退化生态系统恢复与恢复生态学

恢复生态学起源于100a前的山地、草原、森林和野生生物等自然资源的管理研究,形成于20世纪80年代。它是研究生态整合性的恢复和管理过程的科学。恢复生态学的研究对象是在自然或人为干扰下形成的偏离自然状态的退化生态系统。生态恢复的目标包括恢复退化生态系统的结构、功能、动态和服务功能,其长期目标是通过恢复与保护相结合,实现生态系统的可持续发展。恢复生态学的理论与方法较多,它们均源于生态学等相关学科,但自我设计和人为设计是唯一源于恢复生态学研究和实践的理论。由于生态系统的复杂性,退化生态系统恢复的方向和时间具有不确定性,其恢复的机理可用临界阈值理论和状态跃迁模型进行解释。中国森林恢复中存在的问题包括：大量营造种类和结构单一的人工林忽视了生物多样性在生态恢复中的作用;大量使用外来种;忽视了生态系统健康所要求的异质性;忽略了物种间的生态交互作用;造林时对珍稀濒危种需要缺乏考虑;城镇绿化忽略了植被的生态功能等问题。此外,还介绍了生态恢复的方法、成功恢复的标准,并提出了恢复生态学的发展趋势：恢复生态学尚未形成理论和方法体系,要成熟还有很长的路要走;恢复生态学正在强调自然恢复与社会、人文的耦合;对森林恢复研究要集中在恢复中的障碍和如何克服这些障碍两个方面;鉴于生态系统复杂性和动态性,应停止期待发现能预测恢复产出的简单定律,相反,应该根据恢复地点及目标多样性而强调适应性恢复。     

景观生态学与退化生态系统恢复

退化生态系统的恢复是一项艰巨任务,它需要考虑到所要恢复的退化生态系统的结构,多样性和其动态的整体性和长期性。现在对于退化生态系统恢复研究已经要使生态学家们关注受损生态系统的理论和实际问题。退化生态系统恢复所面临的挑战是理解和利用生态演替理论来完成并加速恢复进程。恢复的主要目标是建立一个自维持的,由不同的群落或生态系统组成的能够满足不同需要如生物保护和粮食生产需要的景观。景观生态学关注于大的空间尺度的生态学问题。景观生态学研究方法可以为退化生态系统恢复实践提供指导。在解决退化生态系统的恢复问题时,景观生态学的方法在理论和实践上是有效的。景观生态学中的核心概念和其一般原理斑块形状、生态系统间相互作用、镶嵌系列等都同退化生态系统的恢复有着密切的关系。如恢复地点的选择和适当的恢复要素的空间配置。在评价退化生态系统的恢复是否取得成功,利用景观生态学也具有重要的意义。景观生态学理论如景观格局与景观异质性理论,干扰理论和尺度理论都能够指导退化生态系统的恢复实践。同样地,退化生态系统的恢复可以为景观生态学的研究提供非常恰当的实验场。寓景观生态学思想于退化生态系统恢复过程是一种新的有效途径。     

海岛退化生态系统的恢复

海岛在干扰极下极易退化且不易恢复,这些干扰包括毁林、引种不当和自然灾害三类。海岛恢复的限制性因子是缺乏淡水和土壤,生物资源缺乏、严重的风害或暴雨。不同大小的海岛和海岛不同部分的恢复策略不同。海岛植被恢复可参考其群落演替过程,其恢复至少是一个群落或生态系统水平的恢复。海岛恢复的长期利益包括重建海岛的生物群落,再现海岛生态系统的营养循环,恢复海岛的进化过程。海岛恢复的过程比较复杂,最关键的是要选择好适生的关键种。     

海岛退化生态系统的恢复

海岛在干扰下极易退化且不易恢复,这些干扰包括毁林、引种不当和自然灾害三类。海岛恢复的限制性因子是缺乏淡水和土壤、生物资源缺乏、严重的风害或暴雨。不同大小的海岛和海岛不同部分的恢复策略不同。海岛植被恢复可参考其群落演替过程,其恢复至少是一个群落或生态系统水平的恢复。海岛恢复的长期利益包括重建海岛的生物群落,再现海岛生态系统的营养循环,恢复海岛的进化过程。海岛恢复的过程比较复杂,最关键的是要选择好适生的关键种。     

热带雨林退化生态系统生物多样性消失与修复探讨

热带雨林退化生态系统的主要类型有：（１）人工生态系统;（２）次生森林生态系统和（３）片断森林生态系统等。在退化生态系统中,物种多样性的损失与人类干扰程度、频率和持续时间密切相关;而在片断的热带雨林中则随着环境变化强度的加大和持续时间的延长而增加。退化生态系统的修复主要在于减少人类的干扰、改善地区性的环境和在保护与发展相结合的原则下,采取多种有效的综合措施。尊重当地民族生物多样性传统管理经验,实行封     

海岛退化生态系统的恢复

海岛在干扰下极易退化且不易恢复,这些干扰包括毁林、引种不当和自然灾害三类。海岛恢复的限制性因子是缺乏淡水和土壤、生物资源缺乏、严重的风害或暴雨。不同大小的海岛和海岛不同部分的恢复策略不同。海岛植被恢复可参考其群落演替过程,其恢复至少是一个群落或生态系统水平的恢复。海岛恢复的长期利益包括重建海岛的生物群落,再现海岛生态系统的营养循环,恢复海岛的进化过程。海岛恢复的过程比较复杂,最关键的是要选择好适生的关键种。     

南亚热带退化生态系统恢复和重建的生态学理论和应用

退化生态系统的恢复与重建是一项十分复杂的系统工程,其功能和动态过程涉及物质、能量、空间、时间和多样性等基本的生态变量。在南亚热带的气候生态因子中,既有光、温、水充裕的有利一面,也有秋旱、台风和暴雨等不利的因素,但总的来说,影响退化生态系统恢复的主导生态因子是土壤因子,如土壤肥力和土壤水份。极度退化的生态系统的恢复与重建,第一步就是控制水土流失,提高土壤肥力和土壤理化结构,这还需要工程措施和生物措施相结合．退化生态系统的植被的恢复与重建,最有效和最省力的是顺从生态系统的演替发展规律来进行,生态系统演替理论是指导退化生态系统重建的重要的理论基础．退化生态系统恢复与重建的优化结构的构建,依赖于对空间、生物、能量生态学原理的理解。种群密度制约、种群空间分布格局、边缘效应、生态位分化、食物链、生物多样性等原理均对生态系统结构的构建有指导意义．而生态系统的群体发展,则受物质定律的影响．     

不同生态恢复方式下生态系统服务与生物多样性恢复效果的整合分析

全球范围内关键生态系统服务的减少使人类社会面临巨大的威胁,生物多样性是生态系统提供各种产品和服务的基础。生态恢复工程对退化的生态系统服务和生物多样性进行修复,对于缓解人类环境压力具有非常重要的意义。长期的理论和实践工作形成了多种生态恢复措施:(1)单纯基于生态系统自我设计的自然恢复方式,(2)人为设计对环境条件进行干预,反馈影响生态系统的自我设计,(3)人为设计对目标种群和生态系统进行直接干预和重建。这3类恢复方式可以在不同程度上定向的影响生态系统的恢复进程,反映了人类对生态系统的低度、中度和高度介入。哪种恢复方式和介入程度能够实现更好的恢复效果,是生态恢复学中的一个关键问题,但到目前为止,虽广有争议,却无定量的分析和结论。针对这个空白,通过对ISI Web of Knowledge数据库中生态恢复相关文献的整合分析,基于数学统计的方法定量比较在不同条件下低度介入(自然恢复)、中度介入(环境干预)和高度介入(直接干预)3种恢复方式对生态系统服务与生物多样性的恢复效果。论文从4个方面展开研究:(1)低度、中度、高度介入生态恢复方式的划分,(2)比较3大类介入方式对生态系统服务和生物多样性恢复效果的差异,(3)不同气候条件、生态系统类型和恢复时间等背景因素的影响,(4)生物多样性恢复和生态系统服务恢复之间的关系。研究结果揭示了不同生态恢复方式的适用条件,以及对生物多样性和生态系统恢复相互关系的作用,对生态恢复实践中恢复方式的选择有指导作用。对未来的研究也有启示意义,如针对特定生态系统服务或具体研究问题进一步探索低度、中度和高度介入生态恢复方式的作用规律和机制;将地区的社会经济水平、生态系统的受损程度等因素纳入生态恢复方式的考察,以最优化生态恢复成本-效率等。     

河岸带研究及其退化生态系统的恢复与重建

河岸带是指水陆交界处的两边,直至河水影响消失为止的地带。河岸带是湿地的重要组成部分,在流域生态系统中发挥着重要的作用,具有较大的生态、社会、经济和旅游价值。河岸带研究以生态学、水文学和地貌学炎基础,涉及多种学科和技术方法。由于自然和人为因素的影响,退化河岸带的生态恢复与重建较为复杂,通过安徽潜山县潜水退化河岸带滩地近6a的生态恢复与重建试验,研究结果表明：恢复与重建后的河岸带滩地生态系统的生物多样性和稳定性增加;土训结构和养分条件得到改善,其中,小于0.002mm的粘粒含量的平均值由恢复前的4.53％,上升到恢复后的11.71％,土壤容重由恢复前的1.455g/cm^2下降到恢复后的1.2g/cm^2,土壤有机质的平均值由恢复前的1.25g/kg上升到恢复后的9.44g/kg;河滩地泥沙淤积量增加;植物抗风浪作用增强,有效地保护了河岸,改善了河岸带地区的小气候。河岸带研究在我国起步较晚,因此,今后应加强河岸带的管理和对退化河岸带生态系统的恢复与重建工作,使河岸带生态系统可持续地为人类提供丰富多样的生产、生活和观光旅游产品。     

浑善达克退化沙地草地生态恢复试验研究

选择草地退化十分严重的浑善达克沙地腹地开展恢复生态学研究 ,试图寻求沙地草地生态恢复的新途径。采取“以地养地”模式 ,在小范围的土地上 ,建立高产饲草基地 ,使牲畜的压力逐步向高效地集中 ,同时改变畜群结构 ,解决当地牧民生活出路 ;而大面积的退化草地 ,主要借助自然力恢复。结果表明 ,自然力在浑善达克沙地退化生态系统恢复中起到巨大的作用 ,群落生物量、平均高度和总盖度 2年后均随恢复时间增加而增加 ( P<0 .0 5 )。流动沙丘的裸沙 ,经 2 a自然恢复后 ,生物量达 1 0 1 2 g/m,总盖度高达 60 %。与对照相比 ,封育 2 a后固定沙地群落盖度增加近 3倍 ;滩地群落生物量提高了 9倍 ,平均高度增加 4倍。植被组成方面 ,恢复前固定沙地以冷蒿 ( Artemisia frigida)、糙隐子草 ( Cleistogens squarrosa)和寸草苔 ( Carexduriuscula)等为主 ,恢复 2 a后冰草 ( Agropyron cristatum)、褐沙蒿 ( Artemisia intramongolica)等占优势 ;滩地植被中 ,羊草 ( L eymus chinensis)、披碱草 ( Elymus dahuricus)等逐步取代了灰绿藜 ( Chenopodiumglaucum)和尖头叶藜 ( Chenopodium acuminatum)等。生态恢复不仅使自然生态系统得以保护 ,而且带动了社会经济的发展 ,项目中的正蓝旗巴音胡舒嘎查牧民 ,在实验示范前后     

江西省不同类型退化荒山生态系统植被恢复与重建措施

对江西省 5种不同类型退化荒山生态系统进行综合治理 ,开展植被恢复与重建技术及理论研究。研究结果表明 :优选的植物组合及合理的配置并辅以工程措施是快速启动植被恢复进程 ,控制水土流失、重建退化荒山生态系统的有效措施。一林多用的树种组合 ,合理的生物体系设计和针、阔叶树种混交是改良地力 ,改善环境 ,促进退化荒山生态系统进展演替的优良途径。先进造林技术的应用和林农牧业结合的复合经营方式是提高综合治理效益 ,促进并维持生态恢复过程稳定的先决条件     

生态系统退化的过程及其特点

随着人口迅速增长和社会经济的加速发展,人们对环境资源的过度使用和破坏,使生态系统的退化已成为普遍现象。据初步统计,我国处于退化状态的生态系统面积已占国土面积的４５％以上,目前仍继续处于恶化状态［１］。加强对生态系统退化的研究已成为当前我国面临的重大问...     

Two-Sided Edge Effect Studies and the Restoration of Endangered Ecosystems

Edge effect is the modification of ecological patterns and processes that occur around the edge of two adjacent ecosystems. Depending on their aim, edge effect studies have adopted one of the following methodological approaches: (1) the one‐sided approach—which studies ecological patterns and processes from an edge to the interior of just one of the habitats and (2) the two‐sided approach—which studies ecological patterns and processes across the whole gradient from the interior of one habitat to the interior of the other habitat, passing through the edge zone. A database containing information on 317 published papers revealed that both methodological approaches were equally used until the end of the 1980s. During the 1990s, the question of how organisms respond to habitat destruction and fragmentation led to an abrupt increase in the number of one‐sided studies. Recently, however, two‐sided studies have become more frequent. In this review, we put forth theoretical arguments of why the two‐sided edge effect approach can produce a broader understanding of the ecological processes associated with edges. We highlight that two‐sided edge effect studies must become more experimental and predictive, focusing on the factors controlling edge dynamics. Finally, we point out that two‐sided edge effect studies have the potential to create a positive research agenda for the restoration and expansion of endangered ecosystems.     

More Ecology is Needed to Restore Mediterranean Ecosystems: A Reply to Valladares and Gianoli

Valladares and Gianoli (2007) tried to answer a key question, “how much ecology do we need to know to restore Mediterranean ecosystems?” by focusing on (1) plant–plant interactions; (2) environmental heterogeneity and the potential adaptation of transplanted plants; and (3) phenotypic plasticity of the planted species. We consider their choice of topics incomplete and potentially misleading because (1) it is clearly biased toward a narrow set of research topics (phenotypic plasticity, facilitation, and climate change); (2) it assumes that active restoration, and specifically revegetation, is needed; and (3) it conveys a false perception that other basic ecological aspects of Mediterranean ecosystems are sufficiently known. Instead, we review the current knowledge on seed dispersal, succession, and ecosystem functioning for Mediterranean ecosystems. We argue that decades of research on these topics have yielded few practical guidelines for restoration, something that needs to be urgently corrected. First, the current “establishment limitation paradigm” for plant recruitment does not acknowledge the role of dispersal limitation at large spatial scales. More attention should be paid to nucleation processes and directed seed dispersal mediated by animals. Second, studies of vegetation dynamics and succession in the Mediterranean have led to an overly simplistic view of successional dynamics. How fast and deterministic succession is remains mostly unexplored; long‐term monitoring of successional dynamics at different spatial scales is urgently needed. Third, information on the functional status of Mediterranean ecosystems is required to identify processes hindering natural recovery after disturbances and to set priorities on the areas and ecosystem components to be restored.     

Biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services: the applied need for systems approaches

Recent evidence strongly suggests that biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation continue. How might a systems approach to ecology help us better understand and address these issues? Systems approaches play a very limited role in the science that underpins traditional biodiversity conservation, but could provide important insights into mechanisms that affect population growth. This potential is illustrated using data from a critically endangered bird population. Although species-specific insights have practical value, the main applied challenge for a systems approach is to help improve our understanding of the role of biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services (ES) and the associated values and benefits people derive from these services. This has profound implications for the way we conceptualize and address ecological problems. Instead of focusing directly on biodiversity, the important response variables become measures of values and benefits, ES or ecosystem processes. We then need to understand the sensitivity of these variables to biodiversity change relative to other abiotic or anthropogenic factors, which includes exploring the role of variability at different levels of biological organization. These issues are discussed using the recent UK National Ecosystems Assessment as a framework.     

Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millennium

The extent of human‐induced change and damage to Earth's ecosystems renders ecosystem repair an essential part of our future survival strategy, and this demands that restoration ecology provide effective conceptual and practical tools for this task. We argue that restoration ecology has to be an integral component of land management in today's world, and to be broadly applicable, has to have a clearly articulated conceptual basis. This needs to recognize that most ecosystems are dynamic and hence restoration goals cannot be based on static attributes. Setting clear and achievable goals is essential, and these should focus on the desired characteristics for the system in the future, rather than in relation to what these were in the past. Goal setting requires that there is a clear understanding of the restoration options available (and the relative costs of different options). The concept of restoration thresholds suggests that options are determined by the current state of the system in relation to biotic and abiotic thresholds. A further important task is the development of effective and easily measured success criteria. Many parameters could be considered for inclusion in restoration success criteria, but these are often ambiguous or hard to measure. Success criteria need to relate clearly back to specific restoration goals. If restoration ecology is to be successfully practiced as part of humanity's response to continued ecosystem change and degradation, restoration ecologists need to rise to the challenges of meshing science, practice and policy. Restoration ecology is likely to be one of the most important fields of the coming century.     

Urban Grassland Restoration: A Neglected Opportunity for Biodiversity Conservation

Urbanization is one of the most severe threats to biodiversity, so why should not we use green space in cities to counteract the biodiversity loss as much as possible? Urban grasslands provide a large number of social, financial, recreational, and environmental ecosystem services but can also support high biodiversity. In this article, I describe the importance of urban grasslands for (local) biodiversity and recommend strengthening restoration ecological research and efforts to optimize these novel ecosystems for conservation purposes. The management intensity of a high proportion of urban grasslands decreased over the last decades. However, species richness of these grasslands is still low, although there is now a great potential for higher plant, but also animal diversity. While communal authorities are interested in cost‐efficient but at the same time biodiversity‐friendly management of urban grasslands, a well‐founded scientific basis for the restoration of urban grassland is still missing. I argue that besides all challenges associated with the restoration of urban habitats we should urgently proceed in the development of appropriate and effective restoration approaches and communicate knowledge gained to urban planners and stakeholders. Widening the scope of restoration ecological research to novel ecosystems such as urban grasslands is one of the most important recent challenges for biodiversity restoration and it gives urban habitats the significance they deserve .