欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

生态学杂志

• 方法与技术 • 上一篇    

多网目单层和三重组合刺网在岩礁和沙地生境中的鱼类采集效果比较

汪振华,龚甫贤,吴祖立,毕远新,章守宇**   

  1. (上海海洋大学海洋科学学院, 上海 201306)
  • 出版日期:2013-02-10 发布日期:2013-02-10

Efficiency of multimesh gillnets and multi-mesh trammel nets in collecting fish from rocky reef and sandy beach habitats.

WANG Zhen-hua, GONG Fu-xian, WU Zu-li, BI Yuan-xin, ZHANG Shou-yu**   

  1. (College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China)
  • Online:2013-02-10 Published:2013-02-10

摘要: 为了解多网目单层组合刺网(MGN)和三重组合刺网(MTN)在近岸软相和硬相生境中的鱼类采集效果,于2011年10月选择枸杞岛沙地(SB)和岩礁(RR)生境为研究对象,从种类组成、捕获方式、优势种渔获率、多样性和群落格局上对MGN和MTN在两种生境中的鱼类采集效果进行了比较。结果表明:SB中MTN比MGN多采集鱼类5种,RR中相应多采集鱼类8种;SB中的MGN采获优势种为青鳞小沙丁鱼(Sardinella zunasi)和小黄鱼(Larimichthys polyactis),MTN增加了日本须鳎(Paraplagusia japonica);RR中的MTN仅采获褐菖鲉(Sebastiscus marmoratus)和斑头鱼(Hexagrammos agrammus)两种优势种,但MGN相应多出青鳞小沙丁鱼和小黄鱼;两生境中MGN的捕获方式均以契入为主,而MTN的渔获个体中其他捕获方式的比例明显增加;MGN对两生境近底层小黄鱼和中上层青鳞小沙丁鱼的捕获率显著高于MTN,但对褐菖鲉、斑头鱼以及日本须鳎等底层鱼类的捕获率上,MGN要低于MTN;SB中基于MTN的多样性指标均显著大于MGN,而RR中两者之间的各指标并无显著差异;两生境中MGN和MTN所呈现的群落格局均存在显著差异。在进行刺网采样时,需依据研究目标应用适宜的网具和方法,以最大限度地了解鱼类组成的真实情况。

关键词: 生态土地分类, 生态单位, 生态分类系统, 景观

Abstract: In order to fully understand the efficiency of multi-mesh gillnets (MGN) and multi-mesh trammel nets (MTN) in collecting fish from soft bottom and hard bottom habitats, a 5day trial in the sandy beach (SB) and rocky reef (RR) habitats around Gouqi Island of East China was conducted in October 2011. The fish collection efficiency of MGN and MTN in SB and RR was compared from the viewpoints of fish composition, fish collection way, dominant fish composition and their relative abundance, and fish diversity indices and community patterns. The fish species collected by MTN were five more in SB and eight more in RR, as compared with those collected by MGN. In SB, the dominant fish species collected by MGN were Sardinella zunasi and Larimichthys polyactis, while those collected by MTN were S. zunasi, L. polyactis, and Paraplagusia japonica; in RR, only Sebastiscus marmoratus and Hexagrammos agrammus were the dominant fish species collected by MTN, while two more dominant fish species, i.e., Sardinella zunasi and L. polyactis, were collected by MGN. The fish collection ways of MTN and MGN differed. Most of the individuals collected by MGN both in SB and in RR were wedged, and only a small part of the individuals were gilled and entangled, whereas the percentages of gilled, entangled, and some other combined ways collected by MTN in the two habitats were increased significantly. In SB, the catch rates of S. zunasi and L. polyactis by MGN were significantly higher than those by MTN, while that of P. japonica was in contrary; in RR, MTN had higher catch rates of S. marmoratus and H. agrammus, while MGN indicated significantly higher catch rates than MTN. There were significant differences in the species diversity indices between the samples collected by MGN and MTN in SB, but no significant differences in RR. The cluster and ordination based on the abundance data indicated the significant differences in the fish community structure between MGN and MTN both in SB and in RR. It was suggested that when collecting fish with gillnets, it needed to design suitable nets and methods to get comprehensive information on the real fish assemblages.