生态系统稳定性定义剖析

生态系统稳定性是理论生态学的焦点问题之一 ,综述和剖析生态系统稳定性的定义 ,对已有的定义进行了改进。生态系统稳定性是不超过生态阈值的生态系统的敏感性和恢复力。在这个概念中涉及到 3个概念 :生态阈值、敏感性和恢复力 ,阈值是生态系统在改变为另一个退化 (或进化 )系统前所能承受的干扰限度 ;敏感性是生态系统受到干扰后变化的大小和与其维持原有状态的时间 ;退化生态系统的恢复力就是消除干扰后生态系统能回到原有状态的能力 ,包括恢复速度和与原有状态的相似程度。在保护生态学中 ,阈值与恢复力的定义具有广泛的应用 ,特别是生态系统受到负面的干扰后而退化 ,退化的生态系统逐步恢复的过程可以利用恢复力来测定 ;而保护的成果就是力图避免干扰超过系统的阈值而达到一个实际的演替     

恢复及演替过程中的土壤生态学考虑

 人类社会的日益扩张,导致人类加速占据地球表面景观,并胁迫地球上生态系统提供不断增长的资源需求和废物吸收能力。所以保护尚未“开放”的自然生态系统及恢复退化的生态系统成为人类长期生存的重要保证。该文着重讨论了恢复过程中的土壤生态学问题。土壤是所有陆地生态系统的结构与功能基础。土壤微生物与动物的种群变化,土壤有机质的积累,及主要元素地球化学循环的改变是恢复生态的重要环节。生态恢复与演替有许多共性,所以演替理论对于认识生态系统恢复中的结构与功能变化有着很大帮助。与自然演替不同的是,人的积极参与在生态恢复中占有中心位置。从最初样地的确立与物种的选择,到后续的灌溉与施肥管理,人的选择影响着土壤的演化,生态系统的发展方向,和最终恢复生态的结果。为保障恢复生态系统的可持续性,短期的工作目标,如提供养分促进植物生长,务必与长期的工作目标,如土壤的恢复相结合。植物与土壤的相互反馈是生态恢复成功的重要标志。成功的生态恢复不仅是对现有生态学理论的“试金检验”,也是推动生态学学科发展的重要原动力。     

退化草原的恢复状态:气候顶极或干扰顶极?

针对世界性的草原普遍退化,以及人类利用的影响问题,该文阐述了生态系统恢复、生态演替中气候顶极、环境变化与草原状态转移、放牧利用与干扰顶极,以及人工辅助干预恢复,提出了退化草原生态系统恢复的路径与状态模式。该文特别强调:应该以生态系统为视角开展退化草原恢复,而非仅考虑植被或土壤等单一过程;同时注重干扰下的退化草原恢复,其恢复状态可能存在多个选择。退化草原恢复包括3种基本方式:1)依渐进式恢复的生态演替理论,在环境条件较好,退化程度处于中轻度的草原,借助系统自组织性,以“自然演替”能够达到顶极或近顶极状态; 2)人工辅助干预恢复:对重度或极度退化草原,突破由于非生物(土壤物理、养分等)与生物(植物定植、物种相互作用等)因素带来的限制,使用工程、物理、化学及生物生态等方法,可以恢复到某种平衡或稳定状态,或者顶极状态;3)放牧干扰恢复:通过适度家畜放牧,调控生态系统基本结构(物种组成、多样性)、主要过程(生产力形成、养分循环、反馈作用),进而促进与维持较高的草原生态系统多功能性与稳定性,对于处于中轻度的退化草原可以选择这种恢复方式。总之,退化草原恢复的目标是实现其长期稳定的生态系统多功能性。     

