太子河本溪城区段河流水生态系统健康评价

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-503X.2020.01.012

Abstract

Abstract:

As the local main river, the Taizi River is the primary source for industrial, agricultural, and living water in Benxi.In order to better understand the water body condition of Taizi River in the urban area of Benxi, based on the data of 18 monitoring sections in the seasons of average water (April), abundant water (August) and the lack water (November) in 2017, combining with the actual situation and characteristics of the studied river section as well as the use of the evaluation index system of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the health of water ecosystem of the studied river section was evaluated.With the comparison and analysis, the evaluation result in the average water season is taken as dominate part and those in the abundant water season and lack water season are taken as auxiliary.The results show that only 22% monitoring sections are in a health condition and 56% ones are in a sub-health status, while the other 22% monitoring sections are in general status, which reflects that the most basin of Taizi River flowing through Benxi urban area is being in the sub-health state and its water ecosystem is deteriorating, revealing that reinforcing management and protection is needed in the studied river section.

Key words: Water ecosystem health, Taizi River flowing through Benxi urban area, Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

CLC Number:

Ying-tan YU,Shou-peng WANG,Lin LIU,Fang-fang XING,Chao-xing ZHANG,Da ZHONG,Wen-bo ZHAO,Jian WANG. Health assessment of water ecosystem in Benxi urban section of Taizi River[J]. Journal of Meteorology and Environment, 2020, 36(1): 89-95.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Results of normalization of the indicators during the average water season of Taizi River in Benxi urban section in 2017"

编号	EC	DO	挥发酚	TN	TP	NH₃-N	COD	BOD	藻类S	藻类H′	藻类D	底栖S	BMWP	ETP	底栖D
T1	0.337	0.000	0.861	0.000	0.544	0.000	0.468	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.589	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000
T2	0.251	0.491	0.927	0.564	0.456	0.729	0.000	0.528	0.217	0.048	0.238	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000
T3	0.706	0.614	0.000	0.858	0.579	0.933	0.852	0.869	0.826	0.778	0.233	0.700	0.792	1.000	0.000
T4	0.648	0.649	0.898	1.000	0.895	0.964	0.743	0.553	1.000	1.000	0.075	1.000	1.000	0.117	0.540
T5	0.598	0.333	0.913	0.921	0.596	0.910	0.444	0.532	0.652	0.263	0.087	0.600	0.509	0.163	0.267
T6	0.741	0.947	0.982	0.930	0.632	0.893	0.662	0.447	0.609	0.385	0.688	0.500	0.642	0.564	0.342
T7	0.577	0.474	0.923	0.803	0.561	0.923	0.829	0.982	0.783	0.515	0.000	0.600	0.547	0.144	0.281
T8	0.500	0.316	0.912	0.811	0.386	0.911	0.620	0.801	0.696	0.546	0.170	0.400	0.245	0.000	0.776
T9	0.766	1.000	0.901	0.761	0.579	0.954	0.949	0.943	0.696	0.516	0.346	0.500	0.585	0.621	0.606
T10	0.474	0.526	0.988	0.731	0.035	0.979	0.838	0.887	0.826	0.869	0.127	0.600	0.472	0.000	0.633
T11	0.000	0.175	0.858	0.474	0.351	0.951	0.852	0.830	0.174	0.404	0.283	0.300	0.340	0.461	0.762
T12	0.597	0.368	0.936	0.707	0.158	0.996	0.669	0.720	0.739	0.265	0.036	0.200	0.245	0.000	0.694
T13	0.298	0.684	0.874	0.609	0.000	0.973	0.067	0.365	0.696	0.700	0.265	0.100	0.094	0.611	0.694
T14	1.000	0.632	0.962	0.784	1.000	0.921	0.981	0.812	0.174	0.222	1.000	0.400	0.623	0.224	0.763
T15	0.801	0.982	1.000	0.922	0.456	0.976	0.718	0.975	0.478	0.312	0.696	0.300	0.340	0.000	0.222
T16	0.578	0.298	0.926	0.618	0.614	0.964	0.634	1.000	0.870	0.327	0.046	0.700	0.736	0.000	0.628
T17	0.706	0.614	0.923	0.397	0.719	1.000	1.000	0.812	0.348	0.230	0.800	0.200	0.151	0.000	0.267
T18	0.810	0.877	0.954	0.665	0.860	0.974	0.903	0.954	0.870	0.923	0.103	0.300	0.302	0.000	0.470

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

References 27

1	孙凤华, 李丽光, 袁健, 等. 气候变化对辽河流域水资源影响研究现状分析[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2015, 31 (6): 147- 152.
2	徐琳. "十二五"期间太子河兴安断面主要污染物特征分析[J]. 科技视界, 2016, (21): 206.
3	Mirrasooli E , Ghorbani R , Molaei M . Ecological health evaluation of Ziarat River using water quality index, Golestan province, Iran[J]. Open Journal of Ecology, 2017, 7 (13): 631- 639.
4	杨涛, 惠秀娟, 许云峰. 用于流域管理的河流水生态系统健康评价初探[J]. 环境保护科学, 2009, 35 (5): 52- 54.
5	Karr J R , Chu E W . Sustaining living rivers[J]. Hydrobiologia, 2000, 422, 1- 14.
6	王艳杰, 李法云, 范志平, 等. 大型底栖动物在水生态系统健康评价中的应用[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2012, 28 (5): 90- 96.
7	Vannote R L , Minshall G W , Cummins K W . The river continuum concept[J]. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1980, 37 (1): 130- 137.
8	Salas F , Marcos C , Neto J M , et al. User-friendly guide for using benthic ecological indicators in coastal and marine quality assessment[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2006, 49 (5/6): 308- 331.
9	陈曦, 胡瑾, 王林. 水生态系统健康评价中常见方法评述[J]. 治淮, 2010, (12): 27- 29.
10	项珍龙, 陈海, 李晨, 等. 河流硅藻指数在太子河水生态健康评价中的应用研究[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2016, 31 (4): 416- 425.
11	尹晓东, 董思言, 韩振宇, 等. 未来50 a长江三角洲地区干旱和洪涝灾害风险预估[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2018, 34 (5): 66- 75.
12	王波, 李永生, 王莹, 等. 黑龙江省主汛期降水气候特征及预测检验评估[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2018, 34 (4): 52- 58.
13	殷旭旺, 渠晓东, 李庆南, 等. 基于着生藻类的太子河流域水生态系统健康评价[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32 (6): 1677- 1691.
14	惠秀娟, 杨涛, 李法云, 等. 辽宁省辽河水生态系统健康评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22 (1): 181- 188.
15	张远, 徐成斌, 马溪平, 等. 辽河流域河流底栖动物完整性评价指标与标准[J]. 环境科学学报, 2007, 27 (6): 919- 927.
16	张远, 郑丙辉, 刘鸿亮, 等. 深圳典型河流生态系统健康指标及评价[J]. 水资源保护, 2006, 22 (5): 13- 17, 52.
17	房英春, 刘广纯, 田春, 等. 浅析河流水体污染的生物监测及指标生物[J]. 水土保持研究, 2005, 12 (2): 151- 153.
18	姜厚竹.松花江流域省界缓冲区水质监测指标与断面优化[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学, 2017.
19	李其玮, 顾新, 赵长轶. 创新生态系统研究综述:一个层次分析框架[J]. 科学管理研究, 2016, 34 (1): 14- 17.
20	张楠, 孟伟, 张远, 等. 辽河流域河流生态系统健康的多指标评价方法[J]. 环境科学研究, 2009, 22 (2): 162- 170.
21	徐菲, 王永刚, 张楠, 等. 北京市白河和潮河流域生态健康评价[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37 (3): 932- 942.
22	冷龙龙, 张海萍, 张敏, 等. 大型底栖动物快速评价指数BMWP在太子河流域的应用[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25 (11): 1781- 1788.
23	李燕, 马晓婷, 胡潇涵, 等. 基于熵权的新疆典型流域生态健康评价[J]. 新疆环境保护, 2015, 37 (4): 39- 43, 51.
24	宗福哲.辽河流域水生态健康评价[D].沈阳:辽宁大学, 2017.
25	黄荣敏, 陈立, 谢葆玲, 等. 建桥对河流洲边滩的影响[J]. 水利水运工程学报, 2006, (2): 51- 55.
26	刘蕾, 张凌云, 陈茂钦, 等. 南海夏季风爆发前后柳州地区前汛期南风型暖区暴雨特征[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2018, 34 (1): 38- 44.
27	陈传雷, 管兆勇, 肖光梁, 等. 辽宁省极端长历时暴雨时空分布及影响系统特征[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2018, 34 (2): 28- 34.

要素	电导率	盐度	溶解氧	挥发酚	悬浮物	总氮	总磷	氨氮	COD	BOD
电导率	1.000	0.988	-0.631	-0.017	0.153	0.504	0.605	0.309	0.545	0.376
盐度	0.988	1.000	-0.626	-0.027	0.096	0.498	0.535	0.292	0.481	0.323
溶解氧	-0.631	-0.626	1.000	-0.052	-0.142	-0.554	-0.228	-0.501	-0.249	-0.336
挥发酚	-0.017	-0.027	-0.052	1.000	0.048	-0.071	-0.031	0.019	-0.096	-0.053
悬浮物	0.153	0.096	-0.142	0.048	1.000	0.145	0.195	-0.185	0.297	-0.032
总氮	0.504	0.498	-0.554	-0.071	0.145	1.000	0.149	0.699	0.182	0.429
总磷	0.605	0.535	-0.228	-0.031	0.195	0.149	1.000	-0.042	0.44	0.119
氨氮	0.309	0.292	-0.501	0.019	-0.185	0.699	-0.042	1.000	0.327	0.721
COD	0.545	0.481	-0.249	-0.096	0.297	0.182	0.44	0.327	1.000	0.626
BOD	0.376	0.323	-0.336	-0.053	-0.032	0.429	0.119	0.721	0.626	1.000

