This analysis reveals significant spatiotemporal dynamics in vegetation coverage, indicating impacts from climate change and human activities.
Natural vegetation in arid regions plays a crucial role in combating land desertification and maintaining soil and water balance, and understanding its spatiotemporal dynamics and exploring the influencing factors are essential for ecological restoration and policy formulation. This study focused on the Kashgar River Basin, a watershed located in the arid region of northwest China. Using the Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform and MODIS data, fractional vegetation coverage (FVC) was extracted. The Theil-Sen + Mann-Kendall method, coefficient of variation, Hurst index, and multivariate residual regression analysis were employed to examine the spatiotemporal evolution, stability, and persistence of vegetation coverage in the Kashgar River Basin and to assess the impact of climate change and human activities on FVC changes quantitatively. The results of the study follow: ① From 2000 to 2022, the overall trend of FVC in the Kashgar River Basin showed fluctuating growth, with significant spatial heterogeneity. Vegetation coverage was relatively higher in the plains, while mountainous areas were dominated by lower coverage. ② The overall stability of vegetation coverage was high, with 56.88% of the area showing significant improvement in FVC, and the average Hurst index of FVC was 0.48. Future trends suggest that 35.62% of the region will continue to improve. ③ The combined effects of climate change and human activities were identified as the primary drivers of FVC changes in the plains, and precipitation was the main factor influencing FVC in mountainous areas. Human activities significantly impacted FVC, particularly through land use changes, where the interchange between grassland and cropland led to notable improvements in FVC in some regions. These findings provide scientific evidence for land use planning and vegetation restoration in arid regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sheng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: