苏州太湖湖滨带芦苇湿地鸟类群落研究
|
摘要
自2010年6月到2011年5月，对苏州太湖国家湿地公园及周边区域的湖滨带芦苇湿地，逐月进行了为期一年的鸟类调查，分析了湖滨带芦苇湿地鸟类群落结构的特征，对人工芦苇湿地和原生芦苇湿地鸟类群落进行了对比，探讨了冬季芦苇收割对鸟类群落的影响。主要研究结果如下：
1、全年共记录到鸟类50种，隶属11目28科，雀形目鸟类有29种，数量上占绝对优势，占总数量的77.74%。留鸟和夏候鸟共33种，占总数量的66%。地理区系间差异不大，体现出南北过渡的特征。鸟类物种数和密度全年的变化趋势较为一致，最低值分别出现在1月和2月，之后开始种类和密度持续增长，5月种类达到全年最大30种，6月密度达到全年最大为14.74只/ha，至9月份为种类和密度的回落期，10、11、12月鸟种数和密度基本稳定。春季鸟类物种数、多样性、均匀度明显高于其他季节。
2、人工、原生芦苇湿地分别记录到鸟类39种、36种，共有物种25种，相似性系数为0.625，属于中等相似。人工芦苇湿地雀形目鸟类相对较多，原生芦苇湿地非雀形目水鸟类相对较多。居留型上差异不大，都体现为留鸟>夏侯鸟>冬候鸟>旅鸟的特征。各月鸟类物种数比较发现，冬季和春季人工芦苇湿地>原生芦苇湿地；夏季和秋季原生芦苇湿地>人工芦苇湿地。各月鸟类密度对比发现，2月至5月人工芦苇湿地>原生芦苇湿地；6月至1月原生芦苇湿地>人工芦苇湿地。两种生境鸟类群落在秋季相似性系数最高为0.593，春季最低相似性系数为0.487。春夏季原生芦苇湿地多样性高，人工芦苇湿地在秋冬季多样性高。
3、在时间尺度上将芦苇收割划分为收割前、收割当月、收割次月来研究收割对鸟类群影响的即时效应。结果显示，物种数在收割当月下降明显，有10种鸟类消失，而在收割次月比割前新增了6种鸟类。收割导致了鸟类密度的大量下降，收割当月和次月均超过50%。相似性系数显示：收割当月与收割次月最高为0.647、收割次月与收割前最低为0.423。多样性指数为收割次月>收割前>收割当月；均匀性指数为收割次月>收割当月>收割前。收割后的3月至7月为芦苇生长期，高度在生长后期（5月～7月）增长快速，密度在生长前期（3月～5月）增长快速；芦苇密度在6月后基本稳定，芦苇高度在7月还略有增长。人工芦苇湿地芦苇高度要大于原生芦苇湿地，但芦苇密度低，对两地生长期芦苇高度和密度进行t检验发现差异不显著（p>0.05），鸟类群落差异可能和其他因素关系更大。
4、在空间尺度上，对收割前芦苇生境中鸟类的空间利用情况进行了调查。水平空间上，分为芦苇-陆地、苇丛内、芦苇-水域、苇荡明水面四种。鸟类种类在芦苇-水域、芦苇-陆地区域较多，分别占到总种数的60%和50%，苇丛内、芦苇-陆地区域鸟类的数量较多，分别占到总数量的44.30%和30.70%。垂直空间上，将芦苇植被分为上中下三层。鸟类种类在芦苇植被的下层最多占总种数的70%，数量在芦苇植被的下层和中层居多，分别占53.84%和34.75%。通过观察到的行为记录，发现和芦苇关系较为密切的鸟类有13种。当地芦苇整体收割的方式对鸟类密度、冬候鸟越冬、特化种觅食影响很大。基于对鸟类群落和种群的保护，芦苇收割可以采取适当保留水域和陆地边缘的芦苇带或仅收割芦苇植被中上层的方式。
During June.2010and May.2011,in the Suzhou taihu lake national wetland park and thelakeside reed wetland,we studied the avian community structures.The characteristics of aviancommunities were analyzed and communities characteristic were compared between artificialreed wetland and natural reed wetland. Moreover, the impact of avian communities brought bythe reed reap was analyzed too. The main results conveyed as follows:
1. Fifty bird species were recorded during the investigation and belonged to11order28families while29Passeriformes species were counted and comprised77.74%of the overallspecies with dominant numbers. Of all the species Resident bird and summer visitor comprisedabout66%with33species. The dynamic law of the avian density and species remained stableduring the year, the density and species reached its bottoms in January and February, then bounceback, the avian species reached its peak30in May and the avian density reached its peak14.74/ha in June. When it came to September, the density and species began to decline. October,November and December the avian density and species remain stable. The avian species,diversity and evenness exhibit obvious abundance in spring compared with other seasonsespecially winter, which showed lowest abundance in avian community.
