Ecosystem services of ‘Trees Outside Forests (TOF)’ and their contribution to the contemporary sustainability agenda: a systematic review
Ecosystem services of ‘Trees Outside Forests (TOF)’ and their contribution to the contemporary sustainability agenda: a systematic review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1088/2515-7620/ac9d86
复制
发表时间：
2022-10
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
C. S. Peros;R. Dasgupta;R. Estoque;Mrittika Basu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. S. Peros;R. Dasgupta;R. Estoque;Mrittika Basu
在联合国粮农组织2000年全球森林资源评估中，森林以外的树木（TOF）被认为是可持续发展的重要组成部分。然而，今天，TOF仍然是一种被低估的资源，没有对TOF提供的广泛生态系统服务进行全面审查，也没有对全球组成TOF的树种多样性进行全面审查。因此，对TOF进行全球分析对于量化它们对可持续发展和国际气候倡议的贡献至关重要。通过对相关文献的梳理，(1)建立了生态系统服务类型、地理分布、土地利用类型和空间格局等信息库；(2)记录了全球构成TOF的树种多样性。通过文献筛选，我们分析了来自20个国家的28篇文献中的203种TOF；另有来自57个国家的15篇文章没有包含分类学信息。我们的研究结果表明，TOF研究的全球分布偏向于欧洲，揭示了全球南方的数据不足，尽管它对生物多样性和生态系统服务做出了贡献。我们还观察到生态系统服务类型偏向于调节和支持服务，缺乏对TOF提供的文化和供应服务的研究。此外，也缺乏在城市地区进行的研究。为了充分发挥TOF对可持续发展和气候倡议的潜力，我们得出结论，必须在国家和政府间报告机制下建立对其生态系统服务的更全面的了解。
Trees Outside Forests (TOF) were recognized in the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization’s 2000 Global Forest Resource Assessment as an essential component of sustainable development. Today, however, TOF remain an undervalued resource, with no comprehensive review of the wide spectrum of ecosystem services that are provided by TOF nor of the diversity of tree species that comprises TOF globally. Thus, a global analysis of TOF is vital to quantify their contribution to sustainable development and international climate initiatives. We reviewed the scientific literature to (1) classify and compile a repository of information on TOF resources, including the types of ecosystem services provided by TOF, geographic distribution, land-use type, and spatial pattern; and (2) document the diversity of tree species that comprises TOF globally. After screening the literature, 203 species of TOF were investigated across 20 countries in the 28 articles that we analyzed; another 15 articles across 57 countries did not include taxonomic information. Our results showed that the global distribution of TOF studies was biased toward Europe, revealing data deficiencies across the Global South, despite its contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem services. We also observed a bias in ecosystem service type toward regulating and supporting services, with studies lacking in cultural and provisioning services provided by TOF. Furthermore, studies conducted in urban areas were also lacking. To realize the full potential of TOF for sustainable development and climate initiatives, we conclude that a more holistic understanding of their ecosystem services must be established under national and intergovernmental reporting mechanisms.