区域生态系统适应性管理概念、理论框架及其应用研究

论述了生态系统适应性管理基本概念与生态系统适应循环,着重分析了生态系统恢复力范围、抗性、不稳定性与跨尺度影响。生态系统适应循环通常经历入侵、保持、破坏、调整四个阶段,前两个阶段的生态系统演替是可以预测的,而后两个阶段是复杂、难以预测的。文章提出了适应性区域生态系统管理的基本概念,并构建了其理论框架,并以三峡库区小江流域为例,对小江流域景观生态特征、区域生态胁迫进行了详细分析。在此基础上,提出要以水生生态安全为总目标,并围绕这一目标,进行流域各生态系统的恢复力辨识、生态系统适应性循环过程研究,从各系统恢复力属性特征出发,提出了具体的适应性管理方法与模式。     

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。     

太湖流域水污染对太湖水质的影响分析

从太湖地区(苏州、无锡、常州、杭州、嘉兴和湖州)的污染物排放量、水质监测结果，以及工农业发展、人口变化、人民生活水平的提高、东太湖萎缩，底泥中营养物的变化和湖泊生态系统失衡的特点入手，分析了太湖流域水污染现状。结果表明，工业废水排放量高于城镇生活废水排放量；太湖湖体、环湖河流水质与省、市边界断面主要超标项目分别为：总磷、总氮和氨氮；水体水质演变是由工农业迅速发展、人口过度增加、污染防治措施相对滞后，以及太湖水生态系统失衡等原因造成的。     

长江三角洲生态系统的近代演化特征及其生态与环境问题分析

长江三角洲主要生态系统类型包括河流生态系统、河口海岸湿地生态系统、农林生态系统、城市生态系统、湖泊生态系统以及近海海域生态系统，、长江三角洲是人类和自然相互作用的结果．具有明显的生态边缘效应．支持了长江三角洲丰富的动植物区系。文章分析了长江三角洲地区主要生态系统的演化特征及其相互关系：阐述了长江三角洲地区主要生态系统在城市化进程中所面临的生态与环境问题．从系统生态学的角度对长江三角洲地区主要自然生态系统的修复和保护提出了对革。同时分析了流域治理和区域治理的重要性．这对于长江三角洲地区社会和经济的可持续发展具有重要的指导意义。     

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.     

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.     

Why ecosystem management can't work without Social science: An example from the California northern spotted owl controversy

It is increasingly obvious that social science, while not a sufficient condition for making ecosystem management effective, is a necessary condition. A social science typology of ecosystems is developed, applied, and shown to have substantial and unexpected implications for the practice of ecosystem management. Ecologists and environmental scientists, in particular, will find some conclusions uncomfortable. The application involves a case material from the California northern spotted owl controversy.     

Ecosystem management to achieve ecological sustainability: The case of South Florida

The ecosystems of South Florida are unique in the world. The defining features of the natural Everglades (large spatial scale, temporal patterns of water storage and sheetflow, and low nutrient levels) historically allowed a mosaic of habitats with characteristic animals. Massive hydrological alterations have halved the Everglades, and ecological sustainability requires fundamental changes in management.The US Man and the Biosphere Human-Dominated Systems Directorate is conducting a case study of South Florida using ecosystem management as a framework for exploring options for mutually dependent sustainability of society and the environment. A new methodology was developed to specify sustainability goals, characterize human factors affecting the ecosystem, and conduct scenario/consequence analyses to examine ecological and societal implications. South Florida has sufficient water for urban, agricultural, and ecological needs, but most water drains to the sea through the system of canals; thus, the issue is not competition for resources but storage and management of water. The goal is to reestablish the natural system for water quantity, timing, and distribution over a sufficient area to restore the essence of the Everglades.The societal sustainability in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) is at risk because of soil degradation, vulnerability of sugar price supports, policies affecting Cuban sugar imports, and political/economic forces aligned against sugar production. One scenario suggested using the EAA for water storage while under private sugar production, thereby linking sustainability of the ecological system with societal sustainability. Further analyses are needed, but the US MAB project suggests achieving ecological sustainability consistent with societal sustainability may be feasible.     

Quantifying and Evaluating Ecosystem Health: A Case Study from Moreton Bay, Australia

As part of the program monitoring the ecosystem health of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, we developed a means for assessing ecosystem health that allows quantitative evaluation and spatial representations of the assessments. The management objectives for achieving ecosystem health were grouped into ecosystem objectives, water quality objectives, and human health objectives. For the first two groups, aspects of the ecosystem (e.g., trophic status) were identified, and an indicator was chosen for each aspect. Reference values for each indicator were derived from management objectives and compared with the mapped survey values. Subregions for which the indicator statistic was equal to or better than the assigned reference value are referred to as “compliant zones.” High-resolution surface maps were created from spatial predictions on a fine hexagonal grid for each of the indicators. Eight reporting subregions were established based on the depth and predicted residence times of the water. Within each reporting subregion, the proportion that was compliant was calculated. These results then were averaged to create an integrated ecosystem health index. The ratings by a team of ecosystem experts and the calculated ecosystem health indices had good correspondence, providing assurance that the approach was internally consistent, and that the management objectives covered the relevant biologic issues for the region. This method of calculating and mapping ecosystem health, relating it directly to management objectives, may have widespread applicability for ecosystem assessment.