自然科学与社会科学的交叉融合:国际科学联合会述评

具有全球影响力的国际科学理事会与国际社会科学理事会合并,并宣告成立统一的国际科学联合会,是国际科学发展史的里程碑事件,标志着自然科学与社会科学的综合研究已成为当代科学发展的潮流。国际科学联合会的战略定位是成为全球所有科学的代言人,为解决复杂全球问题的跨学科、跨地域研究服务。我国科研工作者应以此为契机,深化跨学科交流与跨学科人才培养,拓展全球变化与可持续发展等跨学科综合研究,为解决我国重大战略需求、提升我国科研国际影响力做出新的贡献。     

生态系统服务研究在生态红线政策保护成效评估中的应用

生态保护红线政策是中国推进生态保护与建设的宏观政策,其保护成效评估是国内外关注的重大科学问题。在分析国内外生态系统服务研究进展及中国生态保护红线内涵、划定进程及管控要求的基础上,结合生态红线政策与生态系统服务研究的关联及生态系统服务研究在红线政策保护成效评估应用中面临的挑战,提出了红线政策实施效果评估的技术框架和基本思路。开展生态红线政策保护成效评估,能从科学上明确生态红线政策实施对多尺度利益相关者成本、效益的影响,为生态红线政策的综合研究提供框架和科学方法;从政策设计上,为生态红线布局进一步优化提供依据;从制度建设上,提出符合生态红线政策实施的制度框架,推动生态保护红线制度建设由理论走向实践。     

数学模型与自然保护科学

日益加剧的人类干扰和景观破碎化已危及全球的生物多样性。自然保护成为人类所面临的最重要也最富有挑战性的任务。指导这一实践的理论和原则极为需要。本文试图综述与自然保护科学有关的几个学科在理论和实际研究(尤其是模型)方面的近期成果以及发展趋势,从而提出自然保护模型的发展方向。文中涉猎基于不同方法论、不同组织水平的模型,并对数学模型在自然保护科学中的作用和实用性加以讨论。     

以经济手段促进生物多样性保护

当前各国协调经济与生态的关系呈加速态势, 主要表现在: (1)深化。从“发展优先, 兼顾保护”到二者并重, “在发展中保护, 在保护中发展”, 再到“保护优先”, 越来越强调统筹协同“以保护优化发展, 以发展促进保护”; (2)分化。发展中国家大多依赖财政与金融, 发达国家则将市场作为主要资金渠道, 逐步形成以系统化的法律体系、多元化的激励机制、契约化的公私合作模式和市场化交易为主体的生态产品价值实现体系; (3)多元化。自然价值的多元性决定政府需要综合运用多种举措, 以减少单一政策的局限性; (4)市场化。加强市场解决财政在环保投入不足的主体作用已成为主流。本文为探索我国向“自然受益型”经济转型, 梳理了30多个国家在不同行业实施经济手段的150个实例, 以多元化视角归纳为8种举措: 顶层设计、环经核算、生态转型、绿色金融、市场认证、激励改革、气候协同和实施配套; 并从10个方面分析以经济手段促进生物多样性保护的国际经验和趋势, 各国之间的共性及分化; 最后提出利用“2020后全球生物多样性框架”提供协调各国行动一致的平台机制, 以外促内, 内外结合, 通过创新政策工具和组合应用, 促进我国经济政策与生态环境政策融合的建议。     

自然保护地保护成效评估: 进展与展望

自然保护地(protected areas)保护成效是指自然保护地对主要保护对象的保护效果, 及其在维持生物多样性和保障生态系统服务功能等方面的综合成效。近年来自然保护地保护成效评估逐渐成为国内外的研究热点之一。 本文分别从不同空间尺度、评估对象、评估方法以及评估指标等方面综述了相关的研究进展。总体来看, 近年来的研究已基本覆盖了全球、区域、国家和单个自然保护地等不同尺度, 针对森林、湿地、草地和荒漠等代表性生态系统以及野生动植物等主要保护对象进行了评估, 发展了“matching”技术等更为有效的分析方法, 探索了系统的自然保护地保护成效评估指标体系, 并应用一些指标进行了保护成效的案例研究。自然保护区(nature reserve)是我国自然保护地的主体, 近年来我国自然保护区相关管理部门也相继开展了保护成效评估工作, 建议未来进一步加强自然保护区网络尺度和各类型自然保护区的保护成效评估研究, 将自然保护区保护成效评估与管理评估相结合, 研究自然保护区保护成效面临的新问题和潜在影响, 为提升我国自然保护区管理质量提供科学依据。     

《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》核心目标与我国的保护行动建议

在中国作为主席国的引领下,联合国《生物多样性公约》(以下简称《公约》)第十五次缔约方大会(以下简称COP15)第二阶段会议通过了62项决定,特别是达成了以变革理论为基础的《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》(以下简称《昆蒙框架》),为全球生物多样性治理擘画了新的蓝图。该文就《昆蒙框架》的三个核心目标——保护地“3030目标”、资源调动、遗传资源数字序列信息进行解读,对保障《昆蒙框架》落地的相关决议进行简要介绍,并就我国未来的保护行动提出了相关建议:(1)加强生物多样性保护的主流化;(2)进一步制定详细的保护计划,明确保护区域的范围、目的和管理措施,并落实实施计划的责任部门和具体措施;(3)根据框架目标的监测要求,制定可操作的指标体系和监测计划;(4)继续加强生物多样性保护的意识和教育,提高公众对生物多样性保护的认识和重视程度,促进全社会的可持续生产和可持续消费;(5)大力推进国际合作,在更大尺度上探索和促进基于自然的解决方案,寻找对自然产生正面、积极效果的经济和社会发展路径。     

海洋保护区管理与保护成效评估的方法与进展

全球物种多样性的持续下降使得生物多样性保护面临巨大挑战, 海洋生物多样性的保护任务尤其艰巨。海洋保护区是保护生物多样性的有效方式之一, 如何对其成效进行评估是当前研究热点。然而, 目前针对海洋保护区的评估体系较少, 而且评估指标多侧重于管理成效。近年来随着全球生物多样性监测网络和数据库的建立, 以及多种新技术(如遥感、声呐系统、卫星追踪、基因组学等)在海洋生物多样性监测中的应用, 使得从生态系统到基因水平的多层次连续监测成为可能。基于此, 建议未来我国海洋保护区成效评估应在充分利用新技术方法的基础上, 加强长期科学监测, 建立并完善生物多样性监测数据库和信息共享机制, 发展跨学科的综合保护成效评估体系, 加强基于生物多样性监测的保护成效评估。     

气候变化和土地利用变化驱动下的生物多样性系统分析新框架

尽管目前已有大量关于生物多样性评估的研究,但同时考虑生物多样性多维评估、多驱动因素对生物多样性变化的影响评估及生物多样性变化中长期动态模拟预测等研究仍相对缺乏,这会引起对生物多样性不同维度变化水平的片面理解,导致生物多样性保护工程管理决策失误。基于此,综述现有生物多样性评估维度、驱动因素及历史评估的研究进展,并基于现有研究存在的局限性提出生物多样性多维评估方法与人地耦合系统下生物多样性模拟模型构建思路,基于此提出气候变化和土地利用变化驱动下的生物多样性系统分析新框架。该框架包括:①生物多样性"潜力-贡献-重要性"多维评估理论与方法构建;②人地耦合系统下生物多样性模拟模型构建;③人地耦合系统下生物多样性预测及生物多样性保护工程效果仿真与管理。该框架可为生物多样性保护工程管理及可持续开展提供科学建议。     

国内外城市生物多样性评价与提升研究综述

城市生物多样性水平是反映人与自然和谐共处水平的重要指标,对促进城市可持续发展有着重要意义。城市及其基础设施的扩张改变了土地原有的生态系统、水文状况和地表结构,不断加快的城市化进程对生物多样性造成了严重影响,城市生物多样性保护已成为当下城市生态建设中重要且紧迫的工作。与传统的生物多样性研究不同,城市生物多样性保护工作以保护生物多样性为前提,争取科学利用生物多样性为城市带来更广泛的经济效益和社会效益。当前城市生物多样性研究成果丰富且涉及层面多元,但仍面临缺乏系统性、整体性评价框架以及跨界、多尺度管理等关键问题。故对国内外城市生物多样性的状况评价、效益评价和提升路径三方面的相关研究进行综述,总结当前城市生物多样性评价的标准与方法,并从城市生物多样性保护面对的主要挑战出发,梳理介绍国际合作、国家政策、城市规划、专项保护以及基于自然的解决方案等角度的城市生物多样性提升路径。讨论了城市生物多样性的关注点与未来研究方向,并对城市生物多样性保护提出政策建议,为各地编制生物多样性保护规划和开展城市生物多样性保护工作提供借鉴,以期促进城市生物多样性保护和人与自然的协调发展。     

中国野生植物保护管理的政策、法律制度分析和建议

中国是全球生物多样性最丰富的国家之一。最近40年, 中国的植物多样性保护取得了巨大成就, 实施了多项政策和法律, 尤其是《野生植物保护条例》和《国家重点保护野生植物名录》先后颁布, 奠定了中国植物保护的法律和政策框架, 就地保护和迁地保护网络基本形成。但与生态文明建设的要求相比, 野生植物保护依然存在许多不足。本文系统回顾了中国野生植物保护管理的政策和法律制度, 从就地保护、迁地保护、开发利用活动管理三方面分析了其优缺点并提出建议; 重点对修订《野生植物保护条例》进行讨论并提出建议, 包括修订野生植物和人工培植的定义、优化对开发利用活动的管理程序、加强国际法和国内法的衔接、细化优化罚则等。     

Beyond Paradise—Meeting the Challenges in Tropical Biology in the 21st Century

Tropical ecosystems support a diversity of species and ecological processes that are unparalleled anywhere else on Earth. Despite their tremendous social and scientific importance, tropical ecosystems are rapidly disappearing. To usher tropical ecosystems and the human communities dependent upon them through the environmental transformations of the 21st century, tropical biologists must provide critical knowledge in three areas: 1) the structure and function of tropical ecosystems; 2) the nature and magnitude of anthropogenic effects on tropical ecosystems; and 3) the socio‐economic drivers of these anthropogenic effects. To develop effective strategies for conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of tropical ecosystems, scientific perspectives must be integrated with social necessities. A new set of principles built on a framework for pursuing relevant tropical biological research will facilitate interdisciplinary approaches, integrate biological knowledge with the social sciences, and link science with policy. We propose four broad recommendations for immediate action in tropical biology and conservation that are fundamental to all biological and social disciplines in the tropics: 1) assemble and disseminate information on life's diversity in the tropics; 2) enhance tropical field stations and build a worldwide network to link them with tropical field biologists at their field sites; 3) bring the field of tropical biology to the tropics by strengthening institutions in tropical countries through novel partnerships between tropical and temperate zone institutions and scientists; and 4) create concrete mechanisms to increase interactions between tropical biologists, social scientists, and policy makers.     

A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation

Applying scientific knowledge to confront societal challenges is a difficult task, an issue known as the science–practice gap. In Ecology and Conservation, scientific evidence has been seldom used directly to support decision‐making, despite calls for an increasing role of ecological science in developing solutions for a sustainable future. To date, multiple causes of the science–practice gap and diverse approaches to link science and practice in Ecology and Conservation have been proposed. To foster a transparent debate and broaden our understanding of the difficulties of using scientific knowledge, we reviewed the perceived causes of the science–practice gap, aiming to: (i) identify the perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists on this problem, (ii) evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and across journals, and (iii) assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision‐making. We based our review on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science–practice gap extracted from 122 articles and on discussions with eight scientists on how to classify these sentences. The resulting process‐based framework describes three distinct perspectives on the relevant processes, knowledge and actors in the science–practice interface. The most common perspective assumes only scientific knowledge should support practice, perceiving a one‐way knowledge flow from science to practice and recognizing flaws in knowledge generation, communication, and/or use. The second assumes that both scientists and decision‐makers should contribute to support practice, perceiving a two‐way knowledge flow between science and practice through joint knowledge‐production/integration processes, which, for several reasons, are perceived to occur infrequently. The last perspective was very rare, and assumes scientists should put their results into practice, but they rarely do. Some causes (e.g. cultural differences between scientists and decision‐makers) are shared with other disciplines, while others seem specific to Ecology and Conservation (e.g. inadequate research scales). All identified causes require one of three general types of solutions, depending on whether the causal factor can (e.g. inadequate research questions) or cannot (e.g. scientific uncertainty) be changed, or if misconceptions (e.g. undervaluing abstract knowledge) should be solved. The unchanged predominance of the one‐way perspective over time may be associated with the prestige of evidence‐based conservation and suggests that debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind trends in other disciplines towards bidirectional views ascribing larger roles to decision‐makers. In turn, the two‐way perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream conservation biology. All perspectives represented superficial views of decision‐making by not accounting for limits to human rationality, complexity of decision‐making contexts, fuzzy science–practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and different types of knowledge use. However, joint knowledge‐production processes from the two‐way perspective can potentially allow for democratic decision‐making processes, explicit discussions of values and multiple types of science use. To broaden our understanding of the interface and foster productive science–practice linkages, we argue for dialogue among different research traditions within Ecology and Conservation, joint knowledge‐production processes between scientists and decision‐makers and interdisciplinarity across Ecology, Conservation and Political Science in both research and education.     

