Distribution characteristics and influencing factors of crabs and crab burrows in the Fengxian coastal wetland

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-5641.2021.02.016

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigated the distribution characteristics and influencing factors of crabs and crab burrows in Fengxian coastal wetland to reveal the main influencing factors in crabs’ and crab burrows’ distribution and deepen the understanding of crabs’ living habits. The results showed that: ① The abundance of Helice tientsinesis in the high-marsh Phragmites australis habitat is higher than that in the middle-marsh Phragmites australis -Spartina alterniflora mixed habitat and low-marsh Spartina alterniflora habitat (p < 0.01). However, there is no significant difference in the abundance of Sesarma plicate between habitats (p > 0.05). ② The density of crab burrows in the high-marsh Phragmites habitat is significantly higher than that in the middle-marsh Phragmites-Spartina mixed habitat and the low-marsh Spartina habitat (p < 0.05), while the average opening diameter of crab burrows is significantly lower than that in the middle-marsh Phragmites -Spartina mixed habitat and the low-marsh Spartina habitat (p < 0.05). ③ There is no significant linear relationship between crab abundance and the density of crab burrows( p > 0.05), while there is a significant positive correlation between the density of crab burrows and the abundance of Helice tientsinesis ( p < 0.01). ④ Crab abundance is negatively correlated with plant underground biomass ( p < 0.01). ⑤ There is a negative correlation between the density of crab burrows and vegetation coverage and plant density. The relative elevation, water content, conductivity, total organic carbon content, and total nitrogen content are positively correlated with the density of crab burrows. Among these factors, the relative elevation is the habitat factor with the highest correlation with the density of crab burrows.

Key words: coastal wetlands, crabs, crab burrows, distribution characteristics, impact factors

CLC Number:

Q958.1

Xiang LI, Huimin TIAN, Jingying WU, Siyu CHEN, Mingming ZHAO, Ping XU, Xuechu CHEN, Wenhui YOU. Distribution characteristics and influencing factors of crabs and crab burrows in the Fengxian coastal wetland[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Natural Science), 2021, 2021(2): 160-170.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Table 1

Fig.6

Fig.7

Table 2

Fig.8

References 31

1	KRISTENSEN E. Mangrove crabs as ecosystem engineers; with emphasis on sediment processes. Journal of Sea Research, 2007, 59 (1): 30- 43.
2	王金庆. 长江口盐沼优势蟹类的生境选择与生态系统工程师效应 [D]. 上海: 复旦大学, 2008.
3	GIL P, FABRIZIO B, SAMWEL L, et al. Are fiddler crabs potentially useful ecosystem engineers in mangrove wastewater wetlands?. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2009, 58 (11): 1694- 1703. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.06.015
4	ALEXANDRIA M. What is the role of ecosystem engineers in new England salt marshes? A mesocosm study of the fiddler crab and the purple marsh crab. Wetlands, 2019, 3 (2): 371- 379. doi: 10.1007/s13157-019-01123-4
5	盛强. 崇明东滩不同高程上蟹类对植物种间关系的影响 [D]. 上海: 复旦大学, 2011.
6	POMBO M, DE OLIVEIRA A L, XAVIER L Y, et al. Natural drivers of distribution of ghost crabs Ocypode quadrata and the implications of estimates from burrows . Marine Ecology Progress Series, 2017, 565, 131- 147. doi: 10.3354/meps11991
7	SCHLACHE T A, LUCREZI S, PETERSON C H, et al. Estimating animal populations and body sizes from burrows: Marine ecologists have their heads buried in the sand. Journal of Sea Research, 2016, 112, 55- 64. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2016.04.001
8	STELLING-WOOD T P, CLARK G F, POORE A G B. Responses of ghost crabs to habitat modification of urban sandy beaches. Marine Environmental Research, 2016, 116, 32- 40. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.02.009
9	MACHADO G B, GUSMãO-JUNIOR J B, COSTA T M. Burrow morphology of Uca uruguayensis and Uca leptodactylus (Decapoda: Ocypodidae) from a subtropical mangrove forest in the western Atlantic . Integrative Zoology, 2013, 8 (3): 307- 314. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2012.00297.x
10	WANG M, GAO X Q, WANG W Q. Differences in burrow morphology of crabs between Spartina alterniflora marsh and mangrove habitats . Ecological Engineering, 2014, 69 (4): 213- 219.
11	赵建春, 戴志军, 李九发, 等. 强潮海湾近岸表层沉积物时空分布特征及水动力响应——以杭州湾北岸为例. 沉积学报, 2008, 26 (6): 1043- 1051.
12	黄华梅. 上海滩涂盐沼植被的分布格局和时空动态研究 [D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2009.
13	王琰, 童春富. 长江口芦苇和互花米草盐沼湿地蟹类洞穴分布特征及主要影响因子. 生态学报, 2017, 37 (16): 5504- 5513.
14	高雪芹. 互花米草群落与红树林群落蟹洞形态的比较研究 [D]. 福建厦门: 厦门大学, 2011.
15	骆蓓菁, 李翔, 罗鼎晖, 等. 天津厚蟹与褶痕相手蟹对杭州湾北岸典型盐沼植物的摄食偏好. 华东师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, (6): 123- 131.
16	孟寒玉. 互花米草入侵下漳江口红树林区两种蟹类分布与生境选择研究 [D]. 福建厦门: 厦门大学, 2017.
17	LI S Z, CUI B S, XIE T, et al. What drives the distribution of crab burrows in different habitats of intertidal salt marshes, Yellow River Delta, China. Ecological Indicators, 2018, 92, 99- 106. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.003
18	上海奉贤区统计局. 2019年奉贤统计年鉴(上) [EB/OL]. (2019-09-06)[2020-05-29]. https://www.fengxian.gov.cn/tjj/tjsj/20190906/004002_218ac76d-7cb4-4c6e-9122-07480a7b67f5.htm.
19	茅志昌, 郭建强, 虞志英, 等. 杭州湾北岸岸滩冲淤分析. 海洋工程, 2008, 26 (1): 112- 117.
20	骆蓓菁. 杭州湾北岸优势蟹类对典型盐沼植物的摄食偏好及作用研究 [D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2019.
21	WALTON M E, VAY L L, LEBATA J H, et al. Assessment of the effectiveness of mangrove rehabilitation using exploited and non-exploited indicator species. Biological Conservation, 2007, 138, 180- 188. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.012
22	KURODA M, WADA K, KAMADA M. Factors influencing coexistence of two brachyuran crabs, Helice tfidens and Parasesarma plicatum, in an estuarine salt marsh . Journal of Crustacean Biology, 2005, (2): 146- 153.
23	余婕. 河口潮滩湿地有机质来源、组成与食物链传递研究 [D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2008.
24	袁兴中, 陆健健. 潮滩微地貌元素-“生物结构”与小型底栖动物的空间分布. 生态学杂志, 2003, 22 (6): 124- 126. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4890.2003.06.025
25	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法 [M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2000.
26	王琰. 长江河口典型盐沼湿地蟹类洞穴的分布特征及其生态效应 [D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2018.
27	SCHUCHMAN E, WARBURG M R. Dispersal, population structure and burrow shape of Ocypode cursor . Marine Biology, 1978, 49 (3): 255- 263. doi: 10.1007/BF00391138
28	戴爱云. 蟹类的行为Ⅱ: 群体行为 [J]. 四川动物, 1991, 10(3): 16-19.
29	戴爱云. 蟹类的行为Ⅰ: 个体行为. 四川动物, 1991, 10 (2): 19- 22.
30	杨泽华, 童春富, 陆健健. 长江口湿地三个演替阶段大型底栖动物群落特征 [J]. 动物学研究, 2006(4): 411-418.
31	王卿. 互花米草在上海崇明东滩的入侵历史、分布现状和扩张趋势的预测 [J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2011, 20(6): 53-59.

多度	蟹洞密度	蟹洞开口直径
天津厚蟹多度	0.686**	–0.286
褶痕相手蟹多度	–0.190	0.139
总多度	0.203	0.000

	蟹洞密度	蟹类多度	植被盖度	植被密度	地上生物量	地下生物量	相对高程	温度	含水率	电导率	盐度	TOC	TN	TP
蟹洞密度	1
蟹类多度	0.203	1
植被盖度	–0.910**	–0.19	1
植被密度	–0.923**	0.029	0.835**	1
地上生物量	–0.440	0.012	0.179	0.450	1
地下生物量	–0.336	–0.836**	0.211	0.220	0.207	1
相对高程	0.921**	0.446	–0.915**	–0.791*	–0.336	–0.433	1
温度	0.477	0.589	–0.547	–0.183	–0.065	–0.398	0.630	1
含水率	0.747*	0.539	–0.739*	–0.676*	–0.514	–0.548	0.884**	0.59	1
电导率	0.719*	0.02	–0.528	–0.703*	–0.457	–0.154	0.686*	0.107	0.494	1
盐度	–0.488	0.125	0.474	0.538	0.634	–0.024	–0.426	–0.39	–0.615	–0.144	1
TOC	0.869**	0.267	–0.837**	–0.670*	–0.279	–0.368	0.802**	0.651	0.565	0.501	–0.329	1
TN	0.685*	0.356	–0.640	–0.660	–0.660	–0.466	0.704*	0.527	0.897**	0.269	–0.836**	0.527	1
TP	0.590	–0.102	–0.558	–0.466	–0.308	0.068	0.408	0.566	0.296	0.062	–0.674*	0.667*	0.536	1

[1]	SONG Yong-gang, ZHU Jian-rong, WU Hui. Spatial and temporal variations and mechanism of the tidal level and range in the North Branch of the Changjiang Estuary [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Natural Sc, 2011, 2011(6): 10-19.
[2]	XU Jie;WANG Xi-hua. Distribution and characteristics of the mossy dwarf forests in China [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Natural Sc, 2010, 2010(4): 44-57.