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

IF 3.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecological Engineering Pub Date : 2024-10-05 DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107419
Weijie Li , Jinwen Kang , Yong Wang
{"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 ,&nbsp;Jinwen Kang ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Jinwen Kang ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境管理人员努力通过优化景观结构来加强生态系统服务(ES)的协同供应。然而,从生态系统服务束的角度来理解景观结构对生态系统服务权衡关系的影响是不够的,尤其是在区分景观组成和配置的相对贡献方面。为填补这一空白,本研究以中国西南地区为例,基于生物模型量化了五种相关的提供和调节服务,包括粮食生产(GP)、水源涵养(WR)、碳固存(CS)、土壤保持(SR)和生境质量(HQ);通过皮尔逊相关性和双变量空间自相关性分析了各生态系统之间的权衡/协同关系;进一步确定了生态系统束,并借助自组织图(SOM)方法和冗余分析(RDA)探讨了生态系统权衡与景观结构之间的关系。结果表明,土地利用类型影响了五种生态系统的空间分布,热点地区的主要土地利用类型为林地,冷点地区的主要土地利用类型为农田和草地。根据空间分异和内部结构特征,确定了四个生态系统束。在整个西南部,调节服务之间呈现出协同关系。然而,在不同束中存在一些权衡关系(例如,束 1 中的 WR-CS 和 WR-SR;束 2 中的 GP-HQ 和 GP-WR;束 3 中的 GP-SR;束 4 中的 GP-CS)。与景观配置相比,景观构成对 ESs 权衡的影响更大。在整个西南部和第 1-3 组中,林地的面积比例对 ESs 的贡献最大,而在第 4 组中,耕地的面积比例是 ESs 的主要驱动因素,这表明景观组成与 ESs 之间的关系存在规模依赖性。研究结果可为区域生态系统提出有针对性的管理措施,以提高人类福祉,实现区域高质量发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecological Engineering
Ecological Engineering 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
293
审稿时长
57 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Effects of restorative treatments confirmed in a restored pond Living in a material world: Support for the use of natural and alternative materials in coastal restoration and living shorelines Editorial Board Long term performance of Nature-Based Solutions as decentralized wastewater treatment: a case study of a retail store in southern Italy Are floating mangrove breakwaters effective for wave attenuation? - A Literature Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1