生境数量和生境质量以及气象因子对成都市粪食性金龟物种多样性的影响

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2024.05.005

生态环境学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (5): 708-719.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2024.05.005

生境数量和生境质量以及气象因子对成都市粪食性金龟物种多样性的影响

卿彩霞¹(), 陈圣宾¹^,^*, 邓杰文², 邓惺位¹, 李喆³, 邱鹭⁴

1.成都理工大学生态环境学院，四川成都 610059
2.南充文化旅游职业学院，四川南充 637421
3.中铁八局集团第二工程有限公司，四川成都 610036
4.绵阳师范学院森林与草原防灾减灾工程研究中心，四川绵阳 621000

收稿日期:2024-03-14 出版日期:2024-05-18 发布日期:2024-06-27
通讯作者: * 陈圣宾。
作者简介:卿彩霞（1999年生），女，硕士研究生，主要从事生物多样性研究。E-mail: 2570119219@qq.com
基金资助:
川西山地生态系统服务功能参数观测与调查(2020-875)

The Effects of Habitat Amount, Habitat Quality and Meteorological Factors on the Species Diversity of Dung Beetles in Chengdu

QING Caixia¹(), CHEN Shengbin¹^,^*, DENG Jiewen², DENG Xingwei¹, LI Zhe³, QIU Lu⁴

1. College of Ecology and Environment, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, P. R. China
2. Nanchong Vocational College of Culture and Tourism, Nanchong 637421, P. R. China
3. NO.2 Engineering Company of China Railway NO.8 Engineering Group co., LTD, Chengdu 610036, P. R. China
4. Engineering Research Center for Forest and Grassland Disaster Prevention and Reduction, Mianyang Teacher’s College, Mianyang 621000, P. R. China

Received:2024-03-14 Online:2024-05-18 Published:2024-06-27

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

城市化是最具破坏性的土地利用形式之一，其带来的环境变化常导致生物多样性下降。探究环境因子（生境数量、生境质量、气象因子）对环境指示生物粪食性金龟物种多样性的影响对城市生物多样性保护具有重要意义。于2021年7月和9月在成都市不同城市化梯度（城区、近郊、远郊）内选取3种生境类型（林地、灌丛、草地）共18个样地，采用诱罐法采集粪食性金龟。结果表明，1）共采集粪食性金龟5属8种1149头，隶属于同一行为类型（直接掘洞型），且多为小体型（体长<13.0 mm）。嗡蜣螂属（Onthophagus）是研究区域的优势属（4种，1066头），巴氏驼嗡蜣螂（Onthophagus balthasari）总个体数最多（667头）。2）回归分析结果显示，生境数量和生境质量均能显著影响粪食性金龟物种多样性，但气象因子影响不显著。粪食性金龟总个体数与林地面积、灌丛面积显著正相关（p<0.05）；物种丰富度与灌丛面积显著正相关（p<0.05）；Hill-Shannon多样性与灌丛面积、草地面积、归一化植被指数（NDVI）显著正相关（p<0.05）；Hill-Shannon均匀度与灌丛面积显著负相关（p<0.05）。3）基于Akaike信息量准则（AIC）和方差分解分析（Variance Partitioning Analysis）结果显示，生境数量解释粪食性金龟物种多样性相对重要性最高，对总个体数、物种丰富度、Hill-Shannon均匀度的独立效应最高，分别为21.3%、17.8%、15.6%。综上，灌丛面积、林地面积、草地面积、NDVI是影响粪食性金龟物种多样性的关键因子，生境数量相比于生境质量和气象因子更能影响其物种多样性。合理规划城市植被覆盖面积以及保护现有植被质量是保护粪食性金龟物种多样性的有效措施。

关键词: 粪食性金龟, 生境, 城市化, 物种多样性, Hill数, 方差分解

Abstract:

