林业科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (8): 1-12.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20210801
曹瑜娟,徐程扬*,任雅雪,李夏榕
收稿日期:
2020-03-05
出版日期:
2021-08-25
发布日期:
2021-09-30
通讯作者:
徐程扬
基金资助:
Yujuan Cao,Chengyang Xu*,Yaxue Ren,Xiarong Li
Received:
2020-03-05
Online:
2021-08-25
Published:
2021-09-30
Contact:
Chengyang Xu
摘要:
目的: 研究景观格局指数对风景林色彩格局变化的敏感度,筛选出能够客观定量描述景观色彩格局特征的指数,以期为科学有效地分析彩色风景林视觉质量提供试验支撑与理论依据。方法: 以黄栌风景林秋景照片为研究数据,利用Python编程进行色彩量化和色彩分类,实现照片色彩批量预处理。通过Fragstats软件计算初选指数值并用SPSS软件完成层次聚类分析。计算各指数对由色彩分类、观景距离引起的景观色彩格局变化的敏感度。对敏感度综合排序靠前的指数进行独立性检验和含义重复性排查,在兼顾指数含义、尽量涵盖各大聚类、减少信息冗余的原则下完成指数筛选。结果: 结合指数含义和类型,从24个初选指数中筛选出对色彩分类和观景距离敏感度较高、线性不相关、含义无重叠的7个指数,即斑块数量、最大斑块指数、平均斑块面积、斑块丰富度、平均最邻近距离、平均周长面积比和修正Simpson’s多样性指数,用于定量表征风景林色彩格局特征。结论: 人工干预下的自动化色彩分类程序,简化了从色彩分类到指数计算的操作步骤,缩短了数据预处理用时,提高了照片处理效率,增强了结果稳定性。基于敏感度排序的色彩格局指数筛选方法,结合独立性检验和含义重复性排查,减小了主观选定指数可能引起的误差,该方法选取的指数能够有效区分因色彩分类和观景距离不同导致的景观色彩格局的变化,为客观定量分析风景林景观视觉质量提供了可能。
中图分类号:
曹瑜娟,徐程扬,任雅雪,李夏榕. 基于敏感度排序的风景林色彩格局指数筛选[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(8): 1-12.
Yujuan Cao,Chengyang Xu,Yaxue Ren,Xiarong Li. Selection of Color Pattern Indices of Scenic Forest Based on Sensitivity Ranks[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57(8): 1-12.
表1
256种颜色的5种分类"
色号 Color No. | 30类分类号 Class No. of 30 classes | 25类 25 classes | 20类分类号 Class No. of 20 classes | 15类分类号 Class No. of 15 classes | 10类分类号 Class No. of 10 classes | |
分类号 Class No. | 分类名称 Class name | |||||
23, 247, 231 | 1 | 1 | 浅红色Light red | 1 | 1 | 1 |
11, 255, 15, 251 | 2 | 2 | 红色Red | |||
10, 254, 14, 253, 13 | 3 | 3 | 深红色Dark red | 2 | ||
27, 7, 30, 31 | 4 | 4 | 红橙色Reddish orange | 3 | ||
25, 29, 5, 9 | 5 | 5 | 红褐色Reddish brown | 4 | 2 | |
22, 246, 238, 234, 230, 250 | 6 | 6 | 紫红色Purplish red | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 7 | 深紫红色Dark purplish red | |||
43, 59, 39, 55, 63, 47 | 8 | 8 | 浅黄色Light yellow | 6 | 3 | 2 |
74, 79, 75, 71, 78 | 9 | 9 | 黄色Yellow | |||
58 | 10 | |||||
57 | 11 | 10 | 黄绿色Yellowish green | 7 | 4 | |
73, 77 | 12 | 11 | 深黄绿色Dark yellowish green | 8 | 5 | |
90, 91, 94, 95, 106, 107, 110, 111, 122, 123, 126, 127, 102 | 13 | 12 | 绿色Green | 9 | 6 | 3 |
86, 87, 103, 118, 119 | 14 | |||||
85, 101, 105, 117, 109, 93, 121, 125, 89 | 15 | |||||
54 | 16 | |||||
70 | 17 | 13 | 灰绿色Greyish green | 10 | 7 | |
69 | 18 | |||||
53 | 19 | 14 | 深灰绿色Dark greyish green | 11 | ||
150, 134, 137, 154 | 20 | 15 | 蓝绿色Bluish green | 12 | 8 | 4 |
166, 182, 167 | 21 | 16 | 蓝紫色Bluish violet | |||
38 | 22 | 17 | 浅棕色Light brown | 13 | 9 | 5 |
42, 46, 62 | 23 | 18 | 棕黄色Tan | 14 | 10 | |
26 | 24 | 19 | 茶色Tawney | 15 | 11 | 6 |
37, 21 | 25 | 20 | 褐色Brown | 16 | ||
41, 45, 61 | 26 | 21 | 深褐色Dark brown | |||
34, 50, 18, 33, 2, 66, 49, 17, 162, 65, 1, 146, 178, 226, 210, 242, 194, 81, 82, 130, 177, 98, 161, 163, 114, 225, 209, 35, 241, 97, 193, 19, 147, 3, 145, 129, 113, 179, 243, 227, 195, 211, 51, 67, 83, 99, 115, 131 | 27 | 22 | 灰色Gray | 17 | 12 | 7 |
68, 72, 52, 36, 84, 64, 56, 80, 96, 88, 40, 20, 32, 100, 48, 4, 112, 0, 116, 160, 16, 128, 144, 208, 24, 176, 76, 224, 132, 8, 12, 28, 44, 60, 92, 104, 108, 120, 124, 136, 140, 148, 152, 156, 164, 168, 172, 180, 184, 188, 192, 196, 200, 204, 212, 216, 220, 228, 232, 236, 240, 244, 248, 252, 133, 141, 165, 169, 173, 149, 153, 157 | 28 | 23 | 黑色Black | 18 | 13 | 8 |
155, 151, 159, 135 | 29 | 24 | 背景Background | 19 | 14 | 9 |
171, 158, 138, 139, 142, 143, 170, 174, 175, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 229, 233, 235, 237, 239, 245, 249 | 30 | 25 | 其他Other | 20 | 15 | 10 |
表2
初选的景观色彩格局指数"
指数 Index | 缩写 Abbreviation | 类型 Type | 指数 Index | 缩写 Abbreviation | 类型 Type | |
斑块数量① Number of patches | NP | 面积 Area | 景观形状指数① Landscape shape index | LSI | 形状 Shape | |
最大斑块指数① Largest patch index | LPI | 面积加权平均分维数① Area-weighted mean patch fractal dimension | FRAC_AM | |||
斑块面积方差② Patch size coefficient of variation | AREA_CV | 平均分维数① Mean patch fractal dimension | FRAC_MN | |||
平均斑块面积② Mean patch area | AREA_MN | 平均周长面积比② Mean perimeter/area ratio | PARA_MN | |||
斑块面积标准差② Patch size standard deviation | AREA_SD | 面积加权平均形状指数① Area-weighted mean shape index | SHAPE_AM | |||
总核心面积① Total core area | TCA | 平均形状指数① Mean shape index | SHAPE_MN | |||
平均核心面积① Mean core area per patch | CORE_MN | 总边缘长度① Total edge | TE | 边缘 Edge | ||
平均最邻近距离① Mean nearest neighbor distance | ENN_MN | 离散性 Isolation | 边缘密度① Edge density | ED | ||
蔓延度① Contagion index | CONTAG | 聚合性 Aggregation | 斑块丰富度① Patch richness | PR | 多样性 Diversity | |
斑块内聚力指数② Patch cohesion index | COHESION | Shannon’s均匀度指数① Shannon’s evenness index | SHEI | |||
聚合度② Aggregation index | AI | Shannon’s多样性指数① Shannon’s diversity index | SHDI | |||
散布与并列指数① Interspersion and juxtaposition index | IJI | 修正Simpson’s多样性指数① Modified Simpson’s diversity index | MSIDI |
图2
初选景观色彩格局指数的层次聚类树状图 AREA_MN: 平均斑块面积Mean patch area; CORE_MN: 平均核心面积Mean core area per patch; ENN_MN: 平均最邻近距离Mean nearest neighbor distance; PR: 斑块丰富度Patch richness; SHDI: Shannon’s多样性指数Shannon’s diversity index; SHEI: Shannon’s均匀度指数Shannon’s evenness index; MSIDI: 修正Simpson’s多样性指数Modified Simpson’s diversity index; NP: 斑块数量Number of patches; TE: 总边缘长度Total edge; LSI: 景观形状指数Landscape shape index; TCA: 总核心面积Total core area; AREA_CV: 斑块面积方差Patch size coefficient of variation; SHAPE_AM: 面积加权平均形状指数Area-weighted mean shape index; AREA_SD: 斑块面积标准差Patch size standard deviation; LPI: 最大斑块指数Largest patch index; CONTAG: 蔓延度Contagion index; AI: 聚合度Aggregation index; FRAC_AM: 面积加权平均分维数Area-weighted mean patch fractal dimension; COHESION: 斑块内聚力指数Patch cohesion index; FRAC_MN: 平均分维数Mean patch fractal dimension; SHAPE_MN: 平均形状指数Mean shape index; IJI: 散布与并列指数Interspersion and juxtaposition index; ED: 边缘密度Edge density; PARA_MN: 平均周长面积比Mean perimeter/area ratio. 下同The same below."
表3
初选景观色彩格局指数敏感度排序"
指数 Index | 色彩分类敏感度 Sensitivity to color classification | 观景距离敏感度 Sensitivity to viewing distance | 敏感度综合排序 Average of ranks | 最终排序 Final rank |
斑块数量Number of patches | 4.92 | 3.67 | 4.30 | 1 |
最大斑块指数Largest patch index | 6.22 | 5.08 | 5.65 | 2 |
总边缘长度Total edge | 9.50 | 1.83 | 5.67 | 3 |
斑块面积标准差Patch size standard deviation | 3.85 | 7.75 | 5.80 | 4 |
平均斑块面积Mean patch area | 4.42 | 8.42 | 6.42 | 5 |
平均核心面积Mean core area per patch | 5.42 | 9.42 | 7.42 | 6 |
平均周长面积比Mean perimeter/area ratio | 11.25 | 4.67 | 7.96 | 7 |
斑块丰富度Patch richness | 2.17 | 14.58 | 8.38 | 8 |
斑块面积方差Patch size coefficient of variation | 8.92 | 11.17 | 10.05 | 9 |
平均最邻近距离Mean nearest neighbor distance | 14.67 | 6.17 | 10.42 | 10 |
面积加权平均形状指数Area-weighted mean shape index | 8.42 | 12.83 | 10.63 | 11 |
边缘密度Edge density | 9.50 | 14.75 | 12.13 | 12 |
修正Simpson’s多样性指数Modified Simpson’s diversity index | 10.50 | 13.75 | 12.13 | 13 |
景观形状指数Landscape shape index | 16.25 | 8.00 | 12.13 | 14 |
Shannon’s多样性指数Shannon’s diversity index | 9.08 | 16.00 | 12.54 | 15 |
总核心面积Total core area | 24.00 | 1.25 | 12.63 | 16 |
Shannon’s均匀度指数Shannon’s evenness index | 15.33 | 17.00 | 16.17 | 17 |
蔓延度Contagion index | 15.75 | 17.33 | 16.54 | 18 |
散布与并列指数Interspersion and juxtaposition index | 15.67 | 19.08 | 17.38 | 19 |
聚合度Aggregation index | 17.20 | 17.67 | 17.44 | 20 |
平均形状指数Mean shape index | 21.33 | 20.83 | 21.08 | 21 |
面积加权平均分维数Area-weighted mean patch fractal dimension | 20.33 | 22.17 | 21.25 | 22 |
斑块内聚力指数Patch cohesion index | 20.42 | 23.42 | 21.92 | 23 |
平均分维数Mean patch fractal dimension | 22.75 | 23.17 | 22.96 | 24 |
表4
类Ⅰ指数间的Pearson相关系数①"
指数 Index | 平均斑块面积 Mean patch area | 平均核心面积 Mean core area per patch | 斑块丰富度 Patch richness | 平均最邻近距离 Mean nearest neighbor distance |
平均斑块面积Mean patch area | 1 | |||
平均核心面积Mean core area per patch | 1.000** | 1 | ||
斑块丰富度Patch richness | -0.463 | -0.463 | 1 | |
平均最邻近距离Mean nearest neighbor distance | 0.225 | 0.225 | 0.446 | 1 |
表7
类Ⅳ指数间的Pearson相关系数"
指数 Index | 最大斑块指数 Largest patch index | 斑块面积标准差 Patch size standard deviation | 斑块面积方差 Patch size coefficient of variation | 面积加权平均形状指数 Area-weighted mean shape index |
最大斑块指数Largest patch index | 1 | |||
斑块面积标准差Patch size standard deviation | 0.847** | 1 | ||
斑块面积方差Patch size coefficient of variation | 0.853** | 0.895** | 1 | |
面积加权平均形状指数Area-weighted mean shape index | 0.924** | 0.956** | 0.943** | 1 |
表9
景观色彩格局指数在验证组中的色彩分类敏感度(c值)和观景距离敏感度(d值)"
指数 Index | c | d | |||
最大值 Max. | 最小值 Min. | 最大值 Max. | 最小值 Min. | ||
斑块数量Number of patches | 0.72 | 0.41 | 0.79 | 0.72 | |
最大斑块指数Largest patch index | 0.75 | 0.42 | 0.77 | 0.44 | |
平均斑块面积Mean patch area | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.59 | 0.53 | |
斑块丰富度Patch richness | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.36 | 0.25 | |
平均最邻近距离Mean nearest neighbor distance | 0.71 | 0.17 | 0.74 | 0.66 | |
平均周长面积比Mean perimeter/area ratio | 0.71 | 0.22 | 0.76 | 0.71 | |
修正Simpson’s多样性指数Modified Simpson’s diversity index | 0.52 | 0.23 | 0.52 | 0.31 |
曹瑜娟, 徐程扬, 崔义, 等. 观景距离和光照条件对黄栌林景观色彩的影响. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39 (5): 22- 29, 48. | |
Cao Y J , Xu C Y , Cui Y , et al. Effects of viewing distance and light conditions on the color of Cotinus coggygria var. cinerea forest landscape. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2019, 39 (5): 22- 29, 48. | |
陈秀新, 贾克斌. 三维量化颜色直方图在彩色图像检索中的应用. 计算机应用与软件, 2012, 29 (9): 31- 32, 40.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-386x.2012.09.008 |
|
Chen X X , Jia K B . Application of three-dimensional quantised colour histogram in colour image retrieval. Computer Applications and Software, 2012, 29 (9): 31- 32, 40.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-386x.2012.09.008 |
|
冯湘兰. 2010. 景观格局指数相关性粒度效应研究. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学硕士学位论文. | |
Feng X L. 2010. The research on granularity effect of correlations among landscape pattern metrics. Changsha: MS thesis of Central South University of Forestry and Technology. [in Chinese] | |
龚建周, 夏北成. 景观格局指数间相关关系对植被覆盖度等级分类数的响应. 生态学报, 2007, 27 (10): 4075- 4085.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2007.10.015 |
|
Gong J Z , Xia B C . Response to classification numbers of vegetation types on correlative coefficients among landscape metrics. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27 (10): 4075- 4085.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2007.10.015 |
|
胡强, 侯营月, 白新祥. 山区高速公路景观林的营造模式研究——以黔西县境内高速公路为例. 山地农业生物学报, 2018, 37 (1): 56- 60. | |
Hu Q , Hou Y Y , Bai X X . Study on the model of landscape forest construction in mountainous highway: a case study of highway in Qianxi County. Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology, 2018, 37 (1): 56- 60. | |
冀亚丽. 2005. 基于内容的鲁棒的图像检索方法的研究与系统实现. 重庆: 西南师范大学硕士学位论文. | |
Ji Y L. 2005. Research and application about robust image retrieval approach based on content. Chongqing: MS thesis of Southwest China Normal University. [in Chinese] | |
李苹. 2018. 色彩斑块空间特性对黄栌林秋景美学质量的影响. 北京: 北京林业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Li P. 2018. The influence of patch space characteristics on the aesthetic quality of the autumn forest of Cotinus coggygria. Beijing: MS thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
刘畅. 2016. 游憩型城镇景观林质量评价研究. 北京: 北京林业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Liu C. 2016. Study on quality assessment of recreational landscape forest in urban and suburban area. Beijing: MS thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
毛斌. 2015. 北京中幼龄人工油松、侧柏风景林抚育技术研究. 北京: 北京林业大学博士学位论文. | |
Mao B. 2015. Studies on tending technique of young and half matured planted scenic forest of Pinus tabulaeformis and Platycladus orientalis in Beijing. Beijing: PhD thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
莫训强, 陈小奎, 李洪远. 北方城市早春野生花卉的色彩分析与应用. 中国园林, 2010, 26 (3): 69- 72. | |
Mo X Q , Chen X K , Li H Y . Color analysis and its application of the wild flowers in early spring in the northern cities of China. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2010, 26 (3): 69- 72. | |
邵娟. 2012. 南京市秋季植物色彩的定量研究与应用——以南京市老山国家森林公园植物色彩为例. 南京: 南京林业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Shao J. 2012. Autumn plant colour quantitative research and application: a case study of Nanjing Laoshan Park. Nanjing: MS thesis of Nanjing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
孙亚美. 2015. 北京地区常用秋色叶树种色彩量化与评价研究. 北京: 北京林业大学硕士学位论文. | |
Sun Y M. 2015. Color quantization and evaluation research on fall-color trees in Beijing. Beijing: MS thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
王艳霞, 叶江霞, 黄晓园, 等. 云南5个自然保护区生态系统构成及景观格局变化. 西南林业大学学报, 2016, 36 (3): 95- 104. | |
Wang Y X , Ye J X , Huang X Y , et al. Analysis on ecological system structure and landscape pattern changing of five types of nature reserves in Yunnan Province. Journal of Southwest Forestry University, 2016, 36 (3): 95- 104. | |
杨国靖, 肖笃宁. 中祁连山浅山区山地森林景观空间格局分析. 应用生态学报, 2004, 15 (2): 269- 272. | |
Yang G J , Xiao D N . Spatial pattern analysis of forest landscape in low coteau of Middle Qilian Mountains. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2004, 15 (2): 269- 272. | |
张国祥, 杨居荣. 综合指数评价法的指标重叠性与独立性研究. 农业环境保护, 1996, 15 (5): 213- 241.213-217, 240-241 | |
Zhang G X , Yang J R . Analysis of overlap and independence character of indexes in composite-index assessment method. Agro-Environmental Protection, 1996, 15 (5): 213- 241.213-217, 240-241 | |
章志都. 2010. 京郊低山风景游憩林质量评价及调控关键技术研究. 北京: 北京林业大学博士学位论文. | |
Zhang Z D. 2010. Quality assessing and key adjusting technologies for scenic-recreational forests in the lower mountains of suburbans in Beijing. Beijing: PhD thesis of Beijing Forestry University. [in Chinese] | |
Cain D H , Riitters K , Orvis K . A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecology, 1997, 12 (4): 199- 212. | |
DeClercq E M , Vandemoortele F , DeWulf R R . A method for the selection of relevant pattern indices for monitoring of spatial forest cover pattern at a regional scale. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2006, 8 (2): 113- 125. | |
McGarigal K , Tagil S , Cushman S A . Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 2009, 24 (1): 433- 450. | |
Patton D R . A diversity index for quantifying habitat "edge". Wildlife Society Bulletin, 1975, 3 (4): 171- 173. | |
Pielou E C . Ecological diversity. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1975. | |
Riitters K H , O'Neill R V , Hunsaker C T , et al. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology, 1995, 10 (1): 23- 39. | |
Romme W H . Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs, 1982, 52 (2): 199- 221. | |
Sausmarez D M . Basic design: the dynamics of visual form. Revised Edition New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc, 1983: 95- 111. | |
Sinha P , Kumar L , Reid N . Rank-based methods for selection of landscape metrics for land cover pattern change detection. Remote Sensing, 2016, 8 (2): 107. | |
Wang Z , Li M Y , Zhang X H , et al. Modeling the scenic beauty of autumnal tree color at the landscape scale: a case study of Purple Mountain, Nanjing, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2020, 47, 126526. |
[1] | 赵猛, 亢晶. 漆树科4种植物次生韧皮部的解剖比较[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(6): 167-175. |
[2] | 唐书培, 李春华, 刘威, 乌力吉, 鲍伟东. 内蒙古赛罕乌拉国家级自然保护区中华斑羚种群生存力分析[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(3): 118-124. |
[3] | 吴鞠, 陈瑜, 刘海轩, 许丽娟, 金桂香, 徐程扬. 林分密度及混交度对长白山天然风景林树木形态的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(12): 12-21. |
[4] | 李金航, 齐秀慧, 徐程扬, 王畅, 刘海轩, 孙鹏. 黄栌幼苗叶片气体交换对干旱胁迫的短期响应[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(1): 29-41. |
[5] | 蔡丽丽, 徐程扬. 遥感技术在风景林景观质量评价中的应用研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(9): 145-151. |
[6] | 毛斌, 徐程扬, 李乐, 陈瑜. 人工油松风景林的林木分级技术[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(10): 49-58. |
[7] | 周荣伍, 安玉涛, 马润国, 金莹杉, 王奇峰, 林大影, 王敏增, 李涛. 风景林概念及其研究现状[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(8): 117-125. |
[8] | 葛雨萱;王亮生;周肖红;甘长青. 香山黄栌叶色和色素组成的相互关系及时空变化[J]. 林业科学, 2011, 47(4): 38-42. |
[9] | 鲍绍文;陶万强;田呈明. 黄栌与大丽轮枝菌互作的组织病理学变化[J]. 林业科学, 2011, 47(2): 58-65. |
[10] | 周肖红 葛雨萱;王亮生 甘长青. 黄栌叶片变色期生理变化及植物生长调节剂对叶色的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 12(7): 59-62. |
[11] | 文益君 周根苗 张晓蕾 吕 勇. 基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 12(1): 1-7. |
[12] | 蒋有绪. 新世纪的城市林业方向——生态风景林兼论其在深圳市的示范意义[J]. 林业科学, 2001, 37(1): 138-140. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||