologies and success indicators for coastal wetland restoration[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 60:442-452.
[25]	刘烨凌, 郝斌, 王青, 等. 1970-2015年黄河三角洲河湖沼水系水文连通时空演变[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 57(1 ):2-11.
[26]	陈俊卿, 范勇勇, 吴文娟, 等. 2016-2017年调水调沙中断后黄河口演变特征[J]. 人民黄河, 2019, 41(8):6-9.
[27]	刘佳凯, 崔保山, 张振明, 等. 黄河三角洲横向水文结构连结空间尺度变异性分析[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(10):3745-3754.
[28]	张希涛, 毕正刚, 车纯广, 等. 黄河三角洲滨海湿地生态问题及其修复对策研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2019, 47(5):84-87.
[29]	JOHNSON C R, CHABOT R H, MARZLOFF M P, et al. Knowing when (not) to attempt ecological restoration[J]. Restoration Ecology, 2018, 25(1):140-147.