“Source–sink” landscape pattern analysis of nonpoint source pollution using remote sensing techniques
- 37 Downloads
Research on the “source–sink” landscape pattern of nonpoint source pollution is of great significance to natural resource management, environmental protection, water quality improvement, nonpoint source pollution prevention and control, and ecological security pattern construction. Remote sensing has proven by many scholars as a practical and effective technique to study landscape patterns and nonpoint source pollution. However, there are still many obstacles to the application of remote sensing technology, such as classification errors, scale effects and the issue, whereby landscape metrics cannot describe the landscape information comprehensively. In view of the characteristics of the macroscale and multi-scale of remote sensing, the analysis of landscape patterns is the basis for the study of the relationship research between patterns and ecological processes, and it is also the key to the study of landscape dynamics and functions. This paper attempts to summarize the representative results and the challenges of remote sensing in the study of the source and sink landscape of the nonpoint source pollution landscape and provide corresponding solutions as a reference for future research.
KeywordsLand use classification Multi-satellite Watersheds Ecological process Water quality
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. The study is funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61473286) and the National Science & Technology Program of China (grant No. 2017YFB0504201).
XZ, YL and WW are the directors of the corresponding contents.
Compliance with ethical standard
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
- Duan HP, Liu DJ, Yang GH, Dong YW (2009) The calculation method of agricultural non-point source pollution source strength based on inventory analysis. Environ Sci Manag 34(12):58–61Google Scholar
- Durand P, Luan J, Ghorbanzadeh D (2014) Geometric correction of airborne radar SAR image on a digital terrain model, and overlay with satellite SPOT data. Lect Notes Eng Comput 2211(1):572–576Google Scholar
- Halal F, Pedrocca P, Hirose T, Am Cretu, Zaremba MB (2014) Remote-sensing based adaptive path planning for an aquatic platform to monitor water quality. IEEE Int Symp Rose 2014:43–48Google Scholar
- Jaafari S, Sakieh Y, Shabani AA, Danehkar A, Nazarisamani AA (2016) Landscape change assessment of reservation areas using remote sensing and landscape metrics (case study, Jajroud reservation, Iran). Environ Dev Sustain 17(5):1–17Google Scholar
- Qiu Z, Walter MT, Hall C (2008) Managing variable source pollution in agricultural watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 62(3):115–122Google Scholar
- Rostom NG, Shalaby AA, Issa YM, Afifi AA (2016) Evaluation of Mariut Lake water quality using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing and laboratory works. EJRS 20:39–48Google Scholar
- Sandstrom A, Philipson P, Asp A, Axenrot T, Kinnerback A, Ragnarsson-Stabo H, Holmgren K (2016) Assessing the potential of remote sensing-derived water quality data to explain variations in fish assemblages and to support fish status assessments in large lakes. Hydrobiologia 780(1):71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yokoya N, Nakazawa S, Matsuki T, Iwasaki A (2014) Fusion of hyperspectral and LiDAR data for landscape visual quality assessment. IEEE J Stars 7(6):2419–2425Google Scholar
- Zhang X, Zhu CM, Luo JC, Li WQ, Yang JW (2013b) A method for water body adaptive extraction from remote sensing imagery based on local end member spectral characterization. Spectrosc Spectr Anal 33(6):1670–1677Google Scholar
- Zhang X, Cheng X, Li WQ, Luo L (2014) Remote sensing parsing on non-point pollution landscape source and assembly pattern in river basin. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 30(2):191–197Google Scholar
- Zhang X, Cheng X, Li WQ, Lu M, Lin C (2015) Study on remote sensing information extraction and scale dependence of river basin impervious surface. J Nat Disaster 24(1):61–65Google Scholar