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。     

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.     

Measuring and monitoring restored ecosystems: can remote sensing be applied to the ecological recovery wheel to inform restoration success?

The commencement of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration has highlighted the urgent need to improve restoration science and fast-track ecological outcomes. The application of remote sensing for monitoring purposes has increased over the past two decades providing a variety of image datasets and derived products suitable to map and measure ecosystem properties (e.g. vegetation species, community composition, and structural dimensions such as height and cover). However, the operational use of remote sensing data and derived products for ecosystem restoration monitoring in research, industry, and government has been relatively limited and underutilized. In this paper, we use the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) ecological recovery wheel (ERW) to assess the current capacity of drone-airborne-satellite remote sensing datasets to measure each of the SER's recommended attributes and sub-attributes for terrestrial restoration projects. Based on our combined expertise in the areas of ecological monitoring and remote sensing, a total of 11 out of 18 sub-attributes received the highest feasibility score and show strong potential for remote sensing assessments; while sub-attributes such as gene flows, all trophic levels and chemical and physical substrates have a reduced capacity for monitoring. We argue that in the coming decade, ecologists can combine remote sensing with the ERW to monitor restoration recovery and reference ecosystems for improved restoration outcomes at the local, regional, and landscape scales. The ERW approach can be adapted as a monitoring framework for projects to utilize the benefits of remote sensing and inform management through scalable, operational, and meaningful outcomes.     

Restoration,soil organisms,and soil processes: emerging approaches

Better understanding of the connection between aboveground plant communities and belowground soil organisms and processes has led to an explosion in recent research on the applications of this link to the field of ecological restoration. Research is only beginning to have the capacity to link soil organisms and specific ecosystem functions. Establishing general ecological principles of the role microbial communities have during ecological restoration is also still in its infancy. As such, the literature is at a critical point to generate a Special Feature that brings together novel approaches of linking soil and restoration to promote more regular inclusion and consideration of soil organisms and soil‐based processes in ecological restoration. In this special feature, we bring together nine research articles from different ecosystems that study the relationship between restoration activities, soil microbial communities, and soil properties. From these research articles, we describe two primary themes: (1) research on the impacts of ecosystem‐specific restoration activities on soil organisms and processes and (2) research testing methods of soil manipulation to improve restoration outcomes. We hope to inspire readers and restoration practitioners to consider soil microbes and soil processes in their research, restoration projects, and world views.     

The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms

Restoration ecology is a young academic field, but one with enough history to judge it against past and current expectations of the science's potential. The practice of ecological restoration has been identified as providing ideal experimental settings for tests of ecological theory; restoration was to be the 'acid test' of our ecological understanding. Over the past decade, restoration science has gained a strong academic foothold, addressing problems faced by restoration practitioners, bringing new focus to existing ecological theory and fostering a handful of novel ecological ideas. In particular, recent advances in plant community ecology have been strongly linked with issues in ecological restoration. Evolving models of succession, assembly and state-transition are at the heart of both community ecology and ecological restoration. Recent research on seed and recruitment limitation, soil processes, and diversity–function relationships also share strong links to restoration. Further opportunities may lie ahead in the ecology of plant ontogeny, and on the effects of contingency, such as year effects and priority effects. Ecology may inform current restoration practice, but there is considerable room for greater integration between academic scientists and restoration practitioners.     

Rehabilitating degraded forests in Central Europe into self–sustaining forest ecosystems

There is a need for a consistent forest restoration strategy for the `Black Triangle', Central Europe. In the past 50 years, forests in this area have been heavily affected by industrial pollution. Recently, the amount of pollutants has decreased. This means that effective forest restoration programmes can be started. Forest decline must be seen as an ecological disturbance which cannot be solved by applying technical measures only. An ecosystem approach to forest restoration must be introduced into restoration policy and management. Basic principles and working methods of such an approach are briefly described and proposals are made for forest restoration policy, management and research in the area.     

陕西省生态恢复综合效益评估

开展区域内生态恢复综合效益评估工作,将为地区生态恢复成果梳理及生态系统管理提供决策支持,为未来生态恢复工作的开展提供理论依据。以陕西省为研究区,基于空间遥感数据和生态模型模拟,从生态系统结构、质量和服务3个方面综合评估区域内2000-2015年生态恢复效益。研究结果表明：1）近16年间陕西省土地利用类型呈现林地增加,耕地减少的态势,同时关中地区建设用地大量增加。陕西省87.95%和72.72%的区域分别呈现植被覆盖和生态系统服务总值增加的趋势,尽管区域内人类活动占地增加,但整体生态恢复效果明显。2）陕南地区植被覆盖及生态系统服务总值相对较高,特别是秦岭地区,生态环境较为优越。陕北地区植被覆盖及生态系统服务均值虽相对较低,但均呈现显著增加趋势,未来区域范围内生态环境有着较大的发展潜力。3）尽管不同生态工程基本覆盖了陕西省全境,但受气象因素影响,生态系统服务总值在关中及陕南地区仍呈现出了一定的下降趋势。在未来相关区域的生态恢复资源投入中,应注意干旱环境对生态恢复效果的影响,因地制宜地选取适宜生态工程措施,以保证生态恢复的有效性和持续性,将生态恢复资源的成效最大化。     

Toward a social–ecological approach to ecological restoration: a look back at three decades of maritime clifftop restoration

The sharp increase in the touristic use of the maritime clifftops in western France after WWII resulted in a concentration of activities that generated ecosystem degradation in many sites (e.g. touristic infrastructure, human trampling). Consideration of the ecological value of these sites over the past three decades has led to a shift in maritime clifftop management and consequently to numerous planning and restoration projects. Using inventories of maritime clifftop restoration projects conducted in 2007 and 2016, we identified 76 restoration projects, which allowed us to study the active and passive restoration methods used. In addition, we collected and analyzed 465 vegetation monitoring plots with an average duration of 5.6 years to understand how they were used by both scientists and nonscientists. First, we describe the social–ecological systems of these restoration projects through an analysis of their social contexts, ecological stakes, and restoration goals based on 19 semistructured interviews with restoration stakeholders. Comparing our research with similar studies in the literature reveals that the main strength of maritime clifftop restorations is a strong network between scientist and nonscientist stakeholders combined with high‐level monitoring. Finally, we underline the main challenges for the future of maritime clifftop ecological restoration: (1) the need for further study of this ecological database (e.g. to study the medium‐term effect of active restoration, continue current monitoring); and (2) the need to develop sociological studies of human uses and perceptions to improve the long‐term management of restored ecosystems.     

Choosing appropriate temporal and spatial scales for ecological restoration

Classic ecological restoration seems tacitly to have taken the Clementsian “balance of nature” paradigm for granted: plant succession terminates in a climax community which remains at equilibrium until exogenously disturbed after which the process of succession is restarted until the climax is reached. Human disturbance is regarded as unnatural and to have commenced in the Western Hemisphere at the time of European incursion. Classic ecological restoration thus has a clear and unambiguous target and may be conceived as aiming to foreshorten the natural processes that would eventually lead to the climax of a given site, which may be determined by its state at “settlement”. According to the new “flux of nature” paradigm in ecology a given site has notelos and is constantly changing. Human disturbance is ubiquitous and long-standing, and at certain spatial and temporal scales is “incorporated”. Any moment in the past 10,000 years that may be selected as a benchmark for restoration efforts thus appears to be arbitrary. Two prominent conservationists have therefore suggested that the ecological conditions in North America at the Pleistocene—Holocene boundary, prior to the anthropogenic extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, be the target for ecological restoration. That suggestion explicitly assumes evolutionary temporal scales and continental spatial scales as the appropriate frame of reference for ecological restoration. However, ecological restoration should be framed in ecological spatio-temporal scales, which may be defined temporally in reference to ecological processes such as disturbance regimes and spatially in reference to ecological units such as landscapes, ecosystems, and biological provinces. Ecological spatio-temporal scales are also useful in achieving a scientifically defensible distinction between native and exotic species, which plays so central a role in the practice of ecological restoration and the conservation of biodiversity. Because post-settlement human disturbances have exceeded the limits of such scales, settlement conditions can be justified scientifically as appropriate targets of restoration efforts without recourse to obsolete teleological concepts of equilibria and without ignoring the presence and ecological influence of indigenous peoples.     

A Striking Profile: Soil Ecological Knowledge in Restoration Management and Science

Available evidence suggests that research in terrestrial restoration ecology has been dominated by the engineering and botanical sciences. Because restoration science is a relatively young discipline in ecology, the theoretical framework for this discipline is under development and new theoretical offerings appear regularly in the literature. In reviewing this literature, we observed an absence of in‐depth discussion of how soils, and in particular the ecology of soils, can be integrated into the developing theory of restoration science. These observations prompted us to assess the current role of soil ecological knowledge in restoration research and restoration practice. Although soils are universally regarded as critical to restoration success, and much research has included manipulations of soil variables, we found that better integration of soil ecological principles could still contribute much to the practice of ecosystem restoration. Here we offer four potential points of departure for increased dialog between restoration ecologists and soil ecologists. We hope to encourage the view that soil is a complex, heterogeneous, and vital entity and that adoption of this point of view can positively affect restoration efforts worldwide.     

城市生态系统修复研究进展

城市生态系统是社会-经济-自然复合生态系统。城市生态系统修复的实质是协调好城市复合生态系统的自然过程、经济过程和社会过程之间的关系,促进复合生态系统的各方面协调高效可持续发展。以城市绿地、城市湿地、城市废弃地三类主要的城市生态空间为对象,论述了城市生态系统修复的研究进展,提出当前城市生态系统修复存在以人工修复技术为主、自然修复不足、机理和量化研究缺乏、理论和应用脱节、管理机制不健全、复合生态系统理论体现不足等问题。梳理了当前城市生态系统修复的研究热点,包括城市生态系统修复机理、城市生态资产与生态系统服务、城市生态系统质量和健康、问题导向的生态修复、面向人类福祉的生态修复、生态修复多学科融贯,以及新方法和新技术的应用等几个方面。提出了城市生态修复与管理的相关对策和建议,可为我国城市生态系统修复的研究和实践提供参考。     

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.     

Science‐Driven Restoration: A Square Grid on a Round Earth?

Is formal science necessarily an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs? My experience as an ecologist in Hawaii suggests that even when scientific research programs are explicitly designed to guide and facilitate restoration, the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world complexities of implementing land management practices often limit the practical relevance of conventional scientific research. Although alternative models such as adaptive management and transdisciplinary science may facilitate research that more robustly models the real world, there is often little professional support or incentive to orient even these nonconventional research approaches toward actually solving on‐the‐ground problems. Thus, if one’s goal is to accomplish ecological restoration as quickly and efficiently as possible, a trial‐and‐error/intelligent tinkering–type approach might often be better than using more rigorous, data‐intensive scientific methodology. However, the sympatric implementation of ecological restoration and scientific research programs can lead to valuable synergies such as mutual logistical and financial support and the exchange of distinct forms of knowledge. The professional activities and mere presence of scientists can also greatly enhance a program’s prestige and visibility, which in turn can indirectly promote more and better ecological restoration. Improving our understanding of when formal science can directly assist restoration projects and when its value will more likely be synergistic and indirect could lead to better science, better ecological restoration, and better relationships between these two cultures.     

Near‐term impacts of coral restoration on target species,coral reef community structure,and ecological processes

The global decline of corals has created an urgent need for effective, science‐based methods to augment coral populations and restore important ecosystem functions. To meet this challenge, the field of coral restoration has rapidly evolved over the past decade. However, despite widespread efforts to outplant corals and monitor survivorship, there is a shortage of information on the effects of coral restoration on reef communities or important ecosystem functions. To fill this knowledge gap, we examined the effects of restoration on three major criteria: diversity, community structure, and ecological processes. We conducted surveys of four restored sites in the Florida Keys ranging in restoration effort (500–2,300 corals outplanted) paired with surveys of nearby, unmanipulated control sites. Coral restoration successfully enhanced coral populations, increasing coral cover 4‐fold, but manifested in limited differences in coral and fish communities. Some restored sites had higher abundance of herbivorous fish, rates of herbivory, or more juvenile‐sized corals, but these effects were limited to individual reefs. Damselfish were consistently more abundant at restored compared to control sites. Despite augmenting target coral populations, 3 years of coral restoration has not facilitated many of the positive feedbacks that help reinforce coral success. In a time of increasingly frequent disturbances, it is urgent we hasten the speed at which reefs recover important ecological processes, such as herbivory and nutrient cycling, that make reefs more resistant and resilient if we are to achieve long‐term restoration success.     

How are biodiversity and carbon stock recovered during tropical forest restoration? Supporting the ecological paradigms and political context involved

To meet agendas for biodiversity conservation and mitigation of climate change, large-scale restoration initiatives propose ecological restoration as an alternative that can reconcile these two objectives. In ongoing ecosystem restoration, increased diversity is always associated with increased productivity (and consequent carbon stock), which is among the most important ecosystem functions. The ecological paradigm of this association is that ecosystem biodiversity (B) is positively related to both ecosystem functions and services (EF and ES). However, BEF and BES relationships vary spatially and temporally, which makes understanding these relationships relevant and important for practical restoration actions. In this study, we asked how biodiversity and carbon stock recovery occurs during tropical forest restoration. We reviewed literature of the relationships between BEF and BES in the context of ecological restoration and asked whether ecological restoration can recover both. In addition, we conducted a metadata analysis of studies on the recovery of biodiversity and biomass in regenerating tropical forests (n = 83) to find the best model that describes this relationship. In general, studies showed that ecosystem biodiversity and productivity are positively related, and that restoration can recover both. We found an asymptotic and positive correlation between biodiversity and biomass in tropical forests, suggesting limitation of the mutual gains of these two ecosystem properties during restoration. We discuss these results in the context of ecological theory and the practice of ecological restoration.     

