JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Species Diversity Analysis of the Aquatic Insect in Paddy Soil
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Species Diversity Analysis of the Aquatic Insect in Paddy Soil
Eom, Ki-Cheol; Han, Min-Soo; Lee, Byung-Kook; Eom, Ho-Yong;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The aquatic insect collected at six areas (each 2 for mountain area, plain field, and urban area) from 2009 to 2011 were classified to analyze the distribution and diversity of species. Frequency (number of aquatic insect: N), number of species (S), similarity index (C), richness index (R1, R2), variety index (V1, V2), evenness index (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5), and dominance index (D1) were investigated. Total N and S were 143 and 84, respectively. C matrix of 153 combinations was constructed with the average of 0.542. The average C of 3 years (0.659) was 9.9% P, more higher than the average C of 6 areas (0.560). The average values of the index of 18 plots were 2.28, 0.17, 1.24, 1.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.01, 0.87, 0.31, 0.93 for R1, R2, V1, V2, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, D1, respectively. The order in the coefficient of variation (CV) of the indicator for 18 plots was N (70.0%) > E3 (54.9%) > E1 (49.6%) > R2 (40.5%) > S (35.3%) > R1 (33.7%) > E2 (28.4%) > E5 (15.9%) > V1 (11.1%) > E4 (6.3%) > V2 (5.1%) > D1 (4.8%). The correlation matrix with 66 combinations between the indexes was constructed with statistical significance for 33 combinations. However, R1, V1, E2 and D1 were the proper indexes to represent species diversity of aquatic insect based on the correlation matrix and the theory of statistical independence. The richness index was highest in mountain, variety index in urban area, and evenness index in plain field. However, the dominance index was lowest in urban area.
 Keywords
Species Diversity;Diversity Indices;Similarity Index;Spacial Similarity;Periodical Similarity;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Ahn, Y.S. 2012. International symposium on research of biodiversity's conservation and cooperation for the green future. Openning adress.

2.
Curtis, J.T. and R.P. McIntosh. 1950. An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology. 32:476-496.

3.
Heip, C. 1974. A new index measuring evenness. Journal of Marine Biological Association. 54:555-557. crossref(new window)

4.
Hill, M.O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation and its consequence. Ecology 54:427-432. crossref(new window)

5.
Kim, C.H., H. Myung, and B.C. Shin. 1999. Species diversity of forest vegetation in Mt. Jangan, Chollabuk-do. Kor. J. Env. Eco. 13(3):271-279. (in Korean).

6.
Lee, K.B., C.H. Kim, D.B. Lee, J.G. Kim, C.W. Park, and S.Y. Na. 2003. Species diversity of riparian vegetation by soil chemical properties and water quality in the upper stream of Mankyeong river. Korean journal of Environmental Agriculture 22(2): 100-110. (in Korean). crossref(new window)

7.
Margalef, R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. General Systematics 3:36-71.

8.
Menhinick, E.F. 1964. A comparison of some species-individuals diversity indices applied to samples of field insects. Ecology 45:859-861. crossref(new window)

9.
Pielou, E. C. 1975. Ecological diversity. Wiley, New York.

10.
Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1949. The Marhematical Theory of Communication. University Illinois Press, Ubana, IL.

11.
Sheldon, A.L. 1969. Equitability indices: dependence on the species count. Ecology 50:466-467. crossref(new window)

12.
Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. crossref(new window)

13.
Sokal, R.R. and C.D. Michener. 1958. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 38:1409-1438. [255, 306, 321]

14.
Yoo, S.H., K.S. Lee, C.H. Park. 2012. Landscape ecological evaluation for avian fauna habitats at the forest swamp minefields of CCZ close to the DMZ of Korea. Kor. J. Env. Eco. 26(2):247-256.