热带森林植被生态恢复研究进展

热带森林是地球上生物多样性最高和生态功能最为强大的植被类型之一，在维护全球生态平衡中起着至关重要的作用，同时也为人类社会提供着多种多样的物质资源和生态系统服务。然而热带森林是目前生物多样性消失最快和生态功能退化最为严重的生态系统之一，如何有效地保护现存的热带森林不再进一步退化，以及如何使已经退化的生态系统尽快得到恢复是生态学工作者面临的重要议题。不同方式、规模和强度的干扰对热带林的破坏程度及其以后的恢复过程产生的影响不同。除少数大型自然干扰事件外，采伐、刀耕火种、农业开发用地等人为干扰是造成当前热带森林植被大面积退化的主要原因。多种干扰交互作用、杂草与外来物种入侵、退化植被和土壤状况、残存植被组分及土壤种子库、退化植被周围的景观格局以及全球气候变化等因素都能够影响热带森林植被恢复的速度和方向。基于功能群的研究思想将可能为物种丰富的热带森林植被恢复的研究提供一个全新途径。     

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。     

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。     

基于恢复生态学的泰山地区“山水林田湖草”生态修复研究

目前大多地方生态修复工作往往是对各类生态系统分割式治理,不利于生态系统的整体修复。“山水林田湖草是生命共同体”理念要求各生态要素和生态系统之间的协同特征和有机联系,恢复生态学理论则关注受损生态系统的驱动因素、生态恢复的路径和干预措施,两者的结合能够为生态保护和修复提供坚实的理论和技术基础。基于恢复生态学理论,以泰山地区为研究对象,运用物能循环和转化的生态学原则对受损生态系统生态关键问题进行诊断,明确了“山水林田湖草”生命共同体中的各要素（子系统）在生态过程中的相互影响及相互制约关系,厘清了泰山地区矿山开采（地质受损）-植被破坏-水土流失-景观失调的生态受损与退化机制,在此基础上提出了“地貌重塑、植被重建、水体重构、景观重现”的生态恢复思路。并尝试构建包含生态风险、生态状况和生态恢复能力三重准则共13项指标的评价体系,以期通过生态恢复效果的评价与监测引导生态恢复目标的有效实现。     

南亚热带退化生态系统恢复和重建的生态学理论和应用

退化生态系统的恢复与重建是一项十分复杂的系统工程,其功能和动态过程涉及物质、能量、空间、时间和多样性等基本的生态变量。在南亚热带的气候生态因子中,既有光、温、水充裕的有利一面,也有秋旱、台风和暴雨等不利的因素,但总的来说,影响退化生态系统恢复的主导生态因子是土壤因子,如土壤肥力和土壤水份。极度退化的生态系统的恢复与重建,第一步就是控制水土流失,提高土壤肥力和土壤理化结构,这还需要工程措施和生物措施相结合．退化生态系统的植被的恢复与重建,最有效和最省力的是顺从生态系统的演替发展规律来进行,生态系统演替理论是指导退化生态系统重建的重要的理论基础．退化生态系统恢复与重建的优化结构的构建,依赖于对空间、生物、能量生态学原理的理解。种群密度制约、种群空间分布格局、边缘效应、生态位分化、食物链、生物多样性等原理均对生态系统结构的构建有指导意义．而生态系统的群体发展,则受物质定律的影响．     

湖滨带退化生态系统的恢复与重建

湖滨带是水陆生态交错带的一种类型,在湖泊流域生态系统中发挥着重要作用,具有较高的生态、社会和经济价值.湖滨带的功能包括：缓冲带功能、保持生物多样性及生境保护功能、护岸功能和经济美学价值.湖滨带退化的原因主要是人为因素引起的生物群落结构的逆向演替及生态功能下降,退化湖滨带生态恢复与重建的理论基础是恢复生态学,其生态恢复技术可划分为三大类：湖滨带生境恢复与重建技术、湖滨带生物恢复与重建技术、湖滨带生态系统结构与功能恢复技术.云南洱海湖滨带近3年的生态恢复与重建试验的生态调查结果表明,试验区水生植被得到恢复,水质净化作用明显,藻类得到抑制,浮游动物的构成和数量发生变化,湖滨带湿地生态系统的生物多样性和稳定性增加.     

生态恢复经济学

在总结国内外关于生态恢复经济理论研究进展的基础上, 提出了生态恢复经济学的学科含义、地位、特点和研究对象.生态恢复经济学是研究退化生态系统退化过程中的经济损失、退化生态系统恢复期间的成本效益以及恢复过程中的经济价值动态变化的一门交叉性学科.它以人类可持续利用为核心,研究生态系统退化、恢复和重建过程中生态系统与经济系统之间客观运动规律及其机理的一门科学.生态恢复经济学具有综合性和实践性的特点,它是生态经济学和恢复生态学的重要分支学科,在生态经济学理论体系中具有特别重要的地位.     

植被生态系统恢复及其在华南的研究进展

介绍了恢复生态学常用的理论,并指出恢复生态学研究大多涉及植被生态系统恢复。植被恢复的目标就是要恢复植被的合理结构、功能和动态过程,从而为人类提供生态系统服务。植被恢复可以把区域的地带性植被生态系统作为参考生态系统,但目前的植被恢复工作绝大部分只是恢复了植被生态系统的部分组成、结构和功能。植被生态系统恢复研究主要从退化的原因与过程、恢复的过程与机理,以及从生境恢复、种群恢复、群落恢复、生态系统和景观恢复等不同尺度上的恢复开展。在介绍华南地区的植被生态系统现存问题的基础上,对华南地区开展的植被生态系统恢复,尤其是华南植物研究所(园)开展的植被生态系统恢复研究进行了介绍。最后,提出了华南地区植被生态系统恢复的方向及发展趋势。     

恢复生态学研究的一些基本问题探讨

对恢复生态学的研究概况、基本概念、内涵与研究内容以及生态恢复的目标、原则、程序与技术进行了分析与探讨．指出恢复生态学应加强基础理论研究（包括生态系统的演替理论及干扰条件下生态系统的受损过程与响应机制研究等）和应用技术研究（包括土壤、水体、大气和植被恢复技术、生物多样性保护技术以及生态系统的组装与集成技术等）．生态恢复与重建是指根据生态学原理,通过一定的生物、生态以及工程的技术,人为地切断生态系统退化的主导因子和过程,调整和优化系统内部及其与外界的物质、能量和信息的流动过程及其时空秩序,使生态系统的结构、功能和生态学潜力尽快地成功地恢复到原有的乃至更高的水平．     

区域生态安全格局:概念与理论基础

提出区域生态安全格局概念的提出 ,适应了生态系统恢复和生物多样性保护的发展需求。针对区域生态环境问题 ,通过干扰排除以及空间格局规划和管理 ,能够保护和恢复生物多样性 ,维持生态系统结构、功能和过程的完整性 ,实现对区域生态环境问题的有效控制和持续改善。区域生态安全格局的研究对象具有针对性、研究尺度具有区域性、研究问题具有系统性、研究手段具有主动性。它强调区域尺度的生物多样性保护、退化生态系统恢复及其空间合理配置、生态系统健康的维持、景观生态格局的优化、以及对社会经济发展需求的满足。它更加强调格局与过程安全及其整体集成 ,将生态系统管理对策落实到具体的空间地域上 ,实现管理效果的直观可视。相关理论 ,景观生态学、干扰生态学、保护生物学、恢复生态学、生态经济学、生态伦理学、和复合生态系统理论等为其提供了坚实的理论基础。区域生态安全格局不存在一个固定标准 ,人类对生态系统服务功能需求的不断变化是生态系统管理的根本原因。实现区域生态安全不但要以社会、经济、文化、道德、法律、和法规为手段 ,更要以其不断发展对生态系统服务功能的新需求为目标逐步进行。区域生态安全格局研究对于解决区域生态环境问题具有不可替代的作用 ,具有广阔应用前景。     

A unified framework for the restoration of Southeast Asian mangroves—bridging ecology, society and economics

The effect of intensive human intervention, poor socio-economic conditions and little knowledge on mangrove ecology pose enormous challenges for mangrove restoration in Southeast Asia. We present a framework for tropical mangrove restoration. Our proposed restoration framework addresses the ecology, economy and social issues simultaneously by considering the causes of mangrove degradation. We provide a step by step guideline for its restoration. We argue that although, ecological issues are of prime importance, economic and social issues must be considered in the restoration plan in order for it to be successful. Since mangrove ecology is not adequately studied in this region, local ecological knowledge can be used to fill the baseline information gaps. Unwanted human disturbance can be minimized by encouraging community participation. This can be ensured and sustained by facilitating the livelihood of the coastal community. We translated the restoration paradigm into a readily available practical guideline for the executors of the plans. We provide an example of mangrove restoration project that is closely related to our proposed framework. We are optimistic that this framework has the potential for universal application with necessary adjustments.     

Some Remarks on the Socio-Cultural Background of Restoration Ecology

Restoration ecology plays an important role in nature conservation policy in Europe today. It establishes the scientific basis for restoring ecosystems altered or destroyed by man to a more “natural” state. The goals of restoration ecology can generally be described in terms of increased biodiversity, enhanced water retention capacity, avoidance of soil erosion, etc. In practice, however, a discrepancy exists between the high ideals of restoration goals and reality, where one often encounters limiting factors. These limiting factors can include the conflict between different restoration goals, the unpredictability of restoration goals owing to long‐term effects and stochastic events, the insufficient social acceptance of landscape changes during restoration processes, and the use of restoration processes themselves (e.g., undisturbed succession, certain management measures like impoverishment of fertilized areas) as restoration goals in place of a certain resource quality (such as species composition, population sizes, water quality). Two examples from southern Germany show that restoration goals in European cultural landscapes can only be implemented successfully when they are integrated into the respective land use systems.     

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.     

Ecological Theory and Community Restoration Ecology

Community ecological theory may play an important role in the development of a science of restoration ecology. Not only will the practice of restoration benefit from an increased focus on theory, but basic research in community ecology will also benefit. We pose several major thematic questions that are relevant to restoration from the perspective of community ecological theory and, for each, identify specific areas that are in critical need of further research to advance the science of restoration ecology. We ask, what are appropriate restoration endpoints from a community ecology perspective? The problem of measuring restoration at the community level, particularly given the high amount of variability inherent in most natural communities, is not easy, and may require a focus on restoration of community function (e.g., trophic structure) rather than a focus on the restoration of particular species. We ask, what are the benefits and limitations of using species composition or biodiversity measures as endpoints in restoration ecology? Since reestablishing all native species may rarely be possible, research is needed on the relationship between species richness and community stability of restored sites and on functional redundancy among species in regional colonist “pools.” Efforts targeted at restoring system function must take into account the role of individual species, particularly if some species play a disproportionate role in processing material or are strong interactors. We ask, is restoration of habitat a sufficient approach to reestablish species and function? Many untested assumptions concerning the relationship between physical habitat structure and restoration ecology are being made in practical restoration efforts. We need rigorous testing of these assumptions, particularly to determine how generally they apply to different taxa and habitats. We ask, to what extent can empirical and theoretical work on community succession and dispersal contribute to restoration ecology? We distinguish systems in which succession theory may be broadly applicable from those in which it is probably not. If community development is highly predictable, it may be feasible to manipulate natural succession processes to accelerate restoration. We close by stressing that the science of restoration ecology is so intertwined with basic ecological theory that practical restoration efforts should rely heavily on what is known from theoretical and empirical research on how communities develop and are structured over time.     

The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge

The terms “ecological restoration” and “restoration ecology” are frequently interchanged. Restoration ecology is the suite of scientific practices that constitute an emergent subdiscipline of ecology. Ecological restoration is the ensemble of practices that constitute the entire field of restoration, including restoration ecology as well as the participating human and natural sciences, politics, technologies, economic factors, and cultural dimensions. This paper is motivated by the concern that the broader practice of restoration may become narrowed over the next decade as a result of zealous attention to scientific and technological considerations, and that restoration ecology will trump ecological restoration. Scientific and technological acumen is necessary for successful restoration, but insufficient. Maintaining a broader approach to restoration requires respect for other kinds of knowledge than science, and especially the recognition of a moral center that is beyond the scope of science to address fully. An example of integrated restoration is presented: the ecological and cultural restoration of Discovery Island (near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) by the Lekwungen people (Songhees First Nation).     

Science, Art, or Application—the "Karma" of Restoration Ecology

The present state of restoration ecology is far away from Bradshaw’s “acid test for ecology.” The conclusions drawn from the series of papers in this issue and from the Jena workshop suggest some directions in which the field may progress. More attention must be paid to the degraded state, which should be evaluated by its specific features and carefully analyzed before any restoration plan is laid down. Restoration goals have to be realistic, which includes the appreciation of globally changing conditions, resulting in a paradigm‐shift toward “forward‐restoration.” Basically, the transition from the degraded state conditions to the target state is a kind of succession that is manipulated by the application of goal‐orientated and system‐specific disturbances. Whenever possible, restorationists should step back and make use of naturally occurring succession, which requires a sophisticated restoration strategy, involving flexible management responses, multiple alternative target states, robust measurements for the restoration progress, and careful long‐term monitoring. The unique feature of restoration ecology is the involvement of socioeconomic decisions, and conceptual frameworks for ecological restoration have to implement the specific links to natural succession. To bridge the gap between ecological theory and on the ground restoration, it is essential that restoration practice is translated into the vocabulary and thinking of basic ecology. If all these aspects are integrated, ecological restoration as an application—and restoration ecology as an applied science—may develop into an acid test for our understanding of interactions between people and their environment, rather than for pure ecology.     

区域生态学的国际起源和研究热点

20世纪80年代以来,区域生态学迅速发展,成为生态学领域重要的分支学科。本文综述了区域生态学的国际起源、发展脉络,以及主要研究热点,对比了国内外区域生态学研究的区别以及对国内区域生态学发展的启示。分析表明,在国际上,区域生态学的研究热点主要集中在生物多样性保护、区域气候变化影响、生态系统服务、城市生态学、区域生态修复和可持续发展等方面。由于国情以及学科发展进度不同,国内外区域生态学研究在关注问题、研究思路和研究手段上存在区别。国内区域生态学受学科起步较晚、相关数据的质、量和利用率较低及对方法和模型研究尚浅的影响,未来研究要在深度利用遥感数据的基础上,加强学科理论和方法的学习,重点关注气候变化影响生态过程的机理、生态模型优化、全国生态系统服务评估与定价、区域生态安全以及区域可持续发展规划。     

The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms

Restoration ecology is a young academic field, but one with enough history to judge it against past and current expectations of the science's potential. The practice of ecological restoration has been identified as providing ideal experimental settings for tests of ecological theory; restoration was to be the 'acid test' of our ecological understanding. Over the past decade, restoration science has gained a strong academic foothold, addressing problems faced by restoration practitioners, bringing new focus to existing ecological theory and fostering a handful of novel ecological ideas. In particular, recent advances in plant community ecology have been strongly linked with issues in ecological restoration. Evolving models of succession, assembly and state-transition are at the heart of both community ecology and ecological restoration. Recent research on seed and recruitment limitation, soil processes, and diversity–function relationships also share strong links to restoration. Further opportunities may lie ahead in the ecology of plant ontogeny, and on the effects of contingency, such as year effects and priority effects. Ecology may inform current restoration practice, but there is considerable room for greater integration between academic scientists and restoration practitioners.     

Policy Language in Restoration Ecology

Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy‐relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision‐makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy‐specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision‐making processes.     

国内外主要湾区生态系统特征、修复理论与技术模式

通过总结粤港澳大湾区、东京湾区和旧金山湾区等国内外主要湾区的生态系统特征、生态修复理论和实践研究进展,在辨析生态修复概念内涵的基础上,基于Meta-Analysis及综合分析方法,分析了生态系统退化机制及驱动因子,归纳总结湾区生态修复的主要理论基础、技术模式及案例。结果表明：（1）国内外三大主要湾区的生态系统特征为森林占比最高,其次是农田和草地占比,城镇占比第三。森林一般分布在湾区外围,城镇分布在湾区内核河口三角洲附近。（2）湾区生态修复理论包括以恢复生态学、景观生态学和复合生态系统生态学为基础的三种修复理论,生态修复的类别分为补救修复、改善修复、生态恢复和复垦等。（3）湾区生态修复技术模式包括主动修复、被动修复和重建等三类技术模式。在总结梳理生态修复理论和技术模式的基础上,结合当前国内生态修复存在问题,本文提出我国和广东省开展生态修复实践的建议和展望,以期为粤港澳大湾区生态修复提供一定的理论指导。