Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems

Humans impact natural systems in a multitude of ways, yet the cumulative effect of multiple stressors on ecological communities remains largely unknown. Here we synthesized 171 studies that manipulated two or more stressors in marine and coastal systems and found that cumulative effects in individual studies were additive (26%), synergistic (36%), and antagonistic (38%). The overall interaction effect across all studies was synergistic, but interaction type varied by response level (community: antagonistic, population: synergistic), trophic level (autotrophs: antagonistic, heterotrophs: synergistic), and specific stressor pair (seven pairs additive, three pairs each synergistic and antagonistic). Addition of a third stressor changed interaction effects significantly in two‐thirds of all cases and doubled the number of synergistic interactions. Given that most studies were performed in laboratories where stressor effects can be carefully isolated, these three‐stressor results suggest that synergies may be quite common in nature where more than two stressors almost always coexist. While significant gaps exist in multiple stressor research, our results suggest an immediate need to account for stressor interactions in ecological studies and conservation planning.     

Embracing thresholds for better environmental management

Three decades of study have revealed dozens of examples in which natural systems have crossed biophysical thresholds (‘tipping points’)—nonlinear changes in ecosystem structure and function—as a result of human-induced stressors, dramatically altering ecosystem function and services. Environmental management that avoids such thresholds could prevent severe social, economic and environmental impacts. Here, we review management measures implemented in ecological systems that have thresholds. Using Ostrom''s social–ecological systems framework, we analysed key biophysical and institutional factors associated with 51 social–ecological systems and associated management regimes, and related these to management success defined by ecological outcomes. We categorized cases as instances of prospective or retrospective management, based upon whether management aimed to avoid a threshold or to restore systems that have crossed a threshold. We find that smaller systems are more amenable to threshold-based management, that routine monitoring is associated with successful avoidance of thresholds and recovery after thresholds have been crossed, and that success is associated with the explicit threshold-based management. These findings are powerful evidence for the policy relevance of information on ecological thresholds across a wide range of ecosystems.     

重点脆弱生态区生态系统服务权衡与协同关系时空特征

目前,有关生态系统服务权衡与协同关系的研究多集中在局地尺度,在宏观尺度上的研究较少。重点脆弱生态区是我国改善生态环境的主要目标区域,在定量评估我国重点脆弱生态区1990—2015年土壤保持、植被净初级生产力(NPP)和产水服务的基础上,利用相关系数法并结合植被分布场数据对生态系统服务权衡与协同关系进行研究。结果表明:(1)26年间,重点脆弱生态区的土壤保持服务、NPP、产水服务呈现出南多北少的分布格局,且3种服务的年际变化较小,但均有上升的趋势;(2)重点脆弱生态区的3种生态系统服务之间是整体上协同,局部权衡的关系,并且协同关系呈减弱的趋势;(3)生态恢复区的生态系统服务的协同程度大于非生态恢复区,权衡关系减弱的动态变化趋势高于非生态恢复区。定量评估生态系统服务权衡与协同关系的时空特征,有利于研究生态系统服务之间相互关系在时间上的非线性和空间上的异质性,对重点脆弱生态区生态系统的可持续发展具有重要意义。     

基于生态系统服务簇的内蒙古自治区生态功能分区

生态功能分区是生态系统管理的重要环节,有助于维持生态可持续性.目前生态功能分区的框架复杂多样,但对多重生态系统服务之间关系的理解还不够深刻.生态系统服务簇可以识别多重生态系统服务间的交互作用,并依据簇的特征对区域进行生态功能分区,从而更好地进行社会-生态系统管理.本文以内蒙古自治区为例,定量评估了供给服务、调节服务和支持服务,以旗县(区)为基本空间单元,运用自组织特征映射网络(SOFM)得到生态系统服务簇、划分生态功能区.结果表明: 研究区各项生态系统服务分布整体上呈现从东北向西南递减的格局;供给服务和调节服务存在权衡关系,支持服务和调节服务存在协同关系;依据聚类结果将内蒙古自治区划分为4个生态功能区,分别为西部荒漠生态脆弱区、中部草原水土保持区、东部草原牧业盈余区、东部森林生态均衡区.本研究基于生态系统服务簇的概念,分析了内蒙古自治区多重生态系统服务的权衡与协同关系,为生态功能分区提供了新的视角和方法.     

水生态保护目标制定的理论与应用

我国目前处于生态环境管理的转型期,尚未形成统领水生生物、生物栖息地、水质与水量等要素的水生态保护体系。在总结相关水生态研究成果的基础上,梳理形成了基于水生态系统时空尺度和状态梯度效应理论的水生态保护目标制定构想与方法,分析了淡水生物完整性对自然地理要素、水环境压力、栖息地质量的响应机制,提出以水生态“功能分区-状态评价-问题诊断-目标预设-可达性评估-目标确定”为主线的水生态保护目标制定技术体系,研发了生物完整性评价、水生态保护目标预设和可达性分析等技术方法。以江苏省常州市为典型水生态功能区应用案例,验证了技术体系的适用性与可行性,取得良好的应用效果。水生态保护目标制定理论和方法方面的研究探索可为全国相关工作提供参考依据。     

提升生态系统质量和稳定性的生态学原理及技术途径之探讨

提升生态系统质量和稳定性是国家生态环境建设的迫切任务,但生态系统质量及其稳定性的生态学原理是亟待阐述的生态学难题。本文在梳理生态系统质量和稳定性的影响因素及其相互作用关系基础上,从生物集聚与结构嵌套的自组织、生态要素关联及生态过程耦合、生态系统整体性及功能涌现、生态服务外溢及功效权衡、资源供给能力和环境适宜性的协同互作、自然变化和人类活动交互影响等视角,论述了生态系统质量及其稳定性演变的生态学原理,并围绕生态系统宏观格局调整、自然保护地体系建设、区域复合生态系统综合管理、退化生态系统恢复、受损生态系统重建、典型生态系统过程管理等层级,提出了提升生态系统质量及其稳定性的技术途径与管理策略。     

Quantifying the evidence for ecological synergies

There is increasing concern that multiple drivers of ecological change will interact synergistically to accelerate biodiversity loss. However, the prevalence and magnitude of these interactions remain one of the largest uncertainties in projections of future ecological change. We address this uncertainty by performing a meta-analysis of 112 published factorial experiments that evaluated the impacts of multiple stressors on animal mortality in freshwater, marine and terrestrial communities. We found that, on average, mortalities from the combined action of two stressors were not synergistic and this result was consistent across studies investigating different stressors, study organisms and life-history stages. Furthermore, only one-third of relevant experiments displayed truly synergistic effects, which does not support the prevailing ecological paradigm that synergies are rampant. However, in more than three-quarters of relevant experiments, the outcome of multiple stressor interactions was non-additive (i.e. synergies or antagonisms), suggesting that ecological surprises may be more common than simple additive effects.     

近海海洋生态连通性研究进展

生态连通性是空间生态学和保护生物学的重要概念和研究手段。国外越来越多的研究表明,开展近海海洋生态连通性研究对促进海洋生态系统保护和修复具有十分重要的现实意义。阐述了近海海洋生态连通性的概念与机制,回顾了目前近海海洋连通性的研究进展并分析了存在的问题,总结了近海海洋生态连通性研究的框架和具体方法,最后提出我国开展近海海洋生态连通性研究的建议,以期对今后国内开展海洋生态连通性相关研究工作有所启示。     

Reconceptualizing synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors

The potential for complex synergistic or antagonistic interactions between multiple stressors presents one of the largest uncertainties when predicting ecological change but, despite common use of the terms in the scientific literature, a consensus on their operational definition is still lacking. The identification of synergism or antagonism is generally straightforward when stressors operate in the same direction, but if individual stressor effects oppose each other, the definition of synergism is paradoxical because what is synergistic to one stressor's effect direction is antagonistic to the others. In their highly cited meta‐analysis, Crain et al. (Ecology Letters, 11, 2008: 1304) assumed in situations with opposing individual effects that synergy only occurs when the cumulative effect is more negative than the additive sum of the opposing individual effects. We argue against this and propose a new systematic classification based on an additive effects model that combines the magnitude and response direction of the cumulative effect and the interaction effect. A new class of “mitigating synergism” is identified, where cumulative effects are reversed and enhanced. We applied our directional classification to the dataset compiled by Crain et al. (Ecology Letters, 11, 2008: 1304) to determine the prevalence of synergistic, antagonistic, and additive interactions. Compared to their original analysis, we report differences in the representation of interaction classes by interaction type and we document examples of mitigating synergism, highlighting the importance of incorporating individual stressor effect directions in the determination of synergisms and antagonisms. This is particularly pertinent given a general bias in ecology toward investigating and reporting adverse multiple stressor effects (double negative). We emphasize the need for reconsideration by the ecological community of the interpretation of synergism and antagonism in situations where individual stressor effects oppose each other or where cumulative effects are reversed and enhanced.     

Operationalizing resilience for adaptive coral reef management under global environmental change

Cumulative pressures from global climate and ocean change combined with multiple regional and local‐scale stressors pose fundamental challenges to coral reef managers worldwide. Understanding how cumulative stressors affect coral reef vulnerability is critical for successful reef conservation now and in the future. In this review, we present the case that strategically managing for increased ecological resilience (capacity for stress resistance and recovery) can reduce coral reef vulnerability (risk of net decline) up to a point. Specifically, we propose an operational framework for identifying effective management levers to enhance resilience and support management decisions that reduce reef vulnerability. Building on a system understanding of biological and ecological processes that drive resilience of coral reefs in different environmental and socio‐economic settings, we present an Adaptive Resilience‐Based management (ARBM) framework and suggest a set of guidelines for how and where resilience can be enhanced via management interventions. We argue that press‐type stressors (pollution, sedimentation, overfishing, ocean warming and acidification) are key threats to coral reef resilience by affecting processes underpinning resistance and recovery, while pulse‐type (acute) stressors (e.g. storms, bleaching events, crown‐of‐thorns starfish outbreaks) increase the demand for resilience. We apply the framework to a set of example problems for Caribbean and Indo‐Pacific reefs. A combined strategy of active risk reduction and resilience support is needed, informed by key management objectives, knowledge of reef ecosystem processes and consideration of environmental and social drivers. As climate change and ocean acidification erode the resilience and increase the vulnerability of coral reefs globally, successful adaptive management of coral reefs will become increasingly difficult. Given limited resources, on‐the‐ground solutions are likely to focus increasingly on actions that support resilience at finer spatial scales, and that are tightly linked to ecosystem goods and services.     

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...     

基于生态系统服务功能和生态敏感性的生态空间划定研究——以南宁市为例

生态空间管制是我国国土空间管制的重要内容。针对目前国内对生态空间认知有差异,对其划定技术方法还处于探索阶段的情况下,以生态系统服务功能和生态敏感性技术评价方法为手段,以广西壮族自治区南宁市为研究对象,开展了基于生态系统服务功能重要性和生态敏感性的生态空间划定方法的探索研究。结果表明:(1)研究区域内主导的生态系统服务功能主要为生物多样性维护功能和水土保持功能,其次为水源涵养功能。生态系统综合服务功能重要性类型以一般重要为主,约占研究区总面积的42.32%。(2)研究区生态敏感性以水土流失敏感性为主,其次为石漠化敏感类型。生态环境综合敏感类型以敏感为主,约占总面积的85.44%。(3)研究区内初步划定生态空间总面积约9325.27 km~2,占研究区总面积的42.19%,占研究区内生态用地面积的76.59%。土地利用类型以林地为主,约占生态空间面积的83.65%。划定的生态空间范围涵盖了绝大部分生态用地。本研究在一定程度上丰富了生态空间的内涵,可为进一步理解和划定生态空间提供参考与借鉴。     

生态系统服务簇空间演变轨迹及其社会-生态驱动的地理探测——以大连市为例

生态系统服务簇是多种生态系统服务的组合,明晰生态系统服务簇及其自然-社会经济驱动因素,对生态系统服务内部相互依赖机制识别、实现多种生态系统服务间良性互动具有重要意义。目前生态系统服务簇的识别已得到广泛应用,但对多种生态系统服务之间交互作用的动态过程与影响机理的认识还不够深刻。针对目前多种生态系统服务间交互作用动态演化分析及其社会-生态驱动机理研究不足的现状,以我国北方沿海重要中心城市——大连市为例,选取食物供给、水源涵养、固碳释氧、土壤保持、生境质量和景观美学6种关键服务。采用Spearman相关性分析方法探究生态系统服务权衡与协同关系,借助自组织网络方法识别生态系统服务簇,进一步分析多种生态系统服务间交互作用的时空分异特征,运用地理探测器探究其空间分异影响因素。结果表明：(1)食物供给与土壤保持存在极显著的权衡关系■,土壤保持与景观美学存在极显著的协同关系■。(2)2005—2015年大连市生态保育簇空间格局较稳定,水源涵养簇、食物供给簇与服务枯竭簇之间轨迹变化明显,城市扩张与服务枯竭簇演变具有一致性。(3)高程、归一化植被指数是影响生态系统服务簇空间分布的关键自然因素,而土地利用强...     

国土空间生态修复与保护空间识别——以北京市为例

构建国土空间修复与保护识别体系可以有效实现区域生态系统修复与保护,然而,当前国土空间生态修复与保护研究和规划缺乏从系统性和完整性的角度识别关键生态修复与保护区。因此构建了系统的生态修复与保护空间识别方法,以实现区域协调发展、保障区域生态安全。基于该方法,以北京市为例,通过评估生态系统服务、生态系统质量和生态问题,构建生态修复与保护空间格局。研究结果表明：(1) 2000—2015年生态系统服务和质量退化区主要集中在平原区和密云水库北部,面积为760.4 km~2;生态系统质量低下区主要分布在西南部山区和东北部山区,面积为4925 km~2;水土流失问题区零星分布在山区,面积为130.1 km~2;基于以上三者的北京生态修复建议区总面积5606 km~2。(2)建议北京生态保护区6391 km~2,主要分布在北部山区和西南部山区,保护了79.63%的水源涵养功能,74.97%的土壤保持功能,58.79%的洪水调蓄功能和60.3%的自然栖息地。本研究构建的生态修复与保护空间识别方法体系,为北京生态修复和保护规划与生态安全格局构建提供科学依据,还可以为其他地区的生态修复与保护规划提供参考。     

When things don't add up: quantifying impacts of multiple stressors from individual metabolism to ecosystem processing

Ecosystems are exposed to multiple stressors which can compromise functioning and service delivery. These stressors often co‐occur and interact in different ways which are not yet fully understood. Here, we applied a population model representing a freshwater amphipod feeding on leaf litter in forested streams. We simulated impacts of hypothetical stressors, individually and in pairwise combinations that target the individuals' feeding, maintenance, growth and reproduction. Impacts were quantified by examining responses at three levels of biological organisation: individual‐level body sizes and cumulative reproduction, population‐level abundance and biomass and ecosystem‐level leaf litter decomposition. Interactive effects of multiple stressors at the individual level were mostly antagonistic, that is, less negative than expected. Most population‐ and ecosystem‐level responses to multiple stressors were stronger than expected from an additive model, that is, synergistic. Our results suggest that across levels of biological organisation responses to multiple stressors are rarely only additive. We suggest methods for efficiently quantifying impacts of multiple stressors at different levels of biological organisation.     

中国退耕还林还草对生态系统服务权衡与协同的影响

基于生态系统服务之间相关关系的时空动态变化,实现区域可持续发展与生态系统利益最大化,是兼顾生态保护、粮食安全、改善民生等多目标的重要途径。通过分析退耕还林还草工程县域粮食供给与地块水源涵养、土壤保持、防风固沙功能变化,评估退耕还林还草工程对生态系统关键服务之间权衡与协同关系的影响。结果表明：（1）2000-2015年,约76%工程县域的粮食供给增加,约46%和49%工程县域退耕还林还草地块的土壤保持与水源涵养功能呈提升态势,而风蚀区仅约2%工程县域的地块防风固沙功能明显提升。（2）1897个工程县域中,约24%县域粮食供给与地块水源涵养、约18%县域粮食供给与地块土壤保持之间呈显著地空间协同关系,风蚀区约38%县域粮食供给与地块防风固沙之间呈显著地空间权衡关系。（3）31%工程县域表现为多重生态系统服务供给区,其中双重服务供给县域占43%,三重服务供给县域占53%,四重服务供给县域占4%。（4）近16年,不同区域退耕还林还草工程导致粮食供给与调节服务之间呈现权衡与协同相互转换、权衡或协同程度变化等差异的空间相关关系,反映了多重生态系统服务联合权衡与协同在未来工程生态效应评估中的重要性。     

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。     

四川盆地多重生态系统服务景观指数评价与服务簇识别

明确多重生态系统服务与生态系统服务簇的空间格局对于维持区域生态安全格局与可持续发展至关重要。在评估四川盆地2015年6种生态系统服务的基础上,计算了表征综合水平的多重生态系统服务景观指数;进而分析了生态系统服务间权衡与协同关系;并基于K-均值聚类法识别了研究区内生态系统服务簇的空间格局。研究结果表明：（1）研究区的多重生态系统服务景观指数平均值达到3.12,同时具有明显的空间分异性,整体上呈现出东南高西北低的空间分布格局,高值区主要分布于川东平行岭谷区,以林、草地为主的区域最高,城市建成区及其邻近地区最低。（2）6种生态系统服务空间异质性显著,且不同服务间协同与权衡关系并存,其中碳汇、生境质量和水土保持服务三者间的协同关系显著,碳汇、生境质量和水土保持服务与娱乐和粮食供给服务间的权衡关系均较强;产水服务与其他各项服务间的权衡与协同关系均较弱。（3）四川盆地可划分为文化旅游、食物供给、生态保育和多功能复合均衡型4种服务簇,其空间布局与内部结构分异明显。文化旅游型服务簇面积最小,面积占比为3.11%,主要分布于成都和重庆城镇及其周边地区,其提供多重生态系统服务功能的能力最弱;食物供给型服务簇主要位于成都平原、浅丘及部分河谷区域,面积约占36.23%;生态保育型服务簇主要分布于盆周山地,以林地为主导,其提供多重生态系统服务功能的能力最强,面积占比达22.61%;多功能复合均衡型服务簇分布最广,面积占比为38.04%,集中于川中、川东丘陵及平行岭谷槽谷区域。采取差异化优化措施有利于整体提升四川盆地生态系统服务能力,维护区域生态安全格局。     

雄安新区多尺度生态安全格局构建框架

维持城市所处的生态系统格局与过程,使得城市生存和发展所依赖的关键生态系统服务实现供需平衡是保障城市生态安全的根本要求和基本前提。因此,城市生态安全不仅是城市本身的问题,还涉及到城市所处的流域、区域、国家等多个不同的空间尺度,具体由支撑城市及其发展的关键生态系统服务所涉及的生态过程所决定。对生态安全概念及研究进展进行了梳理和分析,在此基础上,提出了一个城市生态安全保障的生态系统服务研究框架,将维持城市生态安全的关键生态系统服务需求分为3个层次：一是水资源供给、食物生产、水质净化等城市生存所依赖的基础资源与基本环境维持相关的服务,二是土壤保持、水源涵养、防风固沙、固碳释氧、生物多样性等生态系统稳定和可持续性维持相关的生态系统稳定和调节类服务,三是生态休闲、微气候调节、降尘减噪、文化审美等人居环境与文化类服务。进而利用该框架,从不同需求层次分别对雄安新区生态安全保障的生态系统服务需求进行了分析,结合其自然地理特征和新区建设的社会经济发展情景,从新区城市、大清河流域和京津冀区域三个尺度提出了雄安新区生态安全格局构建框架,以及相应的保障对策和建议,包括从多尺度进行生态环境调控和管理,打破行政和地域边界限制;关注各尺度各关键生态系统服务的过程,加强生态环境要素的监测和预警;重视新区在人居环境改善层次的生态系统服务需求等。