基于全球定位系统、遥感和地理信息系统的青海省玉树市喜马拉雅旱獭生境差异分析

Analysis of ecological environment factors of Himalayan marmot based on global positioning system, remote sensing and geographical information system in Yushu City, Qinghai Province

目的利用全球定位系统（globalpositioningsystem，GPS）、遥感（remotesensing，Rs）和地理信息系统（geographicalinformationsystem，GIS）（统称3S技术）分析青海省玉树市喜马拉雅旱獭冬眠洞和临时洞生境特征差异。方法采用GPS实现对玉树市喜马拉雅旱獭冬眠洞和临时洞监测数据的空间定位。采用RS和GIS提取与喜马拉雅旱獭相关的地表温度（1andSill-facetemperature，LST）、高程（digitalelevationmodel，DEM）、归一化植被指数（normalizeddifferencevegetationindex，NDVI）等生境因子。采用流行病学统计法比较旱獭冬眠洞和临时洞生境因子的差异性。结果冬眠洞的月均LST（K氏温度，简称K）均值略高于同期临时洞，冬眠洞年均白天LsT均值高出同期临时洞1．1K，冬眠洞年均夜晚LST均值高出同期临时洞0-3K。临时洞的月均NDVI因子要略高于同期冬眠洞，临时洞的年均NDVI因子要高出同期冬眠洞0．001。临时洞的DEM均值要高出冬眠洞约40m。冬眠洞和临时洞的土壤类型因子所占百分比位居前两位的均为高寒草甸土和黑毡土。冬眠洞的两者所占百分比分别为62．1％和29．3％．临时洞的两者所占百分比分别为64．4％和25．6％。冬眠洞和临时洞的土地覆盖因子所占百分比位居前两位的均为旱作农田和混合农田，冬眠洞的两者所占百分比分别为43．3％和25．8％，临时洞的两者所占百分比分别为40．0％和26．2％。结论喜马拉雅旱獭在冬眠洞和临时洞的选取上，土壤类型和土地覆盖类型没有明显差异，但冬眠洞倾向于选择DEM偏低、LST偏高的地理位置，而临时洞倾向于选择植被略好的地理位置，有利于摄取食物。

Objective To analyze the ecological environmental differences of hibernation hole and temporary hole of Himalayan marmot based on global positioning system （GPS）, remote sensing （RS） and geographical information system （GIS） in Yushu City, Qinghai Province. Methods Hibernation holes and temporary holes were located based on GPS. Ecological environment factors related with Himalayan marmot, such as land surface temperature （LST）, digital elevation model （DEM）, normalized different vegetation index （NDVI）, were extracted based on RS and GIS. The ecological environment differences between hibernation hole and temporary hole were explored based on epidemiologieal statistical method. Results Monthly LST （degree Kelvin, K） of hibernation hole was slightly higher than that of temporary hole in the same period. Yearly day I_ST of hibernation hole was 1.1 K higher than that of temporary hole in the same period. Yearly night I_ST of hibernation hole was 0.3 K higher than that of temporary hole in the same period. Monthly NDVI of temporary hole was slightly higher than that of hibernation hole in the same period. Yearly NDVI of temporary hole was 0.001 higher than that of hibernation hole in the same period. DEM of temporary hole was about 40 m higher than that of hibernation hole. The top two ratios of soil type factors were both alpine meadow soil and dark fehy soil for hibernation hole and temporary hole, which were 62.1% and 29.3%, 64.4% and 25.6%. The top two ratios of land cover factors were both rainfed cropland and mosaic cropland for hibernation hole and temporary hole, which were 43.3% and 25.8%, 40.0% and 26.2%. Conclusions Soil type factors and land cover factors for hibernation hole and temporary hole are similar. Lower DEM and higher LST are chose for hibernation hole, and better NDVI is chose for temporary hole, which is good for food intake.