Determinants of ecological functional zones in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau ecological shelter at different scales in 2000 and 2015: From the perspective of ecosystem service bundles

• Published in: Ecological indicators Vol. 154; p. 110743
• Main Authors: Li, Hao-Rui, Ma, Shuai, Zhang, Ming, Yin, Yun-Ke, Wang, Liang-Jie, Jiang, Jiang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2023; Elsevier
• Subjects: Different scales; Driving factors; Ecological functional zone; Ecosystem services; Qinghai-Tibet Plateau ecological shelter; Ecosystem services; Driving factors; Ecological functional zone; Different scales; Qinghai-Tibet Plateau ecological shelter
• ISSN: 1470-160X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110743

•ESs and EFZs under different scales were assessed.•The spatiotemporal changes in ESs were broadly similar at different scales.•The spatiotemporal distribution of the EFZs varied at different scales.•Natural factors had greater impacts on the formation of EFZs at both two scales.•This study provides a theoretical basis for the zoning management of QPES. Ecological functional zones (EFZs) are crucial components of ecosystem management that maintain the sustainability of ecosystems. Clarifying EFZs and their driving factors can inform the management of regional ecosystems. This study analyzed the dynamic changes of four ecosystem services (ESs) on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau ecological shelter (QPES) at different scales in 2000 and 2015: water yield (WY), soil conservation (SC), net primary productivity (NPP), and habitat quality (HQ). The K-means clustering algorithm was applied to classify EFZs, then the geographic detector model was used to reveal the driving factors for the formation of EFZs at different scales. The results demonstrated a decrease in WY and SC and an improvement in NPP and HQ in the QPES. The ecological regulating functional zone (E1), ecological supply functional zone (E2), and ecological supporting functional zone (E3) were classified based on the ESs that dominated the different areas. E1 was based primarily on NPP, E2 was based on WY, and E3 on HQ. The areas of E1 and E2 expanded and E3 decreased at the 1 km scale; while E1 expanded, E3 decreased and E2 remained unchanged at the county scale. Precipitation and the normalized difference vegetation index were the most important driving factors affecting the formation of EFZs either at the 1 km scale or the county scale. Socioeconomic factors were also major driving factors of EFZs formation at the county scale, and all driving factors except gross domestic product had greater explanatory power in 2015 than in 2000. This study offers scientific justification for multiple-scale sustainable management in the QPES.