Diversity and Temporal and Spatial Changes of Spiders in Different Management Types of Tea Gardens

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0957

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effects of different management methods on the structure and spatial distribution of spiders groups in tea gardens， and understand the important role of spiders in the intensive green management of tea gardens， 3 types of tea gardens including 1# tea garden （conventional and no intercropping）， 2# tea garden （deep vegetation coverage and less human interference） and 3# tea garden （no covered and regularly weeding and spraying chemical pesticides） were taking as objects. The number and types of spiders and leafhoppers were investigated by patting method （tea bush） and trap method （ground） from 2015 to 2016. The results showed that the number of spiders in the 3 types of tea gardens was 2# tea garden > 1# tea garden > 3# tea garden， and the differences between different types of tea gardens were significant （P<0.05）. Shannon-Wiener diversity index showed 2# tea garden > 3# tea garden and 1# tea garden， and the differences between different types of tea gardens were significant （P<0.05）. The spatial distribution of spiders was mainly dominated by tea bushes， and the surface was less. The number of leafhoppers and spiders in tea gardens had basically remained the same over time in 2 years. Due to the regular application of chemical pesticides， the number of spiders and leafhoppers in 3# tea garden had the least fluctuation， while the number of spiders in 2# tea garden fluctuated greatly， and leafhoppers and spiders had obvious following effects. In 2# tea garden， the surrounding vegetation was rich， and Taiwanese Acacia and deciduous trees were evenly interplanted， the habitat structure was relatively complicated， the vegetation coverage was more deeper， and a certain buffer zone was formed， which improved the microclimate of tea garden and increased the diversity of spiders groups. Comprehensive studies had shown that constructing a reasonable buffer zone， increasing the depth of vegetation coverage around and inside tea gardens， and reducing human interference could better optimize the spatial and temporal structure of spider communities.

Key words: tea garden, spiders, diversity, management

摘要：

为探究不同管理方式对茶园蜘蛛类群结构及时空分布的影响，了解蜘蛛在茶园绿色集约化管理中的作用，于2015—2016年通过拍打法（茶丛）和陷阱法（地面）对常规无间作的1#茶园、植被覆盖度深且人为干扰较少的2#茶园和无植被覆盖且定期施药锄草的3#茶园的蜘蛛及叶蝉数量进行为期2年的研究。结果显示，3类茶园的蜘蛛个体数表现为2#茶园>1#茶园>3#茶园，差异显著（P<0.05）。Shannon-Wiener多样性表现为2#茶园>3#茶园、1#茶园，差异显著（P<0.05）。蜘蛛主要分布于茶丛，地表较少。茶园叶蝉和蜘蛛数量在2年间基本保持一致，其中3#茶园由于定期施用化学农药，蜘蛛和叶蝉的数量波动最小；2#茶园的蜘蛛数量波动较大；且蜘蛛对叶蝉存在明显的调节效应。2#茶园周围植被丰富，且茶园均匀间种台湾相思树、中间种植落叶乔木，生境结构相对复杂，植被覆盖度深，形成了一定的缓冲带，对茶园小气候具有改善作用，增加了蜘蛛类群多样性。由此表明，构建合理的缓冲带、增加茶园四周及内部植被覆盖深度、减少人为干扰可更好地优化蜘蛛群落时空结构分布。

关键词: 茶园, 蜘蛛, 多样性, 管理

CLC Number:

S571.1

Tao YANG, Jinchi TANG, Wenwei GAO, Hongyan NONG, Ping LUO, Jianlong LI. Diversity and Temporal and Spatial Changes of Spiders in Different Management Types of Tea Gardens[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(11): 148-158.

杨涛, 唐劲驰, 高文伟, 农红艳, 罗平, 黎健龙. 不同管理类型茶园蜘蛛多样性及时空变化[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(11): 148-158.

