恢复生态学中的干预连续体：重新思考主动-被动二分法,Restoration Ecology

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Restor Ecol › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

恢复生态学中的干预连续体：重新思考主动-被动二分法
Restoration Ecology ( IF 2.8 ) Pub Date : 2021-08-21 , DOI: 10.1111/rec.13535
Robin L. Chazdon ₁ , Donald A. Falk ₂ , Lindsay F. Banin ₃ , Markus Wagner ₄ , Sarah Wilson ₅ , Robert C. Grabowski ₆ , Katherine N. Suding ₇

Affiliation

主动和被动恢复方法之间经常存在的区别是一种错误的二分法，这种二分法在当今的许多研究、政策和金融结构中仍然存在。我们探讨了这个术语所带来的矛盾，以及用基于连续统一体的干预框架取代这种二分法的优点。在实践中，“被动”和“主动”修复之间的主要区别主要在于人为干预的时间和程度。我们将干预连续体框架应用于森林、草地、溪流和泥炭地生态系统，强调生态或生态系统恢复范围内的一系列恢复方法通常用于大多数项目，所有这些方法都有助于恢复原生生态系统和防止进一步退化。由于恢复从根本上讲是关于生态系统的恢复，因此消除人为退化源对于实现生态系统恢复过程至关重要，无论后续可能需要哪些干预措施来帮助恢复。我们对涉及不同级别干预的恢复实践的审查强调了在当前支撑恢复活动的金融和政策框架中识别更广泛的恢复干预措施的好处。有效的恢复干预源于对自然内在恢复潜力的理解和克服限制这种潜力的特定障碍。我们对涉及不同级别干预的恢复实践的审查强调了在当前支撑恢复活动的金融和政策框架中识别更广泛的恢复干预措施的好处。有效的恢复干预源于对自然内在恢复潜力的理解和克服限制这种潜力的特定障碍。我们对涉及不同级别干预的恢复实践的审查强调了在当前支撑恢复活动的金融和政策框架中识别更广泛的恢复干预措施的好处。有效的恢复干预源于对自然内在恢复潜力的理解和克服限制这种潜力的特定障碍。

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

The intervention continuum in restoration ecology: rethinking the active–passive dichotomy

The distinction often made between active and passive restoration approaches is a false dichotomy that persists in much research, policy, and financial structures today. We explore the contradictions imposed by this terminology and the merits of replacing this dichotomy with a continuum-based intervention framework. In practice, the main distinction between “passive” and “active” restoration lies primarily in the timing and extent of human interventions. We apply the intervention continuum framework to forest, grassland, stream, and peatland ecosystems, emphasizing that a range of restoration approaches within the scope of ecological or ecosystem restoration are typically employed in most projects, and all can contribute to the recovery of native ecosystems and prevention of further degradation. As restoration is fundamentally about the recovery of ecosystems, eliminating human sources of degradation is essential to enable ecosystem recovery processes, regardless of subsequent interventions that may be needed to assist recovery. Our review of restoration practices involving different levels of intervention highlights the benefits of recognizing a broader suite of restoration interventions in the financial and policy frameworks that currently underpin restoration activity. Effective restoration interventions emerge from an understanding of nature's intrinsic recovery potential and overcoming specific obstacles that limit this potential.

更新日期：2021-08-21

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

阅读更多本刊新发论文本刊介绍/投稿指南