アグロエコロジーと自然基盤解決策における気候変動に対する生物多様性・生態系応答の生態学的指標：スコーピングレビュー
Ecological indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem responses to climate change in agroecology and nature-based solutions: a scoping review (原題)
Eliakira Kisetu Nassary, Mawazo Jamson Shitindi, Aneth Japhet Magubika, Esta Alfred Mhagama, Newton Lwiyiso Kilasi
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
アグロエコロジーとNbSで用いられる生物多様性・生態系指標をPRISMA-ScRに沿って89件の文献から整理したスコーピングレビュー。種多様性・生産性・炭素動態・生態系サービス・レジリエンスが共通指標となる一方、アグロエコロジーは現場・プロセス重視、NbSは標準化・スケール重視と適用に差がある。種レベルと景観レベルの指標接続が不均一で、指標体系の分断が課題と指摘する。
English
A PRISMA-ScR scoping review of 89 sources mapping biodiversity and ecosystem indicators used in agroecology and nature-based solutions under climate change. Shared indicators include species diversity, productivity, carbon dynamics, ecosystem services and resilience, but agroecology favors field-level process measures while NbS favors standardized scalable metrics. Cross-scale integration remains weak, fragmenting ecological assessment.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
TNFDや生物多様性保全に関心を持つ日本企業・自治体にとって、農業景観での指標選定やモニタリング設計の参考になる。SSBJ開示の自然資本項目を検討する際の基礎資料として位置づけられる。
In the global GX context
Speaks to the TNFD/CSRD biodiversity-disclosure agenda by exposing how fragmented ecological indicators are, which matters for corporates seeking comparable nature metrics. It highlights the gap between field-based and standardized monitoring that global nature-reporting frameworks must bridge.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:農業景観における指標のスケール横断統合の課題を整理する枠組みとして参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:TNFD対応や自然資本モニタリングの指標選定で、現場指標と標準指標の使い分けの示唆を得られる。
🏛政策担当者:生物多様性モニタリング制度の標準化と現場観測の接続を設計する際の論点を提供する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Climate change reshapes biodiversity patterns and ecosystem processes across scales. However, ecological indicators used to track these changes remain uneven in structure and application. This study maps and synthesizes indicators applied in agroecology and nature-based solutions (NbS) for assessing biodiversity and ecosystem responses under climate change. A PRISMA-ScR-guided scoping review was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, covering literature from 2003 to 2026. From a final dataset of 89 sources, data were extracted through a structured coding framework and synthesized using an Indicator–Scale–Response matrix and an Indicator Application Index. Findings show shared reliance on indicators such as species diversity, ecosystem productivity, carbon dynamics, ecosystem services, and resilience. Differences emerge in how these indicators are applied. Agroecology prioritizes process-based and field-level measurements grounded in local ecological interactions, while NbS emphasizes standardized and scalable metrics linked to monitoring and reporting systems. Cross-scale integration remains uneven, particularly in connecting species-level responses with ecosystem and landscape indicators. Remote sensing and Essential Biodiversity Variables provide emerging pathways for linking scales, though field integration remains partial. Results point to fragmented indicator systems that limit coherent ecological assessment across management contexts. Strengthening alignment between field observations and scalable monitoring approaches could improve comparability and usability of ecological indicators for climate adaptation and ecosystem management in agricultural landscapes.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2026.115685first seen 2026-10-18 04:49:56
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。