{"title":"确定景观结构对中国西南山区生态系统服务束之间生态系统服务权衡的影响","authors":"Weijie Li , Jinwen Kang , Yong Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Environmental Managers strive to enhance synergistic provisioning of ecosystem services (ESs) by optimizing landscape structure. However, understanding the impact of landscape structure on ESs trade-offs relationships from ESs bundles perspective is inadequate, particularly in distinguishing the relative contributions of landscape compositions and configurations. To fill this gap, taking the Southwest (SW) China as an example, this study quantified five relevant provisioning and regulating services, including grain production (GP), water retention (WR), carbon sequestration (CS), soil retention (SR), and habitat quality (HQ), based on biological models; analyzed the trade-offs/synergies relationships among ESs through Pearson correlation and bivariate spatial autocorrelation; further identified ESs bundles and explored the relationship between ESs trade-offs and landscape structure with the help of self-organizing map (SOM) method and redundancy analysis (RDA). Our results showed land use types influenced the spatial distribution of the five ESs, with the dominant land use in hotspot areas being forest land, and in coldspot areas being farmland and grassland. Four ESs bundles were identified based on spatial differentiation and internal structure characteristics. In the entire SW, the regulating services showed synergistic relationships with each other. However, a few trade-offs existed in different bundles (e.g., WR-CS and WR-SR in bundle 1; GP-HQ and GP-WR in bundle 2; GP-SR in bundle 3; GP-CS in bundles 4). Landscape compositions showed a stronger influence on ESs trade-offs than landscape configuration. The area proportion of woodland contributed the most to ESs in the entire SW and within bundle 1–3, while the area proportion of cultivated land was the main driver of ESs within bundle 4, indicating there was scale dependence in the relationship between landscape composition and ESs. The findings can propose targeted management measures for regional ecosystems to enhance human welfare and achieve regional high-quality development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"209 ","pages":"Article 107419"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying the impacts of landscape structure on ecosystem services trade-offs among ecosystem services bundles in the mountains of Southwest China\",\"authors\":\"Weijie Li , Jinwen Kang , Yong Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Environmental Managers strive to enhance synergistic provisioning of ecosystem services (ESs) by optimizing landscape structure. However, understanding the impact of landscape structure on ESs trade-offs relationships from ESs bundles perspective is inadequate, particularly in distinguishing the relative contributions of landscape compositions and configurations. To fill this gap, taking the Southwest (SW) China as an example, this study quantified five relevant provisioning and regulating services, including grain production (GP), water retention (WR), carbon sequestration (CS), soil retention (SR), and habitat quality (HQ), based on biological models; analyzed the trade-offs/synergies relationships among ESs through Pearson correlation and bivariate spatial autocorrelation; further identified ESs bundles and explored the relationship between ESs trade-offs and landscape structure with the help of self-organizing map (SOM) method and redundancy analysis (RDA). Our results showed land use types influenced the spatial distribution of the five ESs, with the dominant land use in hotspot areas being forest land, and in coldspot areas being farmland and grassland. Four ESs bundles were identified based on spatial differentiation and internal structure characteristics. In the entire SW, the regulating services showed synergistic relationships with each other. However, a few trade-offs existed in different bundles (e.g., WR-CS and WR-SR in bundle 1; GP-HQ and GP-WR in bundle 2; GP-SR in bundle 3; GP-CS in bundles 4). Landscape compositions showed a stronger influence on ESs trade-offs than landscape configuration. The area proportion of woodland contributed the most to ESs in the entire SW and within bundle 1–3, while the area proportion of cultivated land was the main driver of ESs within bundle 4, indicating there was scale dependence in the relationship between landscape composition and ESs. The findings can propose targeted management measures for regional ecosystems to enhance human welfare and achieve regional high-quality development.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"volume\":\"209 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107419\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424002441\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424002441","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Identifying the impacts of landscape structure on ecosystem services trade-offs among ecosystem services bundles in the mountains of Southwest China
Environmental Managers strive to enhance synergistic provisioning of ecosystem services (ESs) by optimizing landscape structure. However, understanding the impact of landscape structure on ESs trade-offs relationships from ESs bundles perspective is inadequate, particularly in distinguishing the relative contributions of landscape compositions and configurations. To fill this gap, taking the Southwest (SW) China as an example, this study quantified five relevant provisioning and regulating services, including grain production (GP), water retention (WR), carbon sequestration (CS), soil retention (SR), and habitat quality (HQ), based on biological models; analyzed the trade-offs/synergies relationships among ESs through Pearson correlation and bivariate spatial autocorrelation; further identified ESs bundles and explored the relationship between ESs trade-offs and landscape structure with the help of self-organizing map (SOM) method and redundancy analysis (RDA). Our results showed land use types influenced the spatial distribution of the five ESs, with the dominant land use in hotspot areas being forest land, and in coldspot areas being farmland and grassland. Four ESs bundles were identified based on spatial differentiation and internal structure characteristics. In the entire SW, the regulating services showed synergistic relationships with each other. However, a few trade-offs existed in different bundles (e.g., WR-CS and WR-SR in bundle 1; GP-HQ and GP-WR in bundle 2; GP-SR in bundle 3; GP-CS in bundles 4). Landscape compositions showed a stronger influence on ESs trade-offs than landscape configuration. The area proportion of woodland contributed the most to ESs in the entire SW and within bundle 1–3, while the area proportion of cultivated land was the main driver of ESs within bundle 4, indicating there was scale dependence in the relationship between landscape composition and ESs. The findings can propose targeted management measures for regional ecosystems to enhance human welfare and achieve regional high-quality development.
期刊介绍:
Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers.
Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.