2. There were39and36kinds of bird species in artificial reed wetland and natural reedwetland respectively, from which25species were recorded in both habitats. The similaritycoefficient was0.625showing medium spatial heterogeneity. Passeriformes were frequentlyobserved in artificial reed wetland but seldom observed in natural reed wetland. However, thenumber of winter visitors, summer visitors, residents and migrant birds were not changeddynamically during the year. Avian species that recorded in artificial reed wetland were moreabundant than that of natural reed wetland in spring and winter but the opposite satiation wasobserved in summer and autumn. Contrast bird density of each month, from February to May, theartificial reed wetland>native reed wetland; from June to January native reed wetland in>artificial reed wetland. The two different reed habitats both had highest similarity coefficient of0.593in autumn and reached lowest similarity coefficient0.487in spring. The biodiversity ofnatural reed wetland was abundant in spring and summer, while the biodiversity of artificial reedwetland was abundant in autumn and winter.
3. Investigation results were compared under three different temporal patterns, the monthbefore reed cutting, the reed cutting month, and the month after, in order to find the influence ofavian community due to reed cutting. This comparison revealed that ten avian speciesdisappeared in the cutting month but six more avian species were observed the month after.Passeriformes species were more sensitive towards reed cutting which rapidly decreased theavian community by50%. The highest similarity coefficient of the reed cutting month and afterwas0.647while the lowest similarity coefficient turned out to be0.423. The dynamic law of diversity index: the month after cutting>the month before> the cutting month, as well asevenness index: the month after cutting> the cutting month> the month before. After the cutting,new reeds began to grow in March. Reed height of rapid growth in May-July, the density of rapidgrowth in the March-May; reed density remained stable in June, reed height in July, continues togrow. The height of reed, artificial reed wetland greater than the native reed wetland, but reeddensity is low. T test found no significant difference (p>0.05).
4. Spatial scales of avian community were different. Horizontal scale was divided into fourtypes: reed to land area, reed-inside area, reed to water area, water inside reed area. Avian specieswere distributed mostly in reed to water area and reed to land area which counted for60%and50%respectively. The avian numbers were mainly counted in reed-inside area and reed to landarea which counted for44.30%and30.70%. In vertical scale dimension reed vegetation weredivided into top, middle and bottom layer. The avian species in bottom layer comprised most ofthe vertical scale which counted as70%. The avian numbers were identified mainly in the middleand bottom layer of reed vegetation which counted for53.84%and34.75%respectively.According to the avian behavior recorded, we found that13avian species were closely relatedwith the reed vegetation. The reed cutting events in local area had brought a huge impact on theavian community, especially affected the avian density, winter visitor overwintering, and theforaging of specialized species. Based on the avian conservation principle, we recommended thatreed cutting action should adopted the methods conveyed as follows: proper retention of thewater area and reed area near waterside or just reap the top and middle layer of the reedvegetation.
1、全年共记录到鸟类50种，隶属11目28科，雀形目鸟类有29种，数量上占绝对优势，占总数量的77.74%。留鸟和夏候鸟共33种，占总数量的66%。地理区系间差异不大，体现出南北过渡的特征。鸟类物种数和密度全年的变化趋势较为一致，最低值分别出现在1月和2月，之后开始种类和密度持续增长，5月种类达到全年最大30种，6月密度达到全年最大为14.74只/ha，至9月份为种类和密度的回落期，10、11、12月鸟种数和密度基本稳定。春季鸟类物种数、多样性、均匀度明显高于其他季节。
2、人工、原生芦苇湿地分别记录到鸟类39种、36种，共有物种25种，相似性系数为0.625，属于中等相似。人工芦苇湿地雀形目鸟类相对较多，原生芦苇湿地非雀形目水鸟类相对较多。居留型上差异不大，都体现为留鸟>夏侯鸟>冬候鸟>旅鸟的特征。各月鸟类物种数比较发现，冬季和春季人工芦苇湿地>原生芦苇湿地；夏季和秋季原生芦苇湿地>人工芦苇湿地。各月鸟类密度对比发现，2月至5月人工芦苇湿地>原生芦苇湿地；6月至1月原生芦苇湿地>人工芦苇湿地。两种生境鸟类群落在秋季相似性系数最高为0.593，春季最低相似性系数为0.487。春夏季原生芦苇湿地多样性高，人工芦苇湿地在秋冬季多样性高。
