不同抗性品种（品系）稻田捕食性节肢动物群落结构与生态位研究
|
摘要
2003年于南宁对国粳4号(抗虫品种)、佛山油粘(中抗品种)、特优18(感虫品种)3个稻田捕食性节肢动物群落调查结果表明，共有捕食性节肢动物2纲5目24科67种，其中捕食性昆虫4目11科20种，蜘蛛1目13科47种，早稻丰富度高于晚稻。蜘蛛类的相对丰盛度远远高于捕食性昆虫类。品种之间以中抗品种的丰富度高于抗虫和感虫品种。早稻以皿蛛科的食虫沟瘤蛛占优势地位，晚稻则以狼蛛科的相对丰盛度最高，种类以食虫沟瘤蛛的相对丰盛度最高。
早稻不同抗性品种捕食性天敌数量动态不相同，其中以中抗品种峰期最长。感性样田中天敌平均密度与中抗样田差异不显著，与抗虫品种差异显著。早稻蜘蛛亚群落的多样性高于捕食性昆虫亚群落，品种之间则是随着品种抗性的增强，捕食性节肢动物多样性呈降低趋势。优势度则随着品种抗性的增强而增强。综合认为中抗品种保持较高的天敌密度且高峰期长，并且多样性高于抗虫品种，表明中抗品种的抗虫性与天敌的捕食性可能存在协同关系。
晚稻水稻品种抗性对捕食性节肢动物群落数量结构影响显著，两个抗性样田中天敌的平均密度与感性样田差异显著，晚稻各品种样田的多样性明显高于早稻，且波动幅度小于早稻，晚稻群落具有较高的稳定性。而各品种之间多样性差异较小，中抗品种优势度较高。
分析不同抗性样田中蜘蛛类的年龄结构，各品种在水稻在各个生长发
广西大学硕t:论文
不同抗性品系稻田捕食性节肢动物群落结构与生态位研究
乙育时期均以若蛛占优势地位，整个群体呈增长型。
3个不同抗性品种稻飞虱及其主要捕食性天敌生态位研究结果表明，早
稻两个抗性品种以栉齿锯鳌蛛的空间生态位宽度最大，感性品种以隐翅甲
的空间生态位宽度最大。同一种捕食性天敌在不同抗性品种的空间生态位
呈现不同趋势。早稻群落各样田均以八斑鞘腹蛛和食虫沟瘤蛛的时间一空
间二维生态位宽度最高。各品种均以食虫沟瘤蛛对稻飞虱的二维重叠值最
高。两个抗性品种之间对比结果表明，除狼蛛以外其余天敌与稻飞虱的二
维重叠均以中抗品种高于抗虫品种，这在生态位上进一步证明中抗品种能
更有效地控制稻飞虱的数量。
晚稻时间一空间二维生态位宽度较大者为肖峭，天敌之间的二维重叠
以及同一种天敌对稻飞虱的二维重叠，一般呈现晚稻二维重叠值高于早稻。
由此可见晚稻群落天敌之间的竞争明显加强了，天敌对食物资源的竞争作
用也更为明显。品种之间比较结果为:中抗品种天敌与稻飞虱的时间生态
位重叠值明显高于抗虫和感虫品种;天敌对稻飞虱的二维生态位重叠有3
种天敌与稻飞虱的重叠是中抗品种高于抗虫品种，有4种天敌与稻飞虱的
二维重叠是抗虫品种高于中抗品种。
The structure of the predatory arthropod community was investigated in the paddy field of various resistant rice varieties in Nanning in 2003. The result shown that there were 2 class, 5 orders, 24 families, 67 species predatory arthropods, it included predatory insects which have 4 orders 11 families 20 species and spiders which have 1 order 13 families 47 species. The abundance of predatory arthropod community in early rice field was higher than that of late rice field. The abundance of spiders was far higher than that of predatory insects. The abundance of medial resistant variety rice was higher than that of resistant or susceptible varieties. Ulmmeliata insecticeps play a key role controlling rice planthopper in rice field, the relative abundance ofLycosidae was highest in late rice field, but the dominant species was still Ulmmeliata insecticeps.
In early community the fluctuation tendency of predatory natural enemies were different in different resistant rice samples, the peak phase of the medial variety rice was longest among three samples. The mean densities of natural enemies were not significantly different between the susceptible and medial resistant varieties, but it were significantly different between the sensitive and resistant varieties. The diversity of the sub-community of spiders was higher than that of predatory insect sub-community, and the diversity of predatory arthropod was decreased when the resistance of variety was increased. The concentration was increased when the resistance of variety was increased. In the medial resistant variety rice field not only natural enemies could keep higher level but also their peak phase was longest. And the diversity of predatory arthropod was higher than that of resistant variety rice. The result shown that there could be a co-relation between the resistance and the predatory of natural enemies t
o insects on medial resistant variety rice.
In late rice community, resistant variety rice gave significant effects on the
structure of predatory communities. Mean density of natural enemies was significantly different between two kings of resistant variety rice and susceptible variety rice. Not only was the diversity of late rice significantly higher than that of early rice, but also it's fluctuation was less than that of early rice. It has shown that the community of late rice has higher stability. However, the diversity was little different among different varieties rice. The concentration of medial variety rice was the highest.
The study on niche of rice planthopper and its main predatory natural enemies among three samples has show that the space niche breadth of Dyschiriognatha dentate was the highest in two kinds of resistant varieties rice fields, and Paederus fuscipes was the highest in the susceptible variety rice. The space niche of the same predatory natural enemy in three samples was different. In early rice community time-space niche breadth of Coleosoma octomaculatum, Ulmmeliata insecticeps were the largest at all samples, and time-space niche overlap of Ulmmeliata insecticeps to rice planthopper was the highest in every samples, and time-space niche overlap of all natural enemies to rice planthopper were all higher in the medial variety rice than that of resistant variety rice except Lycosidae. The result indicated that medial variety rice could more effectively control the amount of rice planthopper.
In late rice community, the time-space niche breadth of Tetragnathidae was the highest. Generally, not only predators each other but also predators to rice planthoppers' time-space niche overlap were higher in the late rice field than that of early rice field. It has shown that the competition between these predators and competed with predators each other for preys were intense in late rice community. The time niche overlap of predators to rice planthopper was higher in the medial variety rice than that of resistant or susceptible varieties rice. There were three predators to rice planthoppers time-space niche overlap in medial resistant variety
早稻不同抗性品种捕食性天敌数量动态不相同，其中以中抗品种峰期最长。感性样田中天敌平均密度与中抗样田差异不显著，与抗虫品种差异显著。早稻蜘蛛亚群落的多样性高于捕食性昆虫亚群落，品种之间则是随着品种抗性的增强，捕食性节肢动物多样性呈降低趋势。优势度则随着品种抗性的增强而增强。综合认为中抗品种保持较高的天敌密度且高峰期长，并且多样性高于抗虫品种，表明中抗品种的抗虫性与天敌的捕食性可能存在协同关系。
晚稻水稻品种抗性对捕食性节肢动物群落数量结构影响显著，两个抗性样田中天敌的平均密度与感性样田差异显著，晚稻各品种样田的多样性明显高于早稻，且波动幅度小于早稻，晚稻群落具有较高的稳定性。而各品种之间多样性差异较小，中抗品种优势度较高。
分析不同抗性样田中蜘蛛类的年龄结构，各品种在水稻在各个生长发
广西大学硕t:论文
不同抗性品系稻田捕食性节肢动物群落结构与生态位研究
乙育时期均以若蛛占优势地位，整个群体呈增长型。
3个不同抗性品种稻飞虱及其主要捕食性天敌生态位研究结果表明，早
稻两个抗性品种以栉齿锯鳌蛛的空间生态位宽度最大，感性品种以隐翅甲
的空间生态位宽度最大。同一种捕食性天敌在不同抗性品种的空间生态位
呈现不同趋势。早稻群落各样田均以八斑鞘腹蛛和食虫沟瘤蛛的时间一空
间二维生态位宽度最高。各品种均以食虫沟瘤蛛对稻飞虱的二维重叠值最
高。两个抗性品种之间对比结果表明，除狼蛛以外其余天敌与稻飞虱的二
维重叠均以中抗品种高于抗虫品种，这在生态位上进一步证明中抗品种能
更有效地控制稻飞虱的数量。
晚稻时间一空间二维生态位宽度较大者为肖峭，天敌之间的二维重叠
以及同一种天敌对稻飞虱的二维重叠，一般呈现晚稻二维重叠值高于早稻。
由此可见晚稻群落天敌之间的竞争明显加强了，天敌对食物资源的竞争作
用也更为明显。品种之间比较结果为:中抗品种天敌与稻飞虱的时间生态
位重叠值明显高于抗虫和感虫品种;天敌对稻飞虱的二维生态位重叠有3
种天敌与稻飞虱的重叠是中抗品种高于抗虫品种，有4种天敌与稻飞虱的
二维重叠是抗虫品种高于中抗品种。
The structure of the predatory arthropod community was investigated in the paddy field of various resistant rice varieties in Nanning in 2003. The result shown that there were 2 class, 5 orders, 24 families, 67 species predatory arthropods, it included predatory insects which have 4 orders 11 families 20 species and spiders which have 1 order 13 families 47 species. The abundance of predatory arthropod community in early rice field was higher than that of late rice field. The abundance of spiders was far higher than that of predatory insects. The abundance of medial resistant variety rice was higher than that of resistant or susceptible varieties. Ulmmeliata insecticeps play a key role controlling rice planthopper in rice field, the relative abundance ofLycosidae was highest in late rice field, but the dominant species was still Ulmmeliata insecticeps.
In early community the fluctuation tendency of predatory natural enemies were different in different resistant rice samples, the peak phase of the medial variety rice was longest among three samples. The mean densities of natural enemies were not significantly different between the susceptible and medial resistant varieties, but it were significantly different between the sensitive and resistant varieties. The diversity of the sub-community of spiders was higher than that of predatory insect sub-community, and the diversity of predatory arthropod was decreased when the resistance of variety was increased. The concentration was increased when the resistance of variety was increased. In the medial resistant variety rice field not only natural enemies could keep higher level but also their peak phase was longest. And the diversity of predatory arthropod was higher than that of resistant variety rice. The result shown that there could be a co-relation between the resistance and the predatory of natural enemies t
o insects on medial resistant variety rice.
In late rice community, resistant variety rice gave significant effects on the
structure of predatory communities. Mean density of natural enemies was significantly different between two kings of resistant variety rice and susceptible variety rice. Not only was the diversity of late rice significantly higher than that of early rice, but also it's fluctuation was less than that of early rice. It has shown that the community of late rice has higher stability. However, the diversity was little different among different varieties rice. The concentration of medial variety rice was the highest.
The study on niche of rice planthopper and its main predatory natural enemies among three samples has show that the space niche breadth of Dyschiriognatha dentate was the highest in two kinds of resistant varieties rice fields, and Paederus fuscipes was the highest in the susceptible variety rice. The space niche of the same predatory natural enemy in three samples was different. In early rice community time-space niche breadth of Coleosoma octomaculatum, Ulmmeliata insecticeps were the largest at all samples, and time-space niche overlap of Ulmmeliata insecticeps to rice planthopper was the highest in every samples, and time-space niche overlap of all natural enemies to rice planthopper were all higher in the medial variety rice than that of resistant variety rice except Lycosidae. The result indicated that medial variety rice could more effectively control the amount of rice planthopper.
In late rice community, the time-space niche breadth of Tetragnathidae was the highest. Generally, not only predators each other but also predators to rice planthoppers' time-space niche overlap were higher in the late rice field than that of early rice field. It has shown that the competition between these predators and competed with predators each other for preys were intense in late rice community. The time niche overlap of predators to rice planthopper was higher in the medial variety rice than that of resistant or susceptible varieties rice. There were three predators to rice planthoppers time-space niche overlap in medial resistant variety
引文
[1] 赫树广，张孝羲，程遐年．稻田节肢动物优势功能集团的垂直分布：数量动态及天敌作用估计．应用生态学报，2000，11(2)：103～107
[2] 张永强，何波．稻田蜘蛛空间分布型及抽样技术初步研究．广西农学院学报，1983，(2)：95～108
[3] 张永强．稻田生态系统蜘蛛种群动态初步研究．植物保护学报，1981，8(2)：101～110
[4] 徐嘉生，陈樟福，朱瑞良．浙江省稻田蜘蛛的研究与利用．昆虫天敌，1987，9(3)：140～144
[5] 赫树广，张孝羲，程遐年等．稻田节肢动物群落营养层及优势功能集团的组成及多样性动态．昆虫学报，1998，41(4)：343～353
[6] 张古忍，张文庆，古德祥．稻田主要节肢类捕食者群落的结构和动态．中山大学学报论丛，1995，：33～39
[7] 郭玉人，李森，杨莹等．沈阳地区稻阳节肢动物种类调查．沈阳农业大学学报，1999，30(2)：98～101
[8] 刘向东，张孝羲，罗跃进等．稻田节肢动物群落的多样性对褐飞虱的控制功能．昆虫学报，2002，45(3)：359～364
[9] 陶方玲，梁广文，庞雄飞．不同生境区稻田节肢动物群落动态分析．华南农业大学学报，1996，17(1)：25～30
[10] 郭玉杰，王念英，陈俊伟等．不同稻区节肢动物群落中捕食者与猎物的种类与数量特征．生物防治通报，1994，10(4)：157～161
[11] 农荣贵，张永强．稻田害虫和捕食性节肢动物群落结构和动态．蛛形学报，1998，7(1)：74～80
[12] 张永强．农田蜘蛛群落结构及其多样性研究生态学报，1989，9(2)：157～162
[13] 尤民生，吴中孚．福州郊区稻田节肢动物群落的结构和动念．福建农学院学报，1992，21(1)：56～62
[14] 张永强，何波．广西南部稻区生态系蜘蛛种群动态及其控制害虫效应研究．
广西农学院报，1984，(1)：25～34
[15] 周祖铭，李友荣，李菊燕等．湖南安仁地区稻田蜘蛛优势种群的动态．昆虫天敌，1992，14(3)：112～116
[16] Down RE, Louise F, Woodhouse S D. et.al. Snowdrop lectin (GNA) has no acute toxic effects on a deneficial insect predator, the z-spot ladybird (Adalia bipunctat L.l.J. Insect physiol, 2000, 46(4): 379～391
[17] 刘雨芳，张古忍，古德祥．农田生态系统中生境与植被多样性对节肢动物群落的影响及其作用机制探讨．湘潭师范学院学报，2000，21(6)：74～78
[18] 尤民生，吴中孚．稻田节肢动物群落的多样性．福建农学院学报，1989，18(4)：522～538
[19] 金翠霞，吴亚，王冬兰．稻田节肢动物群落多样性．昆虫学报，1990，33(3)：287～295
[20] 刘向东，张孝羲．选择性农药对稻田蜘蛛群落的影响．昆虫知识，1999，36(2)，67～70
[21] 张古忍，张文庆，古德祥．稻田主要节肢类捕食性天敌群落的多样性．中山大学学报论丛，1995，(2)：27～32
[22] 张文庆，张古忍，古德祥．稻田生境调节和捕食性天敌对稻飞虱的控制作用．生态学报，1998，18(3)：283～288
[23] 周强，张古忍，张文庆等．不同抗性品系稻田捕食性节肢动物群落的结构和动态．生态学报，1999，19(5)：728～731
[24] Obrycki JJ, Losey JE, Taylor OR, et.al. Transgenic insecticidal com: Beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. Bioscience, 2001, 51 (5): 353～361
[25] Wilson FD. Resistance of cotton lines containing a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin to pink boll worm and other insects. J. Econ. Entomol, 1992, 85(4): 1516～1521
[26] 崔金杰，夏敬源．麦套田夏播转Bt基因棉田主要害虫及其天敌的发生规律．棉花学报，1998，10(5)：255～262
[27] 邓曙东，徐静，张青文等．转Bt基因棉对非靶标害虫及害虫天敌种群动态的影响．昆虫学报，2003，46(1)：1～5
[28] 刘万学，候茂林，万方浩等．转Bt基因棉田蜘蛛的时空动态及控害作用．昆虫知识，2003，40(2)：160～163
[29] Riddick E W, Barbosa P. Impact of cry3 A-intoxicated Leptinotarsa decelineata (Coleoptera:chrysomelidae) and pollen on consumption, development, and fecundity of coleomegilla maculata (coleoptera:couinellidat). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am, 1998, 27(5): 1125～1136
[30] 刘志诚，叶恭银，胡萃等．Bt水稻对主要非靶标害虫和蜘蛛优势种田间种群动态的影响．植物保护，2002，29(2)：138～144
[31] 刘志诚，叶恭银，胡萃等．转CryI Ab／CryI Ac基因籼稻对稻田节肢动物群落影响．昆虫学报，2003，46(4)：454～465
[32] 杨云峰，古德祥，周之铭．稻田蜘蛛的空间生态位的初步研究．昆虫天敌，1990，12(3)：108～112
[33] 罗跃进，田学志，汪丽．双季早稻田主要捕食性天敌及稻飞虱的生态位的研究．安徽农业科学，26(3)：244～246
[34] 王智，曾伯平，李文健等．稻田蜘蛛优势种和目标害虫的时间生态位研究．湖南农业科学，2002，(2)：28～29
[35] 姜永厚，吴进才，徐建祥等．稻田蜘蛛生态位变化及杀虫剂对捕食功能的影响．生态学报，2002，22(8)：1286～1292
[36] 张文庆，张古忍，古德祥．稻飞虱及其节肢类捕食者的生态位关系研究．中山大学学报论丛，1995，(2)：21～26
[37] 黄凤宽，罗善昱，韦素美等．抗褐飞虱生物型Ⅱ水稻品种抗性稳定性研究．植物保护，2003，39(6)：14～16
[38] Song Daxiang, Zhu Ming Shing, Chen Jon. The spiders of China Shi jia-zhong: Hei bei Science and Technology Publishing House, 1999
[39] 张永强．广西蜘蛛名录(Ⅳ)．广西农业生物科学，2002，21(2)：134～144
[40] 张永强，尤其儆，蒲天胜等．广西昆虫名录．广西科学技术出版社，1994
[41] 尤其儆，黎天山，张永强等．广西经济昆虫图册．植食性昆虫．广西科学技术出版社，1990
[42] 李永禧，周至宏，王助引等．广西经济昆虫图册．捕食性昆虫．广西科学技术出版社，1990
[43] 宋大祥．中国农田蜘蛛．农业出版社，1987
[44] 忻介六．昆虫形态分类学．复旦大学出版社，1985
[45] 华南农学院主编．农业昆虫(上册)．农业出版社，1986
[46] 冯钟琪．中国蜘蛛原色图鉴．长沙：湖南科学技术出版社，1990
[47] 中国科学院动物研究所，浙江大学．天敌昆虫图册．北京：科学出版社，1980
[48] 陈孝恩，高君川．四川农田蜘蛛原色图册．成都：四川科学技术出版社，1990
[49] 胡金林．中国农林蜘蛛．天津：天津科学技术出版社，1984
[50] 赵志模．生态学引论——害虫综合防治的理论及应用．重庆：科学技术出版社重庆分社，1984
[51] 郭玉杰，王念英，越军华等．4种生态类型稻区节肢动物群落的基本组成与结构特征分析．生态学报，1995，15(4)：433～441
[52] Shanon CE et al. The Mathematical Theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Vrbana, IL 1949
[53] 牟少敏，杨勤民，许永玉等．麦田昆虫群落结构和变动的研究．华东昆虫学报，2001，10(1)：61～65
[54] 李典谟．生态的多样性度量．生态学杂志，1987，6(4)：49～52
[55] 胡阳，唐启义，唐健等．单季稻田节肢动物群落演替规律．中国水稻科学，1998，12(24)：229～232
[56] 毕守东，甘德俊，周夏芝等．桃园节肢动物群落的结构和组织学研究．安徽农业大学学报，2003，30(1)：34～39
[57] 蒋金炜，马继盛，陈俊伟等．引黄稻区节肢动物群落的季节特征．河南农业大学学报，1994，28(4)：344～360
[58] Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity [J]. Nature, 1949, 163:688
[59] Hill M O. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 1973, 54:427～432
[60] Heong KL, et al. Arthropod community structure of rice ecosystem in the philippines [J]. Bull Entomol Res, 1991,81:407～416
[61] Alatalo RV. Problems in the measurement of evenness in ecology [J]. Oikos, 1981, 37:199～204
[62] Odum E P．1971 孙儒泳等译．1981．生态学基础．北京：人民教育出版社，136～157
[63] Levins R. Evolution in Changing environments [M]. New Jersey:Princeton univ Press, 1968
[64] 李景文，刘庆耳，金宗亭等．BT基因棉与常规棉主要害虫及天敌生态位的比较研究．华东昆虫学报，2002，11(1)：51～54
[65] 张晓俊，黄玉清，占志雄等．5种龙眼梢、果害虫的时间、空间、营养生态位研究．广西农业生物科学，2000，19(3)：25～29
[66] 兰亦全，赵士熙，柯伟阳．美洲斑潜蝇及其寄生性天敌的生态位．华东昆虫学报，2002，11(2)：84～87
[67] 吴伟坚．几种十字花科蔬菜害虫生态位的研究．昆虫知识，2003，40(1)：42～44
[68] Cody ML. Competition and structure of bird communities Princeton Univ. press, 1974
[69] May R M. Some notes on estimating the competition, matrix Ecology, 1975, 56: 737～741
[70] Pang X-F, You M-S. Insect Community Ecology. Beijing China Agricultural press, 1996, 86～90
[71] Zhao Z-M, Guo Y-Q. Principle and Method of community Ecology, Chongqing: The Chongqing Branch of scientific and Technological document Press. 147～169
[72] 缪勇，邹运鼎，孙善教等．棉蚜及其捕食性天敌时空生态位研究应用．生态学报，2003，14(4)：549～552
[73] 张文庆，张古忍，古德祥．论短期农作物生境中节肢动物群落的重建Ⅲ．群落重建与天敌保护利用．生态学报，2001，21(11)：1927～1931
[74] 张古忍，古德祥，张文庆．稻田捕食性节肢动物群落的种库与群落的重建．中国生物防治，1997，13(2)：65～68
[75] 吴智色．稻飞虱迁入与发生情况探索．广西植保，2003，16(3)：27～29
[76] 郭玉杰，王念英，蒋金炜等．中性昆虫在稻田节肢动物群落中作为捕食者营养桥梁作用的研究．中国生物防治，1995，11(1)：5～9
[77] 王洪全．稻田蜘蛛的保护利用．湖南，湖南科学技术出版社，1981
[78] 郑雪生．稻田蜘蛛消长保护与利用．福建稻麦科技，17(3)：43～45
[79] Cheng Jia an. An ecological approach to brown planthopper management. Proc. Int. Workshop on the pest Management Strategiess in Asian Monsoon agroecosystems, 1996: 31～43
[80] Panda N. Principles of host-plant resistance to insect pests. Alangeld, Osmun and Univese Books. New York, 1997, 386～390
[2] 张永强，何波．稻田蜘蛛空间分布型及抽样技术初步研究．广西农学院学报，1983，(2)：95～108
[3] 张永强．稻田生态系统蜘蛛种群动态初步研究．植物保护学报，1981，8(2)：101～110
[4] 徐嘉生，陈樟福，朱瑞良．浙江省稻田蜘蛛的研究与利用．昆虫天敌，1987，9(3)：140～144
[5] 赫树广，张孝羲，程遐年等．稻田节肢动物群落营养层及优势功能集团的组成及多样性动态．昆虫学报，1998，41(4)：343～353
[6] 张古忍，张文庆，古德祥．稻田主要节肢类捕食者群落的结构和动态．中山大学学报论丛，1995，：33～39
[7] 郭玉人，李森，杨莹等．沈阳地区稻阳节肢动物种类调查．沈阳农业大学学报，1999，30(2)：98～101
[8] 刘向东，张孝羲，罗跃进等．稻田节肢动物群落的多样性对褐飞虱的控制功能．昆虫学报，2002，45(3)：359～364
[9] 陶方玲，梁广文，庞雄飞．不同生境区稻田节肢动物群落动态分析．华南农业大学学报，1996，17(1)：25～30
[10] 郭玉杰，王念英，陈俊伟等．不同稻区节肢动物群落中捕食者与猎物的种类与数量特征．生物防治通报，1994，10(4)：157～161
[11] 农荣贵，张永强．稻田害虫和捕食性节肢动物群落结构和动态．蛛形学报，1998，7(1)：74～80
[12] 张永强．农田蜘蛛群落结构及其多样性研究生态学报，1989，9(2)：157～162
[13] 尤民生，吴中孚．福州郊区稻田节肢动物群落的结构和动念．福建农学院学报，1992，21(1)：56～62
[14] 张永强，何波．广西南部稻区生态系蜘蛛种群动态及其控制害虫效应研究．
广西农学院报，1984，(1)：25～34
[15] 周祖铭，李友荣，李菊燕等．湖南安仁地区稻田蜘蛛优势种群的动态．昆虫天敌，1992，14(3)：112～116
[16] Down RE, Louise F, Woodhouse S D. et.al. Snowdrop lectin (GNA) has no acute toxic effects on a deneficial insect predator, the z-spot ladybird (Adalia bipunctat L.l.J. Insect physiol, 2000, 46(4): 379～391
[17] 刘雨芳，张古忍，古德祥．农田生态系统中生境与植被多样性对节肢动物群落的影响及其作用机制探讨．湘潭师范学院学报，2000，21(6)：74～78
[18] 尤民生，吴中孚．稻田节肢动物群落的多样性．福建农学院学报，1989，18(4)：522～538
[19] 金翠霞，吴亚，王冬兰．稻田节肢动物群落多样性．昆虫学报，1990，33(3)：287～295
[20] 刘向东，张孝羲．选择性农药对稻田蜘蛛群落的影响．昆虫知识，1999，36(2)，67～70
[21] 张古忍，张文庆，古德祥．稻田主要节肢类捕食性天敌群落的多样性．中山大学学报论丛，1995，(2)：27～32
[22] 张文庆，张古忍，古德祥．稻田生境调节和捕食性天敌对稻飞虱的控制作用．生态学报，1998，18(3)：283～288
[23] 周强，张古忍，张文庆等．不同抗性品系稻田捕食性节肢动物群落的结构和动态．生态学报，1999，19(5)：728～731
[24] Obrycki JJ, Losey JE, Taylor OR, et.al. Transgenic insecticidal com: Beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. Bioscience, 2001, 51 (5): 353～361
[25] Wilson FD. Resistance of cotton lines containing a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin to pink boll worm and other insects. J. Econ. Entomol, 1992, 85(4): 1516～1521
[26] 崔金杰，夏敬源．麦套田夏播转Bt基因棉田主要害虫及其天敌的发生规律．棉花学报，1998，10(5)：255～262
[27] 邓曙东，徐静，张青文等．转Bt基因棉对非靶标害虫及害虫天敌种群动态的影响．昆虫学报，2003，46(1)：1～5
[28] 刘万学，候茂林，万方浩等．转Bt基因棉田蜘蛛的时空动态及控害作用．昆虫知识，2003，40(2)：160～163
[29] Riddick E W, Barbosa P. Impact of cry3 A-intoxicated Leptinotarsa decelineata (Coleoptera:chrysomelidae) and pollen on consumption, development, and fecundity of coleomegilla maculata (coleoptera:couinellidat). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am, 1998, 27(5): 1125～1136
[30] 刘志诚，叶恭银，胡萃等．Bt水稻对主要非靶标害虫和蜘蛛优势种田间种群动态的影响．植物保护，2002，29(2)：138～144
[31] 刘志诚，叶恭银，胡萃等．转CryI Ab／CryI Ac基因籼稻对稻田节肢动物群落影响．昆虫学报，2003，46(4)：454～465
[32] 杨云峰，古德祥，周之铭．稻田蜘蛛的空间生态位的初步研究．昆虫天敌，1990，12(3)：108～112
[33] 罗跃进，田学志，汪丽．双季早稻田主要捕食性天敌及稻飞虱的生态位的研究．安徽农业科学，26(3)：244～246
[34] 王智，曾伯平，李文健等．稻田蜘蛛优势种和目标害虫的时间生态位研究．湖南农业科学，2002，(2)：28～29
[35] 姜永厚，吴进才，徐建祥等．稻田蜘蛛生态位变化及杀虫剂对捕食功能的影响．生态学报，2002，22(8)：1286～1292
[36] 张文庆，张古忍，古德祥．稻飞虱及其节肢类捕食者的生态位关系研究．中山大学学报论丛，1995，(2)：21～26
[37] 黄凤宽，罗善昱，韦素美等．抗褐飞虱生物型Ⅱ水稻品种抗性稳定性研究．植物保护，2003，39(6)：14～16
[38] Song Daxiang, Zhu Ming Shing, Chen Jon. The spiders of China Shi jia-zhong: Hei bei Science and Technology Publishing House, 1999
[39] 张永强．广西蜘蛛名录(Ⅳ)．广西农业生物科学，2002，21(2)：134～144
[40] 张永强，尤其儆，蒲天胜等．广西昆虫名录．广西科学技术出版社，1994
[41] 尤其儆，黎天山，张永强等．广西经济昆虫图册．植食性昆虫．广西科学技术出版社，1990
[42] 李永禧，周至宏，王助引等．广西经济昆虫图册．捕食性昆虫．广西科学技术出版社，1990
[43] 宋大祥．中国农田蜘蛛．农业出版社，1987
[44] 忻介六．昆虫形态分类学．复旦大学出版社，1985
[45] 华南农学院主编．农业昆虫(上册)．农业出版社，1986
[46] 冯钟琪．中国蜘蛛原色图鉴．长沙：湖南科学技术出版社，1990
[47] 中国科学院动物研究所，浙江大学．天敌昆虫图册．北京：科学出版社，1980
[48] 陈孝恩，高君川．四川农田蜘蛛原色图册．成都：四川科学技术出版社，1990
[49] 胡金林．中国农林蜘蛛．天津：天津科学技术出版社，1984
[50] 赵志模．生态学引论——害虫综合防治的理论及应用．重庆：科学技术出版社重庆分社，1984
[51] 郭玉杰，王念英，越军华等．4种生态类型稻区节肢动物群落的基本组成与结构特征分析．生态学报，1995，15(4)：433～441
[52] Shanon CE et al. The Mathematical Theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Vrbana, IL 1949
[53] 牟少敏，杨勤民，许永玉等．麦田昆虫群落结构和变动的研究．华东昆虫学报，2001，10(1)：61～65
[54] 李典谟．生态的多样性度量．生态学杂志，1987，6(4)：49～52
[55] 胡阳，唐启义，唐健等．单季稻田节肢动物群落演替规律．中国水稻科学，1998，12(24)：229～232
[56] 毕守东，甘德俊，周夏芝等．桃园节肢动物群落的结构和组织学研究．安徽农业大学学报，2003，30(1)：34～39
[57] 蒋金炜，马继盛，陈俊伟等．引黄稻区节肢动物群落的季节特征．河南农业大学学报，1994，28(4)：344～360
[58] Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity [J]. Nature, 1949, 163:688
[59] Hill M O. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 1973, 54:427～432
[60] Heong KL, et al. Arthropod community structure of rice ecosystem in the philippines [J]. Bull Entomol Res, 1991,81:407～416
[61] Alatalo RV. Problems in the measurement of evenness in ecology [J]. Oikos, 1981, 37:199～204
[62] Odum E P．1971 孙儒泳等译．1981．生态学基础．北京：人民教育出版社，136～157
[63] Levins R. Evolution in Changing environments [M]. New Jersey:Princeton univ Press, 1968
[64] 李景文，刘庆耳，金宗亭等．BT基因棉与常规棉主要害虫及天敌生态位的比较研究．华东昆虫学报，2002，11(1)：51～54
[65] 张晓俊，黄玉清，占志雄等．5种龙眼梢、果害虫的时间、空间、营养生态位研究．广西农业生物科学，2000，19(3)：25～29
[66] 兰亦全，赵士熙，柯伟阳．美洲斑潜蝇及其寄生性天敌的生态位．华东昆虫学报，2002，11(2)：84～87
[67] 吴伟坚．几种十字花科蔬菜害虫生态位的研究．昆虫知识，2003，40(1)：42～44
[68] Cody ML. Competition and structure of bird communities Princeton Univ. press, 1974
[69] May R M. Some notes on estimating the competition, matrix Ecology, 1975, 56: 737～741
[70] Pang X-F, You M-S. Insect Community Ecology. Beijing China Agricultural press, 1996, 86～90
[71] Zhao Z-M, Guo Y-Q. Principle and Method of community Ecology, Chongqing: The Chongqing Branch of scientific and Technological document Press. 147～169
[72] 缪勇，邹运鼎，孙善教等．棉蚜及其捕食性天敌时空生态位研究应用．生态学报，2003，14(4)：549～552
[73] 张文庆，张古忍，古德祥．论短期农作物生境中节肢动物群落的重建Ⅲ．群落重建与天敌保护利用．生态学报，2001，21(11)：1927～1931
[74] 张古忍，古德祥，张文庆．稻田捕食性节肢动物群落的种库与群落的重建．中国生物防治，1997，13(2)：65～68
[75] 吴智色．稻飞虱迁入与发生情况探索．广西植保，2003，16(3)：27～29
[76] 郭玉杰，王念英，蒋金炜等．中性昆虫在稻田节肢动物群落中作为捕食者营养桥梁作用的研究．中国生物防治，1995，11(1)：5～9
[77] 王洪全．稻田蜘蛛的保护利用．湖南，湖南科学技术出版社，1981
[78] 郑雪生．稻田蜘蛛消长保护与利用．福建稻麦科技，17(3)：43～45
[79] Cheng Jia an. An ecological approach to brown planthopper management. Proc. Int. Workshop on the pest Management Strategiess in Asian Monsoon agroecosystems, 1996: 31～43
[80] Panda N. Principles of host-plant resistance to insect pests. Alangeld, Osmun and Univese Books. New York, 1997, 386～390