黄河滩地杨树生态防护林生态系统服务的计量及其价值评估
|
摘要
生态系统生产功能下降、生物多样性减少、水旱灾害日益频繁、大气和水体污染加剧等等这些全球性和区域性的生态环境危机严重威胁到人类的生存与发展。黄河滩地生态防护林在区域经济发展、维持区域生态安全中发挥着越来越重要的作用。然而长期以来,人们只关心生态防护林的直接价值,即立木价值和林副产品的收益上,忽视了涵养水源、保育土壤、营养物质循环等间接效益。因此,适时研究现有黄河滩地生态防护林的结构和生态功能,既可提高人们对生态防护林的认识,也可为科学经营黄河滩区生态防护林提供理论依据。本文以济南市长清区黄河滩地的生态防护林为研究对象,选择生产上广泛应用的经营模式,采用专家咨询法构建了黄河下游滩区生态防护林生态系统服务的计量与价值评估指标体系,并采用空间代时间、定位观测与动态模拟相结合的方法,通过野外调查和资料收集,计量和评估了水源涵养、保育土壤、固碳释氧、净化环境等多种生态服务的功能及其价值。所获结论可黄河滩地生态防护林的可持续经营提供依据。主要结论如下:
(1)计量与评估体系
从森林生态系统服务的内涵入手,结合生态防护林的特点,建立了生态防护林生态系统服务计量和价值评估指标体系。从一定程度上填补了国内对生态防护林生态系统服务研究的空白。体系中一级指标3个,二级指标10个,三级指标21个。
(2)防护林调节小气候作用
同一品种相同密度的防护林防风效能随风力等级的提高而提高,而随林龄的增加而下降,8m风速范围内,最大防风效能超过60%以上;不同杨树品种之间的防风效能差异不显著。防风效能和风速之间存在正相关关系,模型拟合以Expotential Association的效果最优。
生态防护林造林后,其调温增湿作用及其价值随林龄的增加而增强。其中增温作用林龄从2a到10a平均调节温度的幅度由0.1℃逐渐增大至2.03℃,各林龄的年调节温度价值分别为1512、6312、12768、16848、21072、26328、29328和30096和30528元·h-1·hm~(-2),调温耗电量、调温价值与林龄之间以Logistic模型拟合的效果最优;在增湿作用方面,林龄从2a到10a平均调节湿度的幅度由2%逐渐增大至3.35%,每公顷不同林龄的防护林每年增加湿度的价值依次为78.34、88.13、99.1、109.67、116.72、119.49、127.69、129.65和131.21元,增湿耗电量及其价值采用Expotential Association拟合效果较好;黄河滩地生态防护林的调温增湿价值合计分别为1590.34、6400.13、12867.1、16957.67、21188.72、26447.46、29455.69、30225.65和30659.21元·a~(-1)·hm~(-2)。
(3)生物多样性
长清黄河滩地造林后,生物多样性受到严重的影响。植物多样性不高,以草本植物为主,随着造林密度的减小有一定程度的增加;中林46品种的林地可以蕴含更多的多样性资源。
黄河滩地生态防护林栖息蝗虫8种,优势种为短额负蝗、长额负蝗和日本蚱,区系成分广布种占62.5%,东洋种和古北种分别占12.5%和25%。蝗虫密度都在安全密度以下,与人工地面蝗虫防治相比,每年每公顷的抑蝗价值为166.3元。
滩地防护林为喜鹊提供了营巢环境,营巢数量随林龄的增加而增加,从4a开始由0.08个/hm2增加9a的1.66个/hm2。从4a至9a,喜鹊控制害虫的价值依次由16元/hm2依次增加到46、110、148、222和332元/hm2。
(4)涵养水源服务
滩地造林改善了土壤的粒级组成和土壤水源涵养功能。防护林的水源涵养功能年均价值中,同一品种随密度的减小而减小,介于13164.6元/hm2和9910.0元/hm2之间;同一密度3m×8m的I107、L35、中荷1号和中林46林地之间,年际平均饱和蓄水量分别为1907.9、1863.9、1870.0和2128.9 t/hm2,年均蓄水价值分别为10901.4、10650.3、10685.3和12164.6元/hm2,中林46的涵养水源作用最大。
(5)保育土壤
生态防护林可以有效保育土壤,其中减少废弃地价值1.31元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1),保持土壤肥力价值319.8元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1),防止泥沙淤积的价值10.97元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1);林龄2a至9a增加有机质的价值为335.44、1492.12、1893.20、4423.25、11321.42、13248.42、18287.79和32542.05元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1);累计每年每公顷保育土壤的价值分别为667.52、1824.20、2225.28、4755.33、11653.50、13580.50、18619.87和32874.13元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1)。
(6)净化环境
生态防护林有较大的净化环境作用。其中净化水质的价值为6775.28元hm~(-2)a~(-1);9a或10a固碳释氧价值介于11146.9～19684.91元hm~(-2)a~(-1),滞尘价值为1718.7元hm~(-2)a~(-1)。
(7)直接实物产品的计量与价值
杨树个体生长曲线均呈“S”型,林分材积生长与密度成反比关系。长清黄河滩地杨树生态防护林树高和胸径方程以多项式方程为最优,单木材积和林分的材积生长的最优拟合方程为Logistic模型,各模型的相关系数均达0.99以上。
造林初期间作1～3a,密度大于625株/hm2的林地通常只间作1a,可获得纯收入6599.25～10420.37元/hm2,低密度林地可以适当延长间作期1～2a。
8a时不同密度的立木产品和木材剩余物价值依次是3m×3m>3m×5m>4m×6m>4m×4m>3m×8m。品种间相比I107和中林46最受欢迎并广泛栽植。
滩地防护林2a到10a时,3m×3m、3m×4m、3m×5m、4m×6m的中林46累计价值分别为16.62、10.74、10.31、12.00万元/hm2,9a的3m×8m的中林46、L35、I107和中荷1号分别为10.12、9.34、11.48和9.93万元/hm2。林龄6～9a时林木年收益达到最大,其后1～3a内更新利用可以获得最大经济效益。因此生产上通常在7～9a主伐更新。
(8)生态防护林生态服务总价值
长清区生态防护林生态系统服务功能给人类带来了巨大的经济价值,主要从活立木蓄积、林副产品方面给人类带来直接的福利;同时,还对起着涵养水源、保育土壤、气体调节、净化环境和气候调节等作用。其中单位面积生态防护林的生态系统服务的直接价值和间接价值比值介于1.74和9.28之间。
Nowadays, our survival and development have been threatened seriously by the global and territorial ecological environment crisis, such as ecosystem productivity decrease, biodiversity loss, frequent flood and drought disasters, atmospheric and water pollution etc. The ecological protective forest (EPF) plays more and more important role in promoting the regional economic development and maintaining its eco-safety in lowland of the Yellow River. However, for a long time, People only care about the value of tangible products from ecological protective forest, while ignore that of intangible products, such as water and soil conservation, cycle of nutrients etc. Therefore, there are great significances to study the structure and function for the forests in the lowland of the Yellow River. In this paper, the typical plantations in Changqing district, Jinan City, were selected. A measurement and assessment index system was set up by using the method of expert consults, and the method of space substituting time and simulation combined with location survey, were used to measure and evaluate the ecosystem services, including water and soil conservation, CO2 fixation and O2 release, purifying environment and so on. The researches can provide with guidance for the sustainable management of ecological protective forests. The main conclusions show in the following:
⑴Measurement and assessment index system for the EPF in lowland of the Yellow river
Based on the connotation of the forest ecosystem services, combined with the characteristics of EPF, a measurement and assessment index system was put forward, which includes 3 first class indexes,10 second class indexes and 21 third class indexes.
⑵Microclimate regulation of EPF
For same species and density, the ability of wind-resistance of EPF increases as wind speed increasing, while falling with forest age growing. The maximum wind-resistance effect was more than 60% in the area less than 8 m/s. Wind-resistance ability had no significant differences among poplar varieties. There is positive correlation between wind-resistance ability and wind speed, and the best simulation model is Expotential Association.
The effects of temperature-adjusting and humidity-enhancing increases with age growingt after EPF established. The average range of temperature-regulating is 0.1℃in 2-year-old foest while that is 2.03℃in 10-year-old forest. The temperature-adjusting value of the forest ranges from 2-year-old to 10-year-old, and its value is 1512, 6312, 12768, 16848, 21072, 26328, 29328, 30096 and 30528 CNY·h-1·hm~(-2) respectively, and the relation between electricity-consumption and age, together with temperature-adjusting value and forest age was best described by the Logistic model.
The net humidity increase is from 2% in the 2-year-old forest to 3.35% in the 10-year-old.
The humidity-adjusting value ranged from 2-year-old to 10-year-old is 78.34, 88.13, 99.1, 109.67, 116.72, 119.49, 127.65 and 131.21 CNY·h-1·hm~(-2) respectively, and the relationship between electricity-consumption and humidity-increasing value is best described by Expotential Association. The total value of temperature-adjusting and humidity-adjusting of EPF in lowland of the Yellow River were 1590.34,6400.13,12867.1,16957.67,21188.72,26447.46,29455.69,30225.65 and 30659.21CNY·a~(-1)·hm~(-2), respectively.
⑶Biodiversity in lowland of the Yellow river
The biodiversity is significantly affected after the forest cultivated. The diversity is low in which the plants were mainly composed by herb species, and the diversity indexes increases as the forest density decreasing. The biodiversities of poplar Zhonglin 46 plantations are higher than that of others.
There are 8 kinds of grasshopper and the dominant species are Atractomorpha sinensis, A. lata, and Tetrix japonica. The widespread species, Oriental species and Palaerctic species occupy 62.5%, 12.5% and 25% respeetively. The density of grasshoppers was below the safe level and the grasshopper-controlling value is 116.3 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) compared with the artifical control.
The pie magpie nests increase as the forest age growing, it’s 0.08 nest/ha2 in the 4-year-old forest and 1.66 nest/ha2 in the 9-year-old forest. The pest-controlling value of magpies was respectively 16, 46, 110, 148, 222 and 332 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) in the forest ranging form 4-year-old to 9-year-old.
