Tropical forest service flows: improving our understanding of the biophysical dimension of ecosystem services
Tropical forest service flows: improving our understanding of the biophysical dimension of ecosystem services
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.foreco.2009.06.025
复制
发表时间：
2009-10
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
M. Guariguata;P. Balvanera
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Guariguata;P. Balvanera
千年生态系统评估(2005年)以许多令人信服的方式强调了保持稳定的生态系统服务1对实现可持续发展和满足人类关键需求的重要性。然而，在将生态系统服务概念完全纳入保护和发展的实际方法方面面临许多挑战(例如，Ghazul，2007a，b)。这些挑战之一是缺乏关于大多数此类服务的库存和流动的系统信息(Carpenter等人，2009年)。在“调节”服务的情况下尤其如此，这种服务本质上是与人类福祉相关的生态过程，并且在不同的空间尺度上运作(表1)。反过来，在当前的自然资源使用模式下，许多这些监管服务容易下降和/或降级，因为它们通常不能涵盖生产、交换和监管的主流模式(即，它们被视为公共产品)，而不是来自农业的供应服务(例如，食品、纤维)(Swinton等人，2007年)。为了确保监管服务的提供，通过“提供者”和“受益者”之间的或有合同，出现了一种相对较新的环境管理方式。从设计和实施“补偿和奖励计划”或“环境服务付款”(我们此后将两者简称为PES)中吸取的经验教训最近是从环境经济学(例如，WUnder等人，2008年)和减贫(例如，Bulte等人，2008年)的角度综合的，而不是从它们的生物物理层面综合的。有人认为，如果生态系统服务的概念要对自然保护做出有效的贡献，那么生态系统服务是如何产生的以及以什么速度产生的生物物理基础需要进一步研究(Kreman，2005；Kreman和Ostfeld，2005)。本期特刊包括关于热带森林地区生态系统服务的生物物理组成部分的概念、分析和经验方面的文章，重点是与生境保护的联系和对生境保护的影响。热带森林提供了许多在不同空间尺度上运作的监管服务。例如，它们是大气碳循环中的全球参与者(Clark，2007)，调节区域降雨制度(Salati和Vose，1984)，并为小农户农场的农作物授粉者提供避难所(Ricketts，2004)。在热带，数百万人依靠森林生态系统服务维持传统和当代生计(Bawa等人，2004年)，森林覆盖的年度损失有增无减(粮农组织，2006年)，研究人员和自然资源管理者之间的信息差距最大(Du Toit等人，2004年)。本期特刊的所有文章都涉及在中小空间尺度(“景观尺度”；即小流域、农业景观；通常在10至100平方公里之间)提供以森林为基础的调节服务(明确不包括固定大气碳)。
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) stressed, in many compelling ways, the importance of maintaining a steady flow of ecosystem services 1 for both achieving sustainable development and satisfying critical human needs. Yet many challenges lie ahead to fully incorporate the ecosystem services concept into practical approaches to conservation and development (eg, Ghazoul, 2007a, b). One of these challenges is scarcity of systematic information on stocks and flows of most of these services (Carpenter et al., 2009). This is particularly true in the case of ‘‘regulating’’services which, in essence, are ecological processes that are relevant for human well being and that operate at varying spatial scales (Table 1). In turn, many of these regulating services are prone to decline and/or degrade under current natural resource use patterns as they are usually unable to capture the prevailing paradigms of production, exchange and regulation (that is, they are considered public goods), as opposed to provisioning services (eg, food, fiber) derived from agriculture (Swinton et al., 2007). In order to secure the provision of regulating services, a relatively new kind of environmental management has emerged through contingent contracts between ‘providers’ and ‘beneficiaries’. Lessons learned from the design and implementation of ‘compensation and reward schemes’ or ‘payments for environmental services’(we use hereafter the acronym PES for both) have been recently synthesized from the perspective of environmental economics (eg, Wunder et al., 2008) and poverty reduction (eg, Bulte et al., 2008) yet less from their biophysical dimension. It is argued that if the ecosystem services concept is to make effective contributions to nature conservation, the biophysical underpinnings of how, and at what rates, ecosystems services are generated are in need of further scrutiny (Kremen, 2005; Kremen and Ostfeld, 2005). This Special Issue includes articles covering conceptual, analytical and empirical aspects on the biophysical component of ecosystem services in forested tropical areas—with emphasis on both the links to, and implications for, habitat conservation. Tropical forests provide many regulating services that operate at different spatial scales. For example, they are global players in the atmospheric carbon cycle (Clark, 2007), modulate regional rainfall regimes (Salati and Vose, 1984), and provide refugia for pollinators of agricultural crops in small-holder farms (Ricketts, 2004). It is also in the tropics where millions of people rely on forest ecosystem services to sustain traditional and contemporary livelihoods (Bawa et al., 2004), where annual loss of forest cover continues unabated (FAO, 2006), and also where the information gap between researchers and natural resource managers is widest (Du Toit et al., 2004). All the articles in this Special Issue deal with the provision of forest-based regulating services (explicitly excluded is fixation of atmospheric carbon) at small to medium spatial scales (‘landscape scale’; ie, small watersheds, agricultural landscapes; usually between 10 and 100 km2).