刊期:双月刊
主管单位:四川省科学技术协会
主办单位:四川省动物学会/成都大熊猫繁育研究基金会/四川省野生动植物保护协会/四川大学
地址:四川省成都市武侯区望江路29号四川大学生命科学学院内
邮编:610065
电话:028-85410485; 15881112385
传真:028-85410485
E-Mail:scdwzz@vip.163.com & scdwzz001@163.com
刊号:ISSN 1000-7083
        CN 51-1193/Q
国内发行代号:
国际发行代号:
发行范围:国内外公开发布
定价:50元/册
定价:300元/年

您所在位置:首页->过刊浏览->2020年第39卷第5期

东北虎和野猪声音与太阳能警示灯防控野猪危害及经济阈值研究
Study on the Economic Threshold of Wild Boar Damage Under the Countermeasures of Amur Tiger's and Wild Boar's Sound and Solar Blinker
崔爽, 刘丙万*
点击:182次 下载:12次
DOI:10.11984/j.issn.1000-7083.20190420
作者单位:东北林业大学野生动物与自然保护地学院, 哈尔滨 150040
中文关键字:野猪;东北虎;太阳能警示灯;危害防控;经济损失;经济阈值
英文关键字:Sus scrofa; Panthera tigris altaica; solar blinker; damage control; economic loss; economic threshold
中文摘要:2018年8—10月在吉林省珲春地区利用东北虎Panthera tigris altaica声音、野猪Sus scrofa惨叫声和太阳能警示灯开展了野猪危害防控及经济阈值研究。本研究设置依次播放东北虎声音15 s、野猪惨叫声15 s、叠加播放30 s、空白5 min(A组),播放东北虎声音1 min、空白5 min(B组),放置1 000 mA的红色太阳能警示灯(C组)和空白对照组(D组),每组5个样地。所有样地均设置在与森林毗邻的农田,声音从傍晚至黎明持续播放,太阳能警示灯为光控开关。每天07:00—07:30检查24 h内防控措施50 m范围内是否出现野猪危害农田的现象并记录。采用Mann-Whitney U检验对不同防控措施的防控效果的差异性进行分析,对玉米Zea mays损失率与进入样地野猪数量进行回归分析。研究结果表明:(1)实验组与对照组的防控有效期差异有统计学意义(P=0.001)。其中,A组和C组的防控有效期较长,分别为(27.00±1.87)d和(31.80±3.56)d,对照组的为(1.80±0.75)d;(2)A组的玉米损失率及经济损失均值最低,分别为(4.41±2.24)%和(639.04±289.15)元,对照组最高,玉米损失率及经济损失分别为(48.33±5.42)%和(6 703.38±412.20)元;(3)玉米的损失率(y)与进入样地的野猪数量(x)之间的最佳回归方程为y=0.095-0.116x+0.048x2;(4)每公顷农田进入野猪数量即防治经济阈值达到(2.09±0.28)头/hm2和(2.15±0.18)头/hm2时,应分别按照A组和C组设置防控措施。本研究探索野猪危害防控措施对降低管理成本具有重要的参考意义,也为其他野生动物的危害防控研究提供借鉴。
英文摘要:From August to October in 2018, the economic threshold of the countermeasures of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) damages has been carried out using the sound of the Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), the screaming of S. scrofa and the solar blinker in Hunchun Area, Jilin Province. Four experimental groups (5 plots per group) including the sound of the screaming of P. t. altaica (15 s), S. scrofa (15 s) and superposition of them (30 s) with 5 min interval repeatedly (group A), the sound of P. t. altaica for 1 min with 5 min interval (group B), the 1 000 mA red solar blinker (group C) and blank matched group (group D), were set. All the plots were set in the farmland adjacent to the forest. The sounds were played continuously from dusk to dawn, and the solar blinker was controlled by light switch. The damage of S. scrofa within 24 h on farmland within 50 m of the countermeasures was recorded from 07:00 to 07:30 each day. The effect of countermeasures was analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test, and the relationship between corn (Zea mays) loss rate and the number of S. scrofa were analyzed by the regression fitting analysis. The results showed that: (1) There were significant differences in the validity period between the experimental groups and the control group (P=0.001). The validity periods of groups A and C were longer (27.00 d±1.87 d and 31.80 d±3.56 d) than the control group (1.80 d±0.75 d); (2) The corn loss rate (4.41%±2.24%) and economic loss (639.04 yuan±289.15 yuan) were the lowest in group A, while the highest values were detected in the control group (48.33%±5.42% and 6 703.38 yuan±412.20 yuan, respectively); (3) The regression equation between the loss rate of corn (y) and the number of S. scrofa (x) was y=0.095-0.116x+0.048x2; (4) When the number of S. scrofa per hectare reached 2.09±0.28 and 2.15±0.18, the countermeasures in groups A and C should be taken respectively. This study provides a reference for the effective control of S. scrofa damages and the decrease in the management cost and also contributes to the research on the other wildlife damage control.
2020,39(5): 531-537 收稿日期:2019-12-10
分类号:Q959.8
基金项目:中央高校基本科研业务费专项(DL13CA08);国家林业和草原局项目(41318434)
作者简介:崔爽(1994-),女,硕士研究生,研究方向:野生动物危害防控,E-mail:1374789090@qq.com
*通信作者:刘丙万,E-mail:liubw1@sina.com
参考文献:
崔娟, 李旋, 许喆, 等. 2017. 柳叶刺蓼对玉米生长的影响及其经济阈值研究[J]. 玉米科学, 25(5):141-144, 151.
何东进, 洪伟. 1998. 害虫防治经济阈值研究进展[J]. 福建林业科技, 4:8-13.
黄惠敏, 王廷正. 1999. 豫西黄土高原农作区棕色田鼠对农作物的危害及经济阈值的研究[J]. 兽类学报, 3:61-66.
江晓萍, 徐基良, 李建强, 等. 2018. 基于MaxEnt生态位模型分析江西省人与野猪冲突的空间分布[J]. 森林与环境学报, 38(3):334-340.
李晓, 石程仁, 鞠倩, 等. 2016. 蛴螬为害花生的产量损失及经济阈值研究[J]. 花生学报, 45(2):54-57, 67.
宋琪, 刘丙万. 2018.太阳能警示灯对野猪危害农田影响研究[J]. 动物学杂志, 53(1):32-39.
苏永志, 宛新荣, 王梦军, 等. 2013. 典型草原区布氏田鼠鼠害防治的经济阈值[J]. 动物学杂志, 48(4):521-525.
孙儒泳. 2001. 动物生态学原理[M]. 北京:北京师范大学出版社.
张丹, 刘丙万. 2012. 黑龙江青云林场野猪危害调查及防治[J]. 野生动物, 33(2):59-63.
张鸣天, 刘丙万, 刘丹. 2015. 吉林珲春地区野猪危害防控研究[J]. 动物学杂志, 50(6):819-827.
Amici A, Serrani F, Rossi CM, et al. 2012. Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa):the "refuge effect"[J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(3):683-692.
Bleier N, Lehoczki R, Ujvary D, et al. 2012. Relationships between wild ungulate density and crop damage in Hungary[J]. Acta Theriologica, 57(4):351-359.
Bobek B, Furtek J, Bobek J, et al. 2017. Spatio-temporal characteristics of crop damage caused by wild boar in north-eastern Poland[J]. Crop Protection, 93:106-112.
Cai J, Jiang Z, Zeng Y, et al. 2008. Factors affecting crop damage by wild boar and methods of mitigation in a giant panda reserve[J]. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54(4):723-728.
Calenge G, Maillard D, Fournier P, et al. 2004. Efficiency of spreading maize in the garrigues to reduce wild boar (Sus scrofa) damage to Mediterranean vineyards[J]. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 50(3):112-120.
Geisser H, Reyer H. 2004. Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars[J]. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(4):939-946.
Honda T, Sugita M. 2007. Environmental factors affecting damage by wild boars (Sus scrofa) to rice fields in Yamanashi Prefecture, central Japan[J]. Mammal Study, 32(4):173-176.
Hoogland JL. 1983. Nepotism and alarm calling in the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)[J]. Animal Behaviour, 31(2):472-479.
Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, et al. 2015. Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe[J]. Pest Management Science, 71(4):492-500.
Naughtontreves L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda[J]. Conservation Biology, 12(1):156-168.
Nishimori Y, Konoshima M. 2016. Exploring efficient buffer placement for mitigating crop damage by wild boars with an agent-based spatial modeling of foraging behavior[J]. Journal of Environmental Information Science, 44 (5):51-62.
Ohashi H, Saito M, Horie R, et al. 2013. Differences in the activity pattern of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) related to human disturbance[J]. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59(2):167-177.
Saito M, Momose H, Mihira T. 2011. Both environmental factors and countermeasures affect wild boar damage to rice paddies in Boso Peninsula, Japan[J]. Crop Protection, 30(8):1048-1054.
Schlageter A, Haagwackernagel D. 2012. Evaluation of an odor repellent for protecting crops from wild boar damage[J]. Journal of Pest Science, 85(2):209-215.
Schley L, Dufrêne M, Krier A, et al. 2008. Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period[J]. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54(4):589-599.
Thurfjell H, Spong G, Ericsson G. 2013. Effects of hunting on wild boar (Sus scrofa) behaviour[J]. Wildlife Biology, 19(1):87-93.
Vijayan S, Pad B. 2002. Impact of changing cropping patterns on man-animal conflicts around Gir Protected Area with specific reference to Talala sub-district, Gujarat, India[J]. Population and Environment, 23(6):541-559.
读者评论

      读者ID: 密码:   
我要评论:
国内统一连续出版物号:51-1193/Q |国际标准出版物号:1000-7083
主管单位:四川省科学技术协会  主办单位:四川省动物学会/成都大熊猫繁育研究基金会/四川省野生动植物保护协会/四川大学
开户银行:中国工商银行四川分行营业部东大支行(工行成都东大支行营业室)  帐户名:四川省动物学会  帐号:4402 2980 0900 0012 596
版权所有©2020四川动物》编辑部 蜀ICP备08107403号
您是本站第9199338名访问者

川公网安备 51010702000173号