生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

筏式贻贝养殖与自然贻贝礁生境大型附着动物群落结构及功能特征分析比较

董奕飞, 吴春慧, 杨正宽, 郑星雨, 田阔, 张秀梅, 王一航   

  1. 浙江海洋大学, 316022
    海南大学, 570228
    黔东南州农业科学院, 556000
  • 收稿日期:2026-03-22 修回日期:2026-07-03
  • 通讯作者: 王一航

Comparative Analysis of Community Structure and Secondary Productivity Level of Macro-epifauna in Raft Mussel Culture and Natural Mussel Reef Habitats

Yifei Dong, Chunhui Wu, Zhengkuan Yang, Xingyu Zheng, Kuo Tian, Xiumei Zhang, Yihang Wang   

  1. , Zhejiang Ocean University 316022,
    , Hainan University 570228,
    , Qiandongnan Agriculture Science 556000,
  • Received:2026-03-22 Revised:2026-07-03
  • Contact: Yihang Wang

摘要: 贻贝礁能够为海洋生物提供栖息地和丰富的食物来源。本研究在枸杞岛选取筏式养殖区与自然贻贝礁两种典型生境为研究区域, 通过对比分析大型附着动物的群落结构、稳定性及次级生产力水平, 探讨不同生境的生态驱动特征。结果表明:(1)两种生境大型附着动物年平均生物量相近, 但养殖生境呈现典型的“高丰度、低多样性”特征; 两种生境的群落结构存在着极显著的差异(R = 0.919, P = 0.001), 平均相异性为85.09%; ABC曲线分析表明, 自然生境群落结构较为稳定, 而筏式养殖生境在夏秋季受显著扰动; (2)群落结构差异直接驱动了生产力水平的分化。自然生境由高钙化鞘甲纲主导, 凭借高生物量维持了较高的基础储碳量(218.58 g C/m2); 而养殖生境受海鞘、软甲纲等短生命周期物种演替影响, 呈现出“高周转、高次级产出”特征, 其次级生产力水平(56.84 g C/m2/yr)高于自然生境(45.01 g C/m2/yr)。(3) 内聚力分析显示, 两生境在协作-竞争权衡上差异显著, 自然生境受强竞争作用驱动, 养殖生境表现出协作增强特征。综上所述, 筏式养殖贻贝生境虽在群落稳定性上弱于自然贻贝礁体, 但凭借附着生物的高周转特性, 维持了较高的次级生产力水平, 在驱动近海生态系统能量流动中起关键作用, 该发现可为近海生态养殖规划及海洋生物资源评估提供科学依据。

关键词: 贻贝礁, 筏式养殖, 大型附着动物, 群落结构, 次级生产力

AbstractMussel reefs provide habitats and abundant food sources for marine organisms. This study selected two typical habitats—raft culture areas and natural mussel reefs—at Gouqi Island as study sites, and explored the ecological driving characteristics of different habitats by comparing the community structure, stability, and secondary productivity level of macro-epifauna. Results showed that: (1) Annual mean biomass of macro-epifauna was similar between the two habitats, but the raft culture habitat exhibited a typical “high abundance, low diversity” pattern. Community structures differed significantly between the two habitats (R = 0.919, P = 0.001), with an average dissimilarity of 85.09%. Abundance-Biomass Comparison (ABC) curves indicated that the natural habitat community was relatively stable, whereas the raft culture habitat suffered significant disturbance in summer and autumn. (2) Community structure differences directly drove the differentiation of productivity levels. The natural habitat, dominated by highly calcified Thecostraca, maintained a higher basic carbon stock (218.58 g C/m2) via high biomass; whereas the raft habitat showed “high turnover, high secondary production” characteristics due to the seasonal succession of short-lived species such as Ascidiacea and Malacostraca, with its secondary productivity level (56.84 g C/m2/yr) higher than that of the natural habitat (45.01 g C/m2/yr). (3) Cohesion analysis revealed significant differences in collaboration-competition trade-offs (CnCp) between the two habitats; the natural habitat was driven by intense competition, while the raft habitat showed enhanced collaboration. In conclusion, although the raft mussel habitat was weaker in community stability than natural mussel reefs, it maintained a higher secondary productivity level through the high turnover of epifauna, playing a key role in driving coastal ecosystem energy flow. These findings provide a scientific basis for coastal ecological aquaculture planning and marine biological resource assessment.

Key words: mussel reef, raft aquaculture, macro-epifauna, community structure, secondary productivity