渤海近海典型海草床育幼功能评估体系构建及其空间差异分析

赵家悦; 杨薇; 白军红

doi:10.12284/hyxb2025064

渤海近海典型海草床育幼功能评估体系构建及其空间差异分析

doi: 10.12284/hyxb2025064

北京师范大学环境学院，湿地环境保护与生态修复全国重点实验室，北京 100875

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金委联合基金重点项目（U2344229）。

详细信息

作者简介:
赵家悦（2001—），女，河北省廊坊市人，主要从事海洋生态环境科学研究。E-mail：202221180102@mail.bnu.edu.cn

通讯作者:
杨薇，教授，博士生导师，主要从事湿地环境生态学。 E-mail: yangwei@bnu.edu.cn

中图分类号: Q178.531
计量
- 文章访问数: 119
- HTML全文浏览量: 51
- PDF下载量: 10
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-10-29
- 修回日期: 2025-02-28
- 网络出版日期: 2025-04-15
- 刊出日期: 2025-05-30

Evaluation system establishment of nursery function for three seagrass beds and their spatial differences in the nearshore Bohai Sea

State Key Laboratory of Wetland Conservation and Restoration, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

摘要

摘要: 以渤海区域曹妃甸、黄河口、觉华岛等3个典型海草床为案例区，通过实地调研、物种鉴定及数据收集，获取了海草生长状况、水体和沉积物环境质量及浮游生物、底栖生物、幼鱼种类和生物量等多项第一手资料，从水环境、沉积环境、生物环境等生境角度构建了近海海草床育幼功能综合评估指标体系，并对渤海近海各典型海草床进行了系统评估。结果显示曹妃甸与觉华岛海草生物量分别为371.22 g/m²和340.05 g/m²，均显著高于黄河口海草生物量（161.24 g/m²，p < 0.05）；各海草床的浮游植物丰度和生物量平均值均为黄河口>曹妃甸>觉华岛，且空间差异显著（p < 0.05）；而各海草床幼鱼和稚鱼密度则是觉华岛最高，黄河口次之，曹妃甸最低，具有显著空间差异（p < 0.05）。对海草床育幼功能综合评估的结果中，觉华岛海草床为良好，略优于曹妃甸海草床（良好状态），优于黄河口海草床（一般状态）。进一步分析典型海草床育幼功能现状的主要驱动因素，结果表明不同海草床中贡献较大的环境与生物指标呈现出空间差异。觉华岛海草床环境和生物状态良好，水体透明度高、溶解氧丰富、无机氮质量浓度适中，且幼鱼群落的各指标均表现较好，在育幼功能方面贡献显著。相比之下，黄河口海草床的水环境和生物状态相对较差，该区域水体透明度低、pH值和无机氮浓度过高，同时生物指标中浮游植物多样性特征表现差、幼鱼占比偏低，这些因素成为其育幼功能评估结果仅为一般的主要消极因素。曹妃甸海草床的环境状态良好，温度、无机氮和无机磷质量浓度等因素贡献较大。然而，其生物状态一般，浮游动物和幼鱼数量较低是该区域育幼功能评估的主要消极因素。本研究有助于深刻理解和认识渤海区域典型海草床的育幼功能时空差异和驱动因素，为促进我国海草床生态系统保护与海洋渔业资源可持续发展提供有效的科学依据和数据支撑。
- 海草床 /
- 育幼功能 /
- 评估指标体系 /
- 空间差异 /
- 渤海近海水域
Abstract: In this study, we conducted comprehensive field surveys in the Bohai Sea’s seagrass beds at Caofeidian, Huanghe River mouth, and Juehua Island, gathering data on seagrass growth, water and sediment quality, plankton, benthic life, and juvenile fish. An integrated assessment index system for the nursery function of nearshore seagrass beds was constructed. The seagrass biomass at Caofeidian and Juehua Island was measured at 371.22 g/m² and 340.05 g/m², respectively, both of which were significantly higher than that recorded at the Huanghe River mouth (161.24 g/m², p < 0.05). The average abundance and biomass of phytoplankton in each seagrass bed followed the order: Huanghe River mouth > Caofeidian > Juehua Island, exhibiting significant spatial differences (p < 0.05). Regarding juvenile fish density, Juehua Island exhibited the highest density, followed by the Huanghe River mouth, with Caofeidian showing the lowest density, also demonstrating significant spatial differences (p < 0.05). The nursery function of seagrass beds was best in Juehua Island seagrass bed, followed by Caofeidian seagrass bed and Huanghe River mouth seagrass bed. Environmental and biological indicators with significant contributions varied spatially. The seagrass bed in Juehua Island has a good environmental and biological status, with high water transparency, abundant dissolved oxygen, and moderate inorganic nitrogen mass concentration, and the juvenile fish community indicators all performed well, contributing significantly to the nursery function. The seagrass bed in Huanghe River Delta has relatively poor water environment and biological status, with low water transparency, high pH value, and excessive inorganic nitrogen. The biological indicators showed poor plankton diversity characteristics and low proportion of juvenile fish, which became the main negative factors for its nursery function assessment result of only average. The environmental status in Caofeidian seagrass bed is good, with factors such as temperature, inorganic nitrogen, and inorganic phosphorus mass concentration contributing significantly. However, its biological status is average, and the low number of planktonic animals and juvenile fish is the main negative factor in the nursery function assessment of this area. This study helps to deeply understand and recognize the spatial and temporal differences and driving factors of the nursery function of typical seagrass beds in the Bohai Sea area, and provides effective scientific basis and data support for the protection of seagrass bed ecosystems and the sustainable development of marine fishery resources in China.
- seagrass beds /
- nursery function /
- evaluation system /
- spatial differences /
- nearshore Bohai Sea

HTML全文

图 1 渤海各典型海草床及采样点位置

Fig. 1 Locations of typical seagrass beds and sampling sites in the Bohai Sea

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 海草床育幼功能综合指标体系

Fig. 2 Comprehensive indicator system for evaluating the nursery function of seagrass beds

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 3个区域海草床海草生物学特征空间差异

误差线上的不同小写字母表示海草生物学特征在不同海草床之间存在显著差异（p < 0.05）

Fig. 3 Spatial differences in biological characteristics of Zostera marina among seagrass beds

Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences in biological characteristics of Zostera marina among seagrass beds (p < 0.05)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 各海草床典型生物群落丰度/密度的空间差异

误差线上的不同小写字母表示典型生物群落丰度/密度在不同海草床之间存在显著差异（p < 0.05）

Fig. 4 Spatial differences in abundance/density of typical biological communities among seagrass beds

Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences in abundance/density of typical biological communities among seagrass beds (p < 0.05)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 各海草床典型生物群落生物量的空间差异

误差线上的不同小写字母表示典型生物群落生物量在不同海草床之间存在显著差异（p < 0.05）

Fig. 5 Spatial differences in biomass of typical biological communities among seagrass beds

Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences in biomass of typical biological communities among seagrass beds (p < 0.05)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 各海草床典型生物群落多样性特征的空间差异

误差线上的不同小写字母表示典型生物群落多样性特征在不同海草床之间存在显著差异（p < 0.05）

Fig. 6 Spatial differences in biodiversity of typical biological communities among seagrass beds

Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences in biodiversity of typical biological communities among seagrass beds (p < 0.05)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 海草床环境指标评估

Fig. 7 Assessment results of environmental indicators among seagrass beds

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 海草床生物指标评估

Fig. 8 Evaluation of biological indicators among seagrass beds

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 海草床育幼功能综合指数时空差异

误差线上的不同小写字母表示NFI在不同海草床之间存在显著差异（p < 0.05）

Fig. 9 Spatiotemporal differences in comprehensive nursery function index (NFI) among seagrass beds

Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences in NFI (Nursery Function Index) among seagrass beds (p < 0.05)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 指标评分标准

Tab. 1 Scoring criteria for evaluation indicators

类型	指标	单位	指标水平（标准化范围）
类型	指标	单位	优[0.8，1.0]	良好[0.6，0.8）	一般[0.4，0.6）	差[0.2，0.4）	极差[0，0.2）
水环境	透明度	cm	≥150	100～150	50～100	25～50	<25
	溶解氧	mg/L	≥10	9～10	8～9	7～8	<7
	盐度	PSU	≤30	>30
	pH	无量纲	7.8～8.5	6.8~7.8	<6.8
	水温	℃	20～25	15～20	<15	>25
	无机氮	mg/L	≤0.2	0.2～0.4	0.4～0.8	0.8～1	>1
	磷酸盐	μg/L	≤15	15～30	30～45	45～60	>60
沉积环境	总氮	mg/g	≤0.3	0.3～0.4	0.4～0.5	0.5～0.6	>0.6
	总磷	mg/g	≤0.2	0.2～0.4	0.4～0.5	0.5～0.6	>0.6
	砂含量	%	≤75	75～80	80～85	85～90	>90
海草	茎枝密度	ind./m²	≥300	200～300	100～200	50～100	<50
	生物量	shoots/m²	≥500	300～500	200～300	100～200	<100
	平均株高	cm	≥40	30～40	20～30	10～20	<10
浮游植物	Shannon-Wiener多样性指数	无量纲	≥2	1.5～2	1～1.5	0.5～1	<0.5
	Margalef 丰富度指数	无量纲	≥2	1～2	0.5～1	0.1～0.5	<0.1
	Pielou 均匀度指数	无量纲	≥0.9	0.8～0.9	0.6～0.8	0.5～0.6	<0.5
	丰度	10³ cells/L	≤3000	3000～10000	10000～30000	30000～60000	>60000
	生物量	mg/L	≤0.5	0.5～1	1～3	3～5	>5
浮游动物	Shannon-Wiener多样性指数	无量纲	≥1.5	1～1.5	0.5～1	0.1～0.5	<0.1
	Margalef 丰富度指数	无量纲	≥2	1～2	0.5～1	0.1～0.5	<0.1
	Pielou 均匀度指数	无量纲	≥0.8	0.7～0.8	0.6～0.7	0.5～0.6	<0.5
	丰度	ind./L	≥80	40～80	20～40	10～20	<10
	生物量	mg/L	≥1.5	1～1.5	0.5～1	0.25～0.5	<0.25
底栖动物	Shannon-Wiener多样性指数	无量纲	≥1.5	1～1.5	0.5～1	0.1～0.5	<0.1
	Margalef 丰富度指数	无量纲	≥2	1～2	0.5～1	0.1～0.5	<0.1
	Pielou 均匀度指数	无量纲	≥0.8	0.7～0.8	0.6～0.7	0.5～0.6	<0.5
	密度	ind./m²	≥400	300～400	200～300	100～200	<100
	生物量	g/m²	≥40	25～40	10～25	5～10	<5
幼鱼	密度	kg/km²	≥4000	1500～4000	500～1500	250～500	<250
	生物量	ind./km²	≥20	15～20	10～15	5～10	<5
	幼鱼数量占比	%	≥0.4	0.3～0.4	0.2～0.3	0.1～0.2	<0.1

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 各层指标权重和类型

Tab. 2 Weights and types of hierarchical indicators in the comprehensive evaluation system

准则层	权重	中间层	权重	指标层	权重
环境指标	0.3700	水环境	0.8000	透明度	0.2039
				溶解氧	0.1668
				盐度	0.0701
				pH	0.0487
				水温	0.1682
				无机碳	0.1727
				磷酸盐	0.1727
		沉积环境	0.2000	总氮	0.3333
				总磷	0.3333
				砂含量	0.3333
生物指标	0.6300	海草	0.1667	茎枝密度	0.3333
				生物量	0.3333
				平均株高	0.3333
		浮游植物	0.1667	Shannon-Wiener多样性指数	0.1429
				Margalef 丰富度指数	0.1429
				Pielou 均匀度指数	0.1429
				丰度	0.2857
				生物量	0.2857
		浮游动物	0.1667	Shannon-Wiener多样性指数	0.1429
				Margalef 丰富度指数	0.1429
				Pielou 均匀度指数	0.1429
				丰度	0.2857
				生物量	0.2857
		底栖动物	0.1667	Shannon-Wiener多样性指数	0.1429
				Margalef 丰富度指数	0.1429
				Pielou 均匀度指数	0.1429
				密度	0.2857
				生物量	0.2857
		幼鱼	0.3333	密度	0.3333
				生物量	0.3333
				幼鱼数量占比	0.3333

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 海草床环境因子空间差异

Tab. 3 Spatial differences in environmental factors among seagrass beds

类别	指标名称	单位	觉华岛	黄河口	曹妃甸
水环境	透明度	cm	131.00 ± 10.55^a	32.95 ± 0.35^b	104.25 ± 14.27^a
	溶解氧	mg/L	9.01 ± 0.35^b	9.14 ± 0.10^a	8.74 ± 0.30^b
	盐度	PSU	30.82 ± 0.46^a	33.10 ± 0.63^a	32.93 ± 0.59^a
	pH	无量纲	7.39 ± 0.08^c	8.04 ± 0.05^b	8.54 ± 0.04^a
	水温	℃	18.07 ± 1.44^b	22.71 ± 0.16^a	17.89 ± 1.03^b
	无机氮	mg/L	0.08 ± 0.01^c	1.12 ± 0.02^a	0.13 ± 0.00^b
	磷酸盐	μg/L	23.74 ± 2.03^a	4.60 ± 0.00^c	12.13 ± 1.60^b
沉积环境	总氮	mg/g	0.38 ± 0.01^b	0.40 ± 0.00^b	0.68 ± 0.01^a
	总磷	mg/g	0.14 ± 0.00^b	0.10 ± 0.00^c	0.49 ± 0.00^a
	砂含量	%	87.19 ± 1.08^a	86.60 ± 0.17^b	81.88 ± 2.92^b
注：表中数据为平均值±标准误；上角不同字母（a, b, c）表示差异显著（p < 0.05）。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(29)

[1]	刘松林, 江志坚, 吴云超, 等. 海草床育幼功能及其机理[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(24): 7931−7940. Liu Songlin, Jiang Zhijian, Wu Yunchao, et al. Nursery function of seagrass beds and its mechanisms[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(24): 7931−7940.
[2]	王喜涛, 张沛东, 郭栋. 海草床的产卵场功能及其形成机理研究进展[J]. 水产科学, 2018, 37(4): 571−576. Wang Xitao, Zhang Peidong, Guo Dong. A review: research progress on spawning ground function and formation mechanisms of a seagrass bed[J]. Fisheries Science, 2018, 37(4): 571−576.
[3]	周毅, 江志坚, 邱广龙, 等. 中国海草资源分布现状、退化原因与保护对策[J]. 海洋与湖沼, 2023, 54(5): 1248−1257. Zhou Yi, Jiang Zhijian, Qiu Guanglong, et al. Distribution status, degradation reasons and protection countermeasures of seagrass resources in China[J]. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 2023, 54(5): 1248−1257.
[4]	Kaewsrikhaw R, Upanoi T, Prathep A. Ecosystem services and vulnerability assessments of seagrass ecosystems: basic tools for prioritizing conservation management actions using an example from Thailand[J]. Water, 2022, 14(22): 3650. doi: 10.3390/w14223650
[5]	Mchenry J, Rassweiler A, Lester S E. Seagrass ecosystem services show complex spatial patterns and associations[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2023, 63: 101543. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101543
[6]	Shayka B F, Hesselbarth M H K, Schill S R, et al. The natural capital of seagrass beds in the Caribbean: evaluating their ecosystem services and blue carbon trade potential[J]. Biology Letters, 2023, 19(6): 20230075. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2023.0075
[7]	Bertelli C M, Unsworth R K F. Protecting the hand that feeds us: seagrass (Zostera marina) serves as commercial juvenile fish habitat[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2014, 83(2): 425−429. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.08.011
[8]	James W R, Furman B T, Rodemann J R, et al. Widespread habitat loss leads to ecosystem-scale decrease in trophic function[J]. Global Change Biology, 2024, 30(4): e17263. doi: 10.1111/gcb.17263
[9]	Gullström M, Berkström C, Öhman M C, et al. Scale-dependent patterns of variability of a grazing parrotfish (Leptoscarus vaigiensis) in a tropical seagrass-dominated seascape[J]. Marine Biology, 2011, 158(7): 1483−1495. doi: 10.1007/s00227-011-1665-z
[10]	Olson A M, Hessing-Lewis M, Haggarty D, et al. Nearshore seascape connectivity enhances seagrass meadow nursery function[J]. Ecological Applications, 2019, 29(5): e01897. doi: 10.1002/eap.1897
[11]	Moussa R M, Bertucci F, Jorissen H, et al. Importance of intertidal seagrass beds as nursery area for coral reef fish juveniles (Mayotte, Indian Ocean)[J]. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 2020, 33: 100965. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100965
[12]	Shoji J, Tomiyama T. Influence of vegetation coverage on dissolved oxygen concentration in seagrass bed in the Seto Inland Sea: possible effects on fish nursery function[J]. Estuaries and Coasts, 2023, 46(4): 1098−1109. doi: 10.1007/s12237-023-01205-x
[13]	刘伟妍, 韩秋影, 唐玉琴, 等. 营养盐富集和全球温度升高对海草的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(4): 1087−1096. Liu Weiyan, Han Qiuying, Tang Yuqin, et al. Review of nutrient enrichment and global warming effects on seagrasses[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2017, 36(4): 1087−1096.
[14]	柳杰, 张沛东, 郭栋, 等. 环境因子对海草生长及光合生理影响的研究进展[J]. 水产科学, 2012, 31(2): 119−124. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1111.2012.02.013 Liu Jie, Zhang Peidong, Guo Dong, et al. Research advancement in effects of environmental factors on growth and photosynthetic physiology of sea weed[J]. Fisheries Science, 2012, 31(2): 119−124. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1111.2012.02.013
[15]	江鑫, 潘金华, 韩厚伟, 等. 底质与水深对大叶藻和丛生大叶藻分布的影响[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2012, 27(2): 101−104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9957.2012.02.002 Jiang Xin, Pan Jinhua, Han Houwei, et al. Effects of substrate and water depth on distribution of sea weeds Zostera marina and Z. caespitosa[J]. Journal of Dalian Ocean University, 2012, 27(2): 101−104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9957.2012.02.002
[16]	Ismail J, Kamal A H M, Idris M H, et al. Zooplankton species composition and diversity in the seagrass habitat of Lawas, Sarawak, Malaysia[J]. Biodiversity Data Journal, 2021, 9: e67449. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.9.e67449
[17]	赖敏, 欧阳玉蓉, 吴耀建, 等. 面向区域层面的海洋生态修复综合效益评估指标体系[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(16): 6965−6975. Lai Min, Ouyang Yurong, Wu Yaojian, et al. Indicator system for assessing the comprehensive benefits of marine ecological restoration at the regional level[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2024, 44(16): 6965−6975.
[18]	李建军, 杨笑波, 魏社林, 等. 裸项栉鰕虎鱼的全人工繁殖及其胚胎发育[J]. 中国实验动物学报, 2008, 16(2): 111−116. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4847.2008.02.008 Li Jianjun, Yang Xiaobo, Wei Shelin, et al. Complete artificial propagation and embryonic development of bareneck goby[J]. Acta Laboratorium Animalis Scientia Sinica, 2008, 16(2): 111−116. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4847.2008.02.008
[19]	Li Xiaoxiao, Yang Wei, Li Shanze, et al. Asymmetric responses of spatial variation of different communities to a salinity gradient in coastal wetlands[J]. Marine Environmental Research, 2020, 158: 105008. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105008
[20]	Shannon C E, Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication[M]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
[21]	Margalef R. Perspectives in Ecological Theory[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
[22]	Pielou E. C. Ecological Diversity[M]. New York: Wiley, 1975.
[23]	张翔, 李愫. 2015−2020年黄河口近岸海域生态环境监测与分析[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022, 42(3): 139−147. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-288X.2022.3.stbctb202203019 Zhang Xiang, Li Su. Monitoring and analysis on ecological environment in near-shore waters of Yellow River Estuary during 2015−2020[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 42(3): 139−147. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-288X.2022.3.stbctb202203019
[24]	李亚倩, 张倩, 杨世民. 2021年渤海浮游植物群落结构及其季节性变化[J]. 海洋科学进展, 2024, 42(2): 337−348. doi: 10.12362/j.issn.1671-6647.20230326001 Li Yaqian, Zhang Qian, Yang Shimin. Phytoplankton community structure and its seasonal variation in the Bohai Sea in 2021[J]. Advances in Marine Science, 2024, 42(2): 337−348. doi: 10.12362/j.issn.1671-6647.20230326001
[25]	栾青杉, 康元德, 王俊. 渤海浮游植物群落的长期变化(1959~2015)[J]. 渔业科学进展, 2018, 39(4): 9−18. Luan Qingshan, Kang Yuande, Wang Jun. Long-term changes in the phytoplankton community in the Bohai Sea (1959~2015)[J]. Progress in Fishery Sciences, 2018, 39(4): 9−18.
[26]	Liu Songlin, Jiang Zhijian, Zhang Jingping, et al. Effect of nutrient enrichment on the source and composition of sediment organic carbon in tropical seagrass beds in the South China Sea[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2016, 110(1): 274−280. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.054
[27]	王彬, 董婧, 刘春洋, 等. 夏初辽东湾海蜇放流区大型水母和主要浮游动物[J]. 渔业科学进展, 2010, 31(5): 83−90. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7075.2010.05.013 Wang Bin, Dong Jing, Liu Chunyang, et al. Distribution of giant jellyfish and major zooplankton in jellyfish release area of Liaodong Bay, Bohai Sea in early summer[J]. Progress in Fishery Sciences, 2010, 31(5): 83−90. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7075.2010.05.013
[28]	李轶平, 刘修泽, 王彬, 等. 辽东湾海域大型底栖动物群落特征[J]. 海洋渔业, 2017, 39(3): 267−276. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2490.2017.03.004 Li Yiping, Liu Xiuze, Wang Bin, et al. Research on the community characteristics of macrobenthos in the Liaodong Bay[J]. Marine Fisheries, 2017, 39(3): 267−276. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2490.2017.03.004
[29]	张兆衡, 杨薇, 张子玥, 等. 渤海兴城-觉华岛海域海草床典型生物群落特征及其关键环境因子识别[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 58(1): 90−98. Zhang Zhaoheng, Yang Wei, Zhang Ziyue, et al. Characteristics of typical biological communities and identification of key environmental factors in the seagrass bed of Xingcheng-Juehua Island, Bohai Sea[J]. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Natural Science), 2022, 58(1): 90−98.