景感生态学在流域生态系统保护与修复实践中的应用——以大凌河流域北票段为例

生态系统保护与修复已成为我国生态文明建设的一项核心内容，自2016年以来，在全国24个省（自治区、直辖市）已开展了25个山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点工程。以大凌河流域北票段为研究区，探讨了景感生态学理论在山水林田湖草生态系统保护与修复实践中的应用。基于景感生态学理论，构建大凌河流域北票段生态系统保护与修复综合治理框架，以保持、改善和提升生态系统服务，实现可持续发展为目标，构建了"一中心、二重点、五要素、六工程"的生态系统保护与修复景感空间体系，并基于此将大凌河流域北票段生态系统保护与修复分为5个重要治理区域，形成"一带四区"的生态安全格局，提出了应用景感生态学理论，构建区域居民的共同行为规范，引导并实现人类对自然生态系统的有利影响，进一步提升生态系统保护与修复效果的对策建议。通过大凌河流域北票段的分析案例，以景感营造的理念开展区域生态系统保护与修复顶层设计，为促进区域可持续发展提供思路和途径。     

新型生态系统理论及其争议综述

澳大利亚Richard J Hobbs教授等近年提出的新型生态系统(Novel Ecosystems)理论认为,由于人类作用,地球生态系统经历了前所未有的变化,很多生态系统已经越过不可逆转的阈值,不可能恢复到原有状态,形成了新的生态系统,其生物要素、非生物要素和系统功能等都发生了显著改变;人类应该面对现实,必须反思传统生态保护和生态恢复的行为、政策和思维;应该致力新型生态系统的特征、属性和演替规律的研究,在管理、规划、政策、组织和技术等方面的创新。新型生态系统理论引起了很大争议。质疑者认为,由于自然作用力和人类的持续扰动,地球生态系统一直在不断变化,所以一直都是"新"的,根本没必要贴上"新型"标签;该理论基本概念模糊,理论模型不精确,缺乏严密的逻辑推理,还很不成熟;该理论无助于生态保护和生态恢复的实践,会扰乱人们的思想,没有实践价值。不过,支持者和质疑者都承认地球上很多生态系统的确遭到严重破坏,已经发生深刻演替,极有必要对这类系统的非线性机制、系统阈值、恢复力、新范式,以及破坏后的所有特征等开展研究,应该理性选择合适的修复方法,理性分析人工干预的程度及其成功的可能性,科学制定行动方案和优选标准。跟踪国际前沿,开展新型生态系统理论研究有助于丰富我国恢复生态学理论以及创新工程实践。     

典型红壤区自然生态修复的适用性

自然修复主要通过封山育林、禁止农作、禁牧禁伐措施,减少人类对环境的扰动,利用自然生态环境的自我演替能力,恢复生态环境,实现生态平衡。自然修复作为一种成本低、无污染的生态修复手段很早就受到人们重视,但关于自然修复适用范围的研究较少。为了正确认识自然修复的适用性,选择了我国南方红壤地区长期遭受严重土壤侵蚀危害的福建省长汀县为研究对象,通过对长期自然修复样地的监测资料分析,发现在坡度条件为20%—30%下,当植被覆盖度低于20%的退化阈值时,严重的土壤侵蚀引发的土壤肥力损失将导致生态系统自我退化,自然修复不仅无法改善当地的生态系统,反而会引起生态系统的进一步恶化。由此可见,自然修复并不适合所有的生态系统,当生态系统退化到一定程度时,退化生态系统必须通过人工干预来修复。因此,必须探索适合当地的生态修复模式,在生态系统退化突破阈值时,红壤丘陵区应通过恢复土壤肥力、促进自然植被覆盖度增加、综合提高生态系统健康水平。     

山水林田湖草生态保护修复的理论支撑体系研究

山水林田湖草生态保护修复关系到我国生态文明建设和美丽中国建设进程,关系到国家生态安全和中华民族永续发展。开展山水林田湖草生态保护修复是生态文明建设的重要内容,是贯彻绿色发展理念的有力举措,也是破解当前生态环境与经济发展之间难题的必然要求。通过总结梳理当前我国山水林田湖草生态保护修复工作的进展与概况,立足于“山水林田湖草是生命共同体”的理论核心,详细阐释了山水林田湖草生态保护修复的内涵及理论体系。山水林田湖草生命共同体的基础理论是以生态系统生态学为支撑,基于流域生态学、恢复生态学和景观生态学的理论诠释山水林田湖草生命共同体的时空区域尺度及流域内部各生态系统之间的耦合机制,通过复合生态系统理论构建山水林田湖草生命共同体的社会、经济、自然生态系统的“架构”体系,明确了流域可持续发展是山水林田湖草生命共同体的最终发展目标。在构建山水林田湖草生态保护修复理论支撑体系的基础上,进一步总结凝练了山水林田湖草生态保护修复的技术体系,包括生态保护、修复与恢复技术、生态建设技术、生态功能提升技术、生态服务优化技术与监督管理技术等,为我国山水林田湖草生态保护修复工作提供坚实的理论和技术支撑体系。     

Turquoise is the new green: Restoring and enhancing riparian function in the Anthropocene

Riparian ecosystems are hotspots for ecological restoration globally because of the disproportionately high value and diversity of the ecological functions and services which they support and their high level of vulnerability to anthropogenic pressures, including climate change. Degraded riparian ecosystems are associated with many serious anthropogenic problems including increased river bank erosion, water quality decline, increased flood risk and biodiversity loss. Conventional approaches to riparian restoration, however, are frequently too narrow in focus – spatially, temporally, ecologically and socially – to adequately or equitably address the goals to which they aspire. Climate change, along with the intensification of other human pressures, means that static, historically oriented restoration objectives focused solely on prior ecological composition and structure are unlikely to be defensible, achievable or appropriate in the Anthropocene. Conversely, open‐ended restoration strategies lacking clear objectives and targets entail substantial risks such as significant biodiversity losses, especially of native species. A functional approach to planning and prioritising riparian restoration interventions offers an intermediate alternative that is still framed by measurable targets but allows for greater consideration of broader temporal, spatial and cultural influences. Here, we provide an overview of major riparian functions across multiple scales and identify key drivers of, and threats to, these. We also discuss practical approaches to restoring and promoting riparian functions and highlight some key concerns for the development of policy and management of robust riparian restoration in the Anthropocene.     

