长沙黄花国际机场鸟类群落物种多样性分析

为了获得长沙黄花国际机场鸟击防范工作所需的鸟类基础性资料,从2005年9月~2006年8月,通过对机场地区5种生境类型鸟类群落的调查与监测,记录到鸟类112种,属16目32科。其中46种属东洋界种类、45种属古北界种类、21种属广布种;留鸟46种、夏候鸟25种、冬候鸟29种、旅鸟12种。经RB频率指数测算,鸟类群落的优势种为白头鹎(Pycnonotus sinensis)、乌鸫(Turdus merula)和树麻雀(Passer montanus)。按鸟类生境分布系数划分,广布型的鸟类有44种,是该区鸟类群落组成的主体。鸟类群落的Shannon-Weiner物种多样性指数为1.607,均匀性指数为0.784。     

广西山口红树林保护区海陆交错带夏季鸟类多样性调查

2011年6～8月采用样带法对山口地区海陆交错带的5种生境的鸟类多样性及群落相似性进行了研究,共记录到夏季鸟类31种,隶属于9目20科。在5种生境的鸟类群落中,红树林生境的鸟类群落Shannon-Wiener指数最高,农田生境的均匀度指数最高,农田生境和红树林生境的鸟类群落相似性指数最高,为0.759,桉树林生境和农田生境的相似性指数最低,为0.240。同时还对海陆交错带不同生境鸟类群落的多样性和相似性方面的问题进行了讨论。     

江西齐云山自然保护区冬季鸟类调查及多样性分析

2006年12月至2007年2月,采用样线法对江西齐云山自然保护区冬季鸟类资源及其生境分布进行了调查,记录到鸟类13目38科122种,其中国家重点保护鸟类17种.留鸟90种,冬候鸟28种,夏候鸟4种.研究区冬季鸟类的Shannon-Weiner指数为3.875,Pielou指数为0.791,Simpson指数为0.964.对6种生境中鸟类群落的科数、种数、优势种、多样性指数(Shannon-Weiner指数、Pielou指数、Simpson指数和Sorenson相似性指数)等有关生物多样性指标的统计分析表明,不同生境鸟类群落多样性存在差异.     

内蒙古白银库伦鸟类多样性研究

为探讨不同生境鸟类多样性和植物多样性之间的关系,2007年8月和2008年8月,采用样方法和固定距离样线法对白银库伦五蕊柳湿地和浑善达克沙地的鸟类与植物进行了调查,通过Shannon-Wiener指数、Pielou指数、鸟类密度指数等对各数据进行分析,结果表明:两种生境鸟类群落的相似性极低;植物多样性的改变影响鸟类群落的多样性;鸟类多样性的变化反映植物多样性的变化.     

广东上川岛猕猴自然保护区鸟类群落多样性研究

2008-2010 年对广东上川岛猕猴自然保护区及周边进行鸟类资源调查, 研究海岛生态环境差异对生物多样性的影响。共记录鸟类11 目32 科79 种, 留鸟占55.7%, 陆鸟占70.9%; 优势种为白头鹎(Pycnonotus sinensis)和白鹭(Egretta garzetta)。总体鸟类多样性指数H’为3.210、均匀度指数J 为0.740。村落农田鸟类种类最多, 有51 种, 其次是陆生森林46 种, 海岸37 种。各生境H’排序为: 村落农田>陆生森林>海岸, 而J 则为村落农田>海岸>陆生森林。村落农田在大尺度上属于陆生森林和海岸之间的生态交错带, 多样化水平高; 而从陆生森林直接到海岸的生境梯度较陡,导致其多样性低, 鸟类种类数量差异大。     

三峡重庆库区不同鸟类群落的物种组成及多样性研究

1996～1997年,对三峡工程重庆库区的鸟类群落物种组成和种群数量进行了调查,共调查记录库区鸟类15目48科226种,数量18929只。用鸟类数量级划分、Sorensen相似性指数、Shannon-Wiener指数和Pielou指数分析库区各种生境鸟类群落物组成和物种多样性结果表明：1）库区天然林、人工林、灌草丛和水域生境中鸟类群落的组成与农田生境具有较高的相似性,尤以人工林和农田的相似性最高;2）库区人工林生境鸟类群落物种多样性最高;3）库区由于长期以来人类活动的影响,生境日趋单一,已逐渐形成一种以农田灌丛鸟类为主的鸟类生态系统。     

