太白山自然保护区典型森林群落数量分类、排序及多样性格局

通过多元回归树（MRT,multivariate regression trees）对太白山自然保护区典型森林群落进行数量分类,采用典范对应分析（CCA,canonical correspondence analysis）进行排序,并对分类得到的森林群落总体多样性进行分析。研究表明：（1）对30个样地进行MRT分类,经交叉验证得出太白山自然保护区典型森林群落可以分为6类。（2）CCA排序揭示了群落的生境分布范围,并反映了太白山森林群落与环境因子的关系,研究表明,海拔、坡度、枯落物厚度和干扰情况4个变量对本研究区群落分布有显著影响。（3）位于中海拔区域森林群落的3种总体多样性指数均较高,而位于高海拔和低海拔区域森林群落的3种总体多样性指数相对较低。     

秦岭太白山高山灌丛群落研究

本文研究了太白山高山灌丛群落的种类组成、结构特征和分布特点,用数量分类方法划分了不同的群落类型,并讨论了灌丛与草甸群落的演替关系。     

中国云南部分小兽体表吸虱昆虫群落相似性及群落分类研究(英文)

应用系统聚类分析方法对云南省境内24种主要小型哺乳动物(小兽)体表吸虱昆虫群落相似性及群落分类进行了研究。研究中将每一种小兽体表的所有吸虱昆虫定义为一个相应的吸虱群落单位。结果表明,小兽体表吸虱群落结构简单,物种多样性很低。多数小兽有固定的吸虱种类寄生,其吸虱的宿主特异性高。在动物分类上隶属同一个属的小兽,其体表吸虱群落相似程度高,在系统聚类分析中大多被归为一类。在动物分类上近缘的小兽,其体表吸虱群落相似,优势虱种相同或相似,此情形尤其表现在鼠属、白腹鼠属、姬鼠属和绒鼠属。吸虱群落相似性大小与相应小兽宿主在动物分类地位上的近缘性高低呈现高度一致。从生态学角度来看,吸虱昆虫与其所寄生的小兽宿主动物之间存在密切的协同进化关系。     

北京山区栎林的群落结构与物种组成

在北京东灵山、喇叭沟门和大海陀山地区的辽东栎(Quercus liaotungensis)林以及白龙潭地区的槲树(Q.dentata)-麻栎(Q.acutissima)混交林中共调查了43个样方,利用这些样方资料,对群落进行TWINSPAN聚类和CCA排序,以研究北京地区栎林的群落结构、物种组成以及各群落之间的关系。结果表明：本地区栎林群落结构简单,不同栎林群落的结构差异很大。利用TWINSPAN对乔木层物种进行了分类,按不同指示种划分为7类。CCA排序结果显示第一轴与海拔关系显著,主要反映了温度因子的作用;第二轴与坡向关系显著,反映了水分因子的作用。排序结果与分类结果吻合,显示了不同生境条件对群落结构和物种分布的影响。结果还显示,本地区物种丰富度低,这可能与本地区植被受人为干扰强烈有一定关系。     

藏北高原草地群落的数量分类与排序

采用TWINSPAN数量分类和DCA、CCA排序的方法,对藏北高原草地29个样点进行统计分析。结果显示:(1)TWINSPAN数量分类将藏北高寒草地群落划分成10种类型。(2)样点DCA排序第一轴基本反映了水分环境梯度,第二轴基本反映了热量梯度。(3)TWINSPAN分类所划分的各群落在DCA排序图上都有各自的分布范围和界限,说明DCA排序能较好的反应各优势群落与其环境资源之间的关系。(4)样点CCA排序表明,影响群落分布的首要环境因子是水分因子(年均降水量)和空间因子(经度),其次是热量因子(年均温度),CCA排序进一步阐明了群落分布决定于水分和温度等环境因子,并间接验证了TWINSPAN的分类结果。(5)物种CCA排序和TWINSPAN分类结果表明:植物群落中物种的分布格局与植物群落类型的分布格局存在一定的相似性。     

