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。     

Setting Effective and Realistic Restoration Goals: Key Directions for Research

Restoration ecology has made significant advances in the past few decades and stands to make significant contributions both to the practical repair of damaged ecosystems and the development of broader ecological ideas. I highlighted four main areas where progress in research can assist with this. First, we need to enhance the translation of recent advances in our understanding of ecosystem and landscape dynamics into the conceptual and practical frameworks for restoration. Second, we need to promote the development of an ability to correctly diagnose ecosystem damage, identify restoration thresholds, and develop corrective methodologies that aim to overcome such thresholds. This involves understanding which system characteristics are important in determining ecosystem recovery in a range of ecosystem types, and to what extent restoration measures need to overcome threshold and hysteresis effects. A third key requirement is to determine what realistic goals for restoration are based on the ecological realities of today and how these will change in the future, given ongoing changes in climate and land use. Finally, there is a need for a synthetic approach which draws together the ecological and social aspects of the issues surrounding restoration and the setting of restoration goals.     

典型脆弱生态区生态技术评价方法及应用专题导读

全球经济发展和日益增强的人类活动给业已脆弱的生态系统带来了巨大挑战,寻求尊重自然规律、环境友好的生态治理与恢复技术成为实现联合国可持续发展目标的重要组成部分。近年来,国内外科学家和生态治理机构研发出了一系列技术体系和技术模式,对脆弱生态区退化生态系统展开了全面的治理和恢复。然而,缺乏对这些治理技术的评价和优选方法的研发和应用在很大程度上限制了优良技术的筛选和推广应用,造成了资金和人力的浪费和损失。针对这些问题,科技部在2016年启动了国家重点研发计划项目"生态技术评价方法、指标体系与全球生态治理技术评价",其中重要的任务之一是对生态技术进行梳理、评价和优选。本文旨在对已有的评价方法和指标体系的研究进展进行系统梳理,对生态技术的特征、生态技术评价的基本步骤和原则、生态技术的三阶段评估方法等进行了界定和深入分析,对本专题收录的14篇学术文章所涵盖的评价方法和模型研发、案例应用等进行了介绍,以期为筛选优良技术、提高生态技术应用效果、促进优良技术的输出和引进提供参考。     

Riparian Restoration in the Western United States: Oveview and Perspecive

This historical and conceptual overview of riparian ecosystem restoration discusses how riparian ecosystems have been defined, describes the hydrologic, geomorphic, and biotic processes that create and maintain riparian ecosystems of the western USA, identifies the main types of anthropogenic desturbances occurring in these ecosystems, and provides an overview of restoration methods for each disturbance type. We suggest that riparian ecosystems consist of two zones: Zone I occupies the active floodplain and is frequently inundated and Zone II extends from the active floodplain to the valley wall. Successful restoration depends n understanding the physical and biological processes that influence natural riparian ecosystems and the types of disturbance that have degraded riparian areas. Thus we recommend adopting a process-based approach for riparian restoration. Disturbances to riparian ecosystems in the western USA result from streamflow modifications by dams, reservoirs, and diversions; stream channelization; direct modification of the riparian ecosystem; and watershed disturbances. Four topics should be addressed to advance the state of science for restoration of riparian ecosys-tems: (1) interdisciplinary approaches, (2) a unified framework, (3) a better understanding of fundamental riparian ecosystem processes, and (4) restoration po-tential more closely related to disturbance type. Three issues should be considered regarding the cause of the degraded environment: (1) the location of the causative disturbance with respect to the degraded riparian area, (2) whether the disturbance is ongoing or can be elim-inated, and (3) whether or not recovery will occur nat-urally if the disturbance is removed.     

Reconnecting plants and pollinators: challenges in the restoration of pollination mutualisms

Ecological restoration of plant-pollinator interactions has received surprisingly little attention, despite animal-mediated pollination underpinning reproduction of the majority of higher plants. Here, we offer a conceptual and practical framework for the ecological restoration of pollination mutualisms. Through the use of targeted restoration plantings to attract and sustain pollinators and increased knowledge of the ecological requirements of pollinators, we propose that pollination could be successfully restored in degraded ecosystems. The challenge for pollination biologists is to integrate their findings with those of plant restoration ecologists to ensure sustainable pollination in restored ecosystems.     

Restoration and Rehabilitation of Degraded Ecosystems in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands. I. A View from the South

A general model is presented describing ecosystem degradation to help decide when restoration, rehabilitation, or reallocation should be the preferred response. The latter two pathways are suggested when one or more “thresholds of irreversibility” have been crossed in the course of ecosystem degradation, and when “passive” restoration to a presumed predisturbance condition is deemed impossible. The young but burgeoning field of ecological restoration, and the older field of rehabilitation and sustainable range management of arid and semiarid lands (ASAL), are found to have much in common, especially compared with the reallocation of lands, which is often carried out without reference to pre-existing ecosystems. After clarifying some basic terminology, we present 18 vital ecosystem attributes for evaluating stages of degradation and planning experiments in the restoration or rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems. Finally, we offer 10 hypotheses concerning ecological restoration and rehabilitation as they apply to ASAL and perhaps to all terrestrial ecosystems.     

Exotic Grass Invasions: Applying a Conceptual Framework to the Dynamics of Degradation and Restoration in Australia’s Tropical Savannas

Plant invasions can cause severe degradation of natural areas. The ability of an ecosystem to recover autogenically from degradation following weed control is in part determined by the type and magnitude of changes to both biotic and abiotic processes caused by the invasion and how these interact with structural and functional components of the ecosystem. Recently, a number of conceptual frameworks have been proposed to describe the dynamics of degradation and regeneration in degraded ecosystems. We assessed the utility of one of these frameworks in describing the degradation and restoration potential of Australia’s tropical savannas following exotic grass invasion. First, we identified easily measured structural characteristics of putative states. We found that a continuous cover of the exotic grasses Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus Kunth.) and Perennial mission grass (Pennisetum polystachion (L.) Schult.) under an intact tree canopy was a common state with an understorey characterized by reduced species richness and abundance and a change in the relative contribution of functional groups. Further degradation led to a state where the canopy was severely reduced and the impacts on the understorey were more severe. In both states, the seed bank was substantially less degraded than the understorey vegetation. Guided by the framework, we combined our study with other studies to construct a conceptual model for degradation in exotic grass‐invaded savannas.     

Applying trait‐based models to achieve functional targets for theory‐driven ecological restoration

Manipulating community assemblages to achieve functional targets is a key component of restoring degraded ecosystems. The response‐and‐effect trait framework provides a conceptual foundation for translating restoration goals into functional trait targets, but a quantitative framework has been lacking for translating trait targets into assemblages of species that practitioners can actually manipulate. This study describes new trait‐based models that can be used to generate ranges of species abundances to test theories about which traits, which trait values and which species assemblages are most effective for achieving functional outcomes. These models are generalisable, flexible tools that can be widely applied across many terrestrial ecosystems. Examples illustrate how the framework generates assemblages of indigenous species to (1) achieve desired community responses by applying the theories of environmental filtering, limiting similarity and competitive hierarchies, or (2) achieve desired effects on ecosystem functions by applying the theories of mass ratios and niche complementarity. Experimental applications of this framework will advance our understanding of how to set functional trait targets to achieve the desired restoration goals. A trait‐based framework provides restoration ecology with a robust scaffold on which to apply fundamental ecological theory to maintain resilient and functioning ecosystems in a rapidly changing world.     

