欢迎访问《农学学报》,

农学学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 5 ›› Issue (5): 102-108.doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.2014-xb0639

• 农业信息 农业气象 • 上一篇    下一篇

国内访花传粉昆虫研究的文献计量学分析

武文卿,李川,邵有全   

  1. 山西省农业科学院园艺研究所,,山西省农业科学院园艺研究所
  • 收稿日期:2014-06-26 修回日期:2014-06-26 接受日期:2014-10-14 出版日期:2015-06-02 发布日期:2015-06-02
  • 通讯作者: 邵有全 E-mail:wenqing1226
  • 基金资助:
    国家公益性行业(农业)科研专项“蜜蜂授粉增产技术集成与示范”(201203080);国家农业产业技术体系专项资金“现代农业产业技术体系(蜜蜂)建设”(CARS-45-KXJ5)。

Analysis on Bibliometrics of Researches of Flower-visiting and Pollinating Insects in China

  • Received:2014-06-26 Revised:2014-06-26 Accepted:2014-10-14 Online:2015-06-02 Published:2015-06-02

摘要: 全面了解中国访花传粉昆虫领域的研究现状,客观地进行分析,为访花传粉昆虫科研工作者与决策者提供数据参考。以《中国知网》的《中国期刊全文数据库》为数据源,运用文献计量学的原理和方法,对访花传粉昆虫研究的年代、作者、机构、载文期刊、研究内容及基金资助进行分析。结果表明,检索出1980—2013年国内访花传粉昆虫研究专题256名作者在133种刊物上发表的308篇文献,揭示了30多年间国内该领域研究的动态变化和基本态势。中国访花传粉昆虫研究发文量逐年增加;机构分布广,高产机构较少;研究者众多,高产活跃作者队伍不够强大,核心作者数量及所发论文质量不是很高;研究内容广泛丰富,不同研究方向成果数量不均衡。

关键词: 湿地健康, 湿地健康, Mamdani FIS模型, 东洞庭湖湿地, 指标体系, 样本采集

Abstract: To understand the status quo of flower- visiting and pollinating insects in China, the current situation was analyzed and data reference for researchers and deciders were provided. By the principles and methods of bibliometrics,‘China periodical full- text database’of CNKI as data source, years, authors, institutions, journals, research content and foundations of published papers were analyzed. The special documents on the researches of flower-visiting insects and pollinating insects in China from 1980 to 2013 were counted and analyzed. 308 papers on 133 journals by 256 authors were searched. The dynamic changes and basic states on the researches of this field during 30 years were revealed. Papers of flower-visiting insects and pollinating insects in China increased year by year. Research institutions were widespread, the institutions which can publish plenty papers were not enough. Research authors were numerous, the team of authors who have published a great number of papers was not strong enough, the number of core authors was small and the quality of papers was low. Research content was plentiful and the number of papers in different research directions was uneven.