肠道鞭毛虫群落及在宿主白蚁分类学上的意义

于国内五个常见白蚁种肠道内共记录到十七个鞭毛虫种。鞭毛虫种群具特异性和稳定性。群落相的变异度反映了宿主白蚁亲缘关系的离散度。异域同种白蚁肠道鞭毛虫群落显示稳定的同一相,同属异种白蚁的鞭毛虫群落部分相同;异科异属或同科异属白蚁的鞭毛虫群落绝然相异。 鉴于传统的生物分类法已明显地显示出其片面性及局限性,为此,人们正试图从其它学科领域,各个不同角度去探索能更客观反映各物种在系统发生上关系的新分类法。迄今,精确定性的生化分类、免疫分类和以群体力对象的定量的数量分类等已倪露头角,从而为以形态描述为主的经典生物分类学注入了新的活力。 本文试图通过对白蚁肠道鞭毛虫群落及种群的研究而借以探讨其在宿主白蚁系统分类研究中的潜在意义。     

拉萨河谷草地群落的数量分类与排序

采用TWINSPAN数量分类和DCA、CCA排序的方法,对拉萨河谷草地23个样点进行统计分析。结果显示:(1)TWINSPAN数量分类将拉萨河谷草地群落划分成8种类型,拉萨河谷的草地群落分布呈现明显的垂直地带性分布格局。(2)TWINSPAN分类所划分的各群落在DCA排序图上都有各自的分布范围和界限,说明DCA排序能较好的反应各群落与其环境资源之间的关系,同时,TWINSPAN的分类结果也在排序图上得到较好的印证。(3)样点DCA排序的第一轴基本反映了海拔高度的变化梯度,第二轴基本反映了坡向的变化。(4)样点CCA排序表明,影响群落分布的主要环境因子是海拔,其次是坡向。CCA排序进一步阐明了拉萨河谷草地群落分布决定于海拔和坡向等环境因子,并间接验证了TWINSPAN的分类结果。(5)物种CCA排序和TWINSPAN分类结果表明:植物群落中物种的分布格局与植物群落类型的分布格局存在一定的相似性,物种的分布格局在很大程度上影响着群落的分布格局。     

秦岭山地天然油松林群落结构特征和数量分类研究

根据对秦岭油松群落的系统调查,运用二元指示种分析(TWINSPAN)方法将秦岭山地油松群落进行数量划分;采用无偏对应分析(DCA)研究分类结果,研究各群丛的结构特征,进而明确它们之间的内在联系以及群落与环境的关系.结果显示:(1)在调查的39个样地中共发现有维管束植物375种,隶属于89科189属,其中被子植物85科;裸子植物1科;蕨类植物3科.群落垂直结构明显,分为乔木层、亚乔木层、灌木层及草本层4个层次.(2)数量分类将秦岭山地油松群落划分为13个群丛;应用DCA分析结果同TWINSPAN分类结果吻合得较好,很好地佐证了数量分类结果的合理性.各群丛在空间上的生态距离能够说明不同群丛演变需要的生态条件和"亲缘距离".生态距离的远近也可以表征互相演变趋势强弱.(3)秦岭山地油松群落分布的海拔幅度大,从低海拔湿润环境到高海拔甚至山脊的干燥环境,物种容量大,很好地保存了稀有物种.     

论短期农作物生境中节肢动物群落的重建Ⅱ.群落重建的分析和调控

在短期农作物生境中,周期性的种植和收害虫使得其中的节肢动物群落亦周期性地呈现出群落重建、群落发展和群落瓦解3种阶段。影响群落的因子包括群落的种库、农事活动和环境因子等。根据作物生境中节肢动物群落的结构和动态划分群落的3个阶段,群落重建的分析方法包括群落重建速度和群落生态学的基本方法等。可以从群落的种库、各落本身和整个作物生态系统3个层次调控群落的重建。群落重建与种库、群落本身和作物生态系统的相互作用关系。是保护利用自然天敌的理论基础之一。     

稻田蜘蛛群落的重建及与其种库的相关性

稻田生态系统是一个不稳定的生态系统,包括稻田和非稻田生境2个部分。随着水稻的移栽与收割,稻田蜘蛛群落周期性地呈现出群落重新形成、群落发展和群落瓦解3个阶段。这一群落的发展不同于自然群落的演替。因此,将稻田生境内蜘蛛群落的重新形成过程定义为群落的重建,而非稻田生境内的蜘蛛群落称之为稻田生境内蜘蛛群落的种库。群落重建是一个季节性的、可重复的动态变化过程,以群落的周期性彻底瓦解和周期性重新形成为最主要特征。种库为群落的重建提供移居者并接受群落瓦解时所迁出的蜘蛛.二者之间呈现出互补的相互关系。保护群落的种库将有助于自然天敌群落的重建。自然天敌群落的重建是自然天敌保护和持续利用的生态学基础的一个重要组成部分,对天敌的保护利用和天敌效能的提高有十分重要的意义。     

The community matrix in three species community models

The explicit function of the community matrix of a three dimensional Lotka-Volterra model is delineated by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for a positive equilibrium to be asymptotically stable. In the special case that the community matrix is quasi weakly diagonally dominant, it is shown that a positive determinant for the community matrix is not only necessary but is also sufficient for stability. The results are specific to three dimensional models and do not extend to communities of dimension greater than three.     

Is a community still a community? Reviewing definitions of key terms in community ecology

Community ecology is an inherently complicated field, confounded by the conflicting use of fundamental terms. Nearly two decades ago, Fauth et al. (1996) demonstrated that imprecise language led to the virtual synonymy of important terms and so attempted to clearly define four keywords in community ecology; “community,” “assemblage,” “guild,” and “ensemble”. We revisit Fauth et al.'s conclusion and discuss how the use of these terms has changed over time since their review. An updated analysis of term definition from a selection of popular ecological textbooks suggests that definitions have drifted away from those encountered pre‐1996, and slightly disagreed with results from a survey of 100 ecology professionals (comprising of academic professors, nonacademic PhDs, graduate and undergraduate biology students). Results suggest that confusion about these terms is still widespread in ecology. We conclude with clear suggestions for definitions of each term to be adopted hereafter to provide greater cohesion among research groups.     

The autophagy community

There are various definitions of community. A definition that I found in one of my dictionaries is the following: “A social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists.” Thus, I think it is fair to say that there is a worldwide autophagy community. That is, there is a group of researchers (our occupation), whose members share an interest in autophagy (our common characteristic), and that group is distinct from the larger society (I do not want to begin describing the many ways this applies). But do we feel like a community, and do we need a community? I suggest that a community is indeed beneficial, and I propose one mechanism for enhancing the development of the autophagy community.     

The autophagy community

There are various definitions of community. A definition that I found in one of my dictionaries is the following: “A social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists.” Thus, I think it is fair to say that there is a worldwide autophagy community. That is, there is a group of researchers (our occupation), whose members share an interest in autophagy (our common characteristic), and that group is distinct from the larger society (I do not want to begin describing the many ways this applies). But do we feel like a community, and do we need a community? I suggest that a community is indeed beneficial, and I propose one mechanism for enhancing the development of the autophagy community.     

MPowering ecologists: community assembly tools for community assembly rules

Null model tests of presence–absence data (‘NMTPAs’) provide important tools for inferring effects of competition, facilitation, habitat filtering, and other ecological processes from observational data. Many NMTPAs have been developed, but they often yield conflicting conclusions when applied to the same data. Type I and II error rates, size, power, robustness and bias provide important criteria for assessing which tests are valid, but these criteria need to be evaluated contingent on the sample size, null hypothesis of interest, and assumptions that are appropriate for the data set that is being analyzed. In this paper, we confirm that this is the case using the software MPower, evaluating the validity of NMTPAs contingent on the null hypothesis being tested, assumptions that can be made, and sample size. Evaluating the validity of NMTPAs contingent on these factors is important towards ensuring that reliable inferences are drawn from observational data about the processes controlling community assembly.