生物多样性与生态系统服务关系研究进展

生物多样性与生态系统服务关系是当前生态学研究的热点之一,2005年千年生态系统评估之后如何将两者关系应用到生态系统管理和政策制定中逐渐受到重视。然而,从理论上的两者关系认知到应用上的管理实践仍面临着严峻挑战,梳理已有研究成果有利于更好地指导管理实践。本文基于近年生物多样性与生态系统服务关系的主要研究成果,从生物多样性对生态系统单种服务、多种服务、生态系统服务权衡的影响以及环境变化如何影响这些关系等方面,总结了两者关系的主要研究进展,概述了两者关系在自然保护区管理、森林生态系统管理、退化生态系统恢复和农业生态系统改善等领域中的应用,分析了两者关系研究中依然存在的不足之处,强调未来需加强的研究方向主要包括: 生物多样性不同组分相互作用和多营养级生物多样性相互关系对生态系统服务的影响、环境耦合变化对两者关系的复合效应以及生物多样性改善生态系统服务的实践途径。     

生态系统健康与生物多样性*

生态系统健康学是一门研究人类活动、社会组织、自然系统及人类健康的整合性学科,主要探讨资源环境管理对策,以及生态系统健康与人类健康的关系。生态系统健康是人类健康的基础,是人类可持续发展的重要前提,维护生态系统健康,保护生物多样性,也就是维护人类生存的机会。人类健康依附于健康的生态系统功能和服务日益为人们所认识,关注和理解生物多样性、生态系统健康、人类健康之间的相互联系已成为全球可持续发展的必要条件。本文着重综述了生态系统健康的研究内容及全球环境变化背景下生物多样性的变化对生态系统健康的影响效应。     

IPBES框架下生物多样性和生态系统服务情景和模型方法评估及对我国的影响

随着国际社会对生物多样性保护关注度的提升, 生物多样性和生态系统服务情景和模型方法逐渐成为国际进程和条约关注的焦点问题。生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学-政策平台(Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES)将“生物多样性和生态系统服务情景和模型方法评估”列入2014-2018年工作方案, 作为IPBES首批评估活动之一, 其评估报告及决策者摘要已在IPBES第四次全体会议上获得通过。本文概述了该评估报告的主要内容和结论, 探讨了报告与其他国际进程的关系及其可能对中国的影响。该报告梳理了国际上现有的生物多样性和生态系统服务相关情景和模型方法, 综合分析了它们的优缺点、适用范围和限制条件, 提出了使用过程中应对数据和知识空缺的方法, 为制定、使用及优化情景和模型提供了指导。IPBES的一系列评估报告将引领生物多样性和生态系统服务相关科学领域的发展, 为各国在生物多样性领域进行对话、权衡与博弈, 实现本国利益最大化提供一个高效的平台。中国作为一个发展中的生物多样性大国, 积极参与、发声必然是应对IPBES未来发展的最优方式。     

Interactions of ecosystem properties,ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise

The ecosystem service concept is becoming more and more acknowledged in science and decision-making, resulting in several applications in different case studies and in environmental management, but still it is developing in terms of definitions, typologies and understanding its complexity. By examining the interrelations between ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being qualitatively, the mutual influences on each constituent of the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ are illuminated, giving an impulse for further discussions and improvements for a better understanding of the complexity of human–environmental systems. Results of the theoretical interactions are among others the assumption that provisioning services exclude or compete with each other, while the role of biodiversity was found to be supporting for regulating services and cultural services. Ecosystem services meet the criteria of being adequate human–environmental system indicators and therefore, they are an appropriate instrument for decision-making and management.     

Perspectives on the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity: The assessment of the nursery function

The relationship between biodiversity and each ecosystem service or bundle of ecosystem services (e.g. win−win, win−lose or win−neutral) is an active field of research that requires structured and consistent information. The application of that research for conservation and decision-making can be hampered by the ambiguity found in the definition of the nursery function under the ecosystem service perspective. In this paper, we review how the role of nursery habitats is included in the ecosystem services literature, covering conceptual, biophysical and economic reflections. The role of ecosystems as nurseries is mostly analyzed in coastal environments. The main observation is that there is no consensus on the consideration of the nursery function as a service (e.g. which species or habitats) or on how to assess it (e.g. which indicators or valuation methods). After that review, we analyze three different interpretations given to the nursery function, namely the ecological, conservationist and economic point of view; and we distinguish between different types of assessment that may consider the nursery function.We conclude that the nursery function can be considered an ecosystem service on its own right when it is linked to a concrete human benefit and not when it is represented with indicators of general biodiversity or ecosystem condition. Thus, the analysis of the delivery of ecosystem services should be differentiated from the analysis of ecological integrity. Only with this distinction science may be able to quantify the link between biodiversity and ecosystem services and policy may be effective in halting biodiversity loss. Similar considerations could apply for other biodiversity constituents that may be treated as ecosystem services.     

Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders and better informing decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services

How to effectively inform decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services has been under continuous debate in Europe and globally since the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in 1992. On the global level the Intergovernmental science–policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was installed in 2012 to address this need. Yet, biodiversity and ecosystem services management have to be addressed on multiple levels, across biophysical as well as administrative scales. Also, the knowledge needed to address them has to be brought together from science, management practices and other knowledge domains to become relevant and it must be delivered in ways relevant for policies beyond the environmental sector. This Special Issue brings together papers that analyse the challenges arising from this context. Most of them are based on the EU-funded project KNEU that aimed at developing a new, integrative approach to activate knowledge holders and bring them together for targeted knowledge synthesis activities. The papers address the potential functions, structures and processes of such activities in a joint framework, the Network of Knowledge. Practical aspects are addressed via a number of trial assessments carried out in the project. All in all, they showcase new ways of knowledge synthesis that have the potential to complement and strengthen existing ones across scales and sectors, thus supporting an improved management of biodiversity and ecosystem services.     

Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: a synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer‐reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass‐ and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro‐ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico‐chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem‐specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub‐global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity.     

IPBES评估报告对全球生物多样性保护的影响——以美国传粉者保护政策为例

作为生物多样性领域首个政府间、多学科、跨领域的综合性科学政策平台, 联合国生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学-政策平台(The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES)将会对全球生物多样性保护及其他领域产生重要影响。本文通过分析美国传粉者保护政策的制定和实施过程, 获得了生物多样性相关保护政策的制定为科学评估-政府关注-出台限制性政策措施的过程和模式。基于IPBES 2016年发布《传粉者、传粉与粮食生产评估报告》(The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production)的事实, 推测IPBES交付品可能促进对新烟碱类农药产业和蜂产品尤其是野生蜂产品交易限制性政策的产生。并进一步分析了IPBES交付品可能在全球以及我国生物多样性保护及其相关领域带来的影响, 比如可能通过促进生物多样性领域的科学评估, 进一步主流化生物多样性保护问题, 促使生物多样性保护成为重要的政治议题。本文旨在为我国建立生物多样性保护的适应性政策提供科学支持。     

“自然对人类的贡献”的实现、发展趋势和启示

生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(IPBES)的目标是加强科学政策对生物多样性和生态系统服务的影响。为了更好地理解和展示IPBES目标的基本要素及其相互关系, 在千年生态系统评估(MA)的基础上, IPBES融合多种知识体系, 不断完善、创新, 逐步形成了以“自然对人类的贡献” (NCP)为核心的概念框架。本文首先梳理了NCP的发展历程, 论述了NCP与生态系统服务的关系, 指出两者均关注人类福祉, 但与生态系统服务不同的是, NCP涵盖了自然对人类生活的消极影响, 强调社会文化因素、传统知识和土著居民的地位以及人与自然共同作用的重要性。其次, 本文阐述了人与自然共同实现NCP进而影响人类良好生活质量的机制, 并分析了NCP大幅下降的全球趋势, 提出世界各国应不断推动生物多样性保护主流化, 增加国际交流与合作, 致力实现“人与自然和谐共生”的2050年愿景。最后, 本文讨论了NCP在IPBES评估和《生物多样性公约》磋商谈判中的应用前景, 为今后NCP理论研究和实践提供科学支持。     

Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities

Ecological restoration is becoming regarded as a major strategy for increasing the provision of ecosystem services as well as reversing biodiversity losses. Here, we show that restoration projects can be effective in enhancing both, but that conflicts can arise, especially if single services are targeted in isolation. Furthermore, recovery of biodiversity and services can be slow and incomplete. Despite this uncertainty, new methods of ecosystem service valuation are suggesting that the economic benefits of restoration can outweigh costs. Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes could therefore provide incentives for restoration, but require development to ensure biodiversity and multiple services are enhanced and the needs of different stakeholders are met. Such approaches must be implemented widely if new global restoration targets are to be achieved.     

Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services?

Recently, the science and policy agenda on biodiversity moved to include ecosystem services assessments and it is recognised that for determining the effectiveness and progress of policy frameworks monitoring is crucial.Within European monitoring schemes, data is collected following different sampling protocols for a range of biodiversity or context related aspects; from EU-wide general land cover mapping to red list species within Annex I habitats. In this paper, we analysed field instructions of seven monitoring schemes on the extent to which they can provide data on the provision of ecosystem services and what additional information may be needed for future monitoring of ecosystem services.We compared seven monitoring schemes (i.e. CORINE Land Cover, Land Use Cover Area Survey (LUCAS), European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE), biodiversity monitoring on organic and low-input farming systems (BioBio), National Inventory of the Landscape of Sweden (NILS) and Pan-European Common Birds Monitoring (PECBM) and UK Butterfly monitoring (UK-BM)) by scoring the quality of recorded parameters and the adequacy of sampling protocols for ecosystem service monitoring.All the examined schemes were able to provide some parameters on ecosystem services, but the quality of the parameters on average did not exceed the level of qualitative data. Additionally, the divergence between the sampling designs of the schemes and the spatial characteristics of ecosystem services reduced the potential monitoring value of all schemes. Monitoring schemes including a range of sampling methods, scales and included the recording of data on habitats, such as EBONE, BioBio and NILS, provided the best data on the provision of ecosystem services.We conclude that improvement of the monitoring of ecosystem services is hindered by several knowledge gaps: (1) a robust definition and conceptual framework of ecosystem services; (2) the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (3) the interpretation of monitoring data.In addition to ecosystem service monitoring, biodiversity monitoring unremittingly remains very important, at least to identify trade-offs between the management for services and the resulting biodiversity status.     

Supplied,demanded and consumed ecosystem services: Prospects for national assessment in Russia

The National assessment of ecosystem services of Russia is an urgent task taking into account their key importance for maintaining the quality of life of the population and the regulation of biosphere processes. The purpose of the present paper is to propose a natural science methodology for evaluation supplied, demanded and consumed ecosystem services for national ecosystem assessment of Russia.Supplied ecosystem services were considered as services produced by ecosystems regardless of presence or absence of people, demanded – as the volume of services that is necessary for people and economy, consumed – as services actually used by people. Ratios between these three volumes of ecosystem services reveal the degree of service use and degree of meeting the demand for service that are analogous to indices of ecosystem service budget.The proposed methodology was tested in the preparation of the Prototype of the National Report on Ecosystem Services of Russia. Ecosystem services of air and water purification are considered as examples in the present paper.These examples demonstrate that proposed methodology is useful for estimation of surplus or deficit in ecosystem services across regions and identification of ecological risk areas. It also allows regional comparison at national level.     

The ecosystem service assessment challenge: Reflections from Flanders-REA

This paper aims to improve ecosystem assessment practice by sharing the lessons learned from the Flanders Regional Ecosystem Assessment. The ‘EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’, requests the EU member states ‘to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services by 2014’. However, a large number of member states have yet to start this assessment, and depend on assistance from the European Commission and on experiences from ongoing national assessments. In the region of Flanders (Belgium), several ecosystem service projects have since 2009 led the way to the ‘Flanders Regional Ecosystem Assessment’ (Flanders-REA), led by the governments’ leading research institute on biodiversity. To attain high regional requirements on scientific quality, acceptance and effective local policy impact, this assessment has tackled a number of challenges. The challenges discussed in this paper are obtaining conceptual clarity and consensus across disciplines and partners, the integration of multiple sources of information, critical handling of maps and the inclusion of experts and stakeholders. This paper also critically reflects on the definition of EU targets, their implementation, the current EU assistance to the member states, and the alignment with actual local and global policy needs.     

Context dependency of relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is different for multiple ecosystem functions

Increasing concern over the loss of biodiversity has led to attempts to quantify relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. While manipulative investigations have accumulated substantial evidence to support the notion that decreasing biodiversity can be detrimental to the functioning of ecosystems, recent investigations have identified the potential importance of physical processes in moderating biodiversity – ecosystem function relationships at larger geographical scales. In this study, the relationship between the genus richness of benthic macro‐invertebrates and five measures of ecosystem functioning (macrofaunal biomass, depth of the apparent redox discontinuity, fluxes of ammonium and NO_x and the abundance of nematodes) was determined over a large scale wave‐induced bed shear stress gradient on the seabed of the northern Irish Sea. Ecosystem functioning was significantly correlated to genus richness for four out of five ecosystem functions. However, wave stress moderated the genus richness – ecosystem functioning relationship for only one of the ecosystem functions; genus richness had a positive effect on the depth of the apparent redox discontinuity in the sediment at high wave stress but not at low wave stress. These results indicate that the effects of biodiversity on some ecosystem functions may be sufficiently strong to generate patterns in ecosystems where other factors are also affecting ecosystem processes, but that the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship for can be dependent on environmental conditions for specific ecosystem functions.     

What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers

Conservation managers and policy makers must often justify the need for protection of biodiversity. However, results of scientific studies testing for a positive value of biodiversity in terms of community stability and ecosystem function have been complex and inconsistent. We review recent information on the consequences of loss of biodiversity for natural systems. The relationships described vary with scale of interest – for instance, biodiversity at local scales typically has strong effects on ecosystem function, although the opposite relationship is often found at regional scales. These inconsistencies lead to some concern as to whether these relationships can be used to justify biodiversity protection. This is particularly relevant to policy, where holistic protection of biodiversity has most often been mooted and justified. For managers, who most often work to protect single species, communities or ecosystem functions, biodiversity research has failed to address questions of critical concern such as consequences of the loss of rare species or the identification of functional keystone species. For the general public, we believe that the confusion and debate surrounding biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships is in danger of eroding the positive value society places on biodiversity. We further warn that using those relationships in policy documents as justifications for biodiversity protection is fraught with difficulties. Finally, we contend that biodiversity research has largely not addressed issues of concern to conservation managers, and list a set of priorities for relevant research on the consequences of biodiversity loss.     

生物多样性和生态系统功能研究综述

生物多样性和生态系统功能之间关系 ,是生态学和环境科学的热门话题。围绕这一主题 ,文章系统回顾了近 2 0年来的研究历史及学术界的不同观点 ,全面展示了目前在理论和实验领域的主要工作结果和研究进展 ,并对今后的发展趋势和面临的挑战作了展望。理论和实验研究都表明 ,生物多样性趋于与生态系统功能 (稳定性 )呈正相关性 ,但是多样性并非是这种关系的直接驱动力。生态系统功能 (稳定性 )潜在地依赖于物种之间相互作用的强度 ,物种的功能反应特性以及生态系统的类型和尺度等。在生物多样性和生态系统功能的研究中 ,重要的不只是结论 ,还应包括其中所隐含的机制。     

Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes

The dominant late twentieth century model of land use segregated agricultural production from areas managed for biodiversity conservation. This module is no longer adequate in much of the world. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirmed that agriculture has dramatically increased its ecological footprint. Rural communities depend on key components of biodiversity and ecosystem services that are found in non-domestic habitats. Fortunately, agricultural landscapes can be designed and managed to host wild biodiversity of many types, with neutral or even positive effects on agricultural production and livelihoods. Innovative practitioners, scientists and indigenous land managers are adapting, designing and managing diverse types of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes to generate positive co-benefits for production, biodiversity and local people. We assess the potentials and limitations for successful conservation of biodiversity in productive agricultural landscapes, the feasibility of making such approaches financially viable, and the organizational, governance and policy frameworks needed to enable ecoagriculture planning and implementation at a globally significant scale. We conclude that effectively conserving wild biodiversity in agricultural landscapes will require increased research, policy coordination and strategic support to agricultural communities and conservationists.     

Economic trade-offs between carbon sequestration,timber production,and crop pollination in tropical forested landscapes

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment distinguishes between supporting, regulating, provisioning, and cultural ecosystem services. We focus on three services, namely the provision of timber, the regulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the supporting service of bee pollination for coffee production. Possible trade-offs between the different ecosystem services might result in a reduced attractiveness of afforestation projects when taking pollination services into account. We found that economic losses due to a limited reduction of tree density of a Cordia alliodora plantation can be overcompensated by generating pollination services to adjacent coffee agroforestry systems. Thus, for moderate silvicultural interventions such trade-offs do not necessarily occur. Including additional ecosystem services such as biological pest control or seed dispersal, which are also associated with the enhanced functional biodiversity in less dense tree plantations, might further emphasize the hump-shaped relationship between tree density and forest revenues.     

陆地生态系统服务与生物多样性研究进展

在生物多样性迅速消失的压力下,人类面临生态系统服务质量严重下降的威胁。为了使生态系统的重要功能更直观的展现在人们面前,许多学者把生态系统服务对人类的惠益进行整理分类,最有影响力的是千年生态系统评估(MA,Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)把生态系统服务分为供给、调节、文化和支持服务四类,服务的核心是生态系统的产品、过程和格局。生态系统服务的识别与分类是生态系统功能的对象化过程,也是以人类需求来审视生态系统的过程。生态系统通过结构-过程-功能这一途径来实现生态系统服务,各种服务的直接动力来源于自然界生物地球化学循环,生物多样性通过生态系统属性和过程来影响生态系统服务形成和维持。生物多样性越高,生态系统功能性状的范围越广,生态系统服务质量就越高、越稳定。全球变化中的土地利用和土地覆盖变化是生物多样性快速下降的主要原因,也是目前影响生态系统服务最广泛、最剧烈的驱动力,而这正是人类活动造成的,人类需求和生态系统有限的服务能力之间在不同尺度表现出严重冲突。要提高生态系统服务质量,要在不同区域进行重点不同的布局,尽可能的扩大生态系统规模和提高生态系统功能,核心是提高生物多样性水平。     

A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services

A new conceptual framework is presented for the assessment of the impacts of environmental change drivers on ecosystem service provision and the policy and management responses that would derive from the valuation of these impacts. The Framework for Ecosystem Service Provision (FESP), is based on an interpretation of the widely-used Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework. FESP differs from the DPSIR by offering clarity in the definitions of the various DPSIR components as well as introducing novel elements of relevance to the ecosystem service approach. The value of a common framework lies in making the comparison across competing services accessible and clear as well as highlighting the conflicts and trade-offs between not only multiple ecosystem services, but also multiple service beneficiaries. The framework is explicit, for example, in recognising as state variables not only the attributes of the Ecosystem Service Providers (ESPs), but also the attributes of the Ecosystem Service Beneficiaries (ESBs). That a service depends as much on the attributes of the people whose well-being benefits from the service as on the attributes of the biology providing the service is an important step in integrated social-ecological thinking. FESP also identifies the mechanisms of either mitigation or adaptation to the environmental change problem through the effect of these response strategies on specific pressure or state variables. In this way, FESP can contribute to the policies and strategies that are used to support conservation management. This paper describes the principles of FESP and presents some indicative examples of its practical implementation.