柒、引用文獻 - 國立台東大學生命科學研究所碩士論文

山中正夫。1971。台灣產蝶類的分布(1)。日本鱗翅學會特別報告 5:115-193。

行政院農業委會，1998。臺灣稀有及瀕危植物之分級（II）。

何健鎔、張連浩。1997。台灣產金鳳蝶族蝶類的生態與保育。自然保育季刊 19: 34。

吳尚澄。2007。紅紋鳳蝶取食港口馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片之生活史特性比較。國立台東大學生命科學研究所碩士論文。43 頁。

吳怡欣、楊平世。2005。黃裳鳳蝶遺傳多樣性及保育生物學研究。行政院農委會台灣野生物遺傳多樣性與保育遺傳研究研討會。

吳怡欣、楊平世。1995。大紅紋鳳蝶與紅紋鳳蝶之生物學研究。動物園學報 7: 13-24。

陳建志。1990。蝶館老大－紅紋鳳蝶。動物園雜誌 10(3): 38-41。

郭雅晴。1989。大紅紋鳳蝶之生物學研究。國立台灣大學植物病蟲害研究所碩士論文。75 頁。

趙仁方、方懷聖。2002。台東縣蝴蝶。台東縣政府、行政院農業委員會特有生物研究保育中心。

蕭惠文。2005。台灣玉帶鳳蝶及其寄主植物之研究。國立嘉義大學森林暨自然資源研究所碩士論文。100 頁。

濱野榮次。1987。台灣蝶類生態大圖鑑。牛頓出版社。台北。474 頁。

Beccaloni, G.W. 1997. Vertical stratification of the ithomiine butterfly (Nymphalidae:

Ithomiinae) mimicry complexes: the relationship between adult flight height and larval host plant height. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 62(3): 313-341.

Bergman, K.O. 2000. Oviposition, host plant choice and survival of a grass feeding butterfly, the Woodland Brown (Lopinga achine) (Nymph alidae: Satyrinae).

Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 35: 9-21.

Bergstrom, A., Janz, N. and Nylin, S. 2006. Putting more eggs in the best basket:

clutch-size regulation in the comma butterfly. Ecological Entomology 31: 255-260.

Chew, F.S. 1981. Coexistence and local extinction in two Pierid butterflies. American Naturalist 118: 655–672.

Doak, P., Kareiva, P. and Kingsolver, J. 2006. Fitness consequences of choosy oviposition for a time-limited butterfly Ecology 87(2): 395-408.

Estrada, C., and Jiggins, C. 2002. Patterns of pollen feeding and habitat preference among Heliconius species. Ecological Entomology 27: 448-456.

Elias, M., Gompert, Z., Jiggins, C., and Willmott., K. 2008. Mutualistic interactions drive ecological niche convergence in a diverse butterfly community. Public Library of Science Biology 6(12): 300-308.

Fordyce, J. A. and Nice, C. C. 2003. Variation in butterfly egg adhesion: adaptation to local host plant senesence characteristics? Ecology Letters 6: 23-27.

Gause, G. F. 1934. The Struggle for Existence. Williams and Williams, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Chapter V.

Gibbs, M., Lace, L.A., Jones, M.J., Moore, A.J. 2004. Intraspecific competition in the speckled wood butterfly Pararge aegeria: effect of rearing density and gender on larval life history. Journal of Insect Science 4: 16-21.

Haribal, M., and Renwick, J.A.A. 2004. Differential postalightment oviposition

behavior of monarch butterflies on Asclepias species. Journal of Insect Behavior 11:

507-538.

Hsieh, K.J., Kuo,Y.L., Perng. J.J., Lai, P.Y. and T.C. Lee, 2008. Population distribution of Aristolochia zollingeriana,an endangered vine exploited by three papilionid

butterflies in Kenting national park, Taiwan. Taiwan Journal For Sci 23(3):

243-254.

Joron, M., Wynne, I.R., Lamas G. and Mallet,J. 1999. Variable selection and the coexistence of multiple mimetic forms of the butterfly Heliconius numata.

Evolutionary Ecology 13: 721-754.

Janz, N. 2005. The relationship between habitat selection and preference for adult and larval food resources in the polyphagous butterfly Vanessa cardui (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 18(6): 767-780.

Janz, N., Nylin, S. and Wedell, N. 1994. Host plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications. Oecologia 99:

132-140.

Liu, W., Wang, Y., X. R. 2006. Egg cluster pattern of two coexisting melitaeine butterfly species and oviposition site selection of their adult females. Chinese Academy of Forestry 17(7): 1254-1258.

Ohsaki, N. 1980. Comparative population studies of three Pieris butterflies, P. rapae, P.

melete and P. napi, living in the same area. II. Utilization of patchy habitats by adults through migratory and non-migratory movements. Researches on Population Ecology 22: 163–183.

Ohsaki, N. 1982. Comparative population studies of three Pieris butterflies, P. rapae, P.

melete, and P. napi, living in the same area. III. Difference in the annual generation numbers in the relation to habitat selection by adult. Researches on Population Ecology 42: 193–210.

Papaj, D. R, and Rausher, M. D. 1986. Genetic differences and phenotypic plasticity as

causes of variation in oviposition preference in Battus philenor. Oecologia 74:

24–30.

Papaj, D. R, and Rausher, M. D. 1987. Components of conspecific host discrimination behavior in the butterfly Batttus Philenor. Ecology Society of America 68(2):

245–253.

Rausher, M. D. 1979. Larval habitat suitability and oviposition preference in three elated butterflies. Ecology 60(3): 503–511.

Rausher, M. D. 1980. Host abundance, juvenile survival, and oviposition preference in Battus philenor. Evolution 34(2): 342-355.

Rausher, M. D. and P. Feeny .1980. Herbivory, plant density, and plant reproductive success: the effect of Battus philenor on Aristolochia reticulata. Ecology 61(4):

905-917.

Rausher, M. D.1981. Host plant selection Battus Philenor butterflies: the roles of predation nutrition, and plant chemistry. Ecologyical Monographs PP. 1–20.

Ree, R.H. 1997. Pollen flow, fecundity, and the adaptive significance of heterostyly in Palicourea padifolia (Rubiaceae). Biotropica 29: 298–308.

Reitz, S.R. and Trumble, J.T. 2002. Competative displacement among insects and arachnids. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 435-465.

Stanton, M.L. 1982. Searching in a patchy environment: food-plant selection by Colias p. eriphyle butterflies. Ecology 63: 839–853.

Thompson, J.N., 1991. Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Annual Reviews Entomol 36: 65–89.

Thompson, J.N., 1999. What we know and do not know about coevolution: insect herbivores and plants in a test case. In Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators

(H. Olff, V. Brown and R. Drent, eds.), pp. 7–30.

Tschenn, J.,Losey, J. E., Jesse, L. H., Obrycki, J. J., and Hufbauer, R. 2001. Effects of corn plants and corn pollen on monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) oviposition behavior. Environmental Entomology 30: 495–500.

William, J. and Resetarits, JR. 1996. Oviposition site choice and life history evolution.

American Zoologist 36(2): 205-215.

Willmott, K.R. and Mallet, J. 2004. Correlations between adult mimicry and larval hostplants in ithomiine butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Suppl.) 271: S266–S269.

Table 1. 黃裳鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較

各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 2. 紅紋鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較

Table 3. 黃裳鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較

Table 4. 紅紋鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 5. 大紅紋鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 6. 黃裳鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 7. 紅紋鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 8. 大紅紋鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 9. 黃裳鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 10. 紅紋鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

Table 11. 大紅紋鳳蝶產卵點與逢機點間之馬兜鈴不同生長期葉片數比較 各月產卵點與隨機點不同生長期葉片各別之資料比較，使用 Chi-square Test 與進 行組間統計分析；若 n<20 時，且有超過 20%的期望值小於 5%時使用 Fisher's exact test。* 代表 p<0.05，產卵點與隨機點組間之不同生長期葉片平均數量具有顯著差 異。

在文檔中國立台東大學生命科學研究所碩士論文 (頁 41-57)