Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, U.S. Department of Energy, Riverside, CA 92507, USA; Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA 92507, USA.
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA 92507, USA.
J Environ Manage. 2024 Jun;362:121285. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121285. Epub 2024 Jun 4.
Geosystem services (GSs) and ecosystem services (ESs) are interconnected, both representing nature's contributions to people. Whether GSs are a subset of ESs depends on the definition of ESs. The answer would be "not necessarily" (i.e., some GSs are, while other GSs are not), if ESs are the benefits humans derive from ecological functions, processes, or characteristics. The boundary proposed by Chen et al. (2023) to differentiate ESs from other ecosystem-related benefits adopted this definition, and suggested that ESs are renewable and affected by biotic elements to occur. Gray et al. (2024) criticized this boundary for separating out bits of nature and ignoring the contributions of GSs and abiotic elements to ESs and human wellbeing. In fact, highlighting that ESs are affected by biotic elements to occur does not deny that ESs' occurrence is also affected by abiotic elements. However, ESs' dependence on abiotic elements cannot be a criterion to differentiate ESs from other benefits because abiotic elements are integral to geosystems, ecosystems, and many other natural and artificial systems, as well as to these systems' services. Conversely, while geosystems might persist without biotic elements, ecosystems cannot. Chen et al. (2023) only excluded those (not the whole) abiotic benefits, such as wind energy, that may occur independently of biotic elements, while allowing for integrating certain GSs into ESs. For example, geological structures can offer flood protection and water storage as GSs, which can also be classified as ESs when their qualities or quantities are affected by biotic elements. Differentiation between GSs and ESs should not be misinterpreted as splitting their interconnections or undervaluing or dividing nature. Instead, such differentiation and classification of nature's benefits serve to facilitate communication, management, education, research, and policy-making associated with nature's benefits, while also highlighting the richness and diversity of nature's benefits.
地系统服务（GSs）和生态系统服务（ESs）是相互关联的，都代表了自然对人类的贡献。GSs 是否是 ESs 的子集取决于 ESs 的定义。如果 ESs 是人类从生态功能、过程或特征中获得的益处，那么答案将是否定的（即，一些 GSs 是，而其他 GSs 则不是）。Chen 等人（2023 年）提出的区分 ESs 与其他与生态系统相关的益处的边界采用了这一定义，并认为 ESs 是可再生的，并受到生物要素的影响而发生。Gray 等人（2024 年）批评了这一边界，认为它将自然的一部分割裂开来，忽视了 GSs 和非生物要素对 ESs 和人类福祉的贡献。事实上，强调 ESs 是受生物要素影响而发生的，并不能否认 ESs 的发生也受到非生物要素的影响。然而，ESs 对非生物要素的依赖不能作为将 ESs 与其他益处区分开来的标准，因为非生物要素是地系统、生态系统以及许多其他自然和人工系统及其服务的组成部分。相反，虽然地系统可能没有生物要素也能存在，但生态系统则不能。Chen 等人（2023 年）只排除了那些（不是全部）可能独立于生物要素而发生的非生物益处，如风能，同时允许将某些 GSs 纳入 ESs。例如，地质结构可以作为 GSs 提供洪水保护和蓄水功能，当它们的质量或数量受到生物要素的影响时，也可以被归类为 ESs。GSs 和 ESs 的区分不应被误解为割裂它们的相互联系或低估或分割自然。相反，这种对自然益处的区分和分类有助于促进与自然益处相关的沟通、管理、教育、研究和政策制定，同时也突出了自然益处的丰富性和多样性。
