Abstract
Assessments of ecological importance based on static indexes that do not consider service flows frequently underestimate the importance of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau as a “source”. On the basis of natural environmental characteristics, this study selected six type of ecosystem services for evaluation, including water retention, soil retention, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, sandstorm prevention, and tourism. According to the attributes of each ecosystem service flow, we calculated the flow length and traffic accessibility indexes, using ArcGIS hydrological module and kernel functions separately, to comprehensively analyse the ecological importance levels of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Results showed that after considering the service flows, the ecologically important zone shifted to the core area of the Three River Source Region, such as Zadoi County located in the Tanggula Mountains. The area of extreme importance is mainly distributed in the Yarlung Zangbo River basin, Tanggula Mountains, Hengduan Mountains, and Qilian Mountains, which accounts for 31.7% of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, providing approximately 60% of the ecosystem services and having extremely high protection efficiency and protection value. By introducing ecosystem service flow indexes, this study confirmed the ecological importance of core source areas such as the Tanggula Mountains, weakened the space bias caused by not considering the spatial transfer of ecosystem services, and provided technical support for optimizing ecological protection strategies and coordinating regional development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander AM, List JA, Margolis M, et al. (1998) A method for valuing global ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 27(2): 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(97)00173-0
Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, et al. (2013) Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv 4: 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012
Burkhard B, Kandzioral M, Hou Y, et al. (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands: Concepts for spatial localization, indication and quantification. Landscape Online 34: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434
Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74: 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141: 350–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020
Fisher B, Turner RK (2008) Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141: 1167–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem systems service for decision making. Ecol Econ 68: 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Fu BJ, Lv YH, Gao GY (2012) Major research progresses on the ecosystem service and ecological safety of main terrestrial ecosystems in China. Chin J Nat 34(5): 261–272. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0258-9608.2012.05.003
Gao JX, Wu D, Zhang K, et al. (2019) Technical methods and applications of large scale ecological conservation redline delimitation of water conservation based on donor-receptor theory. Environ Ecol 1(04): 1–7, 14. (In Chinese)
García-Nieto AP, García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, et al. (2013) Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 4: 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003
Immerzeel W, Stoorvogel J, Antle J (2008) Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet. Agric Syst 96: 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.05.005
Jiang ZG (2001) Values and ecological service function of wildlife. Acta Ecol Sin 21(11): 1909–1917. (In Chinese)
Kragt ME, Newham LH, Bennett J, et al. (2011) An integrated approach to linking economic valuation and catchment modelling. Environ Modell Softw 26(1): 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.04.002
Li SC (2014) The Geography of Ecosystem Service. Beijing: Science Press. (In Chinese)
Lin ZY, Xiao Y, Shi XW, et al. (2018) Assessment of the ecological importance patterns in southwest China. Acta Ecol Sin 38(24): 6–14. (in Chinese) https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201805241139
Liu HM, Fan YL, Ding SY (2016) Research progress of ecosystem service flow. Chin J Appl Ecol 27(007): 2161–2171. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201607.005
Liu HM, Liu LY, Ding SY (2019) The impact of human activities on ecosystem services flow. Acta Ecol Sin 37(10): 3232–3242. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201602250325
Liu HM, Liu LY, Ren JY, et al. (2017) Progress of quantitative analysis of ecosystem service flow. Chin J Appl Ecol 28(8): 2723–2730. https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201708.025
Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, et al. (2016) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59: 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.7
Ninan KN, Inoue M (2013) Valuing forest ecosystem services: case study of a forest reserve in Japan. Ecosyst Serv 5: 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.006
Ouyang ZY, Zheng H, Xiao Y, et al. (2016) Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 352(6292): 1455–1459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2295
Palomo I, Berta Martín-López, Potschin M, et al. (2018) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4(4): 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001
Schroter M, Koellner T, Alkemade R, et al. (2018) Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases. Ecosyst Serv 2018: 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.003
Serna-Chavez HM, Schulp CJE, van Bodegom PM, et al. (2014) A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 39: 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024
SFAC (State Forestry Administration of China) (2010a) List of wildlife under special protection. Beijing: State Forestry Administration of China. (In Chinese)
SFAC (State Forestry Administration of China) (2010b) National important wild conservation plants list. Beijing: State Forestry Administration of China. (In Chinese)
Villa F, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, et al. (2014) A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. Plos One 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091001
Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex 15: 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004
Wang JL, Zhou WQ (2019) Ecosystem service flows: Recent progress and future perspectives. Acta Ecol Sin 39(12): 4213–4222. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201807271605
Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2015) Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic 55: 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016
Wu L, Wang DM, Zhang Y (2006) Research on the algorithms of the flow direction determination in ditches extraction based on grid DEM. J Image Graphics 11(7): 998–1003. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-006-0415-5
Xiang B, Ren HL, Ma GW, et al. (2011) Assessment of ecosystem service importance in Cheng-Yu economic zone. Res Environ Sci 24(7): 722–730. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60313-1
Xiao Y, Xie GD, Lu CX, et al. (2016) Involvement of ecosystem service flows in human wellbeing based on the relationship between supply and demand. Acta Ecol Sin 36(10): 3096–3102. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201411172274
Yahdjian L, Sala OE, Havstad KM (2016) Rangeland ecosystem services: shifting focus from supply to reconciling supply and demand. Front Ecol Environ 13(1): 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1890/140156
Yao J, He XY, Chen W (2018) The latest progress in ecosystem service flow research methods. Chin J Appl Ecol 29(1): 335–342. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201801.018
Zhang LL, Su FG, Yang DQ, et al. (2013) Discharge regime and simulation for the upstream of major rivers over Tibetan Plateau. J Geophys Res — Atmos 118: 8500–8518. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50665
Zhang YL, Li BY, Zheng D (2002) A discussion on the boundary and area of the Tibetan Plateau in China. Geogr Res 21(1): 1–8. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-002-0045-5
Zhang YM, Zhao SD (2010) The millennium ecosystem assessment follow up: A global strategy for turning knowledge into action. J Nat Resour 25: 522–528. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.2010.03.017
Zhao QJ, Wen ZM, Zhang MX (2014) Identifying forest ecosystem services supplies and demands: Insights from ecosystem services flows. For Econ 36(10): 3–7. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.13843/j.cnki.lyjj.2014.10.001
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program (STEP) (Grant No.2019QZKK0308).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, Zy., Xiao, Y. & Ouyang, Zy. Assessment of ecological importance of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau based on ecosystem service flows. J. Mt. Sci. 18, 1725–1736 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-020-6448-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-020-6448-x