首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Management >Wildlife Contact Rates at Artificial Feeding Sites in Texas
【24h】

Wildlife Contact Rates at Artificial Feeding Sites in Texas

机译:德克萨斯州人工饲养场所的野生生物接触率

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Given the popularity of feeding white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Texas and the increasing amount of corn that is distributed, more information is needed on the impacts of this activity on non-target wildlife. Our objectives were to report visitation, intra- and interspecific contact, and contact rates of wildlife at artificial feeding sites in Texas. Our study was conducted at three sites in Kleberg and Nueces counties, Texas. We trapped animals from February to April and August to September, 2009 and marked animals with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. At each site and season, we placed one feeder system containing a PIT tag reader within 600 m of trap locations. Readers detected PIT tags from a distance of 25 cm. We determined a contact event to occur when two different PIT tags were detected by feeder systems within 5 s. We recorded 62,719 passes by raccoons {Procyon lotor), 103,512 passes by collared peccaries {Pecan tajacu), 2,923 passes by feral swine {Sus scrofa), 1,336 passes by fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), and no passes by opossums (Didelphis virginiana) at feeder systems. For site-season combinations in which contact events occurred, we found intraspecific contact rates (contacts per day) for raccoons, collared peccaries, and feral swine tobe 0.81-124.77, 0.69-38.08, and 0.0-0.66, respectively. Throughout our study we distributed ~ 2,625 kg of whole kernel corn, which resulted in 6,351 contact events between marked wildlife (2.4 contacts per kg of corn). If 136 million kg of corn is distributed in Texas annually, we would expect >5.2 billion unnatural contact events between wildlife would result from this activity each year in Texas. Consequently, we do not believe that it is wise for natural resource managers to maintain artificial feeding sites for white-tailed deer or other wildlife due to pathogen transmission risks.
机译:鉴于得克萨斯州饲养白尾鹿(Odocoileus virginianus)的普遍性以及分配的玉米数量不断增加,因此需要更多有关此活动对非目标野生动植物的影响的信息。我们的目标是报告德克萨斯州人工喂养地点的探访,种内和种间接触以及野生生物的接触率。我们的研究在得克萨斯州克莱伯格和努埃塞斯县的三个地点进行。我们于2009年2月至4月以及8月至9月捕获了动物,并用被动集成应答器(PIT)标签标记了动物。在每个站点和季节,我们在陷阱位置600 m内放置了一个包含PIT标签读取器的馈线系统。读取器在25厘米的距离内检测到PIT标签。我们确定当馈线系统在5 s内检测到两个不同的PIT标签时发生接触事件。我们记录了浣熊(Procyon lotor)的62,719传球,领地野猪(Pecan tajacu)的103,512传球,野生猪(Sus scrofa)的2,923传球,狐松鼠(Sciurus niger)的1,336传球,负鼠(Didelphis virginiana)的没有传球。在馈线系统。对于发生接触事件的站点-季节组合,我们发现浣熊,领兽和野猪的种内接触率(每天接触)分别为0.81-124.77、0.69-38.08和0.0-0.66。在我们的整个研究中,我们分发了约2,625千克全谷粒玉米,这导致了野生动植物之间的6,351接触事件(每公斤玉米2.4接触)。如果每年在得克萨斯州分发1.36亿公斤玉米,我们预计每年在得克萨斯州的这种活动将导致野生动植物之间发生超过52亿次非自然接触事件。因此,我们认为由于病原体传播的风险,自然资源管理者维持白尾鹿或其他野生动物的人工饲养场所是不明智的。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental Management》 |2013年第6期|1187-1193|共7页
  • 作者单位

    United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, 2820 East University Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32641, USA,East Wildlife Foundation, 200 Concord Plaza, Suite 410,San Antonio, TX 78216, USA;

    United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, 2820 East University Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32641, USA;

    United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521,USA;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    bait; collared peccary; contact rate; feral swine; passive integrated transponder tag; raccoon;

    机译:诱饵;领兽;接触率;野猪;被动集成应答器标签;浣熊;
  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 13:27:45

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号