22 6 2003 11 PRO GR ESS IN GEO GRA PH Y V o l122, N o16 N ov1, 2003 : 100726301 (2003) 0620541210,,, (, 100101) :,, 20 90,,,, 20 90,, ; :,, : ; ; ; : F301124; P512 1 [1 3 ], :, [4 6 ] 2000,, 25 [7 9 ],, ;,, : 2003209; : 2003211 : 973 (2002CB 412500) (KZCX222308) 1 : (19742),,, E2M ail: huyf@ lreis1ac1cn
542 22 2 : 1995g1996 1999g2000 ( 1995 2000 ), 2000 ), 1995g1996 1999g2000 ( 1995 1 400, TM,, 1 10 g, 50m, 9817% [4, 10 ], 6 25,, 10 20 40 50 60;, : (31 ) (32) (33),,,, TM,,,, 1 10 (SL 190 96), [11 ], 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 A RCgIN FO Coverage, A RCgIN FO GR ID, grid 1km 1km A lbers, 105 E, 25 N 47 N 3 1995 2000 g 1, :,, 66%, (19% ) (10% ) ; 76%,, (45% ), 10%, (3% ), 85%,, (47% ) ; ( ),,, 20 25%, 79%,
6 : 543 G IS,, 8 8= 64,, 64 1 9, g 2 1 Tab11 Classif ication of land -use dynam ics 1 ( ) 2010, 3110, 3210, 3310, 4010, 5010 2 ( ) 1020, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1040, 1050 3 3332, 3331, 3231, 4 3132, 3133, 3233, 5 1060 6 2060, 3160, 3260, 3360, 4060, 5060 7 6010, 6020, 6031, 6032, 6033, 6040, 6050 2031, 2032, 2033, 2040, 2050, 3120, 3140,, 3150, 3220, 3240, 3250, 3320, 3340, 3350, 8 4020, 4031, 4032, 4033, 4050, 5020, 5031, 5032, 5033, 5040 1010, 2020, 3131, 3232, 3333, 4040, 5050, 9 6060 : 1995, 2000 :,,, ; :, ;,, 4 1995 2000 g 3, :,, 016%,, ;, 63% ;, 42%,,, 19% ; ( ), 11 12%,, 8% ;, 85%,
544 22 3511%, G IS,,, 7 7= 49,, 49 2 5, g 4 2 Tab12 Classif ication of wind erosion dynam ics 1 2 2122, 2123, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2223, 2224, 2225, 2226, 2324, 2325, 2326, 2425, 2426, 2526 2221, 2322, 2321, 2423, 2422, 2421, 2524, 2523, 2522, 2521, 2625, 2624, 2623, 2622, 2621 3 9921, 9922, 9923, 9924, 9925, 9926 4 2199, 2299, 2399, 2499, 2599, 2699 5 2121, 2222, 2323, 2424, 2525, 2626, 9999 : 1995, 2000 :, ;,, ;,,,,,,,, 5, G IS,, ( ), g 5 7,, 5 ( ), 9 ( ),,, 5 9= 45,,,,, ( ) ( )
6 : 545 (g ) 3,,, 3723km 2,, 176km 2,, 98% (2015 km 2 ), ( ) 3 (g ) ( : km 2 ) Tab13 Relation between land-use dynam ics and wind erosion dynam ics in reg ion g (km 2 ) 1 0 0 5 3717 3723 0 0 0 2 181 183 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 1 104 105 1 1 0 0 146 148 0 0 0 0 434 434 0 0 0 0 228 228 27 75 37 168 205302 205609 29 76 37 176 210121 210439, (g ) 4, : (2389km 2 ) (1519 km 2 ) (1001km 2 ), (11563 km 2 ) (10477 km 2 ) 50%,,,, ( ) ( ),,, :,,, 4 (g ), (2342 km 2 ) ( 1864 km 2 ) (1093km 2 ), (11502 km 2 ) (4896 km 2 ) (1552 km 2 ),,,,,,
546 22 ( ),, 5, 93% 4 (g ) ( : km 2 ) Tab14 Relation between land-use dynam ics and wind erosion dynam ics in reg ion g ( km 2 ) 67 11 0 1 283 362 100 34 1 2 626 763 1192 2 3 4 1188 2389 0 2 0 0 191 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 71 0 1 1302 1519 110 47 3 4 837 1001 31 72 1 0 421 525 9918 10238 49 44 56033 76282 11563 10477 57 56 60881 83034 5 (g ) ( : km 2 ) Tab15 Relation between land-use dynam ics and wind erosion dynam ics in reg ion g ( km 2 ) 260 76 9 5 1992 2342 343 42 4 0 704 1093 13 133 2 1 86 235 23 46 6 6 527 608 3 4 1 0 49 57 30 13 2 1 242 288 39 33 398 26 1368 1864 8 8 4 1 139 160 10783 4541 1126 457 121306 138213 11502 4896 1552 497 126413 144860, (37180km 2 ) (14814 km 2 ) (11756 km 2 ), (245355 km 2 ) (46605km 2 ) (11150 km 2 ) (2091 km 2 ), ;, 90,,,,, 5 82%,,,, (, ),,,, 5,
6 : 547 82% 6 (g ) ( : km 2 ) Tab16 Relation between land-use dynam ics and wind erosion dynam ics in reg ion g ( km 2 ) 200 16 18 10 575 819 77 47 10 1 406 541 1202 835 27 21 12729 14814 5373 1051 292 78 30386 37180 2 2 1 1 28 34 1198 907 26 11 9614 11756 317 1000 28 15 5343 6703 163 206 8 40 2843 3260 38073 7086 1681 666 183431 230937 46605 11150 2091 843 245355 306044 g,,,, 7% ( ),,,, 7 (g ) ( : km 2 ) Tab17 Relation between land-use dynam ics and wind erosion dynam ics in reg iong (km 2 ) 17 61 32 12 1891 2013 24 21 24 20 2947 3036 27 26 29 23 1789 1894 212 243 180 69 7342 8046 11 0 17 9 412 449 43 76 37 33 1061 1250 62 159 61 39 1739 2060 34 35 33 26 1242 1370 1616 2428 1639 756 82753 89192 2046 3049 2052 987 101176 109310 g, (6784km 2 ) (3681km 2 ), (6859 km 2 ) (3398 km 2 ), ;,,,,,
548 22 8 (g ) ( : km 2 ) Tab18 Relation between land-use dynam ics and wind erosion dynam ics in reg ion g ( km 2 ) 31 9 12 1 203 256 0 1 5 0 14 20 538 280 115 11 2737 3681 850 291 139 36 5468 6784 0 0 1 0 10 11 251 84 44 14 1389 1782 50 155 18 11 921 1155 44 25 11 1 374 455 5095 2553 632 152 22933 31365 6859 3398 977 226 34049 45509 (g ), (35585km 2 ), (6835km 2 ),,,, ;, 90,,,, 9, 4100km 2, 60% 9 (g ) ( : km 2 ) Tab19 Relation between land-use dynam ics and wind erosion dynam ics in reg ion g ( km 2 ) 75 5 0 1 71 152 6 3 0 0 58 67 3 2 7 4 101 117 44 15 2 1 504 566 0 4 3 0 33 40 4100 477 96 251 30661 35585 110 62 0 0 2641 2813 60 37 0 0 927 1024 2437 2933 366 42 190065 195843 6835 3538 474 299 225061 236207 6, : 1 20 90,,, :, ;
6 : 549, ;, 2 20 90,,, ;,,, 3,, :,,, [8 ] :,,, 4, ( ), 30, [12 13 ],,,, :,,,,, 1km, G IS,,,,, [ 1 ], 1, 11997, 3 (2) : 84 901 [ 2 ],, 1, 12001, 56 (2) : 146 1581 [ 3 ], 1 1 1 2001, (1) : 31 341 [ 4 ],, 1 20 90, 1 2003, 22 (1) : 1 121 [ 5 ],, 1, D 12002, 32 (12) : 1031 10401
550 22 [ 6 ],, 1,, 1 2001, 22 (1) : 111 1151 [ 7 ],, 1 1 12000, 55 (5) : 513 5211 [ 8 ],, 1 1 1 2001, 21 (3) : 322 3271 [ 9 ], 1 2000 1 1 2001, 14 (2) : 1 31 [ 10 ],, 1 1km 1 1 2001, 5 (3) : 183 1901 [ 11 ] 1 (2001 4 ) 1h ttp: ggwww 1sw cc1o rg1cn [ 12 ],, 1 1 1 2002, 20 (4) : 98 1021 [ 13 ],, 1 50 10 20 1 1 2002 (4) : 14 181 Study on the Relation sh ip Between Land-use D ynam ics and W ind Erosion D ynam ics in Inner M ongolia D ur ing Late 1990s HU Yunfeng, L IU J iyuan, ZHUAN G D afang, YAN G Fengting ( Institute of Geograph ic Sciences and N atural R esources R esearch, CA S, Beijing 100101, Ch ina) Abstract: Inner M ongo lia m un icipality, lying in the N o rth Ch ina, is one of the zones w ith strong w ind ero sion and rap id land2u se changes1 It covers the grassland- crop land tran sition zone and the over2grazing grassland1 T he degraded grasslands, deserted crop lands and dry2farm ing crop lands of Inner M ongo lia w ere the sou rce region s of du st2sto rm w h ich affected N o rth and East Ch ina, Ko rea, Japan and Am erica in 20001 Based on 2 sets of land2u se data and the co rresponden t w ind ero sion data, the static spatial distribu tion and the dynam ic spatial changes are ou tlined1a cco rding to the featu res of static and dynam ic spatial distribu tion s, the sub2region s of Inner M ongo lia are divided1 T he details abou t the land2u se dynam ics and w ind ero sion dynam ics are discu ssed in each specific sub2region, and the d riving - d roved rela t ion sh ip betw een the tw o dynam ics is then ana lyzed1 It can be inferred that the basic pattern s of bo th land2u se and w ind ero sion in Inner M ongo lia did no t change greatly du ring late 1990s1 How ever, the m ain types of land2u se changes are deg rada t ion of g ra ssland s and the exp an sion of crop land s, and the w ind ero sion is in ten sified in genera l1 T he deg rada t ion of g ra ssland s and the exp an sion of crop land s cau sed obviou sly in ten sified w ind ero sion, w h ile the am endm en t of grasslands and the sh rink of crop lands affected w ind ero sion sligh tly, all of w h ich show that there ex ist non 2 balanceab le influences on w ind ero sion cau sed by differen t land2u se change o rien tation1 Key words: land2u se; w ind ero sion; dynam ic change; Inner M ongo lia