目标层	流域生态系统健康评价A
准则层	水体理化指标B1								藻类B2			大型底栖动物B3
指标层	TPC₁	TNC₂	NH₃-NC₃	CODC₄	BODC₅	DOC₆	ECC₇	挥发酚C₈	总分类单元数C₉	Berger-Parker优势度指数C₁₀	Shannon-Weaver多样性指数C₁₁	总分类单元数C₁₂	EPT科级分类单元比C₁₃	BMWP指数C₁₄	Berger-Parker优势度指数C₁₅

编号	EC/(μs/cm)	DO/(mg/L)	挥发酚/(mg/L)	TN/(mg/L)	TP/(mg/L)	NH₃-N/(mg/L)	COD/(mg/L)	BOD/(mg/L)	着生藻类种类	底栖动物种类
T1	405.70	5.90	0.017	68.686	0.039	3.803	3.458	5.909	20	1
T2	444.40	8.70	0.009	35.500	0.044	1.281	5.377	3.078	20	1
T3	239.00	9.40	0.121	18.245	0.037	0.576	1.881	1.254	23	8
T4	265.10	9.60	0.013	9.863	0.019	0.469	2.328	2.945	8	11
T5	287.70	7.80	0.011	14.520	0.036	0.656	3.553	3.059	21	7
T6	222.80	11.30	0.002	13.980	0.034	0.715	2.660	3.515	20	6
T7	297.30	8.60	0.010	21.431	0.038	0.609	1.976	0.646	8	7
T8	331.90	7.70	0.011	20.990	0.048	0.652	2.831	1.615	15	5
T9	211.70	11.60	0.012	23.931	0.037	0.504	1.482	0.855	24	6
T10	343.70	8.90	0.002	25.696	0.068	0.418	1.938	1.159	12	7
T11	558.00	6.90	0.017	40.794	0.050	0.513	1.881	1.463	24	4
T12	288.10	8.00	0.008	27.118	0.061	0.357	2.632	2.052	4	3
T13	423.20	9.80	0.016	32.853	0.070	0.437	5.102	3.952	9	2
T14	105.90	9.50	0.005	22.559	0.013	0.617	1.349	1.558	23	5
T15	195.80	11.50	0.000	14.471	0.044	0.426	2.432	0.684	27	4
T16	296.50	7.60	0.009	32.314	0.035	0.470	2.774	0.551	19	8
T17	239.00	9.40	0.010	45.353	0.029	0.344	1.273	1.558	18	3
T18	191.80	10.90	0.006	29.569	0.021	0.433	1.672	0.798	22	4

评价指标	平水期		丰水期		枯水期
评价指标	熵	熵权	熵	熵权	熵	熵权
EC	0.962	0.130	0.976	0.050	0.947	0.114
DO	0.949	0.174	0.896	0.222	0.949	0.110
挥发酚	0.980	0.069	0.908	0.196	0.926	0.158
TN	0.971	0.098	0.959	0.087	0.923	0.165
TP	0.942	0.200	0.946	0.115	0.924	0.163
NH₃-N	0.979	0.071	0.956	0.095	0.942	0.124
COD	0.957	0.146	0.948	0.111	0.957	0.092
BOD	0.968	0.111	0.942	0.124	0.965	0.074
藻类S	0.948	0.196	0.901	0.375	0.927	0.273
藻类H′	0.926	0.279	0.958	0.161	0.883	0.437
藻类D	0.860	0.525	0.878	0.464	0.923	0.290
底栖S	0.917	0.156	0.901	0.140	0.773	0.220
BMWP	0.913	0.164	0.890	0.156	0.854	0.141
ETP	0.687	0.586	0.572	0.604	0.372	0.607
底栖D	0.950	0.094	0.929	0.101	0.966	0.033
水体	0.954	0.256	0.948	0.238	0.916	0.408
藻类	0.933	0.378	0.950	0.225	0.938	0.298
底栖动物	0.935	0.366	0.882	0.537	0.939	0.294

点位	平水期评分	丰水期评分	枯水期评分
T1	0.284	0.328	0.480
T2	0.276	0.309	0.404
T3	0.588	0.499	0.462
T4	0.642	0.485	0.477
T5	0.390	0.326	0.421
T6	0.603	0.654	0.341
T7	0.440	0.205	0.517
T8	0.427	0.283	0.426
T9	0.600	0.446	0.565
T10	0.490	0.342	0.514
T11	0.408	0.489	0.541
T12	0.340	0.346	0.497
T13	0.415	0.415	0.444
T14	0.648	0.440	0.458
T15	0.495	0.378	0.322
T16	0.469	0.392	0.573
T17	0.460	0.422	0.438
T18	0.506	0.385	0.565

Health assessment of water ecosystem in Benxi urban section of Taizi River

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 11

References 27

Related Articles 1

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10