Evaluation of the effectiveness of coastal ecological restoration based on emergy analysis: A case study from the Yingwuzhou Wetland

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-5641.2024.01.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Since the Yingwuzhou Wetland was established over five years ago, we have conducted comprehensive field investigation and monitoring. Constructing a reliable evaluation system with long-term monitoring data is important for the evaluation of coastal ecological restoration projects. Here, we used the emergy analysis method and collected the relevant data through field research, scientific monitoring, and literature review to construct an energy analysis structure chart and emergy value index system for the Yingwuzhou Wetland. The main emergy indexes, such as the natural assets and ecosystem services of the wetland, were analyzed, and its functional performance was compared for different restoration periods. The results show that the total emergy of the natural assets in the Yingwuzhou Wetland in 2021 was 8.92 × 10¹⁶ sej, which is equivalent to the emergy-monetary value of 2.247 × 10⁵ yuan; the total emergy of ecosystem services was 8.88 × 10¹⁷ sej·a^–1. After the implementation of restoration, the ecological quality of Yingwuzhou was significantly improved, and its natural assets and ecosystem service emergy were 5.01 and 5.73 times higher than those before restoration. The emergy self-support ratio (ESR) of the Yingwuzhou Wetland ecosystem was 0.47, and the emergy yield ratio (EYR) and emergy sustainable index (ESI) were 28.29 and 25.03, respectively, indicating that the wetland had high output efficiency and suitable space for sustainable development. This study shows that based on long-term monitoring data, the emergy analysis method can better reflect the effectiveness of coastal ecological restoration projects, and the evaluation system and method can provide reference for similar coastal restoration projects in the future.

Key words: coastal zone, ecological restoration, effectiveness evaluation, emergy analysis, the Yingwuzhou Wetland

CLC Number:

X171
X826

Rui DING, Xuechu CHEN, Wenhui YOU, Jiayu TU. Evaluation of the effectiveness of coastal ecological restoration based on emergy analysis: A case study from the Yingwuzhou Wetland[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Natural Science), 2024, 2024(1): 68-78.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Fig.3

References 43

1	COSTANZA R, D’ARGE R, DE GROOT R, et al.. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature (London), 1997, 387 (6630): 253- 260.
2	LIU Z, CUI B, HE Q.. Shifting paradigms in coastal restoration: Six decades’ lessons from China. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 566, 205- 214.
3	MITSCH W J, GOSSELINK J G. Wetlands [M]. 5th ed. Somerset: Wiley, 2015.
4	BI X, LIU F, PAN X.. Coastal Projects in China: From Reclamation to Restoration. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46 (9): 4691- 4692.
5	BULLERI F, CHAPMAN M G.. The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 47 (1): 26- 35.
6	GRENIER J L, DAVIS J A. Water quality in South San Francisco Bay, California: Current condition and potential issues for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project [M]// WHITACRE D. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 206. New York: Springer, 2010: 115–147.
7	陈雪初, 高如峰, 黄晓琛, 等.. 欧美国家盐沼湿地生态恢复的基本观点、技术手段与工程实践进展. 海洋环境科学, 2016, 35 (3): 467- 472.
8	刘红梅, 陆健健, 董双林, 等.. 上海崇西湿地生态系统功能价值分析. 中山大学学报(自然科学版), 2007, (S2): 240- 243.
9	张华, 武晶, 孙才志, 等.. 辽宁省湿地生态系统服务功能价值测评. 资源科学, 2008, (2): 267- 273.
10	张文娟, 白钰, 曾辉.. 湿地生态系统服务功能评价模式的不足与改进. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2009, 19 (6): 23- 29.
11	ODUM H T. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making [M]. New York: John Wiley, 1995.
12	蓝盛芳, 钦佩, 陆宏芳. 生态经济系统能值分析 [M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2002.
13	孟范平, 李睿倩.. 基于能值分析的滨海湿地生态系统服务价值定量化研究进展. 长江流域资源与环境, 2011, 20 (S1): 74- 80.
14	CAMPBELL E T, BROWN M T.. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environment Development and Sustainability, 2012, 14 (5): 691- 724.
15	SHAH S M, LIU G, YANG Q, et al.. Emergy-based valuation of agriculture ecosystem services and dis-services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 239, 118019.
16	YANG Q, LIU G, HAO Y, et al.. Donor-side evaluation of coastal and marine ecosystem services. Water Research, 2019, 166, 115028.
17	吴威, 李彩霞, 陈雪初.. 海岸带整治修复驱动下的城市滨海空间景观格局变化及其特征研究——以上海鹦鹉洲生态湿地为例. 西北师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 57 (4): 24- 30.
18	陈雪初, 戴雅奇, 黄超杰, 等.. 上海鹦鹉洲湿地水质复合生态净化系统设计. 中国给水排水, 2017, 33 (20): 66- 69.
19	BROWN M T, CAMPBELL D E, FRANZESE P P, et al.. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: A synthesis. Ecological Modelling, 2016, 339, 89- 91.
20	YANG Z F, JIANG M M, CHEN B, et al.. Solar emergy evaluation for Chinese economy. Energy Policy, 2010, 38 (2): 875- 886.
21	CAMPBELL D E, LU H, WALKER H A.. Relationships among the energy, emergy, and money flows of the United States from 1900 to 2011. Frontiers in Energy Research, 2014, 2 (41): 1- 31.
22	崔丽娟.. 扎龙湿地价值货币化评价. 自然资源学报, 2002, (4): 451- 456.
23	LU H, CAMPBELL D E.. Ecological and economic dynamics of the Shunde agricultural system under China’s small city development strategy. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, 90 (8): 2589- 2600.
24	LU H, LIN B L, CAMPBELL D E, et al.. Biofuel vs. biodiversity? Integrated emergy and economic cost-benefit evaluation of rice-ethanol production in Japan. Energy, 2012, 46 (1): 442- 450.
25	侯婉, 侯西勇.. 考虑湿地精细分类的全球海岸带土地利用/覆盖遥感分类系统. 热带地理, 2018, 38 (6): 866- 873.
26	BROWN M T, ULGIATI S.. Emergy evaluation of the biosphere and natural capital. Ambio, 1999, 28 (6): 486- 493.
27	孔东升, 张灏.. 张掖黑河湿地自然保护区生态服务功能价值评估. 生态学报, 2015, 35 (4): 972- 983.
28	JENKINS W A, MURRAY B C, KRAMER R A, et al.. Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological Economics, 2010, 69 (5): 1051- 1061.
29	YANG H, TANG J, ZHANG C, et al. Enhanced carbon uptake and reduced methane emissions in a newly restored wetland [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 2020, 125(1): 2019JG005222.
30	MARTIN R M, MOSEMAN-VALTIERRA S.. Different short-term responses of greenhouse gas fluxes from salt marsh mesocosms to simulated global change drivers. Hydrobiologia, 2017, 802 (1): 71- 83.
31	张春松, 杨华蕾, 由文辉, 等.. 新恢复湿地对近岸水域水质的净化效果研究. 中国给水排水, 2021, 37 (3): 65- 68.
32	胡涛, 高艳妮, 李延风, 等.. 基于能值的陆域受威胁和濒危物种价值估算——以福建省厦门市为例. 生态学报, 2019, 39 (13): 4985- 4995.
33	高悦. 走进滨海湿地探查“防灾前哨” [EB/OL]. (2019-02-20)[2020-03-07]. https://m.huanbao-world.com/view.php?aid=83273.
34	吴威, 李彩霞, 陈雪初.. 基于生态系统服务的海岸带生态修复工程成效评估——以鹦鹉洲湿地为例. 华东师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, (3): 98- 108.
35	李双成, 傅小锋, 郑度.. 中国经济持续发展水平的能值分析. 自然资源学报, 2001, (4): 297- 304.
36	LU H F, KANG W L, CAMPBELL D E, et al.. Emergy and economic evaluations of four fruit production systems on reclaimed wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. Ecological Engineering, 2009, 35 (12): 1743- 1757.
37	LI L, LU H, REN H, et al.. Emergy evaluations of three aquaculture systems on wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. Ecological Indicators, 2011, 11 (2): 526- 534.
38	万树文, 钦佩, 朱洪光, 等.. 盐城自然保护区两种人工湿地模式评价. 生态学报, 2000, (5): 759- 765.
39	张翼然, 周德民, 刘苗.. 中国内陆湿地生态系统服务价值评估——以71个湿地案例点为数据源. 生态学报, 2015, 35 (13): 4279- 4286.
40	卢书兵, 杨琳琳, 李波, 等.. 3个时期华阳河湖群湿地生态系统服务价值估算. 湿地科学, 2014, 12 (6): 747- 752.
41	宫晓磊, 张思冲, 李丽娜, 等.. 大庆湿地生态系统能值分析与价值估算. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27 (32): 192- 195.
42	ULGIATI S, ODUM H T, BASTIANONI S.. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability: An emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling, 1994, 73 (3/4): 215- 268.
43	李伟, 崔丽娟, 赵欣胜, 等.. 中国滨海湿地及其生态系统服务功能研究概述. 林业调查规划, 2014, 39 (4): 24- 30.

年份	自然资产子项能值/sej			自然资产总能值/sej
年份	植物资源	水资源	土壤有机质	自然资产总能值/sej
2014	1.13 × 10¹⁴	1.00 × 10¹⁶	7.70 × 10¹⁵	1.78 × 10¹⁶
2018	1.41 × 10¹⁶	2.43 × 10¹⁶	2.03 × 10¹⁶	5.87 × 10¹⁶
2021	3.18 × 10¹⁶	3.24 × 10¹⁶	2.50 × 10¹⁶	8.92 × 10¹⁶

类型	年吸收量/( ×10⁵ g·a^–1)	能值转换率/( ×10⁸ sej·g^–1)	能值/( ×10¹⁴ sej·a^–1)
N	2.88	38	10.94
P	0.20	39	0.78
SS	223.38	14.2	317.2
总计	226.46		328.92

生物类别	物种数/种	能值/sej
广布鸟类	57	4.15 × 10¹⁷
IUCN濒危鸟类(极危)	1	1.02 × 10¹⁶
IUCN濒危鸟类(近危)	2	8.01 × 10¹⁵
总计	60	4.33 × 10¹⁷

年份	生态服务子项能值/(sej·a^–1)					生态服务总能值/(sej·a^–1)
年份	固碳	净化水质	抗风消浪	提供栖息地	游憩科普	生态服务总能值/(sej·a^–1)
2014	2.85 × 10¹³		9.04 × 10¹⁵	1.46 × 10¹⁷		1.55 × 10¹⁷
2018	2.59 × 10¹⁷	1.94 × 10¹⁶	4.98 × 10¹⁶	2.44 × 10¹⁷	3.67 × 10¹⁶	6.09 × 10¹⁷
2021	3.16 × 10¹⁷	3.29 × 10¹⁶	6.31 × 10¹⁶	4.33 × 10¹⁷	4.32 × 10¹⁶	8.88 × 10¹⁷

项目	原始数据	能值转换率	能值/sej	单位面积价值量/(万元·hm^–2)
1) 自然投入			3.32 × 10¹⁶	0.36
太阳辐射能	1.09 × 10¹⁵ J	1 sej·J^–1	1.09 × 10¹⁵	0.01
风能	4.05 × 10¹¹ J	1.90 × 10³ sej·J^–1	7.70 × 10¹⁴	0.01
雨水化学能	1.33 × 10¹² J	2.35 × 10⁴ sej·J^–1	3.13 × 10¹⁶	0.34
雨水势能	5.78 × 10⁹ J	1.30 × 10⁴ sej·J^–1	7.51 × 10¹³	0.00
2) 能源投入			6.19 × 10¹⁵	0.07
电^※	3.00 × 10¹⁰ J	2.03 × 10⁵ sej·J^–1	6.19 × 10¹⁵	0.07
3) 社会投入			3.06 × 10¹⁶	0.33
劳务	1.42 × 10⁶ 元	能值与货币比率	3.06 × 10¹⁶	0.33
4) 自然资产			8.92 × 10¹⁶	0.97
草本植物	4.93 × 10¹¹ J	2.61 × 10⁴ sej·J^–1	1.29 × 10¹⁶	0.14
水生植物	4.02 × 10¹² J	4.70 × 10³ sej·J^–1	1.89 × 10¹⁶	0.21
水资源	6.47 × 10¹¹ J	5.01 × 10⁴ sej·J^–1	3.24 × 10¹⁶	0.35
土壤有机质	3.38 × 10¹¹ J	7.40 × 10⁴ sej·J^–1	2.50 × 10¹⁶	0.27
5) 生态系统服务价值			8.88 × 10¹⁷	9.65
固定二氧化碳	1.39 × 10¹⁰ g	2.27 × 10⁷ sej·g^–1	3.16 × 10¹⁷	3.43
净化水质	见表3	见表3	3.29 × 10¹⁶	0.36
抗风消浪	2.44 × 10¹² J	2.59 × 10⁴ sej·J^–1	6.31 × 10¹⁶	0.69
提供栖息地	60 种	7.28 × 10¹⁵ sej·种^–1	4.33 × 10¹⁷	4.70
游憩科普	2.00 × 10⁶ 元	能值与货币比率	4.32 × 10¹⁶	0.47