Medical Journal of the Chinese People's Armed Police Forces

Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute >

2026 , Vol. 43 >Issue 1: 34 - 41

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11988/ckyyb.20241170

Water Environment and Water Ecology

Project Application of River Ecological Restoration Technology Based on Zoobenthos Communities

  • MA Zhuo-luo , 1, 2 ,
  • DAI Xiao-xuan 1, 2 ,
  • WANG Sai 3 ,
  • HUANG Wen-da 1, 2 ,
  • OU Hui-long 3 ,
  • WANG Tuan-tuan 3 ,
  • SONG Yong-duo 3
Expand
  • 1 Institute of Ecological Environment Planning and Design, China Water Resources Pearl River Planning Surveying & Designing Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510610, China
  • 2 Water Ecology Engineering Center of Pearl River Water Resources Commission, Guangzhou 510610, China
  • 3 State Key Laboratory of Marine Resource Utilization in South China Sea, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China

Received date: 2024-11-18

  Revised date: 2025-03-28

  Accepted date: 2025-04-03

  Online published: 2025-06-03

Fold

Abstract

[Objective] Zoobenthos are the intermediate link in the food chain of river ecosystems, and promoting the restoration of healthy zoobenthos communities through the construction of suitable habitats is critical for river ecological restoration. Based on the living habits of zoobenthos, habitat modules suitable for the colonization of various zoobenthos species are designed and applied in experiments within the ecological restoration project of Fenghuang Creek to investigate the effectiveness of ecological restoration. [Methods] Prior to project implementation, zoobenthos samples were collected once from the river channel. One year after the completion of the project, when the river ecosystem was restored, zoobenthos samples within the modules were collected, with three sampling sites set up for this study. In addition, zoobenthos were collected from a river minimally affected by human activities to serve as a natural reference state. Collected zoobenthos samples were identified and counted, and ecological indicators were analyzed. A total of ten ecological indicators were analyzed to assess the restoration of zoobenthos communities. These indicators included: individual density and biomass density reflecting biomass characteristics; total number of taxa, number of sensitive taxa, and number of EPT taxa reflecting species richness; Shannon-Wiener diversity index, richness index, and evenness index reflecting community diversity; and biotic index (BI) and biological monitoring working party score (BMWP) reflecting environmental sensitivity. [Results] Among the biomass-related indicators, no significant change in individual density of zoobenthos was observed before and after the restoration project, and the values remained below 40% of those in the natural state. Biomass density, however, varied considerably among sampling sites after project implementation, with two sites exceeding twice and four times the values observed in the natural state, respectively. Regarding species richness-related indicators, the total number of taxa reached 60% of the natural state before project implementation. After the project, it increased slightly, ranging from 66.7% to 73.3% of the natural state, indicating a relatively small difference from the natural condition. Although the numbers of sensitive taxa and EPT taxa significantly increased after the project, they remained far below the natural state, with sensitive taxa at 30.0%-40.0% and EPT taxa at only 14.3% of the natural state. For species diversity-related indicators, slight increases were observed after project implementation compared with pre-project levels, and the gaps from the natural state were small, with some indicators even surpassing those of the natural state. Although indicators related to environmental sensitivity were improved after project implementation, they remained far below the natural state, with BI values at 41.5%-44.3% and BMWP scores at 55.7% of the natural state. [Conclusion] Following project implementation, the health of zoobenthos communities in the river shows a relatively pronounced restoration, but there remains a considerable gap compared with the natural state, mainly reflected in indicators closely associated with sensitive taxa—namely, the number of sensitive taxa, number of EPT taxa, BI value, and BMWP score. This can be attributed to the fact that the structure of zoobenthos communities is influenced not only by the river habitats but also by the types of surrounding terrestrial ecosystems. The reference site in this study is minimally affected by human activities, where the natural ecosystem is well preserved and suitable for the survival and reproduction of adult aquatic insects from sensitive taxa, resulting in a relatively rich assemblage of sensitive taxa. In contrast, the river under restoration is surrounded by villages and farmland, where terrestrial habitats and communities are relatively homogeneous, and the river ecosystem is frequently disturbed. Therefore, these conditions limit the development of sensitive zoobenthos taxa to a certain extent and make it difficult for community health to approach the natural state. Based on the analytical indicators used in this study, individual density, biomass density, Shannon-Wiener diversity index, richness index, and evenness index are relatively insensitive and fail to accurately reflect the differences before and after implementation or between post-implementation and natural state. In contrast, indicators related to sensitive taxa exhibit strong sensitivity and applicability in assessing zoobenthos community restoration and are recommended for use in similar studies or projects.

Key words： river ecological restoration; zoobenthos; habitat construction; sensitive taxa; Shannon-Wiener diversity index

Cite this article

MA Zhuo-luo , DAI Xiao-xuan , WANG Sai , HUANG Wen-da , OU Hui-long , WANG Tuan-tuan , SONG Yong-duo . Project Application of River Ecological Restoration Technology Based on Zoobenthos Communities[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2026 , 43(1) : 34 -41 . DOI: 10.11988/ckyyb.20241170

0 引言

现阶段我国水污染治理已经取得一定成效,随着河湖水质不断改善[1],生态修复将是下个时期河流整治工作的重点[2],而生物栖息地的构建是河流生态修复的基础和关键[3]。国内在河流生物栖息地构建领域的研究大多以鱼类为研究对象[4-5],涉及底栖动物的研究则鲜有报道。底栖动物处于河流生态系统食物链的中间环节,对河流生态系统的物质循环和能量流动起着承上启下的重要作用[6]。通过构建良好的底栖动物栖息地,促进底栖动物群落恢复健康,有利于河流生态系统结构完整和健康发展。本文针对底栖动物的生活习性,设计出栖息地模块,并在河流生态修复工程中开展应用试验。工程实施后验证底栖动物群落恢复效果,以期为河流生态修复提供技术方案参考。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验地点

本研究试验地点位于广东省梅州市丰顺县留隍镇凤凰溪(见图1),河道周边环境为村庄和农田。凤凰溪是韩江左岸的一条支流,河长24.10 km,集水面积85.07 km2。2022年,凤凰溪被纳入广东南岭山区韩江中上游山水林田湖草沙一体化保护和修复工程项目,旨在解决河道被侵占、水生态系统退化等问题。本研究结合凤凰溪生态修复工程开展试验,设计出适宜多种底栖动物定殖的栖息地模块并加以应用,以此促进河流生态系统逐步恢复。
图1 修复工程与参照位点位置

Fig.1 Location of restoration project and reference site

1.2 栖息地设计

栖息地设计基于底栖动物的生活习性。相关研究表明,以毛翅目为代表的EPT类群(蜉蝣目Ephemeroptera、襀翅目Plecoptera、毛翅目Trichoptera)喜好卵石质河底,因为卵石不仅提供了附着空间,同时能成为底栖动物的庇护所[7-8]。蜻蜓目的幼虫通常栖息于水生植物的根系中[9]。砂质底质则更适合寡毛类及软体动物生存[10-11]。本次在考虑底栖动物生活习性的基础上,组合多种栖息地元素,设计成复合型底栖动物栖息地模块。模块为预制钢筋混凝土砌块(如图2所示),内部分为前室和后室。前室内部填充天然卵砾石,为底栖动物提供了附着场所、觅食场所和庇护空间。后室内部混合中粗砂与种植土,并种植水生植物,提供另一种类型的栖息地。栖息地模块同时也可以作为河流护岸的护脚,通过减轻冲刷来增强护岸稳定性。
图2 复合型底栖动物栖息地模块示意图

Fig.2 Schematic diagram of composite zoobenthos habitat module

1.3 底栖动物样品采集及鉴定

底栖动物样品采集方法采用踢网法[12-13],针对采样点附近不同类型小生境,使用60目D型抄网(孔径约0.25 mm),踢击抄网上游的底质,使生物从底质上分离,随水流进入网内。每个采样点踢击的范围为0.5~1.0 m2,多次踢击后将样品合并,再经60目筛网筛洗,用10%甲醛溶液固定,带回实验室鉴定和统计。底栖动物标本一般鉴定到种或属,部分鉴定到科。分类鉴定主要参考国内外相关资料[14-18]。2023年1月,工程施工前采集底栖动物样品;2023年6月,工程施工完毕(见图3)。在河流生态系统恢复1 a后,于2024年8月采集模块内的底栖动物样品,此次采样设置3个位点(见图4)。此外,同属韩江流域的梅州市蕉岭县芹菜坑水两岸为天然林地,无村庄和农田,几乎不受人为活动干扰,将其作为参照位点,代表未受干扰的天然状态,于2024年9月采集底栖动物样品。
图3 工程实施前后现场照片

Fig.3 On-site photos before and after project implementation

图4 工程实施前后采样位点位置

Fig.4 Location of sampling sites before and after project implementation

1.4 数据处理

本次分析底栖动物群落恢复效果的指标共10个,分别为反映生物量的个体数量密度和生物量密度,反映物种丰度的总分类单元数、敏感类群单元数、EPT分类单元数,反映物种多样性组成的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、丰富度指数、均匀度指数,以及反映环境敏感程度的生物指数(Biotic Index,BI)和生物监测工作组记分(Biological Monitoring Working Party,BMWP)。各指标定义如下:
(1)个体数量密度(ID)。个体数量密度为每平方米采样范围内发现的底栖动物个体总数量,单位为ind/m2。
(2)生物量密度(BD)。生物量密度为每平方米采样范围内发现的底栖动物全部个体的总生物量,单位为g/m2。
(3)总分类单元数(S)。总分类单元数即采样点发现的底栖动物种类总数量。
(4)敏感类群单元数(SS)。敏感类群单元数为采样点发现的对环境较为敏感的底栖动物种类数量。根据《水生态监测技术指南河流水生生物监测与评价》(HJ 1295—2023)[19]中底栖动物BMWP科级记分列表和底栖动物耐污值列表,结合本次调查结果,筛选出长臂虾科(Palaemonidae)、蜉蝣目(Ephemeroptera)、襀翅目(Plecoptera)、毛翅目(Trichoptera)、大蜻科(Macromiidae)、蜻科(Libellulidae)、春蜓科(Gomphidae)、扁泥甲科(Psephenidae)和大蚊科(Tipulidae)为敏感类群。
(5)EPT分类单元数(SEPT)。EPT分类单元数为采样点发现的蜉蝣目(Ephemeroptera)、襀翅目(Plecoptera)、毛翅目(Trichoptera)底栖动物种类数量,EPT类群属于对环境非常敏感的底栖动物类群。
(6)Shannon-Wiener多样性指数H'的表达式为
H ' = - ∑ i = 1 S n i N l o g 2 n i N 　 。
式中:N为底栖动物总个体数;i为第i个物种;ni为第i种底栖动物个体数。
(7)丰富度指数dM的表达式为
d M = S - 1 l n N 　 。
(8)均匀度指数J的表达式为
J = H ' / H m a x 　 。
式中Hmax为最大Shannon-Wiener多样性指数,Hmax=log2S。
(9)生物指数BI的表达式为
B I = ∑ i = 1 S n i N t i 　 。
式中ti为第i种底栖动物的耐污值。BI值越低,表明底栖动物群落对环境越敏感,也越健康。
(10)生物监测工作组记分(BMWP)的表达式为
B M W P = ∑ i = 1 N Z F i 　 。
式中:NZ为科级分类单元总数;Fi为第i个科的记分[19]。BMWP记分值越高,表明底栖动物群落对环境越敏感,也越健康。

2 结果与分析

工程实施前后以及参照位点采集到的全部底栖动物种类见表1,各分析指标结果见表2。
表1 各位点采集的底栖动物种类名录

Table 1 List of zoobenthos species collected at each site

种类 拉丁文名 采集结果
工
程
前		 工程后 参照
位点
1#采
样点		 2#采
样点		 3#采
样点
环节动物门 Annelida
颤蚓科 Tubificidae
苏氏尾鳃蚓 Branchiura sowerbyi +
霍甫水丝蚓 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri +
软体动物门 Mollusca
田螺科 Viviparidae
梨形环棱螺 Bellamya purificata + + +
厚唇螺科 Pachychilidae
田螺沟蜷 Sulcospira paludiformis +
海南沟蜷 Sulcospira hainanensis +
短沟蜷科 Semisulcospiridae
放逸短沟蜷 Semisulcospira libertina +
方格短沟蜷 Semisulcospira cancellata +
瓶螺科 Ampullariidae
大瓶螺 Pomacea canaliculata + +
豆螺科 Bithyniidae
纹沼螺 Parafossarulus striatulus + + +
蚬科 Cyrenidae
河蚬 Corbicula fluminea +
节肢动物门 Arthropoda
长臂虾科 Palaemonidae
日本沼虾a Macrobrachium nipponense + +
扁蜉科 Heptageniidae
似动蜉属一种a,b Cinygmula sp. +
宽基蜉属一种a,b Choroterpes sp. +
扁蜉属一种a,b Heptagenia sp. +
等蜉属一种a,b Isonychia sp. +
四节蜉科 Baetidae
花翅蜉属一种a,b Coeliccia sp. + + +
襀科 Perlidae
襀科一属一种a,b Calineuria sp. +
原石蛾科 Rhyacophilidae
原石蛾属一种a,b Rhyacophila sp. +
纹石蛾科 Hydropsychidae
纹石蛾属一种a,b Hydropsyche sp. +
大蜻科 Macromiidae
大蜻属一种a Macromia sp. +
蜻科 Libellulidae
云斑蜻属一种a Tholymis sp. + +
灰蜻属一种a Orthetrum sp. +
赤蜻属一种a Sympetrum sp. +
春蜓科 Gomphidae
长腹春蜓
属一种a		 Gastrogomphus sp. +
扇蟌科 Platycnemididae
狭扇蟌属一种 Copera sp. + +
扇蟌属一种 Platycnemis sp. +
扁泥甲科 Psephenidae
纯扁泥甲属一种a Mataeopsephus sp. +
黾蝽科 Gerridae
水黾蝽 Gerris paludum + + +
大蚊科 Tipulidae
大蚊属一种a Tipula sp. +
摇蚊科 Chironomidae
摇蚊属一种 Chironnomus sp. + + +
多足摇蚊属一种 Polypedilum sp. + + + +
隐摇蚊属一种 Cryptochironnomus sp. +
雕翅摇蚊属一种 Glyptotendipes sp. + +
直突摇蚊属一种 Orthocladius sp. +
二叉摇蚊属一种 Dicrotendipes sp. +
无突揺蚊属一种 Ablabesmyia sp. + +

注:“a”代表敏感类群,“b”代表EPT类群,“+”表示采集到该种类底栖动物。

表2 底栖动物指标分析结果

Table 2 Analysis results of zoobenthos indicators

指标类别 指标 分析结果
工程前 工程后 参照位点
1#采样点 2#采样点 3#采样点
生物量 个体数量密度/(ind·m-2) 17.0 18.0 20.0 13.0 57.0
生物量密度/(g·m-2) 1.75 1.61 5.55 11.64 2.54
物种丰度 总分类单元数S 9 11 10 10 15
敏感类群单元数SS 0 3 3 4 10
EPT分类单元数SEPT 0 1 1 1 7
物种多样性 Shannon-Wiener多样性指数H' 1.838 2.293 2.016 2.205 2.314
丰富度指数dM 2.824 3.46 3.004 3.509 3.463
均匀度指数J 0.837 0.956 0.876 0.958 0.854
环境敏感程度 生物指数 7.171 5.733 5.700 5.369 2.379
生物监测工作组记分 24 49 49 49 88

2.1 生物量

在底栖动物个体数量密度方面,修复工程实施前为17 ind/m2,实施后分别为18、20、13 ind/m2,均小于参照位点的57 ind/m2。在生物量密度方面,修复工程实施前为1.75 g/m2,实施后分别为1.61、5.55、11.64 g/m2,参照位点为2.54 g/m2。

2.2 物种丰度

工程实施前共采集到底栖动物9种,隶属于3门4纲6科,其中环节动物门1纲1科2种,软体动物门2纲4科3种,节肢动物门1纲1科4种,无敏感类群和EPT类群。
工程实施后,共采集到底栖动物16种,隶属于2门3纲10科,其中软体动物门1纲3科3种,节肢动物门2纲7科13种,敏感类群有6种,EPT类群有1种。3个采样位点分别采集到11、10、10种底栖动物,其中敏感类群分别有3、3、4种,EPT类群各有1种。上述结果表明,工程实施后,河道内底栖动物的种类有小幅增加,且出现了对环境较为敏感的物种。
参照位点采集到底栖动物15种,隶属于2门2纲11科,其中软体动物门1纲1科2种,节肢动物门1纲10科13种,敏感类群有10种,EPT类群有7种,表明参照位点的敏感类群较为丰富。

2.3 物种多样性

在反映物种多样性的指标方面,工程实施前采集到底栖动物的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、丰富度指数、均匀度指数分别为1.838、2.824和0.837。工程实施后,3个位点采集到底栖动物的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数在2.016~2.293之间,丰富度指数在3.004~3.509之间,均匀度指数在0.876~0.958之间,相比工程实施前均有小幅提升。参照位点的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、丰富度指数、均匀度指数分别为2.314、3.463和0.854。

2.4 环境敏感程度

工程实施前采集到底栖动物的BI值为7.171,BMWP记分值为24,显示出底栖动物群落主要由对环境耐受程度较高的类群组成。工程实施后,底栖动物的BI值降为5.369~5.733之间,BMWP记分值升至49,表明底栖动物群落中敏感类群的成分有所增加。参照位点的BI值为2.379,BMWP记分值为88。

2.5 工程实施后恢复程度

将工程实施前后各项指标的值除以参照位点相应的指标值,可评估出底栖动物群落健康恢复到天然状态的程度。由于BI值随底栖动物群落对环境敏感程度提高而降低,故将参照位点指标值除以工程实施前后相应的指标值。从工程实施前后与天然状态各指标相对比结果(图5)可以看出,在与生物量有关的几个指标中,修复工程实施前后底栖动物个体数量密度没有明显变化,且均低于天然状态的40%;而生物量密度在修复工程实施后的不同采样位点之间差异较大,有2个位点分别超过了天然状态的2倍和4倍。在与物种丰度有关的几个指标中,工程实施前底栖动物总分类单元数能达到天然状态的60%,工程实施后有小幅增加,为天然状态的66.7%~73.3%之间,但总体上与天然状态差距并不大;虽然在工程实施后敏感类群单元数和EPT分类单元数有显著增加,但与天然状态差距仍然很大,前者为天然状态的30.0%~40.0%,后者仅为14.3%。在与物种多样性有关的几个指标中,工程实施后相比实施前均有小幅提升,但与天然状态差距很小,甚至有部分指标优于天然状态。虽然在工程实施后与环境敏感程度有关的指标均有所提升,但与天然状态的差距仍然较大,BI值和BMWP记分值分别为天然状态的41.5%~44.3%和55.7%。
图5 工程实施前后与天然状态各指标对比

Fig.5 Comparison of indicators before and after implementation with natural state

3 讨论

研究结果表明,工程实施后河道内底栖动物群落健康有较为明显的恢复,但与天然状态相比仍有较大差距,主要反映在敏感类群单元数、EPT分类单元数、BI值、BMWP记分值这几项与敏感类群密切相关的指标。推测是因为底栖动物群落结构除了与河流栖息地有关系外,还受到河流周边土地生态系统类型的影响[20-22]。本研究中的参照位点受人为活动干扰极小,天然生态系统保存完好,适宜敏感类群中水生昆虫的成体生存繁衍[23],故参照位点的敏感类群较为丰富。修复工程所在河流的周边为村庄和农田,不仅陆生生境及群落较为单一,而且河流生态系统也会频繁地受到的干扰,从而在一定程度上限制了底栖动物敏感类群多样性的发展,故群落健康很难恢复到接近天然状态。因此开展河流生态系统修复工作时,在条件允许的情况下,也需要构建出多样性的河岸带生态系统。
从本研究中采用的分析指标来看,个体数量密度、生物量密度、Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、丰富度指数、均匀度指数这几项指标相对不灵敏,不能真实反映出工程实施前后以及工程实施后与天然状态之间的差距。这是因为与生物量有关的指标数值易受个别生物类群的影响,如本研究在修复工程实施后的2个采样位点发现有大瓶螺(Pomacea canaliculata),其个体较大,导致生物量密度较高,甚至超过天然状态数倍。生物多样性相关的指标计算过程与种类总数量以及各物种个体数量的均匀程度有关,而与敏感类群的多样性无直接关系。如在参照位点共采集到57头底栖动物,其中19头为EPT类群中纹石蛾属的一种,底栖动物个体数量的不均匀导致与多样性相关的指标结果偏低,甚至低于修复河段。底栖动物群落的健康程度除了与物种多样性有关外,还取决于敏感类群的分类单元数及个体数量[24],故修复工程实施前后与天然状态之间的真实差距主要体现在与敏感类群相关的指标。因此与敏感类群相关的指标在验证底栖动物群落恢复效果方面有较强的灵敏度和适用性,宜在类似研究或工程中应用。
本修复工程将底栖动物栖息地进行模块化设计,整体造型为矩形,便于施工摆放。由于栖息地模块放置在仿木桩护岸的临水侧作为护脚,可以减轻水流对护岸的冲刷掏蚀,从而增强了护岸的稳定性。

4 结论

(1)工程实施前后各项指标对比结果表明,采用构建栖息地的方式来促进河流底栖动物群落健康恢复是行之有效的。
(2)与敏感类群相关的指标在验证底栖动物群落恢复效果方面有较强的灵敏度和适用性,宜在类似研究或工程中应用。
(3)栖息地模块可用作河流护岸的护脚来增强护岸稳定性,同时模块化设计便于工程施工。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
嵇晓燕, 侯欢欢, 王姗姗, 等. 近年全国地表水水质变化特征[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(10):4419-4429.

(JI Xiao-yan, HOU Huan-huan, WANG Shan-shan, et al. Variation Characteristics of Surface Water Quality in China in Recent Years[J]. Environmental Science, 2022, 43(10): 4419-4429.) (in Chinese)

DOI

[2]
许继军, 景唤. 河流生态修复理念与技术研究进展[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2022, 43(4):691-701.

(XU Ji-jun, JING Huan. Research Progress of River Ecological Restoration Concept and Technology[J]. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2022, 43(4):691-701.) (in Chinese)

[3]
李轩, 张晶, 艾祖军, 等. 赤水河河源段栖息地现状评价及修复对策探讨[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2023, 44(2):34-43.

(LI Xuan, ZHANG Jing, AI Zu-jun, et al. Health Status Assessment and Restoration Strategies of Habitat in the Headwaters of Chishui River Based on Fish Protection Priority[J]. Journal of Hydroecology, 2023, 44(2): 34-43.) (in Chinese)

[4]
杨富亿, 文波龙, 李晓宇, 等. 吉林莫莫格国家级自然保护区河流湿地的鱼类栖息地修复效果评价[J]. 湿地科学, 2024, 22(1):1-15.

(YANG Fu-yi, WEN Bo-long, LI Xiao-yu, et al. Restoration Effect Evaluation of Fish Habitats in River Wetlands in Jilin Momoge National Nature Reserve[J]. Wetland Science, 2024, 22(1): 1-15.) (in Chinese)

[5]
李轩, 赵进勇, 张晶, 等. 赤水河上游鱼类产卵场砾石群修复模拟研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2023, 32(5): 939-949.

(LI Xuan, ZHAO Jin-yong, ZHANG Jing, et al. A Simulation Study of Gravel Cluster Restoration at Fish Spawning Grounds in Upper Chishui River[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2023, 32(5): 939-949.) (in Chinese)

[6]
鲁浩天, 郝子垚, 刘萌硕, 等. 基于Ecopath模型的北方典型中小河流生态系统营养结构与能量流动分析[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2023, 39(11):1453-1463.

(LU Hao-tian, HAO Zi-yao, LIU Meng-shuo, et al. Analysis on the Ecosystem Trophic Structure and Energy Flow of Typical Small and Medium Rivers in Northern China on Ecopath Model[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2023, 39(11): 1453-1463.) (in Chinese)

[7]
NEUMANN M, DUDGEON D. The Impact of Agricultural Runoff on Stream Benthos in Hong Kong, China[J]. Water Research, 2002, 36(12): 3103-3109.

PMID

[8]
俞乃琪, 张敏, 樊仕宝, 等. 深圳市城市区域内典型生境特征溪流大型底栖动物群落结构比较[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2022, 28(4):1034-1041.

(YU Nai-qi, ZHANG Min, FAN Shi-bao, et al. Comparison of Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in Urban (Shenzhen City) Streams with Typical Habitat Characteristics[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2022, 28(4):1034-1041.) (in Chinese)

[9]
GOLFIERI B, SURIAN N, HARDERSEN S. Towards a More Comprehensive Assessment of River Corridor Conditions: A Comparison between the Morphological Quality Index and Three Biotic Indices[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2018, 84: 525-534.

DOI

[10]
李娣, 李旭文, 姜晟, 等. 京杭运河江苏段底栖动物群落结构调查[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 2021, 33(1):23-27.

(LI Di, LI Xu-wen, JIANG Sheng, et al. Survey on Macrobenthic Community Structure in Jiangsu Segment of Grand Canal[J]. The Administration and Technique of Environmental Monitoring, 2021, 33(1):23-27.) (in Chinese)

[11]
殷旭旺, 徐宗学, 高欣, 等. 渭河流域大型底栖动物群落结构及其与环境因子的关系[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(1): 218-226.

(YIN Xu-wang, XU Zong-xue, GAO Xin, et al. Macrobenthos Community Structure and Its Relationships with Environmental Factors in Weihe River Basin, Northwest China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013, 24(1): 218-226.) (in Chinese)

PMID

[12]
王备新, 杨莲芳. 溪流底栖动物定量与半定量采样法比较研究[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2006, 12(5): 719-721.

(WANG Bei-xin, YANG Lian-fang. Comparison of Quantitative and Semiquantitave Sampling Methods for Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied & Environmental Biology, 2006, 12(5): 719-721.) (in Chinese)

[13]
HJ 710.8—2014,生物多样性观测技术导则淡水底栖大型无脊椎动物[S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2015.

(HJ 710.8—2014, Technical Guidelines for Biodiversity Monitoring:Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates[S]. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2015.) (in Chinese)

[14]
EPLER J H. Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina[M]. USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2001.

[15]
王洪铸. 中国小蚓类研究: 附中国南极长城站附近地区两新种[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2002.

(WANG Hong-zhu. Studies on Taxonomy, Distribution and Ecology of Microdrile Oligochaetes of China, with Descriptions of Two New species from the Vicinity of the Great Wall Station of China, Antarctica[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2002.) (in Chinese)

[16]
刘月英. 中国经济动物志-淡水软体动物[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1979.

(LIU Yue-ying. Fauna of Economic Animals in China:Freshwater Molluscs[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1979.) (in Chinese)

[17]
王祯瑞. 中国动物志, 软体动物门,双壳纲,贻贝目[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1997.

(WANG Zhen-rui. Fauna Sinica, Phylum Mollusca, Class Bivalvia, Order Mytiloida[M]. Beijing: Science Press,1997.) (in Chinese)

[18]
杨潼. 中国动物志,环节动物门, 蛭纲[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1996.

(YANG Tong. Fauna Sinica, Phylum Annelida, Class Hirudinea[M]. Beijing: Science Press,1996.) (in Chinese)

[19]
HJ 1295—2023, 水生态监测技术指南河流水生生物监测与评价[S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2023.

(HJ 1295—2023, Technical Guidelines for Water Ecological Monitoring:Aquatic Organism Monitoring and Evaluation of Rivers[S]. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2023.) (in Chinese)

[20]
田震, 敖偲成, 李先福, 等. 高黎贡山南段河流生态系统健康评价[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2023, 44(1): 25-33.

(TIAN Zhen, AO Si-cheng, LI Xian-fu, et al. Health Assessment of River Ecosystem of the Southern Gaoligong Mountains[J]. Journal of Hydroecology, 2023, 44(1): 25-33.) (in Chinese)

[21]
赵茜, 潘福霞, 李斌, 等. 山区河流底栖动物多样性和稳定性对土地利用方式的响应机制[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(17): 7844-7858.

(ZHAO Qian, PAN Fu-xia, LI Bin, et al. Response Mechanism of Benthic Invertebrate Diversity and Stability to Land-use Patterns in Mountainous Rivers[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2024, 44(17): 7844-7858.) (in Chinese)

[22]
陈璁, 唐庆蝉, 赵本宣, 等. 不同土地利用方式对城市河流底栖动物群落结构的影响: 以温瑞塘河和永强塘河为例[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2025, 46(4): 185-193.

(CHEN Cong, TANG Qing-chan, ZHAO Ben-xuan, et al. Impact of Land Use on the Benthic Community of Urban Rivers:A Case Study of Wenruitang River and Yongqiangtang River[J]. Journal of Hydroecology, 2025, 46(4): 185-193.) (in Chinese)

[23]
马卓荦, 胡和平, 王赛. 基于B-IBI的东江下游河流生态健康评价[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2023, 40(9): 32-38.

DOI

(MA Zhuo-luo, HU He-ping, WANG Sai. Evaluation of Aquatic Ecological Health of Rivers in the Lower Reaches of Dongjiang River Based on Benthic-index of Biotic Integrity[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2023, 40(9): 32-38.) (in Chinese)

[24]
刘帅磊, 王赛, 崔永德, 等. 亚热带城市河流底栖动物完整性评价: 以流溪河为例[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(1): 342-357.

(LIU Shuai-lei, WANG Sai, CUI Yong-de, et al. Ecological Assessment of a Subtropical Urban River Based on the Benthic-index of Biotic Integrity—Liuxi River[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(1): 342-357.) (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Copyright © Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd.