兽类学报

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同生境和季节社鼠与大林姬鼠的微生境选择比较

黄广传 司俊杰 蒙新 陈治文 张洪茂   

  1. (华中师范大学生命科学学院, 武汉 430079)
  • 出版日期:2019-05-30 发布日期:2019-05-10
  • 通讯作者: 张洪茂 E-mail: zhanghm@mail.ccnu.edu.cn

Differences in microhabitat selection between Chinese white-bellied rats (Niviventer confucianus) and Korean field mice (Apodemus peninsulae) in different habitat types and seasons

HUANG Guangchuan, SI Junjie, MENG Xin, CHEN Zhiwen, ZHANG Hongmao   

  1. (Institute of Evolution and Ecology, School of Life Sciences, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China)
  • Online:2019-05-30 Published:2019-05-10

摘要: 微生境选择分化是生境相似物种间共存的重要原因。社鼠和大林姬鼠为北京东灵山地区常见鼠种,生境需求、活动节律及食物组成等相似,但二者共存的原因尚不清楚。2016—2017年,我们对北京东灵山地区社鼠和大林姬鼠的微生境选择进行了研究。不同季节和生境类型中,社鼠和大林姬鼠微生境选择存在明显分化。灌丛生境中,春季社鼠偏好于乔木密度、草本盖度更高和落叶盖度相对偏低的微生境,而大林姬鼠选择郁闭度、落叶盖度较高而草本盖度较低的微生境,主成分分析表明,地表覆盖物是影响二者微生境选择的主要因素;秋季社鼠喜好乔木种类多、灌木密度和草本盖度更高的微生境,而大林姬鼠选择乔木胸径、灌木距离、落叶盖度和空地比例更高的微生境,食物丰度是影响社鼠和大林姬鼠微生境选择的主要因素。弃耕地生境中,春季社鼠倾向于灌木密度和草本盖度较高的微生境,而大林姬鼠首选郁闭度、乔木胸径、落叶盖度较大而草本盖度较低的微生境,地表覆盖物是影响二者微生境选择的主要因素;秋季社鼠偏好郁闭度和落叶盖度都相对较低的微生境,大林姬鼠则相反,食物多度是影响二者微生境选择的主要因素。次生林生境中,春季因样本量太少,未作分析;秋季社鼠优先选择灌木密度、灌木基径和草本盖度更高的微生境,大林姬鼠更倾向乔木胸径、落叶盖度较高,而灌木密度、草本盖度较低的微生境,地表覆盖物是影响二者微生境选择的主要因素。结果表明,不同生境和季节,两种鼠的微生境选择具有明显分化,这可能是二者共存的重要原因之一。

关键词: 同域分布鼠类, 微生境选择, 生态位分化, 物种共存

Abstract: Microhabitat selection differentiation is an important factor for the coexistence of sympatric animals. Chinese white-bellied rats (Niviventer confucianus CWR) and Korean field mice (Apodemus peninsulae KFM) are common rodent species that share similar habitats (e.g., shrub and forest), rhythms (nocturnal) and diets (e.g., plant seeds) in the Donglingshan area, western Beijing city, China. However, we know little about why they coexist with each other. Here, we studied microhabitat selection of CWR and KFM in different habitats and seasons from May to October in 2016 and 2017. We wanted to know if the two rodent species have different microhabitat preferences that contribute to coexistence. In shrub, in spring, CWR preferred in places with higher arbor density, higher herb coverage and relatively lower litter coverage, while KFM selected higher diameter at breast height (DBH) and litter coverage, but lower herb coverage microhabitats. Principal component analysis showed that surface cover was the key factor affecting microhabitat choices of the two species. In shrub, in autumn, CWR preferred to select microhabitats with more arbor species, higher shrub density and herb coverage microhabitats, while KFM preferred microhabitats with larger DBH, longer shrub distances, higher ratio of open field and litter coverage. Food abundance was the key factor in determining the microhabitat selection. In abandoned farmland, in spring, CWR selected microhabitats with higher shrub density and herb coverage, whereas KFM preferred to select higher canopy coverage, DBH and litter coverage, but lower herb coverage microhabitats. Surface cover was the key factor that affected the microhabitat choices. In abandoned farmland, in autumn, CWR preferred microhabitats with relatively low canopy coverage and litter coverage, while KFM’s selection was on the opposite. Food abundance was the main factor that determined their microhabitatselections. In secondary forests, in autumn, CWR preferred microhabitats with higher shrub density, shrub base diameter and herb coverage, while KFM liked microhabitats with higher DBH and litter coverage, but lower shrub density and herb coverage. Surface cover was the key factor that influenced the microhabitat selections. The case in spring in secondary forest was not analyzed due to small sample sizes. These results suggest that there are different microhabitat preferences between CWR and KFM along habitat types and seasons, therefore promoting their coexistence.

Key words: Sympatric rodents, Microhabitat selection, Niche differentiation, Species coexistence