Ecosystem monitoring is fundamental to our understanding of how ecosystem change is impacting our natural resources and is vital for developing evidence‐based policy and management. However, the different types of ecosystem monitoring, along with their recommended applications, are often poorly understood and contentious. Varying definitions and strict adherence to a specific monitoring type can inhibit effective ecosystem monitoring, leading to poor program development, implementation and outcomes. In an effort to develop a more consistent and clear understanding of ecosystem monitoring programs, we here review the main types of monitoring and recommend the widespread adoption of three classifications of monitoring, namely, targeted, surveillance and landscape monitoring. Landscape monitoring is conducted over large areas, provides spatial data, and enables questions relating to where and when ecosystem change is occurring to be addressed. Surveillance monitoring uses standardised field methods to inform on what is changing in our environments and the direction and magnitude of that change, whilst targeted monitoring is designed around testable hypotheses over defined areas and is the best approach for determining the causes of ecosystem change. The classification system is flexible and can incorporate different interests, objectives, targets and characteristics as well as different spatial scales and temporal frequencies, while also providing valuable structure and consistency across distinct ecosystem monitoring programs. To support our argument, we examine the ability of each monitoring type to inform on six key types of questions that are routinely posed for ecosystem monitoring programs, such as where and when change is occurring, what is the magnitude of change, and how can the change be managed? As we demonstrate, each type of ecosystem monitoring has its own strengths and weaknesses, which should be carefully considered relative to the desired results. Using this scheme, scientists and land managers can design programs best suited to their needs. Finally, we assert that for our most serious environmental challenges, it is essential that we include information from each of these monitoring scales to inform on all facets of ecosystem change, and this is best achieved through close collaboration between the scales. With a renewed understanding of the importance of each monitoring type, along with greater commitment to monitor cooperatively, we will be well placed to address some of our greatest environmental challenges.

中文翻译：

---

有效的生态系统监测需要多尺度的方法


生态系统监测对于我们了解生态系统变化如何影响我们的自然资源至关重要，对于制定基于证据的政策和管理至关重要。然而，不同类型的生态系统监测及其推荐的应用往往人们知之甚少且存在争议。不同的定义和严格遵守特定的监测类型可能会抑制有效的生态系统监测，导致计划的制定、实施和结果不佳。为了对生态系统监测计划有一个更加一致和清晰的理解，我们在此回顾了主要的监测类型，并建议广泛采用三类监测，即有针对性的监测、监视监测和景观监测。景观监测在大范围内进行，提供空间数据，并能够解决与生态系统变化何时何地发生有关的问题。监视监测使用标准化的现场方法来了解我们的环境正在发生什么变化以及变化的方向和幅度，而有针对性的监测是围绕特定区域的可检验假设而设计的，是确定生态系统变化原因的最佳方法。该分类系统非常灵活，可以纳入不同的利益、目的、目标和特征以及不同的空间尺度和时间频率，同时还为不同的生态系统监测计划提供有价值的结构和一致性。 为了支持我们的论点，我们检查了每种监测类型的能力，以了解生态系统监测计划中常规提出的六种关键类型的问题，例如变化发生的地点和时间、变化的幅度有多大以及如何改变被管理？正如我们所证明的，每种类型的生态系统监测都有其自身的优点和缺点，应根据预期结果仔细考虑这些优点和缺点。使用该计划，科学家和土地管理者可以设计最适合他们需求的计划。最后，我们断言，对于我们最严峻的环境挑战，我们必须纳入每个监测尺度的信息，以了解生态系统变化的各个方面，而这最好通过尺度之间的密切合作来实现。随着对每种监测类型重要性的重新认识，以及对合作监测的更大承诺，我们将能够很好地应对一些最大的环境挑战。