اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات283
تعداد نشریات سازمان81
تعداد شماره‌ها2,727
تعداد مقالات31,054
تعداد مشاهده مقاله28,212,769
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله16,257,447
میراب بالو, مجید, محمودی, مجید. (1397). بررسی فراوانی و تنوع زیستی بندپایان ماکروفون خاک در دو نوع پوشش گیاهی (مطالعه موردی: پارک جنگلی چغاسبز). سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 6(2), 157-166. doi: 10.22092/sbj.2019.118569
مجید میراب بالو; مجید محمودی. "بررسی فراوانی و تنوع زیستی بندپایان ماکروفون خاک در دو نوع پوشش گیاهی (مطالعه موردی: پارک جنگلی چغاسبز)". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 6, 2, 1397, 157-166. doi: 10.22092/sbj.2019.118569
میراب بالو, مجید, محمودی, مجید. (1397). 'بررسی فراوانی و تنوع زیستی بندپایان ماکروفون خاک در دو نوع پوشش گیاهی (مطالعه موردی: پارک جنگلی چغاسبز)', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 6(2), pp. 157-166. doi: 10.22092/sbj.2019.118569
میراب بالو, مجید, محمودی, مجید. بررسی فراوانی و تنوع زیستی بندپایان ماکروفون خاک در دو نوع پوشش گیاهی (مطالعه موردی: پارک جنگلی چغاسبز). سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1397; 6(2): 157-166. doi: 10.22092/sbj.2019.118569

بررسی فراوانی و تنوع زیستی بندپایان ماکروفون خاک در دو نوع پوشش گیاهی (مطالعه موردی: پارک جنگلی چغاسبز)

زیست شناسی خاک
مقاله 6، دوره 6، شماره 2، اسفند 1397، صفحه 157-166    اصل مقاله (352.55 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/sbj.2019.118569
نویسندگان
مجید میراب بالو* 1؛ مجید محمودی2
1دانشیار گروه گیاهپزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران
2استادیار گروه گیاهپزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران
چکیده
در این مطالعه، فراوانی و تنوع زیستی بندپایان ماکروفون موجود در زیر دو پوشش گیاهی مختلف (بوته­های خانواده­ی گلسرخیان و درختان سوزنی­برگ) در پارک جنگلی چغاسبز (استان ایلام) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. این تحقیق از ابتدای فروردین تا آخر شهریور سال 1394 با دو تیمار (پوشش­های گیاهی مختلف) و پنج تکرار انجام شد. هر 20 روز یک بار نمونه­های به دام افتاده در تله­های گودالی جمع­آوری و سپس شمارش و شناسایی شدند. در مجموع 4613 نمونه ماکروفون متعلق به 8 راسته و 13 خانواده از حشرات، و یک خانواده از عنکبوت­ها در طول این دوره جمع­آوری گردید. نتایج نشان داد دو خانواده‌ی Formicidae وCarabidae و دو راسته پادمان و دوبالان بیشترین فراوانی در تله­های گودالی داشتند. بین دو خانواده‌ی گیاهی رزاسه و سوزنی­برگان فقط تعداد حشرات موجود در راسته‌ی پادمان (t (138)=2.97, P=0.004 )، خانواده Carabidae (t (138)=2.93, P=0.004) و Noctuidae (t (138)=2.91, P=0.004) تفاوت معنی­داری وجود داشت و خانواده‌ها‌ی Formicidae (t (138)=0.83, P=0.406)،‌Chrysopidae (t (138)=0.103, P=0.918)، راسته‌‌های دوبالان (t (138)=1.15, P=0.253)، راست­بالان (t (138)=1.543, P=0.125)، ناجوربالان (t (138)=1.11, P=0.267)، تعدادلارو حشرات (t (138)=0.816, P=0.416) و عنکبوت­ها (t (138)=0.420, P=0.675) تفاوت معنی­داری نداشتند. بیشتر افراد راسته پادمان فقط در ماه­های فصل بهار توسط تله­های گودالی شکار شدند و در ماه­های بعدی تراکم آن‌ها به میزان قابل توجهی کاهش یافت. راسته‌ی پادمان و خانواده‌ی Noctuidae تراکم بیشتری زیر پوشش گیاهان خانواده‌ی رزاسه داشتند تا سوزنی برگان درحالیکه خانواده‌ی Carabidae تراکم بیشتری در زیر پوشش گیاهی سوزنی‌برگان داشتند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
ماکروفون خاکزی؛ بندپایان؛ تله گودالی؛ سوزنی‌برگان؛ تنوع زیستی؛ ایلام
عنوان مقاله [English]
Investigation of Frequency and Biodiversity of Soil Macrofauna under Two Different Plant Coverages (case study: Choqasabz Forest Park, Ilam Province)
نویسندگان [English]
M. Mirab-balou1؛ M. Mahmoudi2
1Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, Ilam University, Ilam, 69315–516, Iran
2Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, Ilam University, Ilam, 69315–516, Iran
چکیده [English]
In this study, the abundance and biodiversity of the soil macrofauna under two different plants coverages (Rosaceae shrubs and conifers) were investigated using pitfall trap in Choqasabz Forest Park (Ilam province).This research was carried out from April to September 2015 with two treatments (different plants coverages) and five replications. Every 20 days, trapped specimens were collected in pitfall traps and then counted and identified. During this study, a total of 4,613 specimens were collected belonging to eight orders and 13 families of insects, and a single family of spiders. Results showed that the families Formicidae and Carabidae and orders Collembola and Diptera were the most abundant arthropods in pitfall trapps. Between Rosaceae and conifer plants, there was a significant difference in the number of insects belongs to Collembola (t(138)=2.97, P=0.004), Carabidae (t(138)=2.93, P=0.004), and Noctuidae (t(138)=2.91, P=0.004), while there was not a significant difference in the number of arthropods belongs to Formicidae (t (138)=0.83, P=0.406), Chrysopidae (t (138)=0.103, P=0.918), Diptera (t (138)=1.15, P=0.253), Orthoptera (t (138)=1.543, P=0.125), Heteroptera (t (138)=1.11, P=0.267), insect larva (t (138)=0.816, P=0.416) and spiders (t (138)=0.420, P=0.675). The most number of Collebmbola individuals were collected only in spring months and after that their density reduced considerably. Collembola and Noctuidae had significantly more density under Rosaceae than conifers while Carabidae had more densities under conifers. Arthropods have a valueble role in soil fertilization, nutrient cycling, plant production, decomposing matters in nature and regulation of other animal population. The results of this study could be useful in conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity in Choqasabz Forest Park.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Soil macrofauna, arthropoda, Pitfall trap, Conifers, Biodiversity, Ilam
مراجع
  1. Adis, J. 1979. Problems of interpreting arthropod sampling with pitfall traps. Zoologische Anzeiger, 202: 177–184.
  2. Andersen, A.N. and Majer, J.D. (2004). Ants show the way Down Under: invertebrates as bioindicators in land management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(6): 291–298.
  3. Aquino, A.M., Silva, R.F., Mercante, F.M., Correia, M.E.F., Guimarães, M.F. and Lavelle, P. 2008. Invertebrate soil macrofauna under different ground cover plants in the no-till system in the Cerrado. European Journal of Soil Biology, 44(2): 191–197.
  4. Awmack, C.S. and Leather, S.R. 2002. Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 47:817–44.
  5. Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Green, R.E. and Mace, G.M. 2005. The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 360: 221–228.
  6. Barros, E., Neves, A., Blanchart, E., Fernandes, E.C.M., Wandelli, E. and Lavelle, P. 2003. Development of soil macrofaunacommunity under silvopastoral and agrosilvicultural systems in Amazonia. Pedobiologia, 47(3): 272–280.
  7. Bennett, A. 2010. The role of soil community biodiversity in insect biodiversity. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 3: 157–71.
  8. Bitzer, R.J., Marlin, E.R., Pilcher, C.D., Pilcher, C.L. and Lam, W.F. 2005. Biodiversity and community structure of epedaphic and euedaphic springtails (Collembola) in transgenic rootworm Bt corn. Environmental Entomology, 34(5): 1346-1376.
  9. Childers, C.C. and Nakahara, S. 2006. Thysanoptera (thrips) within citrus orchards in Florida: species distribution, relative and seasonal abundance within trees, and species on vines and ground cover plants. Journal of Insect Science, 6: 45.
  10. Clark, W.H. and Blom, P.E. 1992. An efficient and inexpensive pitfall trap system. Entomological News, 103(2): 55–59.
  11. Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Goulder, L., Luchenco. J., Matson, P.A., Mooney, H.A., Postel, S., Schneider, S.H., Tilman, D. and Woodwell, G.M. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, 2: 1–16.
  12. Deyn, G.B. and Van der Putten, W.H. 2005. Linking aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20: 625–3.
  13. Elek, Z., Magura, T. and Tóthmérész, B. 2001. Impacts of non-native spruce plantation on carabids.Web Ecology, 2: 32–37.
  14. Ellis, M.V. 2013. Impacts of pit size, drift fence material and fence configuration on capture rates of small reptiles and mammals in the New South Wales rangelands. Australian Zoologist, 36: 404–412.
  15. Esmaili, M., Azmayesh Fard, P. and Mirkarimi, A.A. 1993. Agricultural Entomology. Tehran University Press (In Persian).
  16. Fahy, O. and Gormally, M. 1998. A comparison of plant and carabid beetle communities in an Irish oak woodland with a nearby conifer plantation and clearfelled site. Forest Ecology and Management, 110(1–3): 263–273.‏
  17. Fowler, S. V. and Lawton, J. H. 1982. The effects of host-plant distribution and local abundance on the species richness of agromyzid flies attacking British umbellifers. Ecological Entomology, 7: 257–65.
  18. Frampton, G.K. 2002. Long-term impacts of an organophosphate-based regime of pesticides on field and fieldedge Collembola communities. Pest Management Science, 58: 991–1001.
  19. Frampton, G.K., van den Brink, P.J. and Wratten, S. D. 2001. Diel activity patterns in an arable collembolan community. Applied Soil Ecology, 17: 63–80.
  20. Holling, C.S. 1978. International series on applied systems analysis: adaptive environmental assessment and management. JohnWiley, New York.
  21. Hooper, D.U., Bignell, D.E., Brown, V.K., Brussaard, L. and Dangerfield, J.M. 2000. Interactions between aboveground and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms, and feedbacks. Bioscience, 50: 1049–61.
  22. Joern, A. and Laws, A.N. 2013. Ecological mechanisms underlying arthropod species diversity in grasslands. Annual Review of Entomology, 58: 19–36.
  23. Johnson, N.F. and Triplehorn, C.A. 2004. Borror and Delong’s introduction to the study of insects. Thomson Press, California.
  24. Karimi, Z. 2012. The evaluation of the success rate among species cultivated in Chogha sabz Park in Ilam in order to introduce proper species for plantation in similar region, MSc. Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, 87p.
  25. Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters, 8: 468–479.
  26. Lawton J, H. and Price, P. W. 1979. Species richness of parasites on hosts: agromyzid flies on the British Umbelliferae. Journal of Animal Ecology, 48: 619–37.
  27. Lawton, J.H. 1983. Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 28: 23–39.
  28. Luff, M.L. 1975. Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia, 19: 345–357.
  29. Magura, T., Tóthmérész, B. and Elek, Z. 2002. Impacts of non-native spruce reforestation on ground beetles. European Journal of Soil Biology, 38: 291–295.
  30. Magura, T., Tóthmérész, B. and Elek, Z. 2003. Diversity and composition of carabids during a forestry cycle.Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 73–85.
  31. New, T.R. 1998. Invertebrate surveys for conservation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  32. Obrist, M.K. and Duelli, P. 1996. Trapping efficiency of funnel- and cup-traps for epigeal arthropods. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 69(3–4): 361–369.
  33. Oliver, I. and Beattie, A.J. 1996. Designing a cost-effective invertebrate survey: a test of methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity. Ecological Applications,6: 594–607.
  34. Pearce, J.L., Schuurman, D., Barber, K.N., Larrivee, M., Venier, L.A., McKee, J. and McKenney, D. 2005. Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates. Canadian Entomologist, 137(2): 233–250.
  35. Pekár, S. 2002. Differential effects of formaldehyde concentration and detergent on the catching efficiency of surface active arthropods by pitfall traps. Pedobiologia, 46: 539–547.
  36. Perner, J. and Schueler, S. 2004. Estimating the density of ground-dwelling arthropods with pitfall traps using a nested-cross array. Journal of Animal Ecology, 73(3): 469–477.
  37. Pressey, R.L. 2005. Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for the job. Conservation Biology, 18: 1677–1681.
  38. Rohr, J.R., Mahan, C.G. and Kim, K.C. 2007. Developing a monitoring program for invertebrates: guidelines and a case study. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 422-433.‏
  39. Sabu, T.K. and Shiju, R.T. 2010. Efficacy of pitfall trapping, winkler and berlese extraction methods for measuring ground-dwelling arthropods in moist-deciduous forests in the Western Ghats. Journal of  Insect Science. 10: 1-17.
  40. Silva, J., Jucksch, I., Maia, C.I., Feres, A. and Tavares, C.R. 2012. Fauna do solo emsistemas de manejo com café. Journal of Biotechnology and Biodiversity, 3(2): 59–71.
  41. Southwood, T.R.E. and Henderson, P.A. 2000. Ecological Methods, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science, London-New York.
  42. Topping, C.J. and Sunderland, K.D. 1992. Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29: 485–491.
  43. van Amelsvoort, P.A.M., van Dongen, M. and van der Werff, P.A. 1988. The impact of Collembola on humification and mineralization of soil organic matter. Pedobiologia, 31: 103–111.
  44. Ward, D.F., New, T.R. and Yen, A.L. 2001. Effects of pitfall trap spacing on the abundance, richness and composition of invertebrate catches. Journal of Insect Conservation, 5: 47–53.
  45. Warnaffe, G.D.B. and Lebrun, P. 2004. Effects of forest management on carabid beetles in Belgium: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 118(2): 219–234.‏
  46. Whitham, T.G. and Slobodchikoff, C.N. 1981. Evolution by individuals, plant herbivore interactions, and mosaics of genetic variability: the adaptive  significance of somatic mutations. Oecologia, 49: 287–92.
  47. Wichaikam, N., Anusontpornperm, S., Sakchoowong, W., and Amornsak, W. 2010. Seasonal and habitat-specific differences in soil insect abundance from organic crops and natural forest at the AngKhang Royal Agricultural Station, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Thai Journal of Agricultural Science, 43(4): 231–237.‏
  48. Work, T.T., Buddle, C.M., Korinus, L.M. and Spence, J.R. 2002. Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: implications for biodiversity studies. Environmental Entomology, 31(3): 438–448.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 656
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 324


counter
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب