Analyzes ecosystem carbon stock changes under multiple development scenarios in the Qinghai Lake Basin, suggesting pathways for sustainability.
The Qinghai Lake Basin, a typical ecologically vulnerable, high-altitude, cold region, requires coordinated ecosystem conservation and socio-economic development to achieve territorial sustainability. Based on the Production–Living–Ecological Space (PLES) framework, this study used land use data from five periods between 2000 and 2020 and integrated the PLUS and InVEST models to examine and simulate the evolution of PLES patterns and carbon stock under four scenarios—natural development, ecological protection, economic development, and sustainable development—in 2035. The results show that the PLES pattern in the Qinghai Lake Basin remained generally stable from 2000 to 2020, with ecological space dominating the landscape, while production and living spaces expanded slowly. Carbon stock increased from 214.73 × 106 Mg to 264.70 × 106 Mg, representing a growth rate of 23.27%. Its spatial distribution is highly consistent with the PLES pattern, with ecological space being the main contributor. By 2035, carbon stock is projected to slightly increase under the natural development scenario; under the ecological protection scenario, the expansion of ecological space leads to an increase in carbon stock; it decreases under the economic development scenario due to the encroachment of ecological space by construction land expansion; and under the sustainable development scenario, which balances economic development and ecological protection, carbon stock increases by 4.87 × 106 Mg, achieving the best overall performance. Therefore, it is essential to properly coordinate the relationships among PLES components to achieve synergistic enhancement of ecosystem services and regional sustainable development. The findings provide methodological references and decision support for sustainable development in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau and other ecologically vulnerable regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: