Science‐Driven Restoration: A Square Grid on a Round Earth?

Is formal science necessarily an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs? My experience as an ecologist in Hawaii suggests that even when scientific research programs are explicitly designed to guide and facilitate restoration, the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world complexities of implementing land management practices often limit the practical relevance of conventional scientific research. Although alternative models such as adaptive management and transdisciplinary science may facilitate research that more robustly models the real world, there is often little professional support or incentive to orient even these nonconventional research approaches toward actually solving on‐the‐ground problems. Thus, if one’s goal is to accomplish ecological restoration as quickly and efficiently as possible, a trial‐and‐error/intelligent tinkering–type approach might often be better than using more rigorous, data‐intensive scientific methodology. However, the sympatric implementation of ecological restoration and scientific research programs can lead to valuable synergies such as mutual logistical and financial support and the exchange of distinct forms of knowledge. The professional activities and mere presence of scientists can also greatly enhance a program’s prestige and visibility, which in turn can indirectly promote more and better ecological restoration. Improving our understanding of when formal science can directly assist restoration projects and when its value will more likely be synergistic and indirect could lead to better science, better ecological restoration, and better relationships between these two cultures.     

自然湿地生态恢复研究综述

湿地由于具有丰富的资源、独特的牛态结构和功能而享有“自然之肾”之称。为了更好地保护和开发利用湿地,世界各国都在积极采取措施阴止湿地的退化或消失,湿地的生态恢复与重建问题已成为生态学和环境科学的研究热点,在全面综述国内外湿地生态恢复研究进展的基础上,对湿地乍态恢复研究的重点和热点进行了探讨和分析,指出我国为做好湿地生态恢复工作尚需进一步加强湿地生态恢复的方法学、基础理论、应用技术和示范推广等方面的研究。     

Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology—Introduction

Although the aim of and the need for ecological restoration, and restoration ecology as its scientific base, are obvious, the field is still struggling with defining its basics. This situation, reflected by the debate about alternative terms to replace “restoration,” the ambiguous self‐image as a movement, art, application, or science, and the lack of a unifying conceptual framework, results in an uncertainty about the future development of the field. In a 10‐year project, an interdisciplinary Research Training Group in Jena followed the regeneration of one degraded terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem, respectively, and suggested a conceptual model for regeneration and restoration that was derived from the shared features of the two systems. As part of the scientific discussion of this new approach, an international workshop “Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology” was organized in Jena in November 2004. The following collection of 12 opinion papers and 1 concluding chapter reflect the discussions at the workshop and contributes to the “self‐finding” process of restoration ecology.     

地下生态系统对生态恢复的影响

生态系统破坏与退化的加剧使生态恢复成为全球性的挑战课题,近年来生态恢复的研究已逐渐由地上向地下部分转移,地下部分对生态系统退化所起的作用、机理和过程已倍受关注。本文通过探讨恢复生态学的关键概念,从土壤、地下水循环、生物系统3个方面探讨了地下生态系统对生态恢复的作用机理和反馈机制。针对目前的研究现状,指出地下生态系统研究中存在的问题,并提出今后需要深入研究的几个方向:1)生态系统退化程度的诊断及其标准;2)基于诊断标准,针对不同退化生态系统类型选定恢复的目标植物群落,如何改善土壤性质,确定土壤性质的改善程度;确定地下水位及土壤含水量的阈值;如何有效选择、引入和接种土壤生物;3)生态系统地上和地下部分整合及恢复过程中监测指标的确定。     

The Philosophical Dullness of Classical Ecology, and a Levinsian Alternative

Ecology has had a lower profile in Biology & Philosophy than one might expect on the basis of the attention ecology is given in public discussions in relation to environmental issues. Our tentative explanation is that ecology appears theoretically redundant within biology and, consequently, philosophically challenging problemsrelated to biology are commonly supposed to be somewhere else, particularly in the molecular sphere. Richard Levins has recognized the genuine challenges posed by ecology for theoretical and philosophical thinking in biology. This essay sets the stage for appreciating his work; it was preceded by four articles published in Biology & Philosophy 15(2),and is followed by a personal reminiscent.     

基于恢复生态学的洞庭湖区“山水林田湖草”生态修复研究

实施洞庭湖区\"山水林田湖草\"生态修复工程,是践行生态文明理念、遵循自然规律、破解生态环境保护难题的关键措施。由于自然灾害及人类不合理利用等因素影响,洞庭湖区生态问题日益严重,对洞庭湖区生态系统均衡和可持续发展带来威胁。基于恢复生态学理论,以洞庭湖区为研究对象,采用物能循环和物能转化的生态学原则分析洞庭湖区存在土壤重金属污染、水环境、生物多样性与植被退化和农村土地利用的生态问题,明确了\"山水林田湖草\"生命共同体中各要素及相应形成的子系统存在的相互联系和相互制约的关系,厘清洞庭湖区生态系统的生态退化过程和生态退化机制,就此提出重构生态水体、重建生态地质地貌和重现生态景观的生态恢复策略,提出妥善解决和处理洞庭湖区的生态恢复及亟需进行环境整治问题,实现自然景观的恢复重构。通过构建洞庭湖区生态系统恢复的测度指标体系和洞庭湖区生态系统恢复的监测与管控,实现洞庭湖区\"山水林田湖草\"生态恢复的目标。     

生态学中的干扰理论与应用实例

生态学中的干扰理论与应用实例魏斌张霞吴热风（北京大学环境科学中心,１００８７１）ＴｈｅｏｒｅｔｉｃａｌＡｎａｌｙｓｉｓｏｆＤｉｓｔｕｒｂａｎｃｅｉｎＥｃｏｌｏｇｙａｎｄｉｔｓＡｐｐｌｉｃａｔｉｏｎ．ＷｅｉＢｉｎ,ＺｈａｎｇＸｉａａｎｄＷｕＲｅｆｅｎｇ...     

