Latest Cover

Online Office

Contact Us

Issue:ISSN 1000-7083
          CN 51-1193/Q
Director:Sichuan Association for Science and Technology
Sponsored by:Sichuan Society of Zoologists; Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Research Foundation; Sichuan Association of Wildlife Conservation; Sichuan University
Address:College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, No.29, Wangjiang Road, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, 610064, China
Fax:+86-28-85410485 &
Your Position :Home->Past Journals Catalog->2020 Vol.39 No.6

The Optimal Bird-Repellent Model of Audio-Bird-Repellent for Wild Pica pica
Author of the article:XIE Jiangjian1, LI Xingguang1, YANG Jun1, QI Tao1, YANG Zihe1, WANG Nan2*
Author's Workplace:1. School of Technology, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China;
2. School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
Key Words:Pica pica; audio-bird-repellent; bird-repellent model
Abstract:Pica pica is a common species causing bird damage in Beijing. The existing bird-repeller has limited effects. Bird-repellent sounds and models directly affect the effect of bird-repeller. In this study, in-field experiments were designed based on 3 kinds of sounds including distress call, alarm call of P. pica and gunshot, and then different bird-repellent models were constructed to achieve the efficient repellent model. Subsequently, the behaviors of P. pica in different bird-repellent models were observed, and the probability of bird escape was calculated to assess the effect of bird-repellent. The results indicated that: at the same distance, the greater the sound intensity, the better the repelling effect. Under the same sound intensity, there was no significant difference among the repelling effects of single distress call, alarm call and gunshot (P=0.202). When the sound was repeated for 3 times, the effects of distress call and alarm call were better than those of corresponding single sound (alarm call: P=0.004, distress call: P=0.005). The differences in the repelling effects of alarm call at different intervals was more significant (P=0.043), but the effect of distress call and gunshot repeatedly played at different intervals were not different (gunshot: P=0.773, distress call: P=0.364). Among the repelling effects of sounds with different combinations and different time intervals, the model of gunshot-alarm call-distress call with 0.5 s interval was the best (P=0.046). This study reveals that the selection of different types of sound, the interval and the sound combination has a significant impact on the repelling effect. The use of a high-strength bird repellent model similar with the behavioral response of bird in natural environment can achieve a better repelling effect, and may extend the time limit of bird-repellent effect.
2020,39(6): 630-638 收稿日期:2020-02-24
陈洪莲. 2020. 一种智能高仿真仿生驱鸟器设计[J]. 科学技术创新, 5: 155-156.
胡灿实, 李海洋, 叶元兴, 等. 2012. 不同驱鸟情景模式对果园害鸟行为的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 31(9): 2365-2370.
娄志凯. 2016. 驱鸟系统下的鸟类识别与跟踪技术的应用研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆师范大学.
杨敏, 刘贵婷. 2020. 基于微波探测的果园智能声光驱鸟器的设计及制作[J]. 农业技术与装备, 2: 35-37. 杨小勇. 2014. 双因素无重复的方差分析法[J]. 实验科学与技术, 12(5): 33-35.
袁佳炜, 石复习. 2019. 新型声光组合农田驱鸟装置设计[J]. 农业工程, 9(6): 101-105.
张国清. 2019. 机器人声光报警驱鸟器[J]. 农村电工, 27(9): 30.
张洁, 赵欣如, 肖华. 2011. 北京常见鸟类鸣声特征分析及其在驱鸟技术中的应用[J]. 四川动物, 30(2): 182-185.
张逸鹤. 2019. 基于华北地区机场鸟情状况的驱鸟机器人设计[J]. 机械工程与自动化, 2: 167-168.
赵亮. 2013. 定向声波鸟击防范系统信号处理技术研究[D]. 四川: 中国民用航空飞行学院.
Baral S, Swarnkar R, Kothiya A, et al. 2019. Bird repeller-a review[J]. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 8(2): 1035-1039.
Berge A, Delwiche M, Gorenzel WP, et al. 2007. Bird control in vineyards using alarm and distress calls[J]. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 58(1): 135-143.
Bishop J, Mckay H, Parrott D, et al. 2003. Review of international research literature regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives[J]. Journal of Food and Rural Affairs, 1(1): 1-48.
Harris RE, Davis RA. 1998. Evaluation of the efficacy of products and techniques for airport bird control [EB/OL]. (1998-03)[2020-01-10]. LGL report TA2193.31, limited for aerodrome safety branch, transport Canada.
Ribot RF, Berg ML, Buchanan KL, et al. 2011. Fruitful use of bioacoustic alarm stimuli as a deterrent for crimson rosellas (Platycercus elegans)[J]. Emu-Austral Ornithology, 111(4): 360-367.
Seamans TW, Gosser AL. 2016. Bird dispersal techniques[R].Wildlife damage management technical series. 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 1-13.
Tupper SK, Cummings JL, Andelt WF, et al. 2011. Evaluation of Sonic Dissuader® to reduce damage by pileated woodpeckers[J]. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35(1): 40-44.
CopyRight©2021 Editorial Office of Sichuan Journal of Zoology 蜀ICP备08107403号-3