Figures/Tables 8

References 30

1	BAKER B P, BENBROOK C M, III E G, et al.. Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets [J]. Food Addit. Contam., 2002, 19(5):427-446.
2	HAZARIKA L K, BHUYAN M, HAZARIKA B N. Insect pests of tea and their management [J]. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 2009, 54:269-284.
3	MAMUN M, AHMED M, PAUL S K. Integrated approaches in tea pest management for sustainable tea production [C]// Proceedings of the Workshop on Tea Production Technology Updated. Mambai: BARC Campus, 2014: 18-32.
4	黎健龙,唐劲驰,黎秀娣,等.周边不同生境条件对茶园蜘蛛群落及叶蝉种群时空结构的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(9):2216-2227.
	LI J L, TANG J C, LI X D, et al.. Effects of the surrounding habitat on the spider community and leafhopper population in tea plantations [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2014, 34(9):2216-2227.
5	黎秀娣,冯平万,黎健龙,等.茶树上游猎型蜘蛛功能团对景观低碳管理模式的反应[J].生态环境学报,2014,23(1):64-72.
	LI X D, FENG P W, LI J L, et al.. The response of a canopy-wandering-spider functional group to a low-carbon management approach in tea plantations [J]. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2014, 23(1):64-72.
6	付雪莲,李品武,盛忠雷,等. 三种信息化合物对叶蝉及其优势天敌的生态效应[J].应用昆虫学报,2016,53(3):536-544.
	FU X L, LI P W, SHENG Z L, et al.. Ecological effects of three semiochemicals on Empoasca vitis Göthe and its main natural enemies [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol., 2016, 53(3): 536-544.
7	戴轩.假眼小绿叶蝉的天敌蜘蛛种类及其物种多样性研究[J]. 环境昆虫学报,1999,21(4):164-169.
	DAI X. Investigation and species diversity of spiders as natural enemies of Empoasca vitis Gothe in tea field [J]. J. Environ. Entomol., 1999, 21(4):164-169.
8	石春华.茶园病虫害防治彩色图说[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2006:1-124.
	SHI C H. Color Map of Pest Control in Tea Garden [M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2006:1-124.
9	杨廷榜.茶园蜘蛛对茶树主要害虫捕食作用的综合评价研究[D].武汉:湖北大学,2017.
	YANG T B. Comprehensive evaluation of the predation of tea garden spiders on the main pests of tea trees [D]. Wuhan: Hubei University, 2017.
10	LI J L, ZHOU Y, ZHOU B, et al.. Habitat management as a safe and effective approach for improving yield and quality of tea (Camellia sinensis) leaves [J/OL]. Sci. Rep., 2019, 9(1):433 [2021-10-15]. .
11	胡文浩,段美春,那书豪,等.坝上地区农田及两种恢复生境中蜘蛛多样性与群落特征[J].应用生态学报,2020,31(2):643-650.
	HU W H, DUAN M C, NA S H, et al.. Spider diversity and community characteristics in cropland and two kinds of recovery habitats in Bashang area, China [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2020,31(2):643-650.
12	KAKOKI S, KAMIMURO T, TSUDA K, et al.. Use of a lower-volume, surface pesticide spray conserves spider assemblages in a tea field [J]. J. Econ. Entomol., 2018, 111(4): 1595-1604.
13	陈燚,张晓阳,易健,等.江西武宁茶园主要病虫害种类调查初报[J]. 生物灾害科学,2021,44(2):163-167.
	CHEN Y, ZHANG X Y, YI J, et al.. A preliminary report on the investigation of main plant diseases and insect pests in tea gardens of Wuning county, Jiangxi province [J]. Biol. Dis. Sci., 2021, 44(2):163-167.
14	邢树文,梁秀霞,朱慧,等.不同类型茶园游猎型蜘蛛亚群落特征的研究[J].植物保护,2019,45(6):192-200, 221.
	XING S W, LIANG X X, ZHU H, et al.. Studies on the characteristics of the wandering spider sub-community in different types of tea plantation [J]. Plant Prot., 2019, 45(6):192-200, 221.
15	韩宝瑜.三类典型茶园昆虫和螨类群落组成和动态的差异[J].茶叶科学,2005,25(4):249-254.
	HAN B Y. Differences in composition and dynamic of insect and mite community among three types of tea gardens [J]. J. Tea Sci., 2005, 25(4):249-254.
16	王明亮,刘惠芬,王丽丽,等.覆盖作物对茶园节肢动物群落多样性影响[J].农业资源与环境学报,2020,181(3):33-38.
	WANG M L, LIU H F, WANG L L, et al.. Effect of different cover crops on arthropod community diversity in a tea orchard [J]. J. Agric. Environ., 2020, 181(3):33-38.
17	雷喜红.不同类型茶园节肢动物多样性与害虫发生的关系[D].成都:四川农业大学,2009.
	LEI X H. The relationship between the diversity of arthropods in different types of tea gardens and the occurrence of pests [D]. Chengdu: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2009.
18	韩宝瑜.有机、无公害和普通茶园蜘蛛群落组成及动态差异[J].蛛形学报,2005,14(2):104-107.
	HAN B Y. Difference in dynamic and structure of spider communities in organic and non-pollution and common tea gardens [J]. Acta Arach. Sci., 2005, 14(2):104-107.
19	TSANG W, LIANG G W, YAN H M. Comparison of structure and dynamics of spider community in organic, abandoned and conventional litchi orchards [J]. J. Environ. Entomol., 2010, 32(2):173-179.
20	YIN X, QIU L, JIANG Y, et al.. Diversity and spatial-temporal distribution of soil macrofauna communities along elevation in the Changbai mountain, China [J]. J. Environ. Entomol., 2017, 46(3):454-459.
21	刘洁,高梅香,吴东辉.基于黑土农田生物多样性监测样地的地表大型节肢动物群落特征[J].应用生态学报,2017,28(12): 3965-3975.
	LIU J, GAO M X, WU D H. Characteristics of ground-dwelling soil macro-arthropod communities in a biodiversity monitoring plot of black soil cropland, northeastern China [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2017, 28(12):3965-3975.
22	CHURCHILL T B. Spiders as ecological indicators: an overview for Australia [J]. Memoirs Museum Victoria., 1997, 56(2):331-337.
23	李周园,叶小洲,王少鹏.生态系统稳定性及其与生物多样性的关系[J].植物生态学报,2021,45(10):1127-1139 .
	LI Z Y, YE X Z, WANG S P. Ecosystem stability and its relationship with biodiversity [J]. Chin. J. Plant Ecol., 2021, 45(10):1127-1139.
24	王勇.茶园蜘蛛、昆虫群落动态及蜘蛛的保护与利用[D].合肥:安徽农业大学,1989.
	WANG Y. The dynamics of spider and insect communities in tea gardens and the protection and utilization of spiders [D]. Hefei: Anhui Agricultural University,1989.
25	黎健龙,唐颢,周波,等.茶园异质性栖境对狼蛛科蜘蛛群落结构的影响[J].生态科学,2017,36(3):160-165.
	LI J L, TANG H, ZHOU B, et al.. Effects of varying habitat heterogeneity on the wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae) communities in tea plantations [J]. Ecol. Sci., 2017, 36(3):160-165.
26	蒋杰贤,万年峰,季香云,等.桃园生草对桃树节肢动物群落多样性与稳定性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011, 22(9):2303-2308.
	JIANG J X, WANG N F, JI X Y, et al.. Diversity and stability of arthropod community in peach orchard under effects of ground cover vegetation [J]. J. Appl. Ecol., 2011, 22(9):2303-2308.
27	杨丽红.果园-交错带-针叶林秋季大型土壤动物群落结构及时间动态[J].绵阳师范学院学报,2015,34(8):17-26.
	YANG H L. Community structures and temporal dynamics of soil macrofauna from orchard, ectone and coniferous trees in autumn [J]. J. Mianyang Norm. Univ., 2015, 34(8):17-26.
28	刘晓博.黄河下游典型农区景观结构及生境特征对表生蜘蛛群落的影响[D].郑州:河南大学,2015.
	LIU X B. Effects of landscape structure and habitat characteristics on superficial spider community in typical agricultural areas in the lower Yellow River [D]. Zhengzhou: Henan University, 2015.
29	邢树文,朱慧,马瑞君,等.不同生境条件与管理方式对茶园蜘蛛群落结构及多样性的影响[J].生态学报,2017,37(12):4236-4246.
	XING S W, ZHU H, MA R J, et al.. Effects of different habitats and management on the spider communities in tea plantations [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2017, 37(12):4236-4246
30	顾松松.不同管理模式对茶园土壤微生物多样性及昆虫群落的影响[D].长沙:湖南农业大学,2019.
	GU S S. Effects of different management modes on soil microbial diversity and insect communities in tea gardens [D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2019.

科 Family	2015						2016
	1#		2#		3#		1#		2#		3#
	数量 Number	比例Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%
合计 Total	675	100.00	1 047	100.00	404	100.00	658	100.00	1 335	100.00	320	100.00
平腹蛛科 Gnaphosidae	6	0.89	10	0.96	3	0.74	4	0.61	8	0.60	0	0.00
狼蛛科 Lycosidae	74	10.96	78	7.45	54	13.37	60	9.12	74	5.54	28	8.75
管巢蛛科 Clubionidae	64	9.48	96	9.17	47	11.63	52	7.90	85	6.37	35	10.94
蟹蛛科 Thomisidae	0	0.00	2	0.19	0	0.00	4	0.61	2	0.15	0	0.00
球蛛科 Theridiidae	0	0.00	0	0.00	3	0.74	0	0.00	2	0.15	0	0.00
园蛛科 Araneidae	24	3.56	42	4.01	23	5.69	36	5.47	90	6.74	17	5.31
跳蛛科 Salticidae	189	28.00	286	27.32	139	34.41	314	47.72	600	44.94	181	56.56
猫蛛科 Oxyopidae	37	5.48	50	4.78	4	0.99	22	3.34	27	2.02	7	2.19
圆颚蛛科 Corinnidae	29	4.30	77	7.35	10	2.48	22	3.34	65	4.87	2	0.63
皿蛛科 Linyphiidae	249	36.89	374	35.72	120	29.70	137	20.82	352	26.37	50	15.63
漏斗蛛科 Agelenidae	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	2	0.30	3	0.22	0	0.00
肖蛸蛛科 Tetragnathidae	3	0.44	32	3.06	1	0.25	5	0.76	27	2.02	0	0.00

科 Family	2015						2016
	1#		2#		3#		1#		2#		3#
	数量 Number	比例Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%	数量 Number	比例 Proportion/%
合计 Total	675	100.00	1 047	100.00	404	100.00	658	100.00	1 335	100.00	320	100.00
平腹蛛科 Gnaphosidae	6	0.89	10	0.96	3	0.74	4	0.61	8	0.60	0	0.00
狼蛛科 Lycosidae	74	10.96	78	7.45	54	13.37	60	9.12	74	5.54	28	8.75
管巢蛛科 Clubionidae	64	9.48	96	9.17	47	11.63	52	7.90	85	6.37	35	10.94
蟹蛛科 Thomisidae	0	0.00	2	0.19	0	0.00	4	0.61	2	0.15	0	0.00
球蛛科 Theridiidae	0	0.00	0	0.00	3	0.74	0	0.00	2	0.15	0	0.00
园蛛科 Araneidae	24	3.56	42	4.01	23	5.69	36	5.47	90	6.74	17	5.31
跳蛛科 Salticidae	189	28.00	286	27.32	139	34.41	314	47.72	600	44.94	181	56.56
猫蛛科 Oxyopidae	37	5.48	50	4.78	4	0.99	22	3.34	27	2.02	7	2.19
圆颚蛛科 Corinnidae	29	4.30	77	7.35	10	2.48	22	3.34	65	4.87	2	0.63
皿蛛科 Linyphiidae	249	36.89	374	35.72	120	29.70	137	20.82	352	26.37	50	15.63
漏斗蛛科 Agelenidae	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	2	0.30	3	0.22	0	0.00
肖蛸蛛科 Tetragnathidae	3	0.44	32	3.06	1	0.25	5	0.76	27	2.02	0	0.00

年份 Year	茶园类型 Tea type	蜘蛛数量 Spiders number	类群数 Order number	多样性指数H′	均匀度指数J	丰富度指数SR	优势度指数D
2015	1#	56.25±8.13 b	7.71±0.37 b	1.49±0.29 b	0.76±0.13 a	1.59±0.17 a	0.27±0.04 b
	2#	87.25±11.00 a	8.33±0.28 a	1.66±0.09 a	0.79±0.04 a	1.69±0.10 a	0.25±0.03 b
	3#	33.67±4.88 c	5.67±0.43 c	1.36±0.20 b	0.81±0.07 a	1.35±0.29 b	0.32±0.06 a
2016	1#	54.33±6.70 b	6.92±0.40 a	1.43±0.20 a	0.75±0.06 a	1.51±0.26 a	0.33±0.08 b
	2#	110.33±13.72 a	8.08±0.56 a	1.50±0.24 a	0.73±0.08 a	1.51±0.32 a	0.31±0.08 b
	3#	26.42±3.69 c	4.83±0.35 b	1.16±0.21 b	0.75±0.09 a	1.20±0.24 b	0.41±0.10 a

年份 Year	茶园类型 Tea type	蜘蛛数量 Spiders number	类群数 Order number	多样性指数H′	均匀度指数J	丰富度指数SR	优势度指数D
2015	1#	56.25±8.13 b	7.71±0.37 b	1.49±0.29 b	0.76±0.13 a	1.59±0.17 a	0.27±0.04 b
	2#	87.25±11.00 a	8.33±0.28 a	1.66±0.09 a	0.79±0.04 a	1.69±0.10 a	0.25±0.03 b
	3#	33.67±4.88 c	5.67±0.43 c	1.36±0.20 b	0.81±0.07 a	1.35±0.29 b	0.32±0.06 a
2016	1#	54.33±6.70 b	6.92±0.40 a	1.43±0.20 a	0.75±0.06 a	1.51±0.26 a	0.33±0.08 b
	2#	110.33±13.72 a	8.08±0.56 a	1.50±0.24 a	0.73±0.08 a	1.51±0.32 a	0.31±0.08 b
	3#	26.42±3.69 c	4.83±0.35 b	1.16±0.21 b	0.75±0.09 a	1.20±0.24 b	0.41±0.10 a

茶园类型 Tea type	空间分布 Spatial distribution	蜘蛛数量 Spiders number	多样性指数H′	均匀度指数J	丰富度指数SR	优势度指数D
1#	上层 Upper layer	12.83±8.12 b	1.47±0.30 a	0.95±0.04 a	2.10±0.27 a	0.73±0.31 a
	中层 Middle layer	16.50±9.87 ab	0.95±0.35 b	0.77±0.26 ab	1.36±0.36 b	0.54±0.18 b
	下层 Lower layer	20.25±9.95 a	0.77±0.39 b	0.60±0.28 b	1.16±0.30 b	0.42±0.22 c
	地表 Ground surface	6.67±2.53 c	0.17±0.20 c	0.24±0.29 c	0.73±0.24 c	0.10±0.12 d
2#	上层 Upper layer	19.42±9.06 b	1.56±0.24 a	0.93±0.03 a	2.04±0.32 a	0.76±0.07 a
	中层 Middle layer	28.75±13.53 a	1.14±0.32 b	0.78±0.09 ab	1.61±0.35 b	0.63±0.16 ab
	下层 Lower layer	31.75±14.9 a	0.98±0.22 b	0.73±0.14 b	1.29±0.31 c	0.54±0.11 b
	地表 Ground surface	7.33±2.95 c	0.22±0.23 c	0.32±0.34 c	0.72±0.31 d	0.14±0.15 c
3#	上层 Upper layer	5.41±1.37 c	0.75±0.59 ab	0.61±0.44 b	1.31±0.98 a	0.42±0.31 b
	中层 Middle layer	9.75±5.37 b	0.51±0.26 b	0.70±0.34 ab	1.10±0.32 a	0.35±0.18 b
	下层 Lower layer	13.75±5.40 a	0.92±0.21 a	0.90±0.08 a	1.22±0.32 a	0.56±0.08 a
	地表 Ground surface	4.75±4.09 c	0.09±0.16 c	0.13±0.23 c	0.77±0.49 a	0.05±0.09 c