基于格局-质量-服务的生态保护修复成效评估：以额尔齐斯河流域为例

刘浩; 郝海广; 张文国; 刘鹏; 孙丽慧

doi:10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2022.09.29

基于格局-质量-服务的生态保护修复成效评估：以额尔齐斯河流域为例

doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2022.09.29

刘浩^1,,
郝海广¹,
张文国²,
刘鹏¹,
孙丽慧^1, ,

1.
中国环境科学研究院，北京　100012
2.
生态环境部卫星环境应用中心, 北京 100094

基金项目: 新疆阿勒泰地区科技研究项目(No.2019-529)；国家重点研发计划项目(No.2019YFC0507802)

详细信息

作者简介:
刘浩（1995-），男，河南三门峡人，助理研究员，硕士，主要从事生态系统综合评价研究，liu.hao@craes.org.cn

通讯作者:
孙丽慧(1983-)，女，山东聊城人，高级工程师，硕士，主要从事资源环境遥感研究， sunlh@craes.org.cn

中图分类号: X171.1
计量
- 文章访问数: 237
- HTML全文浏览量: 61
- PDF下载量: 72
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-06-09
- 修回日期: 2022-08-30

Evaluation of Ecological Protection and Restoration Effectiveness Based on ‘Pattern-Quality-Service’ in Irtysh River Basin

1.
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
2.
Satellite Environmental Application Center of Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100094, China

Funds: Scientific Research Project in Altay Prefecture, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China (No.2019-529); National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2019YFC0507802)

摘要

摘要: 建立生态保护修复工程实施成效评估方法体系，掌握“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复试点工程实施成效，分析评估结果中发现的问题，对于提出新时期生态环境保护修复的对策与建议具有重要意义. 额尔齐斯河流域具有极其典型的“山水林田湖草”生命共同体特征，额尔齐斯河流域生态保护修复工程的实施为探索西北干旱地区生命共同体保护修复模式提供了示范作用. 基于“山水林田湖草”生命共同体理念，从生态系统格局、质量和服务三个角度建立评价指标体系，通过对比非生态保护修复期和生态保护修复期内评估指标的时空变化情况，综合评估额尔齐斯河流域“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复工程实施生态环境成效. 结果表明：①生态系统类型的生态级别整体由“低”向“高”转变，草地生态系统退化趋势得到遏制且面积得到恢复，水域生态系统面积由2010年的1 802.02 km²持续增至2020年的1 994.84 km²，林地生态系统面积仍有所减少. ②工程建设区生态系统质量指数先降后增，其中生态保护修复期内生态系统质量指数增长相对明显. ③生态保护修复工程实施后，各生态系统服务指标变化率均有所增长，其中防风固沙指数增长最为显著. 研究显示，额尔齐斯河流域“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复工程成效显著，但由于工程建设区内生态本底的差异性，整体上各工程分区生态保护修复成效由北向南逐渐递减. 在后续生态保护修复工作中，建议基于额尔齐斯河流域中部和南部自然地理单元分布等区域特征，采取有针对性的对策措施，进一步恢复生态用地和提升生态系统服务.
- “山水林田湖草” /
- 生态修复 /
- 额尔齐斯河流域 /
- 成效评估
Abstract: Establishing an evaluation method system for the implementation of ecological protection and restoration pilot project, mastering the effectiveness of the project and analyzing the problems found in the evaluation results greatly contribute to the proposal of countermeasures and suggestions for ecological environment protection and restoration in the new period and the maintenance of a sustainable regional ecosystem. The Irtysh River Basin is a typical life community of mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands, lakes and grasslands. The implementation of the ecological protection and restoration project in the Irtysh River Basin has a demonstration role for the exploration of the protection and restoration model of the life communities in the northwest arid region. Based on the concept of ‘mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands’ community, an evaluation indicator system was proposed from the perspective of ecosystem pattern, quality and service to comprehensively evaluate the implementation effect of the ecological protection and restoration pilot project area in Irtysh River Basin by the comparison of the spatio-temporal changes of indicators during the non-ecological protection and restoration period and the ecological protection and restoration period. The results show that: (1) The low ecological level was transformed into a high ecological level. The degradation of grassland ecosystems is curbed, and the grassland area is restored. The area of water ecosystem increased from 1802.02 km² in 2010 to 1994.84 km² in 2020, while forest ecosystems decreased; (2) The ecosystem quality index of the project construction area decreased first and then increased. During the period of ecological protection and restoration, the ecosystem quality index increased significantly. The ecosystem quality improved; (3) After the implementation of the ecological protection and restoration project, all ecosystem service indicators improved. The change rate of water conservation, soil conservation and wind and sand fixation index increased from −0.08%, −9.19% and −11.36% in the non-ecological protection and restoration period to 0.56%, 1.59% and 13.49% in the ecological protection and restoration period; (4) The composite index of ecological protection and restoration effectiveness in the project construction area increased from 14.93 in the non-ecological protection and restoration period to 48.02 after the implementation of the ecological protection and restoration projects. The changes in the composite index of ecological protection and restoration effectiveness in each project sub-area gradually deteriorated from north to south. The results show that the ecological protection and restoration project in the Irtysh River Basin achieved remarkable results. However, due to the differences in the ecological background of the project areas, the effectiveness of ecological protection and restoration of each project sub-area decreased from north to south. In the follow-up ecological protection and restoration work, targeted countermeasures should be proposed based on the regional characteristics such as the distribution of natural geographical units in the Central and Southern Irtysh River Basin to further restore ecological land and improve ecosystem services.
- ‘mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands’ /
- ecological restoration /
- Irtysh River Basin /
- effectiveness evaluation

HTML全文

图 1 额河流域“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复工程分区

Figure 1. Subarea map of ‘mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands’ ecological protection and restoration pilot project area in Irtysh River Basin

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 研究技术路线

Figure 2. Research technology roadmap

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 2010年、2015年、2020年额河流域土地利用变化空间分布及弦图

注：CL—耕地；FL—林地；GL—草地；WB—水域；SM—建设用地；BL—裸地.

Figure 3. Spatial distribution map, chordal graph of land use change of Irtysh River Basin in 2010, 2015 and 2020

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 2010年、2015年、2020年额河流域生态系统质量指数(EQI)等级空间分布

Figure 4. Spatial distribution map of ecosystem quality index grade of Irtysh River Basin in 2010, 2015 and 2020

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 2010年、2015年、2020年额河流域各工程分区生态系统质量等级面积占比

Figure 5. Area proportion map of ecosystem quality grade of each project area in Irtysh River Basin in 2010, 2015 and 2020

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 2010年、2015年、2020年额河流域生态系统服务空间格局

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of each ecosystem service in Irtysh River Basin in 2010, 2015 and 2020

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 2010年、2015年、2020年额河流域生态系统服务重要性分级面积占比

注：图中不同色系由浅至深分别对应不同生态系统服务的一般重要、重要和极重要等级.

Figure 7. Proportion of different ecosystem service importance levels in Irtysh River Basin in 2010, 2015 and 2020

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 2010—2015年与2015—2020年额河流域各工程分区成效评价指标变化对比

Figure 8. Comparison of changes in effectiveness evaluation indicators of each project sub-area in Irtysh River Basin between 2010-2015 and 2015-2020

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 生态保护修复成效综合指数评分标准

Table 1. Scoring standard of comprehensive index of ecological protection and restoration effectiveness

评估内容	评价指标	指标分值区间	指标赋值区间	指标权重
生态系统格局	土地覆被状况指数变化率	0~20	−3%~3%	1/2
生态系统格局	土地覆被转类指数	0~20	−3%~3%	1/2
生态系统质量	生态系统质量指数变化率	0~10	−5%~5%	1
生态系统服务	水源涵养量变化率	0~20	−5%~5%	1/3
	水土保持量变化率	0~20	−5%~5%	1/3
	防风固沙指数变化率	0~20	−5%~5%	1/3

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 研究数据及其来源

Table 2. Study data and sources

数据名称	数据格式	空间分辨率	数据时间	数据来源
土地利用监测数据	TIFF	30 m	2010年、2015年、2020年	中国科学院资源环境科学与数据中心全国土地利用类型遥感监测空间分布数据
数字高程模型数据	TIFF	30 m	2009年	地理空间数据云平台ASTER GDEM数字高程数据
土壤类型数据	矢量	—	2009年	中国1∶100万土壤数据库
NPP数据	HDF	500 m	2006—2020年	MOD17A3H 500 m空间分辨率的年度净初级生产力产品数据集
NDVI数据	HDF	500 m	2010年、2015年、2020年	MOD13A1 500 m空间分辨率的16 d植被指数合成产品数据集
LAI数据	HDF	500 m	2010年、2015年、2020年	MOD15A2H 500 m空间分辨率的8 d叶面积指数产品数据集
蒸散发数据	HDF	500 m	2010年、2015年、2020年	MOD16A3GF 500 m空间分辨率的年蒸散发产品数据集
气象数据	NC	1 000 m	2006—2020年	国家地球系统科学数据中心中国1 km分辨率年降水量数据及逐月平均气温数据集

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 2010年、2015年和2020年额河流域工程建设区及各工程分区土地利用面积的变化

Table 3. Changes in land use area of the project construction area and each project sub-area in 2010, 2015 and 2020 in Irtysh River Basin km²

区域	年份	耕地	林地	草地	水域	建设用地	裸地
北部工程分区	2010	850.82	5 567.07	28 479.10	310.54	76.39	7 896.56
	2015	890.04	5 558.87	28 441.06	314.31	80.78	7 893.70
	2020	920.85	5 503.70	30 414.02	440.16	111.34	5 790.22
中部工程分区	2010	3 532.95	580.05	13 968.12	1 470.93	139.51	19 937.77
	2015	3 880.75	580.91	13 757.63	1 511.38	183.94	19 713.91
	2020	4 322.78	579.11	13 273.48	1 531.99	242.29	19 679.59
南部工程分区	2010	9.53	1.91	1 094.31	20.54	0.00	33 743.21
	2015	35.01	1.90	1 065.27	29.06	0.80	33 737.52
	2020	162.44	1.91	185.42	22.70	7.41	34 489.67
合计	2010	4 393.29	6 149.03	43 541.64	1 802.02	215.90	61 615.03
	2015	4 805.80	6 141.68	43 264.08	1 854.75	265.51	61 382.61
	2020	5 406.06	6 084.73	43 873.02	1 994.84	361.04	59 996.98

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(34)

[1]	王夏晖,何军,饶胜,等.“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复思路与实践[J].环境保护,2018,46(增刊1):17-20. WANG X H,HE J,RAO S,et al.Design of implementation path of ecological engineering for ecological protection and restoration of multi ecological elements[J].Environmental Protection,2018,46(Suppl 1):17-20.
[2]	罗明,于恩逸,周妍,等.“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复试点工程布局及技术策略[J].生态学报,2019,39(23):8692-8701. LUO M,YU E Y,ZHOU Y,et al.Distribution and technical strategies of ecological protection and restoration projects for ‘mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands’[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2019,39(23):8692-8701.
[3]	吴浓娣,吴强,刘定湘.系统治理:坚持“山水林田湖草”是一个生命共同体[J].水利发展研究,2018,18(9):25-32.
[4]	李淑娟,郑鑫,隋玉正.国内外生态修复效果评价研究进展[J].生态学报,2021,41(10):4240-4249.
[5]	王柯,郭义强,张建军,等.基于时空分析的生态保护与修复试点工程实施效果评估:以赣州市为例[J].生态学报,2019,39(23):8867-8877. WANG K,GUO Y Q,ZHANG J J,et al.Evaluation on the implementation effect of the pilot project for ecological protection and restoration of multi ecological elements based on spatio-temporal analysis:a case study of Ganzhou[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2019,39(23):8867-8877.
[6]	陈阳,王西平,甄娜,等.基于生态系统服务理论内涵的“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复实践:以河南省南太行地区试点工程为例[J].环境工程技术学报,2021,11(4):701-710. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200190 CHEN Y,WANG X P,ZHEN N,et al.Practice of ecological protection and restoration of ‘mountain-river-forestfarmland-lake-grassland’ based on connotation of ecosystem service theory:taking the pilot project of South-Taihang Area in Henan Province as an example[J].Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2021,11(4):701-710. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200190
[7]	邵上,汪光,廖磊,等.广东粤北南岭山区“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复研究与实践[J].环境工程技术学报,2020,10(5):779-785. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20190218 SHAO S,WANG G,LIAO L,et al.Research and practice of ecological protection and restoration of ‘mountain-river-forest-farmland-lake-grassland’ system in Nanling Mountains areal northern Guangdong Province[J].Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2020,10(5):779-785. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20190218
[8]	付战勇,马一丁,罗明,等.生态保护与修复理论和技术国外研究进展[J].生态学报,2019,39(23):9008-9021. FU Z Y,MA Y D,LUO M,et al.Research progress on the theory and technology of ecological protection and restoration abroad[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2019,39(23):9008-9021.
[9]	侯鹏,高吉喜,万华伟,等.陆地生态系统保护修复成效评估研究进展及主要科学问题[J].环境生态学,2021,3(4):1-7. HOU P,GAO J X,WAN H W,et al.Progress and some scientific issues on effectiveness assessment of terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration[J].Environmental Ecology,2021,3(4):1-7.
[10]	LEVELL A P,CHANG H.Monitoring the channel process of a stream restoration project in an urbanizing watershed:a case study of Kelley Creek,Oregon,USA[J].River Research and Applications,2008,24(2):169-182. doi: 10.1002/rra.1050
[11]	GALLEGO FERNÁNDEZ J B,GARCÍA NOVO F.High-intensity versus low-intensity restoration alternatives of a tidal marsh in Guadalquivir Estuary,SW Spain[J].Ecological Engineering,2007,30(2):112-121. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.11.005
[12]	王志学,刘方正,李海波,等.基于目标对照样本的自然保护地保护成效评估:以梵净山冷杉群落为例[J].环境科学研究,2022,35(2):519-529. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2021.11.01 WANG Z X,LIU F Z,LI H B,et al.Assessment of conservation effectiveness of protected areas based on target control samples:a case study of Abies fanjingshanensis communities[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2022,35(2):519-529. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2021.11.01
[13]	靳勇超,罗建武,朱彦鹏,等.内蒙古辉河国家级自然保护区湿地保护成效[J].环境科学研究,2015,28(9):1424-1429. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2015.09.12 JIN Y C,LUO J W,ZHU Y P,et al.Assessment of effectiveness of wetland conservation in Huihe national nature reserve in Inner Mongolia[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2015,28(9):1424-1429. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2015.09.12
[14]	丁肇慰,肖能文,高晓奇,等.长江流域2000—2015年生态系统质量及服务变化特征[J].环境科学研究,2020,33(5):1308-1314. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2020.03.24 DING Z W,XIAO N W,GAO X Q,et al.Changes of ecosystem quality and services between 2000 and 2015 in Yangtze River Basin[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2020,33(5):1308-1314. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2020.03.24
[15]	邵全琴,刘纪远,黄麟,等.2005—2009年三江源自然保护区生态保护和建设工程生态成效综合评估[J].地理研究,2013,32(9):1645-1656. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201309007 SHAO Q Q,LIU J Y,HUANG L,et al.Integrated assessment on the effectiveness of ecological conservation in Sanjiangyuan National Nature Reserve[J].Geographical Research,2013,32(9):1645-1656. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201309007
[16]	康相武,吴绍宏,杨勤业,等.新疆阿勒泰地区的生态环境问题及解决对策[J].地理科学进展,2004,23(4):19-27. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6301.2004.04.003 KANG X W,WU S H,YANG Q Y,et al.Ecological environment problems and sustainable development strategy in Altay prefecture,Xinjiang[J].Progress in Geography,2004,23(4):19-27. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6301.2004.04.003
[17]	赵群英,贺晓涛.阿勒泰地区主要生态环境问题及对策建议[J].新疆有色金属,2007,30(3):13-14. doi: 10.16206/j.cnki.65-1136/tg.2007.03.018
[18]	刘时栋,刘琳,张建军,等.基于生态系统服务能力提升的干旱区生态保护与修复研究:以额尔齐斯河流域生态保护与修复试点工程区为例[J].生态学报,2019,39(23):8998-9007. LIU S D,LIU L,ZHANG J J,et al.Study on ecological protection and restoration path of arid area based on improvement of ecosystem service capability,a case of the ecological protection and restoration pilot project area in Irtysh River Basin[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2019,39(23):8998-9007.
[19]	LIU H C,FAN J,LIU B Y,et al.Practical exploration of ecological restoration and management of the ‘mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands’ system in the Irtysh River Basin in Altay,Xinjiang[J].Journal of Resources and Ecology,2021,12(6):766-776.
[20]	欧阳志云,徐卫华,肖燚,等.中国生态系统格局、质量、服务与演变[M].北京:科学出版社,2017.
[21]	王德旺,何萍,徐杰,等.长江大保护5年来流域土地利用和生态系统服务变化[J].环境工程技术学报,2022,12(2):408-416. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20210687 WANG D W,HE P,XU J,et al.Changes of land use and ecosystem service in the Yangtze River Basin after five years' general protection[J].Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2022,12(2):408-416. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20210687
[22]	张哲,郝海广,张强,等.新疆阿勒泰地区持续推进“山水林田湖草沙”生态保护修复的对策建议[J].环境与可持续发展,2021,46(5):93-98. ZHANG Z,HAO H G,ZHANG Q,et al.Countermeasures and suggestions for continuously promoting protection and restoration of ‘mountains,rivers,forests,farmlands,lakes,grasslands and desserts’ in Altay Prefecture of Xinjiang[J].Environment and Sustainable Development,2021,46(5):93-98.
[23]	LIU H,SHU C,ZHOU T T,et al.Trade-off and synergy relationships of ecosystem services and driving force analysis based on land cover change in Altay prefecture[J].Journal of Resources and Ecology,2021,12(6):777-790.
[24]	付奇,李波,杨琳琳,等.西北干旱区生态系统服务重要性评价:以阿勒泰地区为例[J].干旱区资源与环境,2016,30(10):70-75. FU Q,LI B,YANG L L,et al.Importance evaluation of typical ecosystem services in arid regions of northwest China:a case study in Altay Prefecture[J].Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment,2016,30(10):70-75.
[25]	于贵瑞,王永生,杨萌.生态系统质量及其状态演变的生态学理论和评估方法之探索[J].应用生态学报,2022,33(4):865-877. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202204.026 YU G R,WANG Y S,YANG M.Discussion on the ecological theory and assessment methods of ecosystem quality and its evolution[J].Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2022,33(4):865-877. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202204.026
[26]	何念鹏,徐丽,何洪林.生态系统质量评估方法:理想参照系和关键指标[J].生态学报,2020,40(6):1877-1886. HE N P,XU L,HE H L.The methods of evaluation ecosystem quality:ideal reference and key parameters[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2020,40(6):1877-1886.
[27]	李冠稳,高晓奇,肖能文.基于关键指标的黄河流域近20年生态系统质量的时空变化[J].环境科学研究,2021,34(12):2945-2953. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2021.08.28 LI G W,GAO X Q,XIAO N W.Spatial and temporal changes of ecosystem quality based on key indicators in Yellow River Basin from 2000 to 2018[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2021,34(12):2945-2953. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2021.08.28
[28]	肖寒,欧阳志云,赵景柱,等.森林生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评估初探:以海南岛尖峰岭热带森林为例[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(4):481-484. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2000.04.001 XIAO H,OUYANG Z Y,ZHAO J Z,et al.Forest ecosystem services and their ecological valuation:a case study of tropical forest in Jianfengling of Hainan Island[J].Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2000,11(4):481-484. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2000.04.001
[29]	GOU M M,LI L,SHUAI O Y,et al.Identifying and analyzing ecosystem service bundles and their socioecological drivers in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2021,307:127208. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127208
[30]	刘慧霞,董乙强,崔雨萱,等.新疆阿勒泰地区荒漠草地土壤有机碳特征及其环境影响因素分析[J].草业学报,2021,30(10):41-52. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020389 LIU H X,DONG Y Q,CUI Y X,et al.Environmental factors influencing soil organic carbon and its characteristics in desert grassland in Altay,Xinjiang[J].Acta Prataculturae Sinica,2021,30(10):41-52. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020389
[31]	李秀彬.全球环境变化研究的核心领域:土地利用/土地覆被变化的国际研究动向[J].地理学报,1996,51(6):553-558. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.1996.06.010 LI X B.A review of the international researches on land use/land cover change[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,1996,51(6):553-558. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.1996.06.010
[32]	尚洪磊,韩永伟,蔡譞,等.高寒内流河源头区“山水林田湖草”生态保护与修复实践:以青海省祁连山疏勒河-哈拉湖汇水区为例[J].环境工程技术学报,2021,11(2):234-240. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200052 SHANG H L,HAN Y W,CAI X,et al.Practice of ‘mountain-river-forest-farmland-lake-grassland’ ecological conservation and restoration of the source area of alpine inland rivers:a case study in intersection area of Shule River and Hala Lake in Qilian Mountains of Qinghai Province[J].Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2021,11(2):234-240. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200052
[33]	田野,冯启源,唐明方,等.基于生态系统评价的“山水林田湖草”生态保护与修复体系构建研究:以乌梁素海流域为例[J].生态学报,2019,39(23):8826-8836. TIAN Y,FENG Q Y,TANG M F,et al.Ecological protection and restoration of ‘forest,wetland,grassland and cropland’ based on the perspective of ecosystem assessment:a case study in Wuliangsuhai Watershed[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2019,39(23):8826-8836.
[34]	彭建,吕丹娜,张甜,等.“山水林田湖草”生态保护修复的系统性认知[J].生态学报,2019,39(23):8755-8762. PENG J,LÜ D N,ZHANG T,et al.Systematic cognition of ecological protection and restoration of ‘mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands’[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2019,39(23):8755-8762.