Advertisement

Chinese Geographical Science

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 101–114 | Cite as

Trade-offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services in Karst Area of China Driven by Grain-for-Green Program

  • Xiaofeng WangEmail author
  • Xinrong Zhang
  • Xiaoming Feng
  • Shirong Liu
  • Lichang Yin
  • Yongzhe Chen
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

As an important means regulating the relationship between human and natural ecosystem, ecological restoration program plays a key role in restoring ecosystem functions. The Grain-for-Green Program (GFGP, One of the world’s most ambitious ecosystem conservation set-aside programs aims to transfer farmland on steep slopes to forestland or grassland to increase vegetation coverage) has been widely implemented from 1999 to 2015 and exerted significant influence on land use and ecosystem services (ESs). In this study, three ecological models (InVEST, RUSLE, and CASA) were used to accurately calculate the three key types of ESs, water yield (WY), soil conservation (SC), and net primary production (NPP) in Karst area of southwestern China from 1982 to 2015. The impact of GFGP on ESs and trade-offs was analyzed. It provides practical guidance in carrying out ecological regulation in Karst area of China under global climate change. Results showed that ESs and trade-offs had changed dramatically driven by GFGP. In detail, temporally, SC and NPP exhibited an increasing trend, while WY exhibited a decreasing trend. Spatially, SC basically decreased from west to east; NPP basically increased from north to south; WY basically increased from west to east; NPP and SC, SC and WY developed in the direction of trade-offs driven by the GFGP, while NPP and WY developed in the direction of synergy. Therefore, future ecosystem management and restoration policy-making should consider trade-offs of ESs so as to achieve sustainable provision of ESs.

Keywords

ecosystem service trade-off and synergy Grain-for-Green Program partial correlation analysis Karst area China 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bennett E M, Peterson G D, Gordon L J, 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12: 1394–1404. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett M T, 2008. China’s sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecological Economics, 65(4): 699–711. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson T N, Arthur S T, 2000. The impact of land use/land cover changes due to urbanization on surface microclimate and hydrology: a satellite perspective. Global and Planetary Change, 25(1–2): 49–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(00)00021-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cervelli E, Pindozzi S, Sacchi M et al., 2017. Supporting land use change assessment through ecosystem services and wildlife indexes. Land Use Policy, 65: 249–265. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang R Y, Fu B J, Liu G H et al., 2012. The effects of afforestation on soil organic and inorganic carbon: a case study of the Loess Plateau of China. Catena, 95: 145–152. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2012.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen X D, Lupi F, He G M et al., 2009. Factors affecting land recon-version plans following a payment for ecosystem service program. Biological Conservation, 142(8): 1740–1747. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cord A F, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M et al., 2017. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosystem Services, 28: 264–272. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630): 253–260. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costanza R, Groot R D, Braat L et al., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28: 1–16. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crist P J, Kohley T W, Oakleaf J, 2000. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool. Landscape Ecology, 15(1): 47–62. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008117427864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dai Erfu, Wang Xiaoli, Zhu Jianjia et al., 2015. Progress and perspective on ecosystem services trade-offs. Advances in Earth Science, 30(11): 1250–1259. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. Dai Erfu, Wang Xiaoli, Zhu Jianjia et al., 2016. Methods, tools and research framework of ecosystem service trade-offs. Geographical Research, 35(6): 1005–1016. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  13. Daily G C, 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dallimer M, Davies Z G, Diaz-Porras D F et al., 2015. Historical influences on the current provision of multiple ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 31: 307–317. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng Q, Zhao W W, Fu B J et al., 2017. Ecosystem service trade-offs and their influencing factors: a case study in the Loess Plateau of China. Science of the Total Environment, 607–608: 1250–1263. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Firbank L, Bradbury R B, Mccracken D I et al., 2013. Delivering multiple ecosystem services from Enclosed Farmland in the UK. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 166(66): 65–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foley J A, DeFries R, Asner G P et al., 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734): 570–574. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fu B J, Su C H, Wei Y P et al., 2011. Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: causes and countermeasures. Ecological Research, 26(1): 1–14. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-010-0766-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fu Bojie, Yu Dandan, 2016. Trade-off analyses and synthetic integrated method of multiple ecosystem services. Resource Science, 38(1): 1–9. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  20. Fu Bojie, Zhou Guoyi, Bai Yongfei et al., 2009. The main terrestrial ecosystem services and ecological security in China. Advances in Earth Science, 4(6): 571–576. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. Hou Y, Lü Y H, Chen W P et al., 2017. Temporal variation and spatial scale dependency of ecosystem service interactions: a case study on the central Loess Plateau of China. Landscape Ecology, 32(6): 1201–1217. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0497-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Islam K R, Weil R R, 2000. Land use effects on soil quality in a tropical forest ecosystem of Bangladesh. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 79(1): 9–16. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00145-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jia X Q, Fu B J, Feng X M et al., 2014. The tradeoff and synergy between ecosystem services in the Grain-for-Green areas in northern Shaanxi, China. Ecological Indicators, 43(1): 103–113. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kubiszewski I, Costanza R, Anderson S et al, 2017. The future value of ecosystem services: global scenarios and national implications. Ecosystem Services, 26: 289–301. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee H, Lautenbach S, 2016. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 66: 340–351. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li Q, Chen D D, Zhao L et al., 2016. More than a century of Grain for Green Program is expected to restore soil carbon stock on alpine grassland revealed by field 13C pulse labeling. Science of the Total Environment, 550: 17–26. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li Y J, Zhang L W, Qiu J X et al., 2017. Spatially explicit quantification of the interactions among ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 32(6): 1181–1199. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0527-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Long H L, Heilig G K, Wang J et al., 2006. Land use and soil erosion in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River: some socioeconomic considerations on China’s Grain-for-Green Programme. Land Degradation & Development, 17(6): 589–603. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/Idr.736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lü Y H, Fu B J, Feng X M et al., 2012. A policy-driven large scale ecological restoration: quantifying ecosystem services changes in the Loess Plateau of China. PLoS One, 7(2): e31782. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lufafa A, Tenywa M M, Isabirye M et al., 2003. Prediction of soil erosion in a Lake Victoria basin catchment using a GIS-based Universal Soil Loss model. Agricultural Systems, 76(3): 883–894. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00012-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ma Yonghuan, Fan Shengyue, 2005. Ecological-economic effects of Grain to Green Program in desertification areas. Journal of Natural Resources, 20: 590–596. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and HumanWell-being: Current State and Trends: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 829–838.Google Scholar
  33. Mouchet M A, Lamarque P, Martin-Lopez B et al., 2014. An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 28: 298–308. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ouyang Z Y, Zheng H, Xiao Y et al., 2016. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science, 352(6292): 1455–1459. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pan Jinghu, Li Zhen, 2017. Analysis on trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in arid inland river basin. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 33(17): 280–289. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  36. Parr T W, Sier A R, Battarbee R W et al., 2003. Detecting environmental change: science and society: perspectives on long-term research and monitoring in the 21st century. Science of The Total Environment, 310(1–3): 1–8. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00257-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Potter C S, Randerson J T, Field C B et al., 1993. Terrestrial ecosystem production: a process model based on global satellite and surface data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 7(4): 811–841. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/93GB02725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Qian Caiyun, Gong Jie, Zhang Jinxi et al., 2018. Change and tradeoffs-synergies analysis on watershed ecosystem services: a case study of Bailongjiang Watershed, Gansu. Acta Geographica Sinica, 73(5): 868–879. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  39. Renard K G, Foster G R, Weesies G A et al., 1991. RUSLE: revised universal soil loss equation. Soil and Water Conservation, 46(1): 30–33.Google Scholar
  40. Rodríguez J P, Beard T D, Bennett E M et al., 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 709–723. doi:  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01667-110128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharp R, Tallis H T, Ricketts T et al., 2016. InVEST+VERSION+User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project. Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.Google Scholar
  42. Sterling S M, Ducharne A, Polcher J, 2012. The impact of global land-cover change on the terrestrial water cycle. Nature Climate Change, 3(4): 35–390. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1690 Google Scholar
  43. Su C H, Fu B J, He C S et al., 2012. Variation of ecosystem services and human activities: a case study in the Yanhe Watershed of China. Acta Oecologica, 44: 46–57. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2011.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M et al., 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28): 9457–9464. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705797105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tian H Q, Chen G, Zhang C et al., 2012. Century-scale response of ecosystem carbon storage to multifactorial global change in the Southern United States. Ecosystems, 15(4): 674–694. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9539-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tian Y C, Wang S J, Bai X Y et al., 2016. Trade-offs among ecosystem services in a typical Karst watershed, SW China. Science of the Total Environment, 566–567: 1297–1308. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tomscha S A, Gergel S E, 2016. Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history. Ecology and Society, 21(1). doi:  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08345-210143
  48. Uchida E, Xu J T, Rozelle S, 2005. Grain for Green cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China’s conservation set-aside program. Land Economics, 81(2): 247–264. doi:  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.81.2.247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang Bei, Zhao Jun, Hu Xiufang, 2018. Analysison trade-offs and synergistic relationships among multiple ecosystem services in the Shiyang River Basin. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(21): 7582–7595. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  50. Wang J T, Peng J, Zhao M Y et al., 2017. Significant trade-off for the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services in North-western Yunnan, China. Science of the Total Environment, 574: 57–64. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang Pengtao, Zhang Liwei, Li Yingjie et al., 2017. Spatio-temporal characteristics of the trade-off and synergy relationships among multiple ecosystem services in the Upper Reaches of Hanjiang River Basin. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(11): 2064–2078. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  52. Weber A, Fohrer N, Möller D, 2001. Long-term land use changes in a mesoscale watershed due to socio-economic factors-effects on landscape structures and functions. Ecological Modelling, 140(1–2): 125–140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00261-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu S H, Zhou S L, Chen D X et al., 2014. Determining the contributions of urbanisation and climate change to NPP variations over the last decade in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Science of the Total Environment, 472: 397–406. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wu Wenhuan, Peng Jian, Liu Yanxu et al., 2017. Tradeoffs and synergies between ecosystem services in Ordos City. Progress in Geography, 36(12): 1571–1581. (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Xu J T, Yin R S, Li Z et al., 2006. China’s ecological rehabilitation: unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecological Economics, 57(4): 595–607. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang G F, Ge Y, Xue H et al., 2015. Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban-rural complexes. Landscape & Urban Planning, 136: 110–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yin R S, Yin G P, Li L Y, 2010. Assessing China’s ecological restoration programs: what’s been done and what remains to be done? Environment Management, 45(3): 442–453. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9387-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang B Q, He C S, Burbham M et al., 2016. Evaluating the coupling effects of climate aridity and vegetation restoration on soil erosion over the Loess Plateau in China. Science of the Total Environment. 539: 436–149. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang Kun, Lü Yihe, Fu Bojie, 2016. Ecosystem service evolution in ecological restoration: trend, process, and evaluation. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(20): 6337–6344. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  60. Zhang L, Dawes W R, Walker G R, 2001. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resource Research, 37(3): 701–708. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang L, Hickel K, Dawes W R et al., 2004. A rational function approach for estimating mean annual evapotranspiration. Water Resources Research, 40(2): W02502. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang Mingyang, Wang Kelin, Liu Huiyu et al., 2011. The response of ecosystem service values to ambient environment and its spatial scales in typical karst areas of northwest Guangxi, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31(14): 3947–3955. (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaofeng Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Xinrong Zhang
    • 1
  • Xiaoming Feng
    • 3
  • Shirong Liu
    • 4
  • Lichang Yin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Yongzhe Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Earth Science and ResourcesChang’an UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Land ConsolidationXi’anChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and ProtectionChinese Academy of ForestryBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations