生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

人为干扰下生物声景变化:从机制解析到生物多样性评估

边琦, 赵伊琳, 张晓飞, 刘易超, 任启文   

  1. 河北省林业和草原科学研究院, 050061
    河北省森林城市建设技术创新中心, 050061
    北京科技大学现代农学院, 100083
  • 收稿日期:2026-03-17 修回日期:2026-05-29
  • 通讯作者: 赵伊琳

Biological soundscape changes under anthropogenic disturbance: from mechanistic analysis to biodiversity assessment

Qi Bian, yilin Zhao, xiaofei Zhang, yichao Liu, qiwen Ren   

  1. , Hebei Academy of Forestry and Grassland Science 050061,
    , Hebei Forest City Construction Technology Innovation Center 050061,
    School of Advanced Agriculture Sciences, University of Science and Technology Beijing 100083,
  • Received:2026-03-17 Revised:2026-05-29
  • Contact: Yilin Zhao

摘要: 全球生物多样性正经历快速变化与持续丧失,亟须能够在大尺度、长时间序列下连续运行的生态监测技术。被动声学监测(passive acoustic monitoring, PAM)通过无人值守方式记录环境声音,可同步获取生物声、地球物理声与人工声,为识别人为干扰下生物群落活动、声景结构及生态系统变化提供了重要手段。近年来,PAM已广泛应用于交通、施工与休闲噪声、土地利用变化、栖息地破碎化等干扰背景下的生物多样性监测。然而,声景变化并不能直接等同于生物多样性变化。人为噪声可能通过声学掩蔽和可探测性下降影响录音结果,动物也可能通过调整鸣叫频率、鸣唱时间或活动节律作出行为补偿;生境扰动则可能通过改变植被结构、资源供给、景观连通性和声音传播条件,引发群落重组及声景时空格局变化。基于此,本文提出“干扰类型—作用机制—声景响应—生态含义—验证路径”的分析框架,围绕直接声源干扰和间接生境扰动两类主要路径,结合土地利用与管理变化、景观格局改变及多重干扰叠加等情景,梳理生物声景的典型响应及其生态解释。进一步讨论PAM在声学指数解释、监测标准构建和生态预警应用中的主要挑战,并提出加强多源数据验证、完善采集与分析标准、构建长期基线和提高模型可解释性等建议,以提升声景监测在生物多样性评估中的可靠性和可操作性。

关键词: 被动声学监测, 生态声学, 人为干扰, 生物声景, 生物多样性评估

AbstractGlobal biodiversity is undergoing rapid change and sustained loss, creating an urgent need for ecological monitoring technologies capable of continuous operation over large spatial scales and long time series. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) records environmental sounds in an unattended manner, enabling the simultaneous capture of biotic, geophysical, and anthropogenic sounds. It thus provides a vital tool for identifying changes in biological community activity, soundscape structure, and ecosystem dynamics under anthropogenic disturbance. In recent years, PAM has been widely applied to biodiversity monitoring in the context of disturbances such as traffic, construction, and recreational noise, land-use change, and habitat fragmentation. However, changes in the soundscape cannot be directly equated with changes in biodiversity. Human-generated noise may affect recording results through acoustic masking and reduced detectability, while animals may compensate behaviorally by adjusting call frequency, singing duration, or activity rhythms; habitat disturbance, in turn, may trigger community restructuring and changes in the spatiotemporal patterns of soundscapes by altering vegetation structure, resource availability, landscape connectivity, and sound propagation conditions. Based on this, this paper proposes an analytical framework of disturbance type—mechanism of action—acoustic response—ecological implications—validation pathway. Focusing on four pathways—direct noise disturbance, changes in land use and management, alterations in landscape pattern, and the superposition of multiple disturbances—it systematizes typical responses of the bioacoustic landscape and their ecological interpretations. The paper further discusses the key challenges facing PAM in the interpretation of acoustic indices, the development of monitoring standards, and its application in ecological early warning systems. It proposes recommendations to enhance the reliability and operability of soundscape monitoring in biodiversity assessment, including strengthening multi-source data validation, refining data collection and analysis standards, establishing long-term baselines, and improving model interpretability.

Key words: passive acoustic monitoring, ecoacoustics, anthropogenic disturbance, biological soundscape, biodiversity evaluation