生物多样性 ›› 2009, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (5): 524-530.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2009.09184

• 论文 • 上一篇    

DG指数在定量多样性时的缺陷及其内涵解析

颜绍馗1, 2* , Anand Narain Singh3 , 邱红兵4 , 张伟东1, 2 , 汪思龙1, 2 , 崔洋1, 2   

  1. 1 (中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所, 沈阳 110016)
    2 (中国科学院会同森林生态实验站, 会同 418307)
    3 (Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India)
    4 (广东工业大学应用数学学院, 广州 510006)
  • 收稿日期:2009-07-08 出版日期:2009-09-20

Pitfalls of DG index in quantifying biodiversity and its intrinsic implication as a community parameter: a comment

Shaokui Yan1, 2, Anand Narain Singh3, Hongbing Qiu4, Weidong Zhang1, 2, Silong Wang1, 2, Yang Cui1, 2   

  1. 1 Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China
    2 Huitong Experimental Station of Forest Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Huitong 418307, China
    3 Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
    4 Faculty of Applied Mathematics, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
  • Received:2009-07-08 Online:2009-09-20

生物多样性通常使用物种丰富度、Simpson指数、Shannon-Wiener多样性指数等来进行度量, 但是在土壤动物群落研究中, 由于使用了粗水平的分类方法, 因此即使生境变化很大, 这些多样性指数在评估群落多样性变化时仍然是不适当的。为了克服这种限制, 廖崇惠(1990, 2009)提出用DG指数来代替这些标准的多样性指数, 并在土壤动物生态学领域得到了广泛应用。然而笔者分析发现DG指数与Pielou均匀度指数呈显著的负相关关系(r = –0.534, P = 0.000), 即, 高的均匀度反而有低的多样性。另外, DG指数与类群数(r = 0.648, P = 0.000)和类群密度(r = 0.487, P = 0.000)呈明显的正相关, 类群数的下降可以通过部分类群密度的上升而获得补偿, 群落的类群丢失后却可以获得一个不变的甚至更高的多样性值。因此, 笔者不支持DG指数用于测度生物多样性, 提议使用各类群实际群势与潜在群势比值的平均值来估计群落潜在多度的实现程度。如果继续使用DG指数作为实际生境条件的一个指标, 那么与以往不同, DG指数测度的是该生境群落多度增长的一种潜力。

Biological diversity of ecosystems are traditionally measured by several diversity indices such as species richness, Simpson index, Shannon index. But these indices are not appropriate tools to analyze the changes of community diversity when soil fauna are classified into broad taxonomic units although a great shift of habitat appears. To overcome this limitation, Liao (1990, 2009) reported a new diversity index, known as density-group index (DG index). Many researchers reported that DG index, as a measure of diversity, is widely applicable to estimate soil faunal diversity. However, after reviewing recent documented data on soil fauna community diversity by several researchers, we found a negative correlation between Pielou’s evenness index and DG index (r = –0.534, P = 0.000). A higher evenness may lead to a lower diversity value. Using these data for further correlation analysis, strong positive relationships between DG index and taxon number (r = 0.648, P = 0.000) and taxon density (r = 0.487, P = 0.000) appeared. It indicates that decrease in taxon number could be compensated with increasing density of some taxa. Therefore, loss of some taxa in a faunal community may lead to a constant or higher diversity ranges. Due to this reason, we do not suggest that DG index could be used as a diversity measurement. Furthermore, to explore intrinsic implication of DG index as a community parameter, we propose that the mean ratio of actual density to potential density of each taxon as parameter estimation for percent of community achieving potential abundance (maximum). By all means, if we use DG index as an indicator of actual habitat condition, it might be a measurement of potential of increase in community abundance in the habitat.

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed