Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, The School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.
Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2020 Dec;95(6):1706-1719. doi: 10.1111/brv.12636. Epub 2020 Jul 9.
Ecosystem monitoring is fundamental to our understanding of how ecosystem change is impacting our natural resources and is vital for developing evidence-based policy and management. However, the different types of ecosystem monitoring, along with their recommended applications, are often poorly understood and contentious. Varying definitions and strict adherence to a specific monitoring type can inhibit effective ecosystem monitoring, leading to poor program development, implementation and outcomes. In an effort to develop a more consistent and clear understanding of ecosystem monitoring programs, we here review the main types of monitoring and recommend the widespread adoption of three classifications of monitoring, namely, targeted, surveillance and landscape monitoring. Landscape monitoring is conducted over large areas, provides spatial data, and enables questions relating to where and when ecosystem change is occurring to be addressed. Surveillance monitoring uses standardised field methods to inform on what is changing in our environments and the direction and magnitude of that change, whilst targeted monitoring is designed around testable hypotheses over defined areas and is the best approach for determining the causes of ecosystem change. The classification system is flexible and can incorporate different interests, objectives, targets and characteristics as well as different spatial scales and temporal frequencies, while also providing valuable structure and consistency across distinct ecosystem monitoring programs. To support our argument, we examine the ability of each monitoring type to inform on six key types of questions that are routinely posed for ecosystem monitoring programs, such as where and when change is occurring, what is the magnitude of change, and how can the change be managed? As we demonstrate, each type of ecosystem monitoring has its own strengths and weaknesses, which should be carefully considered relative to the desired results. Using this scheme, scientists and land managers can design programs best suited to their needs. Finally, we assert that for our most serious environmental challenges, it is essential that we include information from each of these monitoring scales to inform on all facets of ecosystem change, and this is best achieved through close collaboration between the scales. With a renewed understanding of the importance of each monitoring type, along with greater commitment to monitor cooperatively, we will be well placed to address some of our greatest environmental challenges.
生态系统监测对于我们了解生态系统变化如何影响自然资源至关重要，对于制定基于证据的政策和管理措施也至关重要。然而，不同类型的生态系统监测及其推荐的应用通常理解不足且存在争议。不同的定义和对特定监测类型的严格遵守会抑制有效的生态系统监测，导致项目开发、实施和结果不佳。为了更一致和清晰地了解生态系统监测计划，我们在这里回顾了主要的监测类型，并建议广泛采用三种监测分类，即目标监测、监测和景观监测。景观监测在大面积进行，提供空间数据，并能够解决生态系统变化发生的地点和时间的问题。监测监测使用标准化的现场方法来告知我们环境中正在发生什么变化，以及变化的方向和幅度，而目标监测是围绕可测试的假设在定义的区域内进行的，是确定生态系统变化原因的最佳方法。该分类系统具有灵活性，可以结合不同的利益、目标、对象和特征，以及不同的空间尺度和时间频率，同时为不同的生态系统监测计划提供有价值的结构和一致性。为了支持我们的论点，我们检查了每种监测类型回答生态系统监测计划中经常提出的六种关键类型问题的能力，例如变化发生的地点和时间、变化的幅度以及如何管理变化？正如我们所表明的，每种类型的生态系统监测都有其自身的优势和劣势，相对于预期的结果，这些优势和劣势都需要仔细考虑。使用这种方案，科学家和土地管理者可以设计最适合他们需求的计划。最后，我们断言，对于我们最严重的环境挑战，必须从这些监测尺度中的每一个获取信息，以告知生态系统变化的所有方面，而这最好通过各个尺度之间的密切合作来实现。通过对每种监测类型的重要性有了新的认识，并加强合作监测的承诺，我们将有能力应对一些最严峻的环境挑战。
