مقایسۀ مؤلفه‌های مختلف وضعیت سلامت زیست‌بوم در حوزۀ آبخیز ایریل، استان اردبیل

نویسندگان

دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

10.22052/6.16.81

چکیده

یکی از اجزای مهم و عامل اساسی تغییر در زیست‌بوم، انسان بوده و زیست‌بوم‌های تخریب‌شده نتیجۀ فعالیت‌های انسانی است. وجود یک زیست‌بوم سالم برای تأمین خدماتی که موردنیاز انسان و محیط طبیعی و نیز حفظ ارزش‌های اقتصادی و اجتماعی ضروری است. برای ارزیابی سلامت زیست‌بوم، به بررسی کیفیت شرایط زیست‌بوم با استفاده از انواع شاخص‌ها نیاز است؛ زیرا مجموعه شاخص‌ها باید نشان‌دهندۀ اطلاعات کلیدی در ساختار زیست‌بوم و عملکرد و برای هدف از این ارزیابی خاص باشد. هدف این مطالعه، ارزیابی مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر سلامت زیست‌بوم به‌صورت جامع، در قالب سه معیار توان، ساختار و تاب‌آوری در حوزۀ آبخیز ایریل استان اردبیل است. دراین‌باره، مقادیر مؤلفه‌های توان (NDVI، فرسایش و رواناب)، ساختار (پیوستگی، تکه‌تکه‌شدگی، تقسیم‌شدگی، درجه تفکیک، تراکم لبه و شاخص تنوع سیمپسون تغییریافته ) و تاب‌آوری (درصد کاربری‌های مختلف، شاخص بزگ‌ترین لکه و شاخص تجمع) به‌صورت کمی محاسبه شد و در ادامه، با ارائۀ نتایج در قالب نمودارهای راداری، امکان مقایسۀ مؤلفه‌های مختلف و چندبعدی در زیرحوضه‌های موردمطالعه فراهم گردید. براساس نتایج مقادیر معیار توان در زیرحوضه‌های S1 (89/0) و S8 (13/0)، به‌ترتیب بالا‌ترین و پایین‌ترین امتیاز را دارند. زیرحوضه‌های S7، S2 و S3 از نظر معیار ساختار با مقادیر 73/0، 63/0 و 63/0 در شرایط مطلوبی قرار دارند و سایر حوزه‌ها در وضعیت نامناسبی قرار دارند. مقدار معیار تاب‌آوری در زیرحوضه‌های S1، S3 و S8 بیشتر از بقیۀ زیرحوضه‌هاست. درمجموع، نتایج نشان داد که مؤلفه تاب‌آوری دارای بالاترین تغییرات در زیرحوضه‌های منطقۀ موردمطالعه بوده است. براساس نتایج، مقدار متوسط مؤلفه‌های توان، ساختار و تاب‌آوری به‌ترتیب برابر 40/0، 55/0 و 55/0 بوده و درمجموع، زیرحوضۀ S1 دارای بالاترین مقدار متوسط شاخص‌های محاسباتی است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparing the conditions of different Ecosystem Health components in Iiril watershed, Ardabil Province

نویسندگان [English]

  • Aniss Jafari
  • Farshad Keivan-behjou
  • Raoof Mostafazadeh
چکیده [English]

Ecosystems are degraded through human activities and a healthy ecosystem sustains the requirements of human and natural environment, as well as the conservation of economic and social values. Various indicators are required to assess the health of ecosystems. This study evaluates the factors affecting the overall ecosystems health including: vigor, structure, and resilience in the Iiril watershed, Ardabil province. The values of vigor (NDVI, erosion and runoff), structure (continuity, degree of division, patch density and edge density) and resilience (landuse classes, the largest patch index and aggregation index) were quantified and then results were compared at sub-watershed scale. According to the results of vigor component, the S8 and S1 sub-watersheds had the highest scores of 0.89 and 0.13, respectively. The S7, S2 and S3 sub-watersheds had favorable structure conditions, having 0.73, 0.63, and 0.63 scores compared with other sub-watersheds. The resilience index values of S1, S3 and S8 sub-watersheds were in a high health level. In summary, the highest variability is related to resilience component over the study area. The average value of the vigor, structure, and resilience components were calculated to be 0.40, 0.55, and 0.55, respectively, and the S1 sub-watershed had the highest average value of calculation indices.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Ecosystem resilience
  • Ecological connectivity
  • ecosystem structure
  • Health assessment
  1. 1. Ansari Lari, A., Ansari, M. 2017. Evaluation of soil erosion risk and sedimentation potential by using EPM model in Gabric basin- SE Hormozgan- Iran. Journal of Risks natural environment, 6(11): 1-14. (In Persian)
  2. 2. Chen, X. W. 2002. Using remote sensing and GIS to analyze land cover change and its impacts on regional sustainable development. International Journal of Remote Sensing 23:107–124.
  3. 3. Costanza, R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of health, In: Ecosystem Health—New Goals for Environmental Management, Norton BD (editors), Washington, DC: Inland Press, pp 239–256.
  4. 4. Costanza, R. 2012. Ecosystem health and ecological engineering Ecological Engineering, 45:24–29.
  5. 5. Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking, NewYork. 592 pp.
  6. 6. Ding,Y., Wang, W., Cheng, X., Zhao, S.2008. Ecosystem health assessment in
  7. 7. Erfani, M.M and Danekar, A. 2013. Assessment of ecosystem health based on index species. National conference on Environment, Energy and Biologic defense. Mehr-Arvand Higher Education Institution. Tehran. (In Persian)
  8. 8. Fan, L., Li, Z. Z. 2003.A model of ecosystem health and its application. Ecological Modelling 170:55–59.
  9. 9. Flannery, T. F. 1994. The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australasian Lands and People. Reed Press, Port Melbourne, Australia. 423 pp.
  10. 10. Ghyam, M., Ghanmi, J., and Samadzadeh, R. 2013. Comparison of MPSIAC and EOM methods in estimation of erosion and sediment yield of Saghezchi-Namin Watershed. Applied Geomorphology of Iran. 1(1):1-15. (In Persian)
  11. 11. Holling, C. S .1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change. In: Clark WC and Munn RE (eds) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 292-320 pp.
  12. 12. inner Mongolia region based on remote sensing and GIS, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Vol.37, Part B1, Beijing.
  13. 13. ISWRM, 2015. Integration study of Range and Watershed Management. University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, 241p. (In Persian)
  14. 14. Jaeger, J. A. G. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecology. 15:115-130.
  15. 15. Javadi, M., Mierdar Harijany, F., Chatrsimab, Z. 2011. Runoff height estimation using curve number method and ArcCN-Runoff tool (case study Azadrood watershed). Journaj of GIS.RS. application in planning, Volume2, Number 3; Page(s) 55 To 62. (In Persian).
  16. 16. Karami, A., Sefidi, K., Feghhi, J. 2014. Structure and spatial pattern of land uses patches in the Zagros Mountains region in the west of Iran. Biodiversitas, 15(1): 53-59.
  17. 17. Karami, A., Sefidi, K., Feghhi, J., Marvie Mohajer, M.R. 2012. Spatial distribution of regeneration patches in old growth oriental beech forests in northern Iran. Forestry Studies/ Metsanduslikud Uurimused, 57: 5-15.
  18. 18. Kazemi, M., Y., Mahdavi, A., Nohegar, P., Rezaei, 2011. Estimation of Land Cover and land-use Changes using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System Techniques (Case Study: Tang Bostanak of Shiraz Watershed), Journal of Applied RS and GIS Techniques in Natural Resource Science 2(1):103-116.
  19. 19. Li Y., Dong Sh., Wen L., Wang X., and Wu1 Y. 2013. Three-Dimensional Framework of Vigor, Organization, and Resilience (VOR) for Assessing Rangeland Health: A Case Study from the Alpine Meadow of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China, International Association for Ecology and Health, EcoHealth 10, 423–433
  20. 20. Lu, L., Wang, R., Zhang, Y., Su, H., Wang, P., Jenkins, A., Ferrier, R., Bailey, M., and Squire, G. 2015. Ecosystem health towards sustainability. Journal of Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 1(1):2.
  21. 21. Mageau, M. T., Costanza, R., Ulanowicz, R. E. 1998. Quantifyingthe trends associated with developing ecosystems. Ecological Modeling. 1-22 pp.
  22. 22. McGarigal, K. 2013. Landscape pattern metrics. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, 1441-1451.
  23. 23. McGarigal, K., and Marks, B.J. 1995. Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 1-122.
  24. 24. Mostafazadeh, R. 2014. Effects of different management scenarios of landscape metrics on storm runoff and sediment variations. Ph.D Dissertation in Watershed Management Sciences and Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University. 122p.
  25. 25. Pettorelli, N., Vik, J. O., Mysterud, A., Gaillard, J. M., Tucker, C. J., & Stenseth, N. C., 2005. Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change; Trends in ecology & evolution, 20(9): 503-510.
  26. 26. Rahmani, N., Shahedi, K., and Miryaghpubzadeh, M.H. 2011. Assessment of commonly used vegetation indices in remote sensing (Case study: Harisk watershed). Geomatics 2011. Iran National Cartographic Center. 1-10. (In Persian). Rapport, D. J. 1989. What constitute ecosystem health? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 33, pp. 120-132.
  27. 27. Rapport, D. J. 1989. What constitute ecosystem health?. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 33: 120-132.
  28. 28. Rapport, D. J., Bohm, G. 1999. Ecosystem health: the concept, the ISEH, and the important tasks. Ahead Ecosystem Health, 5, pp. 82-90.
  29. 29. Redman, C. L. 1999. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 239 pp.
  30. 30. Romme, W. H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecologycal Monographs. 52:199-221.
  31. 31. Sadeghi, S.H.R., Mostafazadeh, R., Sadoddin, A. 2015. Response of Sedimentgraphs and Sediment Rating Loops to Land Use Type and Spatial Pattern. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 7(1):15-26.
  32. 32. Sadoddin, A., Sheikh, V., Mostafazadeh, R., Halili, M.Gh. 2010. Analysis of vegetation-based management scenarios using MCDM in the Ramian watershed, Golestan, Iran. International Journal of Plant Production, 4 (1) January 51-62.
  33. 33. Schumaker, N. H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210-25.
  34. 34. Suo A., Xiong Y., Wang T., Yue D., and Ge J. 2008. International Association for Ecology and Health, EcoHealth 5, 127–136.
  35. 35. Wanielista, M.P. 1997. Hydrology Water Quantity and Water Quality Control. University of Central Florida. 565p
  36. 36. Xu FL, Jorgensen SE, Shu T. 1999. Ecological indicators for assessing freshwater ecosystem health. Ecological Modeling, 116:77–106.