⑷Water conservation services in lowland of the Yellow river
The soil particle proportion and water conservation ability are improved by the EPF. For the same variety, the water conservation value decreases with density decline, which ranged from 13164.6 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) to 9910.0 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2). For different varieties of the same density, that of Zhonglin 46 was the maximum, and the average annual saturating water storage of I107, L35 and Zhonghe 1 and Zhonglin 46 were respectively 1907.9, 1863.9, 1870.0 and 2128.9 t/hm2,and the average annual water-storing value was 10901.4, 10650.3. 10685.3 and 12164.6 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) respectively.
⑸Soil conservation in lowland of the Yellow river
The soil is effectively conserved by the EPF. The value of reducing abandoned-land is 1.31 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2), the value of soil fertility is 319.8 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) , and the value of reducing sediment-accumulation is 10.97 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2). The value of organic matter increasing was respectively 335.44,1492.12,1893.20,4423.25,11321.42,13248.42,18287.7 and 32542.05 CNY·ha~(-2)·a~(-1) ranging from 2-year-old to 9-year-old and the total values of soil conservation are 667.52,1824.20,2225.28,4755.33,11653.50,13580.50,18619.87 and 32874.13 CNY·ha~(-2)·a~(-1).
⑹Environment purification in lowland of the Yellow river
The value of water purification is 6775.28 CNY ha~(-2)a~(-1), CO2 fixation and O2 release value is between 11146.9～19684.91CNY ha~(-2)a~(-1) for 9a or10a. Dust control value was 1718.7 CNY·ha~(-2)·a~(-1).
⑺The measurement and evaluation of direct products of EPF
The growth curve of the poplar individual all showed as S type, and there is negtive relationship between the volume and the density. The polynomial model is the best to simulate the tree height and diameter equation, while logistic model is best for the single wood volume and stand volume. The coefficient of each model is more than 0.99.
In the first 3a, only 1a intercrop is available for the stand density more than 625individual/ha2, which can get net income of 6599.25～10420.37CNY/ha2, low density stand can prolonged intercropping stage 1～2a properly.
The total value of timber and remainder in 8a is 3m×3m>3m×5m>4m×6m>4m×4m>3m×8m.I107, and Zhonglin 46 are the most popular among poplar varieties. From 2a to 10a, the acumulative values of 3m×3m, 3m×4m, 3m×5m, 4m×6m of Zhonglin46 are166.2, 107.4, 103.1, 120.0thousand CNY/ha2, that of 3m×8m of Zhonglin46, L35, I107 and Honghe 1 are 101.2, 93.4, 114.8 and 99.3 thousand CNY/ha2. The largest annual income is 6～9a, therefore the utilization is usually in age 7～9a in practice.
⑻Total value of ecosystem services
The EPF has brought about tremendous economic benefit for us, wich is mainly from stand volume, forest byproduct. At the same time, it can also provides water and soil conservation, gas regulation, environment purification, climate regulation etc. the value ratio of direct value per unit area to that of indirect value are ranging from 1.74 to 9.28.
(1)计量与评估体系
从森林生态系统服务的内涵入手,结合生态防护林的特点,建立了生态防护林生态系统服务计量和价值评估指标体系。从一定程度上填补了国内对生态防护林生态系统服务研究的空白。体系中一级指标3个,二级指标10个,三级指标21个。
(2)防护林调节小气候作用
同一品种相同密度的防护林防风效能随风力等级的提高而提高,而随林龄的增加而下降,8m风速范围内,最大防风效能超过60%以上;不同杨树品种之间的防风效能差异不显著。防风效能和风速之间存在正相关关系,模型拟合以Expotential Association的效果最优。
生态防护林造林后,其调温增湿作用及其价值随林龄的增加而增强。其中增温作用林龄从2a到10a平均调节温度的幅度由0.1℃逐渐增大至2.03℃,各林龄的年调节温度价值分别为1512、6312、12768、16848、21072、26328、29328和30096和30528元·h-1·hm~(-2),调温耗电量、调温价值与林龄之间以Logistic模型拟合的效果最优;在增湿作用方面,林龄从2a到10a平均调节湿度的幅度由2%逐渐增大至3.35%,每公顷不同林龄的防护林每年增加湿度的价值依次为78.34、88.13、99.1、109.67、116.72、119.49、127.69、129.65和131.21元,增湿耗电量及其价值采用Expotential Association拟合效果较好;黄河滩地生态防护林的调温增湿价值合计分别为1590.34、6400.13、12867.1、16957.67、21188.72、26447.46、29455.69、30225.65和30659.21元·a~(-1)·hm~(-2)。
(3)生物多样性
长清黄河滩地造林后,生物多样性受到严重的影响。植物多样性不高,以草本植物为主,随着造林密度的减小有一定程度的增加;中林46品种的林地可以蕴含更多的多样性资源。
黄河滩地生态防护林栖息蝗虫8种,优势种为短额负蝗、长额负蝗和日本蚱,区系成分广布种占62.5%,东洋种和古北种分别占12.5%和25%。蝗虫密度都在安全密度以下,与人工地面蝗虫防治相比,每年每公顷的抑蝗价值为166.3元。
滩地防护林为喜鹊提供了营巢环境,营巢数量随林龄的增加而增加,从4a开始由0.08个/hm2增加9a的1.66个/hm2。从4a至9a,喜鹊控制害虫的价值依次由16元/hm2依次增加到46、110、148、222和332元/hm2。
(4)涵养水源服务
滩地造林改善了土壤的粒级组成和土壤水源涵养功能。防护林的水源涵养功能年均价值中,同一品种随密度的减小而减小,介于13164.6元/hm2和9910.0元/hm2之间;同一密度3m×8m的I107、L35、中荷1号和中林46林地之间,年际平均饱和蓄水量分别为1907.9、1863.9、1870.0和2128.9 t/hm2,年均蓄水价值分别为10901.4、10650.3、10685.3和12164.6元/hm2,中林46的涵养水源作用最大。
(5)保育土壤
生态防护林可以有效保育土壤,其中减少废弃地价值1.31元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1),保持土壤肥力价值319.8元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1),防止泥沙淤积的价值10.97元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1);林龄2a至9a增加有机质的价值为335.44、1492.12、1893.20、4423.25、11321.42、13248.42、18287.79和32542.05元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1);累计每年每公顷保育土壤的价值分别为667.52、1824.20、2225.28、4755.33、11653.50、13580.50、18619.87和32874.13元·hm~(-2)·a~(-1)。
(6)净化环境
生态防护林有较大的净化环境作用。其中净化水质的价值为6775.28元hm~(-2)a~(-1);9a或10a固碳释氧价值介于11146.9～19684.91元hm~(-2)a~(-1),滞尘价值为1718.7元hm~(-2)a~(-1)。
(7)直接实物产品的计量与价值
杨树个体生长曲线均呈“S”型,林分材积生长与密度成反比关系。长清黄河滩地杨树生态防护林树高和胸径方程以多项式方程为最优,单木材积和林分的材积生长的最优拟合方程为Logistic模型,各模型的相关系数均达0.99以上。
造林初期间作1～3a,密度大于625株/hm2的林地通常只间作1a,可获得纯收入6599.25～10420.37元/hm2,低密度林地可以适当延长间作期1～2a。
8a时不同密度的立木产品和木材剩余物价值依次是3m×3m>3m×5m>4m×6m>4m×4m>3m×8m。品种间相比I107和中林46最受欢迎并广泛栽植。
滩地防护林2a到10a时,3m×3m、3m×4m、3m×5m、4m×6m的中林46累计价值分别为16.62、10.74、10.31、12.00万元/hm2,9a的3m×8m的中林46、L35、I107和中荷1号分别为10.12、9.34、11.48和9.93万元/hm2。林龄6～9a时林木年收益达到最大,其后1～3a内更新利用可以获得最大经济效益。因此生产上通常在7～9a主伐更新。
(8)生态防护林生态服务总价值
长清区生态防护林生态系统服务功能给人类带来了巨大的经济价值,主要从活立木蓄积、林副产品方面给人类带来直接的福利;同时,还对起着涵养水源、保育土壤、气体调节、净化环境和气候调节等作用。其中单位面积生态防护林的生态系统服务的直接价值和间接价值比值介于1.74和9.28之间。
Nowadays, our survival and development have been threatened seriously by the global and territorial ecological environment crisis, such as ecosystem productivity decrease, biodiversity loss, frequent flood and drought disasters, atmospheric and water pollution etc. The ecological protective forest (EPF) plays more and more important role in promoting the regional economic development and maintaining its eco-safety in lowland of the Yellow River. However, for a long time, People only care about the value of tangible products from ecological protective forest, while ignore that of intangible products, such as water and soil conservation, cycle of nutrients etc. Therefore, there are great significances to study the structure and function for the forests in the lowland of the Yellow River. In this paper, the typical plantations in Changqing district, Jinan City, were selected. A measurement and assessment index system was set up by using the method of expert consults, and the method of space substituting time and simulation combined with location survey, were used to measure and evaluate the ecosystem services, including water and soil conservation, CO2 fixation and O2 release, purifying environment and so on. The researches can provide with guidance for the sustainable management of ecological protective forests. The main conclusions show in the following:
⑴Measurement and assessment index system for the EPF in lowland of the Yellow river
Based on the connotation of the forest ecosystem services, combined with the characteristics of EPF, a measurement and assessment index system was put forward, which includes 3 first class indexes,10 second class indexes and 21 third class indexes.
⑵Microclimate regulation of EPF
For same species and density, the ability of wind-resistance of EPF increases as wind speed increasing, while falling with forest age growing. The maximum wind-resistance effect was more than 60% in the area less than 8 m/s. Wind-resistance ability had no significant differences among poplar varieties. There is positive correlation between wind-resistance ability and wind speed, and the best simulation model is Expotential Association.
The effects of temperature-adjusting and humidity-enhancing increases with age growingt after EPF established. The average range of temperature-regulating is 0.1℃in 2-year-old foest while that is 2.03℃in 10-year-old forest. The temperature-adjusting value of the forest ranges from 2-year-old to 10-year-old, and its value is 1512, 6312, 12768, 16848, 21072, 26328, 29328, 30096 and 30528 CNY·h-1·hm~(-2) respectively, and the relation between electricity-consumption and age, together with temperature-adjusting value and forest age was best described by the Logistic model.
