跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.60.144) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/24 00:50
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:張宜婷
研究生(外文):Yi-Ting Chang
論文名稱:由跨尺度景觀結構探討鳥類和蝴蝶多樣性
論文名稱(外文):A Cross-Scale Approach to the Biodiversity of Birds and Butterflies in Landscape Structures
指導教授:張俊彥
指導教授(外文):Chun-Yen Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:園藝學研究所
學門:農業科學學門
學類:園藝學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:122
中文關鍵詞:景觀生態景觀結構層級理尺度鳥類多樣性蝴蝶多樣性
外文關鍵詞:Landscape EcologyLandscape StructureHierarchy TheoryScaleBird DiversityButterfly Diversity
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:508
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
在生態學領域中,尺度為相當重要的概念,需要配合不同研究議題及研究對象來選取適當的研究尺度。不同國家或是不同地區皆有其景觀特殊性,而台灣是一個景觀異質度及破碎度相當高的國家,故應配合台灣的環境特性尋求一適合之尺度來探討景觀中的生態現象。
本研究以景觀結構及層級理論為基礎,討論在跨尺度中物種多樣性與景觀結構的關係。研究基地位於苗栗縣三灣鄉,為台灣典型的農村地區,運用eCognotion 4.0、ArcGis 9.2以及Fragstats3.2進行景觀結構量化,分析不同幅度及粒度中景觀結構的空間組成狀態,並以鳥類及蝴蝶作為不同生態地位的代表性物種。研究首先確立鳥類及蝴蝶之核心尺度為何,在此核心尺度中兩物種可以顯著的反應景觀結構的變化,再依循此分析結果,探討不同尺度中之景觀結構與物種的相關性為何以及交互作用的差異。
研究結果發現,於不同核心尺度下鳥類及蝴蝶與景觀結構之間存在顯著的交互作用,且此核心尺度反映了兩物種不同的生態特性:鳥類的核心尺度反映了鳥類生活圈的範圍,包含了防衛性範圍、捕食區域以及食源密度的概念;而蝴蝶的核心尺度則反映了蝴蝶飛行距離的長短,說明了蝴蝶生活需求及遷移的活動中飛行行為的重要性。在本研究基地中,景觀結構以林地及耕地對於物種多樣性的影響最顯著,且林地及耕地的景觀結構特徵對鳥類及蝴蝶會造成不同的影響。
本研究證實於不同尺度下存在不同物種的優勢生態過程,而跨尺度的研究有助於了解景觀中生態系統的完整性,且在實質規劃應用中,更需因應尺度的變化,對於物種棲地環境之營造應有不同的策略與方針。
Scale is a very important concept in the area of ecology science, with different research objectives and subjects to select the appropriate scale. Taiwan is a relatively small country with high landscape heterogeneity and high fragmentation. It is necessary to find a suitable scale to study the ecological phenomena for such a place.
Based on the theory of landscape structure and hierarchy theory, this study discusses the relationship between species diversity and landscape structures in cross-scale. The study site, Miaoli Sanwan township, is situated in a traditional rural landscape of Taiwan. The spatial information is calculated at different extents and grids of scale with eCognotion 4.0, ArcGis 9.2, and Fragstats3.2. In this study, birds and butterflies are taken as representative species of different ecology statuses. First, this study tries to find the core-scale of birds and butterflies that reflect significantly the changes of landscape structures. It is followed by a discussion of the relationship between the biodiversity and landscape structures at different scales, specifically for birds and butterflies.
This finding shows that the core-scale of birds and butterflies are different, and the difference of core-scale reflects the differences in ecological characteristics. The core-scale of birds represents the concept of home range and that of butterflies reflects the flying distance. A home range reflects the life history of a bird: its defensive zone, the eating area, and the food density of the place. The flying distance of butterflies represents their daily needs and their migration to new habitats. The results suggest that to preservation of the woodland and farmland areas requires biodiversity and that the relationships between landscape structures and species are different.
This study suggests that different species have different ecological processes that dominate at different scales. Cross-scale research can contribute to the understanding of the landscape integrity of the ecosystem. And in the landscape planning applications, we need to address different strategies and approaches for habitat construction in response to the changes of scale.
目 錄
口試委員會審定書 iv
中文摘要 v
英文摘要 vi

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的 3
第三節 研究重要性 4

第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 景觀結構理論 5
第二節 景觀層級理論 15
第三節 鳥類和蝴蝶族群相關理論 21

第三章 研究方法 37
第一節 研究架構與假設 37
第二節 研究調查基地 42
第三節 研究方法 43

第四章 分析結果與討論 53
第一節 代表性物種多樣性分析 53
第二節 不同景觀生態研究尺度影響力分析 56
第三節 景觀生態研究尺度下景觀結構與物種多樣性相關性分析 61
第四節 跨尺度景觀結構與物種多樣性相關性分析 71

第五章 結論與建議 78
第一節 鳥類及蝴蝶代表性物種景觀生態研究尺度之確立 76
第二節 景觀結構與物種多樣性整體分析結果 80
第三節 研究限制 85
第四節 後續成果應用與研究建議 86

參考文獻 90
附錄 附錄一 鳥類與蝴蝶物種調查結果彙整 96
附錄二 研究樣點景觀結構數化結果 102
附錄三 原文摘錄 111
一、中文文獻
1.彭建、王仰麟、張源、葉敏婷、吳健生,(2006),土地利用分類對景觀格局指數的影響,地理學報,61(2):157-168。
2.台灣野鳥資訊社、日本野鳥の會,(1995),台灣野鳥圖鑑,台北:亞舍圖書有限公司。
3.李大維,(2006),大坑蝴蝶生態教育區蝶相調查研究,特有生物研究,8(1): 13-25。
4.李俊延、王效岳,(1996),蝴蝶的觀察與飼育,台北市:臺灣省立博物館。
5.李俊延、王效岳,(2002),台灣蝴蝶圖鑑,台北:貓頭鷹出版社。
6.廖啟政、周昌弘,(2001),生物多樣性對於生態系統功能的影響,科學發展月刊,29(2):81-90。
7.林憲德,(1999),城鄉生態,臺北市:詹氏。
8.林世強,(2006),從面積、形狀與配置方式探討保護區之規劃原則,自然保育季刊,54:16-31。
9.呂小飛,(2006),蝴蝶的美麗世界,中國青年科技,1(01):54-61。
10.呂一河、傅伯杰,(2001),生態學中的尺度及尺度轉移方法,生態學報,21(12):2096-2105。
11.黃偉銘、歐聖榮、張俊彥,(2006),以鳥類為指標物種評估台灣鄉村地區景觀生態研究尺度,造園景觀學報,12(4):1-21。
12.江彥政、張俊彥,(2004),景觀生態中塊區結構指數與鳥類物種歧異度相關性之研究,興大園藝,29(4):94-110。
13.邱揚、張金屯,(2000),景觀生態學的核心:生態學系統的時空異質性.,生態學雜誌,19(02):42-49。
14.趙羿、賴明洲、薛怡珍,(2003),景觀生態學:理論與實務,台北市:地景。
15.諸葛陽,(1989),生態平衡與自然保護,台北市:淑馨。
16.陳潔君、王義飛、雷光春、王戎疆、徐汝梅,(2004),棲息地品質對兩種網蛺蝶集合種群結構和分佈的影響,昆蟲學報,47(1):59-66。
17.左自途、袁興中、劉紅、黎璇,(2008),重慶市主城區不同生境類型的蝴蝶多樣性,生態學雜誌,27(6):946-950。
18.晏華、袁興中、劉文萍、鄧合黎,(2006),城市化對蝴蝶多樣性的影響:以重慶市為例,生物多樣性,14(3):216-222。
19.鄔建國、李百煉、伍業鋼,(1992),綴塊性和綴塊動態:I.概念與機制,生態學雜誌,4:43-47。
20.鄔建國,(2000),景觀生態學-概念與理論,生態學雜誌,19(1):42-52。
21.鄔建國,(2003),景觀生態學:格局、過程、尺度與等級,台北市:五南。
22.宇振榮、胡敦孝,(1998),試論農田邊界的景觀生態功能,生態學雜誌, 17(03):53-58。
23.王穎、陳炤杰,(1992),太魯閣國家公園中、高海拔鳥類資源之調查研究,花蓮縣:太魯閣國家公園管理處。

二、英文文獻
1.Baguette, M., Mennechez, G., Petit, S., & Schtickzelle, N. (2003). Effect of habitat fragmentation on dispersal in the butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 326, 200-209.
2.Bissonette, J. A. (1997). Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. New York: Springer.
3.Blair, R. B. (1999). Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: Surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications, 9(1), 164-170.
4.Botequilha Leitão, A., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 65-93.
5.Botequilha Leitão, A., Miller, J., Ahern, J., & McGarigal, K. (2005). Measuring Landscapes. Washington: Island Press.
6.Bowers, M. A., & Breland, B. (1996). Foraging of Gray Squirrels on an Urban-Rural Gradient: Use of the Gud to Assess Anthropogenic Impact. Ecological Applications, 6(4), 1135-1142.
7.Collinge, S. K. (1996). Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36(1), 59-77.
8.Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2006). Nonrandom Movement Behavior at Habitat Boundaries in Two Butterfly Species: Implications for Dispersal. Ecology, 87(1), 125-132.
9.Debinski, D. M., Ray, C., & Saveraid, E. H. (2001). Species diversity and the scale of the landscape mosaic: do scales of movement and patch size affect diversity? Biological Conservation, 98(2), 179-190.
10.Debinski, D. M., VanNimwegen, R. E., & Jakubauskas, M. E. (2006). Quantifying Relationships between Bird and Butterfly Community Shifts and Environmental Change. Ecological Applications, 16(1), 380-393.
11.DiBari, J. N. (2007). Evaluation of five landscape-level metrics for measuring the effects of urbanization on landscape structure: the case of Tucson, Arizona, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3-4), 308-313.
12.Fahrig, L., & Merriam, G. (1985). Habitat Patch Connectivity and Population Survival. Ecology, 66(6), 1762-1768.
13.Fernandez-Juricic, E. (2004). Spatial and temporal analysis of the distribution of forest specialists in an urban-fragmented landscape (Madrid, Spain): Implications for local and regional bird conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 17-32.
14.Fleishman, E., Blair, R. B., & Murphy, D. D. (2001). Empirical Validation of a Method for Umbrella Species Selection. Ecological Applications, 11(5), 1489-1501.
15.Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land Mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
16.Forman, R. T. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons Publisfers.
17.Garland, T. J., & Bradley, W. (1984). Effects of a highway on Mojave Desert rodent populations. . American Midland Naturalist, 111(1), 47-56.
18.Gaucherel, C., Burel, F., & Baudry, J. (2007). Multiscale and surface pattern analysis of the effect of landscape pattern on carabid beetles distribution. Ecological Indicators, 7(3), 598-609.
19.Griffith, J. A., Martinko, E. A., & Price, K. P. (2000). Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scales. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(1), 45-61.
20.Haddad, N. M. (1999). Corridor and Distance Effects on Interpatch Movements: A Landscape Experiment with Butterfly. Ecological Applications, 9(2), 612-622.
21.Haddad, N. M. (2000). Corridor Length and Patch Colonization by a Butterfly. Conservation Biology, 14(3), 738-745.
22.Hanski, I., Gilpin, M. E., Ilkka, H., & Michael, E. G. (1997). Metapopulation theory. In Metapopulation Biology (pp. 63-67). San Diego: Academic Press.
23.Hanski, I., Kuussaari, M., Naomi, C., & Peter, W. P. (1995). Butterfly Metapopulation Dynamics. In Population Dynamics (pp. 149-171). San Diego: Academic Press.
24.Hanski, I., & Thomas, C. D. (1994). Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: A spatially explicit model applied to butterflies. Biological Conservation, 68(2), 167-180.
25.Hedblom, M. (2007). Birds and butterflies in Swedish urban and peri-urban habitats: a landscape perspective: Dept. of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
26.Hersperger, A. M. (2006). Spatial adjacencies and interactions: Neighborhood mosaics for landscape ecological planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(3), 227-239.
27.Hodgson, P., French, K., & Major, R. E. (2007). Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: Differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3-4), 266-272.
28.Holland, J., & Fahrig, L. (2000). Effect of woody borders on insect density and diversity in crop fields: a landscape-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 78(2), 115-122.
29.Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-Scale Morphology, Geometry, and Dynamics of Ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62(4), 447-502.
30.Hostetler, M. (1999). Scale, birds, and human decisions: a potential for integrative research in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45(1), 15-19.
31.Hostetler, M., & Holling, C. S. (2000). Detecting the scales at which birds respond to structure in urban landscapes. Urban Ecosystems, 4, 25-54.
32.Hostetler, M., & Knowles-Yanez, K. (2003). Land use, scale, and bird distributions in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(2), 55-68.
33.Kemp, D. J. (2000). Contest behavior in territorial male butterflies: does size matter? Behav. Ecol., 11(6), 591-596.
34.Kotliar, N. B., & Wiens, J. A. (1990). Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: A hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos, 59(2), 253-260.
35.Levin, S. A. (1992). The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture. Ecology, 73(6), 1943-1967.
36.Li, X., He, H. S., Bu, R., Wen, Q., Chang, Y., & Hu, Y. (2005). The adequacy of different landscape metrics for various landscape patterns. Pattern Recognition, 38(12), 2626-2638.
37.Mörtberg, U., & Wallentinus, H.-G. (2000). Red-listed forest bird species in an urban environment -- assessment of green space corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50(4), 215-226.
38.Mason, J., Moorman, C., Hess, G., & Sinclair, K. (2007). Designing suburban greenways to provide habitat for forest-breeding birds. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2), 153-164.
39.McGarigal, K., & Marks, B. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
40.Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology, 4(4), 355-364.
41.O''Neill, R. V., Hunsaker, C. T., Timmins, S. P., Jackson, B. L., Jones, K. B., Riitters, K. H. (1996). Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecology, 11(3), 169-180.
42.O''Neill, R. V., Deangelis, D. L., Waide, J. B., & Allen, T. F. H. (1986). A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems: Princeton University Press.
43.Peterson, G. D. (2000). Scaling Ecological Dynamics: Self-Organization, Hierarchical Structure, and Ecological Resilience. Climatic Change, 44(3), 291-309.
44.Pino, J., Rod, F., Ribas, J., & Pons, X. (2000). Landscape structure and bird species richness: implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49(1-2), 35-48.
45.Purtauf, T., Thies, C., Ekschmitt, K., Wolters, V., & Dauber, J. (2005). Scaling properties of multivariate landscape structure. Ecological Indicators, 5(4), 295-304.
46.Sandström, U. G., Angelstam, P., & Mikusinski, G. (2006). Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1-2), 39-53.
47.Savard, J. P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4), 131-142.
48.Schneider, C., Dover, J., & Fry, G. L. A. (2003). Movement of two grassland butterflies in the same habitat network: the role of adult resources and size of the study area. Ecological Entomology, 28(2), 219-227.
49.Schneider, C., & Fry, G. (2005). Estimating the consequences of land-use changes on butterfly diversity in a marginal agricultural landscape in Sweden. Journal for Nature Conservation, 13(4), 247-256.
50.Schoener, T. W. (1968). Sizes of Feeding Territories among Birds. Ecology, 49(1), 123-141.
51.Schultz, C. B., & Crone, E. E. (2001). Edge-Mediated Dispersal Behavior in a Prairie Butterfly. Ecology, 82(7), 1879-1892.
52.Schulze, C. H., Waltert, M., Kessler, P. J. A., Pitopang, R., Veddeler, D., Muhlenberg, M., et al. (2004). Biodiversity Indicator Groups of Tropical Land-Use Systems: Comparing Plants, Birds, and Insects. Ecological Applications, 14(5), 1321-1333.
53.Scott, J. A. (1975). Flight Patterns among Eleven Species of Diurnal Lepidoptera. Ecology, 56(6), 1367-1377.
54.Stamps, J. A., Buechner, M., & Krishnan, V. V. (1987). The Effects of Edge Permeability and Habitat Geometry on Emigration from Patches of Habitat. The American Naturalist, 129(4), 533.
55.Sutcliffe, O. L., Bakkestuen, V., Fry, G., & Stabbetorp, O. E. (2003). Modelling the benefits of farmland restoration: methodology and application to butterfly movement. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(1), 15-31.
56.Turner, M. G. (1988). A spatial simulation model of land use changes in a Piedmont county in Georgia. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 27(1), 39-51.
57.Turner, M. G., O''Neill, R. V., Gardner, R. H., & Milne, B. T. (1989). Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 3(3), 153-162.
58.Urban, D. L., O''Neill, R. V., & Shugart, H. H. (1987). Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientist understand spatial patterns. BioScience, 37(2), 119-127.
59.Villard, M.-A., Trzcinski, M. K., & Merriam, G. (1999). Fragmentation Effects on Forest Birds: Relative Influence of Woodland Cover and Configuration on Landscape Occupancy. Conservation Biology, 13(4), 774-783.
60.Wiens, J. A., Crawford, C. S., & Gosz, J. R. (1985). Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45, 421-427.
61.Wu, J. (2004). Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecology, 19(2), 125-138.
62.Wu, J., & David, J. L. (2002). A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications. Ecological Modelling, 153(1-2), 7-26.
63.Wu, J., Jelinski, D. E., Luck, M., & Tueller, P. T. (2000). Multiscale Analysis of Landscape Heterogeneity: Scale Variance and Pattern Metrics. Geographic Information Sciences, 6, 6-19.
64.Zurlini, G., Zaccarelli, N., & Petrosillo, I. (2006). Indicating retrospective resilience of multi-scale patterns of real habitats in a landscape. Ecological Indicators, 6(1), 184-204.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top