Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base
Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fenvs.2022.905767
复制
发表时间：
2022-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Isabel Key;Alison C. Smith;B. Turner;A. Chausson;C. Girardin;Megan Macgillivray;N. Seddon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Isabel Key;Alison C. Smith;B. Turner;A. Chausson;C. Girardin;Megan Macgillivray;N. Seddon
基于自然的解决方案（NbS）在应对气候和生物多样性危机方面的潜力日益得到认可。这两种结果都依赖于国家生态系统支持和增强生态系统健康的能力：其生物多样性、其非生物和生物要素的状况，以及其在环境变化情况下继续发挥作用的能力。然而，尽管近年来人们对国家统计局在减缓气候变化方面的生态系统健康成果有所了解，但对为适应而实施的国家统计局的成果仍然知之甚少。为了解决这个问题，我们系统地回顾了109项基于自然的气候变化适应干预措施的结果，使用了8大类（如多样性、生物量、生态系统组成）的33个生态系统健康指标。我们发现，88%的干预措施报告了气候变化适应的积极结果，也报告了生态系统健康的益处。我们还发现，干预措施与物种丰富度平均增加67%有关。所有八项报告了减缓和适应气候变化的好处的研究也支持生态系统的健康，从而实现了“三赢”。然而，也有权衡，主要是为了森林管理和创造新的生态系统，如非本地物种的单一栽培种植园。我们的综述强调了我们对国家统计局对生态系统健康结果的理解中的两个关键局限性。首先，使用的指标选择有限，这些指标很少包括功能多样性和栖息地连通性等关键方面。其次，分类学覆盖有限：50%的干预措施只有对植物产生影响的证据，57%的结果没有区分本地和非本地物种。我们就如何改进国家统计局的生态系统健康结果评估提出了建议，并提出了政策建议，以使国家统计局能够支持繁荣和有弹性的生态系统，并有效地实现气候和生物多样性目标。
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognised for their potential to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. Both these outcomes rely on the capacity of NbS to support and enhance the health of an ecosystem: its biodiversity, the condition of its abiotic and biotic elements, and its capacity to continue to function despite environmental change. However, while understanding of ecosystem health outcomes of NbS for climate change mitigation has developed in recent years, the outcomes of those implemented for adaptation remain poorly understood. To address this, we systematically reviewed the outcomes of 109 nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation using 33 indicators of ecosystem health across eight broad categories (e.g., diversity, biomass, ecosystem composition). We showed that 88% of interventions with reported positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported benefits for ecosystem health. We also showed that interventions were associated with a 67% average increase in species richness. All eight studies that reported benefits for both climate change mitigation and adaptation also supported ecosystem health, leading to a “triple win.” However, there were also trade-offs, mainly for forest management and creation of novel ecosystems such as monoculture plantations of non-native species. Our review highlights two key limitations in our understanding of the outcomes of NbS for ecosystem health. First, a limited selection of metrics are used and these rarely include key aspects such as functional diversity and habitat connectivity. Second, taxonomic coverage is limited: 50% of interventions only had evidence for effects on plants, and 57% of outcomes did not distinguish between native and non-native species. We make suggestions of how to improve assessments of the ecosystem health outcomes of NbS, as well as policy recommendations to enable the upscaling of NbS that support flourishing and resilient ecosystems, and are effective in addressing both climate and biodiversity goals.