生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

SLOSS争论研究进展:分析方法、理论机制及保护实践

章洋, 王彦平   

  1. 南京师范大学生命科学学院, 210023
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-10 修回日期:2025-06-27 接受日期:2025-07-11
  • 通讯作者: 王彦平
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(32271734)

A review of the SLOSS debate: Analysis methods, theoretical mechanisms and conservation practices

Yang Zhang, Yanping Wang   

  1. College of Life Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
  • Received:2025-03-10 Revised:2025-06-27 Accepted:2025-07-11
  • Contact: Yanping Wang

摘要: 生物多样性保护领域中的SLOSS(single large or several small)争论概述了在总面积相等或资源有限的情况下,应该优先保护一个大的保护区(SL)还是几个小的保护区(SS)来最大化保护物种多样性的问题。自从20世纪70年代以来,该问题一直备受生态学家和保护生物学家的关注并对于保护区设计以及生物多样性保护具有重要意义。由于研究方法的发展和交叉学科的兴起,SLOSS争论在分析方法和理论机制方面都取得了多阶段的重要进展。本文通过文献检索和归纳总结对SLOSS争论的研究现状进行了综述。首先,我们回顾了SLOSS争论的起源及其对生物多样性保护的重要性。其次,本文概括了评估了SLOSS争论在实证研究和理论方面的分析方法,包括零模型法、经典的物种累积曲线法以及由该方法所计算出来的饱和指数。随后,本文还回顾了以往研究者提出的改进的饱和指数,并介绍了我们所开发的优化后的饱和指数。此外,本文探讨了几种影响SLOSS争论的理论机制及其检验方法。最后,本文对该领域进行了总结和展望并为未来的发展方向提出了一些针对性建议,包括采用多种保护策略的重要性以及经济和生态因素的结合在保护区规划中的作用。本文整合了SLOSS争论中常用的分析方法的应用场景与局限性,比较了不同方法在保护优先级划分中的优势和争议点,可为研究者在方法选择及保护规划权衡提供参考。

关键词: 保护区, 物种多样性, SLOSS指数, SLOSS分析, 物种累积曲线, 生态模型, 理论机制

Abstract

Background & Aim: The SLOSS debate in the field of biodiversity conservation outlines whether single large protected area (SL) or several small protected areas (SS) are preferred for the conservation of species diversity, given equal total area or limited resources. This issue has been of great interest to ecologists and conservation biologists and has important implications for the design of protected areas and biodiversity conservation. As a result of the development of research methods and the rise of interdisciplinarity, the SLOSS debate has made important multi-stage advances in both analytical methods and theoretical mechanisms. The main objective of this paper is to review the rapidly research progress of the SLOSS debate and provide some targeted suggestions for future directions. 

Review results: We begin by describing the origins of the SLOSS debate and then analyzed the SLOSS literature from different aspects, including comparisons of publications between study regions and study times. Secondly, we described the analysis methods of the SLOSS debate and the strengths and limitations of each method. In addition, we reviewed the improved saturation indices proposed by previous researchers as well as the optimized indices developed by us. Thirdly, we explored several theoretical mechanisms that influence the SLOSS pattern, e.g, the theory of extinction-colonization dynamics dominated by extinction, the theory of extinction-colonization dynamics dominated by colonization, and the role of risk resistance. We then described how SLOSS debate can be applied to guide conservation management and protected area design. Lastly, we put forward some targeted suggestions for the future direction of SLOSS debate, including the importance of using flexible analytical methods, interdisciplinary collaborations to test theoretical mechanisms, more functional SLOSS and phylogenetic SLOSS research, and integrating the SLOSS debate with other fields such as restoration ecology.

Conclusions: Our review will be helpful to gain a deeper understanding of the progress of SLOSS debate, which is of great significance for promoting the development of this research field.

Key words: Protected area, Species diversity, SLOSS indices, SLOSS analysis, Species accumulation curve, Ecological models, Theoretical mechanisms