An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ecological restoration, when implemented effectively and sustainably, contributes to protecting biodiversity; improving human health and wellbeing; increasing food and water security; delivering goods, services, and economic prosperity; and supporting climate change mitigation, resilience, and adaptation. It is a solutions-based approach that engages communities, scientists, policymakers, and land managers to repair ecological damage and rebuild a healthier relationship between people and the rest of nature. When combined with conservation and sustainable use, ecological restoration is the link needed to move local, regional, and global environmental conditions from a state of continued degradation, to one of net positive improvement. The second edition of the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) presents a robust framework for restoration projects to achieve intended goals, while addressing challenges including effective design and implementation, accounting for complex ecosystem dynamics (especially in the context of climate change), and navigating trade-offs associated with land management priorities and decisions. The Standards establish eight principles that underpin ecological restoration. Principles 1 and 2 articulate important foundations that guide ecological restoration: effectively engaging a wide range of stakeholders, and fully utilizing available scientific, traditional, and local knowledge, respectively. Principles 3 and 4 summarize the central approach to ecological restoration, by highlighting ecologically appropriate reference ecosystems as the target of restoration and clarifying the imperative for restoration activities to support ecosystem recovery processes. Principle 5 underscores the use of measurable indicators to assess progress toward restoration objectives. Principle 6 lays out the mandate for ecological restoration to seek the highest attainable recovery. Tools are provided to identify the levels of recovery aspired to and to track progress. Principle 7 highlights the importance of restoration at large spatial scales for cumulative gains. Finally, ecological restoration is one of several approaches that address damage to ecosystems and Principle 8 clarifies its relationships to allied approaches on a “Restorative Continuum”. The Standards highlight the role of ecological restoration in connecting social, community, productivity, and sustainability goals. The Standards also provide recommended performance measures for restorative activities for industries, communities, and governments to consider. In addition, the Standards enhance the list of practices and actions that guide practitioners in planning, implementation, and monitoring activities. The leading practices and guidance include discussion on appropriate approaches to site assessment and identification of reference ecosystems, different restoration approaches including natural regeneration, consideration of genetic diversity under climate change, and the role of ecological restoration in global restoration initiatives. This edition also includes an expanded glossary of restoration terminology. SER and its international partners produced the Standards for adoption by communities, industries, governments, educators, and land managers to improve ecological restoration practice across all sectors and in all ecosystems, terrestrial and aquatic. The Standards support development of ecological restoration plans, contracts, consent conditions, and monitoring and auditing criteria. Generic in nature, the Standards framework can be adapted to particular ecosystems, biomes, or landscapes; individual countries; or traditional cultures. The Standards are aspirational and provide tools that are intended to improve outcomes, promote best practices, and deliver net global environmental and social benefits. As the world enters the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), the Standards provide a blueprint for ensuring ecological restoration achieves its full potential in delivering social and environmental equity and, ultimately, economic benefits and outcomes.

