生态恢复中生态系统服务的演变:趋势、过程与评估

经过10余年的发展,生态系统服务已经成为生态恢复研究关注的前沿和热点。生态恢复改变了生态系统格局与过程,对生态系统服务的产生和提供具有重要影响。但是目前对于生态系统服务在生态恢复过程中的演化仍缺少系统性研究。对国内外相关研究的最新成果进行综述,总结了生态系统服务评估中框架的构建和方法的选择(参数转移法、系统模型法和定量指标法),介绍了生态恢复对生态系统服务的促进作用、生态系统服务的演变过程以及不同生态系统服务间的协同与权衡关系,分析了社会经济因素对生态恢复和生态系统服务维持的影响。最后结合我国生态恢复实践,提出未来生态恢复和生态系统服务研究可以从深化作用机制研究、推动服务评估创新、增强研究成果应用3方面深化和拓展。     

An overview of the progress and challenges of peatland restoration in Western Europe

Peatlands are the most efficient terrestrial carbon store on Earth, and deliver multiple other ecosystem services including climate regulation, water purification, preservation of ecological and archaeological records, etc. Disturbed and degraded peatlands do not provide the same ecological services and thus bear a significant cost to society. Because this cost may be alleviated by appropriate restoration measures, money is being invested in peatland restoration projects around the world. Here, we review over 25 years of restoration in Western Europe. First, we provide an overview of techniques used in different contexts and evaluate the status of the evidence base for restoration outcomes. Between 1993 and 2015, the EU‐LIFE nature programme alone invested 167.6M € in 80 projects, which aim to restore over 913 km² of peatland habitats in Western European countries, mostly in protected sites part of the Natura 2000 EU network. This represents less than 2% of the total remaining area of peatlands in these countries, most of which have been impacted to some degree by anthropogenic disturbances. Potential for restoration should be considered in nondesignated sites. We reviewed a number of case studies covering a range of restoration approaches used in different parts of Western Europe. We found that published evidence of restoration progress was limited to specific sites/areas, and in many cases lacked baseline measurements and clear goals, that is, measurable target or contemporary reference(s). We discuss barriers and opportunities to turn the tide for peatland restoration in Western Europe and promote the establishment of robust, standardized monitoring schemes.     

Time,space, place,and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target

The Bonn Challenge, a global effort to begin restoring 350 million hectares of degraded forest landscapes by 2030, was launched in 2011. To date countries have committed to restore more than 60 million hectares as part of the Bonn Challenge. As global decision‐makers, governments, and communities join the effort to restore degraded land, new questions about the economics of restoration have emerged. Critics argue that restoration takes too long, costs too much, and produces too few benefits to justify public or private expenditures. This paper addresses these concerns by presenting a methodology for valuing the net benefits of large‐scale ecosystem restoration initiatives by estimating the net benefit of achieving the Bonn Challenge. This paper also estimates the net benefit of achieving the Bonn Challenge restoration target under different social discounting regimes, different valuations of public goods, and different time horizons to see how they affect the argument for investing society's scarce resources in restoration. The results suggest that achieving the Bonn Challenge would generate a net benefit of between U.S.$0.7 and U.S.$9 trillion. The results show that restoration can create benefits that exceed its costs and that the value of these benefits might differ depending on the discount rate. The results show that lower social discount rates correspond to higher restoration rates. This suggests that the Bonn Challenge target is more likely to be met when a low social discount rate is used to discount the benefits and costs of restoration.     

The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs

Coral reef restoration initiatives are burgeoning in response to the need for novel management strategies to address dramatic global declines in coral cover. However, coral restoration programs typically lack rigor and critical evaluation of their effectiveness. A review of 83 peer‐reviewed papers that used coral transplantation for reef restoration reveals that growth and survival of coral fragments were the most widely used indicators of restoration success, with 88% of studies using these two indicators either solely (55%) or in combination with a limited number of other ecological factors (33%). In 53% of studies, reef condition was monitored for 1 year or less, while only 5% of reefs were monitored for more than 5 years post‐transplantation. These results highlight that coral reef restoration science has focused primarily on short‐term experiments to evaluate the feasibility of techniques for ecological restoration and the initial establishment phase post‐transplantation, rather than on longer‐term outcomes for coral reef communities. Here, we outline 10 socioecological indicators that comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of coral reef restoration across the four pillars of sustainability (i.e. environmental, sociocultural, governance, and economic contributions to sustainable communities). We recommend that evaluations of the effectiveness of coral restoration programs integrate ecological indicators with sociocultural, economic, and governance considerations. Assessing the efficacy of coral restoration as a tool to support reef resilience will help to guide future efforts and ensure the sustainable maintenance of reef ecosystem goods and services.     

