资源科学 ›› 2016, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (6): 1028-1038.doi: 10.18402/resci.2016.06.03
高吉喜1(), 宋婷2, 张彪3(
), 韩永伟2, 高馨婷2, 冯朝阳2
收稿日期:
2015-04-20
修回日期:
2016-05-09
出版日期:
2016-06-20
发布日期:
2016-06-18
作者简介:
作者简介:高吉喜,男,内蒙古呼和浩特人,博士,研究员,主要从事区域生态学与生态红线研究。E-mail:
基金资助:
GAO Jixi1(), SONG Ting2, ZHANG Biao3(
), HAN Yongwei2, GAO Xinting2, FENG Chaoyang2
Received:
2015-04-20
Revised:
2016-05-09
Online:
2016-06-20
Published:
2016-06-18
摘要:
清晰揭示城市绿地的空间布局与景观结构特征对其生态服务功能的影响对指导城市规划设计具有重要参考价值。目前国内外已有较多城市绿地降温增湿及其影响因素的实证研究,但是定量解析绿地群落结构与降温增湿功能关系的研究并不多见。本文基于北京市24个典型绿地群落夏季降温增湿效果的实测,重点解析了绿地郁闭度和绿量对降温增湿功能的影响,并提出了绿地结构优化配置的最优阈值。研究结果表明:北京城市绿地夏季日均降温幅度0.2~2.0℃,日均增湿幅度0.20%~8.26%;不同群落结构绿地降温效果上,乔灌草型>乔草或乔木型>灌草型>草地型;在绿地增湿效果上,乔木型>乔灌草>乔草型>灌草型>草地型;郁闭度和绿量对绿地降温增湿功能均有明显影响,但郁闭度影响更大,冠层郁闭度介于0.60~0.85、三维绿量密度≥5m3/ m2的乔灌草或乔草型绿地具有最大降温增湿功能。
高吉喜, 宋婷, 张彪, 韩永伟, 高馨婷, 冯朝阳. 北京城市绿地群落结构对降温增湿功能的影响[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(6): 1028-1038.
GAO Jixi,SONG Ting,ZHANG Biao,HAN Yongwei,GAO Xinting,FENG Chaoyang. The relationship between urban green space community structure and air temperature reduction and humidity increase in Beijing[J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(6): 1028-1038.
表1
北京城市绿地观测样地基本情况"
样地名称 | 绿地类型 | 群落结构 | 优势物种 | 郁闭度 | 绿量密度 /(m3/m2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
东风公园 | 公园绿地 | 草地型 | 土麦冬(Liriopespicata (Thunb.)Lour.);草甸羊茅(FestucapratensisHuds.) | 0 | 0.39 |
乔草型 | 构树(Broussonetiapapyrifera(Linn.)L'Hér. ex Vent.);土麦冬(Liriopespicata (Thunb.))Lour.);草甸羊茅(FestucapratensisHuds.) | 0.78 | 4.33 | ||
乔灌草 | 毛白杨(Populustomentosa Carr.);金银木(LoniceramaackiiRupr.Maxim.);草甸羊茅(FestucapratensisHuds.) | 0.67 | 9.20 | ||
杜仲公园 | 公园绿地 | 乔草型 | 杜仲(EucommiaulmoidesOliver);鸢尾(Iris tectorum Maxim.) | 0.80 | 3.92 |
乔灌草 | 杜仲(EucommiaulmoidesOliver);牡丹(PaeoniasuffruticosaAndr.);芍药(PaeonialactifloraPall.);鸢尾(FestucapratensisHuds.) | 0.76 | 3.27 | ||
灌草型 | 丁香(Syzygiumaromaticum(L.)Merr.Et Perry);田璇花(Convolvulus arvensisL.);朝天委陵菜(PotentillasupinaL) | 0.10 | 0.50 | ||
金田公园 | 公园绿地 | 草地型 | 沙地柏(Sabina vulgaris Ant.);狗尾草(Setariaviridis(Linn.)Beauv.);灰菜(Chenopodium album Linn.) | 0 | 0.56 |
灌草型 | 丁香(Syzygiumaromaticum(L.)Merr.Et Perry);狗尾草(Setariaviridis(Linn.)Beauv.) | 0.38 | 2.35 | ||
乔草型 | 枣树(Ziziphusjujuba Mill.);灰菜(Setariaviridis(Linn.)Beauv.);打碗花(CalystegiahederaceaWall.) | 0.79 | 5.10 | ||
乔草型 | 白扦(PiceameyeriRehd. et Wils.);圆柏(Sabina chinensis(Linn.)Ant.);白车轴草(TrifoliumrepensLinn.);紫花地丁(Viola philippicaCav.);狗尾草(Setariaviridis(Linn.)Beauv.) | 0.30 | 0.71 | ||
乔草型 | 银杏(Ginkgo biloba Linn.);狗尾草(Setariaviridis(Linn.)Beauv.) | 0.35 | 2.20 | ||
乔灌草 | 新疆杨(Populus alba Linn. var. pyramdalis Bunge);红瑞木(Swida alba Opiz);草地早熟禾(PoapratensisLinn.) | 0.74 | 8.20 | ||
北五环片林 | 防护绿地 | 乔草型 | 毛白杨(PopulustomentosaCarr.);葎草(Humulusscandens (Lour.)Merr.);灰菜(Chenopodium album Linn.) | 0.62 | 9.08 |
七棵树片林 | 防护绿地 | 乔灌草 | 洋槐(Robiniapseudoacacia L.);旱柳(Salix matsudanaKoidz.);臭椿(Ailanthus altissima (Mill.)Swingle);金银木(LoniceramaackiiRupr.Maxim.);草甸羊茅(FestucapratensisHuds.) | 0.52 | 4.02 |
乔木型 | 油松(PinustabulaeformisCarr.);旱柳(PinustabulaeformisCarr.) | 0.42 | 3.02 | ||
乔木型 | 油松(PinustabulaeformisCarr.);龙爪槐(Sophora japonica Linn. var. japonica f. pendula Hort.) | 0.40 | 0.62 | ||
西坝河片林 | 防护绿地 | 乔木型 | 洋槐(Robiniapseudoacacia L.) | 0.68 | 2.29 |
乔木型 | 毛白杨(PopulustomentosaCarr.) | 0.55 | 2.80 | ||
小井村片林 | 防护绿地 | 乔木型 | 白腊(FraxinuschinensisRoxb.);旱柳(Salix matsudanaKoidz.) | 0.92 | 13.49 |
乔木型 | 旱柳(Salix matsudanaKoidz.) | 0.63 | 5.16 | ||
乔木型 | 毛白杨(PopulustomentosaCarr.) | 0.65 | 8.00 | ||
中国环科院内 | 附属绿地 | 草地型 | 土麦冬(PopulustomentosaCarr.);草甸羊茅(PopulustomentosaCarr.) | 0 | 0.41 |
乔草型 | 梨树(pirus,i,f.);草地早熟禾(PoapratensisLinn.) | 0.65 | 1.50 | ||
乔草型 | 梨树(pirus,i,f.);草地早熟禾(PoapratensisLinn.) | 0.70 | 3.20 |
表4
不同等级郁闭度的北京城市绿地降温率多重比较"
郁闭度 级别 | 均差 | 显著性 水平P值 | 95%的置信区间 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | 0.329 17 | 0.577 | -0.892 8 | 1.551 2 |
Ⅲ | -0.048 33 | 0.945 | -1.508 9 | 1.412 2 | |
Ⅳ | -1.568 33* | 0.037 | -3.028 9 | -0.107 8 | |
Ⅴ | -2.941 67* | 0.000 | -4.073 0 | -1.810 3 | |
Ⅵ | -2.795 33* | 0.000 | -3.963 8 | -1.626 9 | |
Ⅶ | -4.563 33* | 0.000 | -6.023 9 | -3.102 8 | |
Ⅱ | Ⅰ | -0.329 17 | 0.577 | -1.551 2 | 0.892 8 |
Ⅲ | -0.377 50 | 0.573 | -1.763 1 | 1.008 1 | |
Ⅳ | -1.897 50* | 0.010 | -3.283 1 | -0.511 9 | |
Ⅴ | -3.270 83* | 0.000 | -4.303 6 | -2.238 1 | |
Ⅵ | -3.124 50* | 0.000 | -4.197 8 | -2.051 2 | |
Ⅶ | -4.892 50* | 0.000 | -6.278 1 | -3.506 9 | |
Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 0.048 33 | 0.945 | -1.412 2 | 1.508 9 |
Ⅱ | 0.377 50 | 0.573 | -1.008 1 | 1.763 1 | |
Ⅳ | -1.520 00 | 0.061 | -3.120 0 | 0.080 0 | |
Ⅴ | -2.893 33* | 0.000 | -4.199 7 | -1.587 0 | |
Ⅵ | -2.747 00* | 0.000 | -4.085 6 | -1.408 4 | |
Ⅶ | -4.515 00* | 0.000 | -6.115 0 | -2.915 0 | |
Ⅳ | Ⅰ | 1.568 33* | 0.037 | 0.107 8 | 3.028 9 |
Ⅱ | 1.897 50* | 0.010 | 0.511 9 | 3.283 1 | |
Ⅲ | 1.520 00 | 0.061 | -0.080 0 | 3.120 0 | |
Ⅴ | -1.373 33* | 0.040 | -2.679 7 | -0.067 0 | |
Ⅵ | -1.227 00 | 0.070 | -2.565 6 | 0.111 6 | |
Ⅶ | -2.995 00* | 0.001 | -4.595 0 | -1.395 0 | |
Ⅴ | Ⅰ | 2.941 67* | 0.000 | 1.810 3 | 4.073 0 |
Ⅱ | 3.270 83* | 0.000 | 2.238 1 | 4.303 6 | |
Ⅲ | 2.893 33* | 0.000 | 1.587 0 | 4.199 7 | |
Ⅳ | 1.373 33* | 0.040 | 0.067 0 | 2.679 7 | |
Ⅵ | 0.146 33 | 0.754 | -0.822 5 | 1.115 2 | |
Ⅶ | -1.621 67* | 0.018 | -2.928 0 | -0.315 3 | |
Ⅵ | Ⅰ | 2.795 33* | 0.000 | 1.626 9 | 3.963 8 |
Ⅱ | 3.124 50* | 0.000 | 2.051 2 | 4.197 8 | |
Ⅲ | 2.747 00* | 0.000 | 1.408 4 | 4.085 6 | |
Ⅳ | 1.227 00 | 0.070 | -0.111 6 | 2.565 6 | |
Ⅴ | -0.146 33 | 0.754 | -1.115 2 | 0.822 5 | |
Ⅶ | -1.768 00* | 0.013 | -3.106 6 | -0.429 4 | |
Ⅶ | Ⅰ | 4.563 33* | 0.000 | 3.102 8 | 6.023 9 |
Ⅱ | 4.892 50* | 0.000 | 3.506 9 | 6.278 1 | |
Ⅲ | 4.515 00* | 0.000 | 2.915 0 | 6.115 0 | |
Ⅳ | 2.995 00* | 0.001 | 1.395 0 | 4.595 0 | |
Ⅴ | 1.621 67* | 0.018 | 0.315 3 | 2.928 0 | |
Ⅵ | 1.768 00* | 0.013 | 0.429 4 | 3.106 6 |
表6
不同等级郁闭度的北京城市绿地的增湿率多重比较"
郁闭度级别 | 均差 | 显著性 水平P值 | 95%的置信区间 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | -1.209 62 | 0.573 | -5.654 7 | 3.235 5 |
Ⅲ | -0.272 92 | 0.915 | -5.585 9 | 5.040 0 | |
Ⅳ | -1.664 40 | 0.518 | -6.977 3 | 3.648 5 | |
Ⅴ | -4.285 09* | 0.042 | -8.400 5 | -0.169 7 | |
Ⅵ | -6.143 93* | 0.007 | -10.394 3 | -1.893 6 | |
Ⅶ | -7.991 06* | 0.006 | -13.304 0 | -2.678 1 | |
Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 1.209 62 | 0.573 | -3.235 5 | 5.654 7 |
Ⅲ | 0.936 70 | 0.700 | -4.103 6 | 5.977 0 | |
Ⅳ | -0.454 78 | 0.851 | -5.495 1 | 4.585 5 | |
Ⅴ | -3.075 47 | 0.102 | -6.832 3 | 0.681 3 | |
Ⅵ | -4.934 31* | 0.016 | -8.838 5 | -1.030 1 | |
Ⅶ | -6.781 43* | 0.011 | -11.821 7 | -1.741 1 | |
Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 0.272 92 | 0.915 | -5.040 0 | 5.585 9 |
Ⅱ | -0.936 70 | 0.700 | -5.977 0 | 4.103 6 | |
Ⅳ | -1.391 48 | 0.620 | -7.211 5 | 4.428 6 | |
Ⅴ | -4.012 17 | 0.093 | -8.764 2 | 0.739 9 | |
Ⅵ | -5.871 01* | 0.021 | -10.740 4 | -1.001 6 | |
Ⅶ | -7.718 13* | 0.012 | -13.538 2 | -1.898 1 | |
Ⅳ | Ⅰ | 1.664 40 | 0.518 | -3.648 5 | 6.977 3 |
Ⅱ | 0.454 78 | 0.851 | -4.585 5 | 5.495 1 | |
Ⅲ | 1.391 48 | 0.620 | -4.428 6 | 7.211 5 | |
Ⅴ | -2.620 69 | 0.261 | -7.372 7 | 2.131 3 | |
Ⅵ | -4.479 53 | 0.069 | -9.348 9 | 0.389 9 | |
Ⅶ | -6.326 66* | 0.035 | -12.146 7 | -0.506 6 | |
Ⅴ | Ⅰ | 4.285 09* | 0.042 | 0.169 7 | 8.400 5 |
Ⅱ | 3.075 47 | 0.102 | -0.681 3 | 6.832 3 | |
Ⅲ | 4.012 17 | 0.093 | -0.739 9 | 8.764 2 | |
Ⅳ | 2.620 69 | 0.261 | -2.131 3 | 7.372 7 | |
Ⅵ | -1.858 83 | 0.281 | -5.383 0 | 1.665 4 | |
Ⅶ | -3.705 96 | 0.118 | -8.458 0 | 1.046 1 | |
Ⅵ | Ⅰ | 6.143 93* | 0.007 | 1.893 6 | 10.394 3 |
Ⅱ | 4.934 31* | 0.016 | 1.030 1 | 8.838 5 | |
Ⅲ | 5.871 01* | 0.021 | 1.001 6 | 10.740 4 | |
Ⅳ | 4.479 53 | 0.069 | -0.389 9 | 9.348 9 | |
Ⅴ | 1.858 83 | 0.281 | -1.665 4 | 5.383 0 | |
Ⅶ | -1.847 13 | 0.435 | -6.716 5 | 3.022 3 | |
Ⅶ | Ⅰ | 7.991 06* | 0.006 | 2.678 1 | 13.304 0 |
Ⅱ | 6.781 43* | 0.011 | 1.741 1 | 11.821 7 | |
Ⅲ | 7.718 13* | 0.012 | 1.898 1 | 13.538 2 | |
Ⅳ | 6.326 66* | 0.035 | 0.506 6 | 12.146 7 | |
Ⅴ | 3.705 96 | 0.118 | -1.046 1 | 8.458 0 | |
Ⅵ | 1.847 13 | 0.435 | -3.022 3 | 6.716 5 |
表8
不同等级三维绿量密度的降温率多重比较"
绿量密度 级别 | 均差 | 显著性 水平P值 | 95%的置信区间 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | -0.855 33 | 0.358 | -2.764 2 | 1.053 6 |
Ⅲ | -1.206 67 | 0.249 | -3.340 9 | 0.927 5 | |
Ⅳ | -2.290 00* | 0.018 | -4.138 3 | -0.441 7 | |
Ⅴ | -2.653 33* | 0.031 | -5.039 4 | -0.267 2 | |
Ⅵ | -3.598 33* | 0.005 | -5.984 4 | -1.212 2 | |
Ⅶ | -3.703 33* | 0.002 | -5.837 5 | -1.569 1 | |
Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 0.855 33 | 0.358 | -1.053 6 | 2.764 2 |
Ⅲ | -0.351 33 | 0.703 | -2.260 2 | 1.557 6 | |
Ⅳ | -1.434 67 | 0.073 | -3.017 4 | 0.148 1 | |
Ⅴ | -1.798 00 | 0.101 | -3.984 9 | 0.388 9 | |
Ⅵ | -2.743 00* | 0.017 | -4.929 9 | -0.556 1 | |
Ⅶ | -2.848 00* | 0.006 | -4.756 9 | -0.939 1 | |
Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 1.206 67 | 0.249 | -0.927 5 | 3.340 9 |
Ⅱ | 0.351 33 | 0.703 | -1.557 6 | 2.260 2 | |
Ⅳ | -1.083 33 | 0.233 | -2.931 6 | 0.764 9 | |
Ⅴ | -1.446 67 | 0.218 | -3.832 8 | 0.939 4 | |
Ⅵ | -2.391 67* | 0.050 | -4.777 8 | -0.005 6 | |
Ⅶ | -2.496 67* | 0.024 | -4.630 9 | -0.362 5 | |
Ⅳ | Ⅰ | 2.290 00* | 0.018 | 0.441 7 | 4.138 3 |
Ⅱ | 1.434 67 | 0.073 | -0.148 1 | 3.017 4 | |
Ⅲ | 1.083 33 | 0.233 | -0.764 9 | 2.931 6 | |
Ⅴ | -0.363 33 | 0.724 | -2.497 5 | 1.770 9 | |
Ⅵ | -1.308 33 | 0.213 | -3.442 5 | 0.825 9 | |
Ⅶ | -1.413 33 | 0.125 | -3.261 6 | 0.434 9 | |
Ⅴ | Ⅰ | 2.653 33* | 0.031 | 0.267 2 | 5.039 4 |
Ⅱ | 1.798 00 | 0.101 | -0.388 9 | 3.984 9 | |
Ⅲ | 1.446 67 | 0.218 | -0.939 4 | 3.832 8 | |
Ⅳ | 0.363 33 | 0.724 | -1.770 9 | 2.497 5 | |
Ⅵ | -0.945 00 | 0.456 | -3.558 9 | 1.668 9 | |
Ⅶ | -1.050 00 | 0.366 | -3.436 1 | 1.336 1 | |
Ⅵ | Ⅰ | 3.598 33* | 0.005 | 1.212 2 | 5.984 4 |
Ⅱ | 2.743 00* | 0.017 | 0.556 1 | 4.929 9 | |
Ⅲ | 2.391 67* | 0.050 | 0.005 6 | 4.777 8 | |
Ⅳ | 1.308 33 | 0.213 | -0.825 9 | 3.442 5 | |
Ⅴ | 0.945 00 | 0.456 | -1.668 9 | 3.558 9 | |
Ⅶ | -0.105 00 | 0.927 | -2.491 1 | 2.281 1 | |
Ⅶ | Ⅰ | 3.703 33* | 0.002 | 1.569 1 | 5.837 5 |
Ⅱ | 2.848 00* | 0.006 | 0.939 1 | 4.756 9 | |
Ⅲ | 2.496 67* | 0.024 | 0.362 5 | 4.630 9 | |
Ⅳ | 1.413 33 | 0.125 | -0.434 9 | 3.261 6 | |
Ⅴ | 1.050 00 | 0.366 | -1.336 1 | 3.436 1 | |
Ⅵ | 0.105 00 | 0.927 | -2.281 1 | 2.491 1 |
表10
北京城市绿地不同等级三维绿量密度的增湿率多重比较"
绿量密度级别 | 均差 | 显著性 水平P值 | 95%的置信区间 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | -0.845 92 | 0.663 | -4.866 4 | 3.174 5 |
Ⅲ | -1.735 19 | 0.427 | -6.230 2 | 2.759 8 | |
Ⅳ | -3.546 43 | 0.072 | -7.439 2 | 0.346 3 | |
Ⅴ | -7.658 10* | 0.005 | -12.683 6 | -2.632 6 | |
Ⅵ | -6.864 89* | 0.010 | -11.890 4 | -1.839 3 | |
Ⅶ | -7.121 90* | 0.004 | -11.616 9 | -2.626 9 | |
Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 0.845 92 | 0.663 | -3.174 5 | 4.866 4 |
Ⅲ | -0.889 28 | 0.647 | -4.909 7 | 3.131 2 | |
Ⅳ | -2.700 51 | 0.106 | -6.034 1 | 0.633 1 | |
Ⅴ | -6.812 19* | 0.006 | -11.418 2 | -2.206 2 | |
Ⅵ | -6.018 97* | 0.013 | -10.625 0 | -1.413 0 | |
Ⅶ | -6.275 98* | 0.004 | -10.296 4 | -2.255 5 | |
Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 1.735 19 | 0.427 | -2.759 8 | 6.230 2 |
Ⅱ | 0.889 28 | 0.647 | -3.131 2 | 4.909 7 | |
Ⅳ | -1.811 23 | 0.340 | -5.704 0 | 2.081 5 | |
Ⅴ | -5.922 91* | 0.024 | -10.948 5 | -0.897 4 | |
Ⅵ | -5.129 70* | 0.046 | -10.155 2 | -0.104 2 | |
Ⅶ | -5.386 70* | 0.022 | -9.881 7 | -0.891 7 | |
Ⅳ | Ⅰ | 3.546 43 | 0.072 | -0.346 3 | 7.439 2 |
Ⅱ | 2.700 51 | 0.106 | -0.633 1 | 6.034 1 | |
Ⅲ | 1.811 23 | 0.340 | -2.081 5 | 5.704 0 | |
Ⅴ | -4.111 68 | 0.070 | -8.606 7 | 0.383 3 | |
Ⅵ | -3.318 46 | 0.138 | -7.813 4 | 1.176 5 | |
Ⅶ | -3.575 47 | 0.069 | -7.468 2 | 0.317 3 | |
Ⅴ | Ⅰ | 7.658 10* | 0.005 | 2.632 6 | 12.683 6 |
Ⅱ | 6.812 19* | 0.006 | 2.206 2 | 11.418 2 | |
Ⅲ | 5.922 91* | 0.024 | 0.897 4 | 10.948 5 | |
Ⅳ | 4.111 68 | 0.070 | -0.383 3 | 8.606 7 | |
Ⅵ | 0.793 21 | 0.765 | -4.712 0 | 6.298 4 | |
Ⅶ | 0.536 21 | 0.825 | -4.489 3 | 5.561 8 | |
Ⅵ | Ⅰ | 6.864 89* | 0.010 | 1.839 3 | 11.890 4 |
Ⅱ | 6.018 97* | 0.013 | 1.413 0 | 10.625 0 | |
Ⅲ | 5.129 70* | 0.046 | 0.104 2 | 10.155 2 | |
Ⅳ | 3.318 46 | 0.138 | -1.176 5 | 7.813 4 | |
Ⅴ | -0.793 21 | 0.765 | -6.298 4 | 4.712 0 | |
Ⅶ | -0.257 01 | 0.915 | -5.282 5 | 4.768 5 | |
Ⅶ | Ⅰ | 7.121 90* | 0.004 | 2.626 9 | 11.616 9 |
Ⅱ | 6.275 98* | 0.004 | 2.255 5 | 10.296 4 | |
Ⅲ | 5.386 70* | 0.022 | 0.891 7 | 9.881 7 | |
Ⅳ | 3.575 47 | 0.069 | -0.317 3 | 7.468 2 | |
Ⅴ | -0.536 21 | 0.825 | -5.561 8 | 4.489 3 | |
Ⅵ | 0.257 01 | 0.915 | -4.768 5 | 5.282 5 |
[1] | 中国人民共和国建设部. CJJ/T85-2002城市绿地分类标准 [S]. 北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2002. |
[Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China. CJJ/T85-2002 Standard for Classification of Urban Green Space[S]. Beijing:China Building Industry Press,2002.] | |
[2] | 张彪,高吉喜,谢高地,等. 北京城市绿地的蒸腾降温功能及其经济价值评估[J]. 生态学报,2012,32(24):7698-7705. |
[Zhang B,Gao J X,Xie G D,et al.Preliminary evaluation of air temper-ature reduction of urban green spaces in Beijing[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2012,32(24):7698-7705.] | |
[3] | Zhang B,Xie GD,Gao GX,et al.The cooling effect of urban green spaces as a contribution to energy-saving and emission-reduction:A case study in Beijing,China[J]. Building and En-vironment,2014,76:37-43. |
[4] | Jim CY,Chen WY.Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollu-tant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China)[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2008,88(4):665-676. |
[5] | 陈龙,谢高地,盖力强,等. 道路绿地消减噪声服务功能研究-以北京市为例[J]. 自然资源学报,2011,26(9):1526-1534. |
[Chen L,Xie G D,Gei L Q,et al.Research on noise reduction service of road green spaces-a case study of Beijing[J]. Journal of Natural Resources,2011,26(9):1526-1534.] | |
[6] | 张彪,谢高地,薛康,等. 北京城市绿地调蓄雨水径流功能及其价值评估[J]. 生态学报,2011,31(13):3839-3845. |
[Zhang B,Xie G D,Xue K,et al.Evaluation of rainwater runoff storage by urban green spaces in Beijing[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2011,31(13):3839-3845.] | |
[7] | Zhang B,Xie G D,Zhang C Q,et al.The economic benefits of rainwater runoff reduction by urban green spaces:A case study in Beijing,China[J]. Journal of Environment Management,2012,100(10):65-71. |
[8] | 夏宾,张彪,谢高地,等. 北京建城区公园绿地的房产增值效应评估[J]. 资源科学,2012,34(7):1347-1353. |
[Xia B,Zhang B,Xie G D,et al.The value-added effect of park green spaceon residential property in Beijing[J]. Resources Science,2012,34(7):1347-1353.] | |
[9] | 张灿强,张彪,李文华,等. 北京城区绿地防灾避险功能评估[J]. 地理研究,2012,31(12):2301-2309. |
[Zhang C Q,Zhang B,Li W H,et al.Analysis of the disaster prevention and reduction functions of urban green spaces in Beijing City[J]. Geographical Research,2012,31(12):2301-2309.] | |
[10] | Zhang B. The Climate Change,Water Crisis and Forest Ecosystem Services in Beijing,China[A]. Blanco J A,Kheradmand H. Climate Change-Socioeconomic Effects[M]. Rijeka:InTech,2011. |
[11] | Kuang WH,Liu Y,Dou Y,et al.What are hot and what are not in an urban landscape:Quantifying and explaining the land surface temperature pattern in Beijing,China[J]. Landscape Ecology,2014,30(2):1-17. |
[12] | Huang G,Zhou W,Cadenasso ML.Is everyone hot in the city? Spatial pattern of land surface temperatures,land cover and neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics in Baltimore,MD[J]. J Environ Manage,2011,92(7):1753-1759. |
