辽宁省生物多样性保护优先区识别

生物多样性保护优先区是我国为加强生物多样性保护划定的重要区域,辽宁省境内目前并无此类优先区,弥补相关缺失具有重要意义。本研究通过对生态系统保护、人类影响和生物多样性保护区划3个准则层7个指标进行计算,依次获得辽宁省生物多样性保护优先区指标值、准则层值和优先区识别综合值,结合辽宁省县(市)行政边界和自然保护区边界数据,确定了辽宁西部和东部生物多样性保护优先区的建议地域范围。其中,辽宁西部生物多样性保护优先区面积为12951 km²,森林覆盖率为53.6%,包括9个省级以上自然保护区,以水土保持作为区域重要生态功能;辽宁东部生物多样性保护优先区面积为20057 km²,森林覆盖率为78.9%,包括8个省级以上自然保护区,以水源涵养作为区域重要生态功能。上述优先区是国家和省级保护物种的集中分布区,也是辽宁省重要生态系统的分布区,亟待开展生物多样性保护工作。     

基于土地利用变化情景的生态系统服务价值评估: 以钱江源国家公园体制试点区为例

土地利用变化是生物多样性与生态系统服务变化的主要原因之一。评估土地利用变化对生物多样与生态系统服务影响对于政府决策具有重要作用。钱江源国家公园体制试点区是钱塘江的源头, 也是国家的重点生态功能区。本研究以钱江源国家公园体制试点区为研究区, 首先设计自然发展情景、规划情景、生态保护情景和开发利用情景等4种2025年不同土地利用变化情景, 随后采用InVEST模型和CLUE-S模型分析不同情景下钱江源国家公园水资源供给、涵养水源、固碳释氧、土壤保持、环境净化和生境质量等生态系统服务及其价值变化。结果表明: (1)核心保护区和生态保育区的生态系统服务价值占钱江源国家公园总价值的88.30%。(2)生态保护情景下钱江源国家公园生态系统服务价值最高, 有129.17亿元; 规划情景下生态系统服务价值次之, 有126.92亿元。(3)规划情景下钱江源国家公园水资源供给服务优于生态保护情景, 其他生态系统服务则次于生态保护情景。考虑到钱江源国家公园为下游提供重要的水资源这一功能, 将规划情景作为试点区2025年最优的土地利用变化情景。     

国家公园优先保护区域识别——以浙江丽水为例

如何充分利用有限的资源更好地保护生物多样性一直都是保护地管理所追求的目标。整合保护对象、优化保护地的空间布局、有效识别国家公园优先保护区域是当前中国国家公园体制建设的主要任务。本研究以浙江丽水为例,采用生态模型评估了该区域关键生态系统服务(固碳释氧、水文调节、水资源、土壤保持)的空间分布格局,同时运用MaxEnt模型模拟了37种濒危物种适宜栖息地分布的空间格局。在此基础上,将关键生态系统服务和濒危物种作为保护对象,通过系统保护规划模型MARXAN,在0.4 km×0.4 km规划网格上计算丽水各规划单元的生态保护不可替代性指数,并结合当地管理需求,综合识别了国家公园优先保护区域。结果表明: 2005—2015年间,研究区生态系统固碳量为0.05 kg C·m^-2·a^-1,释氧量为0.13 kg O₂·m^-2·a^-1,水文调节量为83.25亿m³·a^-1,水资源量为803 mm·a^-1,土壤保持量为95.53 t·hm^-2·a^-1;不同土地利用类型的不可替代性指数显著不同,森林为50～100,河流和水库为60～100,园地为30～50,耕地为15～35,住宅用地为0～25,优先保护区域占研究区面积的11.8%。本研究结合生物多样性和生态系统服务的系统保护规划思路,能够为保护地网络优化布局和国家公园优先保护区域的确定提供有用的框架和技术支撑,有助于提升我国建设以国家公园为主体的自然保护体系的整体有效性。     

粤港澳大湾区城市群生态保护优先区识别研究

生态保护优先区识别对于城市群的整体性生态保护和区域生态安全具有重要意义。基于生态保护重要性评价识别城市群生态保护优先区，有助于保障生态系统服务的供给水平和维持生态系统的稳定性。以粤港澳大湾区(以下简称“大湾区”)为研究对象，首先通过增加粮食供给等生态系统服务指标和土地利用强度等生态脆弱性指标构建新的生态保护重要性评价指标体系，以弥补原指标体系忽略部分生态系统服务价值或者关乎生态脆弱性的重要因素所导致的评价结果片面性问题；然后运用结合空间主成分分析法和有序加权平均算子(Ordered Weighted Averaged, OWA)的主客观结合赋权法进行生态保护重要性评价的多情景模拟，并基于保护效率和权衡度进行多情景择优，由此所得最优情景的生态保护优先区的整体生态保护价值相对最高，且一定程度上减小了指标间权衡问题可能导致的评价误差；最终大湾区生态保护优先区面积为26406.04 km²,占大湾区陆域国土总面积的47.69%,主要分布在大湾区中部以外的肇庆、惠州、香港、广州北部、江门外环以及深圳东部沿海，同时优先区识别结果基本覆盖现有生态保护红线和周边大部分一般生态空间...     

基于生态系统服务的山西黄河流域保护优先区识别

山西黄河流域当前面临生态环境快速退化问题,从生态系统服务视角进行保护优先区识别是自然保护和可持续发展的关键步骤。为给研究区生态平衡的维护及生态保护规划和决策提供信息来源和理论依据,基于2010-2020年多源数据,通过GIS空间分析和InVEST （Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade offs）模型等方法模拟主要生态系统服务（生境质量、土壤保持、防风固沙、产水、碳固定、粮食供给）时空格局并采用热点分析和OWA （Ordered Weighted Averaged）多属性决策方法构建保护情景,评估保护效率筛选出最佳保护优先区。结果表明：（1）2010-2020年,土壤保持、防风固沙、产水、碳固定和粮食供给服务整体呈现出上升趋势,仅生境质量小幅度下降。空间上,研究区西部和东南部生境质量、土壤保持、产水和碳固定服务突出,防风固沙服务分布较破碎,中部及西南部平原地区粮食供给服务显著。（2）保护情景中,单项生态系统服务保护优先区主要位于三川河流域、昕水河流域和沁河流域,由单一服务主导呈现空间异质性。综合生态系统服务构建了11种保护优先区情景,受生态系统服务耦合机制影响,整体呈现西北连片东南破碎的空间态势。（3）综合考虑风险、权衡及保护效率,情景8为最佳保护优先区,保护面积1.85万km²,能高效保护多项生态系统服务,对生境质量、土壤保持、防风固沙、产水、碳固定和粮食供给服务保护效率分别为1.45、1.38、1.04、1.31、1.16和0.98。本文研究结果可为山西黄河流域生态保护工作和可持续发展提供决策支持。     

小兴安岭——三江平原区生态问题辨析及山水林田湖草保护修复策略

为探讨山水林田湖草系统治理策略,实现生态系统服务价值的综合提升,以黑龙江省小兴安岭—三江平原区为研究对象,在分析研究区不同土地利用类型变化的基础上,基于不同土地利用类型的生态服务价值的变化,识别其面临的主要生态环境问题,提出研究区开展生态保护修复的策略。研究结果表明:(1)2005—2015年,小兴安岭—三江平原区耕地面积持续增加,林地、草地和湿地的面积持续下降,土地利用结构失衡。耕地面积主要由林地和草地转入,且主要分布在三江平原东部;(2)研究区生态系统服务价值从2005年的519.47亿元下降至2015年的495.71亿元。其中生物多样性以及土壤保持功能下降最为严重。土地利用类型的急剧变化,导致区域生态系统出现供给服务失衡、土壤保持和生物多样性功能下降及黑土退化等生态环境问题;(3)研究区山水林田湖草保护修复需突破行政边界的限制,合理规划工程布局,建立科学的评价体系和完善的监管制度;同时,需关注区域农田土壤质量变化,突出黑土地作为珍稀自然资源在山水林田湖草生态系统中的重要性。     

长江上游森林生态区生物多样性保护优先区确定--基于生态区保护方法

邀请110位在长江上游地区开展生物多样性研究与保护的专家,分4个阶段进行了参与式研讨,采用生态区保护方法确定了兽类、鸟类、两栖和爬行类、昆虫、真菌和维管植物等生物类群的指示物种和保护优先区,最后确定了长江上游森林生态区内16个生物多样性保护优先区和5个连接带。16个优先区中,7个具有最高优先性,即秦岭、大巴山、金佛山-梵净山-武陵源区、岷山、邛崃山-大相岭、贡嘎山、三江并流核心区;9个具有高优先性,即伏牛山、米仓山、若尔盖高原、凉山、攀西地区、中甸-木里地区、川西北高原、金沙江上游高山峡谷区、怒江—澜沧江高山峡谷区。目前这些优先区及连接带内保护区的分布很不平衡:某些优先区和连接带内保护区面积所占比例很小甚至没有保护区分布;某些优先区人为干扰比较强烈,生境破碎化比较严重。建议通过新建自然保护区和调整已有的保护区,填补保护空缺,完善自然保护区系统;结合国家重点生态建设工程和生物多样性保护行动,保护天然林,恢复退化植被,在优先区和连接带内限制人类经济活动,以确保优先区和连接带发挥应有的生态功能。     

变化环境下的生物多样性保护——第四届“一个星球”峰会述评

2021年1月11日,由联合国、世界银行和法国共同发起的第四届“一个星球”峰会通过线上线下相结合的方式在巴黎举行,本次峰会主题为生物多样性保护。峰会针对4个议题展开,分别是：(1)保护陆地和海洋生态系统;(2)促进生态农业;(3)生物多样性与资金筹措;(4)保护人类健康、物种和热带森林。对变化背景下的生物多样性保护主要有以下几个方面的启示：(1)识别优先保护区域,提高保护区有效性;(2)开展变化背景下的生态修复规划,提高自然-社会生态系统抗风险能力;(3)加强模型预测与情景分析,发展生物多样性与生态系统服务集成模型;(4)发展基于自然的解决方案,可持续利用自然资源;(5)加强后疫情时代国际间交流合作,开展生物多样性保护资金筹措工作。     

渭河流域生态系统服务权衡优化研究

研究生态系统服务之间以及与土地利用类型之间的复杂关系,进行生态系统服务导向下的土地利用优化,对实现社会经济与生态保护协调可持续发展具有重要的意义。以渭河流域关中-天水经济区段(简称关天段)为研究对象,在子流域尺度估算了2000—2013年的生物多样性、固碳和产水3种生态系统服务量,定量化研究彼此之间的权衡和协同关系;并利用CA-Markov模型预测2050年土地利用变化情景,以此测算未来情景下的生态系统服务并引入生产可能性边界(PPF)方法,进行权衡与协同分析,探究2050年最优生态系统服务下的土地利用格局。研究得出:(1)2000—2013年研究区的总产水量呈增加趋势。秦岭与六盘山地区总固碳量较大,生物多样性质量较高;而关中平原地区人口和城市分布较多,固碳能力较差,生境退化度普遍较高。(2)固碳与生物多样性之间呈现协同关系,而产水与生物多样性和产水与固碳之间均表现为权衡关系。(3)绘制了2050年的生态系统服务下的最优帕累托效率曲线,并进一步进行权衡协同分析,得到相对应的土地利用优化图。将生态系统服务及权衡需求纳入到土地决策和优化管理过程中,将有助于研究区的生态,社会和经济达到共赢状态。     

中国生物多样性就地保护成效与展望

生物多样性就地保护是指通过开展自然保护地体系的建立与管理, 结合自然保护地以外其他有效的基于区域的保护措施(other effective area-based conservation measures, OECMs), 从而实现物种种群及其栖息地的保护与恢复以及保障和提升生态系统服务的目标。就地保护是实现2020年全球生物多样性保护目标最为重要的措施之一。本文从自然保护地数量与面积、代表性、有效性, 以及其他生物多样性就地保护措施等方面, 整理和综述了国内外近年来的相关报道。总体来看, 我国基本建立了具有中国特色的生物多样性就地保护与管理体系, 实施了各项生物多样性保护恢复措施, 取得了一系列重大进展。自然保护地的面积和数量均呈现上升趋势, 已覆盖陆域国土面积的18%, 对一些重要生态系统及重点保护物种的保护取得了一定成效。正在建设的10处国家公园体制试点提升了部分重点物种的保护连通性。自然保护区总体管理状况相对较好, 保护了90%以上的哺乳动物和97%的兰科植物。此外, 其他有效的基于区域的保护措施亦为生物多样性就地保护贡献了民间力量。在此基础上, 本文对照《中国生物多样性保护战略与行动计划(2011-2030年)》中对“加强生物多样性就地保护”的各项要求, 分析总结了当前我国生物多样性就地保护仍然存在的问题与不足, 具体表现在以下几个方面: 自然保护地整体保护能力仍有待提升; 生物多样性保护优先区域仍然存在保护空缺; 自然保护区管理质量有待提升; 缺乏公共协商机制; 自然保护地以外的其他就地保护工作仍在探索阶段等。在此基础上, 对将来我国生物多样性就地保护提出了进一步建议与展望: (1)制定更为具体和量化的生物多样性就地保护目标; (2)加大力度减少物种受威胁程度, 特别是受关注较少的物种; (3)以保障和提升生态系统服务为目标, 提升生态系统保护修复的系统性与整体性; (4)加强自然保护地以外的生物多样性就地保护; (5)完善长期监测体系, 为生物多样性就地保护成效评估提供数据支撑。本文可为“2020年后全球生物多样性框架”特别是就地保护目标的制定与实施提供参考。     

Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region

The hope among policy-makers and scientists alike is that conservation strategies designed to protect biodiversity also provide direct benefits to people by protecting other vital ecosystem services. The few studies that have examined the delivery of ecosystem services by existing conservation efforts have concentrated on large, ‘wilderness’-style biodiversity reserves. However, such reserves are not realistic options for densely populated regions. Here, we provide the first analyses that compare representation of biodiversity and three other ecosystem services across several contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated landscape (England). We show that small protected areas and protected landscapes (restrictive zoning) deliver high carbon storage and biodiversity, while existing incentive payment (agri-environment) schemes target areas that offer little advantage over other parts of England in terms of biodiversity, carbon storage and agricultural production. A fourth ecosystem service—recreation—is under-represented by all three strategies. Our findings are encouraging as they illustrate that restrictive zoning can play a major role in protecting natural capital assets in densely populated regions. However, trade-offs exist even among the four ecosystem services we considered, suggesting that a portfolio of conservation and sustainability investments will be needed to deliver both biodiversity and the other ecosystem services demanded by society.     

Conservation planning for ecosystem services

Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services—crop pollination and forage production—eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.     

Representation of Ecosystem Services by Terrestrial Protected Areas: Chile as a Case Study

Protected areas are increasingly considered to play a key role in the global maintenance of ecosystem processes and the ecosystem services they provide. It is thus vital to assess the extent to which existing protected area systems represent those services. Here, for the first time, we document the effectiveness of the current Chilean protected area system and its planned extensions in representing both ecosystem services (plant productivity, carbon storage and agricultural production) and biodiversity. Additionally, we evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas based on their respective management objectives. Our results show that existing protected areas in Chile do not contain an unusually high proportion of carbon storage (14.9%), agricultural production (0.2%) or biodiversity (11.8%), and also represent a low level of plant productivity (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index of 0.38). Proposed additional priority sites enhance the representation of ecosystem services and biodiversity, but not sufficiently to attain levels of representation higher than would be expected for their area of coverage. Moreover, when the species groups were assessed separately, amphibians was the only one well represented. Suggested priority sites for biodiversity conservation, without formal protection yet, was the only protected area category that over-represents carbon storage, agricultural production and biodiversity. The low representation of ecosystem services and species’ distribution ranges by the current protected area system is because these protected areas are heavily biased toward southern Chile, and contain large extents of ice and bare rock. The designation and management of proposed priority sites needs to be addressed in order to increase the representation of ecosystem services within the Chilean protected area system.     

Developing products for conservation decision-making: lessons from a spatial biodiversity assessment for South Africa

South Africa's first national assessment of spatial priorities for biodiversity conservation, released in 2005, aimed to identify conservation priority areas for mainstreaming into all sectors at national and provincial scales. This National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) was based on a planning for implementation approach in order to deliver defensible products useful to decision-makers. The NSBA aimed to produce a map of broad-scale priority areas for future finer-scale assessment and conservation action. This map summarized information on species, ecosystems, ecological processes, and the pressures they face from human activities. Owing to the complexity of the priority area map, two additional user-friendly products — maps of ecosystem status and protection levels — were developed. These products represented the habitat loss and protected area coverage of South Africa's ecosystems relative to their conservation targets. A year after release, we reflect on the NSBA process, products and uptake by implementing agencies (with a specific focus on the terrestrial biodiversity assessment) in order to contribute to the growing body of documented best practice in conservation planning. The ecosystem status product has been widely used at national and provincial scales due in large to its clear and compelling message. The protection level and overall priority map have also witnessed uptake, the former in guiding the expansion of protected areas and the latter as an integrated map of national biodiversity status. The strong collaboration of local planners and implementers with in-depth experience of biodiversity assessment, using a systematic approach and focusing on communicating a few high level messages, appears to have contributed to the initial, successful uptake of the NSBA. We conclude with a call to address data and monitoring shortcomings before the next NSBA in 2010.     

Effects of budget constraints on conservation network design for biodiversity and ecosystem services

Limited budgets and budget cuts hamper the development of effective biodiversity conservation networks. Optimizing the spatial configuration of conservation networks given such budget constraints remains challenging. Systematic conservation planning addresses this challenge. Systematic conservation planning can integrate both biodiversity and ecosystem services as conservation targets, and hence address the challenge to operationalize ecosystem services as an anthropocentric argument for conservation. We create two conservation scenarios to expand the current conservation network in the Dutch province of Limburg. One scenario focuses on biodiversity only and the other integrates biodiversity and ecosystem services. We varied conservation budgets in these scenarios and used the software Marxan to assess differences in the resulting network configurations. In addition, we tested the network’s cost-effectiveness by allocating a conservation budget either in one or in multiple steps. We included twenty-nine biodiversity surrogates and five ecosystem services. The inclusion of ecosystem services to expand Limburg’s conservation network only moderately changed prioritized areas, compared to only conserving biodiversity. Network expansion in a single time-step is more efficient in terms of compactness and cost-effectiveness than implementing it in multiple time-steps. Therefore, to cost-effectively plan conservation networks, the full budget should ideally be available before the plans are implemented. We show that including ecosystem services to cost-effectively expand conservation networks can simultaneously encourage biodiversity conservation and stimulate the protection of conservation-compatible ecosystem services.     

Limitations of Protected Areas Zoning in Mediterranean Cultural Landscapes Under the Ecosystem Services Approach

Protected areas have been created worldwide to set apart certain areas from land-use transformation. The biodiversity and ecosystems protected by these areas deliver several ecosystem services. Recently, besides increasing global protected coverage, there has been a growing demand to assess the adequacy of protected areas management. In this study, we assessed how the management of protected areas can deal with ecosystem services taking as example the Doñana and Sierra Nevada protected areas (Spain). For that aim we analyzed the protected area management plans, mapped seven ecosystem services, and assessed how they are affected by protected area zoning and land-use intensity. We found that although provisioning and cultural services are included in the management plans of the protected areas under a different terminology, regulating services are barely addressed. Ecosystem service delivery varies depending on several factors including the protection category of the protected areas (protection intensity), land-use intensity and geomorphological factors, among others. Therefore, we discuss that integrating ecosystem services in protected area management requires dealing with complexity, necessitating the establishment of specific goals for ecosystem service delivery, which include ecosystem service synergies and trade-offs.     

基于生物多样性与生态系统服务功能的秦岭山系自然保护体系规划

生物多样性与生态系统服务是目前生态保护的两大主要目标,在保护区体系规划设计中兼顾两个保护目标有助于发挥自然保护区的综合效益。以生物多样性与生态系统服务功能都重要的秦岭山系为研究区域,在生物多样性、水源涵养和土壤保持重要性评估的基础上,通过空缺分析,提出了秦岭山系的保护区体系优化方案。研究结果表明,现有的自然保护区保护了33.5%的生物多样性极重要区,22.9%的水源涵养极重要区,但是只保护了7.4%的土壤保持极重要区;建议在秦岭主峰、秦岭西部和东南部分别建立自然保护区群和生态功能保护区,保护区面积占秦岭山系总面积的31.4%,使生物多样性、水源涵养、土壤保持的极重要区的保护比例达76.2%、70.5%和41.5%,生态保护效益得到提升。研究结果可以为秦岭山系生态保护政策的制定提供参考,同时对于其他地区自然保护体系规划、以及国家公园构建也具有重要的借鉴意义。     

白洋淀流域生态系统服务评估及其调控

政策制定者在制定土地利用相关政策时需要权衡各方面的利益关系,协调资源保护和经济发展之间的关系.由于缺乏有效的评价与权衡办法,目前对这方面研究还较少.采用InVEST模型,评价了白洋淀流域7种服务功能指标,分析了其空间分布特征.通过情景(政策情景与保护情景)分析,较好的反映了农业直接经济收入与服务功能之间的关系.结果表明:生物多样性、水源涵养、土壤保持和固碳重要区域主要分布在流域西部、北部和流域中部山区;水质保护和授粉重要区域主要分布于流域东部、南部和中部平原区.政策情景下,产水量第二,农业产出有所下降,固碳能力较保护模式差,N/P输出最少.保护情景下产水量最大,农田产出价值不变,氮磷保持与政策情景差不多,但固碳效果最好.通过权衡不同情景下服务功能得失,筛选既不损害流域居民实际经济收入,又能使得水文服务功能得到提高的管理模式.研究表明InVEST模型可以很好的用于对自然资本评估和空间化特征分析,通过建立不同情景,评价结果可以用于权衡不同管理策略下服务功能得失,是一种评价和预测自然资本变化的有效方法,对政策制定和策略筛选具有重要的指导意义.     

生态系统修复国内外研究进展与展望

气候变化和人类活动的增加不仅导致生态系统退化、生物多样性丧失、生物圈资源供给能力降低, 而且极大地制约了社会经济的可持续发展。尽管在全世界范围内已实施了大量的保护工作, 但全球生态系统退化仍在继续, 逐渐成为备受关注的全球性问题。文章首先厘清生态系统修复的发展历程、相关概念与理论。其次, 归纳生态系统修复的全球议题, 涉及生态系统服务及其价值评估、生物多样性保护、应对气候变化与碳储存、自然保护地、监测体系与适应性管理、公平性与多主体参与等方面。然后, 总结我国森林、草原、河流与湿地、海洋与海岸带的生态系统退化问题与修复进展, 梳理生态保护红线、自然保护地生态系统修复和国土空间生态保护修复3种措施的进展与不足。最后, 对山水林田湖草沙一体化保护与系统治理、生态系统修复的多元融资政策与渠道、荒野生态保护修复的探索与实践、城镇生态系统修复的研究与应用以及生态系统修复对生物多样性的保护与维持等五个方面进行展望, 以期为我国进一步开展生态系统保护修复的相关研究与实践提供指导。