内蒙古乌兰察布地区鸟类区系组成及生态分布

2012年10月至2013年12月对内蒙古乌兰察布地区的鸟类区系及生态分布进行了调查研究。共记录到鸟类215种,隶属于17目48科。其中留鸟42种,夏候鸟101种,旅鸟67种,冬候鸟5种;繁殖鸟143种,构成区系的主体。繁殖鸟中古北界种类有118种,占繁殖鸟总数的82.5%,鸟类区系具有典型的古北界特征。国家Ⅰ级重点保护鸟类有5种,国家Ⅱ级重点保护鸟类有28种。依据地形地貌和植被类型,将该地区划分为湿地、林地、草地、农田、居民区5种生境,其中,湿地鸟类丰富度、多样性指数和均匀度指数最高,居民区鸟类丰富度、多样性指数和均匀度指数最低;优势度指数在居民区最高,在湿地生境中最低。从不同生境鸟类群落间β多样性的变化看,湿地与林地之间物种更替变化最大,群落相似性小;农田与居民区物种更替变化小,群落相似性大,与聚类分析的结果相一致。对该地区不同生境鸟类群落结构及其之间的关系进行了分析,探讨鸟类对栖息环境的选择以及鸟类与环境的关系。     

太白山北坡冬、春季鸟类群落多样性

2009年11月(冬季)、2010年4月和2011年3-4月(春季),依据海拔和典型植被将秦岭主峰太白山北坡划分为6种生境类型,在各种生境中选择典型样区划定样线并采用样线法对鸟类进行调查.根据鸟类的统计数量和估算面积计算鸟类的相对密度,并根据密度等级划分各生境类型中优势种和常见种.结果表明:2个季节共记录鸟类121种,隶属于12目40科71属,其中,留乌92种,夏候鸟24种,旅鸟5种;冬春季节各生境带的鸟类组成均以留乌为主;不同生境带相同季节和同一生境带不同季节鸟类组成和密度及密度频次组成有一定差异;不同的生境带中优势种和常见种不同,而且在冬、春也有变化;中海拔人为干扰阔叶林带冬、春季鸟类多样性指数均最高,中海拔阔叶林带鸟类均匀度指数均最高;相邻生境带的相似性指数普遍高于不相邻生境带.除中高海拔针阔混交林带比相邻的前一植被带的鸟类物种数有所上升之外,物种的丰富度随着海拔的上升而减少,鸟类物种组成与夏、秋季相比有较大的变化.     

微山湖鸟类多样性特征及其影响因子

2010年10月至2011年9月期间,使用样线法对微山湖鸟类多样性进行研究.共发现鸟类132种,隶属13目39科,其中留鸟39种,夏候鸟33种,冬候鸟14种,旅鸟46种,分别占全部种类的29.6％、25.0％、10.6％和34.85％;国家二级保护鸟类有12种,省级重点保护鸟类16种,另外50种和16种鸟类分别列入中日、中澳候鸟保护协定.灰鹤、乌雕、沙鵖和白顶鵖4种鸟类在南四湖首次记录.根据微山湖的地理和植被状况,将研究区域划分为水域、次生林、农田和居民区4生境,不同生境中鸟类群落的Shannon-Wiener指数高低为沼泽水域＞次生林＞农田＞居民区,Pielou指数高低为沼泽水域＞农田＞次生林＞居民区.次生林和农田鸟类群落的相似性指数最高,沼泽水域与居民区的相似性最低.春季末期鸟类多样性指数和均匀性指数最高,秋季末期最低.冬季鸟类种类最多、密度最大,春初鸟类种类最少、密度最小.距居民区的距离、距公路的距离、植被盖度、人工池塘数目、水面积比例和深水面积比例等对鸟类多样性影响显著.     

邢台市及郊区鸟类区系组成及多样性

2003年3月~2005年7月对邢台市鸟类区系组成及多样性进行了调查,共记录到鸟类166种,隶属15目42科。本文重点探讨了不同生境、不同季节鸟类群落的种类、多样性、均匀度、相似性等群落特征。结果表明,鸟类种数由多至少依次为林地生境、公共绿地生境、河流水域生境、农田生境、建筑区生境。Shannon-Weiner多样性指数由大到小依次为林地生境、公共绿地生境、河流水域生境、农田生境、建筑区生境。比较这5种生境之间的相似性得出,公共绿地生境鸟类群落与建筑区生境鸟类群落、林地生境鸟类群落相似,相似性达到60%以上,而河流水域生境鸟类群落与其他生境鸟类群落有极明显的差异。     

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