Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology
Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00615.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Haber, W
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haber, W
“景观”作为（陆地）生态学的一个学科可以这样解释：一是由不同生态系统组成的一块土地；其次，作为源自18、19世纪山水画和公园的审美感知的整体实体。这些实体表现出一种被视为整体的“景观元素”的特征排列，将它们拆开进行具体研究将分解并实际上破坏它（例如，分解为单个音符的交响曲）。景观作为一个整体实体满足了人类的情感需求，如区域认同，并解释了游客的吸引力。 “实体特征”是指土地利用和土地覆盖，具有开放性和一定的自然性。一个关键问题是，你是否将地球表面的一块称为“陆地”或“景观”——以及为什么。这些问题触及景观生态学和人类生态学之间的界面。但人类生态学绝不能忽视景观功能。如果不能提供基本的生命支持，再美丽的风景也将沦为一幅图画。因此，景观生态系统之间的能量和物质流动和转变必须与其气候、地貌（地形）、土壤、水文、物种和生态系统多样性一起确定。然而，这些不同的方法可能永远不会组合成一个统一的整体。不存在“超级科学”，顺便说一句，它的复杂性远远超出了人类大脑的能力。我们所能实现的是通过近似选定的事实来搭建桥梁。多样化土地利用单元（生态位）的有意识的空间安排将促进（生物）多样性，并可能被视为一个完整的景观格局。在空间和时间上向土地利用单位输入不同的能量将导致利用强度的梯度，并使更多的物种繁衍生息，再次增强多样性和景观美感。现代人类刻意选择人工环境来实现完全的环境控制，即使是在乡村生活方式中也是如此。但就情感需求而言，这种人造性似乎既不符合人类，也不符合生态。缺乏“自然”的东西，而整体意义上的景观可以提供它——无论是城市中的景观开放空间、乡村景观、海滨还是山脉。维护和管理这种“自然性”需要良好的生态知识——其本身并不是目的，而是为人类提供一座桥梁。
'Landscape' as a subject of (terrestrial) ecology can be interpreted: first, as a piece of land composed of different ecosystems; and second, as a holistic entity of aesthetic perception derived from landscape paintings and parks of the 18th and 19th century. Such entities display a characteristic arrangement of 'landscape elements' regarded as a whole and taking them apart for specific investigation will break up and virtually destroy it (e.g. a symphony dissociated into single notes). Landscape as a holistic entity satisfies emotional human needs like identification with regions, and explains the attraction of tourists. 'Entity features' are land-use and land cover combined with openness and a certain naturalness. A key question is whether you call a piece of the earth's surface just 'land' or 'landscape'- and why. Such questions touch the interface between landscape ecology and human ecology. But human ecology must not dismiss landscape functions. The most beautiful landscape will be reduced to a mere picture if it does not also provide basic life-support. Therefore, energy and matter flows and transformations between the ecosystems of a landscape have to be determined along with its climate, geomorphology (relief), soils, hydrology, species and ecosystem diversity. These different approaches, however, may never be combined into a unified whole. There is no 'superscience', and incidentally, its complexity would by far exceed human brain capacity. What we can achieve is bridge-building by approximation of selected facts. A conscious spatial arrangement of diversified land-use units (ecotopes) will promote (bio)diversity and may be perceived as an integral landscape pattern. A spatially and temporally differentiated energy input into land-use units will result in a gradient of utilization intensity and allow more species to thrive, again enhancing both diversity and landscape beauty. Modern humans have deliberately chosen artificial surroundings to achieve complete environmental control, even in rural lifestyles. But as far as emotional needs are concerned, this artificiality seems to be neither human nor ecological. Something 'natural' is lacking, and landscape in its holistic sense can provide it - be it a landscaped open space in a city, a rural scene, a seashore or a mountain range. Maintaining and managing such 'naturalness' requires sound ecological knowledge - not as an aim in itself, but to provide a bridge for humans.