杭州湾生物修复区与非修复区浮游植物群落结构比较

生态学杂志

杭州湾生物修复区与非修复区浮游植物群落结构比较

刘巧,刘萌萌,杨娜,张琪,包炎琳,何培民,霍元子^*

（上海海洋大学海洋生态与环境学院，上海 201306）

出版日期:2019-02-10 发布日期:2019-02-10

Comparative analysis of phytoplankton community structure in bioremediation area and non-remediation area of Hangzhou Bay.

LIU Qiao, LIU Meng-meng, YANG Na, ZHANG Qi, BAO Yan-lin, HE Pei-min, HUO Yuan-zi^*

(College of Marine Ecology and Environment, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China).

Online:2019-02-10 Published:2019-02-10

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为比较杭州湾生物修复区与非修复区浮游植物群落结构及其对环境变化的响应，于2017年7—12月对杭州湾10个站位水环境和浮游植物群落结构进行调查。结果显示：修复区营养盐平均浓度低于非修复区。两个区域共发现浮游植物8门103种，以硅藻种类最多。修复区发现7门54种，非修复区发现8门79种，两个区域共有的浮游植物种类占总种类数的29.1%。修复区浮游植物细胞密度平均值为1.3×10⁴ cells·L^-1，主要优势种为囊裸藻（Trachelomonassp.）；非修复区浮游植物细胞密度平均值为12.3×10⁴ cells·L^-1，主要优势种为梅尼小环藻（Cyclotella meneghiniana）。冗余分析显示，硅酸盐含量和pH分别是影响修复区和非修复区浮游植物密度变化的最主要因素。

关键词: 稻田, 氨挥发, 湿沉降

Abstract: To compare the structure of phytoplankton community and understand its responses to environmental changes in the bioremediation and non-remediation areas of Hangzhou Bay, ten sites were monthly sampled from July to December 2017. During this period, the average concentration of nutrients in the remediation area was lower than that in the non-remediation area. A total of 103 species belonging to eight phyla were identified, and Bacillariophyta was the most diverse group. A total of 54 and 79 species were identified in the bioremediation and nonremediation areas, respectively. The species shared by the two areas accounted for 29.1% of the total species. In the bioremediation area, the average cell abundance was 1.3×10⁴ cells·L^-1 and Trachelomonassp. was the most dominant species. In the nonremediation area, the average cellabundance was 12.3×10⁴ cells·L^-1 and Cyclotella meneghiniana was the most dominant species. The results of redundancy analysis indicated that silicate concentration and pH was the most important factors affecting the abundance of phytoplankton in the bioremediation and non-remediation areas, respectively.

Key words: Rice field, Ammonia volatilization, Wet deposition

刘巧,刘萌萌,杨娜,张琪,包炎琳,何培民,霍元子. 杭州湾生物修复区与非修复区浮游植物群落结构比较[J]. 生态学杂志.

LIU Qiao, LIU Meng-meng, YANG Na, ZHANG Qi, BAO Yan-lin, HE Pei-min, HUO Yuan-zi. Comparative analysis of phytoplankton community structure in bioremediation area and non-remediation area of Hangzhou Bay.[J]. cje.

[1]	张露, 李滔, 章叶飞, 王海艳, 习小杰, 朱建强, 杨军. 水深对克氏原鳌虾稻田养殖水体浮游植物群落结构的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(8): 1920-1927.
[2]	梁玉刚, 余政军, 赵杨, 匡炜, 戴力, 旷娜, 方宝华. 稻田养鱼模式综述 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(11): 2747-2755.
[3]	郭慧娟,傅志强,李超,何保良,严玲玲,徐莹,龙攀. 垄作稻田在生态种养中的应用研究进展 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(7): 2416-2425.
[4]	龚浩林,邵明勤,卢萍,朱光琛,戴年华,曾健辉. 鄱阳湖稻田生境中越冬灰鹤行为模式及其影响因素 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(2): 559-566.
[5]	赵苗苗,邵蕊,杨吉林,赵芬,徐明. 基于DNDC模型的稻田温室气体排放通量模拟 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(4): 1057-1066.
[6]	马艳芹,黄国勤. 紫云英还田配施氮肥对稻田土壤碳库的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(1): 129-135.
[7]	彭术,张文钊,侯海军,王华,陈安磊,魏文学. 氮肥减量深施对双季稻产量和氧化亚氮排放的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(1): 153-160.
[8]	贾晟菊,张超,罗治定,张硕,马会春,王传华,刘华杰. 山西太行山区两种地衣——中国石黄衣和黄烛衣的元素含量差异 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(5): 1403-1409.
[9]	孟其义,钱晓莉,陈淼,赵蕾,冯新斌,孟博. 稻田生态系统汞的生物地球化学研究进展 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(5): 1556-1573.
[10]	王兰,黄国勤,孙丹平,王淑彬. 稻田水旱复种轮作对作物产量及土壤养分的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(11): 3284-3290.
[11]	白志刚,张均华,黄洁,朱练峰,曹小闯,朱春权,钟楚,金千瑜. 氮肥运筹对水稻氮代谢及稻田土壤氮素迁移转化的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(11): 3440-3448.
[12]	曾杰,王忠军,岳甫均,李思亮,吴起鑫,刘涛泽,司霞莉. 喀斯特洼地湿沉降氮形态及硝酸盐同位素组成的垂向分布特征 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(11): 3422-3429.
[13]	安婉丽1,谢海云1,王维奇1,2,曾从盛1,2*. 秸秆还田对稻田土壤水稳性团聚体养分及其生态化学计量比的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(1): 150-156.
[14]	莫书银1,刘雨芳1,孙丽川1,李菲1,戈峰2. 转Cry1Ab/Ac*基因水稻对稻田浮游动物群落物种多样性的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(9): 2422-2428.
[15]	唐杉1,王允青1*,张智2,吴立蒙2,黄俊3,曹卫东4. 多年紫云英还田对稻田杂草种子库密度及多样性的影响 [J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(7): 1730-1736.