农田背景下景观结构对半自然生境生物多样性的多尺度影响

doi:10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.12.014

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以黄河下游典型农区封丘县为研究区,调查比较了农业景观中半自然生境(包括人工林、树篱和沟渠)与农田生境中植物和地表节肢动物的物种多样性,并应用广义线性模型(GLM)从不同的空间尺度分析半自然生境和农田中的物种多样性与景观变量之间的关系。结果表明：①林地植物多样性最高,且以人工林和沟渠中的植物物种相似度最高;各半自然生境中地表节肢动物的多度和物种丰富度明显高于农田,且以人工林和树篱间地表节肢动物的相似度最高。②在250 m景观范围内的景观变量能更好地解释植物多样性和地表节肢动物多样性,而树篱和沟渠在400 m景观范围上地表节肢动物的尺度效应最显著。③在250 m尺度上植物多样性与景观变量的拟合方面,在人工林和树篱生境中,散布与并列指数(IJI)和植物丰富度呈显著负相关;人工林中IJI和周长面积比(PARA_MD)对植物香农多样性指数呈负相关;在树篱中,边缘密度(ED)、聚集度指数(AI)与植物香农多样性指数负相关显著,欧几里得最近距离(ENN_MN)与均匀度指数正相关;在沟渠中,ED、AI与植物丰富度显著负相关。④地表节肢动物与景观变量的拟合显示,在250 m景观范围上,人工林生境主要体现在多度与香农多样性指数(SHDI)和土地利用丰富度的负相关,而农田中则是多度与SHDI呈显著负相关,与ED、PARA_MD、AI和土地利用丰富度(LUR)呈显著正相关;在400 m景观范围上,树篱中,IJI与地表节肢动物的多度和丰富度呈显著正相关;沟渠生境中,只有多度与IJI和土地利用丰富度显著负相关,与SHDI显著正相关。

关键词: 生物多样性, 半自然生境, 多尺度, 农田背景

Abstract:

The extensive planting of single crop for extended time periods in agricultural landscapes has led to a decrease in species diversity. Natural and semi-natural habitats within agricultural landscapes, as well as the associated plant and small animal (especially ground arthropod) communities, are of vital importance for preserving biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. It is crucial to study the relationship of regional agricultural landscape heterogeneity and biodiversity for maintaining ecosystem services and stability. In this study, Fengqiu County of Henan Province, a typical agricultural region in the lower reaches of the Yellow River, was taken as the study area for investigating the diversity of semi-natural habitat plants in agricultural landscape and ground arthropods in comparison to cropland of this agricultural ecosystem. The analysis of the relationship between plant diversity in semi-natural habitat and landscape variables was repeated for four different spatial scales (100 m, 250 m, 400 m, 550 m) and for artificial forest, hedgerow, and ditch environments to determine the optimal spatial scale of analysis for plant diversity in agricultural landscape. The relationship between ground arthropods diversity and semi-natural habitat variables was also analyzed at the local habitat scale. All analyses were conducted using generalized linear models (GLM) in R statistical software. The results show that: (1) Plant diversity was highest in artificial forest. The abundance and species richness of ground arthropods in semi-natural habitats were significantly higher than that in farmland; (2) The relationships between richness of plant species and diversity in semi-natural small habitat and landscape heterogeneity were strongest at a spatial scale up to 250 m radius around the sampling point. But the relationship between ground arthropod species and diversity in semi-natural small habitat and landscape heterogeneity was strongest at a spatial scale up to 250 m radius around sampling points in artificial forest and cropland; (3) Results of GLM regression on plant species diversity and landscape variables at the scale up to 250 m radius around sampling points confirmed that vegetation richness (Sveg) was negatively correlated to interspersion and juxtaposition index (IJI) in artificial forest and hedgerows; In ditches, vegetation richness (Sveg) had a negative effect on edge density (ED) and aggregation index (AI) but a positive effect on Shannon's diversity (SHDI); (4) Results of GLM regression on ground arthropod species diversity and landscape variables confirmed that at the range of 250 m radius around sampling points, abundance was negatively related to Shannon's diversity (SHDI) and land use richness, and was only significantly negatively related to Shannon's diversity (SHDI) in cropland fields. Generally speaking, the semi-natural habitat elements in intensively farmed agricultural landscapes may function as refugia and sources of dispersal or stepping stone habitats. It will play an increasingly important role in regional biodiversity conservation and improvement by connecting these scattered semi-natural habitat elements in agricultural landscape into networks. However, attributes of semi-natural habitats, such as area, quantity, type, and spatial distribution, are among the important research topics in urgent need of study and consideration.