Managing consequences of climate‐driven species redistribution requires integration of ecology,conservation and social science

Climate change is driving a pervasive global redistribution of the planet's species. Species redistribution poses new questions for the study of ecosystems, conservation science and human societies that require a coordinated and integrated approach. Here we review recent progress, key gaps and strategic directions in this nascent research area, emphasising emerging themes in species redistribution biology, the importance of understanding underlying drivers and the need to anticipate novel outcomes of changes in species ranges. We highlight that species redistribution has manifest implications across multiple temporal and spatial scales and from genes to ecosystems. Understanding range shifts from ecological, physiological, genetic and biogeographical perspectives is essential for informing changing paradigms in conservation science and for designing conservation strategies that incorporate changing population connectivity and advance adaptation to climate change. Species redistributions present challenges for human well‐being, environmental management and sustainable development. By synthesising recent approaches, theories and tools, our review establishes an interdisciplinary foundation for the development of future research on species redistribution. Specifically, we demonstrate how ecological, conservation and social research on species redistribution can best be achieved by working across disciplinary boundaries to develop and implement solutions to climate change challenges. Future studies should therefore integrate existing and complementary scientific frameworks while incorporating social science and human‐centred approaches. Finally, we emphasise that the best science will not be useful unless more scientists engage with managers, policy makers and the public to develop responsible and socially acceptable options for the global challenges arising from species redistributions.     

A framework for the practical science necessary to restore sustainable,resilient, and biodiverse ecosystems

Demand for restoration of resilient, self‐sustaining, and biodiverse natural ecosystems as a conservation measure is increasing globally; however, restoration efforts frequently fail to meet standards appropriate for this objective. Achieving these standards requires management underpinned by input from diverse scientific disciplines including ecology, biotechnology, engineering, soil science, ecophysiology, and genetics. Despite increasing restoration research activity, a gap between the immediate needs of restoration practitioners and the outputs of restoration science often limits the effectiveness of restoration programs. Regrettably, studies often fail to identify the practical issues most critical for restoration success. We propose that part of this oversight may result from the absence of a considered statement of the necessary practical restoration science questions. Here we develop a comprehensive framework of the research required to bridge this gap and guide effective restoration. We structure questions in five themes: (1) setting targets and planning for success, (2) sourcing biological material, (3) optimizing establishment, (4) facilitating growth and survival, and (5) restoring resilience, sustainability, and landscape integration. This framework will assist restoration practitioners and scientists to identify knowledge gaps and develop strategic research focused on applied outcomes. The breadth of questions highlights the importance of cross‐discipline collaboration among restoration scientists, and while the program is broad, successful restoration projects have typically invested in many or most of these themes. Achieving restoration ecology's goal of averting biodiversity losses is a vast challenge: investment in appropriate science is urgently needed for ecological restoration to fulfill its potential and meet demand as a conservation tool.     

基于生物多样性的樟江流域自然保护地空间优化

优化生态保护空间格局是我国生态文明建设的重要内容,也是国际保护生态学研究的前沿方向。评估资源禀赋、识别并确定优先次序和预测保护区对保护和管理濒危物种至关重要。樟江流域内已占11.9%流域面积的保护区仍出现77.9%流域面积的生境显著退化,发展与保护亟待合理平衡。Zonation4GUI软件以互补性非穷尽式算法为基础,在优化已有保护网络并表征稀有性和独特性方面结果较为理想,以此展开樟江流域自然保护地空间整合优化路径研究。先人工预处理物种栖息地分布格局、物种保护权重、规划单元,并迭代选择输入性生境退化条件图层、保护代价图层,结合人工干扰情况提出三种不同情景下的优化方案。结果表明:保护优先区对代理物种栖息地有良好的覆盖效果,生态完整性优先情景和最小社会经济和土地资源代价的保护优化情景均呈现扩建小于8%的一级优先区域,所有保护对象均受到保护;加入27%左右的所有优先区域,两种优化方案覆盖所有保护对象栖息地的比例提升70.0%和59.0%。虽然生态完整性优先的优化情景优于最小社会经济和土地资源代价下的优化情景,但保护代价更高。人为干扰强烈的抢救优先的优化情景中, 90.7%的保护对象栖息地覆盖范...     

Social and Natural Sciences Differ in Their Research Strategies,Adapted to Work for Different Knowledge Landscapes

Do different fields of knowledge require different research strategies? A numerical model exploring different virtual knowledge landscapes, revealed two diverging optimal search strategies. Trend following is maximized when the popularity of new discoveries determine the number of individuals researching it. This strategy works best when many researchers explore few large areas of knowledge. In contrast, individuals or small groups of researchers are better in discovering small bits of information in dispersed knowledge landscapes. Bibliometric data of scientific publications showed a continuous bipolar distribution of these strategies, ranging from natural sciences, with highly cited publications in journals containing a large number of articles, to the social sciences, with rarely cited publications in many journals containing a small number of articles. The natural sciences seem to adapt their research strategies to landscapes with large concentrated knowledge clusters, whereas social sciences seem to have adapted to search in landscapes with many small isolated knowledge clusters. Similar bipolar distributions were obtained when comparing levels of insularity estimated by indicators of international collaboration and levels of country-self citations: researchers in academic areas with many journals such as social sciences, arts and humanities, were the most isolated, and that was true in different regions of the world. The work shows that quantitative measures estimating differences between academic disciplines improve our understanding of different research strategies, eventually helping interdisciplinary research and may be also help improve science policies worldwide.     

Long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) for biodiversity protection – A complex systems approach for the study of dynamic human–nature interactions

Recently, the long-term ecological research (LTER) program in the US was evaluated. In its 20-year review report, the National Science Foundation recognizes the achievements of the past and specifies guidance for future development. Among other aspects, research activities of the next decade should concentrate on a new core area: biological diversity, and, to inform environmental policy on the interrelationships and reciprocal impacts of ecological and human systems, LTER is requested “to partner with social scientists” at all existing or newly selected research sites (http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0265.htm). In Europe, LTER activities head in the same direction. To create durable integration of European biodiversity research capacity and to address biodiversity policy needs, long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) sites should serve as real-world laboratories for interdisciplinary and policy relevant research (http://www.lter-europe.ceh.ac.uk and www.alter-net.info). In this paper, we explore how LTER could meet the challenges of the future: the increase of knowledge on issues of biological diversity and of partnership approaches among the natural and social sciences in common research facilities – the LTSER sites.Regarding biological diversity we explore, in particular, the advantages for improving: (1) ecological-economic modelling, a powerful technique for analysing complex human–nature interaction, (2) the design of choice experiments, a rather new evaluation method for assessing the benefits of conservation and (3) the understanding of biodiversity as complex social dilemma. Regarding the issue of research collaboration, we focus on the geographical scale of LTSER sites and, on a more general level, on the demands of research management in terms of project design, common knowledge and organisation of research teams.     

谈中国植物科学基础研究与农业发展

该文讨论了加强植物科学基础研究的必要性及其对我国农业发展的重要影响。为了更好地为中国的农业发展服务,进一步加强植物科学基础研究非常重要。为了促进植物科学的发展,我国既要积极参与国际竞争,又要重视知识创新、技术发展以及技术平台建设等多个方面,还要重视传统学科如植物分类学等的发展。过去10年间,我们见证了中国科学家在植物科学领域取得的重要成就,随着越来越多的高水平人才回国,建议国家增加投入支持我国的植物科学基础研究。     

Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy

Using a range of different methods including extensive reviews, workshops and an electronic conference, 70 key research recommendations and 12 priority research needs to integrate the ecosystem services approach into biodiversity conservation policy and funding were identified by a cross-disciplinary group of over 100 scientists and 50 stakeholders, including research funders and policy-makers. These recommendations focus on the ecological underpinning of ecosystem services, drivers that affect ecosystems and their services, biological traits and ecosystem services, the valuation of ecosystem services, spatial and temporal scales in ecosystem service assessment, indicators of ecosystem services, and habitat management, conservation policy and ecosystem services. The recommendations in this paper help steer the research agenda on ecosystem services into policy-relevant areas, agreed upon by funders, researchers and policy-makers. This research agenda will only succeed with increased collaboration between researchers across disciplines, thereby providing a challenge to the research community and research funders to work in new, interdisciplinary ways.     

The urgency of building global capacity for biodiversity science

The biodiversity sciences represent the disciplines of whole-organism biology, including systematics, ecology, population biology, behaviour and the fields of comparative biology. The biodiversity sciences are critically important to society because it is knowledge of whole-organisms that is essential for managing and conserving the world's species. Because of an acceleration in environmental degradation and global biodiversity loss in recent decades, the need for the biodiversity sciences has never been more urgent. Yet, biodiversity science is not well supported relative to other fields of science, and thus the need for knowledge about organisms and their environment is far outstripping biologists' ability to provide it. National and international capacity for biodiversity science must therefore be increased substantially. Each nation should establish a national biodiversity research programme coordinated across all government agencies. An international biodiversity research programme should also be established, perhaps with an organizational structure that parallels the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Biodiversity scientists must assume a leadership role in educating the public and bringing about policy changes that will enhance our understanding of the world's species and their ecosystems.