The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets address both biodiversity and ecosystem services. We explore the relationship between giant panda populations and three ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, water retention, and soil retention. Do pandas prefer areas with higher than average values of these services? Areas may be good for pandas but not for these ecosystem services, and vice versa. Answering these questions can focus panda conservation.

We map their spatial distribution and temporal changes from 2000 to 2015, by watershed, to target future protected areas for both pandas and these ecosystem services. Pandas occupy watersheds with above-average carbon sequestration and water retention.

There is no tendency for pandas to be increasing in watersheds that have higher than average values of these ecosystem services or in watersheds where they are improving. Protected areas represented watersheds with higher than average values of these ecosystem services but without pandas only poorly. Watersheds with pandas do provide higher than average ecosystem services, but watersheds above average for these ecosystem services often lack pandas. Those areas might be potentially important for pandas, but obstacles block their way. We identified conservation areas combining habitats, population, activity range, and higher than average values of these ecosystem services and then proposed new protected areas.

《生物多样性公约》的《爱知目标》既涉及生物多样性又涉及生态系统服务。我们探讨了大熊猫种群与三种生态系统服务之间的关系：碳固存，保水和土壤保藏。大熊猫是否喜欢这些服务的价值高于平均值的区域？这些地区可能对熊猫有利，但对这些生态系统服务不利，反之亦然。回答这些问题可以集中保护熊猫。

我们通过分水岭绘制了2000年至2015年它们的空间分布和时间变化图，以大熊猫和这些生态系统服务的未来保护区为目标。大熊猫在集水区中的固碳和持水量均高于平均水平。

在这些生态系统服务的平均值高于平均水平的流域或正在改善的流域，大熊猫没有增长的趋势。保护区代表的流域的生态系统服务价值高于平均值，但没有大熊猫的情况很差。具有熊猫的流域确实提供了高于平均水平的生态系统服务，但是这些生态系统服务的高于平均水平的流域通常缺少熊猫。这些地区可能对熊猫很重要，但障碍物阻碍了它们的前进。我们确定了结合了这些生态系统服务的栖息地，人口，活动范围以及高于平均值的保护区，然后提出了新的保护区。