Habitat protection and restoration is a cornerstone of current strategies to restore ecosystems, recover endangered fish species, and rebuild fish stocks within the Columbia River Basin. Strategies featuring habitat restoration include the 2000 Biological Opinion on operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS BiOp) developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the 2000 Biological Opinion on Bull Trout developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Sub-Basin Plans developed under the Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC). There is however little quantitative information about the effectiveness of different habitat restoration techniques. Such information is crucial for helping scientists and program managers allocate limited funds towards the greatest benefits for fish populations. Therefore, it is critical to systematically test the hypotheses underlying habitat restoration actions for both anadromous and resident fish populations. This pilot project was developed through a proposal to the Innovative Projects fund of the NWPCC (ESSA 2002). It was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) following reviews by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP 2002), the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA 2002), the NWPCC and BPA. The study was designed to respond directly to the above described needs for information on the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions, including legal measures specified in the 2000 FCRPS BiOp (RPA 183, pg. 9-133, NMFS 2000). Due to the urgency of addressing these measures, the timeline of the project was accelerated from a duration of 18 months to 14 months. The purpose of this pilot project was to explore methods for evaluating past habitat restoration actions and their effects on fish populations. By doing so, the project will provide a foundation of retrospective analyses, on which to build prospective, multi-watershed designs for future habitat restoration actions. Such designs are being developed concurrently with this project by several other groups in the Columbia Basin (RME Workgroup 2003, NMFS 2003, Hillman and Paulsen 2002, Hillman 2003). By addressing questions about habitat restoration and monitoring (in coordination with other related efforts), we hope that this project will catalyze a shift in the Basin's paradigm of habitat restoration, moving from implementation of individual watershed projects towards rigorously designed and monitored, multiwatershed, adaptive management experiments. The project involved three phases of work, which were closely integrated with various related and ongoing efforts in the region: (1) Scoping - We met with a Core Group of habitat experts and managers to scope out a set of testable habitat restoration hypotheses, identify candidate watersheds and recommend participants for a data evaluation workshop. (2) Data Assembly - We contacted over 80 scientists and managers to help evaluate the suitability of each candidate watershed's historical data for assessing the effectiveness of past restoration actions. We eventually settled on the Yakima, Wenatchee, Clearwater, and Salmon subbasins, and began gathering relevant data for these watersheds at a workshop with habitat experts and managers. Data assembly continued for several months after the workshop. (3) Data Analysis and Synthesis - We explored statistical approaches towards retrospectively analyzing the effects of restoration 'treatments' at nested spatial scales across multiple watersheds (Chapters 2-5 of this report). These analyses provided a foundation for identifying existing constraints to testing restoration hypotheses, and opportunities to overcome these constraints through improved experimental designs, monitoring protocols and project selection strategies (Chapters 6 and 7 of this report). Finally, we developed a set of recommendations to improve the design, implementation, and monitoring of prospective habitat restoration programs in the Columbia River Basin (Chapter 8).

Evolving restoration principles in a changing world

PDF HTML阅读 XML下载 导出引用 引用提醒 国土空间生态修复与保护空间识别——以北京市为例 DOI: 10.5846/stxb202103150692 作者: 作者单位: 作者简介: 通讯作者: 中图分类号: 基金项目: 国家自然科学基金重点项目（71533005）；中国科学院青年创新促进会（2013030） Spatial identification of territory space ecological conservation and restoration: A case study of Beijing Author: Affiliation: Fund Project: 摘要 | 图/表 | 访问统计 | 参考文献 | 相似文献 | 引证文献 | 资源附件 | 文章评论 摘要:构建国土空间修复与保护识别体系可以有效实现区域生态系统修复与保护，然而，当前国土空间生态修复与保护研究和规划缺乏从系统性和完整性的角度识别关键生态修复与保护区。因此构建了系统的生态修复与保护空间识别方法，以实现区域协调发展、保障区域生态安全。基于该方法，以北京市为例，通过评估生态系统服务、生态系统质量和生态问题，构建生态修复与保护空间格局。研究结果表明：① 2000-2015年生态系统服务和质量退化区主要集中在平原区和密云水库北部，面积为760.4 km2；生态系统质量低下区主要分布在西南部山区和东北部山区，面积为4925 km2；水土流失问题区零星分布在山区，面积为130.1 km2；基于以上三者的北京生态修复建议区总面积5606 km2。②建议北京生态保护区6391 km2，主要分布在北部山区和西南部山区，保护了79.63%的水源涵养功能，74.97%的土壤保持功能，58.79%的洪水调蓄功能和60.3%的自然栖息地。本研究构建的生态修复与保护空间识别方法体系，为北京生态修复和保护规划与生态安全格局构建提供科学依据，还可以为其他地区的生态修复与保护规划提供参考。 Abstract:A robust identification system of territory space ecological restoration and conservation can make effective contribution to regional ecosystem restoration and conservation. However, current research and planning lack the identification of key ecological restoration and conservation areas from the perspective of systematicness and integrity. This study established a systematic spatial identification method for ecological restoration and conservation to provide basis for regional coordinated development and regional ecological security. On the basis of the method, taking Beijing as a case, the spatial pattern of ecosystem restoration and conservation was explored through assessing of ecosystem services, ecosystem quality and ecological problems. The results showed that:(1) the ecosystem quality and ecosystem services increased generally in Beijing from 2000 to 2015. Ecosystem quality of forest, shrub and grassland improved by 39%. Correspondingly, water retention service, soil conservation service and flood mitigation service increased by 11%, 3% and 10%, respectively. However, ecological degradation occurred in some regions because of nature or human activities impact. The degraded areas of ecosystem services and ecosystem quality from 2000 to 2015 were mainly concentrated in the plain and the north of Miyun Reservoir, covering a total area of 760.4 km2 dominated by farmland and urban land. The areas with low ecosystem quality were mainly distributed in the mountainous areas of southwest and northeast, covering an area of about 4925 km2 dominated by forest and shrub ecosystems. The areas with severe soil erosion were scattered in mountainous areas, covering an area of about 130.1 km2 dominated by farmland and shrub. The suggested ecological restoration regions in Beijing consisted of the above mentioned three, with a total area of about 5606 km2., accounting for 34.16% of the total area of Beijing. (2) The area of ecological conservation suggested was 6391 km2, accounting for 38.95% of the total area of Beijing, mainly distributed in the northern and southwestern mountainous areas. The forest, shrub, grassland and wetland accounted for 54.81%, 34.38%, 6.53% and 4.27% of the total area of the ecological conservation space, respectively. The ecological conservation areas of Beijing could conserve 79.63% of Beijing's water retention service, 74.97% of soil conservation, 58.79% of flood regulation and storage, and 60.3% of Beijing's natural habitat. The spatial identification system of ecological restoration and conservation constructed in this study could not only serve as scientific basis for ecological restoration and conservation planning and ecological security pattern construction in Beijing, but also provide references for ecological restoration and conservation in other areas. 参考文献 相似文献 引证文献

Ecological fragmentation, resource depletion, soil erosion and other problems have a significant impact on the ecosystem. Ecological restoration helps to maintain and enhance the service function of the ecosystem. How to fully implement territorial space restoration and maintain regional sustainable development is a key issue in the identification and construction of ecological space restoration. Taking Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture as the research object, this paper discusses the ecological spatial restoration strategy under the coupling of ecological security pattern and ecological problems. Firstly, ecological remote sensing index and morphological spatial pattern analysis were used to identify ecological sources, ecological resistance surfaces and ecological corridors, and then the ecological security pattern was constructed. At the same time, based on the concept of "mountain, water, forest, farmland, lake, grass and sand", ecological problem areas are identified by constructing ecological problem index (EPI). Then the spatial superposition coupling and regional coordination coupling are carried out between the ecological security pattern and the ecological problem region. Finally, the paper puts forward a multi-directional restoration strategy of "point-line-plane", including ecological source protection, ecological corridor construction and ecological problem area restoration, in order to promote the ecological sustainable development of Gannan Prefecture.

Ecological restoration has developed greatly over recent decades. Promoting harmonious relationships between scientists and practitioners, between restoration ecology and ecological restoration, is essential to improving restoration projects. These relationships are difficult to achieve at a global scale, although international action remains essential. Therefore, regional and national networks are attempting to take up the challenge. With several European countries planning to create their own network in the coming years, insights from current practice are helpful. Here, we (1) describe the context in which ecological restoration is developing in France and (2) present the French restoration network, Réseau d'Echanges et de Valorisation en Ecologie de la Restauration (REVER). Most public policies related to restoration in France are derived from European Union (EU) directives, such as those on water, ecological networks, biodiversity, and protected species and natural habitat. Restoration can also be undertaken through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or subsequent to damage. Following the model of the International Society for Ecological Restoration, the French network for ecological restoration (REVER) aims at accompanying and promoting restoration by facilitating relationships between the various stakeholders: practitioners, scientists, site managers, etc. To encourage exchange of knowledge and experience, REVER manages a website, organizes workshops, and provides links with SER‐Europe and Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI). This article provides information that will be of interest to other countries trying to meet the Aichi targets of the convention on biological diversity: the restoration of 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020.

Identification of crucial regions in need of ecological conservation and restoration based on ecological security patterns is of utmost importance for ecological restoration across national land space with regard to China's promotion of ecological civilization. Using Changchun, the capital of northeast China, as an illustration, the study chooses ecological sources based on the importance of ecosystem services, builds an ecological security pattern using circuit theory, and organizes critical regions for ecological conservation and restoration. The findings reveal that the 20 ecological sources chosen based on ecosystem services are more concentrated on the eastern side of the city, whereas the western side of the city has a smaller overall area; 41 ecological corridors show a network distribution, among which the southeast is relatively densely distributed; 31 ecological pinch points and 15 ecological barrier points are also identified. Prioritized restoration zones, prioritized protection zones, key conservation zones, and general conservation zones were the four different types of ecological restoration regions identified by the study. Each district's prioritized restoration zones in the main metropolitan area are larger than the others; Gongzhuling's priority protection zones are the largest, and Yushu's natural substrate is the best. According to the grading, targeted solutions are suggested, offering helpful advice for the improvement of ecological patterns and ecological restoration of the aforementioned national areas.

Adapting ecosystem restoration for sustainable development in a changing world

PDF HTML阅读 XML下载 导出引用 引用提醒 生态保护与修复理论和技术国外研究进展 DOI: 10.5846/stxb201906031177 作者: 作者单位: 作者简介: 通讯作者: 中图分类号: 基金项目: “十三五”国家重点研发计划项目（2016YFC0501108，2017YFC0505904） Research progress on the theory and technology of ecological protection and restoration abroad Author: Affiliation: Fund Project: The National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) 摘要 | 图/表 | 访问统计 | 参考文献 | 相似文献 | 引证文献 | 资源附件 | 文章评论 摘要:人类进入的21世纪，是一个人类真正需要进行生态反思的世纪。反思我们与自然的关系，反思我们与地球生命支持系统中植物、动物、抑或微生物的关系，反思我们与地球环境保障系统中的江河湖海、山川大地、森林草原、城镇乡村的关系。地球生物圈尚存的完整自然生态系统愈来愈少，人类未来生存、发展及适应全球变化的珍贵缓冲区（buffers）正快速萎缩，地球表面随处可见的3D系统（degraded，damaged and destroyed ecosystems）正快速增加，人类生命支撑系统中最为重要的生物多样性也正以前所未有的速度丧失，人类生存与发展之基失稳，亟待从生态保护理念出发，探索生态技术解决方案。在辨析生态、生态保护与生态修复内涵的基础上，基于文献计量学方法，以生态保护（ecological protection）和生态修复（ecological restoration）为主题词在Web of Science上检索了生态保护与生态修复近70年发文量及国际主流杂志发文量，分析了生态系统退化机制及驱动力，总结了国外生态保护与生态修复所依托的先进理论和技术方法，以期为我国生态系统保护与退化生态系统修复提供一定的理论指导。 Abstract:The 21st century is a century in which mankind really needs ecological reflections. Rethinking on our relationship with nature, rethinking on our relationship with plants, animals, or microorganisms in the planet's life supporting systems, rethinking on our relationship with damaged mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands, towns and villages in the earth's environment supporting systems. At present, the integrated natural ecosystems in the earth's biosphere are becoming less and less, and the precious buffers for mankind's future survival, development and adaptation to global change are shrinking rapidly. Additionally, the number of the 3D systems (degraded, damaged and destroyed ecosystems) that can be seen everywhere on the earth's surface is increasing dramatically and the most important biodiversity in the supporting system of human life is falling at an unprecedented rate, and the foundation of human survival and development is unstable, so it is urgent for us to start from the concept of ecological protection and explore ecological technological solutions. Based on the scientific connotation of ecology, ecological protection and ecological restoration, and the bibliometric method, this paper searched the related articles and the publications of international mainstream magazines with the theme of ‘ecological protection’, and ‘ecological restoration’ in past 70 years on Web of Science, analyzed the ecosystem degradation mechanism and driving force, and summarized the advanced theories and techniques of ecological protection and ecological restoration abroad, which would provide some theoretical guidance for protection of fragile ecosystems and restoration of degraded ecosystems in China. 参考文献 相似文献 引证文献

