瓯江源头区龙泉溪底栖大型无脊椎动物多样性和群落特征

源头区溪流是河流生态系统最脆弱的部分,也是淡水底栖大型无脊椎动物(简称底栖动物)集中分布的热点区域,在流域物种库的形成和生态系统的多样性维持过程中具有不可忽视的作用。然而,目前国内对源头区溪流底栖动物多样性的系统调查研究较少。笔者对位于浙江省丽水市瓯江源头区的龙泉溪进行了底栖动物多样性调查研究,分别于2021年丰水期和平水期在覆盖龙泉溪主要山溪河流的18个样点采样,共采集获得底栖动物标本3 700余号。通过联合使用传统形态分类和DNA条形码技术,共鉴定出底栖动物165种,隶属5门、9纲、19目、68科、124属。联合使用DNA条形码可使底栖动物科、种水平的分辨力提升28.3%和34.1%。调查研究表明:龙泉溪底栖动物多样性丰富,物种组成以节肢动物为主(占比高达87.9%,145种),其中水生昆虫占绝大多数(共计8目、48科、140种,占84.8%),主要优势种为鞘翅目的狭溪泥甲属1种Stenelmis sp.1、毛翅目的纹石蛾属Hydorpsyche和短脉纹石蛾属Cheumatopsyche各1种;底栖动物群落多样性丰富,且在丰水期和平水期均维持在较高的水平;海拔和底质类型等微生境条件对底栖动物多样性分布的影响分析显示,底质类型对底栖动物分布密度的影响显著。对水生态状况的生物评估结果显示:Biotic Index污染生物指数更适合龙泉溪流域的水质健康状况评估,龙泉溪流域整体的水生态状况健康,水质属清洁或极清洁。该研究使用传统形态学和DNA条形码技术相结合的鉴定方式,提高了底栖动物物种鉴定的精度,所获得的多样性调查和水质评价结果为瓯江源头区溪流乃至整个流域的生态保护和长期监测提供了本底基础资料。     

Making a case for the consideration of trust,justice, and power in conservation relationships

In conservation, trust and justice are increasingly recognized as both intrinsically valuable and critical for successful socioecological outcomes. However, the interdependence between these concepts has not been explored. The conservation trust literature provides examples of efforts to build trust between conservationists and local actors; yet, these interventions are often conceived to incentivize local cooperation within dominant paradigms. We argue that when trust building is promoted as a technical fix that does not plan in advance to address power asymmetries in conservation practice, inequities may inadvertently be re-embedded. Therefore, we conceptualized a framework that joins trust, justice, and power so that critical analyses of conservation partnerships can be more effectively undertaken. We drew on environmental justice theory to better calibrate the trust literature for the historical-political settings of conservation, especially in the Global South. Justice and trust share strong theoretical links where perceptions of justice shape a willingness to trust, and, equally, trust is a precondition for justice to be perceived. Different forms of trust connect to varied domains of justice and power in different ways, which mediates the outcomes of interventions. We applied our framework to case studies to explore how these interdependences play out in practice. Failure of agencies to attend to issues of maldistribution, misrecognition of cultural values and knowledge, and exclusion from participation strongly compromised trust. Moreover, the ways in which nature-dependent communities and marginalized conservation workers are trusted, or the conditions under which they give trust, can lead to partnerships being perceived as just or unjust. Focusing on trust and justice can help identify power dynamics so they can be addressed more readily and create space for alternative understandings of partnerships.