Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 20, 2026

Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework
Published on: July 24, 2016
Integrating threshold effects into national park conservation planning: Synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity
Mengxiao Ge1, Junze Liu2, Yan Chen3
1College of Landscape Architecture and Horticulture, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming, 650224, China.
Abstract:
Rational and scientifically based boundary delimitation and functional zoning is a key approach to achieving multi-objective management and differentiated control in national parks. However, existing planning methods often overlook the nonlinear relationships and interactions among various ecological functions, limiting their ability to support refined management. In response to the core objectives of national parks in maintaining ecosystem functions and conserving biodiversity, this study developed an integrated framework combining species distribution modeling, systematic conservation planning, and ecosystem service assessment to optimize the spatial conservation layout of Ailao Mountain and Wuliang Mountain National Park (AWNP). Habitat suitability for four key species was modeled using the MaxEnt algorithm, which showed high predictive accuracy (AUC>0.97). Using Marxan, 408 priority conservation units were identified, revealing a conservation gap of 302.10 km2. The optimized park area was 1796.51 km2, significantly enhancing both conservation coverage and spatial efficiency. Ecosystem services including water yield, carbon storage, habitat quality, sediment delivery ratio, and recreational potential exhibited strong spatial heterogeneity, with total ecosystem services (TES) forming a distribution pattern of "high in the center and low at both ends." A Restricted Cubic Spline (RCS) model revealed nonlinear relationships and critical thresholds between TES and species habitat suitability. Based on these insights, level I functional zones were delineated, including core conservation zones (1041.48 km2, 57.97%) and general control zones (755.03 km2, 42.03%). Furthermore, K-means++ clustering subdivided the park into four level II functional zones: ecologically vulnerable zones, ecological restoration zones, ecological control zones, and recreational potential zones. This hierarchical functional zoning approach enables refined management and multi-objective coordination. The zoning method proposed in this study provides a robust scientific foundation for integrating biodiversity conservation with ecosystem service provision. It offers a replicable framework for national park planning and adaptive management of mountain ecosystems.
More Related Videos
14:44Field Collection and Laboratory Maintenance of Canopy-Forming Giant Kelp to Facilitate Restoration
Published on: June 7, 2024
12:26Integrating Remote Sensing with Species Distribution Models; Mapping Tamarisk Invasions Using the Software for Assisted Habitat Modeling SAHM
Published on: October 11, 2016
Related Concept Videos
What is Conservation Biology?
Threats to Biodiversity
Limits to Natural Selection
Habitat Fragmentation
Keystone Species
Conservation of Declining Populations