喀斯特地区植被不同恢复阶段功能冗余和功能多样性对群落稳定性的影响

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.04.004

生态环境学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 670-678.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.04.004

喀斯特地区植被不同恢复阶段功能冗余和功能多样性对群落稳定性的影响

冯凌¹^,²(), 喻理飞¹^,²^,^*(), 王阳¹^,², 张丽敏¹^,³, 赵庆¹^,², 李方兵¹^,²

1.贵州大学生命科学学院/农业生物工程研究院,贵州贵阳 550025
2.贵州大学/山地植物资源保护与种质创新教育部重点实验室/山地生态与农业生物工程协同创新中心,贵州贵阳 550025
3.贵州省山地资源研究所,贵州贵阳 550001

收稿日期:2021-09-26 出版日期:2022-04-18 发布日期:2022-06-22
通讯作者: *喻理飞（1963年生）,男,教授,博士研究生导师,研究方向为喀斯特退化生态系统植被恢复研究。E-mail: gdyulifei@163.com
作者简介:冯凌（1993年生）,女,硕士研究生,研究方向为植物生态学。E-mail: 1047600511@qq.com
基金资助:
“十三五”国家重点研发计划(2016YFC0502604);贵州省生物学一流学科建设项目(GNYL[2017]009)

The Effects of the Functional Redundancy and Functional Diversity on the Community Stability in Different Stages of the Plant Communities Restoration in Karst Vegetation

FENG Ling¹^,²(), YU Lifei¹^,²^,^*(), WANG Yang¹^,², ZHANG Limin¹^,³, ZHAO Qing¹^,², LI Fangbing¹^,²

1. College of Life Sciences/Institute of Agro-bioengineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, P. R. China
2. Key laboratory of Plant Resource Conservation and Germplasm Innovation in Mountainous Region (Ministry of Education)/Collaborative Innovation Center of Mountain Ecology and Agricultural Bioengineering, Guiyang 550025, P. R. China
3. Guizhou Institute of Mountain Resources, Guiyang 550001, P. R. China

Received:2021-09-26 Online:2022-04-18 Published:2022-06-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

喀斯特地区属于生态脆弱区,由于环境本身的脆弱性和人为的干扰,导致植被恢复难度较大。所以,在植被恢复过程中群落稳定性的增长和维持成为了重要的研究内容,对指导生态修复具有重要意义。该文通过物种功能性状研究功能多样性、功能冗余与群落稳定性的关系,阐明植被恢复过程中影响群落稳定性增长与维持的内在因素。采用“空间代替时间”的方法,在贵州喀斯特高原区选择处于退化喀斯特植被自然恢复不同阶段的植物群落,即草本群落阶段、灌草过渡阶段、灌木灌丛阶段、灌乔过渡阶段和乔木林阶段的植物群落,探究功能冗余和功能多样性对群落稳定性影响的差异。结果表明：在喀斯特高原区,随着植被的恢复（1）群落的稳定性呈现逐步递增的趋势,两种测定方式均得到一致的结果,群落稳定性指数（C）由0.393上升至1.206,M. Godron稳定性指数法也显示曲线交点与稳定点之间的距离由10.49缩短至2.32;（2）功能冗余逐步递增,在乔木林阶段达到最高,且各阶段具有显著性差异;功能多样性则是先增后减,在灌乔过渡阶段达到最高;（3）根据逐步回归结果显示,功能冗余和功能多样性均能提高群落的稳定性,但是在不同的恢复阶段两者对于稳定性的影响并不一致。在恢复前期（草本群落阶段至灌乔过渡阶段）,功能多样性对群落稳定性的维持起主要作用;而在恢复后期（乔木林阶段）,群落稳定性则主要由功能冗余决定。因此,建议在进行喀斯特地区生态恢复和森林经营管理时,为提高和维持群落的稳定性,要注意区分不同的恢复阶段,有针对性的制订管理措施。

关键词: 功能冗余, 功能多样性, 群落稳定性, 喀斯特, 物种多样性, 群落

Abstract:

Karst areas are ecologically fragile areas, due to the vulnerability of the environment itself and human disturbance, which makes vegetation restoration difficult. Therefore, the growth and maintenance of community stability in the process of vegetation restoration has become an important research area for guiding ecological restoration. This study investigates the relationship between functional diversity, functional redundancy and community stability through species functional traits, and clarifies the intrinsic factors that affect the growth and maintenance of community stability in the process of vegetation restoration. Using a “spatial instead of temporal” approach, plant communities at different stages of natural restoration of degraded karst vegetation (i.e., herbaceous stage, shrub-grass transition stage, shrub-shrub stage, shrub-tree transition stage and tree stage) were selected in the karst plateau area of Guizhou to investigate the differences in the effects of functional redundancy and functional diversity on community stability. The results showed that with the restoration of vegetation in the karst plateau area, (1) the stability of the community showed a gradual increase and both measurement methods obtained consistent resutls: the community stability index (C) increased from 0.393 to 1.206 and the M. Godron stability index method showed that the distance between the intersection of the curves and the stability point decreased from 10.49 to 2.32; (2) the functional redundancy increased gradually and reached the highest in the tree stage, with significant differences among the stages. The functional diversity increased first and then decreased, reaching the highest in the shrub-tree transition stage; (3) according to the stepwise regression results, both functional redundancy and functional diversity could improve the stability of the community, but their effects on stability were not consistent in different restoration stages. In the early restoration stage (herbaceous stage to the shrub-tree transition stage), functional diversity played a major role in maintaining community stability, while in the late restoration stage (tree stage), community stability was mainly determined by functional redundancy. Therefore, it is recommended that in order to improve and maintain the stability of the community during ecological restoration and forest management in karst areas, attention should be given to distinguishing different restoration stages and formulating targeted management measures.

Key words: functional redundancy, functional diversity, community stability, karst, species diversity, community

中图分类号:

Q948
X173

冯凌, 喻理飞, 王阳, 张丽敏, 赵庆, 李方兵. 喀斯特地区植被不同恢复阶段功能冗余和功能多样性对群落稳定性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(4): 670-678.

FENG Ling, YU Lifei, WANG Yang, ZHANG Limin, ZHAO Qing, LI Fangbing. The Effects of the Functional Redundancy and Functional Diversity on the Community Stability in Different Stages of the Plant Communities Restoration in Karst Vegetation[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(4): 670-678.