3、在时间尺度上将芦苇收割划分为收割前、收割当月、收割次月来研究收割对鸟类群影响的即时效应。结果显示，物种数在收割当月下降明显，有10种鸟类消失，而在收割次月比割前新增了6种鸟类。收割导致了鸟类密度的大量下降，收割当月和次月均超过50%。相似性系数显示：收割当月与收割次月最高为0.647、收割次月与收割前最低为0.423。多样性指数为收割次月>收割前>收割当月；均匀性指数为收割次月>收割当月>收割前。收割后的3月至7月为芦苇生长期，高度在生长后期（5月～7月）增长快速，密度在生长前期（3月～5月）增长快速；芦苇密度在6月后基本稳定，芦苇高度在7月还略有增长。人工芦苇湿地芦苇高度要大于原生芦苇湿地，但芦苇密度低，对两地生长期芦苇高度和密度进行t检验发现差异不显著（p>0.05），鸟类群落差异可能和其他因素关系更大。
4、在空间尺度上，对收割前芦苇生境中鸟类的空间利用情况进行了调查。水平空间上，分为芦苇-陆地、苇丛内、芦苇-水域、苇荡明水面四种。鸟类种类在芦苇-水域、芦苇-陆地区域较多，分别占到总种数的60%和50%，苇丛内、芦苇-陆地区域鸟类的数量较多，分别占到总数量的44.30%和30.70%。垂直空间上，将芦苇植被分为上中下三层。鸟类种类在芦苇植被的下层最多占总种数的70%，数量在芦苇植被的下层和中层居多，分别占53.84%和34.75%。通过观察到的行为记录，发现和芦苇关系较为密切的鸟类有13种。当地芦苇整体收割的方式对鸟类密度、冬候鸟越冬、特化种觅食影响很大。基于对鸟类群落和种群的保护，芦苇收割可以采取适当保留水域和陆地边缘的芦苇带或仅收割芦苇植被中上层的方式。
During June.2010and May.2011,in the Suzhou taihu lake national wetland park and thelakeside reed wetland,we studied the avian community structures.The characteristics of aviancommunities were analyzed and communities characteristic were compared between artificialreed wetland and natural reed wetland. Moreover, the impact of avian communities brought bythe reed reap was analyzed too. The main results conveyed as follows:
1. Fifty bird species were recorded during the investigation and belonged to11order28families while29Passeriformes species were counted and comprised77.74%of the overallspecies with dominant numbers. Of all the species Resident bird and summer visitor comprisedabout66%with33species. The dynamic law of the avian density and species remained stableduring the year, the density and species reached its bottoms in January and February, then bounceback, the avian species reached its peak30in May and the avian density reached its peak14.74/ha in June. When it came to September, the density and species began to decline. October,November and December the avian density and species remain stable. The avian species,diversity and evenness exhibit obvious abundance in spring compared with other seasonsespecially winter, which showed lowest abundance in avian community.
2. There were39and36kinds of bird species in artificial reed wetland and natural reedwetland respectively, from which25species were recorded in both habitats. The similaritycoefficient was0.625showing medium spatial heterogeneity. Passeriformes were frequentlyobserved in artificial reed wetland but seldom observed in natural reed wetland. However, thenumber of winter visitors, summer visitors, residents and migrant birds were not changeddynamically during the year. Avian species that recorded in artificial reed wetland were moreabundant than that of natural reed wetland in spring and winter but the opposite satiation wasobserved in summer and autumn. Contrast bird density of each month, from February to May, theartificial reed wetland>native reed wetland; from June to January native reed wetland in>artificial reed wetland. The two different reed habitats both had highest similarity coefficient of0.593in autumn and reached lowest similarity coefficient0.487in spring. The biodiversity ofnatural reed wetland was abundant in spring and summer, while the biodiversity of artificial reedwetland was abundant in autumn and winter.
3. Investigation results were compared under three different temporal patterns, the monthbefore reed cutting, the reed cutting month, and the month after, in order to find the influence ofavian community due to reed cutting. This comparison revealed that ten avian speciesdisappeared in the cutting month but six more avian species were observed the month after.Passeriformes species were more sensitive towards reed cutting which rapidly decreased theavian community by50%. The highest similarity coefficient of the reed cutting month and afterwas0.647while the lowest similarity coefficient turned out to be0.423. The dynamic law of diversity index: the month after cutting>the month before> the cutting month, as well asevenness index: the month after cutting> the cutting month> the month before. After the cutting,new reeds began to grow in March. Reed height of rapid growth in May-July, the density of rapidgrowth in the March-May; reed density remained stable in June, reed height in July, continues togrow. The height of reed, artificial reed wetland greater than the native reed wetland, but reeddensity is low. T test found no significant difference (p>0.05).
4. Spatial scales of avian community were different. Horizontal scale was divided into fourtypes: reed to land area, reed-inside area, reed to water area, water inside reed area. Avian specieswere distributed mostly in reed to water area and reed to land area which counted for60%and50%respectively. The avian numbers were mainly counted in reed-inside area and reed to landarea which counted for44.30%and30.70%. In vertical scale dimension reed vegetation weredivided into top, middle and bottom layer. The avian species in bottom layer comprised most ofthe vertical scale which counted as70%. The avian numbers were identified mainly in the middleand bottom layer of reed vegetation which counted for53.84%and34.75%respectively.According to the avian behavior recorded, we found that13avian species were closely relatedwith the reed vegetation. The reed cutting events in local area had brought a huge impact on theavian community, especially affected the avian density, winter visitor overwintering, and theforaging of specialized species. Based on the avian conservation principle, we recommended thatreed cutting action should adopted the methods conveyed as follows: proper retention of thewater area and reed area near waterside or just reap the top and middle layer of the reedvegetation.
引文
[1]安树青.2003.湿地生态工程—湿地资源利用与保护的优化模式.北京:化学工业出版社.
[2]曾曙才,陈水莲,曹珍.2008.我国湿地资源特征、研究现状与保护对策.24(1):88-91.
[3]陈荷生.2003.太湖流域湿地及保护措施.水资源研究,24(3):27-29.
[4]陈锦云,周立志.2011.安徽沿江浅水湖泊越冬水鸟群落的集团结构.生态学报,31(18):5323-5331.
[5]崔晓星,洪剑明,等.2011.北京野鸭湖湿地恢复工程的生物多样性效应研究.首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),32(4):51-56.
[6]邓学建,王斌.2000.南洞庭湖冬季鸟类群落结构及多样性分析.四川动物,19(4):236-238.
[7]范学忠,张利权,等.2011.基于空间分带的崇明东滩水鸟适宜生境的时空动态分析.生态学报,31(13):3820-3829.
[8]方文珍,陈志鸿,等.2007.厦门滨海湿地冬季鸟类群落多样性研究.海洋科学,31(1):10-16.
[9]付守强,张承惠.2010.黄河三角洲水鸟年度动态变化及其规律分析.山东林业科技,189(4):20-25.
[10]傅桐生,高玮,宋榆钧.1987.鸟类分类及生态学.北京:高等教育出版社.
[11]高德,张静,等.2009.北京野鸭湖湿地自然保护区冬季鸟类生境选择研究.7(2):162-168.
[12]高伟,陆健健.2008.长江口潮滩湿地鸟类适栖地营造实验及短期效应.生态学报,28(5):2081-2089.
[13]高玮.1991.中国鸟类研究.北京:科学出版社.
[14]高玮.1993.鸟类生态学.长春:东北师范大学出版社.
[15]葛振鸣,王天厚,等.2006.长江口杭州湾鸻形目鸟类群落季节变化和生境选择.生态学报,26(1):40-46.
[16]葛振鸣.2007.长江口滨海湿地迁徙水禽群落特征及生境修复策略.上海,华东师范大学.
[17]关雪,李枫,等.2009.扎龙国家级自然保护区水鸟群落季节性变化调查.野生动物杂志,30(4):180-184.
[18]衡楠楠,牛俊英,等.2011.鸻形目鸟类对南汇滨海滩涂的生境选择.复旦学报(自然科学版),50(3):296-301.
[19]惠鑫,马强,等.2009.崇明东滩鸻鹬类迁徙路线的环志分析.动物学杂志,44(3):23-29.
[20]江红星,楚国忠,侯韵秋.2002.江苏盐城黑嘴鸥的繁殖栖息地选择.生态学报,22(7):999-1004.
[21]江香梅,周敏荣,等.2009.鄱阳湖退化湿地生态系统恢复策略初探.江西林业科技,2009(6):50-53.
[22]蒋科毅,吴明,邵学新.2011.杭州湾及钱塘江河口水鸟群落组成、季节动态及种间相关性分析动物学研究,32(6):631-640.
[23]孔飞,何玉邦,等.2011.青海湖湿地鸭科鸟类群落结构.动物学杂志,46(6):57-64.
[24]李丽平,钟福生,王德良.2012.退田还湖对洞庭湖湿地鸟类的影响.四川动物,31(1):64-70.
[25]李丽平,钟福生.2010.湖南东洞庭湖湿地鸟类群落多样性和均匀性比较.29(6):925-929.
[26]李晓文,胡远满,肖笃宁.1999.景观生态学与生物多样性保护.生态学报,19(3):399-407.
[27]刘福剀,李枫,等.2008.扎龙秋季鸟类群落多样性调查.野生动物杂志,29(5):234-238.
[28]刘吉平,吕宪国.2011.三江平原湿地鸟类丰富度的空间格局及热点地区保护.生态学报,32(20):5894-5902.
[29]刘吉平,张顺,陈智文.2008.人类活动对三江平原东北部湿地鸟类的干扰.东北林业大学学报,36(12):40-42.
[30]陆健健,何文珊,等.2006.湿地生态学.北京:高等教育出版社.
[31]孙砚峰,李剑平,等.2012.滹沱河湿地石家庄段水鸟群落结构及多样性.四川动物,31(2)297-302.
[32]唐剑,鲁长虎,袁安全.2007.洪泽湖东部湿地自然保护区雁鸭类种类组成、数量及生境分布.动物学杂志,42(1):94-101.
[33]特喜铁,梁秀梅.2009.达赉湖保护区水鸟生境利用研究.野生动物杂志,30(5):252-254.
[34]田波,周云轩,等.2008.遥感与GIS支持下的崇明东滩迁徙鸟类生境适宜性分析.生态学报,28(7):3049-3059.
[35]涂业苟,俞长好,黄晓凤,等.2009.鄱阳湖区域越冬雁鸭类分布与数量.江西农业大学学报,31(4):760-771.
[36]王广豪,周莉.2006.黄河三角洲自然保护区黑脸琵鹭野外调查及其生境分析.山东林业科技,162(1):16-17.
[37]王浩民.2010.扎龙湿地的生态保护与修复措施.黑龙江水利科技,38(4):1-3.
[38]王加连,吕士成,陈亚.2011.江苏盐城滩涂湿地雁鸭类资源调查及保护对策.湿地科学与管理,7(2):39-42.
[39]王强,吕宪国.2008.三江平原芦苇沼泽边缘鸟类多样性特征.东北林业大学学报,36(7):53-55.
[40]文祯中,王庆林,孙儒泳.1998.鹭科鸟类种间关系的研究.生态学杂志,17(1):27-34.
[41]翁白莎,严登华,赵志轩,等.2010.人工湿地系统在湖泊生态修复中的作用.生态学杂志,29(12):2514-2520.
[42]吴迪,岳峰,等.2011.上海大莲湖湖滨带湿地的生态修复.生态学报,31(11):2999-3008.
[43]吴后建,王学雷.2006.中国湿地生态恢复效果评价研究进展.湿地科学,4(4):304-310.
[44]吴庆明.2010.扎龙国家级自然保护区湿地注水恢复期鸟类群落研究.哈尔滨,东北林业大学.
[45]熊李虎,吴翔,等.2007.芦苇收割对震旦鸦雀觅食活动的影响.动物学杂志,42(6):41-47.
[46]徐玲,李波,等.2006.崇明东滩春季鸟类群落特征.动物学杂志,41(6):120-126.
[47]杨敏,吴庆明,等.2008.春季人为干扰活动对扎龙湿地鸟类群落结构影响的初步研究.野生动物杂志,29(3):118-120.
[48]杨月伟,夏贵荣,等.2005.浙江乐清湾湿地水鸟资源及其多样性特征.生物多样性,13(6):507-513.
[49]袁晓,裴恩乐,严晶晶,等.2011.上海城区公园绿地鸟类群落结构及其季节变化.复旦学报(自然科学版),50(3):344-351.
[50]岳峰.2011.上海大莲湖湿地修复中的鸟类多样性保育和栖息地优化.上海,华东师范大学.
[51]张佰莲,谷金学,等.2009.黑龙江大沾河湿地自然保护区鸟类群落结构调查及其多样性分析.四川动物,28(6):933-939.
[52]张敬皆.2011.鄱阳湖荷溪退田还湖湿地区域鸟类多样性及其保护对策.湿地科学与管理,7(4):22-24.
[53]张荣祖.1999.中国动物地理.北京:科学出版社.
[54]张绪良,付炳中,等.2008.胶州湾滨海湿地的水禽多样性特征及保护.海洋湖沼通报,2008(3):99-107.
[55]赵串串,杨晓阳,等.2007.青海湖流域湿地显著调查与分析.陕西林业科技,4:49-51.
[56]赵锦霞,刘昊,张利权.2008.崇明东滩越冬鸟类在养殖塘的空间分布.动物学研究,29(2):212-218.
[57]赵延茂,吕卷章,等.2001黄河三角洲自然保护区鸻形目鸟类研究.动物学报,47(专刊):157-161.
[58]郑光美.2005.中国鸟类分类与分布名录.北京:科学出版社.
[59]朱书玉,吕卷章,等.2000.黄河三角洲国家级自然保护区鸻形目鸟类食性及觅食地的研究.山东林业科技,130(5):10-13.
[60] Ahlering M A, Faaborg J.2006. Avian habitat management meet conspecific attraction, if you build it, willthey come? The Auk,123:301-312.
[61] Coveney M F, Stites D L, Lowe E F, et al.2002. Nuterent removal from eutrophic lake water by wetlandfiltration. Ecological Engineering,19:141-159.
[62] Furness R W, Greenwood J D, Jarvis P J.1993. Can birds be used to monitor the environment?//FurnessR W, Greenwood J D eds. Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change. London: Chapman and Hall.
[63] Graveland J.1999. Effects of reed cutting on density and breeding success of Reed Warbler Acrocephalusscirpacaeus and Sedge Warbler A. schoenobaenus. Avian Biol,30:469-482.
[64] Hattori A, Mae S.2001. Habitat use and diversity of waterbirds in a coastal lagoon around Iake Biwa,Japan. Ecological Research,16:543-553.
[65] MA Z J, LI B, Zhao B, et al.2004. Are artificial wetlands good alternatives to natural wetlands forwaterbirds?–A case study on Chongming Island, China. Biodiversity and Conservation,13:333-350.
[66] Malakoff D.1998. Restored wetlands flunk real-world test. Science,280:371-372.
[67] Platteeuw M, Eerden V, et al.2010. The need for future wetland bird studies: scales of habitat use as inputfor ecological restoration and spatial water management. Ardea,98(3):403-416.
[68] Poulin B, Lefebvre G.2002. Effect of winter cutting on the passerine breeding assemblage in FrenchMediterranean reedbeds. Biodiversity and Conservation,11:1567-1581.
[69] Robarts R D, Waiser M J, Hadas O, et al.1998. Relaxation of phosphoruslim itation duetotyphooninduced mixing in two morphologically distingctbasins of Lake Biwa, japan. Limnology and Oceanogrphy,43:1023-1035.
[70] Schmidt M H. et al.2005. Reed cutting affects arthropod communities, potentially reducing food forpasserine birds. Biological Conservation,121:157-166.
[71] Sondergaard M, Kristensen P, Jeppesen E.1992. Phosphorus release from resuspended sediment in theshallow and wind-exposed Lake Arreso, Denm ark. Hydrobiologia,228:91-99.
[72] Tanneberger F, Tegetmeyer C, Dylawerski M, et al.2009. Commercially cut reed as a new and sustainablehabitat for the globally threatened Aquatic Warbler. Biodivers Conserv,18:1475-1489.
[73] Trnka A, Prokop P.2006. Structure and habitat preference of reed passerines during the post-breedingperiod. Biologia, Bratislava,61(2):225-230.
[74] Vadásc C. Némét á, et al.2008. The effect of reed cutting on the abdundance and diversity of breedingpasserines. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae,54(Suppl.1):177-188.
[75] Valkama E, Lyytinen S, Koricheva J.2008. The impact of reed management on wildlife: Ameta-analytical review of European studies. Biological Conservation,360-374.
[76] Ward M P, Semel B, Herkert J R.2011. Identifying the ecological causes of long-term declines ofwetland-dependent birds in an urbanizing landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation,19(11):3287-3300.
[77] Webb E B, Smith L M, et al.2010. Effects of local and landscape variables on wetland bird habitat useduring migration through the rainwater basin. Wildlife Management,74(1):109-119.
[2]曾曙才,陈水莲,曹珍.2008.我国湿地资源特征、研究现状与保护对策.24(1):88-91.
[3]陈荷生.2003.太湖流域湿地及保护措施.水资源研究,24(3):27-29.
[4]陈锦云,周立志.2011.安徽沿江浅水湖泊越冬水鸟群落的集团结构.生态学报,31(18):5323-5331.
[5]崔晓星,洪剑明,等.2011.北京野鸭湖湿地恢复工程的生物多样性效应研究.首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),32(4):51-56.
[6]邓学建,王斌.2000.南洞庭湖冬季鸟类群落结构及多样性分析.四川动物,19(4):236-238.
[7]范学忠,张利权,等.2011.基于空间分带的崇明东滩水鸟适宜生境的时空动态分析.生态学报,31(13):3820-3829.
[8]方文珍,陈志鸿,等.2007.厦门滨海湿地冬季鸟类群落多样性研究.海洋科学,31(1):10-16.
[9]付守强,张承惠.2010.黄河三角洲水鸟年度动态变化及其规律分析.山东林业科技,189(4):20-25.
[10]傅桐生,高玮,宋榆钧.1987.鸟类分类及生态学.北京:高等教育出版社.
[11]高德,张静,等.2009.北京野鸭湖湿地自然保护区冬季鸟类生境选择研究.7(2):162-168.
[12]高伟,陆健健.2008.长江口潮滩湿地鸟类适栖地营造实验及短期效应.生态学报,28(5):2081-2089.
[13]高玮.1991.中国鸟类研究.北京:科学出版社.
[14]高玮.1993.鸟类生态学.长春:东北师范大学出版社.
[15]葛振鸣,王天厚,等.2006.长江口杭州湾鸻形目鸟类群落季节变化和生境选择.生态学报,26(1):40-46.
[16]葛振鸣.2007.长江口滨海湿地迁徙水禽群落特征及生境修复策略.上海,华东师范大学.
[17]关雪,李枫,等.2009.扎龙国家级自然保护区水鸟群落季节性变化调查.野生动物杂志,30(4):180-184.
[18]衡楠楠,牛俊英,等.2011.鸻形目鸟类对南汇滨海滩涂的生境选择.复旦学报(自然科学版),50(3):296-301.
[19]惠鑫,马强,等.2009.崇明东滩鸻鹬类迁徙路线的环志分析.动物学杂志,44(3):23-29.
[20]江红星,楚国忠,侯韵秋.2002.江苏盐城黑嘴鸥的繁殖栖息地选择.生态学报,22(7):999-1004.
[21]江香梅,周敏荣,等.2009.鄱阳湖退化湿地生态系统恢复策略初探.江西林业科技,2009(6):50-53.
[22]蒋科毅,吴明,邵学新.2011.杭州湾及钱塘江河口水鸟群落组成、季节动态及种间相关性分析动物学研究,32(6):631-640.
[23]孔飞,何玉邦,等.2011.青海湖湿地鸭科鸟类群落结构.动物学杂志,46(6):57-64.
[24]李丽平,钟福生,王德良.2012.退田还湖对洞庭湖湿地鸟类的影响.四川动物,31(1):64-70.
[25]李丽平,钟福生.2010.湖南东洞庭湖湿地鸟类群落多样性和均匀性比较.29(6):925-929.
[26]李晓文,胡远满,肖笃宁.1999.景观生态学与生物多样性保护.生态学报,19(3):399-407.
[27]刘福剀,李枫,等.2008.扎龙秋季鸟类群落多样性调查.野生动物杂志,29(5):234-238.
[28]刘吉平,吕宪国.2011.三江平原湿地鸟类丰富度的空间格局及热点地区保护.生态学报,32(20):5894-5902.
[29]刘吉平,张顺,陈智文.2008.人类活动对三江平原东北部湿地鸟类的干扰.东北林业大学学报,36(12):40-42.
[30]陆健健,何文珊,等.2006.湿地生态学.北京:高等教育出版社.
[31]孙砚峰,李剑平,等.2012.滹沱河湿地石家庄段水鸟群落结构及多样性.四川动物,31(2)297-302.
[32]唐剑,鲁长虎,袁安全.2007.洪泽湖东部湿地自然保护区雁鸭类种类组成、数量及生境分布.动物学杂志,42(1):94-101.
[33]特喜铁,梁秀梅.2009.达赉湖保护区水鸟生境利用研究.野生动物杂志,30(5):252-254.
[34]田波,周云轩,等.2008.遥感与GIS支持下的崇明东滩迁徙鸟类生境适宜性分析.生态学报,28(7):3049-3059.
[35]涂业苟,俞长好,黄晓凤,等.2009.鄱阳湖区域越冬雁鸭类分布与数量.江西农业大学学报,31(4):760-771.
[36]王广豪,周莉.2006.黄河三角洲自然保护区黑脸琵鹭野外调查及其生境分析.山东林业科技,162(1):16-17.
[37]王浩民.2010.扎龙湿地的生态保护与修复措施.黑龙江水利科技,38(4):1-3.
[38]王加连,吕士成,陈亚.2011.江苏盐城滩涂湿地雁鸭类资源调查及保护对策.湿地科学与管理,7(2):39-42.
[39]王强,吕宪国.2008.三江平原芦苇沼泽边缘鸟类多样性特征.东北林业大学学报,36(7):53-55.
[40]文祯中,王庆林,孙儒泳.1998.鹭科鸟类种间关系的研究.生态学杂志,17(1):27-34.
[41]翁白莎,严登华,赵志轩,等.2010.人工湿地系统在湖泊生态修复中的作用.生态学杂志,29(12):2514-2520.
[42]吴迪,岳峰,等.2011.上海大莲湖湖滨带湿地的生态修复.生态学报,31(11):2999-3008.
[43]吴后建,王学雷.2006.中国湿地生态恢复效果评价研究进展.湿地科学,4(4):304-310.
[44]吴庆明.2010.扎龙国家级自然保护区湿地注水恢复期鸟类群落研究.哈尔滨,东北林业大学.
[45]熊李虎,吴翔,等.2007.芦苇收割对震旦鸦雀觅食活动的影响.动物学杂志,42(6):41-47.
[46]徐玲,李波,等.2006.崇明东滩春季鸟类群落特征.动物学杂志,41(6):120-126.
[47]杨敏,吴庆明,等.2008.春季人为干扰活动对扎龙湿地鸟类群落结构影响的初步研究.野生动物杂志,29(3):118-120.
[48]杨月伟,夏贵荣,等.2005.浙江乐清湾湿地水鸟资源及其多样性特征.生物多样性,13(6):507-513.
[49]袁晓,裴恩乐,严晶晶,等.2011.上海城区公园绿地鸟类群落结构及其季节变化.复旦学报(自然科学版),50(3):344-351.
[50]岳峰.2011.上海大莲湖湿地修复中的鸟类多样性保育和栖息地优化.上海,华东师范大学.
[51]张佰莲,谷金学,等.2009.黑龙江大沾河湿地自然保护区鸟类群落结构调查及其多样性分析.四川动物,28(6):933-939.
[52]张敬皆.2011.鄱阳湖荷溪退田还湖湿地区域鸟类多样性及其保护对策.湿地科学与管理,7(4):22-24.
[53]张荣祖.1999.中国动物地理.北京:科学出版社.
[54]张绪良,付炳中,等.2008.胶州湾滨海湿地的水禽多样性特征及保护.海洋湖沼通报,2008(3):99-107.
[55]赵串串,杨晓阳,等.2007.青海湖流域湿地显著调查与分析.陕西林业科技,4:49-51.
[56]赵锦霞,刘昊,张利权.2008.崇明东滩越冬鸟类在养殖塘的空间分布.动物学研究,29(2):212-218.
[57]赵延茂,吕卷章,等.2001黄河三角洲自然保护区鸻形目鸟类研究.动物学报,47(专刊):157-161.
[58]郑光美.2005.中国鸟类分类与分布名录.北京:科学出版社.
[59]朱书玉,吕卷章,等.2000.黄河三角洲国家级自然保护区鸻形目鸟类食性及觅食地的研究.山东林业科技,130(5):10-13.
[60] Ahlering M A, Faaborg J.2006. Avian habitat management meet conspecific attraction, if you build it, willthey come? The Auk,123:301-312.
[61] Coveney M F, Stites D L, Lowe E F, et al.2002. Nuterent removal from eutrophic lake water by wetlandfiltration. Ecological Engineering,19:141-159.
[62] Furness R W, Greenwood J D, Jarvis P J.1993. Can birds be used to monitor the environment?//FurnessR W, Greenwood J D eds. Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change. London: Chapman and Hall.
[63] Graveland J.1999. Effects of reed cutting on density and breeding success of Reed Warbler Acrocephalusscirpacaeus and Sedge Warbler A. schoenobaenus. Avian Biol,30:469-482.
[64] Hattori A, Mae S.2001. Habitat use and diversity of waterbirds in a coastal lagoon around Iake Biwa,Japan. Ecological Research,16:543-553.
[65] MA Z J, LI B, Zhao B, et al.2004. Are artificial wetlands good alternatives to natural wetlands forwaterbirds?–A case study on Chongming Island, China. Biodiversity and Conservation,13:333-350.
[66] Malakoff D.1998. Restored wetlands flunk real-world test. Science,280:371-372.
[67] Platteeuw M, Eerden V, et al.2010. The need for future wetland bird studies: scales of habitat use as inputfor ecological restoration and spatial water management. Ardea,98(3):403-416.
[68] Poulin B, Lefebvre G.2002. Effect of winter cutting on the passerine breeding assemblage in FrenchMediterranean reedbeds. Biodiversity and Conservation,11:1567-1581.
[69] Robarts R D, Waiser M J, Hadas O, et al.1998. Relaxation of phosphoruslim itation duetotyphooninduced mixing in two morphologically distingctbasins of Lake Biwa, japan. Limnology and Oceanogrphy,43:1023-1035.
[70] Schmidt M H. et al.2005. Reed cutting affects arthropod communities, potentially reducing food forpasserine birds. Biological Conservation,121:157-166.
[71] Sondergaard M, Kristensen P, Jeppesen E.1992. Phosphorus release from resuspended sediment in theshallow and wind-exposed Lake Arreso, Denm ark. Hydrobiologia,228:91-99.
[72] Tanneberger F, Tegetmeyer C, Dylawerski M, et al.2009. Commercially cut reed as a new and sustainablehabitat for the globally threatened Aquatic Warbler. Biodivers Conserv,18:1475-1489.
[73] Trnka A, Prokop P.2006. Structure and habitat preference of reed passerines during the post-breedingperiod. Biologia, Bratislava,61(2):225-230.
[74] Vadásc C. Némét á, et al.2008. The effect of reed cutting on the abdundance and diversity of breedingpasserines. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae,54(Suppl.1):177-188.
[75] Valkama E, Lyytinen S, Koricheva J.2008. The impact of reed management on wildlife: Ameta-analytical review of European studies. Biological Conservation,360-374.
[76] Ward M P, Semel B, Herkert J R.2011. Identifying the ecological causes of long-term declines ofwetland-dependent birds in an urbanizing landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation,19(11):3287-3300.
[77] Webb E B, Smith L M, et al.2010. Effects of local and landscape variables on wetland bird habitat useduring migration through the rainwater basin. Wildlife Management,74(1):109-119.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |