
生物多样性 ›› 2014, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (4): 492-501. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2014.14002 cstr: 32101.14.SP.J.1003.2014.14002
张宇阳1, 沙志鹏1, 关法春1,2,,A;*(
), 王军峰1
收稿日期:2014-01-06
接受日期:2014-05-27
出版日期:2014-07-20
发布日期:2014-07-24
通讯作者:
关法春
基金资助:
Yuyang Zhang1, Zhipeng Sha1, Fachun Guan1,2,*(
), Junfeng Wang1
Received:2014-01-06
Accepted:2014-05-27
Online:2014-07-20
Published:2014-07-24
Contact:
Guan Fachun
摘要:
探索如何在利用和控制农田杂草的同时又能维持较高的杂草群落多样性的生产方式, 是当前农业发展的重要方向。作者以“农牧一体化”生产方式下的“玉米(Zea mays)田养鹅”处理和常规玉米种植处理为研究对象, 探讨了玉米田养鹅处理放牧前后及同期常规玉米种植处理下杂草生态位、功能群结构和杂草群落生物多样性的变化。结果表明: (1)在玉米田养鹅模式下, 黑麦草(Lolium multiflorum)、紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa)和灰绿藜(Chenopodium glaucum)在放牧前的生态位宽度较大, 但放牧后黑麦草、紫花苜蓿的生态位宽度减小, 而灰绿藜、尼泊尔蓼(Polygonum nepalense)、西南草莓(Fragaria moupinensis)和老鹳草(Geranium sibiricum)等物种的生态位宽度则有不同程度的增大, 放牧后群落内新增加了7种杂草; 对照中, 前期丝叶球柱草(Bulbostylis densa)的生态位宽度最大, 而后期鼠麹草(Gnaphalium affine)的生态位宽度变为最大, 新增2种杂草。(2)放牧前玉米田养鹅处理下的黑麦草和紫花苜蓿的重叠度最大, 而放牧后黑麦草和西南草莓的重叠度变为最大; 在常规玉米种植模式下, 前期丝叶球柱草和马唐(Digitaria sanguinalis)的重叠度最高, 而后期丝叶球柱草和鼠麹草的重叠度最高。(3)两种模式下放牧前后均是一年生双子叶(DA)杂草功能群占据最大优势, 但玉米田养鹅处理模式下放牧后多年生功能类群所占的比例较放牧前增加, 且分配更均匀。(4)放牧前, 玉米田养鹅处理的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、Margalef物种丰富度指数和Simpson多样性指数均高于对照, 其中Shannon-Wiener多样性指数和Margalef物种丰富度指数差异显著(P<0.05, n=3), 而Pielou均匀度指数低于对照, 但差异并不显著(P>0.05, n=3); 放牧后玉米田养鹅处理的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数和Margalef物种丰富度指数仍显著高于对照(P<0.05, n=3), 而Pielou均匀度指数和Simpson多样性指数则分别显著低于对照 (P<0.05, n=3)。放牧前后, 玉米田养鹅处理杂草群落的地上总生物量均高于对照, 但差异不显著(P>0.05, n=3)。(5)玉米田养鹅处理的玉米产量与对照相比减产4.0%, 但并未达到显著差异(P>0.05, n=12)。总的来看, 玉米田养鹅生产方式维持了较高的农田生态系统生物多样性, 虽然造成了一定的减产, 但可通过鹅的产出获得更高的经济效益。
张宇阳, 沙志鹏, 关法春, 王军峰 (2014) 玉米田养鹅措施对杂草群落生态特征的影响. 生物多样性, 22, 492-501. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2014.14002.
Yuyang Zhang, Zhipeng Sha, Fachun Guan, Junfeng Wang (2014) Effect of raising geese in cornfield on ecological characteristics of weed community. Biodiversity Science, 22, 492-501. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2014.14002.
| 种号 No. | 种名 Species | 放牧前 Before grazing | 放牧后 After grazing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 玉米田养鹅种植模式RGICF | 常规种植模式 CK | 玉米田养鹅种植模式RGICF | 常规种植模式 CK | |||
| 1 | 黑麦草 Lolium multiflorum | 0.998 | - | 0.988 | - | |
| 2 | 紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 0.993 | - | 0.961 | - | |
| 3 | 灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum | 0.920 | - | 0.925 | 0.500 | |
| 4 | 牛膝菊 Galinsoga parviflora | 0.814 | 0.460 | 0.859 | - | |
| 5 | 鼠麹草 Gnaphalium affine | 0.850 | 0.828 | 0.898 | 0.955 | |
| 6 | 丝叶球柱草 Bulbostylis densa | 0.764 | 0.977 | 0.895 | 0.900 | |
| 7 | 尼泊尔蓼 Polygonum nepalense | 0.888 | 0.500 | 0.929 | 0.700 | |
| 8 | 早熟禾 Poa annua | 0.306 | - | - | - | |
| 9 | 平车前 Plantago depressa | 0.290 | - | 0.631 | - | |
| 10 | 马唐 Digitaria sanguinalis | 0.886 | 0.797 | 0.813 | 0.795 | |
| 11 | 毛蕊花 Verbascum thapsus | - | - | 0.793 | - | |
| 12 | 倒提壶 Cynoglossum amabile | 0.712 | - | 0.579 | - | |
| 13 | 加拿大白酒草 Conyza Canadensis | - | 0.543 | 0.869 | 0.702 | |
| 14 | 大籽蒿 Artemisia sieversiana | 0.846 | 0.000 | 0.849 | 0.901 | |
| 15 | 川滇香薷 Elsholtzia souliei | 0.802 | - | 0.813 | - | |
| 16 | 藏蓟 Cirsium lanatum | 0.650 | - | 0.306 | - | |
| 17 | 白草 Pennisetum flaccidum | 0.609 | - | 0.728 | - | |
| 18 | 尼泊尔酸模 Rumex nepalensis | 0.290 | - | 0.830 | - | |
| 19 | 西南草莓 Fragaria moupinensis | - | - | 0.949 | - | |
| 20 | 萨嘎苔草 Carex sagaensis | - | - | 0.710 | - | |
| 21 | 播娘蒿 Descurainia sophia | - | - | 0.473 | - | |
| 22 | 蕨 Pteridium aquilinum | - | - | 0.000 | - | |
| 23 | 节节草 Hippochaete ramosissimum | 0.000 | - | 0.362 | 0.529 | |
| 24 | 老鹳草 Geranium sibiricum | - | - | 0.937 | - | |
表1 玉米田养鹅和常规种植模式下放牧前、后各杂草种群生态位宽度
Table 1 Niche breadth of weed populations before and after grazing under treatments of raising geese in corn fields (RGICF)
| 种号 No. | 种名 Species | 放牧前 Before grazing | 放牧后 After grazing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 玉米田养鹅种植模式RGICF | 常规种植模式 CK | 玉米田养鹅种植模式RGICF | 常规种植模式 CK | |||
| 1 | 黑麦草 Lolium multiflorum | 0.998 | - | 0.988 | - | |
| 2 | 紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 0.993 | - | 0.961 | - | |
| 3 | 灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum | 0.920 | - | 0.925 | 0.500 | |
| 4 | 牛膝菊 Galinsoga parviflora | 0.814 | 0.460 | 0.859 | - | |
| 5 | 鼠麹草 Gnaphalium affine | 0.850 | 0.828 | 0.898 | 0.955 | |
| 6 | 丝叶球柱草 Bulbostylis densa | 0.764 | 0.977 | 0.895 | 0.900 | |
| 7 | 尼泊尔蓼 Polygonum nepalense | 0.888 | 0.500 | 0.929 | 0.700 | |
| 8 | 早熟禾 Poa annua | 0.306 | - | - | - | |
| 9 | 平车前 Plantago depressa | 0.290 | - | 0.631 | - | |
| 10 | 马唐 Digitaria sanguinalis | 0.886 | 0.797 | 0.813 | 0.795 | |
| 11 | 毛蕊花 Verbascum thapsus | - | - | 0.793 | - | |
| 12 | 倒提壶 Cynoglossum amabile | 0.712 | - | 0.579 | - | |
| 13 | 加拿大白酒草 Conyza Canadensis | - | 0.543 | 0.869 | 0.702 | |
| 14 | 大籽蒿 Artemisia sieversiana | 0.846 | 0.000 | 0.849 | 0.901 | |
| 15 | 川滇香薷 Elsholtzia souliei | 0.802 | - | 0.813 | - | |
| 16 | 藏蓟 Cirsium lanatum | 0.650 | - | 0.306 | - | |
| 17 | 白草 Pennisetum flaccidum | 0.609 | - | 0.728 | - | |
| 18 | 尼泊尔酸模 Rumex nepalensis | 0.290 | - | 0.830 | - | |
| 19 | 西南草莓 Fragaria moupinensis | - | - | 0.949 | - | |
| 20 | 萨嘎苔草 Carex sagaensis | - | - | 0.710 | - | |
| 21 | 播娘蒿 Descurainia sophia | - | - | 0.473 | - | |
| 22 | 蕨 Pteridium aquilinum | - | - | 0.000 | - | |
| 23 | 节节草 Hippochaete ramosissimum | 0.000 | - | 0.362 | 0.529 | |
| 24 | 老鹳草 Geranium sibiricum | - | - | 0.937 | - | |
| 种号 No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.000 | 0.904 | 0.761 | 0.617 | 0.664 | 0.606 | 0.716 | 0.211 | 0.195 | 0.740 | 0.551 | 0.670 | 0.620 | 0.522 | 0.410 | 0.195 | 0.121 |
| 2 | 1.000 | 0.748 | 0.555 | 0.725 | 0.605 | 0.697 | 0.196 | 0.220 | 0.689 | 0.524 | 0.645 | 0.702 | 0.506 | 0.459 | 0.220 | 0.098 | |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.589 | 0.557 | 0.553 | 0.707 | 0.280 | 0.200 | 0.634 | 0.480 | 0.530 | 0.500 | 0.391 | 0.320 | 0.200 | 0.080 | ||