图/表 6

参考文献 38

[1]	ACKERLY D, KNIGHT C, WEISS S, et al., 2002. Leaf size, specific leaf area and microhabitat distribution of chaparral woody plants: Contrasting patterns in species level and community level analyses[J]. Oecologia, 130(3): 449-457. DOI URL
[2]	BELLO F D, LEP J, LAVOREL S, et al., 2007. Importance of species abundance for assessment of trait composition:an example based on pollinator communities[J]. Community Ecology, 8(2): 163-170. DOI URL
[3]	DIAZ S, LAVOREL S, BELLO F D, et al., 2007. Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(52): 20684-20689.
[4]	FONS V D P, 2019. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in naturally assembled communities[J]. Biological Reviews, 94(4): 1220-1245.
[5]	FRANKS P J, BEERLING D J, 2009. Maximum leaf conductance driven by CO₂ effects on stomatal size and density over geologic time[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(25): 10343-10347. DOI URL
[6]	GARDNER M R, ASHBY W R, 1970. Connectance of Large Dynamic (Cybernetic) Systems: Critical Values for Stability[J]. Nature, 228(5273): 784-784. DOI URL
[7]	GODRON M, 1972. Some aspects of heterogeneity in grasslands of Cantal[J]. Statistical Ecology, 3(3): 397-415.
[8]	HECTOR A, HAUTIER Y, SANER P, et al., 2010. General stabilizing effects of plant diversity on grassland productivity through population asynchrony and overyielding[J]. Ecology, 91(8): 2213-2220. DOI URL
[9]	HETHERINGTON A M, WOODWARD F I, 2003. The role of stomata in sensing and driving environmental change[J]. Nature, 42(6591): 901-908.
[10]	LI L, MCCORMACK M L, MA C, et al., 2015. Leaf economics and hydraulic traits are decoupled in ﬁve species-rich tropical-subtropical forests[J]. Ecology Letters, 18(9): 899-906. DOI PMID
[11]	LOREAU M, MAZANCOURT C D, 2013. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: A synthesis of underlying mechanisms[J]. Ecology Letters, 16(S1):106-115. DOI URL
[12]	LOREAU M, NAEEM S, INCHAUSTI P, et al., 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges[J]. Science, 294(5543): 804-808. DOI URL
[13]	MÁJEKOVÁ M, BELLO F D, DOLEŽAL J, et al., 2016. Plant functional traits as determinants of population stability[J]. Ecology, 95(9): 2369-2374. DOI URL
[14]	MAZANCOURT C D, ISBELL F. LAROCQUE A, et al., 2013. Predicting ecosystem stability from community composition and biodiversity[J]. Ecology Letters, 16(5): 617-625. DOI URL
[15]	MCCANN K S, 2000. The diversity-stability debate[J]. Nature, 405(6783): 228-33. DOI URL
[16]	PETCHEY O L, EVANS K L, FISHBURN I S, et al., 2007. Low functional diversity and no redundancy in British avian assemblages[J]. Journal of Animal Ecology, 76(5): 977-985. DOI URL
[17]	PILLAR V D, BLANCO C C, MÜLLER S C, et al., 2013. Functional redundancy and stability in plant communities[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 24(5): 963-974. DOI URL
[18]	PONTES L D S, SOUSSANA J F, LOUAULT F, et al., 2010. Leaf traits affect the above-ground productivity and quality of pasture grasses[J]. Functional Ecology, 21(5): 844-853. DOI URL
[19]	SASAKI T, OKUBO S, OKAYASU T, et al., 2009. Two-phase functional redundancy in plant communities along a grazing gradient in Mongolian rangelands[J]. Ecology, 90(9): 2598-2608. DOI URL
[20]	WESTOBY M, FALSTER D S, MOLES A T, et al., 2002. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species[J]. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33(1): 125-159. DOI URL
[21]	YACHI S, LOREAU M, 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(4): 1463-1468.
[22]	陈超, 朱志红, 李英年, 等, 2016. 高寒草甸种间性状差异和物种均匀度对物种多样性与功能多样性关系的影响[J]. 生态学报, 36(3): 661-674.
	CHEN C, ZHU Z H, LI Y N, et al., 2016. Effects of interspecific trait dissimilarity and species evenness on the relationship between species diversity and functional diversity in an alpine meadow[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(3): 661-674.
[23]	陈惠君, 杜虎, 宋同清, 等, 2019. 木论喀斯特常绿落叶阔叶混交林群丛数量分类及稳定性[J]. 生物多样性, 27(10): 1056-1068. DOI
	CHEN H J, DU H, SONG T Q, et al., 2019. Numerical classification of associations and their stabilities of karst evergreen deciduous broad-leaved mixed forests in Mulun National Nature Reserve[J]. Biodiversity Science, 27(10): 1056-1068. DOI URL
[24]	党承林, 王崇云, 王宝荣, 等, 2002. 植物群落的演替与稳定性[J]. 生态学杂志, 21(2): 30-35.
	DANG C L, WANG C Y, WANG B R, et al., 2002. Succession and stability in plant community[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 21(2): 30-35.
[25]	李霞, 朱万泽, 舒树淼, 等, 2021. 大渡河中游干暖河谷植被种间关系与稳定性[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 27(2): 325-333.
	LI X, ZHU W Z, SHU S M, et al., 2021. Interspecific association and stability of vegetation in the dry-warm valley of the middle reaches of Dadu River[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Environmental Biology, 27 (2): 325-333.
[26]	罗红艺, 2001. C3植物、C4植物和CAM植物的比较[J]. 高等函授学报 (自然科学版), 14(5): 35-38.
	LUO H Y, 2001. Comparison of C3 plants, C 4 plants and CAM plants[J]. Journal of Higher Correspondence Education (Natural Sciences), 14(5): 35-38.
[27]	彭晚霞, 宋同清, 曾馥平, 等, 2010. 喀斯特常绿落叶阔叶混交林植物与土壤地形因子的耦合关系[J]. 生态学报, 30(13): 3472-3481.
	PENG W X, SONG T Q, ZENG F P, et al., 2010. The coupling relationships between vegetation soil and topography factors in karst mixed evergreen and deciduous broad leaf forest[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30(13): 3472-3481.
[28]	涂洪润, 农娟丽, 朱军, 等, 2021. 桂林岩溶石山密花树群落主要物种的种间关联及群落稳定性[J]. 生态学报, 42(9): 1-18.
	TU H R, NONG J L, ZHU J, et al., 2021. Interspecific associations of main species and community stability of Myrsine seguinii community in Karst hills of Guilin, Southwestern China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 42(9): 1-18.
[29]	巫翠华, 蔡建军, 李华, 等, 2021. 紫柏山壳斗科植物群落物种多样性和稳定性研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 41(8): 108-115.
	WU C H, CAI J J, LI H, et al., 2021. Studies on species diversity and stability of the fagaceae community in the Zibai mountain[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 41(8): 108-115.
[30]	王德炉, 朱守谦, 黄宝龙, 2005. 喀斯特石漠化的形成过程及阶段划分[J]. 南京林业大学学报 (自然科学版), 29(3): 103-106.
	WANG D L, ZHU S Q, HUANG B L, 2005. A study on forming process and stages of karst rocky desertification[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 29(3): 103-106.
[31]	王国宏, 2002. 再论生物多样性与生态系统的稳定性[J]. 生物多样性, 10(1): 126-134. DOI
	WANG G H, 2002. Further thoughts on diversity and stability in ecosystems[J]. Biodiversity Science, 10(1): 126-134. DOI URL
[32]	王恒方, 吕光辉, 周耀治, 等, 2017. 不同水盐梯度下功能多样性和功能冗余对荒漠植物群落稳定性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 37(23): 7928-7937.
	WANG H F, LÜ G H, ZHOU Y Z, et al., 2017. Effects of functional diversity and functional redundancy on the stability of desert plant communities under different water and salt gradients[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(23): 7928-7937.
[33]	王世杰, 李阳兵, 李瑞玲, 2003. 喀斯特石漠化的形成背景、演化与治理[J]. 第四纪研究, 23(6): 657-666.
	WANG S J, LI Y B, LI R L, 2003. Formation background, evolution and control of karst rocky desertification[J]. Quaternary Sciences, 23(6): 657-666.
[34]	徐靖, 耿宜佳, 银森录, 等, 2018. 基于可持续发展目标的“2020年后全球生物多样性框架”要素研究[J]. 环境保护, 46(23): 17-22.
	XU J, GENG Y J, YIN S L, et al., 2018. A study on elements of Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Based on Sustainable Development Goals[J]. Environmental Protection, 46(23): 17-22.
[35]	薛达元, 2017. 《生物多样性公约》履约新进展[J]. 生物多样性, 25(11): 1145-1146.
	XUE D Y, 2017. The latest development for implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity[J]. Biodiversity Science, 25(11): 1145-1146. DOI URL
[36]	姚天华, 朱志红, 李英年, 等, 2016. 功能多样性和功能冗余对高寒草甸群落稳定性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 36(6): 1547-1558.
	YAO T H, ZHU Z H, LI Y N, et al., 2016. Effects of functional diversity and functional redundancy on the community stability of an alpine meadow[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(6): 1547-1558.
[37]	喻理飞, 朱守谦, 叶镜中, 等, 2002. 退化喀斯特森林自然恢复过程中群落动态研究[J]. 林业科学, 38(1): 1-7.
	YU L F, ZHU S Q, YE J Z, et al., 2002. Dynamics of a degraded karst forest in the process of natural restoration[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 38(1): 1-7.
[38]	张景慧, 黄永梅, 2016. 生物多样性与稳定性机制研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 36(13): 3859-3870.
	ZHANG J H, HUANG Y M, 2016. Biodiversity and stability mechanisms: understanding and future research[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(13): 3859-3870.

样地号 Sample number	经度 Longitude/(°)	纬度 Latitude/(°)	海拔 Altitude/m	坡向 Aspect	坡度 Slope/(°)	样地面积 Area/m²
Ⅰ-1	105.831440	26.121520	1299	西南	8	30×30
Ⅰ-2	105.831390	26.121816	1295	西南	10	30×30
Ⅰ-3	105.831403	26.121454	1294	西南	10	30×30
Ⅱ-1	105.830819	26.122143	1326	东南	39	30×30
Ⅱ-2	105.830733	26.122364	1332	东南	30	30×30
Ⅱ-3	105.835735	26.118240	1338	西	35	30×30
Ⅲ-1	105.831537	26.122391	1240	西南	30	30×30
Ⅲ-2	105.831661	26.122272	1346	西南	30	30×30
Ⅲ-3	105.832622	26.121553	1345	西北	33	30×30
Ⅳ-1	105.830527	26.116990	1298	西北	40	30×30
Ⅳ-2	105.762302	26.117216	1323	西北	41	30×30
Ⅳ-3	105.830356	26.116761	1343	西北	42	30×30
Ⅴ-1	105.828362	26.128199	1239	东南	45	30×30
Ⅴ-2	105.828721	26.128599	1286	东南	48	30×30
Ⅴ-3	105.829093	26.128678	1296	东南	50	30×30

样地号 Sample number	经度 Longitude/(°)	纬度 Latitude/(°)	海拔 Altitude/m	坡向 Aspect	坡度 Slope/(°)	样地面积 Area/m²
Ⅰ-1	105.831440	26.121520	1299	西南	8	30×30
Ⅰ-2	105.831390	26.121816	1295	西南	10	30×30
Ⅰ-3	105.831403	26.121454	1294	西南	10	30×30
Ⅱ-1	105.830819	26.122143	1326	东南	39	30×30
Ⅱ-2	105.830733	26.122364	1332	东南	30	30×30
Ⅱ-3	105.835735	26.118240	1338	西	35	30×30
Ⅲ-1	105.831537	26.122391	1240	西南	30	30×30
Ⅲ-2	105.831661	26.122272	1346	西南	30	30×30
Ⅲ-3	105.832622	26.121553	1345	西北	33	30×30
Ⅳ-1	105.830527	26.116990	1298	西北	40	30×30
Ⅳ-2	105.762302	26.117216	1323	西北	41	30×30
Ⅳ-3	105.830356	26.116761	1343	西北	42	30×30
Ⅴ-1	105.828362	26.128199	1239	东南	45	30×30
Ⅴ-2	105.828721	26.128599	1286	东南	48	30×30
Ⅴ-3	105.829093	26.128678	1296	东南	50	30×30

功能性状 Functional traits	数据类型 Data type	特征类型 Feature type	生态学意义 Ecology significant
光合途径 Photosynthetic pathway	名称	C3、C4	代表不同的净光合速率和光呼吸速率（罗红艺, 2001）
生活型 Life form	名称	多年生、一年或两年生	反映植物对环境的适应能力
生长型 Growth form	名称	乔木、灌木、草本	反映植物对光的适应
叶表面特征 Leaf surface feature	名称	光滑、具毛、具刺	反映植物对光的利用
株高 Plant height/m	数值		反映植物对光、空间等资源的竞争能力（Westoby et al., 2002）
盖度 Coverage/%	数值		反映植物对环境的适应能力
叶厚 Leaf thickness/mm	数值		反映植物保水能力的强弱
叶面积 Leaf area/ cm²	数值		对叶的能量与水分平衡起着重要的作用（Ackerly et al., 2002）
叶长宽比 Leaf aspect ratio	数值		代表叶片中的水分向叶片表面扩散的阻力大小或者距离长短
比叶面积 Specific leaf area/(cm²∙g^-1)	数值		决定植物对光和CO₂的获取能力（Li et al., 2015）
叶绿素 Chlorophyll/%	数值		反映植物光合作用能力、环境胁迫、营养状态

功能性状 Functional traits	数据类型 Data type	特征类型 Feature type	生态学意义 Ecology significant
光合途径 Photosynthetic pathway	名称	C3、C4	代表不同的净光合速率和光呼吸速率（罗红艺, 2001）
生活型 Life form	名称	多年生、一年或两年生	反映植物对环境的适应能力
生长型 Growth form	名称	乔木、灌木、草本	反映植物对光的适应
叶表面特征 Leaf surface feature	名称	光滑、具毛、具刺	反映植物对光的利用
株高 Plant height/m	数值		反映植物对光、空间等资源的竞争能力（Westoby et al., 2002）
盖度 Coverage/%	数值		反映植物对环境的适应能力
叶厚 Leaf thickness/mm	数值		反映植物保水能力的强弱
叶面积 Leaf area/ cm²	数值		对叶的能量与水分平衡起着重要的作用（Ackerly et al., 2002）
叶长宽比 Leaf aspect ratio	数值		代表叶片中的水分向叶片表面扩散的阻力大小或者距离长短
比叶面积 Specific leaf area/(cm²∙g^-1)	数值		决定植物对光和CO₂的获取能力（Li et al., 2015）
叶绿素 Chlorophyll/%	数值		反映植物光合作用能力、环境胁迫、营养状态

恢复阶段 Restoration gradient	曲线 Curve	r²	交点坐标 Intersection coordinate	交点与稳定点距离 Distance between intersection and stable point
Ⅰ	y= -0.0011x²+0.2631x+84.286	0.926	(12.58, 87.42)	10.49
Ⅱ	y= -0.0065x²+1.1293x+49.663	0.882	(26.65, 74.35)	7.99
Ⅲ	y= -0.0071x²+1.2041x+48.465	0.970	(25.47, 74.53)	7.74
Ⅳ	y= -0.0054x²+0.9398x+58.070	0.956	(17.29, 82.71)	3.83
Ⅴ	y= -0.0101x²+1.4176x+52.418	0.722	(21.64, 78.36)	2.32

喀斯特地区植被不同恢复阶段功能冗余和功能多样性对群落稳定性的影响

The Effects of the Functional Redundancy and Functional Diversity on the Community Stability in Different Stages of the Plant Communities Restoration in Karst Vegetation

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 38

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

恢复阶段 Restoration gradient	物种多样性(Simpson) Species diversity (Simpson)	功能多样性 Functional diversity	功能冗余 Functional redundancy	群落稳定性 Community stability
Ⅰ	0.336±0.013e	0.171±0.011d	0.165±0.008e	0.393±0.015e
Ⅱ	0.483±0.082d	0.274±0.013c	0.209±0.004d	0.478±0.09d
Ⅲ	0.648±0.009c	0.331±0.005b	0.317±0.005c	0.548±0.008c
Ⅳ	0.811±0.009b	0.443±0.005a	0.368±0.005b	0.693±0.008b
Ⅴ	0.892±0.053a	0.336±0.024b	0.556±0.029a	1.206±0.018a

恢复阶段 Restoration gradient	回归方程 Regression equations	r²	P	容忍度 Tolerance
Ⅰ	y=0.068+0.911x₁+0.907x₂	0.745	0.017	0.995
Ⅱ	y=0.081+0.918x₁+0.696x₂	0.928	0.000	0.807
Ⅲ	y=0.014+0.981x₁+0.757x₂	0.969	0.000	0.983
Ⅳ	y=0.003+0.870x₁+0.825x₂	0.869	0.002	0.999
Ⅴ	y=0.871+0.378x₁+0.392x₂	0.912	0.001	0.516

[1]	侯晖, 颜培轩, 谢沁宓, 赵宏亮, 庞丹波, 陈林, 李学斌, 胡杨, 梁咏亮, 倪细炉. 贺兰山蒙古扁桃灌丛根际土壤AM真菌群落多样性特征研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 857-865.
[2]	姜永伟, 丁振军, 袁俊斌, 张峥, 李杨, 问青春, 王业耀, 金小伟. 辽宁省主要河流底栖动物群落结构及水质评价研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 969-979.
[3]	王云, 郑西来, 曹敏, 李磊, 宋晓冉, 林晓宇, 郭凯. 滨海含水层咸-淡水过渡带反硝化性能与控制因素研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 980-988.
[4]	寇祝, 卿纯, 袁昌果, 李平. 西藏东北部热泉水中硫氧化菌的多样性及分布特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 989-1000.
[5]	胡芳, 刘聚涛, 温春云, 韩柳, 文慧. 抚河流域浮游植物群落结构特征及其水生态状况评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 744-755.
[6]	于菲, 曾海龙, 房怀阳, 付玲芳, 林澍, 董家豪. 典型感潮河网浮游藻类功能群时空变化特征及水质评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 756-765.
[7]	秦浩, 李蒙爱, 高劲, 陈凯龙, 张殷波, 张峰. 芦芽山不同海拔灌丛土壤细菌群落组成和多样性研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 459-468.
[8]	阳涅, 孙晓旭, 孔天乐, 孙蔚旻, 陈泉源, 高品. 微生物群落对河流底泥中锑含量变化的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 609-618.
[9]	周世强, Vanessa HULL, 张晋东, 刘巅, 谢浩, 黄金燕, 张和民. 野生大熊猫与放牧家畜利用生境的特征比较[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 309-319.
[10]	张立进, 杜虎, 曾馥平, 黄国勤, 宋敏, 宋同清. 喀斯特峰丛洼地植被恢复过程中生产力与多样性关系探讨[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 26-35.
[11]	向兴, 满百膺, 张俊忠, 罗洋, 毛小涛, 张超, 孙丙华, 王希. 黄山土壤细菌群落及氮循环功能群的垂向分布格局[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 56-69.
[12]	李萍, 白小明, 陈鑫, 李娟霞, 冉福, 陈辉, 杨小妮, 康瑞卿. 白三叶入侵对禾本科草坪土壤特性和植物群落的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 70-79.
[13]	王哲, 田胜尼, 张永梅, 张和禹, 周忠泽. 巢湖派河口滩涂植物群落特征研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1823-1831.
[14]	陈小弯, 田华川, 常军军, 陈礼强, 舒兴权, 冯秀祥. 杞麓湖中河河口表流湿地净化河道污染水的效果及其微生物群落特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1865-1875.
[15]	王礼霄, 刘晋仙, 柴宝峰. 华北亚高山土壤细菌群落及氮循环对退耕还草的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1537-1546.