Fractal Study of Land Use Change in the Tailan River Basin, Xinjiang, China

Abstract:

Based on the land use data observed over the Tailan River Basin (TRB) during the years 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2008, fractal theory is adopted and applied to expound spatial distribution characteristics and variation law of land use change in the arid inland TRB, Xinjiang, China. The results demonstrate spatial fractal characteristics in all land use types. The analysis indicate that the fractal dimensions of different land use types in the TRB are in the order of waters > industrial, mining and residential areas > farmlands > grasslands > unused lands > woodlands in 1990, and in the order of waters > industrial, mining and residential areas > grasslands > farmlands > woodlands > unused lands in 2000, and in the order of waters > industrial, mining and residential areas > grasslands > woodlands > farmlands >unused lands in 2005, and in the order of waters > industrial, mining and residential areas > grasslands > unused lands > woodlands > farmlands in 2008. The fractal dimension values of land use in the TRB in 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2008 are calculated as 1.5993, 1.5986, 1.6079 and 1.6348 respectively. Fractal dimension of land use in the basin is decreased at first then increased, the spatial structure of land used exhibit complex trend, while the land use types show an increase trend. The stability indexes of spatial structure of land use in the TRB in 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2008 are 0.1720, 0.1563, 0.1435 and 0.1428 respectively. These values suggest that the stability of the spatial structure of land use in the basin is gradually decreased.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 955-959)
• Pages: 3968-3973
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.955-959.3968
• Online since: June 2014
• Authors: Dong Yuan Sun*, Cheng Yi Zhao, Yuan Hong Li, Dong Mei Peng, Naser Almanaseer
• Keywords: Fractal Dimension, Fractal Theory, Land Use Change (LUC), Stability Index, Tailan River Basin (TRB)

References

[1] J.A. Foley, R. Defries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard, C.J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J.A. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, and P.K. Snyder: Science. Vol. 309(2005).

DOI: 10.1126/science.1111772

[2] S.N. Gillanders, N.C. Coops, N.A. Wulder, S.E. Gergel, and T. Nelson: Progress in Physical Geography. Vol. 32(2008). P. 505.

[3] P.H. Verburg, J. R.R. van Eck, T.C.M. de Nijs, M.J. Dijst, and P. Schot : Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Design. Vol. 31(2004). P. 127.

[4] E. F. Lambin. In: LUCC International Project Office. LUCC Newsletter No. 8. (Spain: Institut Cartogràfic de Catalunya 2002).

[5] J.L. Li, Q. Feng, and Q.L. Guo: Environ Geol. Vol. 55(2008). P. 1390.

[6] Y. Zhang, J. Yu, and W. Fan: Geo-spatial Information Science. Vol. 11(2008). P. 121.

[7] X.H. LIU, X.G. LU, and G.H. DONG: Scientia Geographica Sinica. Vol. 28(2008). P. 766.