| 摘要: |
| 动物通道是解决铁路沿线野生动物栖息地阻隔的有效手段，其位置选择对使用效率至关重要。重视和深化沿线动物通道选址和预留规划是实现中国“绿
色高铁”建设目标的重要体现。以武汉都市圈为对象，运用MSPA和景观连接度评价，结合MCR模型和重力模型，识别出17个生态源点斑块，叠加9条高铁线
路，识别出27处与高铁冲突的代表点即潜在动物通道位置和6处干扰区段，为生境修复提供了系统格局支持。提出了动物通道选址规划的基本原则和设计要点，
为武汉都市圈拟建的高铁网络、高速公路等大型交通基础设施协调周边生境影响，以及修复已建设施沿线的动物通道合理选址提供科学方法参考。 |
| 关键词: 风景园林 高速铁路 生态廊道 生态修复规划 动物通道 |
| DOI：10.19775/j.cla.2025.02.0023 |
| 投稿时间：2024-09-27修订日期：2024-11-18 |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金面上项目(52278064，52478054)；湖北省自然科学基金计划(联合基金项目)黄石创新发展联合基金(重点项目)(2023AFD005) |
|
| Study on the Site Selection Planning of Wildlife Corridors along the High-speed Railway Based onTerritorial Space Habitat Restoration: Take Wuhan Metropolitan Area as a Case |
| YIN Lihua,,GONG Sining,WAN Min*,SHEN Zhenghao,,HAN Yiwen |
| Abstract: |
| Wildlife corridors have been recognized as one of the most effective
strategies for mitigating the habitat fragmentation caused by transportation
infrastructure, such as railways. The effectiveness of these corridors largely depends
on their location and design, which are crucial for maintaining landscape connectivity
and enabling the safe movement of wildlife across fragmented habitats. In China, the
rapid development of high-speed railways (HSR) has brought significant ecological
challenges, including the disruption of wildlife habitats. However, the planning of
wildlife corridors from the perspective of habitat restoration has received limited
attention in current HSR development. With the increasing emphasis on "green highspeed
railways", there is an urgent need to integrate ecological considerations into
the planning and construction of HSR, particularly in terms of the placement and
preservation of wildlife corridors. This study focuses on the Wuhan Metropolitan
Area, a rapidly urbanizing region in China where several HSR lines intersect with
ecologically sensitive landscapes. Using Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis
(MSPA) and landscape connectivity evaluation, combined with the Minimum
Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model and the gravity model, the study identifies
and evaluates potential wildlife corridors. By overlaying these findings with existing
and planned HSR lines, the study provides a comprehensive framework for corridor
location planning. The main objectives are to identify ecological source patches,
prioritize corridors based on their importance to landscape connectivity, and propose
design principles for wildlife corridors to minimize the ecological impact of HSR
development. Methodology: The research employs a combination of advanced
spatial analysis tools and models. First, MSPA is used to assess the spatial pattern
and distribution of ecological source patches, which are areas with high ecological
value and connectivity. Landscape connectivity is further evaluated using indices that
measure the potential movement of species across the landscape. The MCR model is
then applied to calculate resistance surfaces, representing the difficulty for wildlife to
move through different landscape types. The gravity model is utilized for assessing the
strength of interaction between ecological source patches, aiding in the identification
and prioritization of corridors based on their ecological importance. Finally, these
analyses are integrated with geospatial data on nine HSR lines within the study area
to identify potential conflict points and zones where HSR construction intersects with
ecological corridors. Key Findings: 1) Identification of Ecological Source Patches and
Corridors: The analysis identified 17 ecological source patches with high landscape
connectivity, classified into three levels of importance. These patches represent
critical habitats that serve as starting or destination points for wildlife corridors. By
integrating the resistance surface and gravity model outputs, the study delineated
potential wildlife corridors connecting these source patches. The corridors were
further evaluated for their importance in maintaining overall landscape connectivity.
2) Conflict Points Between HSR and Wildlife Corridors: A total of 27 conflict points
between identified wildlife corridors and HSR lines were identified. These conflict
points were classified into three levels of severity based on the degree of ecological
disruption. Five conflict points were identified as Level 1 (high severity), six as Level
2 (moderate severity), and 16 as Level 3 (low severity). Immediate attention and
mitigation measures are required for Level 1 points due to their significant impact
on wildlife movement. 3) Mapping of Conflict Zones: Six segments of HSR lines
were identified as conflict zones, where the railway infrastructure poses a significant
threat to ecological connectivity. These zones were also categorized into three
levels of severity. One zone was classified as Level 1, indicating high ecological
disruption and requiring priority intervention. Three zones were classified as Level
2, and two as Level 3. This classification provides a systematic basis for prioritizing
habitat restoration efforts and the placement of wildlife corridors. 4) Guidelines for
Wildlife Corridor Planning: The study proposes fundamental principles for wildlife
corridor planning in areas affected by HSR. These include: 1) Prioritizing corridors
that connect highly significant ecological patches to maintain overall landscape
connectivity. 2) Minimizing cumulative resistance by designing corridors that align
with the natural movement patterns of wildlife. 3) Incorporating wildlife crossings,
such as overpasses and underpasses, into HSR infrastructure to ensure safe and
uninterrupted movement of animals. 4) Integrating corridor planning into the early
stages of HSR design to reduce costs and enhance ecological outcomes. 5) Monitoring
the effectiveness of wildlife corridors through long-term ecological studies and
adaptive management. Conclusion: This research highlights the importance of
integrating ecological considerations into the planning and construction of highspeed
railways. By identifying critical ecological source patches, prioritizing wildlife
corridors, and mapping conflict points and zones, the study provides a systematic
approach to mitigating the ecological impacts of HSR. The proposed guidelines
for wildlife corridor planning offer practical solutions for enhancing landscape
connectivity and promoting sustainable development. As China continues to expand
its HSR network, adopting such integrative and ecologically informed approaches
will be essential for achieving the goals of "green high-speed railways" and balancing
infrastructure development with ecological conservation. |
| Key words: landscape architecture high-speed railway ecological corridor ecological
restoration planning wildlife passage |
