›› 2011, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (9): 1051-1056.doi:

• 研究论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

中国北方桃李间作对步甲群落组成和营养级结构的影响

 胡雅辉, 刘小侠, 赵章武, 张青文   

  • 收稿日期:2011-03-29 出版日期:2011-09-20 发布日期:2011-09-20
  • 通讯作者: 赵章武 E-mail:zhangqingwen@263.net
  • 作者简介:胡雅辉,男,1979年生,湖南郴州人,博士,助理研究员,研究方向为农业害虫综合防治, E-mail: huyah627@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家“948”项目(2006-G30-05); 国家公益性行业(农业)专项科研经费项目(nyhzx07-025)

Effect of plumpeach intercropping on community composition and trophic structure of carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in North China

 HU  Ya-Hui, LIU  Xiao-Xia, ZHAO  Zhang-Wu, ZHANG  Qing-Wen   

  • Received:2011-03-29 Online:2011-09-20 Published:2011-09-20
  • Contact: ZHAO Zhang-Wu E-mail:zhangqingwen@263.net
  • About author:E-mail: huyah627@163.com

摘要: 【目的】由于桃树和李树在生态环境要求上很相似, 在生产实际中, 在中国很多地方存在桃李间作或邻作的现象。本研究将通过试验明确桃李间作对步甲营养级结构的影响以便更全面地评价桃李间作是否有利于害虫防治。【方法】2006和2007年的4 -10月, 在山西省临汾市郊, 通过陷阱法对3块桃李间作果园和3块单一桃园内的步甲进行抽样, 每块果园的面积约0.3 hm2。比较两类桃园内步甲物种丰富度。将6种优势步甲物种, 两两单一成虫个体组合放在玻璃瓶内, 放在桃树下, 统计步甲相互攻击后的伤亡情况, 比较各物种的相互攻击能力, 确定主要步甲所属的营养级。统计分析两类桃园步甲营养级结构的差异。【结果】桃李间作园和单作桃园调查到的步甲物种均为24种, 估测步甲物种数在两类果园的差异也不显著(P≥0.38)。6种优势步甲可以分为4个营养级: 大盗步甲Lesticus magnus (Motschulsky)为高级捕食者, 大锹步甲Scarites acutides Chaudoir为次级捕食者, 双斑青步甲Chlaenius bioculatus Chaudoir和躅步甲Calathus halensis (Schaller)为初级捕食者, 毛婪步甲Harpalus griseus (Panzer)和直隶婪步甲Harpalus tschiliensis Schauberger为植食者。各营养级步甲相对多度均是桃李间作果园大于单一桃园, 独立T检验结果表明, 植食者步甲相对多度差异达极显著水平(P≤0.002); 而捕食者步甲相对多度, 除2006年初级捕食者步甲相对多度差异显著(P=0.013)外, 在调查的两年中其他捕食者营养级步甲相对多度差异均不显著(P≥0.085)。【结论】结果表明, 桃李间作对步甲群落的物种组成和丰富度没有影响, 但是对果园内各营养级步甲相对多度有影响, 其中, 对植食者营养级步甲相对多度影响显著, 而对捕食者营养级步甲相对多度影响多不显著。

关键词: 步甲, 桃园, 桃李间作, 群落组成, 营养级, 捕食能力

Abstract: 【Objective】 There are many plum-peach intercropping or neighboring orchards in many regions in China due to their similar ecological environments. The experiment was carried out to clarify the effect of plum-peach intercropping on trophic structure of ground beetles, and to assess whether plum-peach intercropping is beneficial to pest control. 【Methods】 Ground beetles were investigated with pitfall trapping method in three mono-peach orchards and three plum-peach intercropping orchards in Linfen, Shanxi from April to October in 2006 and 2007, of which each experimental orchard is about 0.3 hm2. The Carabidae species richness was compared between the two kinds of orchards. For the six dominant Carabidae species determined, two different species in combination were placed in one glass bottle with 10 beet webworms as food, and the bottles were placed under peach trees. The results of beetle attacking recorded from these bottles were used to determine the trophic level of Carabidae species. The relative abundances of carabids from each trophic level were compared between the two kinds of orchards. 【Results】 The 24 species of ground beetles were found, and the number of species showed no significant difference between in mono-peach orchard and in plum-peach intercropping orchard (P≥0.38). In addition, the six dominant species could be classified into four trophic levels: Lesticus magnus (Motschulsky) belongs to the senior predator, Scarites acutides Chaudoir the intermediate predator, Chlaenius bioculatus Chaudoir and Calathus halensis (Schaller) junior predators, and Harpalus tschiliensis Schauberger and Harpalus griseus (Panzer) herbivores. The relative abundance of carabids at different trophic levels was higher in plumpeach intercropping orchard than in mono-peach orchard. The results of T test showed that extremely significant difference (P≤0.002) and significant difference (P=0.013) in relative abundances of herbivores and junior predators existed between the two kinds of peach orchards in 2006, respectively, but no significant difference (P≥0.085) in relative abundance existed in carabids of other trophic levels in the surveyed two years. 【Conclusion】 It is concluded that plum-peach intercropping has no effect on the species component and richness of the ground beetles in the plum-peach intercropping orchard, but has some effects on population relative abundance of different trophic levels in the ground beetles. In general, plum-peach intercropping has significant effects on carabid abundance at different trophic levels of herbivores, but has no significant effect on carabid abundance at most trophic levels of predators.

Key words: Carabids, peach orchard, plum-peach intercropping, community composition, trophic level, preying ability