Reduction in Lyme Disease Risk as an Economic Benefit of Habitat Restoration

Habitat restoration is costly and it is often necessary to justify the costs with evidence of benefits to society. These benefits are difficult to quantify because they are measured in terms of ecosystem services rather than currency. This paper introduces a somewhat novel restoration‐related ecosystem service, a reduction in the risk of tick‐borne disease, and incorporates it into a cost/benefit analysis of the restoration of a rare habitat. We use a cost‐of‐illness study to calculate the costs averted by preventing Lyme disease (LD), and a contingent‐valuation survey to estimate the benefit of biodiversity protection. The restoration, removal of an invasive tree, reduced the risk of LD by approximately 98%. Cost‐of‐illness studies show that the restoration would be financially justifiable if it averted 75 cases of LD per year. Given the local LD rate and the visitation rate to the preserve, the habitat restoration can plausibly be justified solely on the benefit of LD cases averted. However, as we do not know how many cases of LD are contracted in the preserve, we also establish the perceived value of protecting biodiversity in a contingent‐valuation survey. Results show that residents were willing to pay a significant fraction of the net cost of restoration to protect biodiversity. When these benefits are taken into account, the number of cases of disease that must be averted to justify remediation is reduced. This exercise spotlights an underappreciated ecosystem service that, when appropriate, can help establish the cost effectiveness of restoration.     

植物功能性状、功能多样性与生态系统功能: 进展与展望

植物功能性状与生态系统功能是生态学研究的一个重要领域和热点问题。开展植物功能性状与生态系统功能的研究不仅有助于人类更好地应对全球变化情景下生物多样性丧失的生态学后果,而且能为生态恢复实践提供理论基础。近二十年来,该领域的研究迅速发展,并取得了一系列的重要研究成果,增强了人们对植物功能性状-生态系统功能关系的认识和理解。本文首先明确了植物功能性状的概念, 评述了近年来植物功能性状-生态系统功能关系领域的重要研究结果, 尤其是植物功能性状多样性-生态系统功能关系研究现状; 提出了未来植物功能性状与生态系统功能关系研究中应加强植物地上和地下性状之间关系及其与生态系统功能、植物功能性状与生态系统多功能性、不同时空尺度上植物功能性状与生态系统功能, 以及全球变化和消费者的影响等方面。     

The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region

The United Nations climate treaty may soon include a mechanism for compensating tropical nations that succeed in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, source of nearly one fifth of global carbon emissions. We review the potential for this mechanism [reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD)] to provoke ecological damages and promote ecological cobenefits. Nations could potentially participate in REDD by slowing clear‐cutting of mature tropical forest, slowing or decreasing the impact of selective logging, promoting forest regeneration and restoration, and expanding tree plantations. REDD could also foster efforts to reduce the incidence of forest fire. Potential ecological costs include the accelerated loss (through displaced agricultural expansion) of low‐biomass, high‐conservation‐value ecosystems, and substitution of low‐biomass vegetation by monoculture tree plantations. These costs could be avoided through measures that protect low‐biomass native ecosystems. Substantial ecological cobenefits should be conferred under most circumstances, and include the maintenance or restoration of (1) watershed functions, (2) local and regional climate regimes, (3) soils and biogeochemical processes, (4) water quality and aquatic habitat, and (5) terrestrial habitat. Some tools already being developed to monitor, report and verify (MRV) carbon emissions performance can also be used to measure other elements of ecosystem function, making development of MRV systems for ecological cobenefits a concrete possibility. Analysis of possible REDD program interventions in a large‐scale Amazon landscape indicates that even modest flows of forest carbon funding can provide substantial cobenefits for aquatic ecosystems, but that the functional integrity of the landscape's myriad small watersheds would be best protected under a more even spatial distribution of forests. Because of its focus on an ecosystem service with global benefits, REDD could access a large pool of global stakeholders willing to pay to maintain carbon in forests, thereby providing a potential cascade of ecosystem services to local stakeholders who would otherwise be unable to afford them.     

Can carbon credits fund riparian forest restoration?

Ecological restoration is increasingly called on to provide ecosystem services (ES) valuable to humans, as well as to benefit biodiversity and improve wildlife habitat. Where mechanisms to pay for ES exist, they may serve as incentives to embark on habitat restoration projects. We evaluated the potential of newly established carbon markets in the United States to incentivize afforestation along riparian corridors, by comparing the income earnable by carbon offset credits with the costs of planting, maintaining, and registering such a restoration project in California. We used a 20‐year chronosequence of riparian forest sites along the Sacramento River as our model project. We found that carbon credits can repay more than 100% of costs after two decades of regrowth, if sufficient effort is put into sampling intensity in the first post‐restoration decade. However, carbon credits alone are unlikely to entice landowners currently engaged in agricultural activities to switch from farming crops to farming habitat.     

When is Open‐endedness Desirable in Restoration Projects?

A low‐intervention approach to restoration that also allows restoration outcomes to be framed as trajectories of ecosystem change can be described as “open‐ended” restoration. It is an approach which recognizes that long‐term ecosystem behavior involves continual change at small and large spatial and temporal scales. There are a number of situations in which it is appropriate to adopt an open‐ended approach to restoration including: in remote and large areas, where ecological limiting factors will be changed by future climates, where antecedent conditions cannot be replicated, where there are novel starting points for restoration, where restoration relies strongly on processes outside the restoration area, in inherently dynamic systems, where costs are high and where the public demands “wildness.” Where this approach is adopted managers need to explain the project and deal with public expectations and public risk. Monitoring biotic and abiotic components of the project are very important as an open‐ended approach does not equate to “abandon and ignore it.”     

“双碳”目标下山水林田湖草沙一体化保护和修复工程优先区与技术策略研究

巩固与提升生态系统碳汇能力是实现碳达峰、碳中和目标的重要途径之一。生态保护修复对生态系统固碳增汇有着重要影响。2016—2021年,财政部、自然资源部、生态环境部在我国27个省(自治区、直辖市)共支持了三批山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点和第一批山水林田湖草沙一体化保护和修复工程,共35个山水工程。通过分析已部署的35个山水工程布局的空间特征和碳汇效益,结合国家重点关注的生态保护修复区域、全国重要生态系统保护和修复重大工程分布、生态系统碳汇重要区域和敏感区域,探索“双碳”目标下山水工程布局优先区及生态保护修复技术策略。研究发现山水工程的碳汇效益具有空间差异性,且山水工程优先区主要依次分布在青藏高原生态屏障区、东北森林带、长江重点生态区(含川滇生态屏障)、南方丘陵山地带、黄河重点生态区(含黄土高原生态屏障)、北方防沙带等的森林、高原草地、荒漠、岩溶地区等区域。基于此,提出未来山水工程在不同区域的技术策略。在森林生态系统为主地区,不仅要提高森林覆盖度、森林质量,还应当加强生物多样性的保护和土壤碳汇能力的提升;在高原草原及冻土地区应加强草地退化和冻土监测,提高草地质量;在西北荒漠化地区加强碳...     

Biological Control as a Tool for Ecosystem Management

Biological control is proposed as a tool useful for ecosystem management and compatible with the goals of often competing interests regarding the restoration and maintenance of ecosystems. We summarize the effects of introduced species on ecosystems in three broad groups: insects, vertebrates, and weeds. We then discuss the role of biological control for each of these groups in the context of ecosystem management and realistic outcomes. Of the three groups, we show that biological control of weeds appears to have the best chance for success in ecosystem management. We provide two case studies to support our ideas and finally discuss future needs and trends including fiscal considerations, cost/benefits associated with biological weed control, and potential funding sources.     

The Marketing of Nature

According to its advocates, an ecosystem‐services‐based approach to conservation will engender greater public support and produce more durable victories. Here, we identify three potential opportunity costs associated with such an approach: (1) diminished attention to protecting rare, localized species (the night parrot effect); (2) diminished attention to protecting wild, remote areas (the proximity‐to‐people effect); and (3) an emphasis on restoration projects near urban areas rather than the protection of relatively intact ecosystems (the rise‐of‐restoration effect). We encourage scientists and conservation practitioners to undertake the necessary monitoring and research to determine the magnitude of these opportunity costs.     

Restoration and Economics: A Union Waiting to Happen?

In this article, our objective is to introduce economics as a tool for the planning, prioritization, and evaluation of restoration projects. Studies that develop economic estimates of public values for ecological restoration employ methods that may be unfamiliar to practitioners. We hope to address this knowledge gap by describing economic concepts in the context of ecological restoration. We have summarized the most common methods for estimating the costs and benefits of restoration projects as well as frameworks for decision analysis and prioritization. These methods are illustrated in a review of the literature as it applies to terrestrial restoration in the United States, with examples of applications of methods to projects. Our hope is that practitioners will consider collaborating with economists to help ensure that restoration costs and benefits are identified and understood.     

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。     

An evolutionary modeling approach for designing a contractual REDD+ payment scheme

Economic development and sustainable ecological and environmental development generally target different goals, and there are trade-offs and game-like behaviors between implementers and donors in reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) program. This paper analyzed the effects of evolutionary behaviors of REDD+ implementers and donors with respect to environmental service payments. Within a theoretical analysis framework, the evolutionary stable strategies of the implementers and donors under different contractual payments for ecosystem services (PES) scenarios are analyzed to explore contractual REDD+ payments through evolutionary game models. On this basis, anon-parametric local regression approach is used to analyze arrange of market-based contractual PES schemes in five REDD+ countries (Congo, Brazil, Ecuador, Nepal and Uganda). The results show the following: First, when the opportunity costs are less than the environmental benefits, some middle and high income developing countries are sufficiently incentivized to conserve forests, even without formal contractual PES scheme. This conservation occurs regardless of whether the industrialized countries will pay for the ecosystem services. Second, when the opportunity costs are greater than the environmental benefits, developing countries will generally not take the initiative to conserve forests when industrialized countries do not pay for the associated ecosystem services. Third, when there are enough contractual PES fines, developing countries will conserve forests, and the industrialized countries will pay for the ecosystem services. Finally, contractual PES fines are related to the costs of reducing emissions. Nepal has the largest marginal effect, and Uganda has the smallest. These results have implications for REDD+ program design and implementation: market-based contractual PES scheme should be given priority to regulate behavior of industrialized countries and developing countries in the PES scheme. Developing a targeted and differentiated contractual PES scheme requires an accounting of emission reduction costs in different countries.     

生物多样性适应气候变化的国家政策和措施: 国际经验及启示

气候变化已成为威胁生物多样性及生态系统服务功能的主要因素之一, 许多国家已经意识到必须提高本国生物多样性适应气候变化的能力。一些国家出台了国家战略, 采取增加连通性、改进现有保护区域的管理和恢复措施等基于生态系统的适应措施, 采用跨学科与跨部门协作手段加强生物多样性适应气候变化的监测和评估, 并且从制度和资金等方面加强政策措施的落实。作者对部分发达国家和发展中的生物多样性大国的生物多样性适应气候变化的相关政策和措施进行了梳理, 并结合我国现状提出以下建议: (1)把生物多样性适应气候变化作为国家整体适应战略中的优先措施之一; (2)将提高生物多样性和生态系统的恢复力作为适应气候变化的基础性原则; (3)整合并完善国家生物多样性监测网络, 参考国际通行标准制定信息和数据收集标准, 并且尽快对气候变化下我国生物多样性脆弱性开展全面且持续的评估。     

淡水湖泊生态系统退化驱动因子及修复技术研究进展

目前我国多数淡水湖泊污染、退化问题非常严重,诸多修复技术也已初见成效。影响淡水湖泊生态系统退化的驱动因子众多,既有生物因素也有非生物因素,它们之间相互联系,相互作用,且作用机理错综复杂。首先介绍了淡水湖泊生态系统退化的含义及形式;其次,分析、总结了淡水湖泊生态系统退化的驱动因子,从退化的生态学完整性意义和退化修复的技术手段上看,淡水湖泊生态系统主要受物理、化学和生物三大驱动因子影响,且基本遵循"环境变化-驱动力-压力(阈值)-状态-响应"原理;再次,在厘清湖泊生态系统退化驱动原理的基础上,从淡水湖泊生态系统功能模块和湖泊生态系统修复实践经验总结的角度出发,构建了淡水湖泊生态系统修复模块技术体系,并就湖泊富营养化和湖滨湿地生态系统退化修复的技术进行了讨论和对比;最后,对淡水湖泊生态系统修复的环境变化驱动因子的作用机制、作用途径和修复技术的长效机制等方面进行了展望。     

浙江省生态保护修复优先区识别

生态保护修复是维持和提升生态系统稳定性和可持续性的重要举措。识别生态保护修复优先区并进行有规划的生态保护修复能够达到抑制生态环境退化的目的。以浙江省为研究对象,运用生态系统服务价值计算模型、神经网络自组织映射(SOM)聚类分析法、空间统计、Spearman非参数相关性分析等方法,识别生态系统服务簇,分析生态系统服务簇演化和人类活动强度变化特征,识别生态保护修复优先区,探讨不同生态系统服务价值的权衡/协同关系,提出生态保护修复优先区规划策略。结果表明:(1)2000-2021年浙江省生态系统服务空间分布逐渐趋于均衡,生态系统服务价值总量由7279.73亿元降低至6980.28亿元;(2)2000-2021年浙江省人类活动强度显著增加,呈现由西到东、由南到北的递增趋势;(3)2000-2021年浙江省生态系统服务与人类活动强度变化Moran''s I指数呈现显著负相关性,说明人类活动强度与生态服务价值两者空间上处于相互制约状态;(4)2000-2021年浙江省 90 县(区)可划分为4类生态系统服务簇,包括:城市中心簇、农业生产簇、核心生态簇和生态保育簇;(5)基于2021年双变量Moran''s I指数聚类结果将研究区划分的5种类型分区作为生态保护修复一级分区,以区域内主导生态系统服务簇作为生态保护修复二级分区划分依据。浙江省生态保护修复优先区划分为4个类型,即面积占比14.83%的生态预防治理区、面积占比19.94%的生态调控建设区、面积占比50.23%的核心生态保护区和面积占比15.00%的生态综合提升区。据此,提出不同类型优先分区实施生态保护修复的规划策略。     

采用偏最小二乘回归方法估测森林郁闭度

以遥感数据与森林资源一类清查数据为基础,探讨了用Bootstrap方法筛选最优郁闭度估测变量,用偏最小二乘回归方法建立模型估测森林郁闭度的可行性.结果表明：无论是用所有变量构造的模型还是用所选最优变量构造的模型,郁闭度估测的相对偏差在5%左右.筛选出的最优变量与其他地区的研究结论差异很大,说明除了筛选方法,地带性植被和地形地貌的不同也会造成估测郁闭度最优变量的差异.     

Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta‐analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals

Many ecosystems have been transformed, or degraded by human use, and restoration offers an opportunity to recover services and benefits, not to mention intrinsic values. We assessed whether restoration scientists and practitioners use their projects to demonstrate the benefits restoration can provide in their peer‐reviewed publications. We evaluated a sample of the academic literature to determine whether links are made explicit between ecological restoration, society, and public policy related to natural capital. We analyzed 1,582 peer‐reviewed papers dealing with ecological restoration published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2008 in 13 leading scientific journals. As selection criterion, we considered papers that contained either “restoration” or “rehabilitation” in their title, abstract, or keywords. Furthermore, as one‐third of the papers were published in Restoration Ecology, we used that journal as a reference for comparison with all the other journals. We readily acknowledge that aquatic ecosystems are under‐represented, and that the largely inaccessible gray literature was ignored. Within these constraints, we found clear evidence that restoration practitioners are failing to signal links between ecological restoration, society, and policy, and are underselling the evidence of benefits of restoration as a worthwhile investment for society. We discuss this assertion and illustrate it with samples of our findings—with regards to (1) the geographical and institutional affiliations of authors; (2) the choice of ecosystems studied, methods employed, monitoring schemes applied, and the spatial scale of studies; and (3) weak links to payments for ecosystem service setups, agriculture, and ramifications for public policy.