\documentclass[fleqn,10pt]{wlscirep}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{makecell}
\title{Scenario-Based Assessment of Carbon Storage and Habitat Quality under Land Use Change: Insights from Shandong Province, China}

\author[1]{Kechen Lyu}
\author[1,*]{Zhengjun li}
%\author[1,2,+]{Christine Author}
%\author[2,+]{Derek Author}
\affil[1]{School of civil engineering and geomatics, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255000, Shandong, China}
%\affil\cite{2}{Affiliation, department, city, postcode, country}

\affil[*]{corresponding: lizhengjun1017@sdut.edu.cn}
%
%\affil[+]{these authors contributed equally to this work}

%\keywords{Keyword1, Keyword2, Keyword3}

\begin{abstract}
Land-use change crucially affects ecosystem services, and an accurate assessment of its evolution is key to regional sustainability. Taking Shandong Province as a case study, this research employs the PLUS model to simulate land use changes from 2000 to 2020 and to project spatial transitions under multiple scenarios for 2030 and 2040. Meanwhile, the InVEST model was employed to assess changes in carbon storage (CS) and habitat quality (HQ). Key findings include: (1) Cultivated land decreased by 12.3\% while construction land expanded by 51.04\%, mainly at the expense of farmland and forests, forming an“urban east–agricultural west” spatial pattern. (2) CS declined by about 63 million tons, primarily due to urban expansion. (3) HQ decreased by 3.6\%, with significant ecological fragmentation in central mountains and the Yellow River Delta due to urbanization and intensified agriculture. (4) Under the ecological conservation scenario, CS could increase by 12.5\% and HQ improve to 0.572 by 2040; in contrast, the business-as-usual scenario projects continued declines. These results highlight the trade-offs between land development and ES, underscoring the need to enhance ecological zoning, compensation mechanisms, and corridor construction. Findings provide a scientific basis for sustainable land use and ecosystem management.
\\
\\
{\textbf{Keywords:} land use change; ecosystem services; carbon storage; habitat quality; PLUS model; InVEST model}
\end{abstract}
\begin{document}

\flushbottom
%\maketitle
% * <john.hammersley@gmail.com> 2015-02-09T12:07:31.197Z:
%
%  Click the title above to edit the author information and abstract
%
\thispagestyle{empty}

%\noindent Please note: Abbreviations should be introduced at the first mention in the main text – no abbreviations lists. Suggested structure of main text (not enforced) is provided below.










\newpage

\setcounter{figure}{0}
\counterwithin*{figure}{part}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{A\arabic{figure}}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\counterwithin*{table}{part}
\renewcommand{\thetable}{A\arabic{table}}



\section*{Appendix}

% TODO: \usepackage{graphicx} required
\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{f10}
	\caption{Land Use Simulation of Shandong Province in 2020.}
	\label{fig:f10}
\end{figure}



\begin{table}[ht]
	\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
	\hline Land use type & $\mathrm{C}_{\text {above }}$ & $\mathrm{C}_{\text {Below }}$ & $C_{\text {Soil }}$ & $C_{\text {Dead }}$ \\
	\hline Cropland & 2.5 & 0.38 & 89.24 & 0.95 \\
	\hline Woodland & 41.93 & 10.44 & 102.87 & 1.8 \\
	\hline Grassland & 0.4 & 4.14 & 82.8 & 0.08 \\
	\hline Water body & 0.28 & 0.97 & 16.24 & 1.17 \\
	\hline Built-up land & 1.81 & 4.51 & 68.22 & 0.26 \\
	\hline Unused land & 1.22 & 1.95 & 20.94 & 0.91 \\
	\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{A1}The carbon density of each land use type in Shandong $\left(\mathrm{tC} / \mathrm{hm}^2\right)$.}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[ht]
	\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
	\hline Name & Habitat & Cultivated land & Urban land & Rural settlement & Other construction land & Unused land \\
	\hline Cropland & 0.55 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.35 & 0.4 & 0.2 \\
	\hline Woodland & 1 & 0.675 & 0.825 & 0.7 & 0.775 & 0.45 \\
	\hline Grassland & 0.8 & 0.5 & 0.6 & 0.55 & 0.55 & 0.45 \\
	\hline Waterbody & 0.84 & 0.65 & 0.85 & 0.76 & 0.51 & 0.44 \\
	\hline Built-up land & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
	\hline Unused land & 0.2125 & 0.1375 & 0.175 & 0.1375 & 0.125 & 0 \\
	\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{A2}Habitat suitability and its sensitivity to different threat factors.}
\end{table}


\begin{table}[!ht]
	\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|l|}
	\hline THREAT & MAX DIST & WEIGHT & DECAY \\
	\hline Cropland & 3 & 0.6 & Linear \\
	\hline Urban land & 10 & 0.8 & Exponential \\
	\hline Rural settlement & 5 & 0.6 & Exponential \\
	\hline Other construction land & 8 & 0.7 & Exponential \\
	\hline Unused land & 1 & 0.5 & Linear \\
	\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{A3}Maximum influence distance and weight of threat factors.}
\end{table}


\begin{table}[!ht]
	\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
	\hline \multirow{2}{*}{} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\makecell[c]{The Natural \\Development \\Scenario}} & \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\makecell[c]{The Cropland \\Conservation\\ Scenario}} &\multicolumn{6}{c|}{\makecell[c]{The Ecological\\ Conservation\\ Scenario}}\\
	\hline & a & b & c & d & e & f & a & b & c & d & e & f & a & b & c & d & e & f \\
	\hline a & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
	\hline b & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
	\hline c & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
	\hline d & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
	\hline e & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
	\hline f & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
	\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{A4}Scenario Settings. a represents cropland, b represents woodland, c represents grassland, d represents water bodies, and e represents construction land; 0 represents a restriction on conversion to other land use types, and 1 represents that the land use type is allowed to be converted to other land use types.}
\end{table}




\begin{table}[t!]
	\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
	\hline $2000 \sim 2010 / \mathrm{km}^2$ & Built-up land & Cropland & Grassland & Unused land & Water body & Woodland \\
	\hline Construction land & 14877.10 & 3991.67 & 68.75 & 28.03 & 1078.45 & 17.56 \\
	\hline Cropland & 9840.25 & 92334.13 & 190.36 & 59.21 & 1206.52 & 232.27 \\
	\hline Grassland & 875.11 & 3921.26 & 8021.25 & 250.98 & 475.52 & 196.77 \\
	\hline Unused land & 687.94 & 962.19 & 50.06 & 227.71 & 365.99 & 4.05 \\
	\hline Water body & 373.87 & 705.59 & 21.34 & 76.02 & 4954.60 & 26.22 \\
	\hline Woodland & 232.09 & 1003.32 & 111.12 & 15.03 & 58.31 & 8580.98 \\\hline
    \multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
2010~2020/km$^2$&Built-up land&Cropland&Grassland&Unused land&Water body&Woodland\\\hline
Construction land&23609.25 &1747.72 &53.46 &1.45 &1426.66 &44.55 \\\hline
Cropland&3327.14 &98416.82 &350.31 &24.09 &511.04 &267.72 \\\hline
Grassland&96.97 &376.63 &7725.85 &7.68 &44.19 &208.60 \\\hline
Unused land&18.20 &15.71 &6.20 &557.84 &60.13 &3.67 \\\hline
Water body&136.11 &372.57 &39.10 &5.42 &7573.60 &16.62 \\\hline
Woodland&39.68 &245.90 &264.92 &5.45 &17.13 &8477.25 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{A5}Land use transfer matrix in Shandong Province from 2000 to 2020.}
\end{table}


$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$

$\quad$



\end{document}