全国重要生态功能区生态安全评价

《全国生态功能区划》提出的50个国家重要生态功能区域,对于国家和区域生态安全保障具有重要指导意义。从生态胁迫和生态结构与功能2个方面选取指标构建生态安全评价体系,以2000、2005和2010年生态系统遥感数据为基础,分区对全国重要生态功能区生态安全进行评价,识别生态安全状况呈恶化趋势的区域,为全国重要生态功能区的生态安全保障工作提供理论基础和科学依据。结果显示,水源涵养区和生物多样性保护区的生态安全指数相对较高,土壤保持重要区的生态安全状况较差;重要生态功能区总体生态安全状况呈下降趋势,比较显著的变化包括洞庭湖洪水调蓄重要区和藏东南山地热带雨林生物多样性保护重要区的生态环境状况改善明显,黑河中下游防风固沙重要区的生态安全指数值最小且呈下降趋势。     

我国重点生态功能区生态状况变化

重点生态功能区对于保障国家和地方生态安全具有重要意义。以生态状况为指标,通过生态功能指数、生态结构指数和生态胁迫指数分析2000—2010年我国重点生态功能区的生态状况变化态势。结果表明,水源涵养型重点生态功能区中,大小兴安岭森林生态功能区、阿尔泰山地森林草原生态功能区和南岭山地森林及生物多样性生态功能区生态状况表现为转差态势,其余5个区的生态状况表现为转好态势;水土保持型重点生态功能区的生态状况均有所好转,特别是黄土高原丘陵沟壑水土保持生态功能区;防风固沙型重点生态功能区中,呼伦贝尔草原草甸生态功能区和阿尔金草原荒漠化防治区生态状况表现为转好态势,其余4个功能区的生态状况表现为转差态势;生物多样性维护型重点生态功能区的生态状况均有所好转。     

阿尔泰山地森林草原生态功能区植被覆盖对气候变化的响应

新疆阿尔泰山地森林草原生态功能区(简称阿尔泰生态功能区)是《全国主体功能区规划》中明确的8个水源涵养型重点生态功能区之一,但其植被生态系统对气候变化敏感而脆弱。为了解气候变化背景下阿尔泰生态功能区植被生长状况,基于1986—2015年阿尔泰生态功能区7个气象站气温和降水量、植被覆盖以及植被类型数据,采用遥感技术和相关分析方法,研究阿尔泰生态功能区植被覆盖对气候变化的响应关系。结果表明:(1)1986—2015年阿尔泰生态功能区年平均气温整体呈现明显上升趋势,倾向率为0.34℃·(10 a)~(-1);年降水量整体呈波动循环上升趋势,倾向率为6.19 mm·(10 a)~(-1);年平均归一化差分植被指数(NDVI)值整体呈现缓慢下降趋势,倾向率较小,为-0.001 (10 a)~(-1);生长季NDVI呈明显上升趋势,倾向率为0.002 (10 a)~(-1)。(2)1986—2015年阿尔泰山生态功能区植被覆盖总体保持稳定,NDVI变化率为-0.001 (10 a)~(-1)～0.001 (10 a)~(-1)的区域面积占研究区总面积的60.4%;植被覆盖显著减少,即NDVI变化率-0.002 (10 a)~(-1)的区域面积占总面积的3.1%,主要分布在西北阿尔泰山区;植被覆盖显著增加,即NDVI变化率0.002 (10 a)~(-1)的区域面积占总面积的2.1%,主要分布在东南和中部地区。(3)1986—2015年阿尔泰生态功能区植被覆盖对降水量变化的响应大于气温变化。NDVI变化对气温和降水量变化存在一定滞后性现象,不同时段NDVI变化表现出不同的滞后期。     

大兴安岭生态功能区生态系统服务功能动态及权衡协同关系研究

大兴安岭水源涵养与生物多样性保护区是我国北方重要的生态屏障,定量分析其生态系统服务功能动态及内在关系,对于实现该区自然资源的合理利用与可持续发展具有重要的科学意义。基于多源数据和生态系统服务功能评估模型,实现了2000—2015年大兴安岭生态功能区水源供给、碳储存和生境质量服务功能的动态评估,并结合相关性分析和权衡协同度模型探讨各服务功能之间的权衡协同关系。结果表明：(1)林地是该区优势生态系统类型,占功能区总面积的67.80%,湿地和草地次之,3种类型面积之和占功能区总面积的92.35%。2000—2015年,林地面积增加2 080 km²,草地和湿地面积分别减少1 365和1 265 km²,其他类型面积变化较小。(2)2000—2015年研究区水源供给服务功能明显减弱,碳储存服务功能有所增强,生境质量改善显著。其中,水源供给量减少15.10亿m³,碳储量增加16.79 Tg,良好及以上生境面积增加5 746 km²,占生态功能区总面积的85.41%,生物栖息活动区生境质量显著提高。(3)在区域...     

生态补水前后永定河两岸植被覆盖度变化及驱动力分析

植被是生态系统的重要组成部分,在能量交换、水土保持、防风固沙等方面具有重要作用。为了研究生态补水对永定河两岸植被覆盖度的变化的影响,基于Landsat-8卫星影像数据,利用影像图差值比较法、皮尔逊相关系数、残差分析等方法对永定河生态补水前后植被覆盖度时空变化及其驱动力进行分析。结果表明,（1）2014—2020年永定河两岸植被覆盖度总体上呈现西北高、东南低的分布格局,植被覆盖度变化呈现优化趋势,改善区域面积大于退化区域面积。（3）植被覆盖度与年气温的平均相关系数为-0.17,与年降水量的平均相关系数为0.15。植被覆盖度总体上与气温呈负相关,与降水量呈正相关,但具有显著性（P<0.05）的面积分别仅占23.03%和16.26%。（4）生态补水前,人类活动对植被覆盖度的影响主要是负面影响,而在生态补水后,人类活动对植被覆盖度的影响逐渐向好,发挥正面影响的面积占比63.04%。2014—2020年期间人类活动变化的趋势向促进植被覆盖度增长的方向发展。（5）气候变化和人类活动对于植被覆盖度改善和轻改善区域相对贡献在60%以上的面积占比分别为16.98%和68.09%,人类活动对于植被覆...     

长江上游生态功能区划研究

生态功能区划对于保障区域生态安全、推动经济社会与生态环境保护的协调发展具有十分重要的意义。长江上游是中国关键生态区域和整个长江流域生态安全的重要屏障,开展长江上游生态功能区划显得至关重要。以长江上游为研究区域,运用GIS空间分析技术,在揭示研究区生态环境敏感性与生态系统服务功能重要性空间分异规律的基础上,以子流域为基本区划单元,采用两步聚类法进行长江上游生态功能区划。研究结果表明:(1)长江上游生态环境整体上处于中度、高度敏感的状态,其中土壤侵蚀敏感性最为突出;(2)长江上游生态系统服务功能总体上呈现较重要、极重要的态势,其中水源涵养和生物多样性保护的贡献较大;(3)长江上游地区可划分为青藏高原生态区、云贵高原生态区和四川盆地生态区3个生态区,进而可细分为7个生态亚区和15个生态功能区。     

基于主导生态功能保护的美丽宜居村镇生态建设模式研究

"村镇建设生态安全评估与绿色生态建设模式研究"是国家重点研究计划"村镇建设资源环境承载力测算系统开发"项目的课题4,研究内容包括不同区域/类型村镇建设主导生态功能辨识研究,村镇承载力测算体系和评价模型构建,区域生态安全对村镇建设的约束影响,生态安全约束下村镇发展的适宜产业与优化途径,美丽宜居村镇绿色生态建设和可持续发展模式。该研究在全国尺度上探明了生态乡镇和特色小镇的空间分布特征、集聚程度和主导生态功能,辨析了全国综合减灾示范社区时空格局;基于5个重要生态功能区的主导生态功能(水源涵养、生物多样性维护、水土保持、防风固沙和减灾防灾)以及黄山市新明乡、仁怀市茅台镇、重庆市武陵镇、敦煌市月牙泉镇和汶川县威州镇等典型村镇产业特点,通过"以点带面"和"以面束点"研究思路,探究了村镇建设生态安全约束下的产业适宜性评价方法,初步提出了茶产业模式、酒产业模式、特色农业模式、生态旅游模式和防灾减灾模式等针对不同类型美丽宜居村镇的生态建设模式。研究结果可以为巩固脱贫攻坚成果和支撑乡村振兴的环境管理提供决策支撑,对重要生态功能区村镇承载力提升和可持续发展具有一定的实践意义。     

基于水源涵养功能的生态红线划定方法研究

生态红线是2011年首次被提出的全新概念,如何科学划定区域生态红线是一个亟待探讨解决的新课题。该研究以四川省为调查对象,采用多源遥感数据、气象站点数据以及太阳辐射站点等数据,综合运用GIS技术、区域水量平衡法等研究手段,从水源涵养功能价值的角度探讨生态红线的划定方法。结果表明:四川省水源涵养量在5.38~1 187.29 mm之间,各地区分布差异显著。四川盆地水源涵养量最高,平均达200 mm以上;川西南山区和四川盆周山区次之,其值在100~200 mm之间;川西北高山高原地区最低,水源涵养量普遍低于100 mm。根据四川省各地水源涵养功能价值差异,将其划分为5个等级生态功能区,即一般重要、轻度重要、中度重要、高度重要和极重要功能区。其中,一般重要和轻度重要功能区的水源涵养量低于150 mm,生态价值不高,面积总和298 911 km~2,占四川省总面积61.63%;中度重要功能区面积95 992 km~2,占四川省总面积19.79%,该功能区水源涵养量为150~200 mm,生态价值一般;高度重要和极重要功能区的水源涵养量高于200 mm,生态价值较高,面积总计90 107 km~2,占四川省总面积18.57%。四川生态红线区水源涵养量达250 mm以上,总面积6 715 km~2,占四川国土总面积1.38%,集中分布于四川盆地的雅安市东部、眉山市西南部和乐山市西北部地区。实地调查显示,该研究划定的生态红线区内不仅水源涵养量丰富,而且水源保护区和水源补给区分布众多,属四川水源涵养极重要的生态功能区。该研究提出的水源涵养生态红线划定方法具有一定的参考价值,研究成果对于中国其他地区生态保护红线的划定工作具有借鉴意义。     

基于主导生态功能与生态退化程度的生态修复分区研究

生态修复分区是科学高效地开展生态修复的前提,以科尔沁沙地源头巴林右旗为例,采用"自下而上"与"自上而下"相结合的分区思路,运用地理信息系统空间分析技术手段,在主导生态功能空间分异规律的基础上,综合考虑区域生态退化程度,并根据区域气候特征、地势地貌和植被类型,划定不同等级的生态修复分区空间分布。一级分区按照立地条件即考虑地形地貌和植被覆被类型划定,是区域环境主导生态类型的组合;二级分区按照主导生态功能即水源涵养功能、防风固沙功能、土壤保持功能和生物多样性维护功能划定,是中尺度下区域环境主导生态功能类型的组合;三级分区按照未退化、轻度退化、中度退化和重度退化划定,以此划分修复难易型小区,即生态修复预防小区、生态修复调控小区和生态修复重点小区。将巴林右旗共划分为3个一级区、7个二级区和29个三级区,既体现了生态功能的空间分异规律,又使得恢复具有针对性,为制定植被配置、产业结构调整等不同调控措施和生态修复方案提供技术支撑。     

岷江上游典型生态系统水源涵养量及价值评估

岷江上游自然生态系统由于具有重要的水源涵养功能,被誉为长江流域"水塔"的重要组成部分.通过野外实地调查和已有文献资料收集分析,初步核算了岷江上游典型生态系统的水源涵养量;并利用生态经济学价值量评估方法,分别估算了该区典型生态系统的水源涵养价值.岷江上游森林、灌从和草地3种典型生态系统的水源涵养量分别为21.23×108 m3、17.92×108 m3和14.00×108 m3,价值6.34×108元、5.36x10s元和4.19×108元.植被冠层和土壤层是水源涵养的主要作用层,而枯枝落叶层水源涵养量和价值均较小.3种典型生态系统中以森林生态系统水源涵养价值最大.占总价值的39.92%,灌从和草地生态系统分别占33.73%和26.35%.森林生态系统中以冷杉林的水源涵养最和价值为最高,占整个森林系统涵养水源价值的51.22%,整个研究区价值的20.48%,在涵养水源过程中占据主导地位.图2表4参31     

Retaining natural vegetation to safeguard biodiversity and humanity

Global efforts to deliver internationally agreed goals to reduce carbon emissions, halt biodiversity loss, and retain essential ecosystem services have been poorly integrated. These goals rely in part on preserving natural (e.g., native, largely unmodified) and seminatural (e.g., low intensity or sustainable human use) forests, woodlands, and grasslands. To show how to unify these goals, we empirically derived spatially explicit, quantitative, area-based targets for the retention of natural and seminatural (e.g., native) terrestrial vegetation worldwide. We used a 250-m-resolution map of natural and seminatural vegetation cover and, from this, selected areas identified under different international agreements as being important for achieving global biodiversity, carbon, soil, and water targets. At least 67 million km² of Earth's terrestrial vegetation (∼79% of the area of vegetation remaining) required retention to contribute to biodiversity, climate, soil, and freshwater conservation objectives under 4 United Nations’ resolutions. This equates to retaining natural and seminatural vegetation across at least 50% of the total terrestrial (excluding Antarctica) surface of Earth. Retention efforts could contribute to multiple goals simultaneously, especially where natural and seminatural vegetation can be managed to achieve cobenefits for biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem service provision. Such management can and should co-occur and be driven by people who live in and rely on places where natural and sustainably managed vegetation remains in situ and must be complemented by restoration and appropriate management of more human-modified environments if global goals are to be realized.     

Effects of land use,cover, and protection on stream and riparian ecosystem services and biodiversity

Protected areas are an important part of broader landscapes that are often used to preserve biodiversity or natural features. Some argue that protected areas may also help ensure provision of ecosystem services. However, the effect of protection on ecosystem services and whether protection affects the provision of ecosystem services is known only for a few services in a few types of landscapes. We sought to fill this gap by investigating the effect of watershed protection status and land use and land cover on biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. We compared the ecosystem services provided in and around streams in 4 watershed types: International Union for Conservation of Nature category II protected forests, unprotected forests, unprotected forests with recent timber harvesting, and unprotected areas with agriculture. We surveyed 28 streams distributed across these watershed types in Quebec, Canada, to quantify provisioning of clean water, carbon storage, recreation, wild foods, habitat quality, and terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity richness and abundance. The quantity and quality of ecosystem services and biodiversity were generally higher in sites with intact forest—whether protected or not—relative to those embedded in production landscapes with forestry or agriculture. Clean-water provision, carbon storage, habitat quality, and tree diversity were significantly higher in and around streams surrounded by forest. Recreation, wild foods, and aquatic biodiversity did not vary among watershed types. Although some services can be provided by both protected and unprotected areas, protection status may help secure the continued supply of services sensitive to changes in land use or land cover. Our findings provide needed information about the ecosystem service and biodiversity trade-offs and synergies that result from developing a watershed or from protecting it.     

Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Little Karoo,South Africa

Abstract: Global declines in biodiversity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and biodiversity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade‐offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade‐offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity in South Africa's Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services—carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision—and data on biodiversity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for biodiversity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade‐offs between biodiversity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of biodiversity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When biodiversity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the biodiversity targets was about US$500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in biodiversity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our biodiversity priority areas for no extra cost.     

Global mismatches in aboveground and belowground biodiversity

Human activities are accelerating global biodiversity change and have resulted in severely threatened ecosystem services. A large proportion of terrestrial biodiversity is harbored by soil, but soil biodiversity has been omitted from many global biodiversity assessments and conservation actions, and understanding of global patterns of soil biodiversity remains limited. In particular, the extent to which hotspots and coldspots of aboveground and soil biodiversity overlap is not clear. We examined global patterns of these overlaps by mapping indices of aboveground (mammals, birds, amphibians, vascular plants) and soil (bacteria, fungi, macrofauna) biodiversity that we created using previously published data on species richness. Areas of mismatch between aboveground and soil biodiversity covered 27% of Earth's terrestrial surface. The temperate broadleaf and mixed forests biome had the highest proportion of grid cells with high aboveground biodiversity but low soil biodiversity, whereas the boreal and tundra biomes had intermediate soil biodiversity but low aboveground biodiversity. While more data on soil biodiversity are needed, both to cover geographic gaps and to include additional taxa, our results suggest that protecting aboveground biodiversity may not sufficiently reduce threats to soil biodiversity. Given the functional importance of soil biodiversity and the role of soils in human well-being, soil biodiversity should be considered further in policy agendas and conservation actions by adapting management practices to sustain soil biodiversity and considering soil biodiversity when designing protected areas.     

三峡库区生态系统服务功能重要性评价及其空间分布研究

以长江上游重点生态脆弱区三峡库区(重庆段)为研究区,结合RS和GIS软件,选取生物多样性维护功能、水源涵养功能和水土保持功能为评价指标,采用植被净初级生产力(vegetation net primary productivity,NPP)定量指标评估法,综合分析研究区2020年生态系统服务功能的重要性程度以及空间分异特...     

Hydroelectricity production and forest conservation in watersheds.

Globally, particularly in developing countries, hydroelectricity production and economic growth occur together with ecosystem/biodiversity conservation in watersheds. There is a relationship between hydroelectricity production and ecosystem/biodiversity conservation in watersheds, centering on the supply and demand for ecosystem services of river water flow regulation and sediment retention. Here we show that, in the upper reach of the Yangtze River, hydroelectricity production of Three Gorges Hydroelectric Power Plant can form a beneficial relationship with forest conservation through the paid use (compensating residents for their cooperation in the conservation) of ecosystem services launched by the National Natural Forest Protection Project. This interaction can provide additional incentives to encourage local communities' long-term cooperation in conserving and protecting the restored forest ecosystems. Hydroelectricity plants also obtain benefits from this interaction. The industrialization of ecosystem services supply provides an operational framework for this beneficial interaction. Sustainable forest ecosystem conservation will require developing new institutions and policies and must involve local communities in the conservation and protection of their local forests.     

岷江干旱河谷典型地段整地造林效果评估

长期以来通过整地造林去恢复重建植被已在横断山区干旱河谷广为采用,然而这样的实践是否能有效提高植被覆盖率并改善土壤水源涵养能力仍不清楚.选择岷江干旱河谷3个典型地段,调查了多年(7～16 a)后整地造林地上植被覆盖、土壤物理性质以及目的造林树种岷江柏(Cupressus chengiana S.Y. Hu)的保存、生长与结实状况,以评价干旱河谷乡土树种造林成效及造林后的生态效果.结果表明:(1)岷江柏在栽植多年后仍有大量死亡,保存率明显下降,造林16 a后仅为38%;(2)不同年代栽植的岷江柏在造林后2～6 a即开始旱现直径年生长量下降趋势;(3)造林带内乡土植被总盖度、灌木盖度、草本盖度、地衣苔藓盖度均低于保留带,因此等高线水平沟整地造林措施未能有效促进乡土植被发育;(4)造林带土壤水分物理性质也不如保留带,整地造林也没有有效改善土壤水源涵养能力.综合分析发现,整地造林多年后岷汀柏造林不仅没有达到岷江干旱河谷预期的生态恢复重建效果,甚至有加剧生态退化的趋势.因此认为:(1)规模化整地造林并不是有效的干旱河谷生态恢复和保护措施;(2)尽管岷江柏是乡土树种,但并不是干旱河谷植被恢复的适宜种.图3表3参29     

Selecting cost‐effective areas for restoration of ecosystem services

Selection of areas for restoration should be based on cost‐effectiveness analysis to attain the maximum benefit with a limited budget and overcome the traditional ad hoc allocation of funds for restoration projects. Restoration projects need to be planned on the basis of ecological knowledge and economic and social constraints. We devised a novel approach for selecting cost‐effective areas for restoration on the basis of biodiversity and potential provision of 3 ecosystem services: carbon storage, water depuration, and coastal protection. We used Marxan, a spatial prioritization tool, to balance the provision of ecosystem services against the cost of restoration. We tested this approach in a mangrove ecosystem in the Caribbean. Our approach efficiently selected restoration areas that at low cost were compatible with biodiversity targets and that maximized the provision of one or more ecosystem services. Choosing areas for restoration of mangroves on the basis carbon storage potential, largely guaranteed the restoration of biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Selección de Áreas Rentables para la Restauración de Servicios Ambientales     

Effects of human demand on conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services

Safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity is critical to achieving sustainable development. To date, ecosystem services quantification has focused on the biophysical supply of services with less emphasis on human beneficiaries (i.e., demand). Only when both occur do ecosystems benefit people, but demand may shift ecosystem service priorities toward human-dominated landscapes that support less biodiversity. We quantified how accounting for demand affects the efficiency of conservation in capturing both human benefits and biodiversity by comparing conservation priorities identified with and without accounting for demand. We mapped supply and benefit for 3 ecosystem services (flood mitigation, crop pollination, and nature-based recreation) by adapting existing ecosystem service models to include and exclude factors representing human demand. We then identified conservation priorities for each with the conservation planning program Marxan. Particularly for flood mitigation and crop pollination, supply served as a poor proxy for benefit because demand changed the spatial distribution of ecosystem service provision. Including demand when jointly targeting biodiversity and ecosystem service increased the efficiency of conservation efforts targeting ecosystem services without reducing biodiversity outcomes. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating demand when quantifying ecosystem services for conservation planning.     

Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity

Abstract: In a time of increasing urbanization, the fundamental value of conserving urban biodiversity remains controversial. How much of a fixed budget should be spent on conservation in urban versus nonurban landscapes? The answer should depend on the goals that drive our conservation actions, yet proponents of urban conservation often fail to specify the motivation for protecting urban biodiversity. This is an important shortcoming on several fronts, including a missed opportunity to make a stronger appeal to those who believe conservation biology should focus exclusively on more natural, wilder landscapes. We argue that urban areas do offer an important venue for conservation biology, but that we must become better at choosing and articulating our goals. We explored seven possible motivations for urban biodiversity conservation: preserving local biodiversity, creating stepping stones to nonurban habitat, understanding and facilitating responses to environmental change, conducting environmental education, providing ecosystem services, fulfilling ethical responsibilities, and improving human well‐being. To attain all these goals, challenges must be faced that are common to the urban environment, such as localized pollution, disruption of ecosystem structure, and limited availability of land. There are, however, also challenges specific only to particular goals, meaning that different goals will require different approaches and actions. This highlights the importance of specifying the motivations behind urban biodiversity conservation. If the goals are unknown, progress cannot be assessed.