投稿中心

审稿中心

编辑中心

期刊出版

网站地图

友情链接

引用本文:杨海乐,危起伟.论水生野生动物的主动保护与被动保护.湖泊科学,2021,33(1):1-10. DOI:10.18307/2021.0102
Yang Haile,Wei Qiwei.Suppressive and active protective actions in aquatic wildlife conservation. J. Lake Sci.2021,33(1):1-10. DOI:10.18307/2021.0102
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 1353次   下载 720 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
论水生野生动物的主动保护与被动保护
杨海乐, 危起伟
中国水产科学研究院长江水产研究所, 农业农村部淡水生物多样性保护重点实验室, 武汉 430223
摘要:
三十多年来,人们对水生野生动物保护中的保护地建设、迁地保护、人工保种、人工驯养、人工繁育、人工养殖、增殖放流、生态修复等保护方式一直存在着激烈的争论.这反映了人们对水生野生动物保护目标、保护方式认识不一致甚至对立的问题,而其根本在于缺乏一个能够适应水生野生动物保护需求和特征的理论话语体系.本文基于对水生野生动物保护目标认知和设置的差异,基于对水生野生动物保护中人工干预方式的差异,尝试以“物种保护与生态保护”、“主动保护与被动保护”两个维度为框架建立水生野生动物保护的理论话语体系,然后着重分析水生野生动物物种保护中的主动保护与被动保护的状况与成效,指出部分水生野生动物保护地由于其整体生态格局已被改变或依然处于恶化的趋势中,并且无法避免人类活动的干扰和影响,导致了相应水生野生动物的就地保护效果不理想,而获得足够主动保护努力介入的物种在获得人工保种、人工繁育、人工养殖之后,其物种灭绝的风险已基本解除,甚至部分已野外绝迹物种还存在野外种群重建的机会.而后,以长江三种鲟鱼的保护和效果为例,对比展示了主动保护对于水生野生动物保护的必要性.建议就水生野生动物保护而言,在不遗余力抓保护地建设等被动保护的同时,更要积极地推动人工繁育、人工养殖等主动保护来对物种兜底.
关键词:  水生野生动物保护  物种灭绝  保护地建设  人工繁育  人工养殖
DOI:10.18307/2021.0102
分类号:
基金项目:农业农村部“长江渔业资源与环境调查”财政专项(CJDC-2017-14)、中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(2020JBF01)和中国水产科学研究院创新团队项目(2020TD08)联合资助.
Suppressive and active protective actions in aquatic wildlife conservation
Yang Haile, Wei Qiwei
Key Laboratory of Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Yangtze River Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Wuhan 430223, P. R. China
Abstract:
For decades, there are severe disputes on the approaches and actions of aquatic wildlife conservation, such as in situ protected area, ex situ conservation, domestic preservation, domestication, artificial breeding, aquaculture, artificial releasing, ecological restoration, and so on. These indicate that for both professionals and the publics there are some differences and even contraries on the goals and methods of aquatic wildlife conservation. Lack of a theoretical discourse system, which is suited and matched to the needs and features of aquatic wildlife conservation, is the main reason that causes the problem. In this paper, we proposed a theoretical discourse system framed by the “conservation of species vs conservation of ecosystem” and the “suppressive protective actions vs active protective actions”, based on the differences on the goals of aquatic wildlife conservation and the differences on the methods of artificial involvement in aquatic wildlife conservation. Then, we summarized the status and effects of suppressive protective actions and active protective actions in aquatic wildlife conservation, and indicated that the effects of suppressive protective actions (in situ conservation) of aquatic wildlife were not good enough in part of protected areas, because the aquatic ecosystem patterns had been changed or still were deteriorating, and the human activities and impacts could not be removed or avoided. In contrast, the species with domestic preservation, artificial breeding, and aquaculture completely had avoided the risk of extinction; even the reintroduction and wild population restoration could be implemented. In this paper, we carefully showed the dramatic conservation results of three sturgeon species in Yangtze River, Psephurus gladius, Acipenser sinensis, Acipenser dabryanus, which vividly showed the significance of active protective actions for aquatic wildlife conservation. Here, we strongly suggested that we needed to advance the in situ conservation which would provide a space for wildlife, moreover, domestic preservation, artificial breeding, and aquaculture needed to be advocated, which would provide the last defender for withstanding species extinction.
Key words:  Aquatic wildlife conservation  species extinction  protected area construction  artificial breeding  aquaculture
分享按钮