The importance of ecological memory for trophic rewilding as an ecosystem restoration approach

Increasing human pressure on strongly defaunated ecosystems is characteristic of the Anthropocene and calls for proactive restoration approaches that promote self‐sustaining, functioning ecosystems. However, the suitability of novel restoration concepts such as trophic rewilding is still under discussion given fragmentary empirical data and limited theory development. Here, we develop a theoretical framework that integrates the concept of ‘ecological memory’ into trophic rewilding. The ecological memory of an ecosystem is defined as an ecosystem's accumulated abiotic and biotic material and information legacies from past dynamics. By summarising existing knowledge about the ecological effects of megafauna extinction and rewilding across a large range of spatial and temporal scales, we identify two key drivers of ecosystem responses to trophic rewilding: (i) impact potential of (re)introduced megafauna, and (ii) ecological memory characterising the focal ecosystem. The impact potential of (re)introduced megafauna species can be estimated from species properties such as lifetime per capita engineering capacity, population density, home range size and niche overlap with resident species. The importance of ecological memory characterising the focal ecosystem depends on (i) the absolute time since megafauna loss, (ii) the speed of abiotic and biotic turnover, (iii) the strength of species interactions characterising the focal ecosystem, and (iv) the compensatory capacity of surrounding source ecosystems. These properties related to the focal and surrounding ecosystems mediate material and information legacies (its ecological memory) and modulate the net ecosystem impact of (re)introduced megafauna species. We provide practical advice about how to quantify all these properties while highlighting the strong link between ecological memory and historically contingent ecosystem trajectories. With this newly established ecological memory–rewilding framework, we hope to guide future empirical studies that investigate the ecological effects of trophic rewilding and other ecosystem‐restoration approaches. The proposed integrated conceptual framework should also assist managers and decision makers to anticipate the possible trajectories of ecosystem dynamics after restoration actions and to weigh plausible alternatives. This will help practitioners to develop adaptive management strategies for trophic rewilding that could facilitate sustainable management of functioning ecosystems in an increasingly human‐dominated world.     

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.     

Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in “on the ground” restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Primer identifies key ecosystem attributes for evaluating restoration outcome. Broad attribute categories could be necessary due to the large variety of restoration projects, but could make overall evaluations and assessments challenging and might hamper the development of sound and successful restoration. In this study we carry out a systematic review of scientific papers addressing evaluation of restoration outcome. We include 104 studies published after 2010 from Europe or North America, representing different types of restoration projects in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. We explore the main ecological and socioeconomic attributes used to evaluate restoration outcome, and related indicators and specific methods applied to measure this, in relation to ecosystem and type of restoration project. We identify a wide range of indicators within each attribute, and show that very different methods are employed to measure them. This complexity reduces the opportunity for meaningful comparison and standardization of evaluation of restoration outcome, within and between ecosystems. Socioeconomic indicators are rarely used to evaluate restoration outcome, and studies including both ecological and socioeconomic indicators are nearly absent. Based on our findings we discuss whether standardization and streamlining of indicators is useful to improve the evaluation of “on the ground” restoration, or if this is not appropriate given the diversity of goals and ecosystems involved. Species‐specific traits are used in many projects and should be considered as an addition to the original SER attributes. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for restoration evaluation that encompasses not only assessment of ecological but also socioeconomic indicators.     

Riverine landscape dynamics and ecological risk assessment

1. The aim of ecological risk assessments is to evaluate the likelihood that ecosystems are adversely affected by human‐induced disturbance that brings the ecosystem into a new dynamic equilibrium with a simpler structure and lower potential energy. The risk probability depends on the threshold capacity of the system (resistance) and on the capacity of the system to return to a state of equilibrium (resilience). 2. There are two complementary approaches to assessing ecological risks of riverine landscape dynamics. The reductionist approach aims at identifying risk to the ecosystem on the basis of accumulated data on simple stressor–effect relationships. The holistic approach aims at taking the whole ecosystem performance into account, which implies meso‐scale analysis. 3. Landscape patterns and their dynamics represent the physical framework of processes determining the ecosystem's equilibrium. Assessing risks of landscape dynamics to riverine ecosystems implies addressing complex interactions of system components (e.g. population dynamics and biogeochemical cycles) occurring at multiple scales of space and time. 4. One of the most important steps in ecological risk assessment is to establish clear assessment endpoints (e.g. vital ecosystem and landscape attributes). Their formulation must recognise that riverine ecosystems are dynamic, structurally complex and composed of both deterministic and stochastic components. 5. Remote sensing (geo)statistics and geographical information systems are primary tools for quantifying spatial and temporal components of riverine ecosystem and landscape attributes. 6. The difficulty to experiment at the riverine landscape level means that ecological risk management is heavily dependent on models. Current models are targeted towards simulating ecological risk at levels ranging from single species to habitats, food webs and meta‐populations to ecosystems and entire riverine landscapes, with some including socio‐economic considerations.