[13] | Zoulia I,Santamouris M,Dimoudi A.Monitoring the effect of ur-ban green areas on the heat island in Athens[J]. Environmental Mo -nitoring and Assessment,2009,156(1-4):275-292. |
[14] | Shashua-BarL,Potchter O,Bitan A,et al. Microclimate modelling of street tree species effects within the varied urban morphology in the Mediterranean city of Tel Aviv,Israel[J]. International Journal of Climatology,2010,30(1):44-57. |
[15] | Oliveira S,Andrade H,Vaz T.The cooling effect of green spaces as a contribution to the mitigation of urban heat:A case study in Lisbon[J]. Buildingand Environment,2011,46(11):2186-2194. |
[16] | 李辉,赵卫智,古润泽,等. 居住区不同类型绿地释氧固碳及降温增湿作用[J]. 环境科学,1999,20(11):41-44. |
[Li H,Zhao W Z,Gu R Z,et al.Effects of three different green-lands in plantation structureon the O2-emitting,CO2-fixing,heat-absorbing and temperature-decreasing in residential quarters[J]. Environmental Science,1999,20(11):41-44.] | |
[17] | 吴菲,李树华,刘剑. 不同绿量的园林绿地对温湿度变化影响的研究[J]. 风景园林调查与研究,2006,22(7):56-60. |
[Wu F,Li S H,Liu J.Effects of urban green space with different vege-tation quantity on temperature and humidity[J]. LA Investigation and Research,2006,22(7):56-60.] | |
[18] | 马秀梅,李吉跃. 不同绿地类型对城市小气候的影响[J]. 河北林果研究,2007,22(2):210-226. |
[Ma X M, Li J Y.Influences of different green lands on urban microclimate[J]. Hebei Journal of Forestry and Orchard Research,2007,22(2):210-226.] | |
[19] | 刘娇妹,李树华,杨志峰. 北京公园绿地夏季温湿效应[J]. 生态学杂志,2008,27(11):1972-1978. |
[Liu J M,Li S H,Yang Z F.Temperature and humidity effect of urban green spaces in Beijing in summer[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology,2008,27(11):1972-1978.] | |
[20] | 张明丽,秦俊,胡永红. 上海市植物群落降温增湿效果的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报,2008,30(2):39-43. |
[Zhang M L,Qin J,Hu Y H.Effects of temperature reduction and humidity increase ofplant communities in Shanghai[J]. Journal ofBeijing Forestry University,2008,30(2):39-43.] | |
[21] | 杨萍,刘伟东,侯威. 北京地区极端温度事件的变化趋势和年代际演变特征[J]. 灾害学,2011,26(1):60-64. |
[Yang P,Liu W D,Hou W.The trend and inter-decadal evolution of extreme temperature events in Beijing area[J]. Journal of Catastrophology,2011,26(1):60-64.] | |
[22] | 张彪,高吉喜,谢高地,等. 北京城市绿地的蒸腾降温功能及其经济价值评估[J]. 生态学报,2012,32(24):7698-7705. |
[Zhang B,Gao J X,Xie G D,et al.Preliminary evaluation of air temperature reduction of urban green spaces in Beijing[J]. ActaEcologicaSinica,2012,32(24):7698-7705.] | |
[23] | Pu R,Yu Q,Gong P,et al.EO-1 Hyperion,ALI and Landsat7 ETM+ data comparison for estimating forest crown closure and leaf area index[J]. International Journal of Remote Sensing,2005,26(3):457-474. |
[24] | 周廷刚,罗红霞,郭达志. 基于遥感影像的城市空间三维绿量(绿化三维量)定量研究[J]. 生态学报,2005,25(3):415-420. |
[Zhou T G,Luo H X,Guo D Z.Remote sensing image-based quantitative study on urban spatial 3D GreenQuantity Virescence three-dimension quantity[J]. Acta Ecological Sinica,2005,25(3):415-420.] | |
[25] | 朱春阳,李树华,纪鹏,等. 城市带状绿地宽度与温湿效益的关系[J]. 生态学报,2011,31(2):383-394. |
[Zhu C Y,Li S H,Ji P,et al.Effects of the different width of urban green belts on the temperature and humidity[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2011,31(2):383-394.] |
[1] | 史芸婷,张彪,高吉喜,佟跃,邵珊珊. 基于城市热岛格局的绿地冷岛需求评估——以北京市朝阳区为例[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(8): 1541-1550. |
[2] | 张诩, 乔娟, 沈鑫琪. 养殖废弃物治理经济绩效及其影响因素——基于北京市养殖场(户)视角[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(7): 1250-1261. |
[3] | 吕宁, 吴新芳, 韩霄, 赵亚茹. 游客与居民休闲满意度指数测评与比较——以北京市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(5): 967-979. |
[4] | 葛畅, 刘慧琳, 聂超甲, 沈强, 张世文. 土壤肥力及其影响因素的尺度效应——以北京市平谷区为例[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(4): 753-765. |
[5] | 庞璇, 张永勇, 潘兴瑶, 杨默远. 城市雨洪模拟与年径流总量控制目标评估——以北京市未来科技城为例[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(4): 803-813. |
[6] | 刘华先, 陈远生, 朱鹤, 吕文菲, 罗文哲, 姚慰炜. 北京市星级旅游饭店水资源利用变化及影响因素[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(4): 814-823. |
[7] | 孔祥斌, 胡莹洁, 李月, 段增强. 北京市耕地表层土壤有机碳分布及其影响因素[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(12): 2307-2315. |
[8] | 文雯, 车娜, 周丁扬, 姜广辉. 工业用地供给与工业转型的互动关系研究——以北京市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(9): 1702-1711. |
[9] | 孙鉴锋, 王冀, 何桂梅, 陈志泊, 王建新. 北京市行业经济产出对气象变化的敏感性分析[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(6): 1212-1223. |
[10] | 关小克, 王秀丽, 张凤荣, 姜广辉, 李乐. 生态刚性约束下的山区农村居民点整治与调控——以北京市门头沟区为例[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(2): 220-230. |
[11] | 陈阳, 陈远生, 吕文菲, 刘华先, 罗文哲. 设备智能化与管理信息化对高校用水的影响——以北京市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(10): 1956-1963. |
[12] | 刘军胜, 马耀峰. 入境游客与社区居民旅游供给感知测评及差异分析——以北京市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(8): 1476-1490. |
[13] | 薛永基, 孙宇彤. 游客对自然游憩品牌认知、感知质量与品牌忠诚的关系研究——以北京市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(2): 344-352. |
[14] | 张丹, 成升魁, 高利伟, 曹晓昌, 刘晓洁, 刘尧, 白军飞, 喻闻. 城市餐饮业食物浪费的生态足迹——以北京市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(1): 10-18. |
[15] | 谢高地, 张彪, 鲁春霞, 肖玉, 刘春兰, 张波, 徐谦, 李令军, 曹志萍, 李娜, 陈文辉, 章予舒, 冷允法. 北京城市扩张的资源环境效应[J]. 资源科学, 2015, 37(6): 1108-1114. |
|