• 中文核心期刊要目总览
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • 中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)
  • 中国科技论文与引文数据库(CSTPCD)
  • 中国学术期刊文摘数据库(CSAD)
  • 中国学术期刊(网络版)(CNKI)
  • 中文科技期刊数据库
  • 万方数据知识服务平台
  • 中国超星期刊域出版平台
  • 国家科技学术期刊开放平台
  • 荷兰文摘与引文数据库(SCOPUS)
  • 日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(JST)
李伟, 周伟, 张兴勇, 曹明, 张仁功, . 2006: 哀牢山国家级自然保护区南华片三种雉类春季取食地利用比较. 动物学研究, 27(5): 495-504.
引用本文: 李伟, 周伟, 张兴勇, 曹明, 张仁功, . 2006: 哀牢山国家级自然保护区南华片三种雉类春季取食地利用比较. 动物学研究, 27(5): 495-504.
LI Wei, ZHOU Wei , *, ZHANG Xing-yong, CAO Ming, ZHANG Ren-gong. 2006. Spring Foraging Sites of Three Pheasants at Nanhua Part in Ailaoshan National Nature Reserve. Zoological Research, 27(5): 495-504.
Citation: LI Wei, ZHOU Wei , *, ZHANG Xing-yong, CAO Ming, ZHANG Ren-gong. 2006. Spring Foraging Sites of Three Pheasants at Nanhua Part in Ailaoshan National Nature Reserve. Zoological Research, 27(5): 495-504.

哀牢山国家级自然保护区南华片三种雉类春季取食地利用比较

Spring Foraging Sites of Three Pheasants at Nanhua Part in Ailaoshan National Nature Reserve

  • 摘要: 探讨亲缘关系密切、营养关系相似的物种间的共存机制,是群落生态学的研究热点之一。研究结果有助于了解同域物种的资源利用特点和分化方式,对于地区生物多样性的保育工作亦具有指导意义。黑颈长尾雉(Syrmaticus humiae)、白鹇(Lophura nycthemera)和红喉山鹧鸪(Arborophila rufogularis)为哀牢山国家自然保护区南华片区同域分布的3种雉类,它们亲缘关系较近,食性相似。比较三者春季取食地18个生态因子生态位宽度和重叠指数,结果显示,黑颈长尾雉广适性(生态位宽度值>0.8)的取食地因子最少(1个),专一性(生态位宽度<0.8)因子最多(4个);白鹇居中(3个和2个);红喉山鹧鸪与黑颈长尾雉恰好相反(6个和0个)。黑颈长尾雉与白鹇生态位重叠指数≥0.5的因子数(5个)多于黑颈长尾雉与红喉山鹧鸪的(2个)和白鹇与红喉山鹧鸪的(4个);灌木层盖度、草本层盖度和种子密度的生态位重叠指数在3种雉类间均较大。单因素方差分析结果表明,3种雉类在坡向、乔木密度、草本层盖度、种子密度和土壤动物等5个因子均无差异;在距空旷地距离、距道路距离和灌木层盖度等3个因子均有差异;而其余因子则是在不同的两个物种之间有差异。主成分分析结果显示,黑颈长尾雉取食地前7个主成分的累计信息量达85.6%,白鹇的前6个达86.0%,红喉山鹧鸪的前5个达79.0%。影响这三种雉类取食地选择的因子主要集中于前3个主成分。3种雉类间取食地因子差异状态呈镶嵌分布,意味着种间生态位呈分化状态。各物种优先选择的因子组合不同,各因子的重要程度亦不一。

     

    Abstract: Researching the mechanisms between species with close relationships or similar trophic levels that allow them to coexist is a central issue of community ecology. The study results are helpful to identify resource use traits and niche differentiation of sympatric species and to the biodiversity conservation of a region. Syrmaticus humiae, Lophura nycthemera and Arborophila rufogularis are sympatric species at Nanhua part in the Ailaoshan National Nature Reserve. Their relationship is genetically closed and their trophic niche is similar. Comparing trophic niche breadth and overlapping index for 18 ecological factors of spring foraging site among the three pheasants, the results showed that S. humiae held the least eurytopic factors (value of trophic niche breadth bigger than 0.8) (one factor) and the most stenotopic factors (its value less than 0.8) (four factors) of the three pheasants. L. nycthemera held three eurytopic and two stenopic factors, while A. rufogularis showed the reverse of S. humiae with six eurytopic and no stenotopic factors respectively. There were five factors with a high degree overlap in the niche overlapping index between S. humiae and L. nycthemera, while there were only four factors between S. humiae and A. rufogularis and two between L. nycthemera and A. rufogularis. Of the overlapping factors, shrub coverage, leaf litter coverage and seed density were common with a high degree overlap in the niche overlapping index among the three pheasants. The results of a one-way ANOVA indicated that five factors (aspect, tall tree density, herb coverage, seed density and density of edaphic animal) were not significant, while distance to open fields, distance to road and shrub coverage were significant for the three pheasants. Other factors were significant between any two species. The results of a principal component analysis showed that the cumulative percentage is 85.6% in the first 7 principal components for S. humiae, is 86.0% in the first 6 principal components for L. nycthemera and is 79.0% in the first 5 principal components for A. rufogularis. Factors affecting the selection of foraging sites in the three pheasants concentrate in the first 3 principal components. The factors difference of foraging sites among the three pheasants showed a state of mosaic, which meant that there was a separation of niches among the three species. The factor combination of each species prior selection was different as well the importance of each factor was also different.

     

/

返回文章
返回