基于生产可能性边界的黄河三角洲湿地生态系统服务权衡强度
作者简介:杨薇(1979- ),女,河北辛集人,副教授,主要从事滨海湿地生态系统研究。E-mail: yangwei@bnu.edu.cn
收稿日期: 2019-07-10
要求修回日期: 2019-10-20
网络出版日期: 2019-12-28
基金资助
国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFC0404505,2018YFC1406404)
国家自然科学基金项目(51579012)
中国工程院咨询研究项目(2018-XZ-14)
Determining the intensity of the trade-offs among ecosystem services based on production-possibility frontiers: Model development and a case study
Received date: 2019-07-10
Request revised date: 2019-10-20
Online published: 2019-12-28
Copyright
提出了一种基于生产可能性边界(PPF)的湿地生态系统服务权衡强度计算方法,包括湿地生态系统服务定量评估、权衡关系判定、PPF曲线绘制和权衡强度计算四个步骤。以黄河三角洲湿地为研究对象,对保护情景、现状发展情景及开发情景三种土地利用发展模式下的主导生态系统服务进行了定量化权衡分析。结果表明:各生态系统服务间呈现显著相关关系(R2≥0.9,P<0.01),各发展情景下,栖息地质量与碳储量之间均为协同关系;物质生产与栖息地质量间均为权衡关系,排序为保护情景<基期<现状发展情景<开发情景;而对于物质生产与碳储量之间,在保护及现状发展情景下存在协同关系;而开发情景下转变为权衡关系。该模型通过灵活比较不同生态服务间权衡关系分析进行系列管理规划的方案优选,为实现区域可持续发展提供科学依据。
杨薇 , 靳宇弯 , 孙立鑫 , 孙涛 , 邵冬冬 . 基于生产可能性边界的黄河三角洲湿地生态系统服务权衡强度[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019 , 34(12) : 2516 -2528 . DOI: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20191203
We developed a four-step method to quantify trade-offs among ecosystem services: evaluate the targeted services at different spatial-temporal scales; identify whether a trade-off exists between pairs of ecosystem services; graph the production-possibility frontier curve; and use that curve to calculate the trade-off intensity between services. Using China's Yellow River Delta wetlands as a case study, we examined the potential trade-offs between material production, carbon storage, and habitat quality under three land-use scenarios (business-as-usual, protection, and exploitation). We found significant correlations between all pairs of the three ecosystem services. Trade-offs existed between material production and habitat quality in all scenarios, with the following order of intensity: protection (6.4) < 2015 status quo (21.8) < business as usual (22.5) < exploitation (24.3). Synergies always existed between habitat quality and carbon storage. The material production and carbon storage services were synergistic in the protection and business as usual scenarios, but they exhibited a trade-off in the exploitation scenario, with a trade-off intensity (59.9) comparable to that (60.3) in the 2015 status quo. The methodology can be flexibly used to analyze trade-offs and compare alternative management plans, thereby revealing the optimal management, which provides a scientific basis for achieving sustainable regional development and resource management.
Fig. 1 Framework for evaluation of the trade-off intensity among pairs of ecosystem services图1 不同生态系统间生态系统服务权衡强度计算框架 |
Fig. 2 Study area图2 研究区域示意图 |
Fig. 3 Original landscape in 2015 and the new land use/land cover in 2020 under the three scenarios图3 基期(2015年)与2020年不同情景下的土地利用类型图 |
Fig. 4 Changes in the area of each land use/land cover under the three scenarios compared with the year 2015图4 不同情景下较基期(2015年)的土地利用面积变化 |
Fig. 5 Spatial distribution of carbon density values under the three scenarios图5 不同情景下的碳密度分布 |
Table 1 Average carbon density and total carbon storage under the three scenarios表1 研究区域不同情景下的平均碳密度及总碳储量 |
基期 | 保护情景 | BaU情景 | 开发情景 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
平均碳密度/(t/hm2) | 209.63 | 231.42 | 214.79 | 177.60 |
总碳储量/106 t | 7.84 | 8.65 | 8.03 | 6.64 |
Fig. 6 Spatial distribution of the habitat quality scores under the three scenarios图6 不同情景下的栖息地质量分布 |
Fig. 7 Spatial distribution of material production values under the three scenarios图7 不同情景下的物质生产服务价值分布 |
Fig. 8 The correlations (Spearman's rs) among the three ecosystem services under the three scenarios图8 不同情景下研究区域3种生态系统服务的相关性 |
Fig. 9 The trade-offs curve between multiple ecosystem services under the three scenarios图9 不同情景下的多重生态系统服务间的权衡曲线 |
Table 2 Changes in the trade-off intensity index among the three ecosystem services under the three scenarios表2 不同情景下生态系统服务之间的权衡强度 |
权衡 | 权衡强度指数 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
2015年 | 保护情景 | BaU情景 | 开发情景 | |
物质生产与栖息地质量 | 21.8 | 6.4 | 22.5 | 24.3 |
物质生产与碳储量 | 60.3 | — | — | 59.9 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
[
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
[
|
[21] |
[
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
[
|
[24] |
[
|
[25] |
[
|
[26] |
[
|
[27] |
[
|
[28] |
[
|
[29] |
[
|
[30] |
[
|
[31] |
[
|
[32] |
[
|
[33] |
[
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
[
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |