深圳市红树林群落物种组成及多样性
|
韩梦梦(1995—),女,湖南省常德人,硕士,从事海绵城市与生态修复研究。E-mail: hmm1230@163.com |
收稿日期: 2024-07-22
修回日期: 2024-09-12
网络出版日期: 2026-03-12
版权
Species composition and diversity of mangrove communities in Shenzhen City
Received date: 2024-07-22
Revised date: 2024-09-12
Online published: 2026-03-12
Copyright
为探明深圳市红树林群落特征,选择深圳市3处具有代表性的红树林分布区,调查红树林物种组成及多样性特征。研究结果表明,鹿咀红树林群落类型更丰富,有7种红树林群落类型,福田红树林和西湾红树林均为5种;秋茄(Kandelia obovata)、海桑(Sonneratia caseolaris)和无瓣海桑(Sonneratia apetala)是红树林群落的建群种和优势种,广泛分布于3处红树林分布区各群落内;木榄(Bruguiera gymnorrhiza)是福田红树林重要的伴生种;拉关木(Laguncularia racemosa)、海漆(Excoecaria agallocha)和红海榄(Rhizophora stylosa)作为鹿咀红树林的优势种各自形成了局部优势群落;桐花树(Aegiceras comiculatum)和白骨壤(Avicennia marina)是福田红树林和鹿咀红树林的重要组成物种,丰富了红树林的物种多样性。福田红树林和西湾红树林的种群年龄结构为稳定型,鹿咀红树林的种群年龄偏小,红树植物群落整体为增长型。鹿咀红树林显示出较高的物种多样性,优势种较突出,且群落物种分布较均匀。在红树林的恢复与重建中,建议考虑乡土种与外来种相结合的方式,通过增加本土红树植物的种类来提高红树林的物种多样性和生态稳定性。
韩梦梦 , 路洋 , 罗炘武 , 粟春青 , 郑卫国 . 深圳市红树林群落物种组成及多样性[J]. 湿地科学, 2025 , 23(4) : 701 -711 . DOI: 10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.20240202
Characteristics of mangrove community structure and species diversity serve as crucial indicators for assessing mangrove ecosystem health. Based on field survey data from three major mangrove areas in Shenzhen, this study comprehensively analyzed and compared community characteristics including arbor species composition, community types, dominant species, and species diversity at a holistic scale, aiming to provide scientific basis for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of mangroves in Shenzhen. The Futian Mangrove National Nature Reserve, Xiwan Mangrove in Bao'an District, and Luzui Mangrove in Dapeng District represent three typical mangrove distribution areas located in southern, western, and eastern Shenzhen, respectively. To elucidate the community characteristics of Shenzhen’s mangroves, these three representative mangrove distribution areas were selected as study areas. The results demonstrated that in terms of community types, Luzui Mangrove exhibited richer diversity with seven community types, compared to five types each in Futian Mangrove and Xiwan Mangrove. Regarding dominant species, Kandelia obovata, Sonneratia caseolaris, and Sonneratia apetala served as foundational and dominant species widely distributed across all three mangrove areas. Bruguiera gymnorrhiza functioned as an important associated species in Futian Mangrove, while Laguncularia racemosa, Excoecaria agallocha, and Rhizophora stylosa formed locally dominant communities as characteristic species in Luzui Mangrove. Aegiceras comiculatum and Avicennia marina significantly contributed to species diversity as key components in both Futian and Lujiazhuang Mangroves. Population age structure analysis revealed stable patterns in Futian and Xiwan Mangroves, whereas Luzui Mangrove showed a younger population with overall growth potential. In species diversity assessment, Luzui Mangrove demonstrated higher diversity indices with more prominent dominant species and more even species distribution. For mangrove restoration and reconstruction, we recommended adopting an integrated approach combining native and introduced species to enhance ecological stability and landscape value. Native species including Excoecaria agallocha, Avicennia marina, and Bruguiera gymnorrhiza were particularly recommended as they pose no ecological invasion risks while effectively increasing biodiversity. These species represented excellent candidates for transforming Kandelia obovate dominated communities or establishing mixed mangrove forests in Shenzhen, contributing to both ecological resilience and aesthetic value of the mangrove ecosystems. The findings provide valuable insights for developing science-based conservation strategies, highlighting the importance of maintaining species diversity and appropriate species composition in urban mangrove management. The spatial variation observed across different locations underscores the need for site-specific management approaches that consider local ecological conditions and community characteristics. This study establishes a fundamental framework for ongoing monitoring and adaptive management of Shenzhen’s valuable mangrove resources.
1 Distribution of survey plots for mangrove communities in Futian (a), Bao'an Xiwan (b) and Luzui Mountain Villa (c) in Shenzhen深圳市福田(a)、宝安西湾(b)和鹿咀山庄(c)红树林群落调查点分布 |
1 Basic information of mangrove community survey plots in Shenzhen City深圳市红树林群落调查样地基本情况 |
| 红树林分布区 | 所在 区位 | 面积/hm2 | 流经河流 名称 | 土壤 质地 | 样方号 |
| 福田红树林 保护区 | 深圳南部 | 368.00 | 凤塘河 | 黏壤土 | A1~A16 |
| 宝安西湾红树林 | 深圳西部 | 7.34 | 铁岗水库 排洪河、 南昌涌 | 粉砂土 | B1~B15 |
| 大鹏鹿咀山庄 红树林 | 深圳东部 | 8.00 | 鹿咀河 | 粉砂土 | C1~C7 |
2 Types of mangrove communities in Shenzhen City深圳市红树林群落类型 |
| 红树林群落类型 | 福田 | 宝安 | 大鹏 |
| 注:√表示该地区存在该种群落类型;空白单元格表示该地区不存在该种群落类型。 | |||
| 秋茄群落Kandelia obovata community | √ | √ | |
| 海桑群落Sonneratia caseolaris community | √ | ||
| 无瓣海桑群落Sonneratia apetala community | √ | ||
| 秋茄+海桑群落Kandelia obovata+Sonneratia caseolaris community | √ | ||
| 海桑+无瓣海桑群落Sonneratia caseolaris+Sonneratia apetala community | √ | √ | |
| 秋茄+海漆群落Kandelia obovata+Excoecaria agallocha community | √ | ||
| 秋茄+木榄群落Kandelia obovata+Bruguiera gymnorrhiza community | √ | ||
| 秋茄+海漆+拉关木群落Kandelia obovata+ Excoecaria agallocha+ Laguncularia racemose community | √ | ||
| 拉关木+海漆+桐花树群落Laguncularia racemosa + Excoecaria agallocha+ Aegiceras comiculatum community | √ | ||
| 秋茄+海桑+无瓣海桑群落Kandelia obovata+Sonneratia caseolaris +Sonneratia apetala community | √ | ||
| 秋茄+桐花树+木榄群落Kandelia obovata +Aegiceras comiculatum + Bruguiera gymnorrhiza community | √ | ||
| 秋茄+木榄+白骨壤群落Kandelia obovata +Bruguiera gymnorrhiza+ Avicennia marina community | √ | ||
| 无瓣海桑+木榄+海漆+白骨壤群落 Sonneratia apetala + Bruguiera gymnorrhiza + Excoecaria agallocha + Avicennia marina community | √ | ||
| 红海榄+秋茄+拉关木+白骨壤群落 Rhizophora stylosa + Kandelia obovata+ Laguncularia racemosa + Avicennia marina community | √ | ||
| 无瓣海桑+秋茄+红海榄+桐花树群落 Sonneratia apetala + Kandelia obovata+ Rhizophora stylosa + Aegiceras comiculatum community | √ | ||
| 合计 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
3 Species composition and dominance of mangrove communities in Futian Mangrove Reserve福田红树林保护区红树林群落物种组成及优势度 |
| 样方号 | 树种 | 数量/株 | 平均高度/m | 平均胸径/cm | 相对多度/% | 相对频度/% | 相对显著度/% | 重要值/% |
| A1 | 秋茄 | 36 | 6.0 | 12.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| A2 | 秋茄 | 23 | 6.5 | 13.4 | 82.1 | 55.6 | 97.4 | 78.3 |
| 木榄 | 5 | 3.1 | 4.2 | 17.9 | 44.4 | 2.6 | 21.7 | |
| A3 | 秋茄 | 27 | 5.4 | 11.5 | 87.1 | 55.6 | 88.4 | 77.0 |
| 木榄 | 4 | 4.5 | 10.2 | 12.9 | 44.4 | 11.6 | 23.0 | |
| A4 | 秋茄 | 37 | 6.4 | 11.8 | 88.1 | 55.6 | 82.0 | 75.2 |
| 木榄 | 5 | 5.0 | 15.1 | 11.9 | 44.4 | 18.0 | 24.8 | |
| A5 | 秋茄 | 24 | 6.3 | 14.8 | 70.6 | 55.6 | 81.9 | 69.3 |
| 木榄 | 10 | 5.5 | 10.7 | 29.4 | 44.4 | 18.1 | 30.7 | |
| A6 | 秋茄 | 38 | 5.5 | 10.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| A7 | 秋茄 | 40 | 5.9 | 8.9 | 85.1 | 50.0 | 94.4 | 76.5 |
| 桐花树 | 3 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 6.4 | 10.0 | 0.3 | 5.6 | |
| 木榄 | 4 | 4.2 | 6.6 | 8.5 | 40.0 | 5.3 | 17.9 | |
| A8 | 秋茄 | 35 | 5.7 | 11.3 | 85.4 | 55.6 | 93.4 | 78.1 |
| 木榄 | 6 | 5.0 | 7.4 | 14.6 | 44.4 | 6.6 | 21.9 | |
| A9 | 秋茄 | 39 | 6.7 | 12.4 | 69.6 | 55.6 | 79.2 | 68.1 |
| 木榄 | 17 | 5.2 | 9.0 | 30.4 | 44.4 | 20.8 | 31.9 | |
| A10 | 秋茄 | 8 | 4.7 | 12.7 | 50.0 | 53.6 | 70.8 | 58.1 |
| 木榄 | 3 | 3.0 | 5.3 | 18.8 | 42.9 | 4.6 | 22.1 | |
| 白骨壤 | 5 | 4.6 | 21.5 | 31.3 | 3.6 | 24.6 | 19.8 | |
| A11 | 秋茄 | 49 | 4.1 | 5.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| A12 | 海桑 | 19 | 8.6 | 18.9 | 90.5 | 50.0 | 85.0 | 75.2 |
| 无瓣海桑 | 2 | 10.8 | 24.8 | 9.5 | 50.0 | 15.0 | 24.8 | |
| A13 | 秋茄 | 46 | 6.0 | 8.7 | 85.2 | 50.0 | 96.8 | 77.3 |
| 木榄 | 3 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 5.6 | 40.0 | 1.6 | 15.7 | |
| 桐花树 | 5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 9.3 | 10.0 | 1.6 | 6.9 | |
| A14 | 秋茄 | 26 | 6.6 | 10.8 | 76.5 | 50.0 | 92.0 | 72.8 |
| 桐花树 | 7 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 20.6 | 10.0 | 1.4 | 10.7 | |
| 木榄 | 1 | 6.2 | 15.5 | 2.9 | 40.0 | 6.6 | 16.5 | |
| A15 | 秋茄 | 16 | 7.1 | 14.3 | 42.1 | 55.6 | 54.0 | 50.5 |
| 木榄 | 22 | 5.8 | 10.6 | 57.9 | 44.4 | 46.0 | 49.5 | |
| A16 | 秋茄 | 38 | 5.4 | 12.3 | 77.6 | 55.6 | 91.9 | 75.0 |
| 木榄 | 11 | 3.9 | 6.7 | 22.4 | 44.4 | 8.1 | 25.0 |
4 Species composition and dominance of mangrove communities in Bao'an Xiwan宝安西湾红树林群落物种组成及优势度 |
| 样方号 | 树种 | 数量/株 | 平均高度/m | 平均胸径/cm | 相对多度/% | 相对频度/% | 相对显著度/% | 重要值/% |
| B1 | 秋茄 | 59 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| B2 | 秋茄 | 32 | 5.0 | 8.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| B3 | 秋茄 | 28 | 4.7 | 8.0 | 87.5 | 55.6 | 38.2 | 60.4 |
| 海桑 | 4 | 8.5 | 26.8 | 12.5 | 44.4 | 61.8 | 39.6 | |
| B4 | 秋茄树 | 18 | 9.3 | 12.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| B5 | 海桑 | 17 | 7.3 | 19.8 | 65.4 | 61.5 | 53.4 | 60.1 |
| 无瓣海桑 | 9 | 7.8 | 25.4 | 34.6 | 38.5 | 46.6 | 39.9 | |
| B6 | 海桑 | 22 | 8.3 | 23.2 | 88.0 | 61.5 | 87.9 | 79.1 |
| 无瓣海桑 | 3 | 8.6 | 23.7 | 12.0 | 38.5 | 12.1 | 20.9 | |
| B7 | 海桑 | 2 | 10.8 | 26.4 | 20.0 | 61.5 | 19.6 | 33.7 |
| 无瓣海桑 | 8 | 9.1 | 27.4 | 80.0 | 38.5 | 80.4 | 66.3 | |
| B8 | 海桑 | 6 | 5.9 | 21.3 | 30.0 | 61.5 | 34.7 | 42.1 |
| 无瓣海桑 | 14 | 6.9 | 18.5 | 70.0 | 38.5 | 65.3 | 57.9 | |
| B9 | 海桑 | 28 | 9.0 | 24.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| B10 | 无瓣海桑 | 7 | 7.5 | 22.7 | 31.8 | 21.7 | 35.6 | 29.7 |
| 海桑 | 12 | 7.4 | 22.7 | 54.5 | 34.8 | 58.6 | 49.3 | |
| 秋茄 | 3 | 4.4 | 14.6 | 13.6 | 43.5 | 5.9 | 21.0 | |
| B11 | 秋茄 | 27 | 8.1 | 13.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| B12 | 秋茄 | 8 | 5.4 | 19.4 | 72.7 | 55.6 | 41.9 | 56.7 |
| 海桑 | 3 | 7.8 | 36.4 | 27.3 | 44.4 | 58.1 | 43.3 | |
| B13 | 秋茄 | 24 | 4.7 | 14.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| B14 | 秋茄树 | 47 | 6.0 | 9.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| B15 | 秋茄 | 24 | 4.1 | 11.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
5 Species composition and dominance of mangrove communities in Luzui Mountain Villa鹿咀山庄红树林群落的物种组成及优势度 |
| 样方号 | 树种 | 数量/株 | 平均高度/m | 平均胸径/cm | 相对多度/% | 相对频度/% | 相对显著度/% | 重要值/% |
| C1 | 无瓣海桑 | 23 | 3.9 | 7.4 | 71.9 | 30.0 | 74.6 | 58.8 |
| 木榄 | 4 | 1.3 | 4.4 | 12.5 | 10.0 | 6.3 | 9.6 | |
| 海漆 | 4 | 2.3 | 7.8 | 12.5 | 40.0 | 15.8 | 22.8 | |
| 白骨壤 | 1 | 2.0 | 8.0 | 3.1 | 20.0 | 3.3 | 8.8 | |
| C2 | 无瓣海桑 | 24 | 3.2 | 5.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| C3 | 拉关木 | 6 | 6.0 | 8.1 | 26.1 | 33.3 | 48.7 | 36.0 |
| 海漆 | 10 | 3.9 | 5.3 | 43.5 | 44.4 | 48.2 | 45.4 | |
| 桐花树 | 7 | 2.9 | 1.8 | 30.4 | 22.2 | 3.1 | 18.6 | |
| C4 | 拉关木 | 19 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 52.8 | 27.3 | 71.8 | 50.6 |
| 秋茄 | 11 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 30.6 | 36.4 | 1.4 | 22.8 | |
| 海漆 | 6 | 2.9 | 6.6 | 16.7 | 36.4 | 26.8 | 26.6 | |
| C5 | 红海榄 | 28 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 68.3 | 18.2 | 59.6 | 48.7 |
| 秋茄 | 11 | 1.2 | 2.6 | 26.8 | 36.4 | 20.3 | 27.8 | |
| 拉关木 | 1 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 27.3 | 2.5 | 10.7 | |
| 白骨壤 | 1 | 2.0 | 8.0 | 2.4 | 18.2 | 17.6 | 12.7 | |
| C6 | 无瓣海桑 | 15 | 6.2 | 9.6 | 34.1 | 27.3 | 95.5 | 52.3 |
| 秋茄 | 18 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 40.9 | 36.4 | 2.5 | 26.6 | |
| 红海榄 | 8 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 18.2 | 18.2 | 1.3 | 12.6 | |
| 桐花树 | 3 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 6.8 | 18.2 | 0.7 | 8.6 | |
| C7 | 秋茄 | 18 | 2.0 | 4.6 | 58.1 | 50.0 | 37.5 | 48.5 |
| 海漆 | 13 | 2.7 | 7.2 | 41.9 | 50.0 | 62.5 | 51.5 |
6 Species diversity index of mangrove plants in Shenzhen City深圳市红树植物物种多样性指数 |
| 样方号 | 多样性指数 | 优势度指数 | 均匀度指数 | 样方号 | 多样性指数 | 优势度指数 | 均匀度指数 | |
| 注:−表示样方中仅有1个物种,不计算多样性指数。 | ||||||||
| A1 | − | − | − | B4 | − | − | − | |
| A2 | 0.469 2 | 0.293 4 | 0.140 8 | B5 | 0.645 0 | 0.452 7 | 0.198 0 | |
| A3 | 0.384 5 | 0.224 8 | 0.112 0 | B6 | 0.366 9 | 0.211 2 | 0.114 0 | |
| A4 | 0.365 0 | 0.209 8 | 0.097 7 | B7 | 0.500 4 | 0.320 0 | 0.217 3 | |
| A5 | 0.605 8 | 0.415 2 | 0.171 8 | B8 | 0.610 9 | 0.420 0 | 0.203 9 | |
| A6 | − | − | − | B9 | − | − | − | |
| A7 | 0.547 1 | 0.264 4 | 0.142 1 | B10 | 0.966 7 | 0.582 6 | 0.312 7 | |
| A8 | 0.416 3 | 0.249 9 | 0.112 1 | B11 | − | − | − | |
| A9 | 0.613 9 | 0.422 8 | 0.152 5 | B12 | 0.586 0 | 0.396 7 | 0.244 4 | |
| A10 | 1.183 6 | 0.617 2 | 0.426 9 | B13 | − | − | − | |
| A11 | − | − | − | B14 | − | − | − | |
| A12 | 0.314 5 | 0.172 3 | 0.103 3 | B15 | − | − | − | |
| A13 | 0.564 8 | 0.262 7 | 0.141 6 | C1 | 0.865 5 | 0.451 2 | 0.249 7 | |
| A14 | 0.588 7 | 0.407 3 | 0.166 9 | C2 | − | − | − | |
| A15 | 0.680 6 | 0.487 5 | 0.187 1 | C3 | 1.074 7 | 0.650 3 | 0.342 8 | |
| A16 | 0.532 5 | 0.348 2 | 0.136 8 | C4 | 0.998 2 | 0.600 3 | 0.278 6 | |
| B1 | − | − | − | C5 | 0.794 6 | 0.460 4 | 0.214 0 | |
| B2 | − | − | − | C6 | 1.225 6 | 0.678 7 | 0.323 9 | |
| B3 | 0.376 8 | 0.218 8 | 0.108 7 | C7 | 0.680 1 | 0.487 0 | 0.198 0 | |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |