生物多样性 ›› 2025, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 25057.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2025057  cstr: 32101.14.biods.2025057

• 战略生物资源专题 • 上一篇    

不同方法对蜜蜂总科昆虫资源与多样性监测效果的比较

农荞伊1,2, 曹军1, 程文达3,*(), 彭艳琼2,*()   

  1. 1.云南大学生态与环境学院, 昆明 650091
    2.中国科学院西双版纳热带植物园, 云南勐腊 666303
    3.中山大学深圳校区生态学院, 广东深圳 518000
  • 收稿日期:2025-02-18 接受日期:2025-04-09 出版日期:2025-04-20 发布日期:2025-05-19
  • 通讯作者: *E-mail: chengwd5@mail.sysu.edu.cn; pengyanqiong@xtbg.ac.cn
  • 基金资助:
    中国生物多样性监测与研究网络-昆虫网

Comparative study of monitoring methods for Apoidea resources and diversity

Nong Qiaoyi1,2, Cao Jun1, Cheng Wenda3,*(), Peng Yanqiong2,*()   

  1. 1 School of Ecology and Environment, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China
    2 Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China
    3 School of Ecology, Sun Yat-sen University Shenzhen Campus, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518000, China
  • Received:2025-02-18 Accepted:2025-04-09 Online:2025-04-20 Published:2025-05-19
  • Contact: *E-mail: chengwd5@mail.sysu.edu.cn; pengyanqiong@xtbg.ac.cn
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the Sino BON Insect Diversity Monitoring Network (Sino BON-Insects)

摘要: 蜜蜂总科昆虫是重要的生物资源, 可为人类提供蜂产品、为生态系统提供授粉服务等。当前全球蜜蜂资源呈下降趋势, 亟需加强监测和保护。虽然调查和监测蜜蜂总科昆虫的方法有多种, 但各方法适用的监测类群还不甚清楚。为了对蜜蜂总科昆虫进行系统监测, 更为了全面揭示蜜蜂总科昆虫的多样性, 本研究选择生物资源极为丰富的中国科学院西双版纳热带植物园, 利用样线法、马来氏网法和黄盘法对蜜蜂总科昆虫资源及多样性进行监测, 比较了不同方法的监测效果。经过一年期系统监测, 收集到蜜蜂总科(包括蜜蜂科、隧蜂科、切叶蜂科、分舌蜂科、泥蜂科、方头泥蜂科和蠊泥蜂科)昆虫14,896头, 隶属于7科54属345种。稀释曲线显示3种方法采样覆盖度均充分, 但收集的主要类群有差异。样线法监测到6科33属133种, 蜜蜂科、切叶蜂科和隧蜂科的多样性较高, 有3个优势种及44个稀有种。马来氏网法监测到7科50属260种, 方头泥蜂科、切叶蜂科和隧蜂科的多样性较高, 有6个优势种及130个稀有种。黄盘法监测到6科29属122种, 方头泥蜂科多样性高, 而蜜蜂科个体数多, 有6个优势种及49个稀有种。结果显示不同方法适合监测蜜蜂总科昆虫中不同的类群及种类, 组合使用可监测到更多物种, 这将为蜜蜂总科昆虫的调查、种群监测提供方法选择, 也为有效保护蜜蜂总科昆虫资源提供基础数据。

关键词: 蜜蜂总科昆虫, 样线法, 马来氏网法, 黄盘法, 生物多样性监测

Abstract

Aims: Apoidea insects are crucial biological resources, providing bee products for humans and pollination services for ecosystems etc. However, global Apoidea resources are declining, highlighting the urgent need for monitoring and conservation efforts. Despite the availability of various methods to survey and monitor Apoidea diversity, there remains uncertainty regarding the most appropriate method and the taxa they effectively monitor.

Methods: The study site is located at Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences where biodiversity is high. Three methods commonly used for Apoidae monitoring were employed: transects, Malaise traps, and pan traps. The richness and abundances of Apoidae were recorded and the effectiveness was compared to determine the best monitoring approach.

Results: Through one-year systematic monitoring, a total of 14,896 Apoidea insects were collected, including Apidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae, Colletidae, Sphecidae, Crabronidae, and Ampulicidae, which belonged to 7 families, 54 genera, and 345 species. The rarefaction curve showed adequate sampling coverage for all three methods, and there were differences in the major taxa collected. The transects collected 6 families, 33 genera, and 133 species, of which Apidae, Megachilidae, and Halictidae had high diversity, including 3 dominant species and 44 rare species. The Malaise traps collected 7 families, 50 genera, and 260 species, of which Crabronidae, Megachilidae, and Halictidae had high diversity, including 6 dominant species and 130 rare species. The pan traps collected 6 families, 29 genera, and 122 species, of which the diversity of Crabronidae was high, but Apidae had the most individuals, including 6 dominant species and 49 rare species.

Conclusion: The results demonstrate that different methods are effective for monitoring different Apoidea taxa and species. Combing multiple methods enhances the detection of Apoidea diversity. This study provides valuable methodological options for surveying Apoidea species and population monitoring, and also offer baseline data for the effective conservation of Apoidea resources.

Key words: Apoidea insects, transects, Malaise traps, pan traps, biodiversity monitoring