贡嘎山东坡植被垂直带谱的物种多样性格局分析

为了探讨贡嘎山东坡海拔梯度上植物多样性的结构物征及格局变化,基于植被垂直带谱的样带和样方调查,分析了物种丰度与种－面积关系的垂直变化,物种多样性生态和地理成分的海拔梯度格局,去势对应分析（DCA）和典范对应分析（CCA）被用于分析17种环境因子之间的相关性,和环境因子对27个多样性结构成分和67个样方空间格局的影响,并定量分离不同尺度的环境变量对多样性格局分异的贡献。结果表明：1）贡嘎山东坡的植物物种多样性总体上表现了自下而上降低的梯度,但从河谷干旱灌草丛带到常绿阔叶林带和高山灌丛带到草甸带显示了相反的梯度变化;2）10种分布区类型的物种有各不相同的垂直丰度格局,9种生活型的物种多样性垂直格局则反映了草本与木本类型的明显差异;3）从河谷干旱草丛到山地针阔混交林的生物多样性结构变化主要反映水分梯度的影响;而从山地针阔混交林到高山草甸,多样性结构变化的主导因子是气温;4）气候的垂直梯度和生境的局部异质性是物种多样性格局两组不同作用尺度和性质的影响因子,总体上76．83％的多样性变异得到了解释,其中寒冷指数的作用最为突出,分析结果支持了关于生物多样性格局机理的不同假说,同时表明,贡嘎山东坡植物地理的垂直变化不仅受到现代环境因子的控制,区域环境变迁和区系发育历史的影响也是不可忽略的。     

贡嘎山东坡典型植被类型土壤动物群落特征

为了掌握贡嘎山垂直植被带间土壤动物群落结构及多样性,2012年5月至10月间对贡嘎山东坡的常绿阔叶林、落叶阔叶林、针阔混交林和暗针叶林4种典型植被土壤动物群落进行了调查。共捕获土壤动物347只,隶属于10纲29目68类,其中山蛩属(Spirobolus)为优势类群。土壤动物的群落密度、生物量以及多样性呈常绿阔叶林落叶阔叶林针阔混交林暗针叶林趋势,其中密度、类群丰富度和Shannon-Wiener指数的变化具有显著差异(P0.05);落叶阔叶林和针阔混交林间的土壤动物群落结构差异明显,其他植被类型间的差异性受季节影响。从各功能群结构来看,腐食性和杂食性土壤动物占主要地位;各功能群的生物量均以常绿阔叶林和落叶阔叶林较高,针阔混交林和暗针叶林较低,而相对生物量的变化趋势各不相同,仅有腐食性功能群的生物量及植食性功能群的相对生物量在各垂直植被带间有显著差异(P0.05)。群落密度、生物量、类群丰富度、Shannon-Wiener指数以及腐食性和捕食性功能群的生物量与土壤温度呈显著相关(P0.05)。研究结果表明:贡嘎山东坡土壤动物的群落组成、多样性及功能群结构在各典型植被类型间有明显差异,土壤温度是影响土壤动物垂直分布格局的主要环境因子。     

贡嘎山东坡森林小型土壤节肢动物群落多样性与时空分布

为了掌握不同垂直植被类型下小型土壤节肢动物群落组成及多样性的变化规律,2012年3、5、7、10和12月对贡嘎山东坡的常绿阔叶林、落叶阔叶林、针阔混交林和暗针叶林下的小型土壤节肢动物群落进行了调查。共分离到小型土壤节肢动物8581只,隶属于8纲28目114科145类或属,优势类群为近缺虫兆属(Paranurophorus)。与我国温带及亚热带森林土壤节肢动物群落相比,贡嘎山东坡小型土壤节肢动物群落组成类群不仅丰富,且具有独特性。主成分分析及相似性指数计算结果表明,不同植被类型间的小型土壤节肢动物群落组成结构相似性较高,但群落相似性随着海拔相对高度的增加而降低。小型土壤节肢动物的群落密度、丰富度和Shannon指数均随海拔上升逐渐减小,其中暗针叶林下小型土壤节肢动物群落的丰富度和Shannon指数显著低于其他植被类型。3月和12月小型土壤节肢动物的群落密度、丰富度、Shannon指数和Simpson指数在总体上大于5月、7月和10月,且不同月份间差异显著。影响小型土壤节肢动物群落密度及多样性空间分布的主要环境因子为土壤有机质、有效磷、pH、土壤温度和湿度。研究结果表明,贡嘎山东坡小型土壤节肢动物群落组成类群丰富且具独特性;群落结构、密度及多样性指数对季节变化的响应比对植被类型变化更敏感。     

贡嘎山东坡非飞行小型兽类物种多样性的垂直分布格局

为了解贡嘎山地区物种多样性的垂直分布格局,2010年4—9月利用夹日法对贡嘎山东坡非飞行小型兽类的物种多样性进行了详细调查。调查在海拔1200—4000m之间按400m间隔设置了8个采集样地,累计布夹28800夹次,捕获非飞行小型兽类个体701个,观察记录到松鼠个体25个,共调查记录小兽个体726个,分属于3目6科16属25种。非参数估计的物种丰富度Chao2和Jackknife2指数以及物种累积曲线评估表明本次调查取样充分,能很好地反映该地区非飞行小型兽类物种多样性的垂直分布格局。结果表明:非飞行小型兽类物种多样性的垂直分布格局为单峰模型;物种丰富度和物种多度在中海拔地区最高,在低海拔和高海拔地区较低;相反,物种均匀度在中海拔地区较低,在低海拔和高海拔地区较高;而物种优势度则随着海拔的升高而逐渐增加;Shannon-Wiener、Fisher-α、Margalef三个综合性物种多样性指数均显示物种多样性在中海拔地区最高;与其它多样性指数相比,Simpson指数未能很好地反映出不同海拔段群落物种多样性的垂直分布差异;而与Shannon-Wiener和Simpson指数相比,Fisher-α和Margalef指数对不同物种组成的群落多样性区分较好。同时,基于不同海拔段物种组成的聚类分析结果也表明物种多样性在中海拔地区最高。物种多样性在中海拔地区最高的垂直分布模式提示我们在贡嘎山地区的生物多样性保护和生态管理中应特别重视中海拔地段,因为该地段中居于生态食物链中间位置的小兽物种最丰富,是山地生物多样性保护的关键。此外,规范统一的调查方法将有利于研究数据的整合和减少人为因素带来的误差。     

澳门生态一区和二区水鸟谱系多样性的季节变化

季节变化是鸟类群落的重要特征之一,其引起的环境变化决定着鸟类群落构建过程中不同驱动因子的作用力。因此,了解鸟类群落结构的季节变化,对于全面认识生物群落结构具有重要意义,尤其利用谱系多样性来探讨鸟类的季节性变化和推断群落聚集规律越来越受到关注。2018年1—12月,采用样线法对澳门生态一区和二区2块湿地进行逐月调查,记录水鸟的物种丰富度和多度,并分析水鸟谱系多样性的季节动态。结果显示,1)共记录水鸟37种,隶属于6目9科,目、科、种中数量最多的依次为:鸻形目Charadriiformes物种数为15种,鹭科Ardeidae物种数为11种,白鹭Egretta garzetta多度为540只。2)生态一区和二区水鸟的物种丰富度在冬季最高,其次为秋季;生态一区和二区的物种多度分别在秋季和冬季最高;谱系多样性和平均成对谱系距离的季节变化规律与物种丰富度的相似。3)生态一区和二区的鸟类群落分别在春、秋、冬季和秋季趋向于谱系发散,而在其他时间大多呈现出谱系聚集。谱系发散可能表明了种间竞争在群落构建中作用更大,而谱系聚集则表明了环境过滤对繁殖季水鸟群落构建具有重要作用。结果表明,湿地水鸟群落的驱动因子存在季节变化,考虑这些变化是全面认识群落结构的前提。     

贡嘎山海拔梯度上不同植被类型土壤甲烷氧化菌群落结构及多样性

甲烷是仅次于CO₂的第二大温室气体.森林表层土壤中甲烷好氧氧化作用是大气甲烷重要的汇,在碳循环和减缓全球变暖方面起着重要作用.研究不同植被类型土壤中甲烷氧化菌的群落结构及多样性,有助于更好地理解植被演替、人为干扰和不同土地利用背景下甲烷氧化菌群落组成和多样性变化与地上植被之间的相互关系.本研究在贡嘎山东坡海拔梯度上的4种不同植被类型中采集了92个土壤样品,利用Miseq测序技术和生物信息学方法评估了甲烷氧化菌群落组成及多样性在4种不同植被类型间的变化,并探讨了其变异的潜在原因.结果表明: 常绿阔叶林和针阔叶混交林土壤中甲烷氧化菌的群落结构较为相似,暗针叶林和灌丛草甸土壤甲烷氧化菌的群落结构较为相似.4种不同植被生态系统中,针阔叶混交林土壤中的甲烷氧化菌α多样性显著高于其他3种植被生态系统(P＜0.001),且暗针叶林和灌丛草甸土壤中甲烷氧化菌β多样性显著高于常绿阔叶林和针阔叶混交林(P＜0.001).Spearman相关分析表明,不同类型甲烷氧化菌的相对丰度对环境变化的响应模式不同.造成α多样性差异的主要因子可能是土壤总氮、电导率和土壤温度.偏Mantel检验分析和冗余分析(RDA)表明,常绿阔叶林和针阔叶混交林土壤甲烷氧化菌多样性受环境因子的影响较大,而暗针叶林和灌丛草甸土壤中甲烷氧化细菌多样性变化可能存在其他潜在的影响因素或者机制.降水可能是造成低海拔常绿阔叶林和针阔叶混交林与高海拔暗针叶林和灌丛草甸土壤甲烷氧化细菌群落结构差异的主要原因.贡嘎山海拔梯度上不同植被类型土壤中甲烷氧化菌的群落结构和多样性变化可能主要是由于土壤理化性质和气候变化综合作用的结果.     

澜沧江中游水生昆虫生活史和生态学性状多样性的海拔格局: 气候和土地利用的影响

物种通过功能性状响应环境变化, 探究群落功能性状多样性的海拔格局是揭示生物多样性空间分布格局和形成机制的重要研究内容。气候变化和土地利用是影响溪流生物多样性变化及其群落构建的重要因素, 然而气候和土地利用沿海拔梯度如何影响水生昆虫功能性状垂直分布格局的系统研究仍旧比较缺乏。本文基于2016年和2018年在云南澜沧江中游1,000-3,000 m海拔共56个溪流样点的水生昆虫群落调查数据, 利用线性和二次回归模型探索并比较了生活史性状(化性、生活史快慢、成虫寿命)和生态学性状(营养习性、生活习性、温度偏好)的群落加权平均性状多样性指数沿海拔梯度的分布特征, 并通过随机森林模型解析流域尺度气候和土地利用变量对生活史和生态学性状多样性垂直分布格局的影响。结果表明: 生活史性状中, 少于1世代、无季节性、慢季节性、成虫寿命长等性状多样性沿海拔梯度呈显著的“U”型分布格局, 而快季节性和成虫寿命极短多样性呈显著的单峰型海拔格局, 成虫寿命短多样性呈显著递增的海拔格局。生态学性状中, 温度偏好多样性与海拔梯度无关, 附着者和爬行者的多样性沿海拔梯度分别呈显著的递增和“U”型格局, 滤食者、植食者和捕食者的多样性分别呈显著递增、递减和“U”型海拔格局。随机森林模型分析结果表明, 气候和土地利用对生活史性状多样性的解释量高于对生态学性状多样性的解释量, 年平均温度和农业面积百分比是共同的关键因素。综上, 水生昆虫群落功能性状多样性海拔格局存在差异, 主要受不同自然环境梯度和人类干扰因素驱动。研究结果可为制定澜沧江流域生物多样性保护对策提供理论基础。     

Patterns of grassland community composition and structure along an elevational gradient on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau

青藏高原草地群落组成和结构的海拔梯度格局 青藏高原高寒草地是维持区域生态安全的天然屏障,也在一定程度上造就了该区域较高的生物多样性。然而,我们对青藏高原高寒草地植物群落组成和结构的海拔分布格局及其自身维持机制仍知之甚少。本研究在青藏高原东北部沿公路形成的海拔梯度设置了39个实验样地(海拔跨度为2800–5100m),每个样地设5个调查样方进行群落调查,包括物种组成、高度、盖度,评估青藏高原高寒草地植物群落的α和β多样性的海拔梯度格局及其影响因素。研究结果发现草地群落高度随着海拔的增加而显著降低,而群落盖度变化却不显著。随着海拔的增加,植物物种丰富度(α多样性)显著增加,而群落变异性(β多样性)显著降低。约束聚类分析表明,随海拔增加草地群落结构逐渐发生变化,基于此,在这种变化过程中,我们监测到3个渐变的海拔间断点,分别在海拔3640、4252和4333 m处。结构方程模型(SEM)表明,降水增加和温度降低对α多样性有显著的正向作用,但植物群落α多样性的变化显著改变群落变异性。以上结果表明,青藏高原的群落组成和结构沿海拔梯度发生了从量变到质变的过程。     

深圳松子坑森林公园鸟类多样性与群落特征研究

2008年3月至2009年2月间,每季度调查深圳松子坑森林公园鸟类的物种和数量,对公园鸟类多样性、群落结构及季节变化进行分析,结果显示:松子坑森林公园共记录到鸟类74种,隶属于12目34科,其中留鸟45种,占61％,迁徙鸟类29种,占39％.公园鸟类多样性与群落特征呈季节性波动,物种数和个体数量在秋季最高,其次是冬春季节,夏季最低.     

森林-草原交错带夏季鸟类群落多样性特征

2004～2006年夏季利用样线法研究了内蒙古高原东南缘森林-草原交错带鸟类群落多样性特征及变化规律.共记录鸟类73种,隶属于13目28科56属,鸟类区系具有明显的古北界特征.鸟类群落物种数和密度年间差异不显著,α多样性随森林-草原交错带环境梯度变化而发生显著变化:在不同植被地带之间,物种数、密度、Shannon-Wiener指数和Pielou指数差异极显著、但科-属多样性差异不显著,鸟类群落α多样性各项指数表现为森林带＜交错带森林草甸区＞交错带草甸草原区＞草原带的特征与变化趋势(DG-F为交错带草甸草原区＞森林带);其中,森林草甸区是鸟类物种多样性的显著增长区,具有最高的物种数和密度,明显体现了交错区的边缘效应,草甸草原区是鸟类向草原过渡的显著变化区域、物种多样性开始显著减少.β多样性随不同植被地带逐级发生显著变化,环境差异最大的森林带-森林草甸区和草甸草原区-草原带具有最高的β多样性,物种替代速率最大;鸟类物种替代速率与环境梯度"陡度"有密切关系.鸟类优势种在各植被地带之间存在较大变化.鸟类群落的物种数、密度和物种多样性(H')与森林斑块数呈显著的正相关性,在大尺度空间上森林斑块数是影响鸟类群落多样性的最主要因素.     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor