生态系统数据管理中的数据文档文件

生态系统的数据结构不同于商用数据结构。本文参考美国ＬＴＥＲＮ的Ｓｅｖｉｌｌｅｔａ站生态系统的数据管理模式，结合中国科学院封丘农业生态实验站的实际情况，着重介绍了生态系统的数据文档文件的特点、结构和应用，而这些都是研究生态系统数据管理的最基础工作。     

生态站数据文档文件在CERN网内的传输和共享

简要介绍了封丘生态站参考美国LTERN的Sevilleta生态站和An-drews生态站模式，结合本站的实际情况对数据文档文件、课题、专著、内部资料、地图等制定的编码格式，同时介绍了中国生态研究网络（CERN）秘书处对数据文档文件所作的分类编码的统一格式，着重探讨了CERN的统一编码和封丘站碛有编码之间的转换和连结。     

城市生态系统中的生物资源保护

本文讨论了城市生态系统中的生物资源保护问题,论述了动物园、植物园及博物馆等在生物多样性保护方面所作的研部.作者并对今后需要进一步研究的课题提出了建议.     

生态系统功能与生态系统服务的概念辨析

"生态系统功能(Ecosystem functions)"和"生态系统服务(Ecosystem services)"已成为生态学中的重要研究领域.针对国内部分研究人员对"生态系统功能"与"生态系统服务(功能)"概念和术语混淆使用的问题,在归纳总结国内外有关的重要研究的基础上,通过分别论述"生态系统功能"与"生态系统服务"的定义和内涵,辨析和阐明了生态系统"功能"与"服务"的区别与关系.生态系统功能是构建系统内生物有机体生理功能的过程,侧重于反映生态系统的自然属性,是维持生态系统服务的基础;生态系统服务是由生态系统功能产生的,是基于人类的需要、利用和偏好,反映了人类对生态系统功能的利用,是生态系统功能满足人类福利的一种表现.因此"生态系统服务功能"这一术语不准确,容易产生误解.     

天津市环境监测元数据模式

元数据技术是目前环境监测信息管理的发展趋势 ,文章对基于元数据的天津市环境监测信息共享模式进行了探索与研究 ,提出了元数据系统功能及内容框架的解决方案。     

洞庭湖湿地生态系统现状及整治管理措施

本文论述了洞庭湖湿地生态系统的结构特征及存在的问题,提出了洞庭湖湿地整治开发和管理对策。     

高尔夫球场建设对生态系统影响分析及环境管理对策

通过对高尔夫球场建设过程、特点及主要生态环境影响因子分析,指出高尔夫球场建设需占用大量土地,尤其是农业生态区域,对地表形态、农业生产、水土流失、水环境等均有不同程度的不利影响,对落后地区社会经济具有带动作用。在以安徽元一高尔夫球场为例进行分析基础上,提出了高尔夫球场建设与运营管理的生态环境管理对策。     

城市区域生态系统服务功能--以深圳市为例

了解城市中自然生态系统的状态与作用,是进行城市科学管理的基本前提。以深圳市为例,分析城市自然生态系统的主要服务功能,并探讨其对城市居民生活质量的重要性,重点回答关于城市自然生态系统及其服务功能的3个问题:(1)各项生态系统服务功能有助于解决城市的什么问题?(2)哪些生态系统、如何参与这些生态服务?(3)通过深圳市的实例对生态系统服务进行初步量化和评价。     

大连市森林生态系统服务功能评估

为客观度量森林生态系统服务功能,依据2003年大连市土地利用图形数据,参照国家林业局发布的《森林生态系统服务功能评估规范》(LY/T1721-2008)标准中的评估方法,基于G IS技术对大连市森林生态系统服务功能及其空间差异性进行定量评价。结果表明:(1)大连市森林生态系统服务功能的经济价值总计为197.91亿元/a,其中涵养水源、保育土壤、固碳释氧、净化大气4种生态服务功能的经济价值比例分别为35.3%、16.7%、43.0%、5.0%;(2)大连市的生态屏障庄河市、普兰店市和瓦房店市具有显著的森林生态系统服务功能,其价值比例分别为32.6%、21.8%和25.8%,而长海县、金州区、旅顺口区、甘井子区、沙河口区、中山区、西岗区森林生态系统服务功能的经济价值比例分别为0.9%、7.8%、5.7%、3.9%、0.2%、0.5%和0.7%。     

Ecosystem Services as a Common Language for Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management

Abstract:  Ecosystem-based management is logistically and politically challenging because ecosystems are inherently complex and management decisions affect a multitude of groups. Coastal ecosystems, which lie at the interface between marine and terrestrial ecosystems and provide an array of ecosystem services to different groups, aptly illustrate these challenges. Successful ecosystem-based management of coastal ecosystems requires incorporating scientific information and the knowledge and views of interested parties into the decision-making process. Estimating the provision of ecosystem services under alternative management schemes offers a systematic way to incorporate biogeophysical and socioeconomic information and the views of individuals and groups in the policy and management process. Employing ecosystem services as a common language to improve the process of ecosystem-based management presents both benefits and difficulties. Benefits include a transparent method for assessing trade-offs associated with management alternatives, a common set of facts and common currency on which to base negotiations, and improved communication among groups with competing interests or differing worldviews. Yet challenges to this approach remain, including predicting how human interventions will affect ecosystems, how such changes will affect the provision of ecosystem services, and how changes in service provision will affect the welfare of different groups in society. In a case study from Puget Sound, Washington, we illustrate the potential of applying ecosystem services as a common language for ecosystem-based management.     

Implementing Ecosystem Management in Public Agencies: Lessons from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service

Abstract:  Ecosystem management was formally adopted over a decade ago by many U.S. natural resource agencies, including the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This approach calls for management based on stakeholder collaboration; interagency cooperation; integration of scientific, social, and economic information; preservation of ecological processes; and adaptive management. Results of previous studies indicate differences in the extent to which particular components of ecosystem management would be implemented within the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and suggest a number of barriers thought to impede implementation. Drawing on survey and interview data from agency personnel and stakeholders, we compared levels of ecosystem-management implementation in the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and identified the most important barriers to implementation. Agency personnel perceived similarly high levels of implementation on many ecosystem-management components, whereas stakeholders perceived lower levels. Agencies were most challenged by implementation of preservation of ecological processes, adaptive management, and integration of social and economic information, whereas the most significant barriers to implementation were political, cultural, and legal.     

Ecosystem Management across Ownerships: the Potential for Collision with Antitrust Laws

Abstract:  Cross-boundary ecosystem management is increasingly being advocated to address large-scale ecological issues on forested landscapes. Such management requires information about the age, composition, and distribution of trees and other vegetation in addition to the ability to coordinate management over large areas. In the United States, the forest industry owns and manages a large quantity of biologically productive forest land, and these forests are crucial to the success of regional ecosystem planning. Antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, limit the industry's ability to participate in regional ecosystem planning because they restrict the ability of competing firms to coordinate activities and share information. Because antitrust courts do not consider the intentions of violators, achieving conservation or other public policy goals, even when working with government agencies, is not a sufficient defense. Therefore, the real and perceived threat of antitrust litigation is a disincentive to the forest industry's participation in large-scale ecosystem management. Potential solutions to this problem include state immunity statutes and third-party data aggregation.     

Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept

Abstract: Conservationists commonly have framed ecological concerns in economic terms to garner political support for conservation and to increase public interest in preserving global biodiversity. Beginning in the early 1980s, conservation biologists adapted neoliberal economics to reframe ecosystem functions and related biodiversity as ecosystem services to humanity. Despite the economic success of programs such as the Catskill/Delaware watershed management plan in the United States and the creation of global carbon exchanges, today's marketplace often fails to adequately protect biodiversity. We used a Marxist critique to explain one reason for this failure and to suggest a possible, if partial, response. Reframing ecosystem functions as economic services does not address the political problem of commodification. Just as it obscures the labor of human workers, commodification obscures the importance of the biota (ecosystem workers) and related abiotic factors that contribute to ecosystem functions. This erasure of work done by ecosystems impedes public understanding of biodiversity. Odum and Odum's radical suggestion to use the language of ecosystems (i.e., emergy or energy memory) to describe economies, rather than using the language of economics (i.e., services) to describe ecosystems, reverses this erasure of the ecosystem worker. Considering the current dominance of economic forces, however, implementing such solutions would require social changes similar in magnitude to those that occurred during the 1960s. Niklas Luhmann argues that such substantive, yet rapid, social change requires synergy among multiple societal function systems (i.e., economy, education, law, politics, religion, science), rather than reliance on a single social sphere, such as the economy. Explicitly presenting ecosystem services as discreet and incomplete aspects of ecosystem functions not only allows potential economic and environmental benefits associated with ecosystem services, but also enables the social and political changes required to ensure valuation of ecosystem functions and related biodiversity in ways beyond their measurement on an economic scale.