The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) is one of China's largest urban agglomera-tions in terms of economic aggregate. However, accelerated urbanization have led to a series of ecological problems, including ecosystem fragmentation and imbalances in ecosystem functions. The precise identification and optimization of key ecological restoration areas are critical pathways for conducting territorial spatial ecological restoration, holding significant value for safeguarding the ecological security of the GBA. We integrated the MSPA-InVEST model with circuit theory to assess habitat quality of GBA and construct an ecological network, with which we identified key regions for ecological restoration. Based on the findings, we proposed optimization strategies for territorial spatial ecological restoration in the GBA. The results showed that the average habitat quality value across the GBA was 0.69 in 2023, indicating an overall favorable level of habitat quality. Extremely high-quality habitat areas covered 26431.8 km2, while extremely low-quality habitat areas spanned 8662.9 km2. By integrating ecological network construction and habitat quality assessment, we identified 41 ecological source optimization zones (total area: 742.8 km2), 151 ecological pinch point improvement zones (total area: 12.4 km2), and 499 ecological barrier restoration zones (total area: 158.5 km2). We proposed targeted measures for territorial spatial ecological restoration in the GBA, including structural optimization of ecological source, functional enhancement of ecological pinch point, and systematic restoration of ecological barrier areas at the regional-plot level. Our results would provide a scientific basis and practical guidance for territorial spatial ecological restoration in the GBA.

Rapid urbanization has led to ecosystem fragmentation, conversion, and degradation, posing great threats to natural habitat and biodiversity. The utilization of ecological networks has gained importance in ecological restoration planning to mitigate the negative impacts of urbanization on ecosystems. This study focused on Nanchang City, China, as a case study area to examine the application of integrated ecological networks in 2000, 2010 and 2020. This study analyzed the dynamic characteristics and spatial differences in landscape connectivity, providing evidence-based support for ecological conservation and restoration. The results indicate the following: (1) a decrease in the number of ecological sources and corridors, especially general sources and corridors, along with a decreasing trend in their importance; (2) an increase in ecological barrier points and breakpoints over time, especially in the southeastern region of the study area; and (3) the identification of ecological conservation priority areas, ecological improvement priority areas, and ecological restoration points based on connectivity and dynamic analysis. Multiple priority actions were proposed, which remarkably improved network connectivity and strengthened biodiversity conservation. Our research provides a valuable reference for identifying ecological priorities and developing ecological protection and ecological restoration actions in highly urbanized areas.

The wider effects of fishing on marine ecosystems have become the focus of growing concern among scientists, fisheries managers and the fishing industry. The present review examines the role of habitat structure and habitat heterogeneity in marine ecosystems, and the effects of fishing (i.e. trawling and dredging) on these two components of habitat complexity. Three examples from New Zealand and Australia are considered, where available evidence suggests that fishing has been associated with the degradation or loss of habitat structure through the removal of large epibenthic organisms, with concomitant effects on fish species which occupy these habitats. With ever‐increasing demands on fish‐stocks and the need for sustainable use of fisheries resources, new approaches to fisheries management are needed. Fisheries management needs to address the sustainability of fish‐stocks while minimizing the direct and indirect impacts of fishing on other components of the ecosystem. Two long‐term management tools for mitigating degradation or loss of habitat structure while maintaining healthy sustainable fisheries which are increasingly considered by fisheries scientists and managers are: (1) protective habitat management, which involves the designation of protected marine and coastal areas which are afforded some level of protection from fishing; and (2) habitat restoration, whereby important habitat and ecological functions are restored following the loss of habitat and/or resources. Nevertheless, the protection of marine and coastal areas, and habitat restoration should not be seen as solutions replacing conventional management approaches, but need to be components of an integrated programme of coastal zone and fisheries management. A number of recent international fisheries agreements have specifically identified the need to provide for habitat protection and restoration to ensure long‐term sustainability of fisheries. The protection and restoration of habitat are also common components of fisheries management programs under national fisheries law and policy.

厦漳泉地区是福建省开展生态保护修复的关键区域，识别、预警国土空间生态薄弱区对实施国土空间生态修复具有重要意义。研究通过MSPA、MCR等模型方法识别2000-2018年动态稳定性与连通性兼具的生态源地，提取生态廊道、生态节点等构建该地区的生态安全格局，采用FLUS模型在生态安全格局限制下模拟2030年土地利用变化，综合划分厦漳泉地区国土空间生态保护修复区并展开预警。结果表明，厦漳泉地区生态安全格局由12个生态源地，66条潜在生态廊道、13条重要生态廊道与若干生态节点等构成，生态源地主要分布在研究区西部，生态廊道为纵横交错的网状结构，部分生境较脆弱的县（区）无生态源地与廊道分布，生态节点集聚特征显著；2030年研究区耕地、林地面积呈减少趋势，建设用地面积增幅显著，建设用地向四周的耕地与林地呈环状扩张，挤压生态空间，威胁生态源地与廊道。综上，研究划分了1个生态源地保护带、2个生态修复核心区，并明确生态保护空间预警点，可为完善国土空间生态安全格局的保护与建设等提供基础信息，对开展生态保护修复协同治理、提升区域生态环境质量与人民福祉有重要意义。;Xiamen-Zhangzhou-Quanzhou Region is located in the southeast of Fujian Province, China. It's a crucial area of ecological protection and restoration in Fujian Province. The identification and warning of fragile ecological area means significantly to implementation of ecological restoration. Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) model, Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model and other methods were utilized to build ecological security pattern in this region. At the meantime, the ecological sources were dynamically stable and connected. Then, land use change in 2030 was simulated by using the FLUS model under the restriction of the ecological security pattern. It means the area of ecological sources was restricted from changing during this period. FLUS model also comprehensively divided the territory ecological protection and restoration area into different kinds and warned the potential risk. The results showed that the ecological security pattern of the study area was composed of 12 ecological sources, 66 potential ecological corridors, 13 important ecological corridors and several ecological nodes. The ecological sources were mainly distributed in the west of the study area, which was composed of mountains, hills and rivers.. And the ecological corridors widely spread out into a complicated network. Some counties (districts) with fragile habitats had no ecological sources and corridors distribution like Shishi, Jinjiang. The ecological nodes were massively gathering together in Nan'an and Zhangzhou city. After that, it's predicted in 2030, the area of cultivated land and woodland in the study area would gradually decrease about 2.59% and 1.14% due to great expansion of construction land. As the construction land expanded to the surrounding cultivated land and woodland in a circular way, it was squeezing the ecological space and threatening the ecological sources area and corridors. The expansion patterns of coastal areas and inland areas in the study area were different. The construction land of coastal cities and counties mainly expanded in a belt shape, while the original built-up areas mainly expanded outward in a ring shape. In conclusion, this study separated one ecological sources protection belt and two ecological restoration cores, and pointed out the potential risk of ecological protection space. They were significantly concentrated in Quanzhou and Zhangzhou districts. Meanwhile, it is expected to give some fundamental information to further improvement of ecological security of territorial space. Also, we believe that it can contribute a lot to carry out synergy governance of ecological protection and restoration, as well as to promote regional ecology quality and human's well-being.

Identification of critical ecological restoration and early warning regions in the five-lakes basin of central Yunnan

This book features 12 case studies on biodiversity education projects developed by Regional Centres of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development (RCEs), conducted from 2015–2019. The book explores innovative ways to educate, engage, and spur action in communities towards the protection and restoration of ecosystems, species, and habitats on local and regional scale. It provides recommendations on starting and scaling up practices based on the experiences of the RCEs. Key areas addressed within the publication include land use change, fragmentation of habitats, habitat rehabilitation, conservation of vascular plant species, and restoration of mangrove ecosystems.