热带亚热带退化生态系统的恢复与复合农林业

我国热带亚热带是人口和环境压力最大的区域之一。原有自然生态系统遭到很大的破坏,退化生态系统大面积增加,这是严重制约农业生产发展的重要因素。长期的恢复生态学定点研究表明,通过综合整治,使退化生态系统得以恢复与重建,具有重大的生态效益、经济效益和社会效益。在丘陵山区进行退化生态系统的恢复与重建实践中所构建的“林果草(牧)鱼”复合生态系统,是高产、高质、高效的复合农林业模式,是促进地方农业经济发展的有效途径。     

Linking social identity,risk perception,and behavioral psychology to understand predator management by livestock producers

Human behaviors can determine the success of efforts to restore predators to ecosystems. While behaviors such as lethal predator control may impede predator restoration, other land management practices can facilitate coexistence between predators and humans. Socio‐psychological theories provide useful tools for understanding and improving these human behaviors. We explore three frameworks to understand what shapes Australian livestock graziers' behaviors with regards to management of the threat that dingoes pose to livestock. These frameworks are the theory of reasoned action (incorporating values and beliefs about dingoes), the social identity approach, and perception of risk. We distributed a survey to Australian graziers by mail and online (n = 138) which allowed recording of information on these three frameworks and their engagement in lethal dingo control. Among the respondents, we found that all three frameworks were linked with lethal dingo control when assessed individually, but when combined in a hierarchical regression, only social identity (specifically, identifying as an “environmentalist” or “pest controller”) was significant in predicting behavior. This result reveals the strength of social norms and normative beliefs over perceived risk in shaping behavior. As such, social identity is a useful metric for predicting and understanding environmental management behavior. Determining what these social identities mean in a given context is important for identifying how to implement behavior change to promote evidence‐based management that facilitates restoration of wildlife such as predators to landscapes where conflict with humans occurs.     

People as Ecological Participants in Ecological Restoration

In 1987, Bradshaw proposed that ecological restoration is the ultimate “acid test” of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems ( Bradshaw 1987 ). Although this concept is widely supported academically, how it can be applied by restoration practitioners is still unclear. This is an issue not limited to Bradshaw’s acid test, but moreover, reflects a general difficulty associated with the polarization between conceptual restoration (restoration ecology) and practical restoration (ecological restoration), where each has functioned to certain degree in isolation of the other. Outside of the more obvious pragmatic reasons for the relative independence between ecological restoration and restoration ecology, we propose that a more contentious explanation is that the approach taken toward understanding ecosystem development in restoration ecology is tangential to what actually takes place in ecological restoration. Current paradigms assume that the process of ecosystem development in restoration should follow the developmental trajectories suggested by classical ecological succession models. However, unlike these models, ecosystem development in restoration is, at least initially, largely manipulated by people, rather than by abiotic and biotic forces alone. There has been little research undertaken to explore how restoration activities impact upon or add to the extant ecological processes operating within a restoration site. Consequently, ecological restoration may not be so much an acid test of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems, but rather, an acid test of our understanding mutually beneficial interactions between humans and ecosystems.     

Identifying Linkages among Conceptual Models of Ecosystem Degradation and Restoration: Towards an Integrative Framework

We present an ecological framework for considering ecosystem degradation and restoration, particularly in rangelands and arid environments. The framework is a synthesis of three conceptual models previously developed by several rangeland and restoration ecologists. We focus first on distinctions and connections between structural and functional components of rangeland ecosystems and then on distinctions and connections between biotic and abiotic components of the ecosystem. We next show that the structural/functional and biotic/abiotic distinctions can be integrated with a stepwise, positive feedback model of degradation to help explain degradation processes and restoration approaches. Finally, we relate those concepts to a threshold model of rangeland degradation. By establishing the conceptual links among these different models, this synthesis provides a broader, more integrated framework for thinking about the dynamics involved in rangeland degradation and restoration. We conclude by presenting some approaches to restoration that are motivated by the suite of concepts that are brought together in the framework.     

An outcome-based model for predicting recovery pathways in restored ecosystems: The Recovery Cascade Model

Restoration is increasingly the focus of ecosystem management. Few conceptual models exist for predicting the consequences of restoration, especially those that predict the stages of recovery following restoration. Existing models focus either on defining endpoints for recovery or on defining ecosystem processes, but often do not identify barriers to recovery or potential negative effects of restoration. We describe a conceptual model that identifies the outcomes of the recovery pathways following flow restoration in rivers: the Recovery Cascade Model. The model identifies six general aspects of recovery following restoration: physical ecosystem change; creation of, or improvement in habitat condition; reconnection of the restored area to adjacent ecosystems; recolonization of the restored area; resumption of ecological processes; re-establishment of biotic interactions and reproduction by colonists in the restored area. These aspects may occur in sequence, such that recovery is blocked by a single barrier. The model accommodates feedback loops and includes strong connections between physical processes and ecosystem processes, but also identifies factors that are important in achieving endpoints such as potential barriers to further recovery. Identification of barriers to recovery enables improved planning to maximise the positive effects of restoration. By focussing on outcomes, the model provides a planning tool for managers that can be adapted for different ecosystems and restoration methods and which can be used to identify the amenities that an ecosystem will deliver at different stages of recovery. Ecosystem recovery is as much about overcoming barriers as it is about restorative actions.     

北方风沙区生态修复的科学原理、工程实践和恢复效果

北方风沙区位于欧亚草原的东部,是我国生态环境最为脆弱的地区之一,其在北方生态安全屏障和丝绸之路经济带建设中具有十分重要的战略地位。在国家一系列生态保育工程的支持下,该地区的生态环境得到明显改善。但是,由于受人类活动和全球气候变化的影响,该地区仍然面临着严峻的环境压力。在中国科学院科技服务网络计划(STS计划)等项目支持下,开展了北方风沙区土地沙化成因及退化土地空间分布研究,集成了北方风沙区重点脆弱区生态恢复的理论和技术体系,以内蒙古中部的阴山北麓地区、内蒙古浑善达克沙地和蒙辽交界的科尔沁沙地为重点研究区域,进行了高效人工草地建植、天然草地恢复和管理、沙化草地治理等相关工程技术的示范,开展生态恢复模式的效果跟踪监测和生态效益评估,确定生态恢复技术和模式的技术参数和指标,明确不同集成技术与模式在北方风沙区的适用区域和范围,为技术模式的推广应用提供科学依据。通过上述研究,可以为中央和地方政府制定生态系统管理和退化生态系统恢复政策、建立我国北方生态安全屏障提供决策依据,为生态修复产业提供技术指南,为相关研究提供全面系统的基础数据支撑。     

On Sustainability, Estuaries, and Ecosystem Restoration: The Art of the Practical

Ecosystem restoration in highly complex, human‐dominated estuaries rests on a strong conceptual foundation of sustainability, ecosystems, and adaptive management of human‐induced environmental impacts. Successful application involves evaluating uncertainty, incorporating place‐based information, and engaging diverse constituencies in the planning process. That means integration of technical knowledge with an understanding of the “cultural milieu” inherent in all estuaries, that is, the intensity of human activity and impacts plus socioeconomic factors relevant to restoration goals. Operational definitions of what constitutes acceptable ecosystem conditions and current baselines are critical yet rest in large measure on cultural values and socioeconomic considerations. Resources for long‐term monitoring and research to assess performance and ecosystem condition are paramount. Unprecedented population growth promises additional stressors on estuarine environments worldwide, making maintenance of present conditions difficult. The art of good, practical ecosystem restoration as a management tool at multiple geographic scales promises to play a crucial role in sustainability goals.     

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.     

The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go?

The practice of ecological restoration is a primary option for increasing levels of biodiversity by modifying human-altered ecosystems. The scientific discipline of restoration ecology provides conceptual guidance and tests of restoration strategies, with the ultimate goal of predictive landscape restoration. I construct a conceptual model for restoration of biodiversity, based on site-level (e.g., biotic and abiotic) conditions, landscape (e.g, interpatch connectivity and patch geometry), and historical factors (e.g., species arrival order and land-use legacies). I then ask how well restoration ecology has addressed the various components of this model. During the past decade, restoration research has focused largely on how the restoration of site-level factors promotes species diversity-primarily of plants. Relatively little attention has been paid to how landscape or historical factors interplay with restoration, how restoration influences functional and genetic components of biodiversity, or how a suite of less-studied taxa might be restored. I suggest that the high level of variation seen in restoration outcomes might be explained, at least in part, by the contingencies placed on site-level restoration by landscape and historical factors and then present a number of avenues for future research to address these often ignored linkages in the biodiversity restoration model. Such work will require carefully conducted restoration experiments set across multiple sites and many years. It is my hope that by considering how space and time influence restoration, we might move restoration ecology in a direction of stronger prediction, conducted across landscapes, thus providing feasible restoration strategies that work at scales over which biodiversity conservation occurs.     

Setting Attainable Goals of Stream Habitat Restoration from a Macroinvertebrate View

Many efforts have been undertaken to reduce the impairment of stream ecosystems by wastewaters and other pollution, leading to a remarkable improvement of the water quality in most parts of Central Europe. Actually, the most severe disturbance to stream systems in Central Europe is the structural degradation of stream morphology. Restoration practices increasing the structural heterogeneity of formerly degraded stream sections are necessary to create new habitats at different scales that could provide habitat for a diverse invertebrate community. Increasing biodiversity of aquatic invertebrates strengthens the ecological integrity of streams and is therefore a desirable goal in stream restoration. Nevertheless, recent studies focusing on the effect of structural restoration of stream sections often displayed results that did not really met the preset goal of increasing invertebrate diversity. This might be due to sometimes severe disturbance caused by the restoration practice itself, impairing the established invertebrate community in the restored stream section. Additionally, the potential for immigration of new species into the restored stream section is often limited. Therefore, several important prerequisites must be accounted for in the planning of restoration practices to improve structurally degraded stream sections, when the goal of restoration is increasing invertebrate diversity.     

生态系统退化程度诊断：生态恢复的基础与前提

 生态系统退化程度诊断是进行生态恢复与重建的基础和前提。然而目前的生态系统化程度诊断大多停留在定性的水平,如何对退化生态系统的退化程度进行定量的诊断就成为恢复生态学与生态恢复实践所面临的一个迫切且十分关键的问题。在综述前人研究的基础上,比较系统地论述了生态系统退化程度诊断的一系列问题：绘制了描述生态系统退化程度的概念模型;认为在实践中退化程度诊断的参照系统可以选择相应的受人类或自然干扰程度比较轻的“自然生态系统”;归纳了生态系统退化程度诊断的生物途径、生境途径、生态过程途径、生态系统功能/服务途径、景观途径;把诊断方法分为单途径单因子诊断法、单途径多因子诊断法、多途径综合诊断法;分析了生态系统退化程度诊断的可能指标（体系）;给出了生态系统退化程度诊断的策略与流程,并对生态系统退化程度诊断及生态恢复过程中应注意的事项进行了讨论。建议我国加强典型生态系统退化程度的综合诊断研究。     

A review of methodologies and success indicators for coastal wetland restoration

Coastal wetlands are considered to be amongst the most productive ecosystems and can provide invaluable ecological services. However, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most threatened ecosystems suffering from anthropogenic activities. The loss or degradation of coastal wetlands has drawn a high level of attention to wetland restoration. Improvement of the structure and function of degraded, damaged and destroyed wetlands may be achieved through ecological restoration. Large numbers of restoration projects have been conducted worldwide based on different restoration goals and different methods. It is undoubtedly important to evaluate whether coastal wetland restoration is successful. However, coastal wetland restoration assessment has become challenging because of current disagreement on definitions and concepts of restoration evaluation. We reviewed the methodology of coastal wetland restoration and criteria for success evaluation, and then summarized the issues for current wetland restoration and success evaluation based on literature review. Moreover, we used an estuarine wetland affected by urbanization as a sample to demonstrate how to establish a success indicator system for guiding wetland restoration and evaluating the success of wetland restoration.