Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection.
Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pbio.1002052
复制
发表时间：
2015-01
期刊：
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Klein CJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Possingham HP;Bode M;Klein CJ
保护成果主要是通过保护完整的生境或恢复退化的生境来实现的。恢复通常被认为是比保护优先级低的行动，因为保护被认为以较低的成本提供更好的结果，而不需要恢复所需的时间延迟。然而，尽管人们普遍认为，与恢复后的栖息地相比，受保护的完整栖息地保护了更多的生物多样性，并在单位面积上提供了更大的生态系统服务，但保护工作缺乏一种理论，可以连贯地比较这两种行动的相对结果。我们使用动态景观模型将这两种行为整合为一个统一的保护与恢复保护理论。利用非线性效益函数，我们表明这两种行动都是寻求优化生物多样性保护或生态系统服务提供的保护策略的关键组成部分。与传统的保护观念相反，在某些情况下，修复比保护更重要。保护和恢复的相对优先次序取决于它们的费用，也取决于保护和恢复所固有的不同时间滞后。我们推导出一个简单且易于解释的启发式方法，将这些因素整合到一个方程中，该方程同样适用于生物多样性保护和生态系统服务目标。我们用两个例子来说明这一理论：热带雨林中的鸟类保护和红树林提供的海岸防御。在保护生物多样性或生态系统服务方面，预防并不总是比治疗好。在所有可用的完整栖息地得到保护之前，最好开始栖息地恢复。大多数物种灭绝是因为人类破坏了它们的栖息地。栖息地的丧失还可能导致人们失去生态系统提供的一些服务，例如从大气中去除二氧化碳或保护沿海社区免受风暴破坏。阻止和扭转栖息地丧失有两大策略：我们可以保护目前完好无损的栖息地，或者我们可以恢复已经被砍伐的栖息地。从表面上看，我们可能会认为，与人类健康一样，“预防胜于治疗”，因此，栖息地保护应该优先于栖息地恢复。然而，目前还没有科学理论来证明这种观点。在这里，我们使用生态系统模型和动态优化工具从数学中显示，栖息地恢复（如植树）可以令人惊讶地比栖息地保护（如指定国家公园）更具成本效益。我们发现，最佳决策取决于两种行动的相对成本，栖息地丧失的速度，以及恢复栖息地与完整栖息地在保护物种和生态系统服务方面的作用之间的时间差。
Conservation outcomes are principally achieved through the protection of intact habitat or the restoration of degraded habitat. Restoration is generally considered a lower priority action than protection because protection is thought to provide superior outcomes, at lower costs, without the time delay required for restoration. Yet while it is broadly accepted that protected intact habitat safeguards more biodiversity and generates greater ecosystem services per unit area than restored habitat, conservation lacks a theory that can coherently compare the relative outcomes of the two actions. We use a dynamic landscape model to integrate these two actions into a unified conservation theory of protection and restoration. Using nonlinear benefit functions, we show that both actions are crucial components of a conservation strategy that seeks to optimise either biodiversity conservation or ecosystem services provision. In contrast to conservation orthodoxy, in some circumstances, restoration should be strongly preferred to protection. The relative priority of protection and restoration depends on their costs and also on the different time lags that are inherent to both protection and restoration. We derive a simple and easy-to-interpret heuristic that integrates these factors into a single equation that applies equally to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service objectives. We use two examples to illustrate the theory: bird conservation in tropical rainforests and coastal defence provided by mangrove forests. In conservation, prevention is not always better than cure, either for protecting biodiversity or ecosystem services. It can be better to start habitat restoration before all available intact habitat has been protected. Most species go extinct because humans have cleared their habitat. Habitat loss can also cause people to lose some of the services provided by ecosystems, such as the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or the protection of coastal communities from storm damage. There are two broad strategies for stopping and reversing habitat loss: we can either protect habitat that is currently intact, or we can restore habitat that has already been cleared. Superficially, we might imagine that, as with human health, “prevention is better than cure,” and that therefore habitat protection should be given priority over habitat restoration. However, there is currently no scientific theory to justify this belief. Here, we used an ecosystem model and dynamic optimization tools from mathematics to show that habitat restoration (such as tree planting) can, surprisingly, be more cost-effective than habitat protection (such as designating a national park) for two case studies. We discovered that the best decision depends on the relative costs of the two actions, the rate at which habitat is being lost, and the time lag between restored habitat being as useful as intact habitat for securing species and ecosystem services.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Bode, Michael;Probert, Will;Venter, Oscar
通讯作者：
Venter, Oscar
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.0710705105
发表时间：
2008-04-29
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Bode, Michael;Wilson, Kerrie A.;Possingham, Hugh P.
通讯作者：
Possingham, Hugh P.
影响因子：
56.9
作者：
Ando, A;Camm, J;Solow, A
通讯作者：
Solow, A
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Hobbs, RJ;Harris, JA
通讯作者：
Harris, JA
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Aide, TM;Zimmerman, JK;Marcano-Vega, H
通讯作者：
Marcano-Vega, H