Article
Driving Factors and Trade-Offs/Synergies Analysis of the
Spatiotemporal Changes of Multiple Ecosystem Services in the
Han River Basin, China
Peidong Han 1, Guang Yang 2, Zijun Wang 3, Yangyang Liu 1,*, Xu Chen 4, Wei Zhang 1, Zhixin Zhang 1,
Zhongming Wen 1, Haijing Shi 2, Ziqi Lin 1 and Hanyu Ren 1
Citation: Han, P.; Yang, G.;
Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.;
Zhang, W.; Zhang, Z.; Wen, Z.;
Shi, H.; Lin, Z.; et al. Driving Factors
and Trade-Offs/Synergies Analysis
of the Spatiotemporal Changes of
Multiple Ecosystem Services in the
Han River Basin, China. Remote Sens.
2024, 16, 2115. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs16122115
Academic Editor: Hubert Hasenauer
Received: 22 March 2024
Revised: 24 May 2024
Accepted: 6 June 2024
Published: 11 June 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16122115
1 College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
2 State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water
Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
3 College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Northwest A&F University,
Yangling 712100, China
4 College of Mechanical and Electronic Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
* Correspondence: 2020110044@nwafu.edu.cn
Abstract: Uncovering the trade-offs and synergy relationship of multiple ecosystem services (ESs)
is important for scientific ecosystem management and the improvement of ecological service func-
tions. In this study, we investigated the spatiotemporal changes of four typical ES types (i.e., water
yield (WY), carbon storage (CS), soil conservation (SC), and habitat quality (HQ)) from 2001 to 2020
in the Han River basin (HRB). Meanwhile, the trade-offs and synergies between paired ESs and the
socioecological drivers of these ESs were further explored. The results showed that grassland,
cropland, and bare land decreased by 12,141.3 km2, 624.09 km2, and 22.1 km2 during the study pe-
riod, respectively, which can be attributed to their conversion to forests in the HRB. Temporally, the
WY, CS, and SC all showed a continuously increasing trend. Spatially, WY and HQ exhibited bipolar
clustering characteristics, with WY exhibiting low-value clustering in the upstream and high-value
clustering in the downstream, while CS showed the clustering characteristics of a scattered distri-
bution of cold and hot spots from 2001 to 2020. The spatial patterns of aggregation locations in CS
and HQ were relatively similar, with clusters of higher ES values mainly distributed in the western
and central regions and clusters of lower ES values mainly located in the eastern and southeastern
regions, while the aggregation of WY was spatially concentrated. Overall, the CS showed a signifi-
cant positive correlation with HQ, but a significant negative correlation with WY. Spatially, WY and
HQ, CS, and SC showed a substantial trade-off relationship in the northwest and southeast parts of
the study area, while HQ, CS, and SC mainly exhibited a synergistic relationship in most parts of
the study area. Slope and temperature had high influencing factor coefficients on multiple ESs; the
mixed effect of terrain and natural factors was significantly greater than the impact of a single factor
on ESs, and terrain factors played an essential role in the changes in ESs. The findings can provide
technical and theoretical support for integrated scientific ecosystem management and sustainable
development at the local scale.
Keywords: ecosystem service; spatiotemporal characteristics; trade-offs and synergies; ES bundles;
Han River Basin
www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 2 of 27

1. Introduction
Ecosystem services (ESs) are crucial for human production and livelihoods, as they
provide necessary conditions that contribute to human health, well-being, and the overall
functioning of societies. These services encompass four major functions, namely provi-
sioning, culture, support, and regulation [1]. Among the numerous ESs, water yield (WY),
soil conservation (SC), carbon storage (CS), and habitat quality (HQ) are of great concern.
In recent years, industrialization has accelerated changes in ecosystem structures. This,
coupled with the overuse of ecological resources, has degraded vital ecological functions.
Manifestations of this degradation include air pollution, soil erosion, reduced biodiver-
sity, and significant eutrophication of water bodies, all of which profoundly impact hu-
man life [2,3]. Furthermore, due to the intertwined effects of complex climate change and
human activities, various types of ESs will demonstrate both conflicting trade-offs and
synergistic relationships [4,5]. Specifically, multiple ESs do not exist independently, but
rather have a trade-off state of increasing and decreasing or a synergistic state of increas-
ing and decreasing simultaneously [6]. These trade-offs and synergistic relationships are
influenced by land-use type change, climate change, and human activity [3,7–9]. Conse-
quently, quantifying how these typical ESs change and interact with each other under
different environmental conditions is crucial for developing ecological plans and manag-
ing ecosystems by government departments.
In recent years, as a comprehensive interdisciplinary discipline hot spot, ESs are
gradually being implemented from theoretical research to practical applications [10]. At
present, research on ESs includes analysis of spatiotemporal changes and the trade-
off/synergy of multiple ESs and ES bundles. For instance, Geng, Li, Zhang, Yang, Jing and
Rong [4] quantitatively evaluated food production, WY, and SC in the Yellow River Basin
of China and found that these ESs exhibited synergistic relationships in most regions,
while only trade-off relationships were present on a local scale. Scholars have employed
diverse methodologies to examine the trade-offs and synergies of ESs across various scales
and regions. For example, most studies use ordinary correlation analysis to reveal the cor-
relation between different ecosystem services [11–13]. However, due to the significant spa-
tial heterogeneity in the trade-off synergy between different ESs, relying solely on corre-
lation coefficients cannot reveal the trade-off synergy between different ESs at the spatial
scale. Therefore, accurately identifying the trade-offs between different ESs at the spatial
scale can provide decision-makers with more accurate spatial decision-making references
for ecosystem management. Moreover, the spatial heterogeneity of natural and socio-eco-
nomic factors leads to a distinct spatial variability in the trade-offs and synergies of ESs.
Consequently, Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) and bivariate spatial autocor-
relation analysis are commonly employed to examine the spatial patterns in trade-offs and
synergies among various ESs. [14–17]. For the identification of ES bundles, k-means clus-
tering analysis, self-organizing maps (SOMs), and the structural equation model are com-
mon methods [18–20].
ESs have proven to be significantly influenced by climate factors such as rainfall and
temperature, and socio-economic factors are also considered important driving factors of
ESs [11,13,21], especially for land-use change related to human activities [8,22]. Recent
studies have primarily focused on the influence of natural factors, including temperature,
precipitation, evapotranspiration, and topography, on ES changes [7,11,23], Additionally,
previous studies also examined the impact of socio-economic factors on ESs [4,5]. The Han
River Basin (HRB) serves as the water source for the Middle Route of the South-to-North
Water Transfer Project, a large-scale cross-basin water transfer initiative, annually trans-
porting approximately 10 billion cubic meters of water to northern cities [8,24]. The HRB
is crucial for reconstructing China’s water network and allocating its water resources.
However, the HRB’s socio-economic development, increasing water use, and water diver-
sion impacts have significantly pressured the watershed’s ecosystem, affecting sustainable
socio-economic development and the ecological environment [25]. Many scholars have
studied the ecological environment changes and hydrological characteristics in the HRB,
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 3 of 27

such as vegetation ecosystem patterns [26] and runoff change [24,27]. However, the spati-
otemporal pattern evolution of various ecosystem functional characteristics such as WY,
SC, CS, and HQ has not been studied. Additionally, the trade-offs and synergies among
these typical ES functions, along with their key driving factors, remain unexplored [28].
Scientific exploration of the WY, SC, CS, and HQ functions of ecosystems can significantly
contribute to regional climate change mitigation, ecological management, and species di-
versity enhancement.
We selected the HRB as our study area to analyze the spatiotemporal changes of mul-
tiple ESs and the trade-offs/synergies interactions and social-ecological driving factors
among these multiple ESs and further identify the ES bundles (ESBs) from 2001 to 2020.
This study aimed to (1) investigate the spatiotemporal dynamics of WY, CS, SC, and HQ,
and identify these ES hot spots during the study period; (2) examine the trade-offs and
synergistic relationships between multiple ESs at grid scales from 2001 to 2020; (3) identify
the changes in ESBs of multiple ESs; and (4) clarify how various socio-ecological factors
have driven changes in ESs and their interrelationships in the study area. Our findings
offer insights into the management of the local ecosystem and inform the development of
ecological restoration strategies to enhance ecological service functions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
The Han River is the longest tributary of the Yangtze River, located at 106°51′ E to
107°10′ E and 33°02′ N to 33°22′ N. The Han River originates from the southern foot of the
Qinling Mountains in Ningqiang County, Hanzhong City, Shaanxi Province, with a total
length of 1577 km. The total area of the Han River basin (HRB) is 159,000 km2, and the
basin involves 20 districts (cities) and 78 counties (cities) in 5 provinces and cities (Hubei,
Shaanxi, Sichuan, Chongqing, and Gansu) (Figure 1a). The topography of the HRB is high
in the northwest and low in the southeast (Figure 1b). The geological structure is roughly
bounded by Xichuan-Danjiangkou-Nanzhang, with folded uplifted low mountainous ar-
eas in the west and plains and hills in the east. The HRB is located in the subtropical mon-
soon region and experiences a mild, humid climate with an annual average precipitation
ranging from 700 to 1100 mm. In the HRB, the temperature difference between the upper
and lower reaches is minimal, characterized by warm winters, hot summers, and an aver-
age temperature exceeding 22 °C. The HRB’s land use shows significant topographic and
geographical variation, primarily comprising forests, croplands, and grasslands, followed
by urban areas, wetlands, water bodies, and bare land (Figure 1c). The Han River is the
main water source of the Middle Route Project of the South-to-North Water Transfer. With
the opening of the Middle Route Project of the South-to-North Water Transfer and the
acceleration of urbanization, the ecosystem has been affected to varying degrees in the
HRB, especially ecological functions such as WS, SC, and HQ, which are constantly chang-
ing. Meanwhile, to protect the HRB’s ecological environment, the government has imple-
mented a series of ecological restoration and protection projects, including natural forest
protection and farmland conversion into forests.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 4 of 27

Figure 1. Study area. (a) Location, (b) elevation, and (c) land cover types in the HRB.

2.2. Data Sources and Processing

The datasets used in this study include satellite imagery datasets, land use/cover da-
tasets, meteorological datasets, topography data (elevation and slope), and other related
ancillary datasets (Table 1). The Land use/cover data in 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020
were obtained from the MCD12Q1 dataset (https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/search, ac-
cessed on 1 October 2023), with a resolution of 500 m, which were reclassified into 6 cate-
gories (forest, grassland, cropland, wetland, urban land, and unused land). The meteoro-
logical data from 2001 to 2020 including temperature, precipitation, evapotranspiration,
and potential evapotranspiration were collected from the Loess Plateau Science Data Cen-
ter, National Earth System Science Data Sharing Infrastructure, National Science & Tech-
nology Infrastructure of China (http://loess.geodata.cn), with a resolution of 500 m. The
Enhanced vegetation index (EVI) data with a resolution of 500 m from 2001 to 2020 were
available from https://earthengine.google.com/. The Digital Elevation Mode (DEM) data
with a resolution of 90 m were derived from SRTMDEM of the China Geospatial Data
Cloud. We extracted the elevation, slope aspects, and slope gradients of the study area
based on DEM data. The Nighttime Light data at a spatial resolution of 1 km were ob-
tained from the NOAA website’s NGDC data center
(https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/eog/download.html, accessed on 21 March 2024). The pop-
ulation grid datasets from 2001 to 2020 were collected from World Pop
(https://www.worldpop.org/project/list, accessed on 21 March 2024). The spatial resolu-
tion was set at 1 km. To ensure consistency across all data, we resampled all raster data to
a 1 km resolution using ArcGIS 10.8.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 5 of 27

Table 1. Data source and description.

Spatial
Data Type Source
Resolution
Loess Plateau Science Data Center, National Earth System Science Data
Sharing Infrastructure, National Science & Technology Infrastructure of
Precipitation 500 m
China.
(http://loess.geodata.cn)
Earth Data Search (https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/search, accessed on
Land use/land cover 500 m
21 March 2024)
Loess Plateau Science Data Center, National Earth System Science Data
Sharing Infrastructure, National Science & Technology Infrastructure of
Temperature 500 m
China.
(http://loess.geodata.cn)
Loess Plateau Science Data Center, National Earth System Science Data
Sharing Infrastructure, National Science & Technology Infrastructure of
Evapotranspiration 500 m
China.
(http://loess.geodata.cn)
Digital elevation model Geospatial Data Cloud
90 m
(DEM) (https://www.gscloud.cn/)
Carbon Pools Harmonized World Soil Database version
Watershed boundary Geographic remote sensing ecological network platform (www.gisrs.cn)
EVI 500 m https://earthengine.google.com/
Chinese population https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/, accessed on 21 March
1 km
density 2024
Nighttime lighting index 500 m https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/

2.3. Quantification of ESs

In this study, four ESs—carbon storage (CS), soil conservation (SC), water yield (WY),
and habitat quality (HQ)—were selected based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services version 5.1 [1]. All
four ESs were quantitatively evaluated by the InVEST model (Integrated Valuation of Eco-
system Services and Tradeoffs), which is an ecosystem service application tool developed
in 2007 by Stanford University, the Worldwide Fund for Nature and The Nature Conserv-
ancy (InVEST 3.14.1 User’s Guide).

2.3.1. Quantification of Water Yield (WY)

The water yield (WY) service was estimated using the InVEST model, based on water
balance principles and Budyko’s coupled hydrothermal balance assumption, calculating
the difference between precipitation and actual evapotranspiration in various grid cells
[29]. The description of the WY service is as follows:

𝑌(𝑥) = (1 − ) × 𝑃𝑥 (1)

( ) ( ) (2)
=1+ − 1+
( ) ( )

𝑃𝐸𝑇(𝑥) = 𝐾𝑐(𝑥) × 𝐸𝑇 (𝑥) (3)

( )×
𝑊(𝑥) = + 1.25 (4)
( )

where Yx is the annual WY (mm); AETx and Px represent the annual actual evapotranspi-
ration (mm) and annual precipitation (mm), respectively; PETx is the potential
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 6 of 27

evapotranspiration (mm); Kcx is the vegetation crop evapotranspiration coefficient; ET0x

denotes the reference evapotranspiration; Wx is defined by the ratio of annual plant water
demand to annual precipitation (dimensionless); and AWCx is the effective soil water con-
tent (mm). The vegetation evapotranspiration coefficient was taken in the range of 0–1.5.
The maximum rooting depth of vegetation was calculated based on the World Soil Data-
base.

2.3.2. Quantification of Carbon Storage (CS)

We utilized the InVEST model to estimate the carbon storage (CS) in various ecosys-
tems. The InVEST model calculations were based on four types of carbon pools: above-
ground, below-ground, soil organic, and dead organic matter carbon pools [30]. The for-
mulas used are as follows:
𝐶 =𝐶 +𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 (5)
where Cs represents the total carbon stock (t/hm2); Cabove is the biogenic carbon stock in the
above-ground part; Cbelow is the biogenic carbon stock in the below-ground part; Csoil and
Cdead represent the soil organic carbon stock and the dead organic matter carbon stock,
respectively. The carbon density data of different land types considered in this study were
mainly obtained from the National Ecological Science Data Center
(http://www.cnem.org.cn/).

2.3.3. Quantification of Habitat Quality (HQ)

Habitat Quality actually refers to the potential of an ecosystem to provide the neces-
sary conditions for species to survive and reproduce, which is reflected by the Habitat
Quality Index. The core of this method is to establish a connection between habitat quality
and threat sources, that is, by calculating the negative impact of threat sources on the hab-
itat, the degree of habitat degradation is obtained, and then habitat quality is calculated
based on the suitability and degree of degradation of the habitat [31]. The data required
for specific calculations include threat types, the maximum distance that each threat af-
fects habitat quality, the impact index of each threat on habitat quality, and the spatial
attenuation type of each threat. This is calculated using the Habitat Quality module of the
InVEST model, which was expressed by the following formula:
𝑄 = 𝐻 1−𝐷 / 𝐷 +𝑘 (6)
where Qxj is the HQ of grid x in the land-use/cover type j; Hj refers to the habitat suitability
of the land-use/cover type j; Dxj is the level of habitat threat to grid x in the land-use/cover
type j; k is a half-saturation constant (0.5); and z is a normalization constant (2.5).

2.3.4. Quantification of Soil Conservation (SC)

Soil conservation is defined as an ecosystem’s capacity to regulate erosion, thereby
preventing soil loss through its structures and processes and retaining and storing sedi-
ment. SC was calculated using the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and
the SC module in the InVEST model, which determines the difference between potential
and actual soil erosion [32]. The specific calculation formulas are as follows [33]:
𝑅𝐾𝐿𝑆 = 𝑅 × 𝐾 × 𝐿𝑆 (7)

𝑈𝐿𝑆𝐸 = 𝑅 × 𝐾 × 𝐿𝑆 × 𝐶 × 𝑃 (8)

𝑆𝐸𝐷𝑅𝐸𝑇 = 𝑅𝐾𝐿𝑆 − 𝑈𝑆𝐿𝐸 (9)

where 𝑆𝐸𝐷𝑅𝐸𝑇 is the soil conservation amount of the grid 𝑥; 𝑅𝐾𝐿𝑆 is the potential soil
erosion amount of grid 𝑥; 𝑈𝑆𝐿𝐸 is the actual soil erosion amount of grid 𝑥; 𝑅 is the
rainfall erosion force factor; 𝐾 is the soil erodibility factor; 𝐿𝑆 is the slope and slope
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 7 of 27

length factor; 𝐶 is the vegetation cover factor; and 𝑃 is the soil and water conservation
measure factor. Equation (7) is the potential soil erosion without considering the vegeta-
tion factor and management measures, and Equation (8) is the actual soil erosion under
the condition of considering the vegetation factor and management measures.

2.4. Spatial Autocorrelation and Hot Spot Analysis of ESs

We applied the Global Moran’s I index to analyze the spatial autocorrelation of ESs
and assess their aggregation degree in the HRB. The index is expressed as follows:
∑ ∑ ( ̅) ̅
𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑛 𝑠Ⅰ = ∑ ( ̅) ∑ ∑
(10)

where I is the Moran index; n is the number of spatial grid cells; 𝑥 and 𝑥 represent the
observed value of spatial cell i and spatial cell j, respectively; (𝑥 − 𝑥̅ ) refers to the devia-
tion of the observed value on the ith spatial cell from the mean value; and 𝑤 is the spatial
weight matrix of grids i and j [34].
To examine the spatial aggregation of various ecosystem service (ES) functions in the
HRB, we employed the Getis-Ord Gi* statistical index, a hot spot analysis tool in ArcGIS,
to identify cold and hot spots in the study area. ES hot spots and cold spots were identified
using p-values and z-scores, with statistical significance defined at the 95% confidence
level (p < 0.05). Spatial clustering was considered significant when z-scores exceeded 1.64
in absolute value. Higher z-scores indicated clusters of higher ES values (hot spots), while
lower z-scores pointed to clusters with lower ES values (cold spots).
∑
𝐺∗ = (11)
∑

∑ ̅∑
𝑍(𝐺 ∗ ) =
∑ ∑ (12)

∑
𝑆= − (𝑥̅ ) (13)

where 𝐺 ∗ is the agglomeration index of patch i; Wij is the spatial weight matrix between
patches i and j. For ease of interpretation, Wij may be in row standardized form, though
this is not necessary, and by convention, Wii = 0 [35]; xi and xj present the attribute values
of patches i and j; n is the total number of patches; 𝑥̅ is the mean value of all patches; S is
the standard deviation of the attribute values of all patches. The Z-value is the score of Gi*
and the p value is a probability. Specifically, a higher Z value and a smaller p value indicate
a more obvious clustering of hot spots, while a smaller Z value and a smaller p value imply
a more obvious clustering of cold spots [7].

2.5. Analyses of Trade-Offs/Synergies among ESs

In this study, we conducted correlation analysis to explore the trade-offs and syner-
gies among various ESs. Specifically, we utilized the ‘corrplot’ package in R4.3.2 software
for Spearman’s correlation analysis, covering five years: 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020.
Specifically, a positive correlation coefficient between ES pairs, significant at the 0.05 (or
0.01) level, indicated a synergistic (or significantly synergistic) relationship, and vice versa.
The spatial distribution maps depicting trade-offs and synergies among various ESs were
created using ArcMap 10.8 software.

2.6. Identification of ES Bundles (ESBs)

The ES bundle is a series of ecosystem services that repeatedly appear in space and
time [36]. The concept of an ecosystem service bundle can identify the dominant services
in a region. In the ecosystem service bundle, some services have dependency relationships
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 8 of 27

and occur simultaneously, while others grow and disappear. This can analyze the trade-
offs and synergies between multiple ecosystem services [37] and improve the manage-
ment level of multifunctional landscapes. Bundle analysis of multiple ecosystem services
yields the “class” of the ecosystem service cluster in the study area. The analysis of eco-
system service bundles helps to understand the spatial distribution of different services
and clarify the location of the trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services.
We used SOM to identify grid-scale ES bundles [20]. Specifically, by measuring the
similarity between different ESs, the spatial cells with higher similarity were divided into
the same ES clusters, and spatial cells with higher dissimilarity were divided into different
ES clusters for functional partitioning of ESs. Each grid was categorized into an ES bundle
based on the spatial co-occurrence similarity of ES. In this study, we employed the ‘raster’,
‘rgdal’, ‘ggradar’, ‘tibble’, and ‘stars’ packages in R4.3.2 software for spatial clustering of
ES and functional partitioning.

2.7. Model of Geographical Detector

In this study, we selected 8 variables as potential drivers of ESs, including socioeco-
nomic factors (population density and nighttime light index), climate and vegetation fac-
tors (EVI, mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and evapotranspiration),
and topographic factors (slope orientation and slope) as independent variables. We uti-
lized the factor detector panel in the geographical detector to ascertain the relationships
between independent variables and dependent ESs. Meanwhile, we employed the inter-
action detector panel to assess the magnitude of interaction effect coefficients for each
driving factor on the ESs.

3. Results
3.1. Land Use Change in the HRB
The land-use change characteristics in the HRB between 2001 and 2020 are shown in
Table 2 and Figure 2. Forest, grassland, and cropland were the dominant land-use types
in the HRB, which accounted for more than 97% of the total study area. During the past
20 years, the areas of different land-use types have changed, with the areas of grassland,
bare land, and cropland decreasing, and the urban land, forests, water bodies, and wet-
lands increasing. Specifically, the grassland area decreased by 12,141.3 km2 (18.27%).
Meanwhile, the area of arable land and bare land decreased by 624.09 km2 (1.57%) and
22.1 km2 (66.07%), respectively, while the forest area increased by 11,732.1 km2 (25.76%).
These changes are attributable to the implementation of the policy that converts cropland
into forests and grasslands. In addition, the area of urban land, water bodies, and wetlands
increased by 407.2 km2 (17.5%), 162.36 km2 (20.77%), and 485.85 km2 (106.77%), respec-
tively, which were consistent with the economic and social development trend and urban-
ization process in the HRB. Figure 2b also showed that all land use types had transformed.
Specifically, nearly 19.44% (12,918.44 km2) of grassland was converted to forest during the
20 years, and a relatively small proportion of forest was converted to grassland and
cropland (2.68%), while a larger area of cropland (4445.4 km2) was converted to forest and
grassland. Moreover, the area of urban land increased obviously. Overall, the changes in
arable land, forest, grassland, and urban land were obvious and showed a large spatial
heterogeneity during 2001–2020, which might have a serious impact on the distribution
and dynamics of ESs in the HRB.

Table 2. The area characteristics of land-use changes in the HRB. (Unit: km2).

2020 Percent 2001 Percent Change Change Percent

Grassland 54,307.11 34.95 66,448.43 42.77 −12,141.30 −18.27
Urbanland 2734.08 1.76 2326.88 1.50 407.20 17.50
Unused land 11.35 0.01 33.45 0.02 −22.10 −66.07
Forest 57,279.16 36.88 45,547.06 29.32 11,732.10 25.76
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 9 of 27

Wetland 940.89 0.61 455.04 0.29 485.85 106.77

Water 944.14 0.61 781.78 0.50 162.36 20.77
Cropland 39,149.97 25.20 39,774.06 25.60 −624.09 −1.57

Figure 2. The land-use change in HRB from 2001 to 2020. (a) The spatial transformation characteris-
tics of different land uses; (b) the proportion of mutual conversion between different land-use
types).
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 10 of 27

3.2. ES Patterns in the HRB

3.2.1. Spatial and Temporal Changes in ESs
The spatial patterns and changes in ESs in the HRB from 2001 to 2020 are shown in
Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3a–f, WY exhibited fluctuating changes between 2001 and
2020. In the period from 2001 to 2005, increased WY was observed in an area encompass-
ing 99.13% of the HRB, primarily located in the southern area of the HRB and Nanyang
City. During 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, the area with decreased WY expanded, accounting
for 40.64% and 66.09% of the total area, respectively, which was mainly concentrated in
Nanyang and Yicheng City. From 2015 to 2020, the region with increased WY covered
96.96% of the total area, primarily situated downstream of Danjiangkou. Over the course
of 20 years, the northern part of the HRB maintained a relatively stable WY, consistently
below 200 mm. Based on the spatial distribution and variation characteristics of CS (Figure
3g–l), the changes in CS were relatively apparent in the HRB between 2001 and 2020, pri-
marily concentrated in the upstream area of Danjiangkou, with the most significant in-
crease occurring in urban land. Spatially, it typically followed a pattern of higher CS in
the western mountainous regions and lower storage in the eastern hills. Specifically, the
regions with higher CS were mainly located in the northern and southern regions of the
upstream mountainous areas, which was closely associated with the distribution of vege-
tation patterns. Specifically, forests predominantly occupied areas with high CS values,
whereas grasslands and bare land dominated low CS values. In terms of SC, the total SC
capacity of the HRB showed a steadily increasing trend over time. The Cropland area had
relatively poor SC capacity in the eastern part of the HRB. Nevertheless, the SC capacity
gradually increased due to the conversion of cropland to other land use types between
2001 and 2020. Regions with higher SC levels were predominantly located in the central
and southern areas of the HRB. In addition, there was no significant change in SC in forest
and urban areas (Figure 3m–r). For HQ (Figure 3s–x), it was found that the area with in-
creased HQ was relatively small from 2001 to 2005 in the HRB, occupying only 13.89% of
the total area. However, there was an obvious increase in HQ during the periods of 2005–
2010 and 2010–2015, accounting for 24.48% and 26.59% of the total area, respectively. Sub-
sequently, there was a decline in the proportion exhibiting increased habitat quality from
2015 to 2020, which was reduced to 24.32%. Overall, most of the areas with an increased
HQ index were also found around the cities of the study area.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 11 of 27

Figure 3. Spatial patterns and changes in ESs in the HRB from 2001–2020. (a–f) Water yield. (g–j)
Carbon storage. (m–r) Soil conservation. (s–x) Habitat quality. (f, l, r, x) Changes in the past 20
years.

The inter-annual variation characteristics of ES values of different land types in the

HRB from 2001 to 2020 are presented in Figure 4. From 2001–2020, the average WY exhib-
ited a fluctuating increasing trend in the HRB, with an average growth rate of 17.46 mm/a.
The multi-year average WY was 337.69 mm. Among the representative years (2001, 2005,
2010, 2015, and 2020), the average WY was 147.56 mm, 382.61 mm, 380.1 mm, 340.28 mm,
and 437.911 mm, respectively. Notably, WY experienced a significantly increasing trend
with a change of 235.051 mm from 2001 to 2005. Although there was a slight decline in the
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 12 of 27

growth rate of WY from 2005 to 2015, the WY exhibited another increasing trend from
2015 to 2020. Among various land-use types, wetlands showed the most significant in-
crease in water yield, increasing from 74.44 mm in 2001 to 748.26 mm in 2020. Conversely,
the WY proportions for forestland and grassland experienced a slight increase, increasing
from 5.77% and 9.39% in 2001 to 6.25% and 11.33% in 2020, respectively. In addition, the
WY proportions for croplands and urban areas displayed an obviously decreasing trend,
decreasing from 32.54% and 44.86% in 2001 to 27.48% and 31.28% in 2020, respectively.
The total CS in the HRB during the five representative years was 283.13 × 109 t, 492.28 × 109
t, 499.17 × 109 t, 434.02 × 109 t, and 498.10 × 109 t, indicating a significant overall upward
trend. The proportion of forestland CS increased from 51.4% to 59.48%, whereas the pro-
portion and variation of CS in urban land and wetlands were relatively small. Conversely,
the proportion of total CS in grassland decreased from 24.46% to 18.4%, whereas the pro-
portion of CS in cropland only had a gradual decrease from 23.21% to 21.02%. In the five
representative years, the total SC amounts were 83.13 × 109 t, 492.28 × 109 t, 499.17 × 109 t,
434.02 × 109 t, and 498.10 × 109 t, showing an overall fluctuating growth trend. Specifically,
the SC amounts remained stable from 2005 to 2010 and slightly declined from 2010 to 2015,
and then experienced an increase again from 2015 to 2020. The proportions of SC changes
across different land-use types were similar. The SC proportions of forestland, urban land,
and wetland had been continuously increasing, while the SC proportions of grassland and
cropland had been decreasing. The average HQ of the HRB in the five representative years
was 0.737, 0.736, 0.742, 0.748, and 0.752, respectively. Specifically, the average growth rate
of HQ was 0.0009/a, indicating an overall increasing trend with fluctuations. From 2001 to
2015, the HQ was below the average value of 0.74.

Figure 4. Inter-annual variation characteristics of ES values of different land types in the HRB from
2001 to 2020. (a) Carbon storage (b)Water yield (c)Soil conservation (d)Habitat quality values of dif-
ferent land types in the HRB from 2001 to 2020.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 13 of 27

3.2.2. Global Spatial Autocorrelation of ESs

The Global Moran’s I, Getis-Ord General G, and Z-scores were calculated to assess
the spatial autocorrelation of ESs (Table 3). Additionally, the observed values for General
G exceeded the expected values (p < 0.001), signifying a tendency of the ESs to cluster
around high values. Specifically, the global Moran’s I value for WY increased from 0.58 to
0.76, indicating a significant increase in the clustering of WY values. The values for esti-
mated and expected General G remained unchanged, suggesting that the correlation of
high values remained constant. The Moran’s I value for CS decreased from 0.57 to 0.45,
indicating a significant decrease in the clustering of CS. The difference between estimated
and expected General G decreased, indicating a reduction in the correlation of high-value
data. The global Moran’s I value for SC increased slightly from 0.14 to 0.15, indicating a
slight increase in the clustering of SC. The values for estimated and expected General G
remained unchanged, suggesting that the correlation of high-value data remained con-
stant. The global Moran’s I value for HQ varied from 0.47 to 0.28, indicating a significant
change in the clustering of HQ. The values for estimated and expected General G slightly
decreased, indicating a reduction in the correlation of high-value data. Moreover, the Mo-
ran’s I values of all ES during the study period were statistically significant at a 99% con-
fidence level (Z (I) > 2.58), indicating significant spatial correlation. Based on this, further
research on a more complex spatial correlation of ES results can be conducted.

Table 3. Global spatial autocorrelation of ESs in the HRB from 2001 to 2020.
Carbon Storage Soil Conservation Water Yield Habitat Quality
Year
Moran’s I Z Value General G Moran’s I Z Value General G Moran’s I Z Value General G Moran’s I Z Value General G
2001 0.569 163.391 −0.000075 0.138 581.803 −0.000001 0.584 1885.455 −0.000003 0.452 111.978 −0.000223
2005 0.563 185.712 −0.000075 0.140 495.329 −0.000001 0.661 1174.107 −0.000003 0.284 165.436 −0.000212
2010 0.552 170.525 −0.000075 0.142 459.956 −0.000001 0.661 1324.447 −0.000003 0.474 98.815 −0.000209
2015 0.482 170.991 −0.00007 0.148 479.615 −0.000001 0.678 2735.286 −0.000003 0.382 112.375 −0.000198
2020 0.447 159.576 −0.000065 0.148 481.331 −0.000001 0.763 1457.987 −0.000003 0.458 93.964 −0.000198

3.2.3. The Cold Hot spots of ESs

The spatial patterns of the cold hot spots of WY, CS, SC, and HQ in the HRB from
2001 to 2020 were mapped using the Gi* hot spot analysis (Figure 5). In relation to WY, a
distinct spatial distribution pattern was observed, with cold spots clustered in the west
and hot spots in the east. Sporadic hot spot clusters were identified in the western cities
and their surrounding areas between 2001 and 2015. However, these clusters disappeared
after 2015. Similarly, CS and HQ exhibited similar spatial distributions of hot and cold
spots. Most of the region was characterized by hot spot clusters for CS in the west and
cold spot clusters in the east. A decreasing trend in hot spot clusters for CS was observed
in the western regions. Conversely, insignificant hot and cold spot clusters were observed
in the southwest region of Da Hongshan in 2001, and these cold spot clusters gradually
transformed into hot spot clusters from 2005 to 2020. The distribution of cold and hot spots
for HQ displayed a clustering of cold spots surrounding the western cities. Additionally,
the degree of cold spot clustering of HQ decreased annually in the eastern regions from
2001 to 2010. After a slight increase in 2015, the degree of cold spot clustering of HQ de-
clined again in the eastern regions in 2020. The overall SC pattern revealed hot spot clus-
ters in the south and cold spot clusters in the east, alongside significant hot and cold spot
clusters in the central and northern regions. The distribution of SC’s cold and hot spots
remained relatively stable. From 2001 to 2005, the degree of SC clustering decreased in
some hot spot areas of the central and northern regions. Moreover, the extreme cold spot
cluster of SC transformed into a cold spot cluster in the east area, and the cold spot cluster
of SC gradually transitioned into an insignificant cold spot in the eastern area after 2005.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 14 of 27

Figure 5. Spatial and temporal variation of cold and hot spots of ESs in the HRB from 2001 to 2020.
(a–e) Water yield. (f–j) Carbon storage. (k–o) Soil conservation. (p–t) Habitat quality.

3.3. Trade-Off and Synergy between ESs

3.3.1. Correlation Analysis
The relationships among four ESs were analyzed using Spearman correlation results,
identifying six significant correlations among them (Figure 6). All correlations between
the ES pairs were statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Figure 6). The correlations across these
five representative years were relatively similar. Specifically, a clear positive correlation
between HQ and CS and a clear negative correlation between WY and CS were observed
in these five representative years, while the other correlations were relatively weak.

Figure 6. Correlation relationships of different ESs on an annual basis. (a) Correlations among the
four ESs in 2001. (b) Correlations among the four ESs in 2005. (c) Correlations among the four ESs
in 2010. (d) Correlations among the four ESs in 2015. (e) Correlations among the four ESs in 2020.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 15 of 27

In addition, to further explore the correlations among the four ESs, another Spearman
correlation result analysis was performed on the ES results of the interannual variation of
the five years, and four significant correlations (p < 0.05) were identified (Figure 7). As
shown in Figure 7, there was no correlation between HQ and SC or SC and CS except for
a weak correlation during the periods of 2001–2005 and 2005–2010. Moreover, the inter-
annual variation correlation between HQ and CS showed a slow increasing trend, while
the other three correlations continued to show weak correlations.

Figure 7. Correlations of different ESs in terms of 5-year-to-5-year changes. (a) Correlations among
the four ESs from 2001 to 2005. (b) Correlations among the four ESs from 2005 to 2010. (c) Correla-
tions among the four ESs from 2010 to 2015. (d) Correlations among the four ESs from 2015 to 2020
(e) Correlations among the four ESs from 2001 to 2020.

3.3.2. Trade-Off and Synergy between Ecosystem Services

Figure 8 illustrates the spatial trade-off and synergy relationships among four dis-
tinct ESs. Generally, a trade-off between WY and CS was observed in the northern and
southeastern regions of the HRB. Specifically, the proportion of high-synergy areas in-
creased from 10.7% to 39.9%, while the proportion of synergy areas decreased from 26.7%
to 17.1%; the proportion of low-synergy areas decreased from 22.6% to 10.1%. The ob-
served changes were primarily in the middle and lower reaches of the HRB. A predomi-
nance of regions with low trade-offs and low synergy was exhibited by WY and SC, ac-
counting for 57.4% of the study area. Moreover, a shift from low-trade-off to high-trade-
off areas was observed in the cities of Hanzhong, Zaoyang, and the Tongbai Mountain
area. The proportion of regions with high trade-offs between WY and SC increased from
15.9% to 18.8%, while the proportion of regions with low synergy between WY and SC
decreased from 37.1% to 34%. For HQ and CS, there was a trend of low trade-off in most
main stream and tributary areas. Meanwhile, an increase in the proportion of synergy
areas was observed from 2001 to 2020, rising from 63.2% to 70%. In particular, the transi-
tion from low synergy to high synergy was observed in the eastern agricultural areas,
while the transition from low trade-off to low synergy occurred in the northern Qinling
Mountains. The relationship between HQ and SC was characterized by a synergy trend in
more than 60% of the study area. A trade-off trend was mainly observed in the northern
areas of Danjiangkou and around Hanzhong-Ankang City. Few changes were observed
in the trade-off and synergy between HQ and SC during the research period, while a shift
from low synergy, synergy, and low trade-off to high synergy occurred in the Dabie
Mountain region and Wuhan city. The proportion of high-synergy areas increased from
9.1% to 30.2%, while the proportion of low-synergy areas decreased from 30.9% to 9.5%.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 16 of 27

The main manifestation between SC and CS was a synergy trend (73% of the study area),
with a small portion being characterized by a trade-off trend, primarily distributed in the
area surrounding the northern Qinling Mountains, Daba Mountains, and Dahong Moun-
tains. Similarly, relatively small changes in the trade-off/synergy relationship between SC
and CS were observed from 2001 to 2020, with the most obvious change located in the
northern Qinling Mountains.