The Recent Double Paradigm Shift in Restoration Ecology

The fields of ecology and ecological restoration possess an enormous potential for cross‐fertilization of ideas and information. Ecology could play a major role in informing practical restoration, whereas restoration projects, often situated in quite extreme environments, provide an excellent opportunity to test ecological theories. Efforts to base restoration on more of a scientific foundation, however, have recently started gathering momentum, following the call for such a link by Tony Bradshaw in 1987. On another level, as we gather more experience and information from restoration projects, it is becoming equally clear that often neglected socioeconomic and political aspects of restoration should not be forgotten in the overall approach to restoration. The two paradigm shifts in ecological restoration, toward more scientific foundation and better inclusion of socioeconomic limits and opportunities, locate restoration firmly in the transdisciplinary arena, with all the concomitant challenges and opportunities. In this sense, ecological restoration could be compared to the medical profession, where both a sound knowledge of science and human nature are a prerequisite for success in healing.     

Mayr's view of Darwin: was Darwin wrong about speciation?

We commonly read or hear that Charles Darwin successfully convinced the world about evolution and natural selection, but did not answer the question posed by his most famous book, ‘On the Origin of Species …’. Since the 1940s, Ernst Mayr has been one of the people who argued for this point of view, claiming that Darwin was not able to answer the question of speciation because he failed to define species properly. Mayr undoubtedly had an important and largely positive influence on the study of evolution by stimulating much evolutionary work, and also by promoting a ‘polytypic species concept’ in which multiple, geographically separated forms may be considered as subspecies within a larger species entity. However, Mayr became seduced by the symmetry of a pair of interlocking ideas: (1) that coexistence of divergent populations was not possible without reproductive isolation and (2) reproductive isolation could not evolve in populations that coexist. These beliefs led Mayr in 1942 to reject evidence of the importance of intermediate stages in speciation, particularly introgression between hybridizing species, which demonstrates that complete reproductive isolation is not necessary, and the existence of ecological races, which shows that ecological divergence can be maintained below the level of species, in the face of gene flow. Mayr's train of thought led him to the view that Darwin misunderstood species, and that species were fundamentally different from subspecific varieties in nature. Julian Huxley, reviewing similar data at the same time, came to the opposite conclusion, and argued that these were the intermediate stages of speciation expected under Darwinism. Mayr's arguments were, however, more convincing than Huxley's, and this caused a delay in the acceptance of a more balanced view of speciation for many decades. It is only now, with new molecular evidence, that we are beginning to appreciate more fully the expected Darwinian intermediates between coexisting species. © The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 95 , 3–16.     

景感生态学在煤电基地生态建设与管理中的应用

煤电基地的开发对中国能源利用格局具有深远的影响,是煤炭行业发展的重要方向,但也对生态环境提出了严峻的挑战。在我国煤电基地的生态建设中,基于景观生态学的应用研究较多,缺乏对居民感知、愿景和福祉等方面的联系和研究。以内蒙古锡林郭勒煤电基地为例,在分析因煤电基地的开发建设而导致的生态环境问题基础上,运用景感生态学的理论和方法,从煤电基地的景感营造、景感修复、景感保护监测管理、生态文明的建设共4个方面进行了分析,为煤电基地的生态建设、保护与管理提出了具有建设性的措施和建议。结合生态环境物联网对所选景感指标的监测、谜码数据平台的评价分析及预警系统,对实现煤电基地的生态健康保障、生态服务提升、以及居民愿景和福祉的提高有着重要意义,为实现区域可持续发展的目标提供了有效措施。本研究为煤电基地相关区域的生态建设、保护与管理提供科学依据和有效对策,为后续相关研究打下基础。     

生态建设的理论分析

20世纪80年代以来,生态恢复逐渐成为生态学和环境科学研究的热点领域。总结了近年来有关生态恢复的众多研究成果,认为生态建设是人类理性行为参与下积极的生态恢复与重建过程,它具有复杂性、针对性、动态性和不确定性特征,受地理环境地域分异的影响,其类型多种多样。从方案运筹的角度,提出了生态建设的共性原则,包括面向区域的问题导向原则、目标的科学性原则、参与的广泛性原则和科学监测与评价原则。生态建设是一个不断试验、学习和优化的过程。具体包括问题识别、方案设计、决策、实施、监测与评价以及方案调整等重要环节。公众参与对于生态建设是一种很好的知识、信息和资源输入渠道,对活化生态建设的管理运行机制,提高生态建设决策的科学性和有效性能够发挥重要作用。以这些理论分析为依据,对中国生态建设中存在的主要问题展开深入剖析,并提出建立科学评价机制是提高生态建设有效性的核心方略。