Urbanization is one of the most detrimental forms of land use, frequently leading to environmental changes that result in a decline in biodiversity. Exploring the effects of environmental factors (amount of habitat, habitat quality, and meteorological factors) on the diversity of dung beetles, a key environmental indicator species, is crucial for urban biodiversity conservation. In this study, 18 plots across three habitat types (woodland, shrubland, and grassland) and with varying urbanization levels (urban, suburban, and rural) were selected in Chengdu during July and September 2021. Dung beetles were captured by pitfall traps baited with rotten fish. The results showed that 1) a total of 1149 dung beetles from five genera and eight species were collected, all belonging to the same behavioral type (tunnelers) and predominantly small in size (body length<13.0 mm). Onthophagus was the dominant genus in the study area (four species, 1066 individuals), with Onthophagus balthasari as the most abundant species (667 individuals). 2) Regression analyses showed that both habitat amount and quality significantly influenced dung beetle species diversity, whereas meteorological factors had no significant effect. The total number of individuals was significantly and positively correlated with woodland area and shrubland area (p<0.05), species richness was significantly and positively correlated with shrubland area (p<0.05), Hill-Shannon diversity was significantly and positively correlated with shrubland area, grassland area, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) (p<0.05), and Hill-Shannon evenness was significantly negatively correlated with shrubland area (p<0.05). 3) Based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Variance Partitioning Analysis, the results indicated that habitat amount had the highest relative importance in explaining dung beetle diversity, with independent effects on the total number of individuals, species richness, and Hill Shannon evenness at 21.3%, 17.8%, and 15.6%, respectively. In conclusion, woodlands, shrublands, grassland areas, and NDVI were key determinants of dung beetle diversity. Habitat quantity surpasses habitat quality and the meteorological factors that influence dung beetle diversity. Reasonable improvement in vegetation coverage and existing vegetation quality is an effective measure for protecting the diversity of dung beetles in urban areas.

Key words: dung beetle, habitat, urbanization, species diversity, Hill numbers, variation partitioning

中图分类号:

卿彩霞, 陈圣宾, 邓杰文, 邓惺位, 李喆, 邱鹭. 生境数量和生境质量以及气象因子对成都市粪食性金龟物种多样性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(5): 708-719.

QING Caixia, CHEN Shengbin, DENG Jiewen, DENG Xingwei, LI Zhe, QIU Lu. The Effects of Habitat Amount, Habitat Quality and Meteorological Factors on the Species Diversity of Dung Beetles in Chengdu[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2024, 33(5): 708-719.

图/表 14

参考文献 69

[1]	ALVARADO F, SALOMÃO R P, HERNANDEZ-RIVERA A, et al., 2020. Different responses of dung beetle diversity and feeding guilds from natural and disturbed habitats across a subtropical elevational gradient[J]. Acta Oecologica, 104: 103533.
[2]	ANDRESEN E, 2005. Effects of season and vegetation type on community organization of dung beetles in a tropical dry forest[J]. Biotropica, 37(2): 291-300.
[3]	ASHA G, MANOJ K, RAJESH T P, et al., 2022. Dung beetles prefer used land over natural greenspace in urban landscape[J]. Scientific Reports, 12(1): 22179. DOI PMID
[4]	BERNARDINO G V D, MESQUITA V P, et al., 2024. Habitat loss reduces abundance and body size of forest-dwelling dung beetles in an Amazonian urban landscape[J]. Urban Ecosystems, 27(2): 439-452.
[5]	BLAUM N, SEYMOUR C, ROSSMANITH E, et al., 2009. Changes in arthropod diversity along a land use driven gradient of shrub cover in savanna rangelands: Identification of suitable indicators[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(5): 1187-1199.
[6]	BOGONI J A, GRAIPEL M E, DE CASTILHO P V, et al., 2016. Contributions of the mammal community, habitat structure, and spatial distance to dung beetle community structure[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(9): 1661-1675.
[7]	BUCHHOLZ S, SEITZ B, HILLER A, et al., 2021. Impacts of dogs on urban grassland ecosystems[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 215(3): 104201.
[8]	CARPANETO G M, MAZZIOTTA A, VALERIO L, 2007. Inferring species decline from collection records: Roller dung beetles in Italy (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae)[J]. Diversity and Distributions, 13(6): 903-919.
[9]	CHAO A, CHIU C H, JOST L, 2014a. Unifying species diversity, phylogenetic diversity, functional diversity, and related similarity and differentiation measures through Hill numbers[J]. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45: 297-324.
[10]	CHAO A, GOTELLI N J, HSIEH T C, et al., 2014b. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies[J]. Ecological Monographs, 84(1): 45-67.
[11]	CHAO A, RICOTTA C, 2019. Quantifying evenness and linking it to diversity, beta diversity, and similarity[J]. Ecology, 100(12): e02852.
[12]	CHEN Z, YU B, YANG C, et al., 2020. An extended time-series (2000-2018) of global NPP-VIIRS-like nighttime light data from a cross-sensor calibration[J]. Earth System Science Data, 13(3): 889-906.
[13]	CONOVER D, DUBEUX J, MARTINI X, 2019. Phenology, distribution, and diversity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in north Florida's pastures and forests[J]. Environmental Entomology, 48(4): 847-855. DOI PMID
[14]	CORREA C M A, SALOMÃO R P, ALVARADO F, et al., 2023. From green to grey: Unravelling the role of urbanization on diversity of dung beetles in Amazonian landscapes[J]. Urban Ecosystems, 23(13): 32-46.
[15]	DANIEL G M, NORIEGA J A, DA SLIVA P G, et al., 2021. Soil type, vegetation cover and temperature determinants of the diversity and structure of dung beetle assemblages in a South African open woodland and closed canopy mosaic[J]. Austral Ecology, 47(1): 79-91.
[16]	DE ANDRADE R B, BARLOW J, LOUZADA J, et al., 2011. Quantifying responses of dung beetles to fire disturbance in tropical forests: the importance of trapping method and seasonality[J]. PLoS ONE, 6(10): e26208.
[17]	FAHRIG L, 2013. Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis[J]. Journal of Biogeography, 40(9): 1649-1663.
[18]	FIELD C B, BEHRENFELD M J, RANDERSON J T, et al., 1998. Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components[J]. Science, 281(5374): 237-240.
[19]	FORSYTH L A, 2005. Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies[J]. Biotropica, 37(2): 322-325.
[20]	GARDINER R, BAIN G, HAMER R, et al., 2018. Habitat amount and quality, not patch size, determine persistence of a woodland-dependent mammal in an agricultural landscape[J]. Landscape Ecology, 33(11): 1837-1849.
[21]	GOMEZ-CIFUENTES A, VESPA N, SEMMARTIN M, et al., 2020. Canopy cover is a key factor to preserve the ecological functions of dung beetles in the southern Atlantic Forest[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 154: 103652.
[22]	HALFFTER F, 1993. The Scarabaeinae (Insecta: Coleoptera), an animal group for analysing, inventorying and monitoring biodiversity in tropical rainforest and modified landscapes[J]. Biology International, 27: 15-21.
[23]	HALL L S, KRAUSMAN P R, MORRISON M L, 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology[J]. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(1): 173-182.
[24]	HANSKI I, CAMBEFORT Y, 2014. Dung Beetle Ecology[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press:33-54.
[25]	HEINRICHS J A, 2010. The relative influence of habitat quality on population extinction[D]. Calgary: University of Calgary: 20-26.
[26]	HEWAVITHANA D K, WIJESINGHE M R, DANGALLE C D, et al., 2016. Habitat and dung preferences of scarab beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae: A case study in a tropical monsoon forest in Sri Lanka[J]. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 36(2): 97-105.
[27]	HILLEBRAND H, BENNETT D M, CADOTTE M W, 2008. Consequences of dominance: A review of evenness effects on local and regional ecosystem processes[J]. Ecology, 89(6): 1510-1520. PMID
[28]	HOLLEY J M, ANDREW N R, 2020. Warming effects on dung beetle ecosystem services: brood production and dung burial by a tunnelling dung beetle, Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), is reduced by experimental warming[J]. Austral Entomology, 59(2): 353-367.
[29]	HORAK J, SAFAROVA L, TROMBIK J, et al., 2022. Patterns and determinants of plant, butterfly and beetle diversity reveal optimal city grassland management and green urban planning[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 73(2): 127609.
[30]	JANKIELSOHN A, SCHOLTZ C H, LOUW S V, 2001. Effect of habitat transformation on dung beetle assemblages: A comparison between a South African nature reserve and neighboring farms[J]. Environmental Entomology, 30(3): 474-483.
[31]	JONES M S, WRIGHT S A, SMITH O M, et al., 2019. Organic farms conserve a dung beetle species capable of disrupting fly vectors of foodborne pathogens[J]. Biological Control, 137: 104020.
[32]	KAHONG, CHEUNG, MING, et al., 2018. Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from Hong Kong[J]. Zoological Systematics, 43(3): 233-267. DOI
[33]	KLEIN B C, 1989. Effects of forest fragmentation on dung and carrion beetle communities in Central Amazonia[J]. Ecology, 70(6): 1715-1725.
[34]	KORASAKI V, LOPES J, BROWN G G, et al., 2013. Using dung beetles to evaluate the effects of urbanization on Atlantic Forest biodiversity[J]. Insect Science, 20(3): 393-406. DOI PMID
[35]	KUDAVIDANAGE E P, QIE L, LEE J S H, 2012. Linking biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of dung beetles in south and southeast Asian tropical rainforests[J]. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 102(25): 133-146.
[36]	LI Q L, SHI G S, SHANGGUAN W, et al., 2022. A 1 km daily soil moisture dataset over China using in situ measurement and machine learning[J]. Earth System Science Data, 14(12): 5267-5286.
[37]	LUO L, DU W P, YAN H M, et al., 2017. Spatio-temporal patterns of vegetation change in Kazakhstan from 1982 to 2015[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 8(4): 378-384. DOI
[38]	MAGURA T, LOVEI G L, TOTHMERESZ B, 2010. Does urbanization decrease diversity in ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages?[J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(1): 16-26.
[39]	MARTÍNEZ M I, SUÁREZ M T, 2006. Phenology, trophic preferences, and reproductive activity in some dung-inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) in El Llano de las Flores, Oaxaca, Mexico[J]. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 108(4): 774-784.
[40]	MU H, LI X, WEN Y, et al., 2022. A global record of annual terrestrial human footprint dataset from 2000 to 2018[J]. Scientific Data, 9(1): 176. DOI PMID
[41]	NICHOLS E, SPECTOR S, LOUZADA J, et al., 2008. Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles[J]. Biological Conservation, 141(6): 1461-1474.
[42]	NIELSEN S T, 2007. Deforestation and biodiversity: effects of bushland cultivation on dung beetles in semi-arid Tanzania[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(10): 2753-2769.
[43]	NUNES C A, BRAGA R F, RESENDE F D M, et al., 2018. Linking biodiversity, the environment and ecosystem functioning: Ecological functions of dung beetles along a tropical elevational gradient[J]. Ecosystems, 21(6): 1244-1254.
[44]	OCKINGER E, DANNESTAM A, SMITH H G, 2009. The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93(1): 31-37.
[45]	PAPP D, MIZSER S, NAGY L, et al., 2020. Changes in morphometric traits of ground beetles along urbanization gradients[J]. Journal of Insect Science, 20(1): 5.
[46]	RAINE E H, SLADE E M, 2019. Dung beetle - mammal associations: methods, research trends and future directions[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 286(1897): 1-9.
[47]	RAMIREZ-RESTREPO L, HALFFTER G, 2016. Copro-necrophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in urban areas: A global review[J]. Urban Ecosystems, 19(3): 1179-1195.
[48]	RIGHI C A, RODRIGUEZ C S, FERREIRA E N L, et al., 2018. Microclimatic conditions for dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) occurrence: Land use system as a determining factor[J]. Environmental Entomology, 47(6): 1420-1430. DOI PMID
[49]	RIVERA J D, DE LOS MONTEROS A E, SALDANA-VAZQUEZ R A, et al., 2023. Beyond species loss: How anthropogenic disturbances drive functional and phylogenetic homogenization of Neotropical dung beetles[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 869: 161663.
[50]	SALOMÃO R P, ALVARADO F, BAENA-DIAZ F, et al., 2019. Urbanization effects on dung beetle assemblages in a tropical city[J]. Ecological Indicators, 103: 665-675. DOI
[51]	SALOMÃO R P, ALVARADO F, BAENA-DIAZ F, et al., 2020. Negative effects of urbanisation on the physical condition of an endemic dung beetle from a neotropical hotspot[J]. Ecological Entomology, 45(4): 886-895.
[52]	SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ G, GOMEZ B, CHAME-VAZQUEZ E R, et al., 2022. Dung beetle diversity and community composition along a fragmented landscape in an altitudinal gradient in southeastern Mexico[J]. Biologia, 77(4): 1027-1038.
[53]	SANDERSON E W, JAITEH M, LEVY M A, et al., 2002. The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild[J]. BioScience, 52(10): 891-904.
[54]	SHIZUKUDA K, SAITO M U, 2021. Effects of human-dominated landscape on the community structure of silphid and dung beetles collected by carrion pitfall traps[J]. Entomological Science, 24(2): 157-168.
[55]	SULLIVAN C, SLADE E, BAI M, et al., 2018. Evidence of forest restoration success and the conservation value of community-owned forests in Southwest China using dung beetles as indicators[J]. PLoS ONE, 13(11): e0204764.
[56]	TENORIO-ESCANDÓN P, BARRAGÁN F, VÁSQUEZ-BOLAÑOS M, et al., 2023. What microhabitat variables affect ants and dung beetle assemblages using dung-baited traps in the Southern Chihuahuan Desert?[J]. Biologia, 78(10): 2793-2801
[57]	VINOD K V, SABU T K, 2007. Species composition and community structure of dung beetles attracted to dung of gaur and elephant in the moist forests of South Western Ghats[J]. Journal of Insect Science, 7(56): 1-14.
[58]	WATLING J I, ARROYO-RODRÍGUEZ V, PFEIFER M, et al., 2020. Support for the habitat amount hypothesis from a global synthesis of species density studies[J]. Ecology Letters, 23(4): 674-681. DOI PMID
[59]	白明, 杨星科, 2008. 粪食性金龟的行为及其适应演化[J]. 昆虫知识 (3): 499-505.
	BAI M, YANG X K, 2008. Nesting behavior and adaptive evolution of dung beetle[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Entomology (3): 499-505.
[60]	曹佳敏, 郭亚亚, 李娜娜, 等, 2021a. 绢蒿荒漠粪甲虫多样性特征及其对粪便内种子的二次分配[J]. 草业学报, 30(8): 137-145.
	CAO J M, GUO Y Y, LI N N, et al., 2021. Diversity characteristics of dung beetle of Seirphidium semidesert and its secondary distribution of seeds in the feces[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 30(8): 137-145.
[61]	曹佳敏, 鲁为华, 郭亚亚, 等, 2021b. 绢蒿荒漠粪甲虫物种多样性特征及亲缘关系[J]. 生态学杂志, 40(4): 1107-1115.
	CAO J M, LU W H, GUO Y Y, et al., 2021. Species diversity and genetic relationship of dung beetle in Seirphidium-dominated desert[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 40(4): 1107-1115.
[62]	成都市人民政府, 2022. 成都年鉴(2022)[EB/OL]. 成都: 成都年鉴社, (2022-11-25) [2023-08-08]. https://www.chengduyearbook.com/.
	The people’s government of Chengdu municipal, 2022. Chengdu Yearbook (2022)[EB/OL]. Chengdu: Chengdu Yearbook, (2022-11-25) [2023-08-08]. https://www.chengduyearbook.com/.
[63]	董金玮, 周岩, 尤南山, 等, 2021. 2000-2022年中国30米年最大NDVI数据集[DS/OL]. 国家生态科学数据中心, https://doi.org/10.12199/nesdc.ecodb.rs.2021.012.
	DONG J W, ZHOU Y, YOU N S, et al., 2021. Divergent shifts in peak photosynthesis timing of temperate and alpine grasslands in China [DS/OL]. Remote Sensing of Environment, https://doi.org/10.12199/nesdc.ecodb.rs.2021.012.
[64]	郭亚亚, 曹佳敏, 车昭碧, 等, 2021. 粪甲虫对绢蒿荒漠春秋两季牛粪分解的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 32(5): 1854-1862. DOI
	GUO Y Y, CAO J M, CHE Z B, et al., 2021. Effects of dung beetles on decomposition of cattle dung in spring and autumn in a Seirphidium-dominated desert, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 32(5): 1854-1862.
[65]	李春风, 2014. 嗡蜣螂属部分种类形态特征及DNA条形码研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳大学: 1-89.
	LI C F, 2014. The research of morphology and DNA barcoding of the partial species from Onthophagus[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang University: 1-89.
[66]	李喆, 2022. 基于地表景观时空变化的城市热环境研究——以成都为例[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学: 1-96.
	LI Z, 2022. Study of urban thermal environment based on surface landscape change in Chengdu city[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology: 1-96.
[67]	李喆, 陈圣宾, 陈芝阳, 2022. 地表温度与土地利用类型间的空间尺度依赖性——以成都为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 31(5): 999-1007. DOI
	LI Z, CHEN S B, CHEN Z Y, 2022. Spatial scale dependence between land surface temperature and land use types: A case study of Chengdu city[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 31(5): 999-1007.
[68]	王亚东, 王昊, 程建伟, 等, 2021. 粪食性金龟功能群对草原牛粪分解过程中温室气体排放的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 37(1): 65-72.
	WANG Y D, WANG H, CHENG J W, et al., 2021. Effects of different functional groups of dung beetles on greenhouse gas emissions from cattle dung pats on steppe grassland[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 37(1): 65-72.
[69]	周文婕, 罗媛媛, 仲磊, 等, 2017. 生境片段化对千岛湖地表甲虫物种多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 28(2): 509-518. DOI
	ZHOU W J, LUO Y Y, ZHONG L, et al., 2017. Effects of habitat fragmentation on species diversity of ground dwelling beetles in the Thousand-Island Lake region, Zhejiang, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 28(2): 509-518.

样地编号	经度	纬度	海拔/ m	生境类型	城市化梯度
CDE01	104.28063°E	30.55139°N	634	草地	远郊
CDE02	104.27712°E	30.52407°N	614	灌丛	远郊
CDE03	104.31222°E	30.56341°N	761	林地	远郊
CDE04	104.18059°E	30.56388°N	482	草地	近郊
CDE05	104.18292°E	30.58606°N	520	灌丛	近郊
CDE06	104.17698°E	30.64725°N	478	林地	近郊
CDE07	104.12016°E	30.62305°N	502	草地	城区
CDE08	104.12743°E	30.65568°N	492	灌丛	城区
CDE09	104.11922°E	30.63935°N	466	林地	城区
CDW10	103.85969°E	30.78935°N	524	草地	远郊
CDW11	103.90483°E	30.79797°N	550	灌丛	远郊
CDW12	103.88102°E	30.81515°N	536	林地	远郊
CDW13	103.96513°E	30.73496°N	478	草地	近郊
CDW14	103.98641°E	30.73838°N	518	灌丛	近郊
CDW15	103.92115°E	30.72855°N	532	林地	近郊
CDW16	104.02860°E	30.69798°N	460	草地	城区
CDW17	104.00225°E	30.69010°N	466	灌丛	城区
CDW18	104.05391°E	30.68125°N	497	林地	城区

样地编号	经度	纬度	海拔/ m	生境类型	城市化梯度
CDE01	104.28063°E	30.55139°N	634	草地	远郊
CDE02	104.27712°E	30.52407°N	614	灌丛	远郊
CDE03	104.31222°E	30.56341°N	761	林地	远郊
CDE04	104.18059°E	30.56388°N	482	草地	近郊
CDE05	104.18292°E	30.58606°N	520	灌丛	近郊
CDE06	104.17698°E	30.64725°N	478	林地	近郊
CDE07	104.12016°E	30.62305°N	502	草地	城区
CDE08	104.12743°E	30.65568°N	492	灌丛	城区
CDE09	104.11922°E	30.63935°N	466	林地	城区
CDW10	103.85969°E	30.78935°N	524	草地	远郊
CDW11	103.90483°E	30.79797°N	550	灌丛	远郊
CDW12	103.88102°E	30.81515°N	536	林地	远郊
CDW13	103.96513°E	30.73496°N	478	草地	近郊
CDW14	103.98641°E	30.73838°N	518	灌丛	近郊
CDW15	103.92115°E	30.72855°N	532	林地	近郊
CDW16	104.02860°E	30.69798°N	460	草地	城区
CDW17	104.00225°E	30.69010°N	466	灌丛	城区
CDW18	104.05391°E	30.68125°N	497	林地	城区

类型	环境因子	分辨率	单位	来源
生境数量	林地面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	灌丛面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	草地面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	耕地面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	各生境类型面积总和	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
生境质量	归一化植被指数	30 m	‒	董金玮等, 2021
	植被净初级生产力	500 m	g·m⁻²·a⁻¹	https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/
	人类足迹	1 km	‒	Mu et al., 2022
	夜间灯光	1 km	Lm·m⁻²	Chen et al., 2020
气象指标	最热季平均温度	1 km	℃	https://www.worldclim.org/
	最热季降水量	1 km	mm	https://www.worldclim.org/
	地表温度	30 m	℃	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	土壤湿度	1 km	0.001 m³·m⁻³	Li et al., 2022

类型	环境因子	分辨率	单位	来源
生境数量	林地面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	灌丛面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	草地面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	耕地面积	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	各生境类型面积总和	30 m	km²	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
生境质量	归一化植被指数	30 m	‒	董金玮等, 2021
	植被净初级生产力	500 m	g·m⁻²·a⁻¹	https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/
	人类足迹	1 km	‒	Mu et al., 2022
	夜间灯光	1 km	Lm·m⁻²	Chen et al., 2020
气象指标	最热季平均温度	1 km	℃	https://www.worldclim.org/
	最热季降水量	1 km	mm	https://www.worldclim.org/
	地表温度	30 m	℃	李喆, 2022; 李喆等, 2022
	土壤湿度	1 km	0.001 m³·m⁻³	Li et al., 2022

序号	种	物种丰度				体长/ mm	诱饵类型	行为类型
序号	种	草地	灌丛	林地	总计	体长/ mm	诱饵类型	行为类型
1	巴氏驼嗡蜣螂 Onthophagus balthasari	282	157	228	667	6.61	牛粪、腐鱼	直接掘洞型
2	银衍亮嗡蜣螂 Onthophagus argyropygus	2	7	368	377	5.61	牛粪、腐鱼	直接掘洞型
3	翅驼嗡蜣螂 Onthophagus atripennis	0	2	16	18	7.49	腐鱼	直接掘洞型
4	黑亮嗡蜣螂 Onthophagus ater	4	0	0	4	8.16	腐鱼	直接掘洞型
5	独角毛凯蜣螂 Caccobius unicornis	0	61	5	66	3.32	腐鱼	直接掘洞型
6	神农洁蜣螂 Catharsius molossus	0	1	0	1	34.44	腐鱼	直接掘洞型
7	近小粪蜣螂 Microcopris propinquus	0	4	9	13	9.89	腐鱼	直接掘洞型
8	华武粪金龟 Enoplotrupes sinensis	0	0	3	3	22.38	腐鱼	直接掘洞型
总计	‒	288	232	629	1149	‒	‒	‒

生境数量和生境质量以及气象因子对成都市粪食性金龟物种多样性的影响

The Effects of Habitat Amount, Habitat Quality and Meteorological Factors on the Species Diversity of Dung Beetles in Chengdu

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 14

参考文献 69

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

多样性指数	生境类型			城市化梯度
多样性指数	草地	灌丛	林地	远郊	近郊	城区
总个体数	57.60±27.56a	38.67±18.17a	104.83±67.63a	69.00±26.95a	16.33±6.42a	117.67±65.72a
物种丰富度	1.60±0.24a	2.33±0.71a	2.50±0.56a	2.80±0.73a	1.33±0.21a	2.50±0.56a
Hill-Shannon多样性指数	1.04±0.02a	1.21±0.12a	1.23±0.07a	1.27±0.14a	1.06±0.04a	1.18±0.08a
Hill-Shannon均匀度指数	0.72±0.12a	0.71±0.13a	0.59±0.10a	0.56±0.12a	0.86±0.09a	0.56±0.10a

应变量	自变量		校正r	p值
总个体数	生境数量	SHRL (0.695), GRAL (−0.339)	0.541	0.003
	生境质量	NDVI (0.595), NPP (−0.670)	0.459	0.009
	气象因子	MTWQ (0.720), LST (−0.706)	0.370	0.025
物种丰富度	生境数量	SHRL (0.611)	0.374	0.009
	生境质量	NDVI (0.375), HFP (−0.322)	0.274	0.067
	气象因子	SMO (−0.375), LST (−0.452)	0.156	0.195
Hill-Shannon多样性指数	生境数量	GRAL (0.470), SHRL (0.513)	0.480	0.007
	生境质量	NDVI (0.532)	0.283	0.028
	气象因子	MTWQ (−0.879), SMO (−0.838)	0.384	0.021
Hill-Shannon均匀度指数	生境数量	SHRL (−0.510)	0.260	0.037
	生境质量	HFP (−0.373)	0.139	0.140
	气象因子	LST (0.172)	0.029	0.510

应变量	独立效应/%			交互效应/%				解释的总方差/%
应变量	A	Q	M	A×Q	A×M	Q×M	A×Q×M	解释的总方差/%
总个体数	21.3	10.3	0.1	32.0	30.7	34.8	29.9	69.4
物种丰富度	17.8	7.4	0.2	18.1	22.7	18.5	21.2	42.3
Hill-Shannon多样性指数	9.7	6.0	7.1	29.4	20.4	13.4	11.5	63.0
Hill-Shannon均匀度指数	15.6	3.9	0.1	0.4	7.6	0.0	−2.4	32.4

[1]	卫玺玺, 晁鑫艳, 郑景明, 唐可欣, 万龙, 周金星. 贺兰山东、西侧典型植物群落物种多样性差异及其影响因子[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(4): 520-530.
[2]	宋思梦, 林冬梅, 周恒宇, 罗宗志, 张丽丽, 易超, 林辉, 林兴生, 刘斌, 苏德伟, 郑丹, 余世葵, 林占熺. 种植巨菌草对乌兰布和沙漠植物物种多样性与土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(9): 1595-1605.
[3]	郑箐舟, 何军, 李深智, 邓承之, 吴志鹏, 黄萧霖, 吴瑕. 重庆地区城郊人体舒适度变化特征差异及其影响因素分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1089-1097.
[4]	许静, 廖星凯, 甘崎旭, 周茅先. 基于MSPA与电路理论的黄河流域甘肃段生态安全格局构建[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 805-813.
[5]	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.
[6]	赵蔓, 张晓曼, 杨明洁. 林火干扰对栓皮栎-辽东栎混交林植物多样性与土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(10): 1732-1740.
[7]	丁胜杰, 徐香茹, 朱菲菲, 王仁霞, 潘纲, 崔溢, 胡新娟, 穆斯塔法, 霍书豪. 不同生境中土壤藻类的分布特征与生理生态学功能研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(10): 1873-1888.
[8]	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.
[9]	肖以华, 付志高, 许涵, 史欣, 唐海明, 陈步峰. 城市化对珠江三角洲不同功能群植物叶片功能性状的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1783-1793.
[10]	陈小南, 李琼雯, 余建平, 余顺海, 李双, 曹铭昌. 钱江源国家公园白颈长尾雉生境适宜性评价研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1832-1839.
[11]	陈乐, 卫伟. 西北旱区典型流域土地利用与生境质量的时空演变特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1909-1918.
[12]	阮惠华, 许剑辉, 张菲菲. 2001—2020年粤港澳大湾区植被和地表温度时空变化研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1510-1520.
[13]	袁春明, 杨国平, 耿云芬, 张珊珊. 基于积分投影模型预测濒危植物景东翅子树的种群动态[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1530-1536.
[14]	符裕红, 张代杰, 项蛟, 周焱, 黄宗胜, 喻理飞. 喀斯特不同地下生境剖面植物根系拓扑结构特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(5): 865-874.
[15]	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.