Figure 8. Spatial synergy and trade-offs of ES pairs and area percentage in 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015,
and 2020. (a) 2001. (b) 2005. (c) 2010. (d) 2015. (e) 2020.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 17 of 27

3.4. Spatial-Temporal Patterns of ESBs

Initially, the Self-Organizing Map (SOM) identified four ES bundles at the grid scale.
Subsequently, the study area was divided into these four bundles, considering the syner-
gistic and trade-off effects of the ESs in the HRB (Figure 9a). The transition characteristics
of the four ES bundles, identified by the SOM at the grid scale, were also analyzed (Figure
9b). Bundle 1 was primarily distributed around Nanyang City and the Jingmen-Wuhan
urban area, accounting for 28.21%, 29.18%, and 29.46% of the study area in 2001, 2010, and
2020, with cropland being the predominant land use type, which exhibited a higher level
of HQ but lower levels of SC and WY. During the study period, the area of bundle 1
demonstrated an increasing trend, which was mainly observed in the surrounding areas
of Xiangyang City and Jingmen City, with only a decreasing trend occurring in the Han-
yin-Ankang area. Bundle 2 was mainly distributed around the Daba Mountains and the
northwest region of Hanzhong City, accounting for 4.82%, 4.79%, and 4.74% of the study
area in 2001, 2010, and 2020, with grassland being the dominant land use type, which had
higher levels of HQ and CS but low levels of SC and WY. The area of bundle 2 was rela-
tively stable throughout the study period, with the increase primarily attributed to the
transformation of bundle 4 in the western Daba Mountains area. Bundle 3 was mainly
distributed in the Qinling Mountains, Waifang Mountains, and Funiu Mountains, ac-
counting for 40.44%, 30.92%, and 33.77% of the study area in 2001, 2010, and 2020, charac-
terized by forestland use with a high WY. Overall, bundle 3 displayed a growth trend
during the study period. The growth of bundle 3 primarily originated from the transfor-
mation of bundle 4 from 2001 to 2010, while bundle 3 exhibited a weak decreasing trend
from 2010 to 2020. Bundle 4 was mainly distributed in the upstream region of the HRB,
accounting for 26.52%, 35.10%, and 32.03% of the study area in 2001, 2010, and 2020, with
grassland and wetland being the predominant land use types, and had higher levels of SC
and HQ but weaker levels of CS compared to bundle 2. The area of bundle 4 significantly
decreased during the study period, mainly due to the transformation of bundle 4 into
bundle 3 around the Danjiangkou Reservoir. With the accelerated agricultural specializa-
tion and urbanization processes in Xiangyang, Jingmen, and Wuhan City, bundle 4 was
gradually replaced by bundles 1 and 3 in the surrounding regions of the city.

Figure 9. (a) Spatial-temporal pattern changes in ES bundles; (b) composition and relative magni-
tude of ESs in ES bundles; (c) the area of interconversion among different ES bundles during 2001–
2020. Note: WY, water yield; CS, carbon storage; SC, soil conservation; HQ, habitat quality.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 18 of 27

3.5. Analysis of Driving Factors of ESs

3.5.1. Factor Impact Detection Analysis
The factor detector was employed to analyze the impact of various factors on the
spatial distribution of ESs in 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 (Figure 10). The findings
indicated that key factors in each year include population density, slope, precipitation,
and temperature. In 2001, slope (q > 0.5) emerged as the primary driving factor for changes
in the spatial distribution of ESs, particularly influencing WY. Population density and
temperature also showed obvious effects with q > 0.2. Temperature (q > 0.25) had the most
significant impact on CS. For SC, slope assumed the role of the dominant factor (q > 0.29),
while temperature (q > 0.26) remained an important influencing factor. Regarding HQ,
slope (q > 0.66) had the greatest impact, with population density and slope also demon-
strating crucial influences (q > 0.35). Although the most influential factors for each ES re-
mained relatively constant from 2005 to 2015, their respective q values increased slightly.
In 2020, precipitation emerged as the paramount influencing factor for WY, with a q value
of 0.71. The influence of the night light index and slope direction on the spatial distribution
of ESs was negligible (q < 0.02) during the selected years. Overall, the ranking of factors
was established according to the q values as follows: slope > temperature > precipitation
> population density > enhanced vegetation index > evapotranspiration > night light index
> slope direction. The impact of temperature, precipitation, and population density re-
mained relatively stable over time. The spatial distribution of vegetation from 2001 to 2020
was influenced by various environmental factors, with natural factors having a more pro-
nounced influence than human factors.

Figure 10. Explanatory power of driving factors of ESs based on factor detection analysis in 2001,
2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. (a) 2001. (b) 2005. (c) 2010. (d) 2015. (e) 2020. (Note: WY, water yield; CS,
carbon storage; SC, soil conservation; HQ, habitat quality; et, Evapotranspiration; evi, Enhanced
Vegetation Index; ntl, Nighttime lighting index; pd, Population Density; slo, Slope; asp, Aspect; pre,
Precipitation; tem, Temperature.).
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 19 of 27

3.5.2. Factor Interaction Detection Analysis

Figure 11 illustrates the impact of the interaction between two factors on the spatial
distribution of ESs. The results showed that the combined impact of two factors on the
spatial distribution of ESs was greater than that of any single factor. Among the three se-
lected representative years (2001, 2010, and 2020), within the combination of these two
factors affecting WY, the q-values of those two factors were higher than those of individual
factors. The combined influence of terrain factors and natural factors held more substan-
tial sway over the spatial distribution of ESs in comparison to individual factors. The high-
est q-value for the interaction indicated the significance of the interaction between slope,
temperature, precipitation, and population density in shaping the spatial variation of ESs.
Furthermore, the most considerable q-value for the interaction in 2019 pertained to slope
and temperature. This indicated that the interaction between terrain factors significantly
contributed to explaining ESs, further validating the dominant role of terrain factors.

Figure 11. Explanatory power of driving factors of ESs based on factor interaction detection analysis
in 2001, 2010, and 2020. (a–d) Explanatory power of driving factors of 4 ESs based on factor interac-
tion detection analysis in 2001. (e–h) Explanatory power of driving factors of 4 ESs based on factor
interaction detection analysis in 2010. (i–l) Explanatory power of driving factors of 4 ESs based on
factor interaction detection analysis in 2020. (Note: WY, water yield; CS, carbon storage; SC, soil
conservation; HQ, habitat quality; et, Evapotranspiration; evi, Enhanced Vegetation Index; ntl,
Nighttime lighting index; pd, Population Density; slo, Slope; asp, Aspect; pre, Precipitation; tem,
Temperature).
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 20 of 27

4. Discussion
4.1. Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Factors of ESs
This study revealed that the value of WY exhibited a continuous decreasing trend
before 2015 and an increase thereafter in the HRB, aligning with the findings of Qi, Li,
Zhang and Zhang [8]. These changes were attributable to the transformation of grasslands
and croplands into forests (Figure 2) because forests had higher evapotranspiration com-
pared to other vegetation types [8]. Prior research indicated that extensive afforestation in
shrubland areas can markedly decrease regional runoff, potentially leading to reduced
regional WY. [38]. In addition, previous studies have confirmed a close correlation be-
tween WY and precipitation within the watershed [5]. The study area was characterized
by low precipitation in the north and high precipitation in the south, and as a result of the
influence of the Qinling mountains in the north, the annual precipitation remained stable
at around 700 mm, which led to an insignificant change in WY [39]. In the watershed’s
southern and eastern regions, high precipitation led to lower evapotranspiration, result-
ing in a higher WY in these areas. [5]. For CS, the higher CS was mostly observed in the
western mountainous areas with significantly increased forest coverage (Figures 2 and 3).
Meanwhile, we found that the high CS values mostly occurred in the forest areas, whereas
grasslands and bare land dominated low CS values. A consistent conclusion can be seen
in the research of Wang and Dai [5], who concluded that forests had a higher CS compared
to other vegetation types. Meanwhile, Li, Jiang, Gao and Du [7] also found that in the
Northeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the CS decreased from east to northwest, a change at-
tributed to the transition of land types from forests to grasslands. The reason was that the
forest had huge canopies and root systems, and forest species diversity can also enhance
ecosystem diversity, leading to enhanced carbon storage [5]. Overall, this study concluded
that the proportion of forestland CS increased from 51.4% to 59.48%, and the total CS in
grassland decreased from 24.46% to 18.4%, which can be attributed to the extensive con-
version of grasslands and cropland to forests in the central and western regions of the
HRB (Figure 2). For HQ, areas of higher quality were predominantly located upstream in
the watershed, specifically in regions with dense forest coverage like the southern Qinling
and northern Daba mountains. In contrast, lower values were observed primarily in the
grassland-covered hilly regions downstream. (Figures 2 and 3). The reason was that com-
pared to forest ecosystems, grassland ecosystems were more fragile, with poorer re-
sistance and stability and lower biodiversity [40], therefore resulting in a low HQ. From
2001 to 2020, due to the increase in urban construction land in most areas of Shaanxi Prov-
ince upstream of the watershed and Hubei Province downstream of the watershed [9], the
HQ in the vicinity of these towns decreased [21]. However, the HQ had obviously im-
proved due to good ecological protection and an increase in grassland and forest area
around most cities downstream of the watershed [22]. Overall, the distribution and
changes in HQ were closely related to land-use types and vegetation coverage [41]. This
study revealed that regions with high total SC predominantly occur in the mountainous
upper regions of the study area, particularly in the southern Qinling and northern Daba
mountains. (Figure 3). Although the upper reaches of the HRB had relatively abundant
precipitation, more complex terrain, and strong potential soil erosion, due to the high for-
est coverage in these areas [42], plant roots can play an obvious consolidation role in the
soil [43]. In addition, the vertical structure of vegetation patterns was relatively complete,
which can not only reduce soil erosion by precipitation but also regulate runoff, thereby
reducing the actual amount of soil erosion, resulting in a large amount of SC in these areas
[24,26]. However, the vegetation types in the downstream areas of the watershed were
relatively single and there were many cultivated lands, resulting in severe soil erosion
[44]. In addition, we found that the SC downstream of the watershed gradually increased
from 2001 to 2020, especially in the southern part of Funiu mountains, the western part of
Tongbai County, and the surrounding area of Tianmen River (Figure 3). These changes
were primarily attributed to the implementation of the policy that reverts farmland to
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 21 of 27

forests and grasslands, along with changes in land-use methods [42,45]. In this study, we
found that slope and temperature are the two dominant factors. According to the research
results, the areas with high slopes and fewer human activities have higher carbon storage.
In the role of topography and geomorphology in regional soil conservation, slope was also
a key factor. The larger the slope was, the more easily it caused soil and water movement,
forming accumulation and loss, while a smaller slope can inhibit water production in the
basin to a certain extent and play the role of soil and water conservation [46]. Temperature
was negatively correlated with ESs, which was consistent with the research results of [47].
Temperature affects water yield and its coverage to a certain extent, and then affects ESs.
Meanwhile, a previous study had concluded that the temperature will decrease with the
increase in slope, indicating that the heat on the slope will decrease with the increase in
slope; that is, the slower the slope, the more heat received per unit area because different
slopes affect the angle of the sun’s light incident on the surface, which in turn affects the
surface to receive solar radiation energy [48].

4.2. The Trade-Offs/Synergies among Multiple ESs

Environmental factor changes will continually alter the trade-offs and synergies
among various ecological services, leading to clear spatial heterogeneity in the interac-
tions between these services [4,7,49]. For example, an increase in precipitation will sup-
plement regional water sources and increase soil erosion to a certain extent, thereby in-
creasing regional WY and SC, resulting in a synergistic relationship between the two ESs
[7]. However, if precipitation intensity and surface runoff surpass vegetation’s erosion re-
sistance, this could lead to increased soil erosion. Consequently, the soil conservation abil-
ity of vegetation may diminish, ultimately influencing the balance between WY and SC
[50]. In addition, an increase in temperature will promote the improvement of photosyn-
thesis, leading to an increase in carbon storage [51]. However, when the temperature ex-
ceeds the optimal temperature for photosynthesis, it will inhibit the CS function of vege-
tation [52]. Consequently, temperature fluctuations will modify the balance and synergy
between CS and other ESs. Additionally, the transformation of land-use types signifi-
cantly impacted the balance and cooperative interactions among different ESs. For in-
stance, forests exhibited more robust SC and CS than grasslands [53].
In this study, we conducted a spatial evaluation of the trade-off/synergistic relation-
ship between multiple ESs in the HRB from 2001 to 2020 and found that the trade-off re-
lationship between WY and the other three ESs played a dominant role, while the syner-
gistic relationship accounted for relatively little (Figure 8), especially in the northwest and
southeast regions of the study area. Previous research has shown that an increase in soil
conservation may cause an increase in soil thickness, which in turn hinders rainfall infil-
tration into the soil [54]. Vegetation can obtain less soil moisture, ultimately leading to a
decrease in WY. The decrease in WY weakened the erosion effect of runoff on surface soil,
thus increasing soil conservation [55]. Additionally, transforming other land types into
forests in these regions had resulted in increased regional water consumption, as the in-
crease in forest area enhanced the overall transpiration of vegetation, coupled with fluc-
tuations in rainfall, ultimately leading to a decrease in WY [8,53]. Meanwhile, we found
that the synergistic relationship between HQ, CS, and SC dominated, mainly occurring in
the northern and eastern regions of the study area. From 2001 to 2020, these regions un-
derwent significant land-use changes as a substantial portion of arable land and grassland
was transformed into forests (Figure 2). The increase in forest area indicated an increase
in vegetation coverage, which can significantly reduce the erosion of rainwater on the
ground and reduce soil erosion [56,57]. Forests had deeper root systems in the soil layer,
and root biomass density can significantly affect soil conservation services, thereby in-
creasing SC [55]. This aligns with Wang, et al. [58]’s findings that in the Loess Plateau
region, soil erosion resistance increased with higher root zone density and more soil or-
ganic matter. Meanwhile, compared to grasslands and arable land, the increase in forest
area can further enhance carbon storage and carbon sink potential [3,53]. Wang, Zhao, Xu,
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 22 of 27

Ding, Yan and Sofia Santos Ferreira [53] revealed differences in ecosystem services be-
tween artificial forests and natural grasslands by examining functional traits. It found that
in the loess hilly area, artificial forests provided stronger soil conservation and carbon
storage services than natural grasslands. Therefore, land-use change, especially the in-
crease in forests, can not only improve SC but also significantly increase carbon sink [3],
thereby presenting a highly synergistic relationship between CS and SC. In addition, this
study found a high degree of synergy between HQ, CS, and SC. As shown in Figure 4,
from 2001 to 2020, the SC and CS in the study area continued to increase, and the score of
HQ continued to improve. The three services showed a synergistic effect of mutual pro-
motion. This was mainly due to the continuous improvement of forestland quality in re-
cent years, which promoted the strengthening of vegetation fix carbon ability [59,60].
Good forest vegetation had a strong interception effect on rainfall, while the lush vegeta-
tion canopy reduced the erosion of rainwater on the soil surface to some extent, leading
to a gradual shift in the direction of mutual synergy among ecosystem services, and the
degree of synergy also increased [53,56].

4.3. Implications for Landscape Management

As the water source of the Middle Route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Pro-
ject, maintaining the stability and improvement of ESs in the HRB was of great strategic
significance for the whole country [61]. By analyzing the spatiotemporal variation and
ESBs, the following scientific and reasonable reference measures can be provided for fu-
ture ecosystem management in the HRB. Specifically, bundle 1 was mainly covered by
cropland land, and these areas had higher HQ but lower WY and SC (Figure 9a). There-
fore, these regions should consider the protection of arable land, limit the area of construc-
tion land, and prevent the blind expansion and disorderly spread of cities and towns [62].
Meanwhile, in steep-slope cultivated areas, planting trees and grass should be strength-
ened, which can not only aid in food security but also further improve WY and SC [8,63].
Although the main cover type of bundle 2 was grassland and it had high CS and HQ, WY
and SC were still relatively low (Figure 9a). Therefore, these regions should continue eco-
logical protection to maintain the stability of CS and HQ, and should be banned or re-
planted with soil and water conservation forests to enhance soil and water conservation
capacity and improve WY [18]. Bundle 3 was mainly distributed in mountain areas such
as the Qinling Mountains, Waifang Mountains, and Funiu Mountains, where the vegeta-
tion type was mainly forest and had a high WY (Figure 9a,b). However, these areas were
also important areas for mineral resource enrichment, with a high level of mining and
development. Therefore, for the mountainous areas in the northern part of the watershed,
it was necessary to strengthen the ecological restoration of mining and comprehensive
management of mining subsidence areas and improve the self-restoration ability of the
ecological system [64], which can not only maintain high WY but also strengthen soil and
water conservation and CS in these areas. The main cover types of bundle 4 were grass-
land and wetland, which had high ecological service capabilities and belonged to a highly
synergistic relationship of CS, HQ, and SC. Future land management should ensure the
coexistence of land-use development and carbon emission reduction [34]. It was necessary
to protect carbon sink land, improve the quality of wetlands around the Danjiangkou res-
ervoir, and promote the construction of green mines [65]. Meanwhile, efforts should also
be made to increase ecological restoration, further providing CS and SC for the region,
and thereby improving the regional HQ [3,45]. Overall, to achieve the carbon neutrality
goal and optimize the land-use structure of the HRB in the future, it was essential to com-
prehensively consider cropland protection, controlling the expansion of construction land
in low-altitude areas in the east and southeast [66,67]. For areas with low soil and water
conservation, vegetation restoration should be strengthened [11,45], especially through
afforestation to increase regional WY and provide more sufficient water sources for the
South-to-North Water Diversion Project.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 23 of 27

4.4. Limitations and Next Steps

This study’s evaluation results revealed the spatiotemporal variation characteristics
of ESs in the HRB, although uncertainties persisted in the findings. Firstly, although the
InVEST model was relatively mature, it still had certain limitations, such as the WY mod-
ule being unable to effectively consider the impact of terrain [5]. Secondly, the input data
of the model will also affect the research results; the root depth, pawc, sensitivity of threat,
and other parameters were also determined based on empirical data in the model user
manual and relevant literature; human data such as population density were obtained
through spatial assignment, and the accuracy was highly affected by resolution. In addi-
tion, land-use data were crucial for evaluating ESs, and the accuracy of land-use products
based on remote sensing interpretation (MCD12Q1) also needed further verification [45].
Although this study can identify the spatial locations where the trade-off relationships
between multiple ESs occur through the trade-off and collaborative analysis of ESs in the
HRB, which helped to balance management decisions with specific spatial locations, it
only analyzed the ESs of a specific year, reflecting the changing trends between different
time nodes, which does not allow us to determine the variability of ESs over time in a long
time series [7]. Moreover, due to the limitations of large-scale field observations, this study
did not use field-measured data to verify the simulation results of different ESs. Therefore,
future research will attempt to validate the simulation results of different ecological ser-
vice functions through large-scale field investigations and observations. Therefore, future
research should fully consider the following aspects: (1) selecting land-use data with
higher precision and finer division as much as possible; (2) obtaining climate, soil, and
human data of the study area through field research; (3) further integrating and compre-
hensively considering the impact of various factors such as the environment, human ac-
tivities, differences in vegetation types, and vegetation age structure on the ESs; (4) con-
sidering using other land-use simulation models to simulate the land cover in the study
area, such as the FLUS model; (5) using long-term time-series data for long-term spatio-
temporal-scale monitoring and evaluation of ESs to reveal the evolution trend and local
characteristics of ES relationships; and (6) attempting to validate the simulation results of
different ESs through large-scale field investigations and observations.

5. Conclusions
In this study, we analyzed the spatiotemporal changes in ESs, hot spots, and ESBs
during 2001–2020 in the HRB. Meanwhile, the trade-offs and synergistic relationships be-
tween ESs and the socioecological driving factors of these ESs were examined. During
2001–2020, the forests, wetlands, urban construction land, and water bodies increased by
11732.1 km2, 485.85 km2, 407.2 km2, and 162.36 km2 in the HRB, respectively. Temporally,
except for SC showing a trend of first increasing and then stabilizing, WY, CS, and SC all
showed a continuously increasing trend. Spatially, WY and HQ exhibited bipolar cluster-
ing characteristics, with WY exhibiting low-value clustering in the upstream and high-
value clustering in the downstream, while the pattern of HQ was the opposite; CS exhib-
ited differentiated clustering characteristics, with high- and low-value areas distributed
throughout the entire watershed. In CS and HQ, the spatial patterns of cold and hot spots
were quite similar: hot spots were primarily in the basin’s western and central areas, while
cold spots were mostly in the eastern and southeastern regions. Correlation analysis re-
vealed a significant positive correlation between HQ and CS, a significant negative corre-
lation between WY and CS, and only a weak correlation among other service functions.
Spatially, WY, HQ, CS, and SC showed a high trade-off relationship in most areas, espe-
cially in the northwest and southeast parts of the study area. However, HQ, CS, and SC
mainly exhibited a synergistic relationship, and most regions showed mild synergy be-
tween CS and SC. The slope and temperature have high influencing factor coefficients on
various ESs. The combined influence of terrain and natural factors had a more significant
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 24 of 27

impact on the spatial distribution of ESs than any single factor, with terrain factors playing
a dominant role in explaining the changes in these ESs.

Author Contributions: P.H.: conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, writing—

original draft. G.Y.: conceptualization, modifying figures. Z.W. (Zijun Wang): data curation, soft-
ware, formal analysis. Y.L.: conceptualization, methodology, project administration, funding acqui-
sition, supervision. X.C.: data curation, formal analysis. W.Z.: methodology, conceptualization. Z.Z.:
Data curation. Z.W. (Zhongming Wen): methodology, project administration, conceptualization.
H.S.: data curation. Z.L.: methodology, software. H.R.: data curation. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Special project of science and technology innovation plan
of Shaanxi Academy of Forestry Sciences (No. SXLK2022–02-7 and No. SXLK2023–02-14), the Na-
tional Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42107512), the Key R&D Plan of Shaanxi Province
(No. 2024SF-YBXM-621), the Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Reg-
ulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Re-
search, Grant NO. IWHR-SKL-KF202315, and the Open Research Fund of Key Laboratory of Digital
Earth Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. 2022LDE003).
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: We also acknowledge the data support from “Loess plateau science data center,
National Earth System Science Data Sharing Infrastructure, National Science & Technology Infra-
structure of China (http://loess.geodata.cn, accessed on 1 October 2023)”. There is no new data were
created in this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Reference
1. MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA,
2005.
2. Li, Y.; Luo, H. Trade-off/synergistic changes in ecosystem services and geographical detection of its driving factors in typical
karst areas in southern China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110811.
3. Liu, X.; Ding, J.; Zhao, W. Divergent responses of ecosystem services to afforestation and grassland restoration in the Tibetan
Plateau. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 344, 118471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118471.
4. Geng, W.; Li, Y.; Zhang, P.; Yang, D.; Jing, W.; Rong, T. Analyzing spatio-temporal changes and trade-offs/synergies among
ecosystem services in the Yellow River Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 138, 108825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108825.
5. Wang, Y.; Dai, E. Spatial-temporal changes in ecosystem services and the trade-off relationship in mountain regions: A case
study of Hengduan Mountain region in Southwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121573.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121573.
6. Su, B.; Liu, M. An ecosystem service trade-off management framework based on key ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154,
110894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110894.
7. Li, G.; Jiang, C.; Gao, Y.; Du, J. Natural driving mechanism and trade-off and synergy analysis of the spatiotemporal dynamics
of multiple typical ecosystem services in Northeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374, 134075.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134075.
8. Qi, W.; Li, H.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, K. Forest restoration efforts drive changes in land-use/land-cover and water-related ecosystem
services in China’s Han River basin. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 126, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.11.001.
9. Zheng, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, J. Quantifying the spatial impact of landscape fragmentation on habitat quality: A multi-temporal
dimensional comparison between the Yangtze River Economic Belt and Yellow River Basin of China. Land Use Policy 2023, 125,
106463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106463.
10. Vačkářová, D.; Medková, H.; Krpec, P.; Weinzettel, J. Ecosystem services footprint of international trade: Economic value of
ecosystem services lost due to crop production. Ecosyst. Serv. 2023, 64, 101560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101560.
11. Li, J.; Dong, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z. Terrestrial transect study on pattern and driving mechanism of ecosystem services in the
China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 884, 163880.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163880.
12. Yu, F.; Li, C.; Yuan, Z.; Luo, Y.; Yin, Q.; Wang, Q.; Hao, Z. How do mountain ecosystem services respond to changes in vegetation
and climate? An evidence from the Qinling Mountains, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110922.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110922.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 25 of 27

13. Zhang, J.; Guo, W.; Cheng, C.; Tang, Z.; Qi, L. Trade-offs and driving factors of multiple ecosystem services and bundles under
spatiotemporal changes in the Danjiangkou Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 144, 109550.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109550.
14. Ran, P.; Hu, S.; Frazier, A.E.; Yang, S.; Song, X.; Qu, S. The dynamic relationships between landscape structure and ecosystem
services: An empirical analysis from the Wuhan metropolitan area, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 325, 116575.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116575.
15. Wu, K.; Wang, D.; Lu, H.; Liu, G. Temporal and spatial heterogeneity of land use, urbanization, and ecosystem service value in
China: A national-scale analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 418, 137911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137911.
16. Xue, C.; Chen, X.; Xue, L.; Zhang, H.; Chen, J.; Li, D. Modeling the spatially heterogeneous relationships between tradeoffs and
synergies among ecosystem services and potential drivers considering geographic scale in Bairin Left Banner, China. Sci. Total
Environ. 2023, 855, 158834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158834.
17. Zhu, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, M.; He, S.; Gan, M.; Yang, L.; Wang, K. Impacts of urbanization and landscape pattern on habitat
quality using OLS and GWR models in Hangzhou, China. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106654.
18. Liu, Z.; Huang, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, X. Spatial identification of restored priority areas based on ecosystem service bundles and
urbanization effects in a megalopolis area. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114627.
19. Wu, L.; Sun, C.; Fan, F. Multi-criteria framework for identifying the trade-offs and synergies relationship of ecosystem services
based on ecosystem services bundles. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 144, 109453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109453.
20. Xia, H.; Yuan, S.; Prishchepov, A.V. Spatial-temporal heterogeneity of ecosystem service interactions and their social-ecological
drivers: Implications for spatial planning and management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 189, 106767.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106767.
21. Tu, D.; Cai, Y.; Liu, M. Coupling coordination analysis and spatiotemporal heterogeneity between ecosystem services and new-
type urbanization: A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110535.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110535.
22. Chen, S.; Wen, Z.; Zhang, S.; Huang, P.; Ma, M.; Zhou, X.; Liao, T.; Wu, S. Effects of long-term and large-scale ecology projects
on forest dynamics in Yangtze River Basin, China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 496, 119463.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119463.
23. Peng, Y.; Chen, W.; Pan, S.; Gu, T.; Zeng, J. Identifying the driving forces of global ecosystem services balance, 2000–2020. J.
Clean. Prod. 2023, 426, 139019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139019.
24. Xie, T.; Zhang, G.; Hou, J.; Xie, J.; Lv, M.; Liu, F. Hybrid forecasting model for non-stationary daily runoff series: A case study
in the Han River Basin, China. J. Hydrol. 2019, 577, 123915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.123915.
25. Liu, Y.; Jing, Y.; Han, S. Multi-scenario simulation of land use/land cover change and water yield evaluation coupled with the
GMOP-PLUS-InVEST model: A case study of the Nansi Lake Basin in China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 155, 110926.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110926.
26. Fu, W.; Cao, Y.; Li, X.; Sun, J.; Liu, F.; Li, W. The responses of riparian plant communities to environmental and spatial factors
in the upper Han River basin, China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 36, e02118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02118.
27. Bai, X.; Zhao, W. Impacts of climate change and anthropogenic stressors on runoff variations in major river basins in China
since 1950. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 898, 165349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165349.
28. Hou, W.; Hu, T.; Yang, L.; Liu, X.; Zheng, X.; Pan, H.; Zhang, X.; Xiao, S.; Deng, S. Matching ecosystem services supply and
demand in China’s urban agglomerations for multiple-scale management. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 420, 138351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138351.
29. Hamel, P.; Bryant, B.P. Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem services analyses: Seven challenges and practical responses.
Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 24, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.008.
30. Lal, R. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science 2004, 304, 1623–1627.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396.
31. Nelson, E.; Polasky, S.; Lewis, D.J.; Plantinga, A.J.; Lonsdorf, E.; White, D.; Bael, D.; Lawler, J.J. Efficiency of incentives to jointly
increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9471–9476.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706178105.
32. Renard, K.G.; Freimund, J.R. Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. J. Hydrol. 1994, 157,
287–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)90110-4.
33. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A guide to Conservation Planning; Agriculture Handbook No.
537; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
34. Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, B.; Jiang, S.; Yang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Assessing the Spatio-
Temporal Dynamics of Land Use Carbon Emissions and Multiple Driving Factors in the Guanzhong Area of Shaanxi Province.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097730.
35. Anselin, L. Local indicator of Spatial Association-LISA. Geogr. Anal. 1998, 27, 93–115.
36. Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107.
37. Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12,
1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 26 of 27

38. Farley, K.A.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. Effects of afforestation on water yield: A global synthesis with implications for policy.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11, 1565–1576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01011.x.
39. Xie, G.; Chu, K. Determination of corporate water consumption: Evidence from precipitation risks in China. Sci. Total Environ.
2023, 894, 164979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164979.
40. Shi, Z.; Zhou, S. A study on the dynamic evaluation of ecosystem health in the Yangtze river Basin of China. Ecol. Indic. 2023,
153, 110445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110445.
41. Fang, L.; Wang, L.; Chen, W.; Sun, J.; Cao, Q.; Wang, S.; Wang, L. Identifying the impacts of natural and human factors on
ecosystem service in the Yangtze and Yellow River Basins. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 127995.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127995.
42. Ren, H.; Wen, Z.; Liu, Y.; Lin, Z.; Han, P.; Shi, H.; Wang, Z.; Su, T. Vegetation response to changes in climate across different
climate zones in China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 155, 110932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110932.
43. Osawa, T.; Kohyama, K.; Mitsuhashi, H. Trade-off relationship between modern agriculture and biodiversity: Heavy
consolidation work has a long-term negative impact on plant species diversity. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 78–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.001.
44. Su, Z.-A.; Zhou, T.; Zhang, X.-B.; Wang, X.-Y.; Wang, J.-J.; Zhou, M.-H.; Zhang, J.-H.; He, Z.-Y.; Zhang, R.-C. A Preliminary Study
of the Impacts of Shelter Forest on Soil Erosion in Cultivated Land: Evidence from integrated 137Cs and 210Pbex Measurements.
Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 206, 104843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104843.
45. Liu, Y.; Lin, Z.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X.; Han, P.; Wang, B.; Wang, Z.; Wen, Z.; Shi, H.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Discriminating the impacts of
vegetation greening and climate change on the changes in evapotranspiration and transpiration fraction over the Yellow River
Basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 904, 166926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166926.
46. Dou, H.; Li, X.; Li, S.; Dang, D.; Li, X.; Lyu, X.; Li, M.; Liu, S. Mapping ecosystem services bundles for analyzing spatial trade-
offs in inner Mongolia, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120444.
47. Wang, T.; Gong, Z. Evaluation and analysis of water conservation function of ecosystem in Shaanxi Province in China based on
“Grain for Green” Projects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 83878–83896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21730-9.
48. Šafanda, J. Ground surface temperature as a function of slope angle and slope orientation and its effect on the subsurface
temperature field. Tectonophysics 1999, 306, 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(99)00066-9.
49. Liu, J.; Pei, X.; Zhu, W.; Jiao, J. Understanding the intricate tradeoffs among ecosystem services in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei
urban agglomeration across spatiotemporal features. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 898, 165453.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165453.
50. Wang, N.; Bi, H.; Peng, R.; Zhao, D.; Liu, Z. Disparities in soil and water conservation functions among different forest types
and implications for afforestation on the Loess Plateau. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 155, 110935.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110935.
51. Wang, D.; Noguchi, T.; Nozaki, T. Increasing efficiency of carbon dioxide sequestration through high temperature carbonation
of cement-based materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117980.
52. Yang, B.; Gong, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, B.; Zhu, C.; Shi, J.; Liu, M.; Liu, Y.; Li, X. Stabilization of carbon sequestration in a Chinese
desert steppe benefits from increased temperatures and from precipitation outside the growing season. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,
691, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.481.
53. Wang, J.; Zhao, W.; Xu, Z.; Ding, J.; Yan, Y.; Sofia Santos Ferreira, C. Plant functional traits explain long-term differences in
ecosystem services between artificial forests and natural grasslands. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 345, 118853.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118853.
54. Wei, B.; Li, Z.; Duan, L.; Gu, Z.; Liu, X. Vegetation types and rainfall regimes impact on surface runoff and soil erosion over 10
years in karst hillslopes. CATENA 2023, 232, 107443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107443.
55. Zi, R.; Zhao, L.; Fang, Q.; Qian, X.; Fang, F.; Fan, C. Path analysis of the effects of hydraulic conditions, soil properties and plant
roots on the soil detachment capacity of karst hillslopes. CATENA 2023, 228, 107177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107177.
56. Qiu, S.; Fang, M.; Yu, Q.; Niu, T.; Liu, H.; Wang, F.; Xu, C.; Ai, M.; Zhang, J. Study of spatialtemporal changes in Chinese forest
eco-space and optimization strategies for enhancing carbon sequestration capacity through ecological spatial network theory.
Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 859, 160035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160035.
57. Zhang, B.-J.; Zhang, G.-H.; Yang, H.-Y.; Zhu, P.-Z. Temporal variation in soil erosion resistance of steep slopes restored with
different vegetation communities on the Chinese Loess Plateau. CATENA 2019, 182, 104170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104170.
58. Wang, J.; Zhao, W.; Wang, G.; Yang, S.; Pereira, P. Effects of long-term afforestation and natural grassland recovery on soil
properties and quality in Loess Plateau (China). Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 144833.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144833.
59. Blanco, J.A.; Durán, M.; Luquin, J.; San Emeterio, L.; Yeste, A.; Canals, R.M. Soil C/N ratios cause opposing effects in forests
compared to grasslands on decomposition rates and stabilization factors in southern European ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ.
2023, 888, 164118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164118.
60. Li, B.; Gao, G.; Luo, Y.; Xu, M.; Liu, G.; Fu, B. Carbon stock and sequestration of planted and natural forests along climate
gradient in water-limited area: A synthesis in the China’s Loess plateau. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2023, 333, 109419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109419.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2115 27 of 27

61. Su, Q.; Chen, X. Efficiency analysis of metacoupling of water transfer based on the parallel data envelopment analysis model:
A case of the South–North Water Transfer Project-Middle Route in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127952.
62. Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Tang, Z.; Zhang, K.; Wang, T. Spatial effects of urban expansion on air pollution and eco-efficiency:
Evidence from multisource remote sensing and statistical data in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 367, 132973.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132973.
63. Li, Z.; Sun, X.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Li, S.; Zheng, W.; Zhai, B. Changes in nutrient balance, environmental effects,
and green development after returning farmland to forests: A case study in Ningxia, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 735, 139370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139370.
64. Nassani, A.A.; Aldakhil, A.M.; Zaman, K. Ecological footprints jeopardy for mineral resource extraction: Efficient use of energy,
financial development and insurance services to conserve natural resources. Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 102271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102271.
65. Bi, Y.; Li, M.; Christie, P.; Du, X.; Tian, L.; Gao, X. Evaluating carbon dynamics in soil aggregates using δ13C following long-
term vegetation restoration near a surface mine in a semi-arid region. CATENA 2023, 231, 107281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107281.
66. Liu, Y.; Zhao, L.; Liu, Y.; Huang, Z.; Shi, J.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Esteban Lucas-Borja, M.; López-Vicente, M.; Wu, G.-L. Restoration
of a hillslope grassland with an ecological grass species (Elymus tangutorum) favors rainfall interception and water infiltration
and reduces soil loss on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. CATENA 2022, 219, 106632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106632.
67. Ren, H.; Liu, Y.; Wen, Z.; Shi, H.; Zhou, R.; Wang, Z.; Kareem, H.A.; Zhang, W. Untangling the effects of climate variation and
human interference on grassland dynamics in North China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2023, 35, 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4930.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.