Chang Yaowen, Wang Yunpeng, Yuan Li, Yao Xiaoyou, Zhang Ronghua, Liu Xia, Fan Zhaofei, Guo Jiayu
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration, Collaborative Innovation Center of Sustainable Forestry in Southern China of Jiangsu Province, Forestry College of Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, 210037, China.
Huaihe River Basin Water and Soil Conservation Monitoring Center Station, Huaihe River Commission, Bengbu, 233001, China.
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 1;15(1):22301. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-06753-9.
Quantifying the trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services (ESs) and exploring their spatial scale effects are essential to guide sustainable and diversified ecosystem management. This study systematically analyzed the trade-offs and synergies between seven ESs, including water purification (WP), carbon storage (CS), habitat quality (HQ), net primary productivity (NPP), soil conservation (SC), water conservation (WC), and water yield (WY) using self-organizing feature map methods. Further, we used geographically weighted regression to quantify the effect of spatial scales (county and sub-watershed) on the trade-offs and synergies (bundles) of ESs and their spatial distribution in the Huaihe river basin from 2000 to 2020. The results indicated that (1) from 2000 to 2020, WP, NPP, and WC showed an upward trend, with the most significant increase in WC (an average increase of 15.03 mm). CS and HQ showed a downward trend. (2) The relationship between CS, HQ, NPP, SC, and WC was synergistic at both County and sub-watershed scales, and there was a substantial trade-off between WP and WY. from 2000 to 2020, the average correlation coefficients at the county scale and the sub-watershed scale were - 0.546 and - 0.434 respectively (p < 0.001). the synergy between CS, HQ, NPP, SC, and WC mainly occurred in mountainous and hilly areas, while the trade-off between WP and other ESs mainly appeared in the central plains. The relationship between WP and other ESs developed in the trade-off direction, and the other ES optimized in the collaborative direction. In terms of spatial distribution, the synergy area between most ESs is larger than the trade-off area, and the synergy area between HQ-NPP and WC-WY at the county scale is significantly larger than that at the sub-watershed scale. The average synergy area of each ES pair at the county scale is 20.48% larger than that at the sub-watershed scale. (3) Different ecosystem combinations provided six and eight ES bundles that differed in ES composition and quantity at the county and sub-watershed scales. The key synergetic bundle in the Southern Tongbai Dabie mountain is shrinking, which is more evident at the sub-watershed scale. the discovered spatial patterns, dynamics, and scale effects of ecosystem services provide helpful baseline information for exploring sustainable ecosystem management and cross-scale planning strategies in the Huaihe river basin.
量化生态系统服务(ESs)之间的权衡与协同效应,并探索其空间尺度效应,对于指导可持续和多样化的生态系统管理至关重要。本研究运用自组织特征映射方法,系统分析了包括水质净化(WP)、碳储存(CS)、栖息地质量(HQ)、净初级生产力(NPP)、土壤保持(SC)、水源涵养(WC)和产水量(WY)在内的七种生态系统服务之间的权衡与协同效应。此外,我们使用地理加权回归来量化空间尺度(县和子流域)对2000年至2020年淮河流域生态系统服务的权衡与协同效应(组合)及其空间分布的影响。结果表明:(1)2000年至2020年,WP、NPP和WC呈上升趋势,其中WC增幅最为显著(平均增加15.03毫米)。CS和HQ呈下降趋势。(2)CS、HQ、NPP、SC和WC之间的关系在县和子流域尺度上均为协同关系,而WP和WY之间存在显著权衡。2000年至2020年,县尺度和子流域尺度的平均相关系数分别为-0.546和-0.434(p<0.001)。CS、HQ、NPP、SC和WC之间的协同效应主要发生在山区和丘陵地区,而WP与其他生态系统服务之间的权衡主要出现在中原地区。WP与其他生态系统服务之间的关系朝着权衡方向发展,而其他生态系统服务则朝着协同方向优化。在空间分布方面,大多数生态系统服务之间的协同区域大于权衡区域,县尺度上HQ-NPP和WC-WY之间的协同区域明显大于子流域尺度。县尺度上各生态系统服务对的平均协同区域比子流域尺度大20.48%。(3)不同的生态系统组合在县和子流域尺度上提供了六种和八种生态系统服务组合,其生态系统服务的组成和数量各不相同。桐柏大别山区南部的关键协同组合正在缩小,在子流域尺度上更为明显。所发现的生态系统服务的空间格局、动态变化和尺度效应,为探索淮河流域可持续的生态系统管理和跨尺度规划策略提供了有益的基础信息。