The net humidity increase is from 2% in the 2-year-old forest to 3.35% in the 10-year-old.
The humidity-adjusting value ranged from 2-year-old to 10-year-old is 78.34, 88.13, 99.1, 109.67, 116.72, 119.49, 127.65 and 131.21 CNY·h-1·hm~(-2) respectively, and the relationship between electricity-consumption and humidity-increasing value is best described by Expotential Association. The total value of temperature-adjusting and humidity-adjusting of EPF in lowland of the Yellow River were 1590.34,6400.13,12867.1,16957.67,21188.72,26447.46,29455.69,30225.65 and 30659.21CNY·a~(-1)·hm~(-2), respectively.
⑶Biodiversity in lowland of the Yellow river
The biodiversity is significantly affected after the forest cultivated. The diversity is low in which the plants were mainly composed by herb species, and the diversity indexes increases as the forest density decreasing. The biodiversities of poplar Zhonglin 46 plantations are higher than that of others.
There are 8 kinds of grasshopper and the dominant species are Atractomorpha sinensis, A. lata, and Tetrix japonica. The widespread species, Oriental species and Palaerctic species occupy 62.5%, 12.5% and 25% respeetively. The density of grasshoppers was below the safe level and the grasshopper-controlling value is 116.3 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) compared with the artifical control.
The pie magpie nests increase as the forest age growing, it’s 0.08 nest/ha2 in the 4-year-old forest and 1.66 nest/ha2 in the 9-year-old forest. The pest-controlling value of magpies was respectively 16, 46, 110, 148, 222 and 332 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) in the forest ranging form 4-year-old to 9-year-old.
⑷Water conservation services in lowland of the Yellow river
The soil particle proportion and water conservation ability are improved by the EPF. For the same variety, the water conservation value decreases with density decline, which ranged from 13164.6 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) to 9910.0 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2). For different varieties of the same density, that of Zhonglin 46 was the maximum, and the average annual saturating water storage of I107, L35 and Zhonghe 1 and Zhonglin 46 were respectively 1907.9, 1863.9, 1870.0 and 2128.9 t/hm2,and the average annual water-storing value was 10901.4, 10650.3. 10685.3 and 12164.6 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) respectively.
⑸Soil conservation in lowland of the Yellow river
The soil is effectively conserved by the EPF. The value of reducing abandoned-land is 1.31 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2), the value of soil fertility is 319.8 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2) , and the value of reducing sediment-accumulation is 10.97 CNY·a~(-1)·ha~(-2). The value of organic matter increasing was respectively 335.44,1492.12,1893.20,4423.25,11321.42,13248.42,18287.7 and 32542.05 CNY·ha~(-2)·a~(-1) ranging from 2-year-old to 9-year-old and the total values of soil conservation are 667.52,1824.20,2225.28,4755.33,11653.50,13580.50,18619.87 and 32874.13 CNY·ha~(-2)·a~(-1).
⑹Environment purification in lowland of the Yellow river
The value of water purification is 6775.28 CNY ha~(-2)a~(-1), CO2 fixation and O2 release value is between 11146.9～19684.91CNY ha~(-2)a~(-1) for 9a or10a. Dust control value was 1718.7 CNY·ha~(-2)·a~(-1).
⑺The measurement and evaluation of direct products of EPF
The growth curve of the poplar individual all showed as S type, and there is negtive relationship between the volume and the density. The polynomial model is the best to simulate the tree height and diameter equation, while logistic model is best for the single wood volume and stand volume. The coefficient of each model is more than 0.99.
In the first 3a, only 1a intercrop is available for the stand density more than 625individual/ha2, which can get net income of 6599.25～10420.37CNY/ha2, low density stand can prolonged intercropping stage 1～2a properly.
The total value of timber and remainder in 8a is 3m×3m>3m×5m>4m×6m>4m×4m>3m×8m.I107, and Zhonglin 46 are the most popular among poplar varieties. From 2a to 10a, the acumulative values of 3m×3m, 3m×4m, 3m×5m, 4m×6m of Zhonglin46 are166.2, 107.4, 103.1, 120.0thousand CNY/ha2, that of 3m×8m of Zhonglin46, L35, I107 and Honghe 1 are 101.2, 93.4, 114.8 and 99.3 thousand CNY/ha2. The largest annual income is 6～9a, therefore the utilization is usually in age 7～9a in practice.
⑻Total value of ecosystem services
The EPF has brought about tremendous economic benefit for us, wich is mainly from stand volume, forest byproduct. At the same time, it can also provides water and soil conservation, gas regulation, environment purification, climate regulation etc. the value ratio of direct value per unit area to that of indirect value are ranging from 1.74 to 9.28.
引文
1.巴合提亚尔·达吾提.几种杀虫剂农药防治草原优势种蝗虫的田间效果[J].新疆农业科学,2003,40(3):190-191
2.包维楷,乔永康,陈庆恒.岷江上游典型油松人工幼林的生态环境效应[J].山地学报,2003,21(6):662-668
3.毕晓丽,葛剑平.基于IGBP土地覆盖类型的中国陆地生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].山地学报,2004,22(1):48-53
4.陈广庭.沙害防治技术.北京:化学工业出版社,2003
5.陈化鹏,杜永欣.喜鹊营巢生境的分析[J].野生动物,1993(5):20-23
6.陈仲新,张新时.中国生态系统效益的价值[J].科学通报,2000,45(1):17-22
7.崔丽娟,赵欣胜.鄱阳湖湿地生态能值分析研究[J].生态学报,2004,24(7):1480-1485
8.崔丽娟.鄱阳湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估研究[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(4):47-51
9.戴晟懋,郑巍,董纯.关于生态经济型防护林工程建设的思考[J].防护林科技,2000(1):52-53
10.戴雨生,康立新,梁珍海,等.江苏泥质海岸防护林土壤微生物数量分布及其类群的研究[A].见:康立新,王述礼.沿海防护林体系功能及其效益[C].北京:科学技术文献出版社,1994,171-177
11.邓培雁,陈桂珠,刘威.湿地价值分析及其基本原则.城市环境与城市生态,2003,16(4):24-26
12.董慈祥,赵平厚,杨勤敏,等.菏泽市蝗虫调查初报[J].华东昆虫学报,2003,12(1):10-13
13.董琼,马履一,刘春.云南通海县森林生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].西南林学院学报,2006,26(5):28-32
14.董全.生态功益:自然生态过程对人类的贡献[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(2):233-240
15.窦芳.黄河中上游防护林工程现状及发展对策[J].防护林科技,2000(2):62-64
16.杜文胜,金玉凤,张响乐.杀虫优油剂在森林害虫防治工作中的推广应用[J].森林病虫通讯,1999,1:39-40
17.范志平,曾德惠,朱教君,等.农田防护林生态作用特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(4):130-133,140
18.高琼,李月辉,肖笃宁,等.沈阳市域森林生态系统服务功能价值评估.东北林业大学学报,2008,36(2):6-9
19.郭中伟,等.生态系统水源涵养功能评价—以兴山县为例[J].自然资源学报,1997,13(3):242-248
20.郝映红,安文山.喜鹊的食物[J].四川动物,1992,11(2):37-38
21.何斌,秦武明,戴军,等.马占相思人工林不同年龄阶段水源涵养功能及其价值研究[J].水土保持学报. 2006,20(5):5-8,27
22.何浩,潘耀忠,朱文泉,等.中国陆地生态系统服务价值测量[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(6):1122-1127
23.贺庆棠主编.中国森林气象学[M].中国林业出版社,2001
24.侯元凯.森林生态环境资源可实现价值补偿机制研究.森林环境价值核算国际研讨会,CAF & ITTO,2001
25.侯元兆,张佩昌,王琦.中国森林资源核算研究,中国林业出版社,1995
26.胡承彪,梁秀棠.合浦海滨海滩森林土壤微生物区系及生化活性[J].热带林业科技,1987,(1):1-7
27.胡海波,张金池,高智慧,等.岩质海岸防护林土壤微生物数量及其与酶活性和理化性质的关系[J].林业科学研究,2001,15(1):88-95
28.胡海胜.庐山自然保护区森林生态系统服务价值评估.资源科学,2007,29(5):29-36
29.胡箭.灰喜鹊生态学研究进展[J].林业调查规划,2006,5:57-60
30.黄平,候长谋,张弛,等.广东省森林生态系统服务功能[J].生态科学,2002,21(2):160-163
31.黄湘,李卫红.荒漠生态系统服务功能及其价值研究[J].环境科学与管理. 2006,31(07):64-70,73
32.蒋延玲,周广胜.中国主要森林生态系统公益的评估[J].植物生态学报,1999,23(5):426-432
33.焦彩霞,孙跟年,任志远.渭北高原植被水源涵养功能及价值测评[J].山地学报,2002,20(5):583-588
34.靳芳,鲁绍伟,余新晓,等.中国森林生态系统服务价值评估体系初探[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(2):5-9
35.康文星,田大伦.杉木人工林采伐后水源涵养和固土保肥效益损失的评价[J].林业科学,2002,38(1):111-115
36.孔令刚,王华田,姜岳忠,等.杨树不同品种更替连作对林地土壤生化特性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(5):69-72
37.郎奎建,李长胜,殷有,等.林业生态工程10种森林生态效益计量理论和方法[J].东北林业大学学报,2000,28(1):1-7
38.雷孝章,王金锡,彭沛好,等.中国生态林业工程效益评价指标体系[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(2):175-182
39.李长荣.武陵源自然保护区森林生态系统服务功能及价值评价[J].林业科学,2004,40(20):16-20
40.李传荣,许景伟,宋海燕,等.黄河三角洲滩地不同造林模式的土壤酶活性研究[J],植物生态学报,2006,30(5):802-809
41.李春艳.黄河下游滩区生态经济型防护林生态系统服务功能价值评价——以济南长清区为例.山东农业大学硕士学位论文. 2007
42.李德生,张萍,尹建道,等.黄前库区流域植被水源涵养功能及植被类型选择的研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4):128-131
43.李红云,杨吉华,夏江宝,等.济南市南部山区森林涵养水源功能的价值评价[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):72-79
44.李金昌.生态价值论[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,1999
45.李晶,任志远.秦巴山区植被涵养水源价值测评研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4):132-135
46.李少宁,王兵,赵广东,等.森林生态系统服务功能研究进展—理论与方法[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(4):14-18
47.李双成,郑度,张镱锂.环境与生态系统资本价值评估的区域范式[J].地理科学,2002,22(3):270-275
48.李卫忠,郑小贤,张秋良.生态公益林建设效益评价指标体系[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2001,22(6):12-15
49.李文华,欧阳志云,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能研究[M].北京:气象出版社,2002
50.李亚妮,王文强,廉振民,等.陕西延安北洛河流域蝗虫群落多样性研究.四川动物,2008,27(6):1027-1029,1034
51.刘畅,满秀玲,刘文勇,等.东北东部山地主要林分类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报. 2006,20(6):30-33
52.刘福德,姜岳忠,刘颜泉等.连作I-107杨树无性系苗圃地的土壤酶活性特征[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(2):119-124
53.刘福德,姜岳忠,王华田,等.杨树人工林连作效应的研究[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(2):102-105
54.刘红梅,蒋菊生.生态服务价值评估与国民经济核算简述[J].华南热带农业大学学报,2003(9):19-25
55.刘霞,张光灿,江廷水,等.国内外公益林效益计量评价研究进展[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2):95-100
56.刘玉龙,马俊杰,金学林,等.生态系统功能价值评价方法综述[J].中国人口资源与环境,2005,15(1):88-92
57.吕国强,王建敏,朱恩林,等.黄河滩蝗区东亚飞蝗综合防治技术[J].河南农业科学,2008,11:99-101,125
58.罗伟祥.试论生态经济型防护林体系的意义、内涵及建设途径[J].防护林科技,1993(1):25-29
59.米锋,李吉跃,杨家伟.森林生态效益评价的研究进展[J].北京林业大学学报,2003,25(6):80-86
60.聂华.森林环境价值纳入国民收入核算中的重复计算[J].北京林业大学学报(社会科学版),2002,1(2/3):40-42
61.欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(5):635-640
62.欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999,19(5):19-25
63.潘耀忠,史培军,朱文泉,等.中国陆地生态系统生态资产遥感定量测量[J].中国科学(D辑),2004,34(4):87-96
64.彭建,王仰麟,陈燕飞,等.城市生态系统服务功能价值评估初探—以深圳市为例[J].北京大学学报,41(4):594-604
65.任勇等.生态经济型防护林体系建设模式专家系统的研制开发[J].林业科学,1996,32(2):134-139
66.茹永强,哈登龙,熊林春,等.鸡公山自然保护区森林生态系统服务功能及其价值初步研究[J].河南农业大学学报,2004,38(2):199-202
67.山东省土壤肥料工作站,山东土壤,中国农业出版社,1994
68.沈国舫主编.中国森林资源与可持续经营[M].南宁:广西科学技术出版社,2000
69.宋溪德,刘粉莲,罗伟祥,等.西北黄土丘陵沟壑区防护林网络体系概念及其配置模式[J].西北林学院学报,2003,11(1):32-36
70.宋绪忠.黄河下游河南段滩地植被特征与功能研究[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院博士学位论文,2005
71.苏永中,赵哈林,张铜会.几种灌木、半灌木对沙地土壤肥力影响机制研究.应用生态学报,2002,13(7):802-806
72.孙刚,盛连喜,周道玮.生态系统服务及其保护策略[J].应用生态学报,1996,10(3):365-368
73.孙阁.森林植被对河流泥沙和水质影响综述[J].水土保持学报,1988,2(3):83-89
74.孙龙,李俊涛,耿叙武等.崂山风景区森林生态系统服务功能及价值评估[J].防护林科技,2006(3):93-95
75.索南加.贵南县牧鸡灭蝗技术及效果评价[J].现代农业科技,2008,21:129-130
76.谭秀梅,王华田,孔令刚,等.杨树人工林连作土壤中酚酸积累规律及对土壤微生物的影响[J].山东大学学报(理学版),2008,43(1):14-19
77.王爱玲,朱文泉,李京,等.内蒙古生态系统服务价值遥感测量[J].地理科学. 2007,27(3):325-330
78.王棣,吕皎.油松混交林的水土保持及水源涵养功能研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(4):44-46
79.王桂岩,王彦,李善文,等. 13种杨树木材物理学性质的研究[J].山东林业科技,2001(2):1-11
80.王礼先等.长江中上游水土保持及环境保护[M].中国林业出版社,1995. 5-6
81.王勤,张宗应,徐小牛.安徽大别山库区不同林分类型的土壤特性及其涵养水源功能[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(3):59-62
82.王亚娟,马俊杰,刘小鹏.关中周边山地森林生态环境综合价值评价[J].山地学报,2004,22(5):549-553
83.王佑民,刘秉正.黄土高原防护林生态特征[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1993,2-105
84.温远光,刘世荣.我国主要森林生态系统类型降水截留规律的数量分析[J].林业科学,1995,31(4):289-298
85.文倩,关欣.土壤团聚体形成的研究进展[J].干旱区研究,2004,21(4):434-438
86.邬国良,刘奎.烟雾剂对蔗田东亚飞蝗的防治试验[J].热带农业科学,2002,22(4):26-27
87.吴钢,肖寒,赵景柱,等.长白山森林生态系统服务功能[J].中国科学(C辑),2001,31(5):471-480
88.肖爱平,李景福.中林46杨引种生长情况调查及效益分析[J].河北林业科技,2003(2):25-26
89.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):481一484
90.肖纪浩,侯广力等.辽东水源涵养林体系林种结构[J].辽东林业科技,1999(6):33-36
91.肖玉,谢高地.青藏高原生态系统土壤保持功能及其价值[J].生态学报,2004,23(11):2367-2378
92.谢高地,鲁春霞,成升魁.全球生态系统服务价值评估研究进展[J].资源科学,2001,23(6):9-13
93.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2):189-196
94.谢高地,张钇锂,鲁春霞.中国自然草地生态系统服务价值[J].自然资源学报. 2001,16(1):47-53
95.辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算[J].生态学报,2002,22(8):1345-1349
96.辛琨.生态系统服务功能价值估算[D].中国科学院博士研究生学位论文,2001
97.徐慧,钱谊,彭补拙,等.鹞落坪自然保护区森林生态系统间接使用价值评估[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2003,27(2):16-20
98.徐俏,何孟常,杨志峰等.广州市生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2003,39(2):126-130
99.徐嵩龄.森林价值计量的恰当性:关于计量概念与方法评论[A].见:CAF,森林环境价值核算国际研讨会论文集(CAF&ITTO)[C].北京:中国林业科学研究院,2001
100.徐中民,张志强.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用[J].生态学报. 2003,23(9):1841-1850
101.许景伟,李春艳,王卫东,等.黄河下游滩地杨树人工林土壤微生物分析[J],东北林业大学学报,2007,35(9):52-54,69
102.许阳萍,林媚珍,陈志云.流溪河国家森林公园森林生态系统服务功能间接价值评估.广东农业科学,2008,8:131-134
103.薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长白山自然保护区森林生态系统间接经济价值评估[J].中国环境科学,1999,19(3):247-252
104.薛达元.生物多样性经济价值评估—长白山自然保护区案例研究[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1997
105.薛立,邝立刚,陈红跃,等.不同林分土壤养分、微生物与酶活性的研究[J].土壤学报,2003,40(2):280-285
106.鄢帮有.鄱阳湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].资源科学,2004,26(3):61-68
107.闫德仁,杨文斌.沙漠化土地治理程度等级指标的探讨[J].中国沙漠,2006,26(5):698-703
108.杨洪国,杨翟军.森林环境资源资产评估[J].四川林勘设计. 1998,(3):28-30
109.杨吉华,张永涛,李传荣,等.沿黄两岸综合防护林体系的配置及效益分析[J].水土保持研究,2001,8(3):26-28
110.杨文斌,丁国栋,王晶莹,等.行带式柠条固沙林防风效果[J].生态学报,2006,26(12):192-198
111.杨玉坡,等.长江上游(川江)防护林研究[M].科学出版社,1993. 28-30
112.于格,鲁春霞,谢高地.青藏高原草地生态系统服务功能的季节动态变化[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(1):47-51
113.余新晓,鲁绍伟,靳芳等.中国森林生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].生态学报,2005,25(8):2096-2102
114.余新晓,秦永胜,陈丽华,等.北京山地森林生态系统服务功能及其价值初步研究[J].生态学报,2002,22(5):783-786
115.岳兴玲,哈斯,庄燕美,等.沙质草原灌丛沙堆研究进展.中国沙漠,2005,25(5):738-742
116.曾德慧,姜凤岐,范志平,等.生态系统健康与人类可持续发展[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(6):751-756
117.张岑,任志远,高孟绪,等.甘肃省森林生态服务功能及价值评估[J].干旱区资源与环境,2007,21(8):840-844
118.张鼎华,孙志蓉,翟明普,等.杨树刺槐混交林沙地土壤的水分物理性质[J].应用与环境生物学报,2001,7(2):122-125
119.张付旭,白音,张龙.内蒙古农牧交错区草地蝗虫防治对策与技术的研究初报[J].华东昆虫学报,2007,16(2):113-118
120.张继义,赵哈林,张铜会,等.科尔沁沙地植被恢复系列上群落演替与物种多样性的恢复动态[J].植物生态学报,2004,28(1):86-92
121.张建国.林业综合效益评价研究[J].林业资源管理,1994,4:70-73
122.张猛,张健.林地土壤微生物、酶活性研究进展[J].四川农业大学学报,2003,21(4):347-351
123.张乃明,董艳.施肥与设施栽培措施对土壤微生物区系的影响[J].生态环境,2004,13(1):61-62
124.张瑞麟,刘果厚,崔秀萍.浑善达克沙地黄柳活沙障防风固沙效益的研究[J].中国沙漠,2006,26(5):717-721
125.张三焕等.长白山森林间接经济价值评估——以和龙林区为例[J].延边大学学报(社会科学版),2002,35(2):109-112
126.张淑英,陈云浩.内蒙古生态资产测量及生态建设研究[J].资源科学. 2004,26(3):22-28
127.张永民译.赵士洞校.千年生态系统评估:生态系统与人类福祉评估框架[M].北京:中国环境科学出版,2006
128.张泽华,高松.应用绿僵菌油剂防治内蒙草原蝗虫的效果[J].中国生物防治,2000,16(2):49-52
129.张志强,徐中民,程国栋.生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估[J].生态学报,2001,21(11):1918-1926
130.张志强,徐中民.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究———以连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(2):230-239
131.章家恩,饶为民.农业系统的服务功能与可持续利用对策探讨[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(4):99-102
132.赵传燕,冯兆东,刘勇等.干旱区森林水源涵养生态服务功能研究进展[J].山地学报,2003,21(02):33-37
133.赵红艳.森林生态系统服务功能价值评价指标体系研究—以湖南绥宁县为例.中南林业科技大学硕士学位论文
134.赵景柱,段光明.生态环境对经济系统贡献的相对价值评估研究[J].环境科学. 2004,25(5):1-4
135.赵景柱,肖寒,吴刚.生态系统服务的物质量和价值量评价方法的比较分析[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(2):133-135
136.赵景柱.生态系统的物质量与价值量评价方法比较[J].应用生态学,2000,11(2):290-292
137.赵荣钦,黄爱民,秦明周,等.农田生态系统服务功能及其评价方法研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,2003,19(4):267-270
138.赵士洞,张永民.生态系统评估的概念、内涵及挑战——介绍《生态系统与人类福利:评估框架》[J].地球科学进展,2004,19(4):159-166
139.赵同谦,欧阳志云.贾良清2004.中国草地生态系统服务功能间接价值评价[J].生态学报,2004,24(6):11-20
140.赵伟,杜文亮.蝗虫的物理防治现状与展望[J].农机化研究,2008,4:212-214
141.中国生物多样性国情研究报告编写组.中国生物多样性国情研究报告[C].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1997
142.周冰冰,李忠魁.北京市森林资源价值初报[J].林业经济,2001(2):36-42
143.周晓峰,等.森林生态系统服务功能[M].北京:气象出版社,2002
144.周晓峰,蒋敏元.黑龙江省森林效益的计量、评价及补偿[J].林业科学,1999,35(3):97-102
145.朱斌,王维中,张立新,等.宝华山不同演替群落下的土壤微生物状况[J].南京林业大学学报,2004,24(3):61-64
146.庄大昌,欧维新.洞庭湖湿地退田还湖的生态经济效益研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(5):536-542
147.宗跃光,陈春红,郭瑞华.地域生态系统服务功能的价值结构分析—以宁夏灵武市为例[J].地理研究,2000,19(2):148-155
148.宗跃光,周尚意,温良,等,区域生态系统可持续发展的生态价值评价——以宁夏灵武市为例[J].生态学报,2002,22(10):1573-1580
149. Acharya G. Approaches to valuing the hidden hydrological services of wetland ecosystems[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 35: 63-74
150. Alexander A. M. A method for valuing global ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 27: 161-170
151. Ayres R.U. The price-value paradox[J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 17-19
152. Bjorklund J. et al. Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1999, 29: 269-291
153. Cairns,J. Protecting the delivery of ecosystem service[J]. Ecosys. Health, 1997, 3(3): 185-194
154. Cang D. H, Yang Y.S, Zou S.Q. A study on the microflora and biochemical properties of soil microorganisms and the soil fertility of interplanted forest of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Amomum villosum[J]. Scietia silvace Sinicae, 1988, 24(4): 458-465
155. Carina Dennis, Peter Aldhous. Biodiversity: Many players’tragedy[J]. Nature, 2004, (430): 396-398
156. Carson, R. Silent Spring[M]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962: 1-9
157. Chan K.Y, Heenan D.P. Microbial-induced soil aggregate stability under different crop rotations [J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 1999, 30(1-2): 29-32
158. Cohen, J. E. & Tilman, D. Biosphere 2 and Biodiversity: The lessons so far[J]. Science, 1996, 274: 1150~1151
159. Costanza R. D. , Arge R., Rudolf de G., et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 1997, 387: 253-260
160. Costanza R. et al. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective [J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 67-72
161. Costanza R. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services[J]. Ecosystems. 2000, 3: 4-10
162. Daily, G. C. Valuing and Safeguarding Earth’s Life-Support Systems[A]. In: Daily, G.(ed). Nature’s service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem[C]. Washington, D. C: Island Press, 1997: 365-375
163. Daily, G. C. et al. Ecosystem Service: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems[R]. 1999
164. Daily, G. C. Introduction: what are ecosystem services[A]. In: Daily, G.(ed). Nature’s Service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem[C]. Washington,D. C: Island Press, 1997: 1-10
165. Daly H. E. The return of Lauderdale’s paradox [J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 21
166. David W Pearce, Corin G T Pearce. The Value of Forest Ecosystems. A Report to The Secretariat Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001
167. De Groot R. S., Wilson M. A., Boumans R. M. J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services[J]. Ecological Economics, 2002, 41(3): 393-408
168. Ehrlich, P. and Ehrlich, A. Population, Resource Environment: issues in Human Ecology[M]. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1970: 1-20
169. Ehrlich, P. R. and Mooney, H. A. Extinction, substitution and the ecosystem service[J]. Bioscience, 1983, 33: 248-253
170. Ehrlich, P. R. Ecoscience: Population, Resource, Environment [M]. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1977
171. Farber S. C. , Costanza R., Wilson M. A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2002, 41: 375-392
172. Galinski W. Polish forest ecosystems: the influence of changes in the economic system on carbon balance[J]. Climate Change, 1994, 27: 103-109
173. Gambiza J., Bond W., Frost P. G. H., et al. A simulation model of miombo woodland dynamics under different management regimes[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 33: 353-368
174. Gram S. Economic valuation of special forest products: an assessment of methodological shortcomings[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 36: 109-117
175. Grasso M. Ecological-economic model for optimal mangrove trade off between forestry and fishery production: Comparing a dynamic optimization and simulation model[J]. Ecol. Model., 1998, 112-131
176. Gren I. M. et al. Economic values of Dunube floodplains[J]. Journal of Environment Management, 1995, 45: 333-345
177. Guo Z. W., Xiao X. M., Gan Y. L., et al. Ecosystem Functions, Services and Their Values - A Case Study in Xingshan County of China[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 38: 141-154
178. Hannon B. Ecological pricing and economic efficiency [J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 36: 19-30
179. Harold A. Mooney, Angela C., Walter R. The millennium ecosystem assessment: What is it all about?[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2004, 19(5): 221-224
180. Heal G. Valuing ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 35(3): 24-30
181. Helliwell D. R. Valuation of wildlife resources[J]. Regional Studies, 1969, 3: 41-49
182. Herendeen R. Monetary-costing environmental services: nothing is lost, something is gained[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 29-30
183. Holdren, J., Ehrlich, P. Human population and global environment[J]. Amer. Sci., 1974, 62: 282-292
184. Holdren, J. P. Report of the planning meeting on ecological effects of human activities National Research Council[R]. October, Irvine, California, Mimeo, 1991. 11-12
185. Holmes T. P., Bergstrom J. C., Huszar E., et al. Contingent valuation,net marginal benefits and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2004, 49: 19-30
186. Hueting R., Reijnders L., de Boer B., et al. The concept of environmental function and its valuation [J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 31-35
187. Jae-Young K., Day J.W., Lane R. R., et al. A comparative evaluation of money-based and energy-based cost-benefit analyses of tertiary municipal wastewater treatment using forested wet lands vs. sand filtration in Louisiana[J]. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49: 331-347
188. King R. T. Wildlife and man[J]. Conservationist, 1966, 20(6): 8-111
189. Kontogianni A. et al. Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets [J]. Ecol. Econ, 2001, 37: 123-138
190. Kramer R. and Munasinghe M. Valuing a tropical forest: a case study in Madagascar, In: Munasinghe M. McNeely J.(Eds.), Protected area economics and policy, IUCN, Cambridge, 1994: 191-204
191. Lacy R.C., Lindenmayer D.B. A simulation study of the impacts of population subdivision on the mountain brushtail possum Trichosurus caninus Ogilby (Phalangeridae: M arsupialia), in South-Eastern Australia,ⅡLoss of genetic variation within and between subpopulations [J]. Biol. Conserv, 1995, 73:131-142
192. Lawrence H. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Philosophical Bases and Empirical Methods[A]. In: Daily G. (ed). Nature’s Service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem[C]. Washington, D. C: Island Press, 1997. 23-48
193. Lindeman R. L. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology[J]. Ecology, 1942, 23: 399-418
194. Lockwood M. Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons[J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 73-87
195. Loomis J., Kent P., Strange L., et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 33: 103-117
196. Lowell P. J., Folke C., Gunderson L. Valuation of ecosystem services in institutional context[J]. Ecosystems, 2000, 3: 36-40
197. Mooney H. A. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning[A]. In: Heywood V. H.(ed). Global Biodiversity Assessment [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995
198. Naeem S. et al. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystem[J]. Nature, 1994, 368: 734-737
199. Odum E. P., Odum H. T. Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment [A]. In: Transactions of the 37th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute[C] .Washington, D. C., 1972, 37:178-189
200. Odum H. T. Environmental accounting emergy and environmental decision making.. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1996. 320-370
201. Odum H. T, Odum E. P. The energetic basis for valuation of ecosystem services[J]. Ecosystems, 2000, 3: 21-23
202. O'Neill, K. P., Amacher M. C., Palmer C. J. Developing a national indicator of soil quality on U.S forestlands: methods and initial results. Environ Monit Assess, 2005. 107(1-3): 59-80
203. Orr, D. W., Enrenfeld D. None so blind: the problem of ecological denial[J]. Conser. Biol., 1995, 9: 985-987
204. Patterson M. G. Ecological production based pricing of biosphere processes[J].Ecol. Econ., 2002, 41: 457-478
205. Pearce D. Auditing the Earth[J]. Environment, 1998, 40(2): 23-25
206. Pimental D. Wilson C. McCullum C. Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity [J]. Bioscience, 1997, 387: 253-260
207. Pimentel D. Economic benefits of natural biota[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 45-47
208. Pimm S. the value of everything [J]. Nature, 1997, 387
209. Portela R., Rademacher I. A dynamic model of patterns of deforestation and their effect on the ability of the Brazilian Amazonia to provide ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Model., 2001, 3: 115-146
210. Rapport D. J. et al. Assessing ecosystem health[J].Trends in Ecol. Evol., 1998, 13: 397-402
211. Rees W. E. How should a parasite value its host [J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 49-52
212. Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent valuation[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 24 (3): 213-230
213. Sampson R. N. Forestry opportunities in the United States to mitigate the effects of global warming [J]. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 1992, 64: 83-120
214. Seidl A. F., Moraes A. S. Global valuation of ecosystem services: Application to the Pantanal da Nhecolandia Brazil[J]. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33: 1~6.
215. Serafy S. E. Pricing the invaluable: the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998,25(1): 25-27
216. Serkan G. The estimation of ecosystem services’value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2006, 9(3): 209-218
217. Stephen, R. C. et al. Opening the black boxes: Ecosystem science and economic valuation[J]. Ecosystem, 2000, (3): 1~3.
218. Stuart, C. F. et al. Consequence of changing biodiversity[J]. Nature, 2000, 405: 234-242.
219. Templet P. H. The neglected benefits of protecting ecological services: A commentary provided to the ecological economics forum [J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 53-55
220. Tilman, D. C., Consequence and ethics of biodiversity[J]. Nature, 2000, 405: 208-211
221. Tilman, D. et al. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystem[J]. Nature, 1996, 379: 718-720
222. Tobias D., Mendelsohn R. Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve [J]. Ambio, 1991, 20: 91-93
223. Toman M. Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25(1): 57-60
224. Troy A., Wilson. M. A. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2006, 60(2): 435-449
225. Turner R. K., Paavola J., Cooper P., et al. Valuing nature: Lessons Learned and Future Research Directions[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2003, 46: 493-510.
226. Turner R. K. et al. Ecosystem services value, research needs, and policy relevance: a commentary [J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 61-65
227. Westman, W. E. How much are nature’s service worth? [J] Science, 1977, 197: 960-964
228. Wilson M. A., Howarth R. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2002, 41(3): 431-443
229. Woodward R.T. Wui Y. S. The Economic Value of Wetland Services: a Meta-analysis[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 37(2): 257-270
2.包维楷,乔永康,陈庆恒.岷江上游典型油松人工幼林的生态环境效应[J].山地学报,2003,21(6):662-668
3.毕晓丽,葛剑平.基于IGBP土地覆盖类型的中国陆地生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].山地学报,2004,22(1):48-53
4.陈广庭.沙害防治技术.北京:化学工业出版社,2003
5.陈化鹏,杜永欣.喜鹊营巢生境的分析[J].野生动物,1993(5):20-23
6.陈仲新,张新时.中国生态系统效益的价值[J].科学通报,2000,45(1):17-22
7.崔丽娟,赵欣胜.鄱阳湖湿地生态能值分析研究[J].生态学报,2004,24(7):1480-1485
8.崔丽娟.鄱阳湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估研究[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(4):47-51
9.戴晟懋,郑巍,董纯.关于生态经济型防护林工程建设的思考[J].防护林科技,2000(1):52-53
10.戴雨生,康立新,梁珍海,等.江苏泥质海岸防护林土壤微生物数量分布及其类群的研究[A].见:康立新,王述礼.沿海防护林体系功能及其效益[C].北京:科学技术文献出版社,1994,171-177
11.邓培雁,陈桂珠,刘威.湿地价值分析及其基本原则.城市环境与城市生态,2003,16(4):24-26
12.董慈祥,赵平厚,杨勤敏,等.菏泽市蝗虫调查初报[J].华东昆虫学报,2003,12(1):10-13
13.董琼,马履一,刘春.云南通海县森林生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].西南林学院学报,2006,26(5):28-32
14.董全.生态功益:自然生态过程对人类的贡献[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(2):233-240
15.窦芳.黄河中上游防护林工程现状及发展对策[J].防护林科技,2000(2):62-64
16.杜文胜,金玉凤,张响乐.杀虫优油剂在森林害虫防治工作中的推广应用[J].森林病虫通讯,1999,1:39-40
17.范志平,曾德惠,朱教君,等.农田防护林生态作用特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(4):130-133,140
18.高琼,李月辉,肖笃宁,等.沈阳市域森林生态系统服务功能价值评估.东北林业大学学报,2008,36(2):6-9
19.郭中伟,等.生态系统水源涵养功能评价—以兴山县为例[J].自然资源学报,1997,13(3):242-248
20.郝映红,安文山.喜鹊的食物[J].四川动物,1992,11(2):37-38
21.何斌,秦武明,戴军,等.马占相思人工林不同年龄阶段水源涵养功能及其价值研究[J].水土保持学报. 2006,20(5):5-8,27
22.何浩,潘耀忠,朱文泉,等.中国陆地生态系统服务价值测量[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(6):1122-1127
23.贺庆棠主编.中国森林气象学[M].中国林业出版社,2001
24.侯元凯.森林生态环境资源可实现价值补偿机制研究.森林环境价值核算国际研讨会,CAF & ITTO,2001
25.侯元兆,张佩昌,王琦.中国森林资源核算研究,中国林业出版社,1995
26.胡承彪,梁秀棠.合浦海滨海滩森林土壤微生物区系及生化活性[J].热带林业科技,1987,(1):1-7
27.胡海波,张金池,高智慧,等.岩质海岸防护林土壤微生物数量及其与酶活性和理化性质的关系[J].林业科学研究,2001,15(1):88-95
28.胡海胜.庐山自然保护区森林生态系统服务价值评估.资源科学,2007,29(5):29-36
29.胡箭.灰喜鹊生态学研究进展[J].林业调查规划,2006,5:57-60
30.黄平,候长谋,张弛,等.广东省森林生态系统服务功能[J].生态科学,2002,21(2):160-163
31.黄湘,李卫红.荒漠生态系统服务功能及其价值研究[J].环境科学与管理. 2006,31(07):64-70,73
32.蒋延玲,周广胜.中国主要森林生态系统公益的评估[J].植物生态学报,1999,23(5):426-432
33.焦彩霞,孙跟年,任志远.渭北高原植被水源涵养功能及价值测评[J].山地学报,2002,20(5):583-588
34.靳芳,鲁绍伟,余新晓,等.中国森林生态系统服务价值评估体系初探[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(2):5-9
35.康文星,田大伦.杉木人工林采伐后水源涵养和固土保肥效益损失的评价[J].林业科学,2002,38(1):111-115
36.孔令刚,王华田,姜岳忠,等.杨树不同品种更替连作对林地土壤生化特性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(5):69-72
37.郎奎建,李长胜,殷有,等.林业生态工程10种森林生态效益计量理论和方法[J].东北林业大学学报,2000,28(1):1-7
38.雷孝章,王金锡,彭沛好,等.中国生态林业工程效益评价指标体系[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(2):175-182
39.李长荣.武陵源自然保护区森林生态系统服务功能及价值评价[J].林业科学,2004,40(20):16-20
40.李传荣,许景伟,宋海燕,等.黄河三角洲滩地不同造林模式的土壤酶活性研究[J],植物生态学报,2006,30(5):802-809
41.李春艳.黄河下游滩区生态经济型防护林生态系统服务功能价值评价——以济南长清区为例.山东农业大学硕士学位论文. 2007
42.李德生,张萍,尹建道,等.黄前库区流域植被水源涵养功能及植被类型选择的研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4):128-131
43.李红云,杨吉华,夏江宝,等.济南市南部山区森林涵养水源功能的价值评价[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):72-79
44.李金昌.生态价值论[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,1999
45.李晶,任志远.秦巴山区植被涵养水源价值测评研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4):132-135
46.李少宁,王兵,赵广东,等.森林生态系统服务功能研究进展—理论与方法[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(4):14-18
47.李双成,郑度,张镱锂.环境与生态系统资本价值评估的区域范式[J].地理科学,2002,22(3):270-275
48.李卫忠,郑小贤,张秋良.生态公益林建设效益评价指标体系[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2001,22(6):12-15
49.李文华,欧阳志云,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能研究[M].北京:气象出版社,2002
50.李亚妮,王文强,廉振民,等.陕西延安北洛河流域蝗虫群落多样性研究.四川动物,2008,27(6):1027-1029,1034
51.刘畅,满秀玲,刘文勇,等.东北东部山地主要林分类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报. 2006,20(6):30-33
52.刘福德,姜岳忠,刘颜泉等.连作I-107杨树无性系苗圃地的土壤酶活性特征[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(2):119-124
53.刘福德,姜岳忠,王华田,等.杨树人工林连作效应的研究[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(2):102-105
54.刘红梅,蒋菊生.生态服务价值评估与国民经济核算简述[J].华南热带农业大学学报,2003(9):19-25
55.刘霞,张光灿,江廷水,等.国内外公益林效益计量评价研究进展[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2):95-100
56.刘玉龙,马俊杰,金学林,等.生态系统功能价值评价方法综述[J].中国人口资源与环境,2005,15(1):88-92
57.吕国强,王建敏,朱恩林,等.黄河滩蝗区东亚飞蝗综合防治技术[J].河南农业科学,2008,11:99-101,125
58.罗伟祥.试论生态经济型防护林体系的意义、内涵及建设途径[J].防护林科技,1993(1):25-29
59.米锋,李吉跃,杨家伟.森林生态效益评价的研究进展[J].北京林业大学学报,2003,25(6):80-86
60.聂华.森林环境价值纳入国民收入核算中的重复计算[J].北京林业大学学报(社会科学版),2002,1(2/3):40-42
61.欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(5):635-640
62.欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999,19(5):19-25
63.潘耀忠,史培军,朱文泉,等.中国陆地生态系统生态资产遥感定量测量[J].中国科学(D辑),2004,34(4):87-96
64.彭建,王仰麟,陈燕飞,等.城市生态系统服务功能价值评估初探—以深圳市为例[J].北京大学学报,41(4):594-604
65.任勇等.生态经济型防护林体系建设模式专家系统的研制开发[J].林业科学,1996,32(2):134-139
66.茹永强,哈登龙,熊林春,等.鸡公山自然保护区森林生态系统服务功能及其价值初步研究[J].河南农业大学学报,2004,38(2):199-202
67.山东省土壤肥料工作站,山东土壤,中国农业出版社,1994
68.沈国舫主编.中国森林资源与可持续经营[M].南宁:广西科学技术出版社,2000
69.宋溪德,刘粉莲,罗伟祥,等.西北黄土丘陵沟壑区防护林网络体系概念及其配置模式[J].西北林学院学报,2003,11(1):32-36
70.宋绪忠.黄河下游河南段滩地植被特征与功能研究[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院博士学位论文,2005
71.苏永中,赵哈林,张铜会.几种灌木、半灌木对沙地土壤肥力影响机制研究.应用生态学报,2002,13(7):802-806
72.孙刚,盛连喜,周道玮.生态系统服务及其保护策略[J].应用生态学报,1996,10(3):365-368
73.孙阁.森林植被对河流泥沙和水质影响综述[J].水土保持学报,1988,2(3):83-89
74.孙龙,李俊涛,耿叙武等.崂山风景区森林生态系统服务功能及价值评估[J].防护林科技,2006(3):93-95
75.索南加.贵南县牧鸡灭蝗技术及效果评价[J].现代农业科技,2008,21:129-130
76.谭秀梅,王华田,孔令刚,等.杨树人工林连作土壤中酚酸积累规律及对土壤微生物的影响[J].山东大学学报(理学版),2008,43(1):14-19
77.王爱玲,朱文泉,李京,等.内蒙古生态系统服务价值遥感测量[J].地理科学. 2007,27(3):325-330
78.王棣,吕皎.油松混交林的水土保持及水源涵养功能研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(4):44-46
79.王桂岩,王彦,李善文,等. 13种杨树木材物理学性质的研究[J].山东林业科技,2001(2):1-11
80.王礼先等.长江中上游水土保持及环境保护[M].中国林业出版社,1995. 5-6
81.王勤,张宗应,徐小牛.安徽大别山库区不同林分类型的土壤特性及其涵养水源功能[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(3):59-62
82.王亚娟,马俊杰,刘小鹏.关中周边山地森林生态环境综合价值评价[J].山地学报,2004,22(5):549-553
83.王佑民,刘秉正.黄土高原防护林生态特征[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1993,2-105
84.温远光,刘世荣.我国主要森林生态系统类型降水截留规律的数量分析[J].林业科学,1995,31(4):289-298
85.文倩,关欣.土壤团聚体形成的研究进展[J].干旱区研究,2004,21(4):434-438
86.邬国良,刘奎.烟雾剂对蔗田东亚飞蝗的防治试验[J].热带农业科学,2002,22(4):26-27
87.吴钢,肖寒,赵景柱,等.长白山森林生态系统服务功能[J].中国科学(C辑),2001,31(5):471-480
88.肖爱平,李景福.中林46杨引种生长情况调查及效益分析[J].河北林业科技,2003(2):25-26
89.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):481一484
90.肖纪浩,侯广力等.辽东水源涵养林体系林种结构[J].辽东林业科技,1999(6):33-36
91.肖玉,谢高地.青藏高原生态系统土壤保持功能及其价值[J].生态学报,2004,23(11):2367-2378
92.谢高地,鲁春霞,成升魁.全球生态系统服务价值评估研究进展[J].资源科学,2001,23(6):9-13
93.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2):189-196
94.谢高地,张钇锂,鲁春霞.中国自然草地生态系统服务价值[J].自然资源学报. 2001,16(1):47-53
95.辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算[J].生态学报,2002,22(8):1345-1349
96.辛琨.生态系统服务功能价值估算[D].中国科学院博士研究生学位论文,2001
97.徐慧,钱谊,彭补拙,等.鹞落坪自然保护区森林生态系统间接使用价值评估[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2003,27(2):16-20
98.徐俏,何孟常,杨志峰等.广州市生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2003,39(2):126-130
99.徐嵩龄.森林价值计量的恰当性:关于计量概念与方法评论[A].见:CAF,森林环境价值核算国际研讨会论文集(CAF&ITTO)[C].北京:中国林业科学研究院,2001
100.徐中民,张志强.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用[J].生态学报. 2003,23(9):1841-1850
101.许景伟,李春艳,王卫东,等.黄河下游滩地杨树人工林土壤微生物分析[J],东北林业大学学报,2007,35(9):52-54,69
102.许阳萍,林媚珍,陈志云.流溪河国家森林公园森林生态系统服务功能间接价值评估.广东农业科学,2008,8:131-134
103.薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长白山自然保护区森林生态系统间接经济价值评估[J].中国环境科学,1999,19(3):247-252
104.薛达元.生物多样性经济价值评估—长白山自然保护区案例研究[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1997
105.薛立,邝立刚,陈红跃,等.不同林分土壤养分、微生物与酶活性的研究[J].土壤学报,2003,40(2):280-285
106.鄢帮有.鄱阳湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].资源科学,2004,26(3):61-68
107.闫德仁,杨文斌.沙漠化土地治理程度等级指标的探讨[J].中国沙漠,2006,26(5):698-703
108.杨洪国,杨翟军.森林环境资源资产评估[J].四川林勘设计. 1998,(3):28-30
109.杨吉华,张永涛,李传荣,等.沿黄两岸综合防护林体系的配置及效益分析[J].水土保持研究,2001,8(3):26-28
110.杨文斌,丁国栋,王晶莹,等.行带式柠条固沙林防风效果[J].生态学报,2006,26(12):192-198
111.杨玉坡,等.长江上游(川江)防护林研究[M].科学出版社,1993. 28-30
112.于格,鲁春霞,谢高地.青藏高原草地生态系统服务功能的季节动态变化[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(1):47-51
113.余新晓,鲁绍伟,靳芳等.中国森林生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].生态学报,2005,25(8):2096-2102
114.余新晓,秦永胜,陈丽华,等.北京山地森林生态系统服务功能及其价值初步研究[J].生态学报,2002,22(5):783-786
115.岳兴玲,哈斯,庄燕美,等.沙质草原灌丛沙堆研究进展.中国沙漠,2005,25(5):738-742
116.曾德慧,姜凤岐,范志平,等.生态系统健康与人类可持续发展[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(6):751-756
117.张岑,任志远,高孟绪,等.甘肃省森林生态服务功能及价值评估[J].干旱区资源与环境,2007,21(8):840-844
118.张鼎华,孙志蓉,翟明普,等.杨树刺槐混交林沙地土壤的水分物理性质[J].应用与环境生物学报,2001,7(2):122-125
119.张付旭,白音,张龙.内蒙古农牧交错区草地蝗虫防治对策与技术的研究初报[J].华东昆虫学报,2007,16(2):113-118
120.张继义,赵哈林,张铜会,等.科尔沁沙地植被恢复系列上群落演替与物种多样性的恢复动态[J].植物生态学报,2004,28(1):86-92
121.张建国.林业综合效益评价研究[J].林业资源管理,1994,4:70-73
122.张猛,张健.林地土壤微生物、酶活性研究进展[J].四川农业大学学报,2003,21(4):347-351
123.张乃明,董艳.施肥与设施栽培措施对土壤微生物区系的影响[J].生态环境,2004,13(1):61-62
124.张瑞麟,刘果厚,崔秀萍.浑善达克沙地黄柳活沙障防风固沙效益的研究[J].中国沙漠,2006,26(5):717-721
125.张三焕等.长白山森林间接经济价值评估——以和龙林区为例[J].延边大学学报(社会科学版),2002,35(2):109-112
126.张淑英,陈云浩.内蒙古生态资产测量及生态建设研究[J].资源科学. 2004,26(3):22-28
127.张永民译.赵士洞校.千年生态系统评估:生态系统与人类福祉评估框架[M].北京:中国环境科学出版,2006
128.张泽华,高松.应用绿僵菌油剂防治内蒙草原蝗虫的效果[J].中国生物防治,2000,16(2):49-52
129.张志强,徐中民,程国栋.生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估[J].生态学报,2001,21(11):1918-1926
130.张志强,徐中民.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究———以连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(2):230-239
131.章家恩,饶为民.农业系统的服务功能与可持续利用对策探讨[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(4):99-102
132.赵传燕,冯兆东,刘勇等.干旱区森林水源涵养生态服务功能研究进展[J].山地学报,2003,21(02):33-37
133.赵红艳.森林生态系统服务功能价值评价指标体系研究—以湖南绥宁县为例.中南林业科技大学硕士学位论文
134.赵景柱,段光明.生态环境对经济系统贡献的相对价值评估研究[J].环境科学. 2004,25(5):1-4
135.赵景柱,肖寒,吴刚.生态系统服务的物质量和价值量评价方法的比较分析[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(2):133-135
136.赵景柱.生态系统的物质量与价值量评价方法比较[J].应用生态学,2000,11(2):290-292
137.赵荣钦,黄爱民,秦明周,等.农田生态系统服务功能及其评价方法研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,2003,19(4):267-270
138.赵士洞,张永民.生态系统评估的概念、内涵及挑战——介绍《生态系统与人类福利:评估框架》[J].地球科学进展,2004,19(4):159-166
139.赵同谦,欧阳志云.贾良清2004.中国草地生态系统服务功能间接价值评价[J].生态学报,2004,24(6):11-20
140.赵伟,杜文亮.蝗虫的物理防治现状与展望[J].农机化研究,2008,4:212-214
141.中国生物多样性国情研究报告编写组.中国生物多样性国情研究报告[C].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1997
142.周冰冰,李忠魁.北京市森林资源价值初报[J].林业经济,2001(2):36-42
143.周晓峰,等.森林生态系统服务功能[M].北京:气象出版社,2002
144.周晓峰,蒋敏元.黑龙江省森林效益的计量、评价及补偿[J].林业科学,1999,35(3):97-102
145.朱斌,王维中,张立新,等.宝华山不同演替群落下的土壤微生物状况[J].南京林业大学学报,2004,24(3):61-64
146.庄大昌,欧维新.洞庭湖湿地退田还湖的生态经济效益研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(5):536-542
147.宗跃光,陈春红,郭瑞华.地域生态系统服务功能的价值结构分析—以宁夏灵武市为例[J].地理研究,2000,19(2):148-155
148.宗跃光,周尚意,温良,等,区域生态系统可持续发展的生态价值评价——以宁夏灵武市为例[J].生态学报,2002,22(10):1573-1580
149. Acharya G. Approaches to valuing the hidden hydrological services of wetland ecosystems[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 35: 63-74
150. Alexander A. M. A method for valuing global ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 27: 161-170
151. Ayres R.U. The price-value paradox[J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 17-19
152. Bjorklund J. et al. Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1999, 29: 269-291
153. Cairns,J. Protecting the delivery of ecosystem service[J]. Ecosys. Health, 1997, 3(3): 185-194
154. Cang D. H, Yang Y.S, Zou S.Q. A study on the microflora and biochemical properties of soil microorganisms and the soil fertility of interplanted forest of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Amomum villosum[J]. Scietia silvace Sinicae, 1988, 24(4): 458-465
155. Carina Dennis, Peter Aldhous. Biodiversity: Many players’tragedy[J]. Nature, 2004, (430): 396-398
156. Carson, R. Silent Spring[M]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962: 1-9
157. Chan K.Y, Heenan D.P. Microbial-induced soil aggregate stability under different crop rotations [J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 1999, 30(1-2): 29-32
158. Cohen, J. E. & Tilman, D. Biosphere 2 and Biodiversity: The lessons so far[J]. Science, 1996, 274: 1150~1151
159. Costanza R. D. , Arge R., Rudolf de G., et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 1997, 387: 253-260
160. Costanza R. et al. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective [J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 67-72
161. Costanza R. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services[J]. Ecosystems. 2000, 3: 4-10
162. Daily, G. C. Valuing and Safeguarding Earth’s Life-Support Systems[A]. In: Daily, G.(ed). Nature’s service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem[C]. Washington, D. C: Island Press, 1997: 365-375
163. Daily, G. C. et al. Ecosystem Service: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems[R]. 1999
164. Daily, G. C. Introduction: what are ecosystem services[A]. In: Daily, G.(ed). Nature’s Service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem[C]. Washington,D. C: Island Press, 1997: 1-10
165. Daly H. E. The return of Lauderdale’s paradox [J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 21
166. David W Pearce, Corin G T Pearce. The Value of Forest Ecosystems. A Report to The Secretariat Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001
167. De Groot R. S., Wilson M. A., Boumans R. M. J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services[J]. Ecological Economics, 2002, 41(3): 393-408
168. Ehrlich, P. and Ehrlich, A. Population, Resource Environment: issues in Human Ecology[M]. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1970: 1-20
169. Ehrlich, P. R. and Mooney, H. A. Extinction, substitution and the ecosystem service[J]. Bioscience, 1983, 33: 248-253
170. Ehrlich, P. R. Ecoscience: Population, Resource, Environment [M]. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1977
171. Farber S. C. , Costanza R., Wilson M. A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2002, 41: 375-392
172. Galinski W. Polish forest ecosystems: the influence of changes in the economic system on carbon balance[J]. Climate Change, 1994, 27: 103-109
173. Gambiza J., Bond W., Frost P. G. H., et al. A simulation model of miombo woodland dynamics under different management regimes[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 33: 353-368
174. Gram S. Economic valuation of special forest products: an assessment of methodological shortcomings[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 36: 109-117
175. Grasso M. Ecological-economic model for optimal mangrove trade off between forestry and fishery production: Comparing a dynamic optimization and simulation model[J]. Ecol. Model., 1998, 112-131
176. Gren I. M. et al. Economic values of Dunube floodplains[J]. Journal of Environment Management, 1995, 45: 333-345
177. Guo Z. W., Xiao X. M., Gan Y. L., et al. Ecosystem Functions, Services and Their Values - A Case Study in Xingshan County of China[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 38: 141-154
178. Hannon B. Ecological pricing and economic efficiency [J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 36: 19-30
179. Harold A. Mooney, Angela C., Walter R. The millennium ecosystem assessment: What is it all about?[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2004, 19(5): 221-224
180. Heal G. Valuing ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 35(3): 24-30
181. Helliwell D. R. Valuation of wildlife resources[J]. Regional Studies, 1969, 3: 41-49
182. Herendeen R. Monetary-costing environmental services: nothing is lost, something is gained[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 29-30
183. Holdren, J., Ehrlich, P. Human population and global environment[J]. Amer. Sci., 1974, 62: 282-292
184. Holdren, J. P. Report of the planning meeting on ecological effects of human activities National Research Council[R]. October, Irvine, California, Mimeo, 1991. 11-12
185. Holmes T. P., Bergstrom J. C., Huszar E., et al. Contingent valuation,net marginal benefits and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2004, 49: 19-30
186. Hueting R., Reijnders L., de Boer B., et al. The concept of environmental function and its valuation [J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 31-35
187. Jae-Young K., Day J.W., Lane R. R., et al. A comparative evaluation of money-based and energy-based cost-benefit analyses of tertiary municipal wastewater treatment using forested wet lands vs. sand filtration in Louisiana[J]. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49: 331-347
188. King R. T. Wildlife and man[J]. Conservationist, 1966, 20(6): 8-111
189. Kontogianni A. et al. Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets [J]. Ecol. Econ, 2001, 37: 123-138
190. Kramer R. and Munasinghe M. Valuing a tropical forest: a case study in Madagascar, In: Munasinghe M. McNeely J.(Eds.), Protected area economics and policy, IUCN, Cambridge, 1994: 191-204
191. Lacy R.C., Lindenmayer D.B. A simulation study of the impacts of population subdivision on the mountain brushtail possum Trichosurus caninus Ogilby (Phalangeridae: M arsupialia), in South-Eastern Australia,ⅡLoss of genetic variation within and between subpopulations [J]. Biol. Conserv, 1995, 73:131-142
192. Lawrence H. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Philosophical Bases and Empirical Methods[A]. In: Daily G. (ed). Nature’s Service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem[C]. Washington, D. C: Island Press, 1997. 23-48
193. Lindeman R. L. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology[J]. Ecology, 1942, 23: 399-418
194. Lockwood M. Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons[J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 73-87
195. Loomis J., Kent P., Strange L., et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2000, 33: 103-117
196. Lowell P. J., Folke C., Gunderson L. Valuation of ecosystem services in institutional context[J]. Ecosystems, 2000, 3: 36-40
197. Mooney H. A. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning[A]. In: Heywood V. H.(ed). Global Biodiversity Assessment [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995
198. Naeem S. et al. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystem[J]. Nature, 1994, 368: 734-737
199. Odum E. P., Odum H. T. Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment [A]. In: Transactions of the 37th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute[C] .Washington, D. C., 1972, 37:178-189
200. Odum H. T. Environmental accounting emergy and environmental decision making.. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1996. 320-370
201. Odum H. T, Odum E. P. The energetic basis for valuation of ecosystem services[J]. Ecosystems, 2000, 3: 21-23
202. O'Neill, K. P., Amacher M. C., Palmer C. J. Developing a national indicator of soil quality on U.S forestlands: methods and initial results. Environ Monit Assess, 2005. 107(1-3): 59-80
203. Orr, D. W., Enrenfeld D. None so blind: the problem of ecological denial[J]. Conser. Biol., 1995, 9: 985-987
204. Patterson M. G. Ecological production based pricing of biosphere processes[J].Ecol. Econ., 2002, 41: 457-478
205. Pearce D. Auditing the Earth[J]. Environment, 1998, 40(2): 23-25
206. Pimental D. Wilson C. McCullum C. Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity [J]. Bioscience, 1997, 387: 253-260
207. Pimentel D. Economic benefits of natural biota[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 45-47
208. Pimm S. the value of everything [J]. Nature, 1997, 387
209. Portela R., Rademacher I. A dynamic model of patterns of deforestation and their effect on the ability of the Brazilian Amazonia to provide ecosystem services[J]. Ecol. Model., 2001, 3: 115-146
210. Rapport D. J. et al. Assessing ecosystem health[J].Trends in Ecol. Evol., 1998, 13: 397-402
211. Rees W. E. How should a parasite value its host [J]. Ecol. Econ, 1998, 25: 49-52
212. Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent valuation[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 24 (3): 213-230
213. Sampson R. N. Forestry opportunities in the United States to mitigate the effects of global warming [J]. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 1992, 64: 83-120
214. Seidl A. F., Moraes A. S. Global valuation of ecosystem services: Application to the Pantanal da Nhecolandia Brazil[J]. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33: 1~6.
215. Serafy S. E. Pricing the invaluable: the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998,25(1): 25-27
216. Serkan G. The estimation of ecosystem services’value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2006, 9(3): 209-218
217. Stephen, R. C. et al. Opening the black boxes: Ecosystem science and economic valuation[J]. Ecosystem, 2000, (3): 1~3.
218. Stuart, C. F. et al. Consequence of changing biodiversity[J]. Nature, 2000, 405: 234-242.
219. Templet P. H. The neglected benefits of protecting ecological services: A commentary provided to the ecological economics forum [J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 53-55
220. Tilman, D. C., Consequence and ethics of biodiversity[J]. Nature, 2000, 405: 208-211
221. Tilman, D. et al. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystem[J]. Nature, 1996, 379: 718-720
222. Tobias D., Mendelsohn R. Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve [J]. Ambio, 1991, 20: 91-93
223. Toman M. Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25(1): 57-60
224. Troy A., Wilson. M. A. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2006, 60(2): 435-449
225. Turner R. K., Paavola J., Cooper P., et al. Valuing nature: Lessons Learned and Future Research Directions[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2003, 46: 493-510.
226. Turner R. K. et al. Ecosystem services value, research needs, and policy relevance: a commentary [J]. Ecol. Econ., 1998, 25: 61-65
227. Westman, W. E. How much are nature’s service worth? [J] Science, 1977, 197: 960-964
228. Wilson M. A., Howarth R. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2002, 41(3): 431-443
229. Woodward R.T. Wui Y. S. The Economic Value of Wetland Services: a Meta-analysis[J]. Ecol. Econ., 2001, 37(2): 257-270
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |