生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

城市公园入侵与非入侵植物访花昆虫多样性及其网络差异

朱晨超1, 顾灵桢2, 周梁宇1, 闫淑君1*, 曾玉喧1, 叶鹏1   

  1. 1. 福建农林大学风景园林与艺术学院, 福州 350002; 2. 南平市林业局林业科学技术推广中心, 福建南平 354200
  • 收稿日期:2026-04-03 修回日期:2026-06-27 接受日期:2026-07-17
  • 通讯作者: 闫淑君

Diversity of flower-visiting insects and network differences between invasive and non-invasive plants in urban parks

Chenchao Zhu1, Lingzhen Gu2, Liangyu Zhou1, Shujun Yan1*, Yuxuan Zeng1, Peng Ye1   

  1. 1 College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China 

    2 Forestry Science and Technology Extension Center, Nanping Forestry Bureau, Nanping, Fujian 354200, China

  • Received:2026-04-03 Revised:2026-06-27 Accepted:2026-07-17
  • Contact: Shujun Yan

摘要: 植物固定生长的特性使其花粉传递大多依赖外部媒介完成, 与访花昆虫形成了紧密的互作关系。城市生态系统中入侵与非入侵植物访花昆虫的差异以及入侵植物对访花昆虫多样性及其网络的影响尚缺乏深入研究。本研究以福州6个城市公园为研究对象, 基于开花植物及其访花昆虫的调查数据, 综合运用线性混合模型(GLMM和LMM)、β多样性分解、非度量多维尺度排序及网络分析等方法, 通过比较入侵与非入侵植物的访花昆虫组成、多样性及互作网络水平参数, 探究了城市公园入侵与非入侵植物访花昆虫多样性及网络差异。结果表明: (1)本研究共记录入侵植物26种, 以菊科为主, 非入侵植物有98种, 以蔷薇科为主; 入侵植物的访花昆虫有144种, 隶属6目36科, 非入侵植物有156种, 隶属7目46科, 优势类群均为膜翅目昆虫, 半翅目昆虫对入侵植物表现出显著的访问偏好。(2)入侵植物物种数与访花昆虫多样性显著正相关, 与昆虫的物种水平特化指数显著负相关, 但解释力(R2 = 0.135)较低。入侵与非入侵植物共享部分访花昆虫, 同时也吸引了部分其他昆虫, 两者的昆虫功能群差异并不显著, 存在一定的功能冗余。(3)入侵植物促使植物–访花昆虫的网络连接度和嵌套度(Z值)的负向偏离程度降低, 模块性和网络特化水平均下降。福州公园中入侵植物访花昆虫的群落结构相比非入侵植物更不均匀, 由少数优势物种主导, 入侵植物吸引了新的昆虫, 形成了新的互作模块, 而非简单取代或简化原有传粉网络, 推测入侵植物的出现可能占据了网络的主导地位。

关键词: 生物多样性, 互作网络, 物种水平特化指数, 城市绿地, 福州

Abstract

Aim: The inherent growth characteristics of plants necessitate reliance on external agents for pollen transfer, forming close mutualistic relationships with flower-visiting insects. However, differences in flower-visiting insect communities between invasive and non-invasive plants in urban ecosystems, as well as the impacts of invasive plants on flower-visiting insect diversity and plant–pollinator interaction networks, remain poorly understood. This study, conducted in six urban parks in Fuzhou, compares the composition, diversity, and network-level parameters of flower-visiting insects between invasive and non-invasive plants to explore these differences. 

Methods: Based on field surveys of flowering plants and their flower-visiting insects in the six parks, we employed linear mixed models (GLMM and LMM), β-diversity partitioning, non-metric multidimensional scaling, and network analysis. 

Results: (1) A total of 26 invasive plant species were recorded, predominantly Asteraceae, while 98 non-invasive species were recorded, mainly Rosaceae. Among flower-visiting insects, 144 species (belonging to 6 orders and 36 families) were associated with invasive plants, and 156 species (belonging to 7 orders and 46 families) were associated with non-invasive plants. Hymenoptera dominated both groups, while Lepidoptera and Hemiptera exhibited significant visitation preferences for invasive plants. (2) The number of invasive plant species was significantly positively correlated with flower-visiting insect diversity and significantly negatively correlated with the species-level specialization index (d), although the explanatory power was low (R2 = 0.135). Invasive and non-invasive plants shared some flower-visiting insects, while invasive plants additionally attracted other insects. Functional group differences between the two insect communities were not significant, indicating functional redundancy. (3) Invasive plants led to decreased connectivity of plant-flower visitor networks, a less negative nestedness Z-score, and declines in both modularity and network specialization (H2'). 

Conclusions: In Fuzhou parks, the flower-visiting insect community structure on invasive plants is more uneven than that on non-invasive plants, dominated by a few dominant species. Invasive plants attract new insects and form new interaction modules, rather than simply replacing or simplifying the original pollination network. We speculate that invasive plants may ultimately occupy a dominant position in the network.

Key words: biodiversity, interaction network, species-level specialization index, urban green spaces, Fuzhou