期刊文献+

基于模糊数学综合评价法的喀斯特生态系统健康评价 被引量:15

Studies on Ecosystem Health Evaluation Based on Fuzzy Mathematics Method in Karst Areas
下载PDF
导出
摘要 通过定性和定量分析建立了一套相对完整的评价指标体系,采用因子分析法进一步筛选评价指标,应用熵权法赋予指标权重,采用模糊数学方法构建评价模型,并对毕节地区喀斯特生态系统健康状态进行了实例研究。结果表明,毕节地区喀斯特生态系统在结构功能方面属于亚健康,可持续利用能力方面属于不健康状态,动态变化方面属于健康状态。以桂林、昆明作为参比地区进行了对比评价,得出3个喀斯特生态系统整体健康状况排序为:桂林>昆明>毕节地区。通过此评价,明确了毕节地区喀斯特生态系统健康的状况及其影响因子,了解其与其它2个喀斯特地区的健康差距,为喀斯特生态系统的保护提供科学依据。 The evaluation method of karst ecosystem health was emphatically discussed. By qualitative and quantitative analysis, a set of relatively integrated evaluation indexes system was brought forth. Moreover, entropy was employed to give indexes weight, and fuzzy mathematics was utilized to establish the evaluation model. Then the situation of karst ecosystem health in Bijie area was studied as a case. The resuits indicated that the Bijie area in the karst ecosystem health functions belong to the structure of the subhealth, sustainable use of capacity belong to the unhealthy state, dynamic change belong to the healthy state. Subsequently, by contrastive evaluation with Guilin,Kunming as the reference karst areas,the integrated conditions of karst ecosystem health of these four areas followed as the sequence:Guilin〉Kunming 〉Bijie area. Consequently, the evaluation could made clear the condition and influencing factors of karst ecosystem health of Bijie area. The health gap between Bijie area and the other three karst areas provided a scientific basis for programming and protecting of karst ecology of Bijie area.
作者 曹欢 苏维词
出处 《水土保持研究》 CSCD 北大核心 2009年第3期148-154,共7页 Research of Soil and Water Conservation
基金 国家"十一五"科技支撑计划专题(2006BAC01A09-5) 贵州省科技攻关计划(黔科合S字[2007]1018) 贵州省重大科技专项(黔科重大合计[2006]6014) 贵州省发改委高新技术产业化项目
关键词 喀斯特生态系统健康 评价指标 评价模型 毕节地区 karst ecosystem health evaluation index evaluation model Bijie area
  • 相关文献

参考文献29

  • 1Costanza R. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health[M]//Costanza R B, Norton G, Haskell B D. Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management. Washinton D C : Island Press, 1992 : 239- 256.
  • 2Rapport D J. Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical process[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 1998,53 : 1-15.
  • 3Rapport D J. Gaining respectability: development of quantitative methods in ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health,1999,5:1-2.
  • 4Mageau M T, Costanza R, Ulanowicz R E. The development and initial testing of a quantitative assessment of ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1995, 1 (4) :201-213.
  • 5Ulanowicz R E. Growth and development, ecosystem Phenomenology[M]. New York: Springer, 1986.
  • 6Kay J J, Schneider E D. Thermodynamics and measurements of ecosystem integrity [C]//Mckenzie D. Ecological Indicators. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991 : 159- 182.
  • 7Karr J R. Defining and assessing ecological integrity: beyond water quality [J].Enviromental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1993,12 : 1521-1531.
  • 8Rapport D J, Regier H A, Hutchinson T C. Ecosystem behavior under stress[J]. The American Naturalist, 1985,125 : 617-640.
  • 9任海,邬建国,彭少麟.生态系统健康的评估[J].热带地理,2000,20(4):310-316. 被引量:89
  • 10袁兴中,刘红,陆健健.生态系统健康评价——概念构架与指标选择[J].应用生态学报,2001,12(4):627-629. 被引量:190

二级参考文献119

共引文献1533

同被引文献260

引证文献15

二级引证文献115

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部