Key words: biodiversity, semi-natural habitat, multi-scale effect, agricultural landscape

中图分类号:

王玉婷, 丁圣彦, 梁国付. 农田背景下景观结构对半自然生境生物多样性的多尺度影响[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(12): 1704-1716.

Yuting WANG, Shengyan DING, Guofu LIANG. Multi-scale effects analysis for landscape structure and biodiversity of semi-natural habitats and cropland in a typical agricultural landscape[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2014, 33(12): 1704-1716.

图/表 12

图1

表1

表2

表3

图2

图3

图4

图5

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 48

[1]	傅博杰, 陈利顶, 马克明, 等. 2011. 景观生态学原理及应用: 二版. 北京: 科学出版社: 44-45.
	[Fu B J, Chen L D, Ma K M, et al.2011. Jingguan shengtaixue yuanli ji yingyong. 2nd ed. Beijing, China: Science Press: 44-45.]
[2]	高俊峰, 马克明, 冯宗炜. 2006. 景观组成、结构和梯度格局对植物多样性的影响. 生态学杂志, 25(9): 1087-1094.
	[Gao J F, Ma K M, Feng Z W.Effects of landscape composition, structure and gradient pattern on plant diversity. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 25(9): 1087-1094.]
[3]	卢训令, 梁国付, 汤茜, 等. 2014. 黄河下游平原农业景观中非农生境植物多样性. 生态学报, 34(4): 789-797.
	[Lu X L, Liang G F, Tang Q, et al.2014. Plant species of the non-agricultural habitats in the lower reaches of the Yellow River Plain agro-landscape. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34(4): 789-797.]
[4]	吕一河, 陈利顶, 傅伯杰. 2007. 景观格局与生态过程的耦合途径分析. 地理科学进展, 26(3): 1-10.
	[Lv Y H, Chen L D, Fu B J.2007. Analysis of integrating approach on landscape pattern and ecological processes. Progress in Geography, 26(3): 1-10.]
[5]	尹文英, 等. 1998. 中国土壤动物检索图鉴. 北京: 科学出版社.
	[Yin W Y, et al.1998. Pictorical keys to soil animals of China. Beijing, China: Science Press.]
[6]	郑乐怡, 归鸿. 2010. 昆虫分类. 南京: 南京师范大学出版社.
	[Zheng Y Y, Gui H.2010. Insect classification. Nanjing, China: Nanjing Normal University Press.]
[7]	朱珠. 2012. 黄河中下游平原地区景观异质性动态分析: 以河南省封丘县为例//河南大学环境与规划学院. 第七届全国地理学研究生学术年会论文摘要集. 开封:河南大学出版社.
	[Zhu Z.2012. Analysis of dynamic changes of agricultural landscape Heterogeneity in the lower Yellow River plains: a case study in Fengqiu County//College of Environment and Planning, Henan University. The paper sets of the 7th national geography graduate academic conference. Kaifeng,China: Henan University Press.]
[8]	Alain B, Gilles P, Yannick D.2006. Factors driving small rodents assemblages from field boundaries in agricultural landscapes of western France. Landscape Ecology, 21(3): 449-461.
[9]	Allouche O, Kalyuzhny M, Moreno-Rueda G, et al.2012. Area-heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(43): 17495-17500.
[10]	Auffret A G, Cousins S A O.2011. Past and present management influences the seed bank and seed rain in a rural landscape mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(5): 1278-1285.
[11]	Benton T G, Vickery J A, Wilson J D.2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(4): 182-188.
[12]	Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, et al.2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(1): 141-150.
[13]	Butet A, Michel N, Rantier Y, et al.2010. Responses of common buzzard (Buteo buteo) and Eurasian kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) to land use changes in agricultural landscapes of western France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 138(3-4): 152-159.
[14]	Collinge S K.2000. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology, 81(8): 2211-2226.
[15]	Cook W M, Lane K T, Foster B L, et al.2002. Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecology Letters, 5(5): 619-623.
[16]	Corbit M, Marks P L, Gardescu S.1999. Hedgerows as habitat corridors for forest herbs in central New York, USA. Journal of Ecology, 87(2): 220-232.
[17]	Cousins S A O.2006. Plant species richness in midfield islets and road verges-the effect of landscape fragmentation. Biological conservation, 127(4): 500-509.
[18]	Cousins S A O, Lindborg R.2008. Remnant grassland habitats as source communities for plant diversification in agricultural landscapes. Biological Conservation, 141(1): 233-240.
[19]	Debinski D M.2006. Forest fragmentation and matrix effects: the matrix does matter. Journal of Biogeography, 33(10): 1791-1792.
[20]	Dorrough J, Moll J, Crosthwaite J.2007. Can intensification of temperate Australian livestock production systems save land for native biodiversity? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121(3): 222-232.
[21]	Ekroos J, Kuussaari M, Tiainen J, et al.2013. Correlations in species richness between taxa depend on habitat, scale and landscape context. Ecological Indicators, 34: 528-535.
[22]	Endels P, Adriaens D, Verheyen K, et al.2004. Population structure and adult plant performance of forest herbs in three contrasting habitats. Ecography, 27(2): 225-241.
[23]	Ernoult A, Vialatte A, Butet A, et al.2013. Grassy strips in their landscape context, their role as new habitat for biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 166: 15-27.
[24]	Ewers R M, Didham R K.2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews, 81(1): 117-142.
[25]	Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, et al.2011. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology letters, 14(2): 101-112.
[26]	Forman R T T.1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology, 10(3): 133-142.
[27]	Gurr G M, Wratten S D, Luna J M.2003. Multifunction agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4(2): 107-116.
[28]	Hovd H, Skogen A.2005. Plant species in arable field margins and road verges of central Norway. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 110(3-4): 257-265.
[29]	Kleijn D, Baldi A.2005. Effects of set-aside land on farmland biodiversity: comments on Van Buskirk and Willi. Conservation Biology, 19(3): 963-966.
[30]	Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen R K, et al.2009. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(10): 564-571.
[31]	Ma M.2008. Multi-scale responses of plant species diversity in semi-natural buffer strips to agricultural landscapes. Applied Vegetation Science, 11(2): 269-278.
[32]	Macdonald D W, Tattersall F H, Service K M, et al.2007. Mammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside-what are the putative benefits? Mammal Review, 37(4): 259-277.
[33]	McCullagh P, Nelder J A.1989. Generalized linear models. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Science.
[34]	Morelli F, Pruscini F, Santolini R, et al.2013. Landscape heterogeneity metrics as indicators of bird diversity: determining the optimal spatial scales in different landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 34: 372-379.
[35]	Öckinger E, Lindborg R, Sjödin N E, et al.2012. Landscape matrix modifies richness of plants and insects in grassland fragments. Ecography, 35(3): 259-267.
[36]	Ozinga W A, Bekker R M, Schaminee J H J, et al.2004. Dispersal potential in plant communities depends on environmental conditions. Journal of Ecology, 92(5): 767-777.
[37]	Ricketts T H.2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist, 158(1): 87-99.
[38]	Rosenberg M S, Anderson C D.2011. PASSaGE: pattern analysis, spatial statistics and geographic exegesis. Version 2. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2(3): 229-232.
[39]	Salamolard M, Butet A, Leroux A, et al.2000. Responses of an avian predator to variations in prey density at a temperate latitude. Ecology, 81(9): 2428-2441.
[40]	Shannon C E, Weaver W.1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press: 5.
[41]	Steckel J, Westphal C, Peters M K, et al.2014. Landscape composition and configuration differently affect trap-nesting bees, wasps and their antagonists. Biological Conservation, 172: 56-64.
[42]	Tang Q, Liang G F, Lu X L, et al.2014. Effects of corridor networks on plant species composition and diversity in an intensive agriculture landscape. Chinese Geographical Science, 24(1): 93-103.
[43]	Tattersall F H, Macdonald D W, Hart B J, et al.2002. Is habitat linearity important for small mammal communities on farmland? Journal of applied ecology, 39(4): 643-652.
[44]	The R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing[DB/OL]. 2014-04-11[2014-07]. .
[45]	Tscharntke T, Klein A M, Kruess A, et al.2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecology letters, 8(8): 857-874.
[46]	Tscharntke T, Tylianakis J M, Rand T A, et al.2012. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes-eight hypotheses. Biological Reviews, 87(3): 661-685.
[47]	Woodcock B A, Westbury D B, Tscheulin T, et al.2008. Effects of seed mixture and management on beetle assemblages of arable field margins. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 125(1-4): 246-254.
[48]	Zelený D, Li C F, Chytrý M.2010. Pattern of local plant species richness along a gradient of landscape topographical heterogeneity: result of spatial mass effect or environmental shift? Ecography, 33(3): 578-589.

景观描述变量	每个缓冲区变量的平均值（标准偏差）
景观描述变量	100 m	250 m	400 m	550 m
土地利用丰富度(LUR)	4.27(1.14)	5.71(0.91)	6.23(0.83)	6.71(0.78)
香农多样性指数(SHDI)	0.85(0.25)	0.96(0.26)	1.01(0.24)	1.02(0.25)
欧几里得最近距离(ENN_MN)	18.27(8.8)	24.67(7.94)	26.68(10.85)	25.35(8.61)
边缘密度(ED)	328.7(123.3)	278.1(73.5)	266.8(58.95)	260.1(51.43)
周长面积比(PARAMD)	2707(1664)	4019.8(1050)	4198.2(1049)	4541.2(607)
散布与并列指数(IJI)/%	69.33(14.47)	64.19(8.43)	64.27(7.72)	63.52(6.69)
聚集度指数(AI)	92.94(2.84)	93.64(1.74)	93.74(1.45)	93.81(1.29)

响应变量	树篱(SL)	人工林(LD)	沟渠(GQ)	农田(NT)
植物丰富度(Sveg)	12.6(3.28)	15.3(4.68)	12.7(4.34)
植物多样性指数(Hveg)	1.78(0.36)	2.017(0.49)	1.786(0.35)
植物均匀度指数(Eveg)	0.71(0.11)	0.748(0.14)	0.714(0.09)
物种多度(Abun)	15.92(10.83)	13.23(12.99)	21.04(11.81)	13.08(9.49)
物种丰富度(S)	11.13(3.03)	11.53(3.6)	12.22(4.57)	10.39(4.45)
物种多样性指数(H)	1.69(0.35)	1.79(0.36)	1.75(0.43)	1.66(0.41)
物种均匀度指数(E)	0.71(0.14)	0.75(0.14)	0.73(0.13)	0.75(0.11)

植物/地表节肢动物多样性	林地			树篱		沟渠			农田
植物/地表节肢动物多样性	Moran' I		p		Moran's I	p	Moran's I	p	Moran's I	p
550 m
Sveg	0.350	0.217		-0.207	0.590	0.022	0.889
Eveg	0.124	0.617		0.107	0.707	0.086	0.724
Hveg	0.224	0.407		0.132	0.659	0.068	0.770
400 m
Sveg	0.364	0.388		0.152	0.759	0.127	0.738
Eveg	-0.053	0.937		0.029	0.928	0.241	0.558
Hveg	0.307	0.452		0.136	0.779	0.196	0.627
250 m
Sveg	-0.134	0.906		-0.060	0.967	-0.801	0.417
Eveg	-0.872	0.360		0.179	0.835	-0.814	0.416
Hveg	-0.435	0.663		0.304	0.737	-0.764	0.445
S	0.012	0.733		-0.047	0.819	0.257	0.125		0.157	0.108
E	-0.098	0.424		-0.144	0.268	-0.009	0.932		0.025	0.672
H	-0.110	0.344		-0.235	0.053	-0.026	0.997		0.145	0.126
Abun	0.041	0.336		0.020	0.693	0.210	0.196		0.065	0.404

