{"title":"综合整治与生态修复工程驱动江西省生态系统服务功能变化及其地形梯度效应","authors":"Yian Chen , Baoqun Hu , Jianglong Tang , Yun Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2025.107728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Under the background of ecological civilization construction, comprehensive consolidation and ecological restoration projects (CCERPs) have been widely implemented to enhance regional ecosystem services (ESs). However, the mechanisms by which CCERPs influence ESs across terrain gradients remain unclear. This study analyzed the variations of five ESs, as well as the area and spatial distribution of five types of CCERPs in Jiangxi Province during 2000–2010 and 2010–2023. Using the XGBoost-SHAP model, we explored the driving mechanisms and nonlinear effects of CCERPs on ESs variation across three terrain gradients (Rank1, Rank2, and Rank3). Results show that the total area of CCERPs increased by <span><math><mn>18.54</mn><mo>×</mo><msup><mn>10</mn><mn>8</mn></msup><mspace></mspace><msup><mi>m</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></math></span> in 2010–2023 compared to the previous period. Grain for green project (GGP) and low-efficiency forest renovation project (LFRP) accounted for the largest areas in both periods, together exceeding 70 %. Significant spatial heterogeneity in ESs variation and CCERP distribution was observed across terrain gradients: ESs in Rank3 exhibited continuous improvement, while those in Rank1 showed high fluctuation. Over 80 % of construction land reclamation project (CLRP), dryland-to-paddy conversion project (DCP), and water restoration project (WRP) were concentrated in Rank1 and Rank2, while more than 70 % of GGP and LFRP were distributed in Rank2 and Rank3. CLRP significantly improved carbon storage (CS), habitat quality (HQ), and net primary productivity (NPP) in Rank1; DCP enhanced soil retention (SR) and water retention (WR) in Rank1 and Rank2; GGP and LFRP had positive effects on all ESs, with the most pronounced impact on CS and HQ in Rank2 and Rank3. CS and HQ in Rank1 and Rank2 were more sensitive to construction land expansion, while NPP, SR, and WR in Rank2 and Rank3 were more influenced by precipitation and temperature change. Declines in ESs caused by non-CCERPs factors offset the enhancement brought by CCERPs. Across different terrain gradients, each type of CCERP exhibited an optimal implementation range for enhancing dominant ESs. Within this range, increases in CCERP area effectively promoted ESs improvement. This study deepens the understanding of the relationship between CCERPs and ESs variation across terrain gradients and provides a scientific reference for the zoned implementation and precise management of future CCERPs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"220 ","pages":"Article 107728"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comprehensive consolidation and ecological restoration projects drive the variation of ecosystem services and their terrain gradient effect in Jiangxi Province, China\",\"authors\":\"Yian Chen , Baoqun Hu , Jianglong Tang , Yun Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2025.107728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Under the background of ecological civilization construction, comprehensive consolidation and ecological restoration projects (CCERPs) have been widely implemented to enhance regional ecosystem services (ESs). However, the mechanisms by which CCERPs influence ESs across terrain gradients remain unclear. This study analyzed the variations of five ESs, as well as the area and spatial distribution of five types of CCERPs in Jiangxi Province during 2000–2010 and 2010–2023. Using the XGBoost-SHAP model, we explored the driving mechanisms and nonlinear effects of CCERPs on ESs variation across three terrain gradients (Rank1, Rank2, and Rank3). Results show that the total area of CCERPs increased by <span><math><mn>18.54</mn><mo>×</mo><msup><mn>10</mn><mn>8</mn></msup><mspace></mspace><msup><mi>m</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></math></span> in 2010–2023 compared to the previous period. Grain for green project (GGP) and low-efficiency forest renovation project (LFRP) accounted for the largest areas in both periods, together exceeding 70 %. Significant spatial heterogeneity in ESs variation and CCERP distribution was observed across terrain gradients: ESs in Rank3 exhibited continuous improvement, while those in Rank1 showed high fluctuation. Over 80 % of construction land reclamation project (CLRP), dryland-to-paddy conversion project (DCP), and water restoration project (WRP) were concentrated in Rank1 and Rank2, while more than 70 % of GGP and LFRP were distributed in Rank2 and Rank3. CLRP significantly improved carbon storage (CS), habitat quality (HQ), and net primary productivity (NPP) in Rank1; DCP enhanced soil retention (SR) and water retention (WR) in Rank1 and Rank2; GGP and LFRP had positive effects on all ESs, with the most pronounced impact on CS and HQ in Rank2 and Rank3. CS and HQ in Rank1 and Rank2 were more sensitive to construction land expansion, while NPP, SR, and WR in Rank2 and Rank3 were more influenced by precipitation and temperature change. Declines in ESs caused by non-CCERPs factors offset the enhancement brought by CCERPs. Across different terrain gradients, each type of CCERP exhibited an optimal implementation range for enhancing dominant ESs. Within this range, increases in CCERP area effectively promoted ESs improvement. This study deepens the understanding of the relationship between CCERPs and ESs variation across terrain gradients and provides a scientific reference for the zoned implementation and precise management of future CCERPs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"volume\":\"220 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857425002186\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857425002186","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comprehensive consolidation and ecological restoration projects drive the variation of ecosystem services and their terrain gradient effect in Jiangxi Province, China
Under the background of ecological civilization construction, comprehensive consolidation and ecological restoration projects (CCERPs) have been widely implemented to enhance regional ecosystem services (ESs). However, the mechanisms by which CCERPs influence ESs across terrain gradients remain unclear. This study analyzed the variations of five ESs, as well as the area and spatial distribution of five types of CCERPs in Jiangxi Province during 2000–2010 and 2010–2023. Using the XGBoost-SHAP model, we explored the driving mechanisms and nonlinear effects of CCERPs on ESs variation across three terrain gradients (Rank1, Rank2, and Rank3). Results show that the total area of CCERPs increased by in 2010–2023 compared to the previous period. Grain for green project (GGP) and low-efficiency forest renovation project (LFRP) accounted for the largest areas in both periods, together exceeding 70 %. Significant spatial heterogeneity in ESs variation and CCERP distribution was observed across terrain gradients: ESs in Rank3 exhibited continuous improvement, while those in Rank1 showed high fluctuation. Over 80 % of construction land reclamation project (CLRP), dryland-to-paddy conversion project (DCP), and water restoration project (WRP) were concentrated in Rank1 and Rank2, while more than 70 % of GGP and LFRP were distributed in Rank2 and Rank3. CLRP significantly improved carbon storage (CS), habitat quality (HQ), and net primary productivity (NPP) in Rank1; DCP enhanced soil retention (SR) and water retention (WR) in Rank1 and Rank2; GGP and LFRP had positive effects on all ESs, with the most pronounced impact on CS and HQ in Rank2 and Rank3. CS and HQ in Rank1 and Rank2 were more sensitive to construction land expansion, while NPP, SR, and WR in Rank2 and Rank3 were more influenced by precipitation and temperature change. Declines in ESs caused by non-CCERPs factors offset the enhancement brought by CCERPs. Across different terrain gradients, each type of CCERP exhibited an optimal implementation range for enhancing dominant ESs. Within this range, increases in CCERP area effectively promoted ESs improvement. This study deepens the understanding of the relationship between CCERPs and ESs variation across terrain gradients and provides a scientific reference for the zoned implementation and precise management of future CCERPs.
期刊介绍:
Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers.
Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.