生态阈值:概念、方法与研究展望

生态阈值概念是20世纪70年代提出的,主要指生态系统的几个稳态之间突然改变的点或区域。在阐明生态系统结构与功能的关系、构建区域可持续发展范式以及服务于生态系统管理和生态红线的划定中,生态阈值的检测和量化有着重要的理论和实践意义。该文首先梳理了前人关于生态阈值的概念、类型的一些提法,从预警研究角度提出可以从两个层次理解生态阈值概念:生态阈值点是系统从量变到质变的转折点,类似于红色界限;而生态阈值带可以理解为量变过程中不同稳态之间的转换区域,类似于黄色与橙色预警边界带。黄色生态阈值表示生态系统可通过自身的调节能力重新达到稳定状态;橙色生态阈值表示需要排除干扰因子使得生态系统重新达到平衡;而红色生态阈值为关键阈值点,超过此阈值,生态系统将发生不可逆的退化甚至崩溃。该文还总结了目前确定生态阈值的主要方法,主要是基于野外观测数据的统计分析与模型模拟方法。最后,基于生态系统服务、生物多样性保护与生态系统管理等几个当今生态学热点研究领域,简单总结归纳了生态阈值的研究现状,并提出生态阈值未来的3个研究难点和方向:1)开展针对生态阈值检测和量化的研究;2)关注生态阈值的尺度效应并加强野外观测;3)发挥生态阈值的预警作用,指导"生态红线"的划定和生态系统管理。     

景观生态学与退化生态系统恢复

退化生态系统的恢复是一项艰巨任务,它需要考虑到所要恢复的退化生态系统的结构,多样性和其动态的整体性和长期性。现在对于退化生态系统恢复研究已经要使生态学家们关注受损生态系统的理论和实际问题。退化生态系统恢复所面临的挑战是理解和利用生态演替理论来完成并加速恢复进程。恢复的主要目标是建立一个自维持的,由不同的群落或生态系统组成的能够满足不同需要如生物保护和粮食生产需要的景观。景观生态学关注于大的空间尺度的生态学问题。景观生态学研究方法可以为退化生态系统恢复实践提供指导。在解决退化生态系统的恢复问题时,景观生态学的方法在理论和实践上是有效的。景观生态学中的核心概念和其一般原理斑块形状、生态系统间相互作用、镶嵌系列等都同退化生态系统的恢复有着密切的关系。如恢复地点的选择和适当的恢复要素的空间配置。在评价退化生态系统的恢复是否取得成功,利用景观生态学也具有重要的意义。景观生态学理论如景观格局与景观异质性理论,干扰理论和尺度理论都能够指导退化生态系统的恢复实践。同样地,退化生态系统的恢复可以为景观生态学的研究提供非常恰当的实验场。寓景观生态学思想于退化生态系统恢复过程是一种新的有效途径。     

退化生态系统恢复与恢复生态学

恢复生态学起源于100a前的山地、草原、森林和野生生物等自然资源的管理研究,形成于20世纪80年代。它是研究生态整合性的恢复和管理过程的科学。恢复生态学的研究对象是在自然或人为干扰下形成的偏离自然状态的退化生态系统。生态恢复的目标包括恢复退化生态系统的结构、功能、动态和服务功能,其长期目标是通过恢复与保护相结合,实现生态系统的可持续发展。恢复生态学的理论与方法较多,它们均源于生态学等相关学科,但自我设计和人为设计是唯一源于恢复生态学研究和实践的理论。由于生态系统的复杂性,退化生态系统恢复的方向和时间具有不确定性,其恢复的机理可用临界阈值理论和状态跃迁模型进行解释。中国森林恢复中存在的问题包括：大量营造种类和结构单一的人工林忽视了生物多样性在生态恢复中的作用;大量使用外来种;忽视了生态系统健康所要求的异质性;忽略了物种间的生态交互作用;造林时对珍稀濒危种需要缺乏考虑;城镇绿化忽略了植被的生态功能等问题。此外,还介绍了生态恢复的方法、成功恢复的标准,并提出了恢复生态学的发展趋势：恢复生态学尚未形成理论和方法体系,要成熟还有很长的路要走;恢复生态学正在强调自然恢复与社会、人文的耦合;对森林恢复研究要集中在恢复中的障碍和如何克服这些障碍两个方面;鉴于生态系统复杂性和动态性,应停止期待发现能预测恢复产出的简单定律,相反,应该根据恢复地点及目标多样性而强调适应性恢复。     

恢复生态学的理论与研究进展

简介了恢复生态学中常用的生态学原理,以及在其自身发展过程中产生的状态过渡模型及阈值、集合规则、参考生态系统、人为设计和自我设计、适应性恢复等理论;从生境、种群、群落、生态系统、景观尺度层面,以及将全球变化与人类干扰纳入生态恢复范畴等方面介绍了恢复生态学的研究进展与主流认识。在此基础上,对恢复生态学的发展障碍与发展趋势进行了评述。     

退化生态系统植被恢复的生理生态学研究进展

自然的力量和人类的干预导致局部性、区域性甚至全球性植物群落格局的变化。不管这种变化的原因是什么,变化的强度如何,生态系统常常通过自然演替能够恢复它们大部分的特征,亦可以通过人类的介入进行修复,退化生态系统恢复的实质是群落演替,是生态系统结构和功能从简单到复杂、从低级向高级演变的过程,植物生理生态特性研究可以解释退化生态系统植被恢复的一些宏观现象,并为植被恢复构建先锋群落提供可靠的科学依据,本文综述退化生态系统植被恢复的生理生态学研究的进展。     

基于“结构—过程—功能”一体化的喀斯特退化生态系统恢复和评价指标研究

对中国西南喀斯特退化生态系统的恢复和评价,是实现"人—自然—经济复合生态系统"可持续发展的重要基础。为此,首先分析了生态系统演化特点和生态系统"结构—过程—功能"的一体化,在此基础上提出人为驱动生态系统恢复的一种新途径。即通过丰富系统要素,加强各要素与多元化生态过程的耦合,驱动退化生态系统的自调控等内在机能的恢复,最终促使生态系统回复到自维持的动态平衡。其次,以喀斯特脆弱生态系统的退化特点和影响恢复的主导因子为基础,结合喀斯特退化生态系统恢复的特殊性,初步筛选出指示生态恢复的4类要素共11项指标,可用于对喀斯特退化生态系统的恢复评价和管理。     

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。     

The Nature of Urban Soils and Their Role in Ecological Restoration in Cities

Current and predicted trends indicate that an increasing proportion of the world’s population is living in urban and suburban places. The nature of the urban environment becomes an important factor if we are concerned with the restoration and preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in and around cities. This article highlights the varied impacts of cities on soils and their implications for restoration planning and expectations of restoration “success.” Urban soils exist in different historical and formational trajectories than their local nonurbanized counterparts due to direct anthropogenic disturbance and indirect environmental impacts from urbanization. Therefore, urban soils often exhibit altered physical, chemical, and biological characteristics in comparison to local nonurbanized soils. Several unique features of urban soils and urban ecosystems pose particular issues for ecological restoration or the improvement of degraded soil conditions in cities. The creation of novel soil types, conditions that promote invasion by non‐natives, the strong influence of past land use on soil properties, and the presence of strong interactions and alternative stable states set up unique difficulties for the restoration of urban soils. Soils in urban restorations are a medium that can be deliberately manipulated to improve site conditions or in the monitoring of soil conditions as indices of ecosystem status. Including an explicit role for strong manipulations of soils in urban ecosystems changes how we approach baselines, management, and reference conditions in urban ecological restoration. With an understanding of urban soil ecological knowledge, we can guide aspects of urban ecological restoration toward successful outcomes.     

区域生态恢复规划及其关键问题

生态恢复是一项长期的根本性生态建设措施,需要有区域性整体规划与长期维持的具体安排。目前,区域生态恢复规划却未受到足够的关注。重点讨论了区域生态恢复规划的内涵、理论基础、规划原则及关键问题,这些问题的探讨对于提升生态恢复效率,增强生态恢复的科学性具有重要意义。区域生态恢复规划从宏观整体性的角度对区域内所实施的生态恢复工程进行统筹规划,对区域内实施的具体恢复规划具有指导意义。区域生态恢复以不同生态功能区的主导生态功能为恢复目标。在退化生态系统诊断的基础上,确定在哪里恢复。通过局地恢复治理与区域调控相结合的恢复策略,实现生态链与产业链的结合,其本质则是实现生态建设与社会经济的协调发展。     

What's wrong with novel ecosystems,really?

The novel ecosystems concept has gained much traction in the restoration community. It has also drawn the ire of several prominent ecologists and is the focus of an ongoing debate. We consider three key aspects of this debate: irreversible thresholds, non‐native species, and the hybrid state. Irreversible thresholds have been acknowledged in restoration for years, but predicting when a threshold will be crossed and the degree of reversibility is problematic. Oftentimes reversibility is a function of multiple factors, such as cost and public support. In this sense, a novel ecosystem is not an alternate state but a decision. The need for pragmatism regarding control of non‐natives has also long been recognized in restoration circles. Proponents of the novel ecosystem idea adopt this pragmatism by recommending that management decisions be based on impacts conferred by species in altered ecosystems, regardless of their origin. The concept of a hybrid state has proven difficult to operationalize. We suggest that rather than trying to identify the boundary between hybrid and novel states, ecosystems exist on a gradient of alteration. We offer a decision tree for restoration action that integrates aspects of novel ecosystems with other perspectives in modern restoration ecology. We conclude that the idea of novel ecosystems, though not perfect, deserves a place under the “big tent” of restoration that includes efforts to return fully to a reference state, as well as strategies for reinstating lost ecological processes and enhancing ecosystem services in transformed landscapes where such a return is deemed infeasible.     

Alien Invasions, Ecological Restoration in Cities and the Loss of Ecological Memory

After a community or ecosystem is lost, it may leave behind an ecological memory. The site history, soil properties, spores, seeds, stem fragments, mycorrhizae, species, populations, and other remnants may influence the composition of the replacement community or ecosystem to varying degrees. The remnants may also hold the site to a trajectory that has implications for ecological restoration. This is true in urban situations in particular where repeated disturbance has masked the history of the site. The ecological memory remaining may be insufficient for a site to heal itself; restoration activities are required to direct the future of the site. Conversely, in light of climate change and other rapidly changing environments, the existing ecological memory may be poorly suited to the new conditions and restoration projects need to create new and perhaps novel ecosystems. The loss of ecological memory facilitates the establishment of foreign invasive species. These invasives may eventually create a new stability domain with its own ecological memory and degree of resilience. To be successful, invasive species control must address both internal within patch memory of invasives and external between patch memory. Further research is necessary to document and conserve ecological memory for ecological restoration in response to future ecosystem changes.     

基于生态安全格局的国土空间生态修复关键区域识别——以贺州市为例

国土空间生态修复是落实生态文明建设战略的重要举措。科学识别国土空间生态修复关键区域，合理布局全域生态修复空间是当前国土空间规划面临的难点之一。以广西壮族自治区贺州市为例，从生态保护重要性、景观连通性、生态功能重要区域和自然保护区四个方面识别生态源地，运用电路理论提取生态廊道，构建生态安全格局。通过电流密度诊断生态廊道中的生态"夹点"和生态障碍点，判定生态廊道宽度，识别国土空间生态保护修复关键区域，制定生态修复的空间布局策略。研究结果表明：（1）市域生态源地面积3656.89 km²，呈"东西重，中部轻"的空间分布特征；生态廊道总长度639.50 km，以中部分布为主，关键生态廊道133.96 km。（2）市域生态"夹点"共16处，面积124.24 km²，主要分布在钟山县，亟待保护修复的生态"夹点"8处，面积45.02 km²，零散分布于市域；生态障碍点共32处，面积426.56 km²，主要分布在市域东部和南部，需优先保护修复的生态障碍点6处，面积166.05 km²，集中在平桂区。通过综合分析国土生态修复关键区域土地利用现状和空间分布特征，制定了分级分类的生态修复措施，以期进一步优化生态安全格局，为国土空间生态修复区域识别和国土空间生态修复规划编制提供参考。     

Setting Effective and Realistic Restoration Goals: Key Directions for Research

Restoration ecology has made significant advances in the past few decades and stands to make significant contributions both to the practical repair of damaged ecosystems and the development of broader ecological ideas. I highlighted four main areas where progress in research can assist with this. First, we need to enhance the translation of recent advances in our understanding of ecosystem and landscape dynamics into the conceptual and practical frameworks for restoration. Second, we need to promote the development of an ability to correctly diagnose ecosystem damage, identify restoration thresholds, and develop corrective methodologies that aim to overcome such thresholds. This involves understanding which system characteristics are important in determining ecosystem recovery in a range of ecosystem types, and to what extent restoration measures need to overcome threshold and hysteresis effects. A third key requirement is to determine what realistic goals for restoration are based on the ecological realities of today and how these will change in the future, given ongoing changes in climate and land use. Finally, there is a need for a synthetic approach which draws together the ecological and social aspects of the issues surrounding restoration and the setting of restoration goals.     

Looking to the future: key points for sustainable management of northern Great Plains grasslands

The grasslands of the northern Great Plains (NGP) region of North America are considered endangered ecosystems and priority conservation areas yet have great ecological and economic importance. Grasslands in the NGP are no longer self‐regulating adaptive systems. The challenges to these grasslands are widespread and serious (e.g. climate change, invasive species, fragmentation, altered disturbance regimes, and anthropogenic chemical loads). Because the challenges facing the region are dynamic, complex, and persistent, a paradigm shift in how we approach restoration and management of the grasslands in the NGP is imperative. The goal of this article is to highlight four key points for land managers and restoration practitioners to consider when planning management or restoration actions. First, we discuss the appropriateness of using historical fidelity as a restoration or management target because of changing climate, widespread pervasiveness of invasive species, the high level of fragmentation, and altered disturbance regimes. Second, we highlight ecosystem resilience and long‐term population persistence as alternative targets. Third, because the NGP is so heavily impacted with anthropogenic chemical loading, we discuss the risks of ecological traps and extinction debt. Finally, we highlight the importance of using adaptive management and having patience during restoration and management. Consideration of these four points will help management and restoration of grasslands move toward a more successful and sustainable future. Although we specifically focus on the NGP of North America, these same issues and considerations apply to grasslands and many other ecosystems globally.     

生态保护红线修复机制法治化: 定位、困境及其出路

生态保护红线以生态系统的完整性、生态系统服务功能的一致性与生态空间的连续性为核心, 致力于保护国家的生态安全。生态保护红线修复分区分类展开, 以修复受损生态系统为目标, 具有自然修复和社会修复双重内涵。生态保护红线存在脆弱性、敏感性、复杂性与极易破坏性等特征, 它在建立修复机制法治化过程中遇到空间不可置换、治理费用高昂和治理主体责任错乱等困境。生态保护红线修复机制应建立“明确预防为主原则为指导、成立修复专项资金为手段、确定修复主体顺位为责任保障”的法治化的基本路径, 以实现重要生态系统保护和修复重大工程, 构建生态廊道和生物多样性保护网络。     

A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation

Urban greenspace has gained considerable attention during the last decades because of its relevance to wildlife conservation, human welfare, and climate change adaptation. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation worldwide require the formation of new concepts of ecological restoration and rehabilitation aimed at improving ecosystem functions, services, and biodiversity conservation in cities. Although relict sites of natural and semi-natural ecosystems can be found in urban areas, environmental conditions and species composition of most urban ecosystems are highly modified, inducing the development of novel and hybrid ecosystems. A consequence of this ecological novelty is the lack of (semi-) natural reference systems available for defining restoration targets and assessing restoration success in urban areas. This hampers the implementation of ecological restoration in cities. In consideration of these challenges, we present a new conceptual framework that provides guidance and support for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation by formulating restoration targets for different levels of ecological novelty (i.e., historic, hybrid, and novel ecosystems). To facilitate the restoration and rehabilitation of novel urban ecosystems, we recommend using established species-rich and well-functioning urban ecosystems as reference. Such urban reference systems are likely to be present in many cities. Highlighting their value in comparison to degraded ecosystems can stimulate and guide restoration initiatives. As urban restoration approaches must consider local history and site conditions, as well as citizens’ needs, it may also be advisable to focus the restoration of strongly altered urban ecosystems on selected ecosystem functions, services and/or biodiversity values. Ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation in cities can be either relatively inexpensive or costly, but even expensive measures can pay off when they effectively improve ecosystem services such as climate change mitigation or recreation. Successful re‐shaping and re-thinking of urban greenspace by involving citizens and other stakeholders will help to make our cities more sustainable in the future.     

A review of methodologies and success indicators for coastal wetland restoration

Coastal wetlands are considered to be amongst the most productive ecosystems and can provide invaluable ecological services. However, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most threatened ecosystems suffering from anthropogenic activities. The loss or degradation of coastal wetlands has drawn a high level of attention to wetland restoration. Improvement of the structure and function of degraded, damaged and destroyed wetlands may be achieved through ecological restoration. Large numbers of restoration projects have been conducted worldwide based on different restoration goals and different methods. It is undoubtedly important to evaluate whether coastal wetland restoration is successful. However, coastal wetland restoration assessment has become challenging because of current disagreement on definitions and concepts of restoration evaluation. We reviewed the methodology of coastal wetland restoration and criteria for success evaluation, and then summarized the issues for current wetland restoration and success evaluation based on literature review. Moreover, we used an estuarine wetland affected by urbanization as a sample to demonstrate how to establish a success indicator system for guiding wetland restoration and evaluating the success of wetland restoration.