景观变量	GLM
景观变量	零偏差(df)	残差偏差(df)	偏差解释量/%	AIC	尺度/m
人工林
Sveg	138.16(48)	123.96(41)	10	371.82	100
Hveg	19.52(48)	16.05(41)	18	110.43
Eveg	1.97(48)	1.6(41)	19	-9.47
Sveg	138.16(48)	110.45(43)	20	360.31	250
Hveg	19.52(48)	12.42(40)	36	99.10
Eveg	1.97(48)	1.27(40)	36	-16.63
Sveg	138.16(48)	110.72(47）	20	346.58	400
Hveg	19.52(48)	15.5(40)	21	110.62
Eveg	1.97(48)	1.55(40)	22	-9.27
Sveg	138.16(48)	104.69(43）	24	342.55	550
Hveg	19.52(48)	14.51(41)	26	107.18
Eveg	1.97(48)	1.61(41)	18	-7.06
树篱
Sveg	160.72(46)	153.36(41)	5	379.68	100
Hveg	20.34(46)	18.83(41)	7	118.74
Eveg	2.83(46)	2.59(41)	8	15.67
Sveg	160.72(46)	122.17(40)	24	350.49	250
Hveg	20.34(46)	14.38(40)	29	106.74
Eveg	2.83(46)	2.06(40)	27	5.67
Sveg	160.72(46)	138.3(40)	14	366.63	400
Hveg	20.34(46)	16.44(40)	19	113.67
Eveg	2.83(46)	2.11(40)	26	6.88
Sveg	160.72(46)	139.95(41)	13	366.27	550
Hveg	20.34(46)	17.31(41)	15	114.37
Eveg	2.83(46)	2.29(41)	19	9.17
沟渠
Sveg	313.21(43)	297.78(41)	5	498.43	100
Hveg	34.06(543)	31.79(41)	7	145.97
Eveg	4.99(43)	4.53(41)	9	44.66
Sveg	313.21(543)	252.13(40)	20	454.78	250
Hveg	34.06(43)	25.86(40)	24	137.24
Eveg	4.99(43)	3.65(40)	27	35.44
Sveg	313.21(543)	266.56(40)	15	469.21	400
Hveg	34.06(43)	25.63(40)	25	136.78
Eveg	4.99(43)	3.72(40)	25	36.51
Sveg	313.21(43)	273.74(41)	13	474.39	550
Hveg	34.06(43)	25.71(41)	25	134.94
Eveg	4.99(43)	3.66(41)	27	33.59

GLM
	零偏差(df)	残差偏差(df)	偏差解释量/%	AIC	尺度/m
人工林
Abun	436.38(48)	254.62(43)	42	Inf	250
S	120.68(48)	75.31(43)	38	301.56
E	2.5(48)	1.37(43)	45	-21.36
H	15.28(48)	9.03(43)	41	76.5
Abun	436.38(48)	299.77(43)	31	Inf	400
S	120.68(48)	92.95(43)	23	319.2
E	2.5(48)	1.57(43)	37	21.7
H	15.28(48)	8.33(43)	45	72.3
Abun	436.38(48)	305.01(43)	30	Inf	550
S	120.68(48)	113.2(43)	6	339.45
E	2.5(48)	1.83(43)	27	-6.5
H	15.28(48)	12.2(43)	20	92.157
树篱
Abun	439.7(46)	363.68(43)	17	Inf	250
S	142.34(46)	98.74(43)	31	315.5
E	3.22(46)	2.09(43)	35	0.61
H	18.43(46)	12.5(43)	32	93.46
Abun	439.7(46)	300.19(43)	32	Inf	400
S	142.34(46)	81.59(43)	43	298.34
E	3.22(46)	1.57(43)	51	-14.54
H	18.43(46)	8.58(43)	53	73.88
Abun	439.7(46)	347.12(43)	21	Inf	550
S	142.03(46)	106.75(43)	25	323.49
E	3.22(46)	2.03(43)	37	-0.94
H	18.43(46)	11.57(43)	37	89.43
沟渠
Abun	671.84(43)	536.21(41)	20	Inf	250
S	313.58(43)	262.2(41)	16	455.03
E	5.34(43)	3.56(41)	33	28.18
H	34.02(43)	25.23(41)	33	129.97
Abun	671.84(43)	274.26(41)	59	Inf	400
S	313.58(43)	111(41)	65	303.86
E	5.34(43)	1.7(41)	68	-10.35
H	34.(43)	13.8(41)	59	98.57
Abun	671.8(43)	470.57(41)	30	Inf	550
S	313.58(43)	254.31(41)	19	447.17
E	5.34(43)	3.54(41)	34	27.91
H	34.02(43)	23.85(41)	30	127.04
农田
Abun	345.91(48)	223.57(43)	35	Inf	250
S	159.49(48)	99.15(43)	38	317.18
E	2.18(48)	0.77(43)	65	-51.45
H	15.71(48)	8.87(43)	44	75.61
Abun	345.91(48)	249.95(43)	28	Inf	400
S	159.49(48)	126.3(43)	21	344.32
E	2.18(48)	0.94(43)	57	-41.15
H	15.7(48)	9.04(43)	42	76.57
Abun	345.91(48)	249.54(43)	28	Inf	550
S	159.49(48)	127.82(43)	20	345.85
E	2.18(48)	1.63(43)	25	-12.3
H	15.7(48)	12.1(43)	23	91.7