留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码
张映雪, 王瑞, 屈霄, 夏文彤, 辛未, 郭传波, 陈宇顺. 长江中游湖泊不同鱼类养殖方式对浮游植物群落的影响[J]. 水生生物学报, 2018, 42(6): 1135-1143. DOI: 10.7541/2018.139
引用本文: 张映雪, 王瑞, 屈霄, 夏文彤, 辛未, 郭传波, 陈宇顺. 长江中游湖泊不同鱼类养殖方式对浮游植物群落的影响[J]. 水生生物学报, 2018, 42(6): 1135-1143. DOI: 10.7541/2018.139
ZHANG Ying-Xue, WANG Rui, QU Xiao, XIA Wen-Tong, XIN Wei, GUO Chuan-Bo, Chen Yu-Shun. EFFECTS OF AQUACULTURE ON PHYTOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES OF LAKES IN THE MIDDLE REACH OF THE YANGTZE RIVER BASIN[J]. ACTA HYDROBIOLOGICA SINICA, 2018, 42(6): 1135-1143. DOI: 10.7541/2018.139
Citation: ZHANG Ying-Xue, WANG Rui, QU Xiao, XIA Wen-Tong, XIN Wei, GUO Chuan-Bo, Chen Yu-Shun. EFFECTS OF AQUACULTURE ON PHYTOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES OF LAKES IN THE MIDDLE REACH OF THE YANGTZE RIVER BASIN[J]. ACTA HYDROBIOLOGICA SINICA, 2018, 42(6): 1135-1143. DOI: 10.7541/2018.139

长江中游湖泊不同鱼类养殖方式对浮游植物群落的影响

EFFECTS OF AQUACULTURE ON PHYTOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES OF LAKES IN THE MIDDLE REACH OF THE YANGTZE RIVER BASIN

  • 摘要: 为研究水产养殖对湖泊生态系统的影响, 于2015年7月至9月对长江中游23个湖泊的浮游植物群落及生物多样性情况进行了调查, 所研究的湖泊包括以下4组: 水库组(A组)、禁养组(B组)、低密度养殖组(C组)、高密度养殖组(D组)。结果显示, 4组湖泊的优势类群间存在一定差异。A组优势种有假鱼腥藻(Pseudanabaena, Y=0.642, Y为优势度)、浮鞘丝藻(Planktolyngbya, Y=0.064), B组优势种有平裂藻(Merismopedia, Y=0.428)、浮鞘丝藻(Planktolyngbya, Y=0.118)、假鱼腥藻(Pseudanabaena, Y=0.133)、栅藻(Scenedesmus, Y=0.066), C组优势种为假鱼腥藻(Pseudanabaen, Y=0.395)、平裂藻(Merismopedia, Y=0.097)、浮鞘丝藻(Planktolyngbya, Y=0.122), D组的优势种为平裂藻(Merismopedia, Y=0.308)、微囊藻(Microcystis, Y=0.118)、假鱼腥藻(Pseudanabaena, Y=0.077)。A组浮游植物丰度显著低于B组、C组及D组(P<0.05)。各组间浮游植物群落的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、Margalef丰富度指数及Pielou均匀度指数均不存在明显差异。研究表明鱼类养殖对湖泊浮游植物的丰度及优势类群会产生影响, 对湖泊生态系统的管理具有一定的参考意义。

     

    Abstract: There is limited information available on effects of aquaculture on lake ecosystems. Community structure and biodiversity of phytoplankton were investigated from July to September, 2015 in 23 lakes in the middle reach of the Yangtze River Basin, which include four groups: reservoir group (A), aquaculture ban group (B), low stocking aquaculture group (C) and high stocking aquaculture group (D). The analysis showed that dominant genera of the four groups were different. Group A was dominated by Pseudanabaena (Y=0.642) and Planktolyngbya (Y=0.064). Group B was dominated by Merismopedia (Y=0.428), Planktolyngbya (Y=0.118), Pseudanabaena (Y=0.133), and Scenedesmus (Y=0.066). Group C was dominated by Pseudanabaena (Y=0.395), Merismopedia (Y=0.097), and Planktolyngbya (Y=0.122). Group D was dominated by Merismopedia (Y=0.308), Microcystis (Y=0.118), and Pseudanabaena (Y=0.077). The phytoplankton abundance in group A was significantly lower than those in other lake groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in Shannon-Wiener index, Margalef index and Pielou index of phytoplankton among the four lake groups. The study indicated that fish culture could affect the abundance and dominant genera of phytoplankton, which may provide some implications for lake ecosystem management.

     

/

返回文章
返回