三种被动式采集方法对甲虫收集效果的比较研究:以香港城门样地为例  

A comparative study on the collection effectiveness of beetles by three passive acquisition methods in Shing Mun(Hong Kong)

作　　者：滕备 杨海东[1,3] 佟一杰 梁敏轩[4] 张嘉康 李英铭 Benoit Guénard 白明 Bei Teng;Haidong Yang;Yijie Tong;Manhin Leung;Kahong Cheung;Yingming Lee;Benoit Guénard;Ming Bai(Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution,Institute of Zoology,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100101;School of Life Sciences,Hebei University,Baoding,Hebei 071028;Institute of Zoology,Guangdong Academy of Sciences,Guangzhou 510260;Agriculture,Fisheries and Conservation Department,Hong Kong;School of Biological Sciences,The University of Hong Kong,Hong Kong)

机构地区：[1]中国科学院动物研究所动物进化与系统学重点实验室,北京100101 [2]河北大学生命科学学院,河北保定071028 [3]广东省科学院动物研究所,广州510260 [4]香港渔农自然护理署,中国香港 [5]香港大学生物科学学院,中国香港

出　　处：《生物多样性》2021年第10期1386-1395,共10页Biodiversity Science

基　　金：香港渔农自然护理署专项项目资助;国家科技基础资源调查专项(2019FY100400);国家自然科学基金(31961143002;31900317);中国科学院国际合作局“一带一路”项目;广东省科学院建设国内一流研究机构行动专项资金(2020GDASYL-20200102021;2020GDASYL-20200301003)。

摘　　要：标本标准化采集是昆虫多样性研究的根本。昆虫种类繁多、习性复杂、分布广泛,基于不同的研究目标,昆虫学家会选用不同的采集方法。由于主动式采集方法存在较多干扰因素和重现性差等问题,以飞行阻隔器(flight interception trap,FIT)、马氏网(Malaise trap,MT)和罐诱(pitfall trap,PT)为代表的被动式采集方法被广泛应用,并在昆虫多样性研究中展现独特的优势。然而关于这些被动式采集方法的收集特点和采集效果等还缺乏系统性研究。本研究选取香港城门13个样点,利用上述3种被动式采集方法共156个采集装备开展为期24天的鞘翅目昆虫采集工作,并通过多样性指数分析、多度分析、体型与食性相关分析、相似性分析以及物种累积曲线分析评估了不同采集方法对甲虫的收集效果。本研究共采集甲虫6,380头,涉及40科197种,分析结果显示:(1)采用不同采集方法获得的物种数量和组成存在差异。从科级和种级的数量来看,FIT(36科,149种)>MT(24科,79种)>PT(17科,60种);在物种组成方面,FIT与PT之间、MT与PT之间区别较大,FIT与MT对应的物种相似度稍高于前两组。(2)多样性指数和物种多度分布分析显示:丰富度指数为FIT>MT>PT,优势度指数为FIT>PT>MT,多样性指数为MT>FIT>PT,均匀度指数为MT>PT>FIT。3种方法采集到的甲虫个体数为1头的种较多,个体数超过1头的种在时间和空间方面的分布较广,优势科的种类较少,但其个体数占总个体数的比例较高。(3)FIT和PT均采集到了6类食性的甲虫,其中藻食性的缨甲科甲虫仅见于FIT和PT采集方法。(4)物种累积曲线的结果表明3种采集方法效果均较好。3种采集方法各有特点,但FIT采集的综合效果最优。FIT和MT两种方法的结合提升了采集甲虫的种类、食性和体型等方面的覆盖度,更利于对甲虫多样性及类群与生态环境功能互作的研究。3种方法所收集到的甲虫存在一�Aims:The standardization of acquisition methods to collect insect specimens is a major component of insect diversity research.In light of the high species diversity,complex behavior,and wide distribution of insects,numerous active and passive acquisition methods have been developed to achieve different research goals.However,the use of active search acquisition methods is constrained by the presence of many interfering factors and poor reproducibility.Passive acquisition methods,such as flight interception trap(FIT),Malaise trap(MT)and pitfall trap(PT),have been widely adopted in different scenarios and have gradually become the most common methods for conducting insect diversity research due to their unique advantages.Despite their popularity,however,there is a lack of systematic research on the features and collecting effectiveness of these passive acquisition methods.Methods:In this study,13 sampling points in Shing Mun from Hong Kong,China were monitored in a one-month field survey(sampling frequency of about 2-3 days)using the three passive acquisition methods above(156 sets of equipment in total).These surveys were evaluated to determine each method’s effectiveness for the beetle collection.Results:A total of 6,380 beetle specimens of 197 species from 40 families were collected.The results of the study showed that:(1)There is a difference in the effectiveness of beetle collection by each acquisition method.Overall,FIT(36 families,149 species)was more effective than MT(24 families,79 species)and PT(17 families,60 species).Ten families were collected by all the three methods.(2)The analysis of biodiversity indices and species-abundance distribution indicate the following:The richness index was the highest for FIT,followed by MT and PT.The dominance index was the highest for FIT,followed by PT and MT.The diversity index was the highest for MT,followed by FIT and PT.The evenness index was the highest for MT,followed by PT and FIT.The number of species with at least one individual collected by the three acquis

关 键 词：甲虫 多样性 飞行阻隔器 马氏网 罐诱 城门 

分 类 号：Q968[生物学—昆虫学]