Borja Angel, Bricker Suzanne B, Dauer Daniel M, Demetriades Nicolette T, Ferreira João G, Forbes Anthony T, Hutchings Pat, Jia Xiaoping, Kenchington Richard, Carlos Marques João, Zhu Changbo
AZTI-Tecnalia, Marine Research Division, Herrera Kaia, Pasaia, Spain.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2008 Sep;56(9):1519-37. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.07.005. Epub 2008 Aug 19.
In recent years, several sets of legislation worldwide (Oceans Act in USA, Australia or Canada; Water Framework Directive or Marine Strategy in Europe, National Water Act in South Africa, etc.) have been developed in order to address ecological quality or integrity, within estuarine and coastal systems. Most such legislation seeks to define quality in an integrative way, by using several biological elements, together with physico-chemical and pollution elements. Such an approach allows assessment of ecological status at the ecosystem level ('ecosystem approach' or 'holistic approach' methodologies), rather than at species level (e.g. mussel biomonitoring or Mussel Watch) or just at chemical level (i.e. quality objectives) alone. Increasing attention has been paid to the development of tools for different physico-chemical or biological (phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, algae, phanerogams, fishes) elements of the ecosystems. However, few methodologies integrate all the elements into a single evaluation of a water body. The need for such integrative tools to assess ecosystem quality is very important, both from a scientific and stakeholder point of view. Politicians and managers need information from simple and pragmatic, but scientifically sound methodologies, in order to show to society the evolution of a zone (estuary, coastal area, etc.), taking into account human pressures or recovery processes. These approaches include: (i) multidisciplinarity, inherent in the teams involved in their implementation; (ii) integration of biotic and abiotic factors; (iii) accurate and validated methods in determining ecological integrity; and (iv) adequate indicators to follow the evolution of the monitored ecosystems. While some countries increasingly use the establishment of marine parks to conserve marine biodiversity and ecological integrity, there is awareness (e.g. in Australia) that conservation and management of marine ecosystems cannot be restricted to Marine Protected Areas but must include areas outside such reserves. This contribution reviews the current situation of integrative ecological assessment worldwide, by presenting several examples from each of the continents: Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and North America.
近年来，为解决河口和沿海系统的生态质量或完整性问题，全球已制定了几套立法（美国、澳大利亚或加拿大的《海洋法》；欧洲的《水框架指令》或《海洋战略》、南非的《国家水法》等）。大多数此类立法旨在通过使用多种生物要素以及物理化学和污染要素，以综合方式界定质量。这种方法允许在生态系统层面评估生态状况（“生态系统方法”或“整体方法”），而非仅在物种层面（如贻贝生物监测或贻贝观察）或仅在化学层面（即质量目标）进行评估。人们越来越关注为生态系统的不同物理化学或生物（浮游植物、浮游动物、底栖生物、藻类、显花植物、鱼类）要素开发工具。然而，很少有方法能将所有要素整合到对水体的单一评估中。从科学和利益相关者的角度来看，开发此类综合工具来评估生态系统质量非常重要。政治家和管理者需要来自简单实用但科学合理的方法的信息，以便向社会展示一个区域（河口、沿海地区等）的演变情况，同时考虑到人类压力或恢复过程。这些方法包括：（i）实施过程中相关团队所固有的多学科性；（ii）生物和非生物因素的整合；（iii）确定生态完整性时准确且经过验证的方法；以及（iv）用于跟踪受监测生态系统演变的适当指标。虽然一些国家越来越多地利用建立海洋公园来保护海洋生物多样性和生态完整性，但人们也意识到（如在澳大利亚），海洋生态系统的保护和管理不能仅限于海洋保护区，还必须包括这些保护区之外的区域。本论文通过展示来自非洲、亚洲、澳大利亚、欧洲和北美洲各大洲的几个例子，回顾了全球综合生态评估的现状。
