Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China

Abstract

Recent expansion of the scale of human activities poses severe threats to Earth’s life-support systems. Increasingly, protected areas (PAs) are expected to serve dual goals: protect biodiversity and secure ecosystem services. We report a nationwide assessment for China, quantifying the provision of threatened species habitat and four key regulating services—water retention, soil retention, sandstorm prevention, and carbon sequestration—in nature reserves (the primary category of PAs in China). We find that China’s nature reserves serve moderately well for mammals and birds, but not for other major taxa, nor for these key regulating ecosystem services. China’s nature reserves encompass 15.1% of the country’s land surface. They capture 17.9% and 16.4% of the entire habitat area for threatened mammals and birds, but only 13.1% for plants, 10.0% for amphibians, and 8.5% for reptiles. Nature reserves encompass only 10.2–12.5% of the source areas for the four key regulating services. They are concentrated in western China, whereas much threatened species’ habitat and regulating service source areas occur in eastern provinces. Our analysis illuminates a strategy for greatly strengthening PAs, through creating the first comprehensive national park system of China. This would encompass both nature reserves, in which human activities are highly restricted, and a new category of PAs for ecosystem services, in which human activities not impacting key services are permitted. This could close the gap in a politically feasible way. We also propose a new category of PAs globally, for sustaining the provision of ecosystems services and achieving sustainable development goals.

Increased vegetation growth and carbon stock in China karst via ecological engineering

“…Although ecological conservation projects aim at increasing biodiversity, carbon sequestration and vegetation cover 16,17 , the success of such conservation efforts is not easily quantifiable, and the spatial footprint of projects is not always commensurable with contemporary satellite-and modelling-based monitoring methods. Adaptation and mitigation strategies to climate change should be anchored in knowledge on how ecosystems respond to climatic and anthropogenic disturbances, but at present it is not known whether conservation projects impact on the ability of vegetation to alleviate the effects of climate change at large scales.China's ecological restoration projects (for example, the Natural Forest Protection Project, the Grain to Green Project, and the Karst Rocky Desertification Restoration Project) are considered 'megaengineering' activities and the most ambitious afforestation and conservation projects in human history [16][17][18][19] . The highly sensitive and vulnerable karst ecosystem in southwest China is one of the largest exposed carbonate rock areas (more than 0.54 million km 2 ) in the world.…”

“…China's ecological restoration projects (for example, the Natural Forest Protection Project, the Grain to Green Project, and the Karst Rocky Desertification Restoration Project) are considered 'megaengineering' activities and the most ambitious afforestation and conservation projects in human history [16][17][18][19] . The highly sensitive and vulnerable karst ecosystem in southwest China is one of the largest exposed carbonate rock areas (more than 0.54 million km 2 ) in the world.…”

A bird’s eye view over ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites across Europe

“…The arguments of the 'New Conservation', calling for more emphasis on benefits to human well-being (Kareiva & Marvier 2012) or even a new category of ES-based protected areas (Xu et al 2017), build on the premise that a certain level of biodiversity is needed for the delivery of ES. However, a comprehensive analysis has been missing to date that would examine the extent to which the use of ES in protected areas leads to benefits and pressures on biodiversity conservation.…”

“…In recent years, advocates of the 'New Conservation' approach (Kareiva & Marvier 2012, Holmes et al 2017, Xu et al 2017) have called for placing more emphasis on the provision of ecosystem services (ES) and their role in benefiting human well-being. As this concept gains momentum in science and policy agendas (but also criticism e.g.…”

“…listed) rare or endangered species, often within reserves or protected areas. So far, only a few studies considered the synergetic effects between the protection of endangered habitats or species and the supply of ecosystem services (but see Eigenbrod et al 2009, Eastwood et al 2016, Márquez et al 2017, Xu et al 2017. For example, Eastwood et al (2016) investigated the effect of conservation on ES provision by comparing the provision of a broad range of ES in nine UK protected areas with nearby nonprotected areas representing the same site-characteristics and habitat type, finding higher levels of ES provision (mainly cultural and regulating) in protected areas.…”