Research and Application of Water Ecological Health of Main Canal in Ganfu Plain Irrigation District Based on Entropy Weight Method

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0285

Abstract

Abstract:

This research aims to facilitate the gradual transition of traditional irrigation districts into ecological ones, offering decision-making support and references for their sustainable development. Focusing on the main canals of the Ganfu Plain Irrigation District, this study established a comprehensive water ecological health assessment system based on the entropy weight method. The assessment framework integrates eight indicators categorized into three groups: water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, etc.), benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, and habitat quality (HQI), and a corresponding five-level grading standard was established. Combining field investigations and quantitative analysis via the entropy weight method, the study achieved an objective and quantitative evaluation of the water ecological health status of the irrigation canals. The results showed that the overall water ecological health of the study area was at the fair-good grade (comprehensive score: 52-77). Among the sampling sections, the old Fuhe River section performed excellently (score: 82, rated as great) due to its superior habitat integrity and biodiversity. This study is the first to systematically incorporate habitat quality parameters into an ecological assessment framework for irrigation districts, effectively revealing the spatial heterogeneity of water ecological health along the canal system. Despite limitations related to seasonal sampling bias and regional standard variations, the results objectively reflect the actual water ecological conditions of the main canals in the irrigation district. The findings provide a scientific basis for environmental management and ecological restoration of irrigation districts, and offer technical support and decision-making references for safeguarding water ecological security in the Poyang Lake Basin.

Key words: irrigation district, main canal, ecological health, biodiversity, entropy weight method

CLC Number:

X826生物评价、生态评价

LIANG Ju, SU Tian, LIAO Wei, LIU Fangping, ZHANG Fujun. Research and Application of Water Ecological Health of Main Canal in Ganfu Plain Irrigation District Based on Entropy Weight Method[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(19): 107-113.

Figures/Tables 8

References 28

[1]	EARLY S K, NEWELL R L, MEDINA V F. Use of macroinvertebrate and chemical indices to assess water quality of an irrigation wasteway[J]. Journal of freshwater ecology, 2002, 17(2):191-198. doi: 10.1080/02705060.2002.9663887 URL
[2]	姜开鹏. 建设生态灌区的思考——用生态文明观,拓展思路,促进灌区可持续发展[J]. 中国村水利水电, 2004, 2:4-10.
[3]	杨松益. 内蒙古大型灌区节水改造效益综合评价方法与应用研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2013.
[4]	严少军, 董建华, 冯亮. 引汉灌区河湖生态健康评价体系研究[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2022, 480(10):6-11.
[5]	胡勇, 康淦营, 邓平平. 赣抚平原灌区工程设施运行现状及防治措施分析[J]. 陕西水利, 2019, 11:79-80.
[6]	王发强. 赣抚平原灌区水质水量随机优化配置模型应用研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉大学, 2022.
[7]	杨方福, 刘方平, 苏甜, 等. 赣抚平原灌区抚河故道植被对行洪能力的影响分析[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2021, 12:19-26.
[8]	吴湘娟. 长三角地区蜻蜓目稚虫分类研究[D]. 江苏: 南京农业大学, 2018.
[9]	王俊才, 王新华. 中国北方摇蚊幼虫[M]. 北京: 中国言实出版社, 2011.
[10]	杨潼. 中国动物志·环节动物门·蛭纲[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1996.
[11]	邹渝, 胡佳祥, 刘浩翔, 等. 黄河上游白河流域水生生物河流健康评价[J]. 四川水利, 2002, 43(3):92-95.
[12]	杨蓉, 刘波, 王东霞, 等. 基于不同方法的水生态健康评估—以北京市典型水体为例[J]. 中国环境监测, 2022, 38(1):165-174.
[13]	黄玉瑶. 水污染的生物监测[J]. 环境保护, 1978, 2:15-17.
[14]	张汲伟, 蔡琨, 于海燕, 等. 中国底栖动物水质生物监测指数和水质等级构建[J]. 中国环境监测, 2018, 34(6):10-18.
[15]	王备新, 杨莲芳. 我国东部底栖无脊椎动物主要分类单元耐污值[J]. 生态学报, 2004, 24(12):2768-2775.
[16]	秦春燕. 长江三角洲淡水底栖动物耐污值修订和BI指数水质评价分级研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2013.
[17]	张光生, 谢锋, 梁小虎, 等. 水生生态系统健康的评价指标和评价方法[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26:334-337.
[18]	李晓静, 周政权, 陈琳琳, 等. 山东烟台大沽夹河河口及邻近海域大型底栖动物群落特征[J]. 生物多样性, 2016, 24(2):157-165. doi: 10.17520/biods.2015217
[19]	李杨, 李斌, 李淑丹, 等. 洱海流域河流生态系统健康评价[J]. 应用与环境生物学, 2017, 23(3):427-431.
[20]	汪小钦, 林梦婧, 丁哲, 等. 基于指标自动筛选的新疆开孔河流域生态健康评价[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(13):4302-4315.
[21]	顾晓昀. 北京市北运河水系城市河流生态系统健康评价[D]. 大连: 大连海洋大学, 2018.
[22]	衣俊琪. 辽北地区典型河流水生态功能区水生态系统健康评价[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2014, 8:67-72.
[23]	江西省市场监督管理局. DB36/T 1404—2021,河湖(水库)健康评价导则[S]. 南昌: 江西省市场监督管理局, 2021.
[24]	浙江省水利厅. 浙江省河湖健康及水生态健康评价指南(试行)[Z]. 杭州: 浙江省水利厅, 2023.
[25]	北京市市场监督管理局. DB11/T 1722—2020,水生态健康评价技术规范[S]. 北京: 北京市市场监督管理局, 2021.
[26]	生态环境部. 河流水生态环境质量监测与评价技术指南(征求意见稿)[Z]. 北京: 生态环境部, 2020.
[27]	苏州市市场监督管理局. DB3205/T 1016—2021,河湖健康评价规范[S]. 苏州: 苏州市市场监督管理局, 2021.
[28]	中国水利水电科学研究院. SL/T 793—2020,河湖健康评估技术导则[S]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版, 2020.

目标层(A)	准则层(B)	指标层(C)	说明
渠道水系生态健康	水质(B1)	pH	定量
		DO	定量
		AN	定量
		TP	定量
	生物(B2)	BMWP指数	定量
		BI指数	定量
		Shannon-Wiener指数	定量
	生境(B3)	生境指数	定性

目标层(A)	准则层(B)	指标层(C)	说明
渠道水系生态健康	水质(B1)	pH	定量
		DO	定量
		AN	定量
		TP	定量
	生物(B2)	BMWP指数	定量
		BI指数	定量
		Shannon-Wiener指数	定量
	生境(B3)	生境指数	定性

指标层	非常健康[80,100)	健康[60,80)	亚健康[40,60)	不健康[20,40)	疾病(0,20)
TP	(0.02,0.1)及(-∞,0.02]	[0.1,0.3)	[0.3,0.4)	[0.4,1.0)	[1.0,+∞)
AN	(0.15,0.5)及(-∞,0.15]	[0.5,1.5)	[1.5,2)	[2.0,8.0)	[8,25)及[25,+∞)
COD	[2.0,4.0)	[4.0,10.0)	[10.0,15.0)	[15.0,30.0)	[30,+∞)
DO	[6.0,+∞)	[3.0,6.0)	[2.0,3.0)	[1.0,2.0)	[0,1.0)
Shannon-Wiener指数	[3.0,+∞)	[2.0, 3.0)	[1.0, 2.0)	(0,1.0)	0
BMWP指数	(153,+∞)	(115,153]	(76,115]	(38,76]	(-∞,38]
BI指数	[4.17,+∞)	(4.17,5.63]	(5.63,7.08]	(7.08,8.54]	(8.54,+∞)
HQI	(150,+∞)	(120,150]	(90,120]	(60,90]	(-∞,60]

指标层	非常健康[80,100)	健康[60,80)	亚健康[40,60)	不健康[20,40)	疾病(0,20)
TP	(0.02,0.1)及(-∞,0.02]	[0.1,0.3)	[0.3,0.4)	[0.4,1.0)	[1.0,+∞)
AN	(0.15,0.5)及(-∞,0.15]	[0.5,1.5)	[1.5,2)	[2.0,8.0)	[8,25)及[25,+∞)
COD	[2.0,4.0)	[4.0,10.0)	[10.0,15.0)	[15.0,30.0)	[30,+∞)
DO	[6.0,+∞)	[3.0,6.0)	[2.0,3.0)	[1.0,2.0)	[0,1.0)
Shannon-Wiener指数	[3.0,+∞)	[2.0, 3.0)	[1.0, 2.0)	(0,1.0)	0
BMWP指数	(153,+∞)	(115,153]	(76,115]	(38,76]	(-∞,38]
BI指数	[4.17,+∞)	(4.17,5.63]	(5.63,7.08]	(7.08,8.54]	(8.54,+∞)
HQI	(150,+∞)	(120,150]	(90,120]	(60,90]	(-∞,60]

指标	熵值(e)	权重系数(w)
DO	0.8790	0.4583
TP	0.9461	0.2043
AN	0.9481	0.1966
COD	0.9628	0.1407