## 3 Results
### Landscape Pattern  
The patch level of the landscape pattern indexes of both NNRs are presented in Tables 5 and 6. There was a negligible difference in the average values of \(\rm PD_{P}\) inside and outside ZINNR. Notably, the \(\rm LPI_{P}\) and \(\rm MPS_{P}\) of inside wetland patches were much larger than those of outside wetland patches. Over the past 21 years, the change extents of the three indexes were larger outside wetland patches than those of the inside wetland. Conversely, the average values of \(\rm LPI_{P}\) and \(\rm MPS_{P}\) outside were generally more dwarf than those inside, especially for forest land types, and the average value of \(\rm PD_{P}\) outside MdfNNR was also generally larger than that inside. The change extent of \(\rm PD_{P}\) and \(\rm LPI_{P}\) values was generally greater outside than inside in MdfNNR, whereas the change extent of \(\rm MPS_{P}\) value shows the opposite trend, with the extent of change in outside indexes being smaller than that of the inside. Whether in ZINNR or MdfNNR, in terms of patch shape, the average values of \(\rm ED_{P}\) and \(\rm LSIF_{P}\) are generally higher outside than inside, and the variation ranges of the two indexes were the same. The landscape level of the landscape pattern indexes for each study area are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Regarding the landscape characteristics, the change extent of the \(\rm PD_{L}\) and \(\rm MPS_{L}\) values was larger outside ZINNR than inside, with the \(\rm LPI_{L}\) value being greater inside ZINNR than outside. The change extent of the \(\rm PD_{L}\) and \(\rm LPI_{L}\) values outside MdfNNR was larger than inside, whereas the three-year mean of \(\rm LPI_{L}\) and \(\rm MPS_{L}\) values was smaller outside compared to inside, with \(\rm PD_{L}\) showing the opposite trend. As for changes in landscape shape, the four indexes demonstrate greater fluctuation outside the ZINNR than inside, whereas the three-year mean of \(\rm ED_{L}\) and \(\rm LSI_{L}\) values was higher outside than inside, and \(\rm CONTAG_{L}\) was similar between inside and outside. Additionally, the change extent of the \(\rm ED_{L}\) and \(\rm LSI_{L}\) values was smaller inside MdfNNR than outside, and the three-year mean of \(\rm ED_{L}\) and \(\rm LSI_{L}\) values was higher outside than inside. Regarding \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Inside and Outside**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Type**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Area/ha**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Change Rate (K)/\%**} \\  & **2000** & **2010** & **2020** & **2000–2010** & **2010–2020** & **2000–2020** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Inside} & Cropland & 2534.86 & 2594.20 & 2591.64 & 0.2341 & \(-\)0.0099 & 0.2240 \\  & Forest land & 18,644.40 & 18,514.40 & 18,519.40 & \(-\)0.0697 & 0.0027 & \(-\)0.0670 \\  & Grassland & 6.73 & 74.55 & 8.13 & 100.8333 & \(-\)8.0904 & 2.0871 \\  & Water & 16.39 & 16.46 & 18.29 & 0.0428 & 1.1098 & 1.1573 \\  & Impervious & 88.28 & 91.08 & 153.62 & 0.3174 & 6.8667 & 7.4021 \\  & Cropland & 5462.07 & 5695.66 & 5600.35 & 0.4277 & \(-\)0.1673 & 0.2532 \\  & Forest land & 17,175.10 & 16,998.50 & 16,943.00 & \(-\)0.1028 & \(-\)0.0326 & \(-\)0.1351 \\  & Grassland & 10.16 & 45.54 & 26.28 & 34.8274 & \(-\)4.2290 & 15.8699 \\  & Water & 28.87 & 31.67 & 32.73 & 0.9708 & 0.3351 & 1.3384 \\  & Impervious & 475.86 & 380.72 & 551.56 & \(-\)1.9994 & 4.4873 & 1.5907 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The change of land use in MdfNNR from 2000 to 2020.  
landscape diversity, the change extent of the \(\rm{SHDI_{L}}\) and \(\rm{SHEI_{L}}\) values was smaller inside ZINNR than outside, and the average values of both indexes were larger inside ZINNR than outside, but vice versa for \(\rm{MdfNNR}\). Comparing the patch indexes between the two PAs, we found that from 2000-2020, the \(\rm{PD_{P}}\), \(\rm{LPI_{P}}\), and \(\rm{ED_{P}}\) values increased in \(\rm{MdfNNR}\), with water bodies increasing the most (65.74%, 53.09%, and 53.34%, respectively).