论生物多样性的价值

从经济学角度论述了生物多样性的价值 ,并从三方面论述了生物多样性受到的威胁可能会给人类带来的危害 ,从经济价值角度揭示了保护生物多样性的重要意义。     

Total nitrogen and community turnover determine phosphorus use efficiency of phytoplankton along nutrient gradients in plateau lakes

Numerous studies support that biodiversity predict most to ecosystem functioning, but whether other factors display a more significant direct impact on ecosystem functioning than biodiversity remains to be studied. We investigated 398 samples of the phytoplankton phosphorus resource use efficiency (RUE_P = chlorophyll-a concentration/dissolved phosphate) across two seasons in nine plateau lakes in Yunnan Province, China. We identified the main contributors to phytoplankton RUE_P and analyzed their potential influences on RUE_P at different lake trophic states. The results showed that total nitrogen (TN) contributed the most to RUE_P among the nine lakes, whereas community turnover (measured as community dissimilarity) explained the most to RUE_P variation across the two seasons. Moreover, TN also influenced RUE_P by affecting biodiversity. Species richness (SR), functional attribute diversity (FAD2), and dendrogram-based functional diversity (FDc) were positively correlated with RUE_P in both seasons, while evenness was negatively correlated with RUE_P at the end of the rainy season. We also found that the effects of biodiversity and turnover on RUE_P depended on the lake trophic states. SR and FAD2 were positively correlated with RUE_P in all three trophic states. Evenness showed a negative correlation with RUE_P at the eutrophic and oligotrophic levels, but a positive correlation at the mesotrophic level. Turnover had a negative influence on RUE_P at the eutrophic level, but a positive influence at the mesotrophic and oligotrophic levels. Overall, our results suggested that multiple factors and nutrient states need to be considered when the ecosystem functioning predictors and the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships are investigated.     

Human appropriation of net primary production as determinant of avifauna diversity in Austria

The relationship between land-use induced changes in production ecology and avifauna diversity was analysed using a GIS land cover dataset on a 0.25 km × 0.25 km grid covering Austria's national territory. Considering only aboveground processes, the “human appropriation of net primary production” (HANPP = potential NPP − NPP_t), actual NPP (NPP_act), harvest (NPP_h) and NPP_t (= NPP_act − harvest) were recalculated based on existing datasets. Elevation as well as indicators of land cover heterogeneity and landscape heterogeneity were also considered. Correlation analyses were performed between these potential determinants of avifauna diversity and breeding bird species richness data as well as the percentage of endangered breeding birds included in the Austrian red list. Four spatial scales—0.25 km × 0.25 km, 1 km × 1 km, 4 km × 4 km and 16 × 16 km, were analysed. It was shown that breeding bird species richness was more strongly correlated with production ecological indicators and elevation than with heterogeneity indicators. A residual analysis in which the effect of elevation (a proxy for climate) on species richness and its potential determinants was removed confirmed the importance of the availability of trophic energy (NPP) for bird diversity patterns. The results support the species-energy hypothesis, thus confirming the notion that HANPP could be a useful pressure indicator for biodiversity loss.     

Biodiversity and industry ecosystem management

The term biodiversity describes the array of interacting, genetically distinct populations and species in a region, the communities they comprise, and the variety of ecosystems of which they are functioning parts. Ecosystem health, a closely related concept, is described in terms of a process identifying biological indicators, end points, and values. The decline of populations or species, an accelerating trend worldwide, can lead to simplification of ecosystem processes, thus threatening the stability and sustainability of ecosystem services directly relevant to human welfare in the chain of economic and ecological relationships. The challenge of addressing issues of such enormous scope and complexity has highlighted the limitations of ecology-as-science. Additionally, biosphere-scale conflicts seem to lie beyond the scope of conventional economics, leading to differences of opinion about the commodity value of biodiversity and of the services that intact ecosystems provide. In the face of these uncertainties, many scientists and economists have adopted principles that clearly assign burdens of proof to those who would promote the loss of biodiversity and that also establish near-trump (preeminent) status for ecological integrity. Electric utility facilities and operations impact biodiversity whenever construction, operation, or maintenance of generation, delivery, and support facilities alters landscapes and habitats and thereby impacts species. Although industry is accustomed to dealing with broad environmental concerns (such as global warming or acid rain), the biodiversity issue invokes hemisphere-wide, regional, local, and site-specific concerns all at the same time. Industry can proactively address these issues of scope and scale in two main ways: first, by aligning strategically with the broad research agenda put forth by informed scientists and institutions; and second, by supporting focused management processes whose results will contribute incrementally to the broader agenda of rebuilding or maintaining biodiversity.     

A Conceptual Framework for Selecting and Analyzing Stressor Data to Study Species Richness at Large Spatial Scales

/ In this paper we develop a conceptual framework for selectingstressor data and analyzing their relationship to geographic patterns ofspecies richness at large spatial scales. Aspects of climate and topography,which are not stressors per se, have been most strongly linked withgeographic patterns of species richness at large spatial scales (e.g.,continental to global scales). The adverse impact of stressors (e.g., habitatloss, pollution) on species has been demonstrated primarily on much smallerspatial scales. To date, there has been a lack of conceptual developmenton how to use stressor data to study geographic patterns of speciesrichness at large spatial scales.The framework we developed includes four components: (1) clarification of theterms stress and stressor and categorization of factors affecting speciesrichness into three groups-anthropogenic stressors, natural stressors, andnatural covariates; (2) synthesis of the existing hypotheses for explaininggeographic patterns of species richness to identify the scales over whichstressors and natural covariates influence species richness and to providesupporting evidence for these relationships through review of previousstudies; (3) identification of three criteria for selection of stressor andcovariate data sets: (a) inclusion of data sets from each of the threecategories identified in item 1, (b) inclusion of data sets representingdifferent aspects of each category, and (c) to the extent possible, analysisof data quality; and (4) identification of two approaches for examiningscale-dependent relationships among stressors, covariates, and patterns ofspecies richness-scaling-up and regression-tree analyses.Based on this framework, we propose 10 data sets as a minimum data base forexamining the effects of stressors and covariates on species richness atlarge spatial scales. These data sets include land cover, roads, wetlands(numbers and loss), exotic species, livestock grazing, surface water pH,pesticide application, climate (and weather), topography, and streams.KEY WORDS: Anthropogenic impacts; Biodiversity; Environmental gradients;Geographic information systems; Hierarchy     

Focusing biodiversity research on the needs of decision makers

The project on Biodiversity Uncertainties and Research Needs (BURN) ensures the advancement of usable knowledge on biodiversity by obtaining input from decision makers on their priority information needs about biodiversity and then using this input to engage leading scientists in designing policy-relevant research. Decision makers articulated concerns related to four issues: significance of biodiversity; status and trends of biodiversity; management for biodiversity; and the linkage of social, cultural, economic, legal, and biological objectives. Leading natural and social scientists then identified the research required to address the decision makers' needs and determined the probability of success. The diverse group of experts reached consensus on several fundamental issues, helping to clarify the role of biodiversity in land and resource management. The BURN participants identified several features that should be incorporated into policy-relevant research plans and management strategies for biodiversity. Research and assessment efforts should be: multidisciplinary and integrative, participatory with stakeholder involvement, hierarchical (multiple scales), and problem- and region-specific. The activities should be focused regionally within a global perspective. Meta-analysis of existing data is needed on all fronts to assess the state of the science. More specifically, the scientists recommended six priority research areas that should be pursued to address the information needs articulated by decision makers: (1) characterization of biodiversity, (2) environmental valuation, (3) management for sustainability—for humans and the environment (adaptive management), (4) information management strategies, (5) governance and stewardship issues, and (6) communication and outreach. Broad recommendations were developed for each research area to provide direction for research planning and resource management strategies. The results will directly benefit those groups that require biodiversity research to address their needs—whether to develop policy, manage natural resources, or make other decisions affecting biodiversity.     

Biodiversity laws: State experiences

The Western Governors' Association (WGA) includes both the public lands states with their issues and the plains states, which are 98% privately owned. WGA deals with most legislation affecting biodiversity, whether the effect is direct or tangential. It will probably not be possible, or desirable, for one entity to be in charge of biodiversity conservation. The Endangered Species Act, public lands laws, agricultural laws, water law, environmental laws, and funding legislation all affect biodiversity conservation and the responsibility for it. None of them on their own are enough, and most can cause harmful unintended consequences for biodiversity. The experience of western states in developing consensus principles for reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act provides an example of common-sense ways to improve management of biodiversity, notwithstanding the complexity and large stakes involved. The WGA's proposed changes call for increasing the role of states, streamlining the act, and increasing certainty for landowners and water users. To achieve sustainable conservation for biodiversity, the better question is not “Who is/should be in charge?”, it is “How do we get this done?” To answer this, we need goals, guidance, and bottom lines from federal laws, and management and oversight at the state level, but they all need to support local on-the-ground partnerships. Sustainable conservation requires the active participation of those who live there. WGA's experience in coordinating the Great Plains Partnership as well as its work with watershed efforts shed light on what to expect. Multilevel partnerships are not easy and require a different way of doing business. The ad hoc, sitespecific processes that result do not lend themselves to being legislated, fit into organizational boxes, or scored on a budget sheet. They do require common sense and a longterm perspective.     

Utility terrestrial biodiversity issues

Results from a survey of power utility biologists indicate that terrestrial biodiversity is considered a major issue by only a few utilities; however, a majority believe it may be a future issue. Over half of the respondents indicated that their company is involved in some management for biodiversity, and nearly all feel that it should be a goal for resource management. Only a few utilities are funding biodiversity research, but a majority felt more research was needed. Generally, larger utilities with extensive land holdings had greater opportunities and resources for biodiversity management. Biodiversity will most likely be a concern with transmission rights-of-way construction and maintenance, endangered species issues and general land resource management, including mining reclamation and hydro relicensing commitments. Over half of the companies surveyed have established voluntary partnerships with management groups, and biodiversity is a goal in nearly all the joint projects. Endangered species management and protection, prevention of forest fragmentation, wetland protection, and habitat creation and protection are the most common partnerships involving utility companies. Common management practices and unique approaches are presented, along with details of the survey.     

The role of corporations in ensuring biodiversity

Corporations own approximately 25% of all private land in the United States and, therefore, play an essential role in protecting biodiversity and maintaining natural habitats. The Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) is a unique joint venture between conservation organizations and corporations to utilize corporate lands for ensuring biodiversity. The following case studies demonstrate how corporations have helped ensure healthy ecosystems and provided critical leadership in regional efforts. Amoco Chemical Company's Cooper River Plant has been instrumental in developing a cooperative project that involves numerous corporations, plantation owners, private citizens, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and community groups to develop a comprehensive, ecosystem-based management plan for part of the Cooper River in Charleston, South Carolina, USA. The second case focuses on the Morie Company, a national sand quarry operator headquartered in southern New Jersey, USA. Morie Company is working with WHC, community groups, the Pinelands Commission, and other state regulatory agencies to explore sustainable development opportunities for companies within the Pinelands regulations. The third case takes us to DuPont Company's Asturias, Spain, site. A win—win success story of improved habitat and cost savings is the result of DuPont's concern for the environment, ability to work with a variety of groups, and willingness to consider innovative restoration techniques. The fourth case discusses Consumers Power Company's Campbell Plant in West Olive, Michigan, USA. In addition to implementing projects that contribute to biodiversity, Consumers Power has developed an environmental education field station to teach others about the importance of natural habitats. The final case highlights Baltimore Gas & Electric Company's efforts to maintain habitat for endangered species at their Calvert Cliffs site in Maryland.     

Hydropower,adaptive management,and Biodiversity

Adaptive management is a policy framework within which an iterative process of decision making is followed based on the observed responses to and effectiveness of previous decisions. The use of adaptive management allows science-based research and monitoring of natural resource and ecological community responses, in conjunction with societal values and goals, to guide decisions concerning man's activities. The adaptive management process has been proposed for application to hydropower operations at Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, a situation that requires complex balancing of natural resources requirements and competing human uses. This example is representative of the general increase in public interest in the operation of hydropower facilities and possible effects on downstream natural resources and of the growing conflicts between uses and users of river-based resources. This paper describes the adaptive management process, using the Glen Canyon Dam example, and discusses ways to make the process work effectively in managing downstream natural resources and biodiversity.