鄱阳湖区典型草洲植物种间关联性研究
|
摘要
分析湿地植物种间关联性,对揭示植物对环境综合生态因子反应的差异及生态适应性具有重要作用。2015年10~11月,通过对鄱阳湖区茶叶港草洲19块样地(5 m×5 m,样线间隔80 m,样地间隔60 m)、95个样方(1 m×1 m,以X型布局于每块样地里)的野外调查,得到10个主要物种组成的45个物种对,用2×2列联表,采用方差比率法、χ2检验、Jaccard指数、Pearson相关分析和Spearman秩相关分析,分析植物物种间关联性,采用主成分分析排序法进行生态种组划分。方差比率法的检验结果显示,45个物种对种间总体无显著关联,χ2方检验结果显示,仅有3个物种对种间显著联结(a≤0.05),占总物种对数量的6.67%,种间正、负关联的种对数量比例(22对/23对)为0.96;Pearson相关分析结果显示,只有9对种间显著相关(a≤0.05),占总物种对数量的20%,种间相关系数为正值与负值的种对数量比例(15对/30对)为0.5;Spearman秩相关分析结果显示,只有14对种间显著相关(a≤0.05),占总物种对数量的31.1%,种间相关系数为正值与负值的种对数量比例(17对/28对)为0.61。采用主成分分析排序方法,将鄱阳湖区茶叶港草洲10种主要植物划分为3个生态种组,组内的物种间呈正关联关系,组间的物种间呈负关联关系。鄱阳湖区茶叶港草洲10个主要物种45个种对种间关系较为松散,植物趋于独立分布,说明研究区植物群落还不稳定,容易受外界因素的干扰而发生波动。
Correlation analysis between plant species is important in revealing adaptive response of the plants to comprehensive environmental and ecological factors. In this study, the 4 sampling lines were set up and the distance between the lines was 80 m; along the every sampling line, the 5 sampling sites(5 m×5 m) were set up with an interval 60 m. Plant species were catalogued by field survey in 95 sampling quadrates(1 m×1 m),which were arranged in an X pattern in the 19 sampling sites respectively in Chayegang marshland of the Poyang Lake region in October and November 2015. The 45 species-pairs from the 10 major species in the catalog were inter-matched to explore the relationships between the plant species through 2×2 contingency table.The methods of variance rate analysis, χ2test, Jaccard index, Pearson and Spearman rank correlation analysis were used to explore the relationships between the plant species, and ecological species groups were classified using ordination of principal component analysis. The results of variance rate analysis showed that there was no significant correlation between 45 species-pairs; that of χ2test indicated that the relationships of only 3 species-pairs were significant correlation relationship(a≤0.05). The result of Pearson correlation analysis revealed that only 9 species-pairs passed significance test of a≤0.05. Spearman rank correlation analysis found that only 14 species-pairs passed significance test(a≤0.05). There were 3 ecological species groups identified by principal component analysis from the 10 major plant species, the relationships of intra-group species was positive correlation and the inter-group species was negative correlation. Majority of the 45 species-pairs from the 10 major plant species in the study area had no significant correlation relationships, implied interspecies relationships were looser, and the plants tended to distribute independently, or the plant communities in the study area were not in the stable condition, alterable by the outside interference.
Correlation analysis between plant species is important in revealing adaptive response of the plants to comprehensive environmental and ecological factors. In this study, the 4 sampling lines were set up and the distance between the lines was 80 m; along the every sampling line, the 5 sampling sites(5 m×5 m) were set up with an interval 60 m. Plant species were catalogued by field survey in 95 sampling quadrates(1 m×1 m),which were arranged in an X pattern in the 19 sampling sites respectively in Chayegang marshland of the Poyang Lake region in October and November 2015. The 45 species-pairs from the 10 major species in the catalog were inter-matched to explore the relationships between the plant species through 2×2 contingency table.The methods of variance rate analysis, χ2test, Jaccard index, Pearson and Spearman rank correlation analysis were used to explore the relationships between the plant species, and ecological species groups were classified using ordination of principal component analysis. The results of variance rate analysis showed that there was no significant correlation between 45 species-pairs; that of χ2test indicated that the relationships of only 3 species-pairs were significant correlation relationship(a≤0.05). The result of Pearson correlation analysis revealed that only 9 species-pairs passed significance test of a≤0.05. Spearman rank correlation analysis found that only 14 species-pairs passed significance test(a≤0.05). There were 3 ecological species groups identified by principal component analysis from the 10 major plant species, the relationships of intra-group species was positive correlation and the inter-group species was negative correlation. Majority of the 45 species-pairs from the 10 major plant species in the study area had no significant correlation relationships, implied interspecies relationships were looser, and the plants tended to distribute independently, or the plant communities in the study area were not in the stable condition, alterable by the outside interference.
引文
[1]程雷星,陈克龙,杨仕兵,等.青海湖流域小泊湖湿地植物种间关系研究[J].干旱区地理,2014,377(5):1005-1011.
[2]崔丽娟,朱利,李伟,等.北京西卓家营采砂迹地型湿地植被优势种种间关系[J].湿地科学,2012,1010(4):417-422.
[3]胡贝娟,张钦弟,张玲,等.山西太岳山连翘群落优势种种间关系[J].生态学杂志,2013,3232(4):845-851.
[4]高永恒,曾晓阳,周国英,等.长江源区高寒湿地植物群落主要种群种间关系分析[J].湿地科学,2011,99(1):1-7.
[5]韩路,王海珍,王家强,等.塔里木荒漠绿洲过渡带植物种间关联性分析[J].生态环境学报,2015,244(6):932-937.
[6]许加星,徐力刚,姜加虎,等.鄱阳湖典型洲滩植物群落结构变化及其与土壤养分的关系[J].湿地科学,2013,111(2):186-191.
[7]葛刚,赵安娜,钟义勇,等.鄱阳湖洲滩优势植物种群的分布格局[J].湿地科学,2011,99(1):19-25.
[8]董磊,徐力刚,许加星,等.鄱阳湖典型洲滩湿地土壤环境因子对植物分布影响研究[J].土壤学报,2014,511(3):618-626.
[9]郭秀玲,上官铁梁,张婕.汾河河口湿地植物数量分类与排序[J].武汉植物学研究,2010,2828(4):431-436.
[10]杨晓东,傅德平,袁月,等.新疆艾比湖湿地自然保护区主要植物的种间关系[J].干旱区研究,2010,2727(2):249-256.
[11]宋春武,蒋进,范敬龙,等.从植物种间联结性探讨白梭梭种群生态种组分类——以古尔班通古特沙漠为例[J].中国沙漠,2010,3232(1):77-85.
[12]许金石,王茂,柴永福,等.子午岭地区草本药用植物种间联结性研究[J].西北植物学报,2015,355(11):2307-2314.
[13]简敏菲,刘琪,朱笃,等.九连山常绿阔叶林乔木优势种群的种间关联性分析[J].植物生态学报,2009,3333(4):672-680.
[14]白玉芳,毕润成,白玉宏,等.山西太岳山稀有濒危植物脱皮榆群落种间关联[J].广西植物,2014,3434(1):56-61.
[15]何艳频,孙爱峰.Spearman等级相关系数计算公式及其相互关系的探讨[J].中国现代药物应用,2007,11(7):72-73.
[16]李雪云,孙爱峰,何艳频.Spearman等级相关系数计算公式相互关系的数学推导[J].中国现代药物应用,2007,11(11):124.
[17]张金屯.数量生态学[M].北京:科学出版社,2003.
[18]张桂娟,张金龙,李淑贤,等.承德县人工油松林林下草本植物种间关系研究[J].中国农学通报,2009,2525(7):109-113.
[19]蒋慧,于磊,鲁为华,等.昆仑山西段天然草地优势种群的种间关系研究[J].安徽农业科学,2007,3535(20):6223-6224.
[20]张佳蕊,陈燕,雷霆,等.北京汉石桥湿地植物群落优势种的种间关系研究[J].湿地科学,2007,55(2):146-152.
[21]赵永全,何彤慧,程志,等.银川平原湿地常见植物种间关系研究[J].干旱区研究,2013,3030(5):838-844.
[22]张忠华,胡刚.喀斯特山地青冈栎群落优势种的种间关系分析[J].生态环境学报,2011,2020(8):1209-1213.
[23]王合玲,吕光辉,杨晓东.新疆艾比湖湿地主要植物的种间关联分析[J].生态学杂志,2011,3030(12):2713-2718.
[24]霍红,冯起,苏永红,等.额济纳绿洲植物群落种间关系和生态位研究[J].中国沙漠,2013,3333(4):1027-1033.
[2]崔丽娟,朱利,李伟,等.北京西卓家营采砂迹地型湿地植被优势种种间关系[J].湿地科学,2012,1010(4):417-422.
[3]胡贝娟,张钦弟,张玲,等.山西太岳山连翘群落优势种种间关系[J].生态学杂志,2013,3232(4):845-851.
[4]高永恒,曾晓阳,周国英,等.长江源区高寒湿地植物群落主要种群种间关系分析[J].湿地科学,2011,99(1):1-7.
[5]韩路,王海珍,王家强,等.塔里木荒漠绿洲过渡带植物种间关联性分析[J].生态环境学报,2015,244(6):932-937.
[6]许加星,徐力刚,姜加虎,等.鄱阳湖典型洲滩植物群落结构变化及其与土壤养分的关系[J].湿地科学,2013,111(2):186-191.
[7]葛刚,赵安娜,钟义勇,等.鄱阳湖洲滩优势植物种群的分布格局[J].湿地科学,2011,99(1):19-25.
[8]董磊,徐力刚,许加星,等.鄱阳湖典型洲滩湿地土壤环境因子对植物分布影响研究[J].土壤学报,2014,511(3):618-626.
[9]郭秀玲,上官铁梁,张婕.汾河河口湿地植物数量分类与排序[J].武汉植物学研究,2010,2828(4):431-436.
[10]杨晓东,傅德平,袁月,等.新疆艾比湖湿地自然保护区主要植物的种间关系[J].干旱区研究,2010,2727(2):249-256.
[11]宋春武,蒋进,范敬龙,等.从植物种间联结性探讨白梭梭种群生态种组分类——以古尔班通古特沙漠为例[J].中国沙漠,2010,3232(1):77-85.
[12]许金石,王茂,柴永福,等.子午岭地区草本药用植物种间联结性研究[J].西北植物学报,2015,355(11):2307-2314.
[13]简敏菲,刘琪,朱笃,等.九连山常绿阔叶林乔木优势种群的种间关联性分析[J].植物生态学报,2009,3333(4):672-680.
[14]白玉芳,毕润成,白玉宏,等.山西太岳山稀有濒危植物脱皮榆群落种间关联[J].广西植物,2014,3434(1):56-61.
[15]何艳频,孙爱峰.Spearman等级相关系数计算公式及其相互关系的探讨[J].中国现代药物应用,2007,11(7):72-73.
[16]李雪云,孙爱峰,何艳频.Spearman等级相关系数计算公式相互关系的数学推导[J].中国现代药物应用,2007,11(11):124.
[17]张金屯.数量生态学[M].北京:科学出版社,2003.
[18]张桂娟,张金龙,李淑贤,等.承德县人工油松林林下草本植物种间关系研究[J].中国农学通报,2009,2525(7):109-113.
[19]蒋慧,于磊,鲁为华,等.昆仑山西段天然草地优势种群的种间关系研究[J].安徽农业科学,2007,3535(20):6223-6224.
[20]张佳蕊,陈燕,雷霆,等.北京汉石桥湿地植物群落优势种的种间关系研究[J].湿地科学,2007,55(2):146-152.
[21]赵永全,何彤慧,程志,等.银川平原湿地常见植物种间关系研究[J].干旱区研究,2013,3030(5):838-844.
[22]张忠华,胡刚.喀斯特山地青冈栎群落优势种的种间关系分析[J].生态环境学报,2011,2020(8):1209-1213.
[23]王合玲,吕光辉,杨晓东.新疆艾比湖湿地主要植物的种间关联分析[J].生态学杂志,2011,3030(12):2713-2718.
[24]霍红,冯起,苏永红,等.额济纳绿洲植物群落种间关系和生态位研究[J].中国沙漠,2013,3333(4):1027-1033.