| 4 | 1.000 | 0.391 | 0.448 | 0.607 | 0.269 | 0.231 | 0.535 | 0.638 | 0.625 | 0.292 | 0.265 | 0.278 | 0.231 | 0.308 | |||
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.689 | 0.604 | 0.074 | 0.397 | 0.425 | 0.366 | 0.705 | 0.794 | 0.338 | 0.396 | 0.358 | 0.041 | ||||
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.380 | 0.216 | 0.549 | 0.546 | 0.510 | 0.686 | 0.727 | 0.418 | 0.483 | 0.490 | 0.000 | |||||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.151 | 0.151 | 0.502 | 0.441 | 0.587 | 0.477 | 0.375 | 0.264 | 0.151 | 0.264 | ||||||
| 8 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.257 | 0.294 | 0.129 | 0.175 | 0.511 | 0.162 | 0.600 | 0.000 | |||||||
| 9 | 1.000 | 0.114 | 0.412 | 0.452 | 0.400 | 0.222 | 0.351 | 0.667 | 0.000 | ||||||||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.548 | 0.525 | 0.561 | 0.543 | 0.371 | 0.114 | 0.114 | |||||||||
| 12 | 1.000 | 0.634 | 0.343 | 0.222 | 0.280 | 0.412 | 0.177 | ||||||||||
| 14 | 1.000 | 0.584 | 0.319 | 0.415 | 0.452 | 0.161 | |||||||||||
| 15 | 1.000 | 0.497 | 0.464 | 0.358 | 0.025 | ||||||||||||
| 16 | 1.000 | 0.556 | 0.222 | 0.000 | |||||||||||||
| 17 | 1.000 | 0.351 | 0.000 | ||||||||||||||
| 18 | 1.000 | 0.000 | |||||||||||||||
| 23 | 1.000 |
表2 玉米田养鹅处理样地放牧前杂草的生态位重叠度(表中物种号参照表1)
Table 2 Niche overlap of weeds before grazing in the treatment of raising geese in corn fields (RGICF). Species number see Table 1
| 种号 No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.000 | 0.904 | 0.761 | 0.617 | 0.664 | 0.606 | 0.716 | 0.211 | 0.195 | 0.740 | 0.551 | 0.670 | 0.620 | 0.522 | 0.410 | 0.195 | 0.121 |
| 2 | 1.000 | 0.748 | 0.555 | 0.725 | 0.605 | 0.697 | 0.196 | 0.220 | 0.689 | 0.524 | 0.645 | 0.702 | 0.506 | 0.459 | 0.220 | 0.098 | |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.589 | 0.557 | 0.553 | 0.707 | 0.280 | 0.200 | 0.634 | 0.480 | 0.530 | 0.500 | 0.391 | 0.320 | 0.200 | 0.080 | ||
| 4 | 1.000 | 0.391 | 0.448 | 0.607 | 0.269 | 0.231 | 0.535 | 0.638 | 0.625 | 0.292 | 0.265 | 0.278 | 0.231 | 0.308 | |||
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.689 | 0.604 | 0.074 | 0.397 | 0.425 | 0.366 | 0.705 | 0.794 | 0.338 | 0.396 | 0.358 | 0.041 | ||||
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.380 | 0.216 | 0.549 | 0.546 | 0.510 | 0.686 | 0.727 | 0.418 | 0.483 | 0.490 | 0.000 | |||||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.151 | 0.151 | 0.502 | 0.441 | 0.587 | 0.477 | 0.375 | 0.264 | 0.151 | 0.264 | ||||||
| 8 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.257 | 0.294 | 0.129 | 0.175 | 0.511 | 0.162 | 0.600 | 0.000 | |||||||
| 9 | 1.000 | 0.114 | 0.412 | 0.452 | 0.400 | 0.222 | 0.351 | 0.667 | 0.000 | ||||||||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.548 | 0.525 | 0.561 | 0.543 | 0.371 | 0.114 | 0.114 | |||||||||
| 12 | 1.000 | 0.634 | 0.343 | 0.222 | 0.280 | 0.412 | 0.177 | ||||||||||
| 14 | 1.000 | 0.584 | 0.319 | 0.415 | 0.452 | 0.161 | |||||||||||
| 15 | 1.000 | 0.497 | 0.464 | 0.358 | 0.025 | ||||||||||||
| 16 | 1.000 | 0.556 | 0.222 | 0.000 | |||||||||||||
| 17 | 1.000 | 0.351 | 0.000 | ||||||||||||||
| 18 | 1.000 | 0.000 | |||||||||||||||
| 23 | 1.000 |
| 种号 No. | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 1.000 | 0.478 | 0.258 | 0.167 | 0.176 | 0.167 |
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.660 | 0.348 | 0.436 | 0.403 | |
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.427 | 0.670 | 0.408 | ||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.235 | 0.667 | |||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.382 | ||||
| 13 | 1.000 |
表3 常规种植管理模式下对照样地前期杂草生态位重叠度(表中物种号参照表1)
Table 3 Niche overlap of weeds in conventionally planting corn fields (CK) before the RGICF treatment was grazed by geese. The species numbers see Table 1.
| 种号 No. | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 1.000 | 0.478 | 0.258 | 0.167 | 0.176 | 0.167 |
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.660 | 0.348 | 0.436 | 0.403 | |
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.427 | 0.670 | 0.408 | ||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.235 | 0.667 | |||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.382 | ||||
| 13 | 1.000 |
| 种号 No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.000 | 0.818 | 0.727 | 0.765 | 0.705 | 0.740 | 0.710 | 0.454 | 0.708 | 0.619 | 0.408 | 0.638 | 0.691 | 0.691 | 0.195 | 0.552 | 0.612 | 0.855 | 0.632 | 0.296 | 0.121 | 0.379 | 0.778 |
| 2 | 1.000 | 0.694 | 0.661 | 0.764 | 0.690 | 0.623 | 0.298 | 0.627 | 0.610 | 0.401 | 0.653 | 0.724 | 0.552 | 0.160 | 0.556 | 0.505 | 0.806 | 0.660 | 0.287 | 0.071 | 0.370 | 0.686 | |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.639 | 0.612 | 0.684 | 0.734 | 0.539 | 0.634 | 0.544 | 0.462 | 0.718 | 0.606 | 0.669 | 0.231 | 0.573 | 0.643 | 0.638 | 0.462 | 0.385 | 0.077 | 0.154 | 0.630 | ||
| 4 | 1.000 | 0.488 | 0.578 | 0.577 | 0.500 | 0.613 | 0.617 | 0.300 | 0.478 | 0.525 | 0.530 | 0.100 | 0.456 | 0.527 | 0.668 | 0.667 | 0.400 | 0.100 | 0.400 | 0.586 | |||
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.806 | 0.609 | 0.406 | 0.479 | 0.532 | 0.386 | 0.738 | 0.669 | 0.498 | 0.219 | 0.472 | 0.658 | 0.636 | 0.508 | 0.369 | 0.156 | 0.311 | 0.790 | ||||
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.665 | 0.561 | 0.524 | 0.530 | 0.378 | 0.789 | 0.686 | 0.516 | 0.178 | 0.500 | 0.753 | 0.630 | 0.467 | 0.378 | 0.133 | 0.233 | 0.775 | |||||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.459 | 0.512 | 0.555 | 0.497 | 0.676 | 0.537 | 0.724 | 0.377 | 0.514 | 0.683 | 0.635 | 0.361 | 0.295 | 0.115 | 0.230 | 0.697 | ||||||
| 9 | 1.000 | 0.446 | 0.317 | 0.333 | 0.454 | 0.350 | 0.511 | 0.250 | 0.333 | 0.686 | 0.323 | 0.167 | 0.500 | 0.250 | 0.143 | 0.429 | |||||||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.489 | 0.326 | 0.422 | 0.553 | 0.696 | 0.087 | 0.473 | 0.453 | 0.660 | 0.493 | 0.174 | 0.044 | 0.196 | 0.530 | ||||||||
| 11 | 1.000 | 0.585 | 0.551 | 0.641 | 0.364 | 0.049 | 0.264 | 0.506 | 0.591 | 0.602 | 0.220 | 0.024 | 0.537 | 0.603 | |||||||||
| 12 | 1.000 | 0.519 | 0.522 | 0.502 | 0.333 | 0.333 | 0.406 | 0.371 | 0.333 | 0.111 | 0.111 | 0.556 | 0.349 | ||||||||||
| 13 | 1.000 | 0.758 | 0.482 | 0.278 | 0.556 | 0.641 | 0.558 | 0.352 | 0.352 | 0.093 | 0.241 | 0.677 | |||||||||||
| 14 | 1.000 | 0.442 | 0.150 | 0.417 | 0.557 | 0.686 | 0.450 | 0.200 | 0.050 | 0.325 | 0.633 | ||||||||||||
| 15 | 1.000 | 0.348 | 0.551 | 0.515 | 0.616 | 0.384 | 0.174 | 0.130 | 0.217 | 0.534 | |||||||||||||
| 16 | 1.000 | 0.278 | 0.218 | 0.145 | 0.000 | 0.250 | 0.600 | 0.143 | 0.191 | ||||||||||||||
| 17 | 1.000 | 0.311 | 0.513 | 0.444 | 0.639 | 0.056 | 0.167 | 0.413 | |||||||||||||||
| 18 | 1.000 | 0.521 | 0.255 | 0.450 | 0.146 | 0.161 | 0.676 | ||||||||||||||||
| 19 | 1.000 | 0.651 | 0.194 | 0.065 | 0.339 | 0.784 | |||||||||||||||||
| 20 | 1.000 | 0.167 | 0.000 | 0.476 | 0.500 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | 1.000 | 0.250 | 0.143 | 0.333 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | 1.000 | 0.143 | 0.143 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | 1.000 | 0.333 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 | 1.000 |
表4 玉米田养鹅处理放牧后样地杂草的生态位重叠度(表中物种号参照表1)
Table 4 Niche overlap of weeds after grazing in the treatment of raising geese in corn fields (RGICF). The species numbers see Table 1.
| 种号 No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.000 | 0.818 | 0.727 | 0.765 | 0.705 | 0.740 | 0.710 | 0.454 | 0.708 | 0.619 | 0.408 | 0.638 | 0.691 | 0.691 | 0.195 | 0.552 | 0.612 | 0.855 | 0.632 | 0.296 | 0.121 | 0.379 | 0.778 |
| 2 | 1.000 | 0.694 | 0.661 | 0.764 | 0.690 | 0.623 | 0.298 | 0.627 | 0.610 | 0.401 | 0.653 | 0.724 | 0.552 | 0.160 | 0.556 | 0.505 | 0.806 | 0.660 | 0.287 | 0.071 | 0.370 | 0.686 | |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.639 | 0.612 | 0.684 | 0.734 | 0.539 | 0.634 | 0.544 | 0.462 | 0.718 | 0.606 | 0.669 | 0.231 | 0.573 | 0.643 | 0.638 | 0.462 | 0.385 | 0.077 | 0.154 | 0.630 | ||
| 4 | 1.000 | 0.488 | 0.578 | 0.577 | 0.500 | 0.613 | 0.617 | 0.300 | 0.478 | 0.525 | 0.530 | 0.100 | 0.456 | 0.527 | 0.668 | 0.667 | 0.400 | 0.100 | 0.400 | 0.586 | |||
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.806 | 0.609 | 0.406 | 0.479 | 0.532 | 0.386 | 0.738 | 0.669 | 0.498 | 0.219 | 0.472 | 0.658 | 0.636 | 0.508 | 0.369 | 0.156 | 0.311 | 0.790 | ||||
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.665 | 0.561 | 0.524 | 0.530 | 0.378 | 0.789 | 0.686 | 0.516 | 0.178 | 0.500 | 0.753 | 0.630 | 0.467 | 0.378 | 0.133 | 0.233 | 0.775 | |||||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.459 | 0.512 | 0.555 | 0.497 | 0.676 | 0.537 | 0.724 | 0.377 | 0.514 | 0.683 | 0.635 | 0.361 | 0.295 | 0.115 | 0.230 | 0.697 | ||||||
| 9 | 1.000 | 0.446 | 0.317 | 0.333 | 0.454 | 0.350 | 0.511 | 0.250 | 0.333 | 0.686 | 0.323 | 0.167 | 0.500 | 0.250 | 0.143 | 0.429 | |||||||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.489 | 0.326 | 0.422 | 0.553 | 0.696 | 0.087 | 0.473 | 0.453 | 0.660 | 0.493 | 0.174 | 0.044 | 0.196 | 0.530 | ||||||||
| 11 | 1.000 | 0.585 | 0.551 | 0.641 | 0.364 | 0.049 | 0.264 | 0.506 | 0.591 | 0.602 | 0.220 | 0.024 | 0.537 | 0.603 | |||||||||
| 12 | 1.000 | 0.519 | 0.522 | 0.502 | 0.333 | 0.333 | 0.406 | 0.371 | 0.333 | 0.111 | 0.111 | 0.556 | 0.349 | ||||||||||
| 13 | 1.000 | 0.758 | 0.482 | 0.278 | 0.556 | 0.641 | 0.558 | 0.352 | 0.352 | 0.093 | 0.241 | 0.677 | |||||||||||
| 14 | 1.000 | 0.442 | 0.150 | 0.417 | 0.557 | 0.686 | 0.450 | 0.200 | 0.050 | 0.325 | 0.633 | ||||||||||||
| 15 | 1.000 | 0.348 | 0.551 | 0.515 | 0.616 | 0.384 | 0.174 | 0.130 | 0.217 | 0.534 | |||||||||||||
| 16 | 1.000 | 0.278 | 0.218 | 0.145 | 0.000 | 0.250 | 0.600 | 0.143 | 0.191 | ||||||||||||||
| 17 | 1.000 | 0.311 | 0.513 | 0.444 | 0.639 | 0.056 | 0.167 | 0.413 | |||||||||||||||
| 18 | 1.000 | 0.521 | 0.255 | 0.450 | 0.146 | 0.161 | 0.676 | ||||||||||||||||
| 19 | 1.000 | 0.651 | 0.194 | 0.065 | 0.339 | 0.784 | |||||||||||||||||
| 20 | 1.000 | 0.167 | 0.000 | 0.476 | 0.500 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | 1.000 | 0.250 | 0.143 | 0.333 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | 1.000 | 0.143 | 0.143 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | 1.000 | 0.333 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 | 1.000 |
| 种号 No. | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.426 | 0.556 | 0.417 | 0.325 | 0.333 | 0.425 |
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.813 | 0.582 | 0.491 | 0.524 | 0.785 | |
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.601 | 0.605 | 0.414 | 0.702 | ||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.642 | 0.253 | 0.618 | |||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.331 | 0.613 | ||||
| 13 | 1.000 | 0.544 | |||||
| 14 | 1.000 |
表5 常规种植管理对照样地后期杂草生态位重叠度(表中物种号参照表1)
Table 5 Niche overlap of weeds after grazing in conventionally planting corn fields (CK) after the RGICF treatment was grazed by geese. The species numbers see Table 1.
