Life table vs secondary production analyses—relationships and usage in ecology
Life table vs secondary production analyses—relationships and usage in ecology
复制标题
生命表与二次生产分析——生态学中的关系和用途
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Whiles
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Benke;M. Whiles
摘要： 生命表是一种众所周知的理解种群的方法，并已出现在60年的普通生态学教科书中。次生生产与能量流动有关，但方法很少出现在课本中。我们的目标是：1)展示次生生产力和生命表之间的概念/分析关系，2)使用池塘养殖火蜥蜴的真实例子来说明如何将这两种方法结合起来，以及3)使用发表频率分析来确定生态学(特别是水生)亚学科中每种方法的趋势和偏差。这个例子说明，这两种方法都包含了特定年龄或阶段的存活率。主要区别在于，生命表用于计算具有特定年龄繁殖力的后代的产量，而产量分析用于计算具有特定质量增量的生物量的产量。12年的发表频率分析表明，在基础研究中，使用寿命表的论文(698篇)比使用生命表(393篇)的论文多78%，但使用生产(353篇)的论文比使用生命表(236篇)的论文多50%。此外，生产主要在水生(98%)，主要是海底(77%)环境中进行研究。生命表主要用于陆地环境(65%)。认识到这些概念和使用偏差之间的关联性可能会解释哲学上的差异，并有助于弥合陆地-水生和种群-生态系统生态学家之间的差距。
Abstract. The life table is a well known approach for understanding populations and has appeared in general ecology textbooks for >60 y. Secondary production is associated with energy flow, but methods rarely appear in texts. Our objectives were to: 1) demonstrate conceptual/analytical relationships between secondary production and life tables, 2) use a real example of pond-breeding salamanders to illustrate how the 2 approaches can be integrated, and 3) use publication frequency analysis to determine trends and biases for each approach within ecological (particularly aquatic) subdisciplines. The example illustrated that both approaches incorporate age- or stage-specific survivorship. The main difference is that life tables are used to calculate production of offspring with age-specific fecundity, and production analyses are used to calculate production of biomass with mass-specific increments. Publication frequency analysis over 12 y demonstrated that 78% more papers used life tables (698) than production (393) overall, but 50% more papers used production (353) than life tables (236) in basic research. Furthermore, production was studied primarily in aquatic (98%), mostly benthic (77%), environments. Life tables were used primarily in terrestrial environments (65%). Recognizing the relatedness of these concepts and usage biases may explain philosophical differences and help bridge gaps between terrestrial–aquatic and population–ecosystem ecologists.