Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/22393
標題: 以底棲鞘翅目與蜘蛛目群聚組成探討台北市富陽自然公園之棲地現況
Interpretation of the habitat of Fu-Yang urban park in Taipei by using the community composition of epigaeic beetles and spiders (Coleoptera and Araneae)
作者: 范文欣
Fan, Wen-Hsin
關鍵字: indicator species
指標物種
morphospecies
pitfall trap
environmental monitoring
Coleoptera
Arane
形態種
掉落式陷阱
鞘翅目
蜘蛛目
環境監測
出版社: 生命科學系所
引用: 行政院環境保護署環境檢驗所。2005。土壤中酸鹼值測定方法。行政院環境保護署。 卓逸民。2003。陽明山國家公園不同類型棲地蜘蛛多樣性及群聚結構之比較。內政部營建署陽明山國家公園管理處委託研究報告。 卓逸民。2004。金門地區蜘蛛相調查。內政部營建署金門國家公園管理處委託研究報告。 姚凱羚。2004。以植物多樣性的觀點探討都市公園中植栽之維護與管理。私立東海大學景觀學系研究所碩士論文。台中市。 袁鋒。1995。昆蟲分類學。中華人民共和國農業出版社。 涂芳美。1999。都市公園生物多樣性之研究─以台北市大安森林公園為例。私立東海大學景觀學系研究所碩士論文。台中市。 許正一。2000。台灣環境教育中不可缺席的一環:土壤環境生態教育。環境教育季刊 42:59-66。 楊平世和李春霖。1993。高山地區昆蟲資源之研究。內政部營建署太魯閣國家公園管理處八十二年度研究報告。 廖志安和潘建宏。2004。台灣昆蟲記。大樹文化事業有限公司。 Bishop, J.A., and W.L. Myers. 2005. Associations between avian functional guild response and regional landscape properties for conservation planning. Ecological Indicators 5:33–48. Booth, R.G., M.L. Cox, and R.B. Madge. 1990. Coleoptera in:IIE guides to insects of importance to man. The Nature History Museum. London, UK. Borror, D.J., C.A. Triplehorn, and N.E. Johnson. 1992. An introduction to the study of insects. Sixth edition. Saunders collage publishing. Bouget, C., and P. Duelli. 2004. The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities:a literature review. Biological Conservation 118:281-299. Buzas, M.A., and T.G. Gibson. 1969. Species diversity: benthonic foraminifera in western North Atlantic. Science 163:72–75. Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:129-138. Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1320-1310. Davies, R.G. 1988. Outlines of entomology. 7th edition. Chapman and Hall. New York, USA. Davis, A.J., J.D. Holloway, H. Huijbregts, J. Krikken, A.H. Kirk-Spriggs, and S.L. Sutton. 2001. Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:593–616. Dearborn, D.C., A.D. Anders, and E.N. Flint. 2001. Trends in reproductive success of Hawaiian seabirds: is guild membership a good criterion for choosing indicator species? Biological Conservation 101:97-103. Didham, R.K., P.M. Hammond, J.H. Lawton, P. Eggleton, and N.E. Stork. 1998. Beetle species responses to tropical forest fragmentation. Ecological Monographs 68:295-323. Dufrêne., M., and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblage and indicator species:the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345-366. Dunn, C.P. 1994. Gaps in GAP. Plant Science Bulletin 40:119-121. Euler, F. 1999. An objective indicator of functional integrity in avian communities. Forest Ecology and Management 115:221-229 Finch, O.-D. 2005. Evaluation of mature conifer plantations as secondary habitat for epigeic forest arthropods (Coleoptera: Carabidae; Araneae) Forest Ecology and Management 204:21–34 Grandchamp, A.C., A. Bergamini, S. Stofer, J. Niemelam, P. Duelli, and C. Scheidegger. 2005. The influence of grassland management on ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera)in Swiss montane meadows. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 110:307-317. Greenslade, P.J.M. 1964. Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology 33:301-310. Gudleifsson, B.E. 2005. Beetle species (Coleoptera) in hayfields and pastures in northern Iceland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109:181–186. Haim, A., and I. Izhaki. 1994. Changes in rodent community during recovery from fire: relevance to conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:573–585. Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper, and P.D. Ryan. 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4. 9pp. Hammond, P.M. 1994. Practical approach to the estimation of the extent of biodiversity in species group. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 345:119-136. Hsieh, Y.L., Y.S. Lin, and I.M. Tso. 2003. Ground spider diversity in Kenting uplifted coral reef forest, Taiwan: a comparison between habitats receiving various disturbances. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 2173-2194. Kaufmann, R. 2001. Invertebrate succession on alpine glacier foreland. Ecology 82:2261-2278. Kremen, C., R.K. Colwell, T. L. Erwin, D.D. Murphy, R.F. Noss, and M.A. Sanjayan. 1993. Terrestrial arthropod assemblages:their use in conservation planning. Conservation Biology 7:796-808. Kremen, C. 1994. Biological inventory using target taxa:A case study of the butterflies of Madagascar. Ecological Applications 4:407-422. Lam, K., N.G., Sai-Leung, W. Hui, and P. Chan. 2005. Environmental quality of urban parks and open spaces in Hong Kong. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 111:55-73. Magura T., B. Tóthmérész, and T. Molnár. 2001. Edge effect on carabid assemblages along forest-grass transects. Web Ecology 2: 7–13 Marc, P., A. Canard, and F. Ysnel. 1999. Spiders(Araneae) useful for pest limitation and bioindication. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 74: 229-273. Martikainen, P., J. Siitonen, P. Punttila, L. Kaila, and J. Rauh. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 94:199-209. McCune, B., and M.J. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD 4.17: Multivariate analysis of ecological data. MJM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, U.S.A. McGeoch M. 1998. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biological Reviews 73:181-201. McGeoch, M.A., and S.L. Chown. 1998. Scaling up the value of bioindicators. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:47-48. Middleton, J. 1994. Effects of urbanization on biodiversity in Canada. In: Biodiversity in Canada: A Science Assessment for Environment Canada. http://www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/biodiv-sci-asses/biodiv11.htm Mikusiński, G., M. Gromadzki, and P. Chylarecki. 2001. Woodpeckers as indicators of forest bird diversity. Conservation Biology 15:208-217. Miñarro, M., and E. Dapena. 2003. Effects of groundcover management on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in an apple orchard. Applied Soil Ecology 23:111–117. Minitab Inc. 1996. Minitab for Windows, release 11.2. Minitab Inc., State College, Pa. Murphy, D.D., K.E. Freas, and S.B. Weiss. 1990. An environmental-metapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conservation Biology 4:41-51. National Research Council (NRC), Committee to Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments. 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9720.html. Niemelä, J., and B. Baur. 1998. Threatened species in a vanishing habitat: plants and invertebrates in calcareous grasslands in the Swiss Jura mountains. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:1407-1416. Nyffeler, M., and G. Benz. 1987. Spiders in natural pest control: a review. Journal of Applied Entomology 103: 321-339. Pearson, D.L. 1994. Selecting Indicator Taxa for the Quantitative Assessment of Biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 345:75-79. Pearson, D.L., and F. Cassola. 1992. World-side species richness patterns of tiger beetles(Coleoptera:Clcindelidae):Indicator taxon for biodivertity and conservation studies. Conservation Biology 6:376-391. Pechenik, J.J. 2000. Biology of the invertebrates, 4th edition. The McGraw-Hill company. Pfiffner, L., and H. Luka. 2003. Effects of low-input farming systems on carabids and epigeal spiders – a paired farm approach. Basic Applied Ecology 4:117–127. Rainio, J., and J. Niemelä. 2003. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:487–506. Romero-Alcaraz, E., and J.M. Ávila. 2000. Landscape heterogeneity in relation to variations in epigaeic beetle diversity of a Mediterranean ecosystem. Implications for conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:985–1005. Savard, J.L., P. Clergeau, and G. Mennechez. 2000. Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 48:131-142. Schnell, M.R., A.J. Pik, and J.M. Dangerfield, 2003. Ant community succession within eucalypt plantations on used pasture and implications for taxonomic sufficiency in biomonitoring. Austral Ecology 28:553–565. Scott, C.T. 1998. Sampling methods for estimating change in forest resources. Ecological Applications 8:228-233. Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago, 125 pp. Shannon, L.J. and P.M. Cury. 2003. Indicators quantifying small pelagic fish interactions: application using a trophic model of the southern Benguela ecosystem. Ecological Indicators 3:305–321. Siemann, E., D. Tilman, J. Haarstad, and M. Ritchie. 1998. Experimental test of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity. The American naturalist 152:738-750. Summerville, K.S., L.M. Ritter, and T.O. Crist. 2004. Forest moth taxa as indicators of lepidopteran richness and habitat disturbance: a preliminary assessment. Biological Conservation 116:9–18. Thomas, C.F.G., and E.J.P. Marshall. 1999. Arthropod abundance and diversity in differently vegetated margins of arable fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 72:131-144. Thomas, C.F.G., N.J. Brown, and D.A. Kendall, 2006. Carabid movement and vegetation density: Implications for interpreting pitfall trap data from split-field trials. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 113:51–61 Tognelli, M.F. 2005. Assessing the utility of indicator groups for the conservation of South American terrestrial mammals. Biological Conservation 121:409-417. Uetz, G.W., J. Halaj, and A.B. Cady. 1999. Guild structure of spiders in major crops. Journal of Arachnology 27:270-280. Willett, T.R. 2001. Spiders and other arthropods as indicators in old-growth versus logged redwood stands. Restoration Ecology 9:410-420.
摘要: 指標物種可以讓我們迅速且容易了解當地棲地的狀態或預測其他物種的多樣性。好的指標能呈現出非常重要的生態變異,甚至在環境變動等事件發生後,指標物種能提供的線索反而比實際上測量到的因子還具有生態上的意義。由於鞘翅目(甲蟲)與蜘蛛目物種在分類與生態上都發展得相當完善,對棲地的改變及破碎化較為敏感,在土壤表層活動的物種多且豐富。本研究以此二目當做生態監測的目標類群,在台北市富陽自然公園內設置7條穿越線,鄰接的對照區福州山與大安410公園預定地各設置2條穿越線,從2005年7月到2006年2月使用掉落式陷阱收集底棲鞘翅目與蜘蛛目物種,鑑定至科及形態種。以了解富陽自然公園中底棲鞘翅目與蜘蛛目物種偏好的環境,並找出不同棲地類型中的指標物種以了解棲地的狀態。 複迴歸結果顯示坡度能預測甲蟲與蜘蛛的物種數與個體數,呈負相關。另外,草本植物覆蓋度亦能預測甲蟲的物種數和個體數,呈負相關。喬木覆蓋度和落葉覆蓋度能預測蜘蛛個體數,呈負相關。落葉覆蓋度能預測蜘蛛的物種數,呈正相關。皆與所收集的甲蟲大部分為腐食性及雜食性與蜘蛛優勢種有關。以甲蟲與蜘蛛豐量分別將所有樣點歸為四群棲地類群,甲蟲的第Ⅰ群與蜘蛛的第A群皆排除不進行指標值分析。富陽自然公園中甲蟲廣布種中指標值最高的是小蠹蟲A和B(100%);隱翅蟲A為植被與落葉高覆蓋棲地的指標物種;「Ⅲ-喬木高覆蓋」型棲地中的兩種指標物種為出尾蟲科D和C。蜘蛛廣布種指標值最高的為皿蛛科A(83%);狼蛛A、卵蛛A與鷲蛛A皆為「光照充足棲地」的指標物種;袋蛛C、道士蛛A、輝蛛A、蟹蛛A與高腳蛛A為「C-向陽坡棲地」之指標物種;狼蛛C與草蛛C為「D-低喬木覆蓋谷地型」指標物種。這些指標物種分析出來之後,在往後監測群落生境的品質,將可提供較具體的依據,以制定經營管理與維護策略。
Indicator species are species chosen to reflect rapidly the changes of habitat conditions, or to predict the diversity of other taxa. A good indicator species is not only representing the critical ecological variations but also providing meaningful clues during environmental changes. Therefore, it provides meaningful ecological information than the message of direct measurement of environmental factors. Beetles(Coleoptera)and spiders(Araneae)are groups of epigaeic invertebrates which were well-developed taxonomically and ecologically. They are sensitive to the environmental changes and the on going fragmentation of habitats. Since they are active on soil surface, abundant and easy to monitor, we use the epigaeic beetles and spiders as the target species to develop the potential indicators for monitoring the habitat of Fu-Yang urban park in Taipei. The study focused on the habitat preferences of beetle and spider as well as identifying the indicator species for the different types of habitat. I collected beetles and spiders by using pitfall traps on seven transect lines at Fu-Yang urban park in Taipei from July 2005 to February 2006. Individual animal specimen was brought back to laboratory and identified to the family and morphospecies level. Multiple regression was successfully used to predict the individuals and number of beetles and spiders by the percentage of steepness of the habitat with negative coefficients. And the percentage of grass coverage was also negatively correlated with the individuals and number of beetles. The wood coverage and litter coverage significantly predict the individuals of spiders with negative regression coefficients. And the litter coverage was positively correlated with number of spider. The empirical model can be explained with the ecological characteristics of saprophage and omnivore guilds of beetles and the presence of dominant species of spiders. Each sampling site was assigned to each of the four habitat groups by using clustering technique based on the abundance of beetles and spiders respectively. We exclude the habitat typeⅠof beetles and the habitat type A of spiders from indicator species analysis. The Scolytidae A and B were the beetle generalist and have the highest indicator value(100%);Staphylinidae A is the indicator species for the high vegetation and litter coverage habitat type;the indicator species of 「Ⅲ-high wood coverage」habitat type are Nitidulidae D and C. The generalist of spider is Linyphiidae A which has the highest indictor value(83%);the indicator species for the habitat with high exposures of sun light are Lycosidae A、Oonopidae A and Gnaphosidae A;the indicator species for 「C-slope exposed to the sun」habitat type are Clubionidae C、Zodariidae A、Liocranidae A、Liocranidae A and Heteropodidae A;the indicator species for「D-low wood coverage valley」habitat type are Lycosidae C and Agelenidae C. These indicator species identified could be used to monitor the quality of biotopes, and lead to develop some strategies for setting and managing healthy habitats for the park.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/22393
其他識別: U0005-2408200602180300
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-2408200602180300
Appears in Collections:生命科學系所

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.