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。     

面向生态产品价值实现的生态修复市场化投入研究进展

充足稳定的资金是国土空间生态修复顺利开展重要保障。然而，政府投资作为生态修复的主要资金来源，存在资金缺口大、项目周期短等问题，亟需探索面向生态产品价值实现的生态修复市场化投入逻辑。针对生态产品价值实现的市场化路径，建立了“生态修复对象-生态产品类型-近远程效益-投资方式”为分析步骤的生态修复市场化投入逻辑框架，从投资方式角度分析了国内外生态修复市场化投入的研究进展。基于国内生态产权界定模糊、生态产品价值体现不明显、市场化投入机制不完善等问题，今后有必要重点研究建立体现价值实现路径的生态资产评估体系、识别面向不同购买主体的生态产品价值实现模式、模拟以价值流为纽带的生态产品空间纽带关系、凝练基于自然的区域解决方案引导市场投入。     

矿山生态恢复研究进展——基于连续三届的世界生态恢复大会报告

最近连续三届世界生态恢复大会都将矿山生态系统列为大会交流的主题之一。为了解矿山生态修复的最新进展,本文采用文献分析方法和统计分析法,全面对比了这三届大会的论文和报告,包括参会国家、主要机构、热点矿区、修复要素、矿山类型、修复技术等。在此基础上,归纳了新开发的生态修复技术,包括植被恢复、土壤修复和景观恢复等新技术;总结了当前的研究热点,主要有复垦的土壤和修复的植物之间相互作用的机理、矿山生态修复的监测新技术、本土物种保持、污染土壤修复新技术、应对全球气候变化的矿山生态修复新思维和矿山生态系统服务价值等;介绍了会议提出的新观点,如自然恢复和人工恢复选择的新标准、矿山生态恢复力新理论、新型矿山生态系统及其设计等。最后对未来研究趋势进行了预测。     

中国喀斯特生态保护与修复研究进展

喀斯特生态系统是地球表层系统的重要组成部分。我国西南喀斯特地区以高强度农业活动为主,人地矛盾尖锐、石漠化严重,是我国最大面积的连片贫困区。在国家科技计划项目等的持续支持下,我国围绕喀斯特区生态修复与石漠化治理,系统开展了喀斯特生态保护与修复基础理论、技术研发、产业示范等研究,在喀斯特生态系统退化机理、石漠化治理技术与模式、生态治理助力脱贫攻坚、喀斯特景观资源保护、喀斯特国际合作等方面取得突出进展,引领了国际喀斯特学科发展。面对当前石漠化治理过程中产生的治理成效巩固困难、缺乏可持续性等新问题,未来喀斯特生态保护与修复研究应以增强生态治理的可持续性为导向,加强生态恢复过程机理与机制研究,提升喀斯特生态系统服务、提高生态恢复质量、巩固扶贫成果,实现石漠化治理的提质与增效,为"美丽中国"战略的贯彻实施及全球喀斯特地貌分布区所属国家的生态治理提供"中国方案"。     

基于多尺度协同的长沙市生态网络构建与层级优化

城市化背景下人类与自然环境的矛盾呈现出多尺度、层级化特征,而传统生态网络的构建方式较少考虑不同尺度下生态要素的关系,无法从区域落实到中心城区,难以形成系统性的解决方案。研究在综合梳理各尺度生态网络构建方法的基础上,以长沙市为例,基于形态学空间格局分析（Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis,MSPA）、景观连通性原理和生态斑块重要性评价识别生态源地,并通过多层级生态阻力面的确定,综合运用最小费用路径（Least-cost path method,LCP）、电路理论、层级传导理论、尺度嵌套等方法对市域、都市区、中心城区的生态网络进行了协同构建和层级优化,最后基于不同尺度生态网络的特点应用并落实到多层级的国土空间规划体系中。研究结果表明：（1）长沙市域生态网络和都市区生态网络具有较好的层级嵌套特征;共识别两尺度生态叠合源地14个、生态叠合廊道15条,主要通过中心城区内的湘江、浏阳河和捞刀河部分河段与外围生态绿圈相衔接,形成"外环内楔"的空间格局。（2）确定市域重要廊道、市域潜在廊道、生态叠合廊道、都市区重要廊道、都市区潜在廊道的核心保护面积共501.14 km²,并提取位于生态廊道核心保护区范围内的生态夹点和生态障碍点,以进一步落实生态保护修复策略。（3）得到具有重要生态连通功能的中心城区生态绿道长度441.2 km,生态修复单元56个,并结合生态阻力值划分为5级进行针对性修复。（4）基于不同尺度生态网络的衔接、嵌套,最终构建"市域总体生态安全格局-都市区城市生态空间发展格局-以城市绿道为基础的中心城区生态修复单元",并与不同层级的国土空间规划体系相对应。研究结果将为以大城市为中心的跨尺度生态系统修复和生态安全格局构建提供科学参考。