| 种号 No. | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.426 | 0.556 | 0.417 | 0.325 | 0.333 | 0.425 |
| 5 | 1.000 | 0.813 | 0.582 | 0.491 | 0.524 | 0.785 | |
| 6 | 1.000 | 0.601 | 0.605 | 0.414 | 0.702 | ||
| 7 | 1.000 | 0.642 | 0.253 | 0.618 | |||
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.331 | 0.613 | ||||
| 13 | 1.000 | 0.544 | |||||
| 14 | 1.000 |
图1 玉米田养鹅(RGICF)和常规(CK)种植模式下放牧前(a)和放牧后(b)各功能群相对多度。MA: 单子叶一年生或越年生植物; MP: 单子叶多年生植物; DA: 双子叶一年或越年生植物; DP: 双子叶多年生植物; FA: 蕨类一年生植物; FP: 蕨类多年生植物。
Fig. 1 Relative abundance of functional groups before grazing (a) and after grazing (b) under the treatment of raising geese in corn fields (RGICF). MA, Monocotyledonous annuals or biennials; MP, Monocotyledonous perennials; DA, Dicotyledonous annuals or biennials; DP, Dicotyledonous perennials; FA, Fern annuals; FP, Fern perennials.
| 放牧前 Before grazing | 放牧后 After grazing | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RGICF | CK | df | RGICF | CK | df | ||
| Shannon-Wiener指数 Shannon-Wiener index (H’) | 1.67 ± 0.08a | 1.26 ± 0.01b | 2 | 2.05 ± 0.05a | 1.74 ± 0.06b | 2 | |
| Pielou均匀度指数 Pielou evenness index (E) | 0.63 ± 0.02a | 0.73 ± 0.05a | 2 | 0.67 ± 0.00a | 0.87 ± 0.05b | 2 | |
| Margalef丰富度指数 Margalef richness index (DMG) | 2.10 ± 0.31a | 1.34 ± 0.22b | 2 | 3.27 ± 0.23A | 1.55 ± 0.05B | 2 | |
| Simpson多样性指数 Simpson diversity index (D) | 0.64 ± 0.02a | 0.61 ± 0.04a | 2 | 0.72 ± 0.01a | 0.79 ± 0.02b | 2 | |
| 地上生物量 Above-ground biomass (g) | 14.24 ± 7.09a | 3.12 ± 0.26a | 2 | 15.98 ± 6.80a | 5.49 ± 1.72a | 2 | |
表6 玉米田养鹅和常规种植模式下杂草群落生物多样性指数和地上生物量
Table 6 Biodiversity indices and above biomass of weed community under different treatments of raising geese in corn fields (RGICF) and conventionally planting corn fields (CK)
| 放牧前 Before grazing | 放牧后 After grazing | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RGICF | CK | df | RGICF | CK | df | ||
| Shannon-Wiener指数 Shannon-Wiener index (H’) | 1.67 ± 0.08a | 1.26 ± 0.01b | 2 | 2.05 ± 0.05a | 1.74 ± 0.06b | 2 | |
| Pielou均匀度指数 Pielou evenness index (E) | 0.63 ± 0.02a | 0.73 ± 0.05a | 2 | 0.67 ± 0.00a | 0.87 ± 0.05b | 2 | |
| Margalef丰富度指数 Margalef richness index (DMG) | 2.10 ± 0.31a | 1.34 ± 0.22b | 2 | 3.27 ± 0.23A | 1.55 ± 0.05B | 2 | |
| Simpson多样性指数 Simpson diversity index (D) | 0.64 ± 0.02a | 0.61 ± 0.04a | 2 | 0.72 ± 0.01a | 0.79 ± 0.02b | 2 | |
| 地上生物量 Above-ground biomass (g) | 14.24 ± 7.09a | 3.12 ± 0.26a | 2 | 15.98 ± 6.80a | 5.49 ± 1.72a | 2 | |
图2 玉米田养鹅处理(RGICF)和对照(CK)的玉米产量。不同字母表示在0.05水平上差异显著。
Fig. 2 Corn yield under the treatments of raising geese in the corn fields (RGICF) and conventionally planting corn fields (CK). The bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the bars indicate a difference between treatments at the 0.05 significance level.
| [1] | Berger WH, Parker FL (1970) Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments.Science, 168, 1345-1347. |
| [2] | Boutin C, Jobin B (1998) Intensity of agricultural practices and effects on adjacent habitats.Ecological Applications, 8, 544-557. |
| [3] | Buster HR (1990) Atrazine and other s-triazine herbicides in lakes and in rains in Switzerland. Environmental Science and Technology, 24, 1049-1058. |
| [4] | Chen J (陈杰), Guo YL (郭屹立), Lu XL (卢训令), Ding SY (丁圣彦), Su S (苏思), Guo JJ (郭静静), Li QX (李乾玺) (2012) Species diversity of herbaceous communities in the Yiluo River Basin.Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 32, 3021-3030. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [5] | Chen X (陈欣), Tang JJ (唐建军), Zhao HM (赵惠明), Shimizuk (志水胜好) (2003) Sustainable utilization of weed diversity resources in agroecosystem.Journal of Natural Resources(自然资源学报), 18, 340-346. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [6] | Chen X (陈欣), Wang ZQ (王兆骞), Tang JZ (唐建军) (2000) The ecological functions of weed biodiversity in agro- ecosystem.Chinese Journal of Ecology(生态学杂志), 19(4), 50-52. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [7] | Crawley MJ (1988) Herbivores and plant population dynamics. In: Plant Population Ecology (eds Edwards PJ, Gray AJ), pp. 367-392. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. |
| [8] | Deng JC (邓建才), Jiang X (蒋新), Wang DZ (王代长), Lu X (卢信), Hao HJ (皓红建), Wang F (王芳) (2005) Research advance of environmental fate of herbicide atrazine and model fitting in farmland ecosystem.Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 25, 3359-3367. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [9] | Goldberg DE, Miller TE (1990) Effects of different resource additions of species diversity in an annual plant community.Ecology, 71, 213-225. |
| [10] | Grinnell J (1917) The niche-relationships of the California Thrasher.Auk, 34, 427-433. |
| [11] | Guan FC (关法春), Wang C (王超) (2011) The theory and technology approach of agro-pastoral integration principle.Journal of Tibet Agriculture and Animal Husbandry College(西藏农牧学院学报), 1, 42-45. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [12] | Guo SL (郭水良), Li YH (李扬汉), Zhao TQ (赵铁桥) (1998) Weed species niche in wheat fields in Jinhua, Zhejiang Province. Journal of Plant Ecology(植物生态学报), 22, 76-84. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [13] | Liu JZ (刘加珍), Chen YN (陈亚宁), Zhang YM (张元明) (2004) Niche characteristics of plants on four environmental gradients in middle reaches of Tarim River.Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology(应用生态学报), 15, 549-555. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [14] | Margalef R (1972) Homage to Evelyn Hutchinson, or why is there an upper limit to diversity.Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts Sciences, 44, 211-235. |
| [15] | Ma LR (马丽荣) (2006) Development of niche theory and the application research on weeds in farmland.Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology(甘肃农业科技), (4), 23-26. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [16] | Ou QM (欧巧明), Chen YL (陈玉梁), Ma LR (马丽荣), Zhang XC (张绪成), Luo JJ (罗俊杰) (2010) A study on crop-weed allelopathy and its relationships based on niche theory.Acta Prataculturae Sinica(草业学报), 19(2), 235-240. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [17] | Pielou EC (1966) Species diversity and pattern diversity in the study of ecological succession.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 10, 370-383. |
| [18] | Puricelli EC, Tuesca DH (2005) Weed density and diversity under glyphosate-resistant crop sequences. Crop Protection, 24, 533-542. |
| [19] | Rohde K (2008) Vacant niches and the possible operation of natural laws in ecosystems.Rivista di Biologia-Biology Fotum, 101, 13-28. |
| [20] | Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. |
| [21] | Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity.Nature, 163, 688. |
| [22] | Tilman D, Downing JA (1994) Biodiversity and stability in grasslands.Nature, 367, 363-365. |
| [23] | Wang MJ (王明君), Han GD (韩国栋), Cui GW (崔国文), Zhao ML (赵萌莉) (2010) Effect of grazing intensity on the biodiversity and productivity of meadow steppe.Chinese Journal of Ecology(生态学杂志), 29, 862-868. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [24] | Wei SH (魏守辉), Qiang S (强胜), Ma B (马波), Wei JQ (韦继光) (2005) Effects of different crop rotation system on the characteristics of soil seedbank.Chinese Journal of Ecology(生态学杂志), 24, 385-389. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [25] | Wyss E (1996) The effects of artificial weed strips on diversity and abundance of the arthropod fauna in a Swiss experimental apple orchard.Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 60, 47-59. |
| [26] | Xu Q (许晴), Zhang F (张放), Xu ZQ (许中旗), Jia YL (贾彦龙), You JM (尤建民) (2011) Some characteristics of Simpson index and the Shannon-Wiener index and their dilution effect.Pratacultural Science(草业科学), 28, 527-531. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [27] | Zhao L (赵利), Hu GF (胡冠芳), Wang LM (王利民), Dang Z (党照), Zhao W (赵玮), Zhang JP (张建平) (2010) A study on weed population dynamics and niches in a flax field in the Lanzhou area.Acta Prataculturae Sinica(草业学报), 19(6), 18-24. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [28] | Zhao YH (赵永华), Lei RD (雷瑞德), He YX (何兴元), Jia X (贾夏) (2004) Niche characteristics of plant populations in Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata stands in Qinling Mountains.Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology(应用生态学报), 15, 913-918. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [29] | Zheng FQ (郑方强), Zhang XH (张晓华), Mo TL (墨铁路), Shi AJ (时爱菊), Zheng JQ (郑建强),Wu JB (吴举彬) (2008) Ecological niches and guilds of main insect pests and their natural enemies on apple trees.Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 28, 4830-4840. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [30] | Zheng Q (郑强), Wang ZM (王志敏), Cai YW (蔡永旺), Su D (苏达), Duan JJ (段俊杰) (2008) Study on spatial-temporal distribution of chlorophyll content and its correlation to plant n content in summer maize.Journal of Maize Sciences(玉米科学), 16, 75-78. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [1] | 梁竣策, 李开枝, 谭烨辉. 南海翼足类物种多样性与分布[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(5): 25487-. |
| [2] | 周丽洁, 郝珉辉, 何怀江, 程艳霞, 张春雨, 赵秀海. 小兴安岭森林β多样性格局、组分及其影响因素[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(4): 25443-. |
| [3] | 彭昀月, 彭奎, 刘昕然, 孙天怡, 张小全. 生物多样性信用的企业参与途径、市场发展障碍与建议[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(4): 26031-. |
| [4] | 李伯尧, 盛天成, 幸小云. 生物多样性风险对企业财务绩效的影响: 来自中国上市公司的证据[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(4): 25330-. |
| [5] | 刘昊, 张玉霄, 刘冰, 李飞飞, 马洪峥, 覃海宁, 李德铢, 陈文俐. 中国禾本科植物多样性及其物种名录[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(4): 25438-. |
| [6] | 孔孜亦, 王德港, 王建涛, 裴志永, 孙晶, 张长春, 张军国. 基于SCD-HRNet模型的野生动物姿态估计及其在生物多样性监测中的应用: 以内蒙古赛罕乌拉地区为例[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(4): 25287-. |
| [7] | 朱浩友, 周友兵, 罗怡, 周昭敏. 南充市城区繁殖鸟类群落20年前后的变化[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(3): 24560-. |
| [8] | 侯姝彧, 刘盈盈, 杨锐. 《昆蒙框架》背景下国际OECMs体系构建实践进展及中国化思路[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(3): 25264-. |
| [9] | 程晓帆, 李青媛, 李媛辉, 张明祥. 外来入侵物种治理政策体系的困境与出路[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(2): 25332-. |
| [10] | 陈璐露, 汤皓婷, 冷红, 袁青, 杨昕悦. 城市街区建成环境对生物多样性的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(2): 25286-. |
| [11] | 高雯琪, 向景荣, 赵耀, 范灵霜, 谷圆, 邵韦涵, 李高俊, 赵光军, 陈明斌, 蔡杏伟, 陈凯. 海南热带雨林国家公园黎母山和尖峰岭溪流鱼类群落特征及其对土地利用的响应[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(2): 25374-. |
| [12] | 卢晓强, 芮丹, 张江峰, 尹冰鑫, 王雨露, 岑雨婷, 崔怡晨, 杨万霞. 氮输入驱动的关键生态过程对生物多样性的影响及其管理启示[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(2): 25368-. |
| [13] | 谭廷鸿, 高帆, 杨雨, 肖群英, 吴春芳, 邱娜, 赵宁宁, 周敏, 康公平, 卢志宏, 高健强, 杨红, 杨传东, 邓春英. 中国西南喀斯特地区大型真菌物种编目[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(2): 25281-. |
| [14] | 章旭日, 罗标, 赵彤, 黄丹, 艾为明. 浙江鱼类多样性: 编目、分布与保护[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(2): 25225-. |
| [15] | 刘海鸥, 郝志明, 杜乐山, 刘文慧, 李子圆, 刘蕾. 全球生物多样性框架基金运行进展、挑战与启示[J]. 生物多样性, 2026, 34(2): 25463-. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||
备案号:京ICP备16067583号-7
Copyright © 2026 版权所有 《生物多样性》编辑部
地址: 北京香山南辛村20号, 邮编:100093
电话: 010-62836137, 62836665 E-mail: biodiversity@ibcas.ac.cn