Description:    The condition of many wetlands across Australia has deteriorated due to increased water regulation and the expansion and intensification of agriculture and increased urban and industrial expansion. Despite this situation, a comprehensive overview of the distribution and condition of wetlands across Australia is not available. Regional analyses exist and several exemplary mapping and monitoring exercises have been maintained to complement the more general information sets. It is expected that global climate change will exacerbate the pressures on inland wetlands, while sea level rises will adversely affect coastal wetlands. It is also expected that the exacerbation of these pressures will increase the potential for near-irreversible changes in the ecological state of some wetlands. Concerted institutional responses to such pressures have in the past proven difficult to sustain, although there is some evidence that a more balanced approach to water use and agriculture is being developed with the provision of increasing funds to purchase water for environmental flows being one example. We identify examples from around Australia that illustrate the impacts on wetlands of long-term climate change from palaeoecological records (south-eastern Australia); water allocation (Murray-Darling Basin); dryland salinisation (south-western Australia); and coastal salinisation (northern Australia). These are provided to illustrate both the extent of change in wetlands and the complexity of differentiating the specific effects of climate change. An appraisal of the main policy responses by government to climate change is provided as a basis for further considering the opportunities for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Content Type Journal Article Category Effects of Climate Change on Wetlands Pages 1-21 DOI 10.1007/s00027-011-0232-5 Authors C. M. Finlayson, Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia J. A. Davis, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia P. A. Gell, Centre for Environmental Management, School of Science and Engineering, University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, Ballarat, VIC 3353, Australia R. T. Kingsford, Australian Rivers and Wetland Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia K. A. Parton, Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 883, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia Journal Aquatic Sciences - Research Across Boundaries Online ISSN 1420-9055 Print ISSN 1015-1621

Description:    This review reports background information on wetlands in the Northeast Asia and High Asia areas, including wetland coverage and type, significance for local populations, and threats to their vitality and protection, with particular focus on the relationship of how global change influenced wetlands. Natural wetlands in these areas have been greatly depleted and degraded, largely due to global climate change, drainage and conversion to agriculture and silviculture, hydrologic alterations, exotics invasions, and misguided management policies. Global warming has caused wetland and ice-sheet loss in High Asia and permafrost thawing in tundra wetlands in Northeast Asia, and hence induced enormous reductions in water-storage sources in High Asia and carbon loss in Northeast Asia. This, in the long term, will exacerbate chronic water shortage and positively feed back global warming. Recently, better understanding of the vital role of healthy wetland ecosystems to Asia’s sustainable economic development has led to major efforts in wetland conservation and restoration. Nonetheless, collaborative efforts to restore and protect the wetlands must involve not only the countries of Northeast and High Asia but also international agencies. Research has been productive but the results should be more effectively integrated with policy-making and wetland restoration practices under future climatic scenarios. Content Type Journal Article Category Research Article Pages 1-9 DOI 10.1007/s00027-012-0281-4 Authors Shuqing An, The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, The Institute of Wetland Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093 People’s Republic of China Ziqiang Tian, River and Coastal Environment Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012 People’s Republic of China Ying Cai, The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, The Institute of Wetland Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093 People’s Republic of China Teng Wen, The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, The Institute of Wetland Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093 People’s Republic of China Delin Xu, The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, The Institute of Wetland Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093 People’s Republic of China Hao Jiang, The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, The Institute of Wetland Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093 People’s Republic of China Zhigang Yao, The Wetland Management Station, Jiangsu Administrate of Forestry, Nanjing, 210036 People’s Republic of China Baohua Guan, The Institute of Geography and Limnology, China Academy of Science, Nanjing, 210008 People’s Republic of China Sheng Sheng, The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, The Institute of Wetland Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093 People’s Republic of China Yan Ouyang, The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, The Institute of Wetland Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093 People’s Republic of China Xiaoli Cheng, Key Laboratory of Aquatic Botany and Watershed Ecology, Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, 430074 People’s Republic of China Journal Aquatic Sciences - Research Across Boundaries Online ISSN 1420-9055 Print ISSN 1015-1621

Description:    Soil carbon stocks and sequestration have been given a lot of attention recently in the study of terrestrial ecosystems and global climate change. This review focuses on the progress made on the estimation of the soil carbon stocks of China, and the characterization of carbon dynamics of croplands with regard to climate change, and addresses issues on the mineralization of soil organic carbon in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. By integrating existing research data, China’s total soil organic carbon (SOC) stock is estimated to be 90 Pg and its inorganic carbon (SIC) stock as 60 Pg, with SOC sequestration rates in the range of 20–25 Tg/a for the last two decades. An estimation of the biophysical potential of SOC sequestration has been generally agreed as being 2 Pg over the long term, of which only 1/3 could be attainable using contemporary agricultural technologies in all of China’s croplands. Thus, it is critical to enhance SOC sequestration and mitigate climate change to improve agricultural and land use management in China. There have been many instances where SOC accumulation may not induce an increased amount of decomposition under a warming scenario but instead favor improved cropland productivity and ecosystem functioning. Furthermore, unchanged or even decreased net global warming potential (GWP) from croplands with enhanced SOC has been reported by a number of case studies using life cycle analysis. Future studies on soil carbon stocks and the sequestration potential of China are expected to focus on: (1) Carbon stocks and the sequestration capacity of the earths’ surface systems at scales ranging from the plot to the watershed and (2) multiple interface processes and the synergies between carbon sequestration and ecosystem productivity and ecosystem functioning at scales from the molecular level to agro-ecosystems. Soil carbon science in China faces new challenges and opportunities to undertake integrated research applicable to many areas. Content Type Journal Article Category Review Pages 1-11 DOI 10.1007/s11434-011-4693-7 Authors JuFeng Zheng, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China Kun Cheng, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China GenXing Pan, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China Pete Smith, Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU UK LianQing Li, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China XuHui Zhang, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China JinWei Zheng, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China XiaoJun Han, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China YanLing Du, Institute for Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture, and Research Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095 China Journal Chinese Science Bulletin Online ISSN 1861-9541 Print ISSN 1001-6538

Description:    Since Westman (1977) and Ehrlich (1982) put forward the concepts of “the service of nature” and “ecosystem service functions”, respectively, methods for conducting value accounting for them, and their practical application have become the subjects of intense study. Based on an overview of available research findings, we discuss three scientific hypotheses. First, the terrestrial ecosystem offers both positive and negative service functions. Second, changes in terrestrial ecosystem service functions lie not only in the number of ecosystem types and the coverage area of each type, but also in their quality. Third, the value of terrestrial ecosystem service functions should be assessed both in terms of the value stocked and the value added. We collected land use data from China during the period 1999–2008, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index data based on remote sensing images from the Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies for the same period. We then calculated and analyzed spatial and temporal changes in China’s terrestrial ecosystem service values over the 10-year period. Considering temporal change, the total value (stocked) of China’s terrestrial ecosystem service functions decreased from 6.82 trillion Yuan RMB in 1999 to 6.57 trillion Yuan RMB in 2008. During that period, the positive value decreased by 240.17 billion Yuan RMB and the negative value increased by 8.85 billion Yuan RMB. The decrease in total value lies mainly in the humidity control, soil formation, and waste recycling functions. The total value (added) of China’s terrestrial ecosystem service functions increased by 4.31 billion Yuan RMB in 2000, but decreased by 0.13 billion Yuan RMB in 2008 (based on the constant price of China in 1999). The value (added) was a negative figure. From the perspective of spatial change, we can see that the supply of China’s terrestrial ecosystem service functions fell slightly over the past 10 years, mainly in Northeast and Southern China. As a result of human activities on ecosystems, the loss of ecosystem service functions’ value was relatively prominent in Shanxi and Gansu provinces, compared with an increase in value in Shaanxi Province. Terrestrial ecosystem service functions’ value per unit area was relatively high in mid- and East China, showing a prominent spatial change over the 10-year period, but low in Western China. Some conclusions are drawn after an in-depth analysis of the factors causing the spatial and temporal changes in China’s terrestrial ecosystem service functions, in the hope that our suggestions will be helpful for the management of China’s terrestrial ecosystems. Content Type Journal Article Category Article Pages 1-12 DOI 10.1007/s11434-012-4978-5 Authors Yao Shi, State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085 China RuSong Wang, State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085 China JinLou Huang, State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085 China WenRui Yang, Beijing Municipal Institute of City Planning and Design, Beijing, 100045 China Journal Chinese Science Bulletin Online ISSN 1861-9541 Print ISSN 1001-6538

Description:    Four wetland maps for all China have been produced, based on Landsat and CBERS-02B remote sensing data between 1978 and 2008 (1978, 1990, 2000 and 2008). These maps were mainly developed by manual interpretation and validated by substantial field investigation in 2009. Based on these maps, we analyzed the 2008 wetland distribution in China and discussed wetland changes and their drivers over the past 30 years. (i) There were about 324097 km 2 of wetlands in 2008, for which inland marshes or swamps were the most common wetland type (35%), with lakes (26%) second. Most of the wetlands were in Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai and Tibet, occupying about 55% of the national wetland area. (ii) From 1978 to 2008, China’s wetland area continually and significantly decreased, by about 33% based on changes in the wetland map. This was in sharp contrast to the increase in artificial wetlands, which increased by about 122%. Inland marshes accounted for the main loss of total wetlands from 1978 to 2000. From 2000 through 2008, riverine and lacustrine wetlands constituted the main wetland loss. Fortunately however, the rate of wetland loss decreased from 5523 to 831 km 2 /a. (iii) The change ratio of lost natural wetlands (including inland and coastal wetlands) to non-wetlands has decreased slightly over the past 30 years. From 1978 to 1990, nearly all natural wetlands (98%) lost were transformed into non-wetlands. However, the ratio declined to 86% from 1990 to 2000, and to 77% from 2000 to 2008. (iv) All Chinese provinces were divided into three groups according to patterns of wetland changes, which could relate to the driving forces of such changes. Tibet was completely different from other provinces, as it was one representative example in which there was a net wetland increase, because of global warming and decreased human activity since 1990. Increased economic development caused considerable wetland loss in most eastern provinces, and artificial wetlands increased. Content Type Journal Article Category Article Pages 1-11 DOI 10.1007/s11434-012-5093-3 Authors ZhenGuo Niu, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China HaiYing Zhang, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China XianWei Wang, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China WenBo Yao, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Center for Earth System Science, Institute for Global Change Studies, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084 China DeMin Zhou, Resource Environment and Tourism, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100037 China KuiYi Zhao, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agricultural Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, 130012 China Hui Zhao, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China NaNa Li, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China HuaBing Huang, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China CongCong Li, Department of Geography and Remote Sensing, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875 China Jun Yang, College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083 China CaiXia Liu, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China Shuang Liu, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China Lin Wang, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China Zhan Li, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China ZhenZhong Yang, Department of Geography and Remote Sensing, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875 China Fei Qiao, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China YaoMin Zheng, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China YanLei Chen, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, 94720 USA YongWei Sheng, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, 90095 USA XiaoHong Gao, Department of Life and Geographic Sciences, Qinghai Normal University, Xining, 810008 China WeiHong Zhu, Department of Geography, Yanbian University, Yanbian, 133002 China WenQing Wang, School of Environment and Ecology, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361005 China Hong Wang, School of Geographical Information Science, Hohai University, Nanjing, 211100 China YongLing Weng, School of Surveying and Mapping Transportation Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096 China DaFang Zhuang, Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101 China JiYuan Liu, Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101 China ZhiCai Luo, School of Surveying and Mapping, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430079 China Xiao Cheng, Department of Geography and Remote Sensing, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875 China ZiQi Guo, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China Peng Gong, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Jointly Sponsored by Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100101 China Journal Chinese Science Bulletin Online ISSN 1861-9541 Print ISSN 1001-6538