农田节肢动物不同取样方法的综合比较

doi:10.17520/biods.2020034

生物多样性 ›› 2021, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (4): 477-487. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2020034 cstr: 32101.14.biods.2020034

所属专题：传粉生物学；昆虫多样性与生态功能

• 研究报告: 动物多样性 • 上一篇下一篇

农田节肢动物不同取样方法的综合比较

段美春¹, 覃如霞¹, 张宏斌², 陈宝雄²^,^*(), 金彬³, 张松泊³, 任少鹏⁴, 金树权⁴, 朱升海⁵, 华家宁⁵, 刘云慧⁶, 宇振荣⁶

1 西南大学农学与生物科技学院, 重庆 400715
2 农业农村部农业生态与资源保护总站, 北京 100125
3 宁波市农产品质量安全管理总站, 浙江宁波 315012
4 宁波市农业科学研究院, 浙江宁波 315040
5 宁波天胜农牧发展有限公司, 浙江宁波 315012
6 中国农业大学资源与环境学院, 北京 100193

收稿日期:2020-02-03 接受日期:2020-06-09 出版日期:2021-04-20 发布日期:2021-04-20
通讯作者: 陈宝雄
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(41901218);国家重点研发计划课题(2018YFC0507203);中央高校基本科研业务费(XDJK2019C098)

Comprehensive comparison of different sampling methods for arthropod diversity in farmland

Meichun Duan¹, Ruxia Qin¹, Hongbin Zhang², Baoxiong Chen²^,^*(), Bin Jin³, Songbo Zhang³, Shaopeng Ren⁴, Shuquan Jin⁴, Shenghai Zhu⁵, Jianing Hua⁵, Yunhui Liu⁶, Zhenrong Yu⁶

1 College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715
2 Rural Energy and Environment Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100125
3 Ningbo Agricultural Products Quality and Safety Management Station, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315012
4 Ningbo Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315040
5 Ningbo Tiansheng Farming Development Co., Ltd, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315012
6 College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193

Received:2020-02-03 Accepted:2020-06-09 Online:2021-04-20 Published:2021-04-20
Contact: Baoxiong Chen
About author:* E-mail: cbxiong@126.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

农田节肢动物多样性具有病虫害控制、传粉等价值, 选择一种或多种适宜、准确且高效的取样方法和指示类群来衡量农田节肢动物多样性是一项基础性工作。本文通过地表陷阱法、挂盆陷阱法、扫网法、目测计数法和吸虫器法在有机管理和常规管理农田区的不同农业生境类型中取样, 比较不同方法对不同生物类群的捕获效率、经济成本、响应敏感性等。研究发现在捕获效率方面, 地陷法和挂盆法最高, 其次是扫网法, 而吸虫器法和目测计数法较差。挂盆法对步甲、蜘蛛、蜂类和瓢虫类群的捕获效率较佳。陷阱法主要适用于蜘蛛和步甲的取样, 扫网法也可用于蜘蛛和瓢虫的取样。在经济成本方面, 地陷法的成本最低, 扫网法的总成本最高。每种取样方法下仅有个别类群个体数量具有较好的响应敏感性, 如地陷法的蜘蛛目个体数和步甲科个体数、挂盆法的总个体数、蜂类个体数和瓢虫科个体数、扫网法的直翅目个体数和半翅目个体数等。在此基础上, 综合类群经济价值, 操作难易, 类群鉴定难度, 被动取样程度, 是否受取样人影响等比较发现: 地陷法对步甲和蜘蛛的取样的综合效果最佳, 而不同取样方法下多种类群的组合能更好地监测和评价农田节肢动物多样性的整体情况。地陷法捕获步甲或/和蜘蛛以及挂盆法调查蜂类的组合是基于本研究得出的调查农田节肢动物多样性的最佳组合。

关键词: 节肢动物, 取样方法, 农田生物多样性, 农田生态系统, 农业昆虫

Abstract

Aims: Arthropod biodiversity in farmlands has considerable value in terms of pest control, pollination, and other ecological services. To adequately assess arthropod biodiversity in farmlands, a fundamental step to select appropriate, accurate, and efficient sampling methods and identify appropriate indicator taxa.

Methods: Here, we compared several arthropod sampling methods in different types of agricultural habitats within organic managed and conventional managed farmland, including the surface trap cup method, coloured pan traps, the sweeping method, visual counting, and the vacuum-suction method. We compared the capture efficiency, economic costs, and response sensitivity of each method for different species assemblages.

Results: We found that the surface trap cup method and coloured pan traps had the highest capture efficiency, followed by the sweeping method, the vacuum-suction method, and visual counting, which had the lowest capture efficiency. Coloured pan traps was more efficient at capturing carabids, spiders, bees, and ladybugs. The surface trap cup method was mainly applicable to sampling ground spiders and carabids. The sweeping method was also effective at sampling spiders and ladybugs. In terms of economic costs, the most economical method was the surface trap cup method, which was used to capture carabids or spiders. The sweeping method had the highest cost due to its low capture efficiency of spiders. Sampling methods varied in their response sensitivity and were reasonably able to estimate abundances only of certain taxa (e.g., the number of spiders and carabids by the surface trap cup method, the total number of specimens, the number of bees, and the number of ladybugs by coloured pan traps, and the number of Orthoptera and Hemiptera by the sweeping method).

Conclusion: We further compared sampling methods after taking into account the economic value of the taxon, the difficulty of sampling operation, the difficulty of taxon identification, the degree of passive sampling, and whether the taxon was influenced by different individuals conducting the sampling. The most comprehensive method was the surface trap cup method targeting carabids and spiders. Using a combination of different sampling methods for multiple taxa is recommended to comprehensively evaluate and monitor overall farmland arthropod biodiversity, and our results suggest that the best combination includes sampling carabids and spiders using the surface trap cup method and sampling bees using coloured pan traps.

Key words: arthropod, sampling methods, farmland biodiversity, agricultural ecosystem, agricultural insect

段美春, 覃如霞, 张宏斌, 陈宝雄, 金彬, 张松泊, 任少鹏, 金树权, 朱升海, 华家宁, 刘云慧, 宇振荣 (2021) 农田节肢动物不同取样方法的综合比较. 生物多样性, 29, 477-487. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2020034.

Meichun Duan, Ruxia Qin, Hongbin Zhang, Baoxiong Chen, Bin Jin, Songbo Zhang, Shaopeng Ren, Shuquan Jin, Shenghai Zhu, Jianing Hua, Yunhui Liu, Zhenrong Yu (2021) Comprehensive comparison of different sampling methods for arthropod diversity in farmland. Biodiversity Science, 29, 477-487. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2020034.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/10.17520/biods.2020034

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/Y2021/V29/I4/477

图/表 6

参考文献 41

[1]	Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 74,19-31.
[2]	Belfrage K, Bjrklund J, Salomonsson L, Liang H (2005) The effects of farm size and organic farming on diversity of birds, pollinators, and plants in a Swedish landscape. AMBIO-A Journal of the Human Environment, 34,576-582, 643. (in Chinese)
	[ Belfrage K, Bjrklund J, Salomonsson L, 梁虹 (2005) 农场规模和有机耕作对瑞典一个景观区域内鸟类、传粉者和植物多样性的影响. AMBIO-人类环境杂志, 34,576-582, 643. ]
[3]	Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18,182-188.
[4]	Bertrand C, Baudry J, Burel F (2016) Seasonal variation in the effect of landscape structure on ground-dwelling arthropods and biological control potential. Basic and Applied Ecology, 17,678-687.
[5]	Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K (2007) Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science, 315,381-384. DOI URL PMID
[6]	Cai BH, Cai XM, Huang FS (2017) Insect Taxonomy (Revised Edition). Chemical Industry Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[ 蔡邦华, 蔡晓明, 黄复生 (2017) 昆虫分类学(修订版). 化学工业出版社, 北京. ]
[7]	Concepción ED, Díaz M, Kleijn D, Báldi A, Batáry P, Clough Y, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Marshall EJP, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J (2012) Interactive effects of landscape context constrain the effectiveness of local agri-environmental management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49,695-705.
[8]	Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1998) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25,3-15.
[9]	Dennis P, Bogers M, Bunce R, Herzog F, Jeanneret P, Geijzendorffer I, Jongman R (2012) Biodiversity in organic and low-input farming systems. Handbook for recording key indicators. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra-Rreport, 2308.
[10]	Duan MC, Hu WH, Liu YH, Yu ZR, Li X, Wu PL, Zhang F, Shi HL, Baudry J (2019) The influence of landscape alterations on changes in ground beetle (Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) functional groups between 1995 and 2013 in an urban fringe of China. Science of the Total Environment, 689,516-525.
[11]	Duan MC, Liu YH, Yu ZR, Baudry J, Li LT, Wang CL, Axmacher JC (2016a) Disentangling effects of abiotic factors and biotic interactions on cross-taxon congruence in species turnover patterns of plants, moths and beetles. Scientific Reports, 6,23511. URL PMID
[12]	Duan MC, Liu YH, Yu ZR, Li LT, Wang CL, Axmacher JC (2016b) Environmental factors acting at multiple scales determine assemblages of insects and plants in agricultural mountain landscapes of Northern China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 224,86-94.
[13]	Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters, 14,101-112. URL PMID
[14]	Fahrig L, Girard J, Duro D, Pasher J, Smith A, Javorek S, King D, Lindsay KF, Mitchell S, Tischendorf L (2015) Farmlands with smaller crop fields have higher within-field biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200,219-234.
[15]	Huang JL, Hu G, Yuan JF, Luo YY (2013) A comparison of pitfall trapping and the Winkler method for investigating soil arthropod diversity: A case study on the closed habitats of Land-bridge Islands. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 50,1679-1691. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 黄杰灵, 胡广, 袁金凤, 罗媛媛 (2013) 陷阱法和Winkler法调查土壤节肢动物多样性比较: 以千岛湖岛屿封闭生境研究为例. 应用昆虫学报, 50,1679-1691. ]
[16]	Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P, Concepcion ED, Clough Y, Díaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Kovács A, Marshall EJP, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J (2009) On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276,903-909.
[17]	Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 270,955-961.
[18]	Li ZY, Altieri MA, Zhu YY (2009) Biodiversity and Integrated Pest Management. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[ 李正跃, Altier MA, 朱有勇 (2009) 生物多样性与害虫综合治理. 科学出版社, 北京. ]
[19]	Liu XD (2013) Sampling techniques of insects in the field. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 50,863-867. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 刘向东 (2013) 田间昆虫的取样调查技术. 应用昆虫学报, 50,863-867. ]
[20]	Liu YF, Gu DX, Zhang GR (2002) An investigation of species of predatory arthropods in paddy ecosystems. Natural Enemies of Insects, 24,145-153. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 刘雨芳, 古德祥, 张古忍 (2002) 稻田生态系统中捕食性天敌节肢动物种类调查分析. 昆虫天敌, 24,145-153. ]
[21]	Liu YF, Zhang GR, Gu DX (1999) Study on arthropod communities in paddy fields with modified fluke. Plant Protection, 25(6),39-40. (in Chinese)
	[ 刘雨芳, 张古忍, 古德祥 (1999) 利用改装的吸虫器研究稻田节肢动物群落. 植物保护, 25(6),39-40. ]
[22]	MacGavin GC (1997) Expedition Field Techniques: Insects and Other Terrestrial Arthropods. Royal Geographical Society, London.
[23]	Pimentel D, Stachow U, Takacs DA, Brubaker HW, Dumas AR, Meaney JJ, O’Neil JAS, Onsi DE, Corzilius DB (1992) Conserving biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems: Most biological diversity exists in human-managed ecosystems. BioScience, 42,354-362.
[24]	Rainio J, Niemelä J (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity & Conservation, 12,487-506.
[25]	Shi B, Yao FL, Chen SB, You MS (2011) An improved pitfall trap for better sampling of spiders in paddy fields. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 48,782-786. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 施波, 姚凤銮, 陈少波, 尤民生 (2011) 陷阱法的改进及其在稻田蜘蛛取样中的应用. 应用昆虫学报, 48,782-786. ]
[26]	Sun YF, Chen BX, Jin B, Zhu SH, Zhang SB, Zhang HB, Li YK, Liu YH, Duan MC (2019) Effects of organic management on the diversity of α, β and γ of herbaceous plants in different agricultural habitats. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 27,1617-1625. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 孙玉芳, 陈宝雄, 金彬, 朱升海, 张松柏, 张宏斌, 李垚奎, 刘云慧, 段美春 (2019) 有机管理对不同农田生境草本植物α, β和γ多样性的影响. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 27,1617-1625. ]
[27]	Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8,857-874.
[28]	Wang HQ, Yan HM, Yang HM (1996) Studies on the ecology of spiders in paddy fields and utilization of spiders for biological control in China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 29(5),68-75. [. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 王洪全, 颜亨梅, 杨海明 (1996) 中国稻田蜘蛛生态与利用研究. 中国农业科学, 29(5),68-75. ]
[29]	Wang R, Ding SY, Lu XL, Song B (2017) Effects of landscape simplification on pollinator diversity in agricultural areas near the lower reaches of the Yellow River: A case study. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37,2225-2236. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 王润, 丁圣彦, 卢训令, 宋博 (2017) 黄河中下游农业景观中景观简化对传粉昆虫多样性的影响——以巩义市为例. 生态学报, 37,2225-2236. ]
[30]	Wang Y, Chen J, Xiao DH, Ma FG, Hua HX (2016) Assessing the efficacy of different sampling methods for arthropods in rice field. Journal of Environmental Entomology, 38,1090-1098. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 王宇, 陈杰, 肖敦皇, 马富岗, 华红霞 (2016) 不同取样方式在稻田节肢动物采集中的效率评估. 环境昆虫学报, 38,1090-1098. ]
[31]	Wu JC, Guo YJ, Shu ZL, Yang JS (1993) Comparison of different sampling methods for arthropod communities in rice fields. Entomological Knowledge, 30,182-183. (in Chinese)
	[ 吴进才, 郭玉杰, 束兆林, 杨金生 (1993) 稻田节肢动物群落不同取样方法的比较. 昆虫知识, 30,182-183. ]
[32]	Wu PL, Song X, Xia BH, Xu HL, Liu YH (2018) Temporal-spatial dynamics of wild bee diversity in agricultural landscapes in Changping District, Beijing. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 26,357-366. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 伍盘龙, 宋潇, 夏博辉, 徐环李, 刘云慧 (2018) 北京昌平区农业景观野生蜂多样性的时空动态分布. 中国生态农业学报, 26,357-366. ]
[33]	Yin WY (1992) Subtropical Soil Animals of China. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[ 尹文英 (1992) 中国亚热带土壤动物. 科学出版社, 北京. ]
[34]	Yin WY (1998) Chinese Soil Fauna Retrieval Map. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[ 尹文英 (1998) 中国土壤动物检索图鉴. 科学出版社, 北京. ]
[35]	You MS, Liu YF, Hou YM (2004) Biodiversity and integrated pest management in agroecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 24,117-122. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 尤民生, 刘雨芳, 侯有明 (2004) 农田生物多样性与害虫综合治理. 生态学报, 24,117-122. ]
[36]	Zhang JE (1999) Agricultural biodiversity and its protection in China. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 15(2),37-41. (in Chinese)
	[ 章家恩 (1999) 中国农业生物多样性及其保护. 农村生态环境, 15(2),37-41. ]
[37]	Zhang KH, Zhong L (1992) Accuracy comparison of several pest investigation methods in rice field. China Plant Protection, 12(3),45-46. (in Chinese)
	[ 章康华, 钟玲 (1992) 水稻田几种害虫调查方法的准确性比较. 中国植保导刊, 12(3),45-46. ]
[38]	Zheng LY, Gui H (1999) Insect Classification. Nanjing Normal University Press, Nanjing. (in Chinese)
	[ 郑乐怡, 归鸿 (1999) 昆虫分类(上、下). 南京师范大学出版社, 南京. ]
[39]	Zhou HZ, Yu XD, Luo TH, Li XY, Wang FY, Li DE, Zhou YLZ, Zhao CY (2014) Collecting methods and sampling techniques of ground dwelling and predating carabids and staphylinids beetles. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 51,1367-1375. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 周红章, 于晓东, 罗天宏, 李晓燕, 王凤艳, 李德娥, 周毓灵子, 赵彩云 (2014) 土壤步甲和隐翅虫的采集与田间调查取样技术. 应用昆虫学报, 51,1367-1375. ]
[40]	Zou Y, Feng JC, Xue DY, Sang WG, Axmacher JC (2012) A comparison of terrestrial arthropod sampling methods. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 3,174-182.
[41]	Zou Y, van Telgen MD, Chen JH, Xiao HJ, de Kraker J, Bianchi FJ, van der Werf W (2016) Modification and application of a leaf blower-vac for field sampling of arthropods. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 114,e54655.

	挂盆法 Coloured pan traps	目测法 Visual counting	地陷法 Surface trap cup method	扫网法 Sweeping method
鞘翅目 Coleopteran	16.32 ± 3.74^a	4.73 ± 0.89^b	12.83 ± 3.35^a	5.10 ± 0.68^b
蜘蛛目 Araneae	18.36 ± 2.15^a	6.92 ± 0.90^c	23.52 ± 3.22^a	13.79 ± 2.17^b
鳞翅目 Lepidoptera	5.27 ± 1.39^a	0.40 ± 0.11^c	0.90 ± 0.25^b	0.27 ± 0.20^c
膜翅目 Hymenoptera	36.64 ± 10.19^a	15.05 ± 2.59^b	46.81 ± 10.28^a	2.53 ± 0.48^c
双翅目 Diptera	49.46 ± 14.62^a	3.55 ± 0.66^c	11.25 ± 1.97^b	5.40 ± 1.36^c
直翅目 Orthoptera	4.22 ± 1.09^b	3.18 ± 0.45^b	14.59 ± 2.42^a	4.29 ± 0.86^b
半翅目 Hemiptera	10.00 ± 1.94^a	6.56 ± 2.06^b	3.11 ± 0.69^c	15.81±3.09^a
总个体数 Total number of individuals	125.67 ± 21.11^a	100.60 ± 25.81^a	98.23 ± 13.88^a	39.50 ± 4.70^b

	挂盆法 Coloured pan traps	目测法 Visual counting	地陷法 Surface trap cup method	扫网法 Sweeping method
鞘翅目 Coleopteran	16.32 ± 3.74^a	4.73 ± 0.89^b	12.83 ± 3.35^a	5.10 ± 0.68^b
蜘蛛目 Araneae	18.36 ± 2.15^a	6.92 ± 0.90^c	23.52 ± 3.22^a	13.79 ± 2.17^b
鳞翅目 Lepidoptera	5.27 ± 1.39^a	0.40 ± 0.11^c	0.90 ± 0.25^b	0.27 ± 0.20^c
膜翅目 Hymenoptera	36.64 ± 10.19^a	15.05 ± 2.59^b	46.81 ± 10.28^a	2.53 ± 0.48^c
双翅目 Diptera	49.46 ± 14.62^a	3.55 ± 0.66^c	11.25 ± 1.97^b	5.40 ± 1.36^c
直翅目 Orthoptera	4.22 ± 1.09^b	3.18 ± 0.45^b	14.59 ± 2.42^a	4.29 ± 0.86^b
半翅目 Hemiptera	10.00 ± 1.94^a	6.56 ± 2.06^b	3.11 ± 0.69^c	15.81±3.09^a
总个体数 Total number of individuals	125.67 ± 21.11^a	100.60 ± 25.81^a	98.23 ± 13.88^a	39.50 ± 4.70^b

	挂盆法 Coloured pan trap	地陷法 Surface trap cup method	目测法 Visual counting	扫网法 Sweeping method	吸虫器法Vacuum-suction method
样地取样量(个) Sampling amount (PCS)	1,165	1,413	259	266	775
田间费时(时) Time consuming in the field (Hour)	60	48	29	27	30
室内费时(时) Time consuming indoor (Hour)	30	30	2	10	10
租车(天) Total rental time (Day)	3	3	2	2	2
人工费用(元) Labor cost (RMB)	2,250	1,950	775	925	1,000
租车费用(元) Car rental cost (RMB)	1,500	1,500	1,000	1,000	1,000
单次取样成本(元) Cost of one sampling (RMB)	3,750	3,450	1,775	1,925	2,000
取样次数 Sampling times	1.5	1.5	6	6	4
样地取样成本(元) Sampling cost (RMB)	5,625	5,175	10,650	11,550	8,000
器材成本(元) Equipment cost (RMB)	3,676	1,574	45	1,202	2,500
总成本(元) Total cost (RMB)	9,301	6,749	10,695	12,752	10,500

	挂盆法 Coloured pan trap	地陷法 Surface trap cup method	目测法 Visual counting	扫网法 Sweeping method	吸虫器法Vacuum-suction method
样地取样量(个) Sampling amount (PCS)	1,165	1,413	259	266	775
田间费时(时) Time consuming in the field (Hour)	60	48	29	27	30
室内费时(时) Time consuming indoor (Hour)	30	30	2	10	10
租车(天) Total rental time (Day)	3	3	2	2	2
人工费用(元) Labor cost (RMB)	2,250	1,950	775	925	1,000
租车费用(元) Car rental cost (RMB)	1,500	1,500	1,000	1,000	1,000
单次取样成本(元) Cost of one sampling (RMB)	3,750	3,450	1,775	1,925	2,000
取样次数 Sampling times	1.5	1.5	6	6	4
样地取样成本(元) Sampling cost (RMB)	5,625	5,175	10,650	11,550	8,000
器材成本(元) Equipment cost (RMB)	3,676	1,574	45	1,202	2,500
总成本(元) Total cost (RMB)	9,301	6,749	10,695	12,752	10,500

	管理措施 Management measure		不同生境 Habitats
	有机管理 Organic management	常规管理Conventional management	大棚蔬菜Greenhouse vegetable plot	果园 Orchard	露天农田 Open farmland	农田边界 Farmland boundary	水稻田埂 Rice field ridge
挂盆法Coloured pan traps
总个体数Total	886.93±59.17^A	622.38±60.90^B	480.17±61.14^c	601.50±66.37^bc	759±148.24^b	893.00±169.74^b	1,178.50±121.55^a
直翅目 Orthoptera	15.53±1.99^A	4.77±1.03^B	2.00±1.00^b	8.83±2.91^a	12.17±6.24^a	17.83±4.71^a	8.50±3.71^a
瓢虫Ladybug	19.33±2.61^A	7.54±1.08^B	5.00±2.03^b	17.00±5.30^a	21.67±4.50^a	17.83±4.97^a	4.67±1.28^b
膜翅目Hymenoptera	194.80±33.72^A	82.62±14.21^B	91.83±31.32^b	72.17±12.51^b	165.67±107.91^a	260.33±114.00^a	92.33±32.41^c
蜂类 Bee	124.67±13.22^A	35.77±4.91^B	11.17±3.27^b	115.33±34.61^a	107.67±27.01^a	82.00±24.29^a	81.67±29.44^a
步甲Carabidae	37.87±6.19^A	7.69±1.66^B	1.50±0.56^b	13.00±4.36^a	40.67±12.94^a	41.50 ±15.53^a	15.50±6.19^a
半翅目Hemipter	46.20±8.22^A	30.38±4.40^B	8.33±3.66^b	38.67±9.41^a	59.33±24.53^a	56.50±11.44^a	20.83±7.69^b
金龟子Scarab	29.67±7.93^A	5.69±0.96^B	1.33±0.49^bc	4.17±1.58^b	38.33±10.90^a	42.33±21.04^a	0.50±0.22^c
扫网法Sweeping method
直翅目Orthoptera	21.40±3.25^A	5.38±1.14^B	6.17±3.32^c	23.33±8.25^a	17.67±2.15^ab	9.67±2.84^ab	8.50±3.81^bc
地陷法 Coloured pan traps
蜘蛛Spider	176.13±15.47^A	110.54±10.65^B	107.83±27.88^bc	212.83±50.59^a	140.17±17.01^ab	136.50±8.11^ab	105.00±29.52^bc
步甲Carabidae	35.27±5.46^A	14.23±2.61^B	5.17±2.18^d	13.50±4.90^c	49.00±9.45^a	28.00±4.68^ab	25.00±12.55^bc

农田节肢动物不同取样方法的综合比较

Comprehensive comparison of different sampling methods for arthropod diversity in farmland

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

补充材料

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 41

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	程建伟, 徐满厚, 窦永静, 王亚东, 王桠楠, 刘新民, 李永宏. 内蒙古典型草原马粪分解过程中节肢动物群落的季节动态变化[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(6): 24018-.
[2]	牛永杰, 马全会, 朱玉, 刘海荣, 吕佳乐, 邹元春, 姜明. 氮沉降对草地昆虫多样性影响的研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23130-.
[3]	黄方倩, 王超, 刘明庆, 陈秋会, 韩笑, 王磊, 席运官, 张纪兵. 有机种植对农田节肢动物多样性影响的整合分析[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(1): 21243-.
[4]	高梅香, 刘启龙, 朱家祺, 赵博宇, 杜嘉, 吴东辉. 中国农田土壤动物长期监测样地科学调查监测的实施方法[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(1): 21265-.
[5]	武鹏峰, 崔淑艳, Abid Ali, 郑国. 蜘蛛飞航研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2021, 29(4): 517-530.
[6]	马燕婕, 何浩鹏, 沈文静, 刘标, 薛堃. 转基因玉米对田间节肢动物群落多样性的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2019, 27(4): 419-432.
[7]	齐月, 李俊生, 闫冰, 邓贞贞, 付刚. 化学除草剂对农田生态系统野生植物多样性的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2016, 24(2): 228-236.
[8]	晏静, 张国良, 张瑞海, 宋振, 赵晓红, 刘玉升, 付卫东. 黄顶菊凋落物分解对节肢动物群落结构的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2016, 24(11): 1288-1295.
[9]	季洁, 张艳璇, 陈霞, 林坚贞, 孙莉. 多次释放胡瓜新小绥螨对橘园节肢动物群落多样性的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2012, 20(1): 24-31.
[10]	余广彬, 杨效东. 不同演替阶段热带森林地表凋落物和土壤节肢动物群落特征[J]. 生物多样性, 2007, 15(2): 188-198.
[11]	李琪, 梁文举, 姜勇. 农田土壤线虫多样性研究现状及展望[J]. 生物多样性, 2007, 15(2): 134-141.
[12]	杨效东. 热带季节雨林凋落叶分解过程中的中小型土壤节肢动物的群落结构及动态[J]. 生物多样性, 2004, 12(2): 252-261.
[13]	张文军, 齐艳红, Schoenly K G. 泛函连接网络计算软件及其在生物多样性研究中的应用[J]. 生物多样性, 2002, 10(3): 345-350.
[14]	杨效东, 唐勇, 唐建维. 热带次生林刀耕火种过程中土壤节肢动物群落结构及多样性的变化[J]. 生物多样性, 2001, 09(3): 222-227.
[15]	韩宝瑜. 马尾松林节肢动物群落的组成及多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2001, 09(1): 62-67.

	权重 Weight	挂盆法 Coloured pan traps				地陷法 Surface trap cup method		目测法 Visual counting		扫网法 Sweeping method			吸虫器法 Vacuum-suc-tion method
		蜂类 Bee	瓢虫Ladybug	蜘蛛Spider	步甲Carabidae	步甲Carabidae	蜘蛛Spider	瓢虫Ladybug	蜘蛛Spider	蜂类Bee	蜘蛛Spider	直翅目Orthoptera	蜘蛛 Spider
捕获效率 Capture efficiency	10%	2	3	3	3	2	3	1	1	1	2	3	2
取样经济成本 Economic cost of sampling	10%	2	2	2	2	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	2
响应敏感性 Response sensitivity	20%	3	3	1	3	3	3	-	1	-	1	3	-
类群经济价值 Economic value of groups	10%	3	3	3	2	2	3	3	3	3	3	1	3
操作难度 Operation difficulty	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	2	2	2	2	2	1
专家田间支持 Expert field support	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	2	2	2	3	3	3
鉴定难度 Identification difficulty	10%	1	3	1	2	2	1	3	1	1	1	2	1
被动取样程度 Degree of passive sampling	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	2
受取样人影响 Affected by sampling people	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	1	1	2	2	2	2
加权得分 Weighted score	-	2.6	2.9	2.3	2.7	2.7	2.8	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.7	2.1	1.6
建议入选 Recommend for inclusion	-	是 Yes	是 Yes	否 No	是 Yes	是 Yes	是 Yes	否 No	否 No	否 No	否 No	否 No	否 No

	权重 Weight	挂盆法 Coloured pan traps				地陷法 Surface trap cup method		目测法 Visual counting		扫网法 Sweeping method			吸虫器法 Vacuum-suc-tion method
		蜂类 Bee	瓢虫Ladybug	蜘蛛Spider	步甲Carabidae	步甲Carabidae	蜘蛛Spider	瓢虫Ladybug	蜘蛛Spider	蜂类Bee	蜘蛛Spider	直翅目Orthoptera	蜘蛛 Spider
捕获效率 Capture efficiency	10%	2	3	3	3	2	3	1	1	1	2	3	2
取样经济成本 Economic cost of sampling	10%	2	2	2	2	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	2
响应敏感性 Response sensitivity	20%	3	3	1	3	3	3	-	1	-	1	3	-
类群经济价值 Economic value of groups	10%	3	3	3	2	2	3	3	3	3	3	1	3
操作难度 Operation difficulty	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	2	2	2	2	2	1
专家田间支持 Expert field support	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	2	2	2	3	3	3
鉴定难度 Identification difficulty	10%	1	3	1	2	2	1	3	1	1	1	2	1
被动取样程度 Degree of passive sampling	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	2
受取样人影响 Affected by sampling people	10%	3	3	3	3	3	3	1	1	2	2	2	2
加权得分 Weighted score	-	2.6	2.9	2.3	2.7	2.7	2.8	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.7	2.1	1.6
建议入选 Recommend for inclusion	-	是 Yes	是 Yes	否 No	是 Yes	是 Yes	是 Yes	否 No	否 No	否 No	否 No	否 No	否 No