首页> 外文期刊>Applied Animal Behaviour Science >Rubber shots not as effective as selective culling in deterring gulls from landfill sites
【24h】

Rubber shots not as effective as selective culling in deterring gulls from landfill sites

机译:在阻止垃圾填埋场的海鸥方面,橡胶粒不如选择性剔除有效

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Landfill managers often need to implement scaring programmes to deter gulls from feeding at their sites because the birds can be a significant nuisance for both site employees and residents of the surrounding area. Our objective was to assess the efficiency of firing rubber shots, a method assumed to be non-lethal but never tested in a bird deterrence context. This method was compared to selective culling, a well-known lethal technique that some people find ethically unacceptable. Both methods were employed in combination with the use of pyrotechnics. Our study was conducted at the Ste-Sophie landfill site near Montreal (Canada) located 37 km from a Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) colony supporting 48,000 pairs. Daily counts and behavioural observations were conducted throughout the breeding and post-breeding periods. Firing rubber shots was ineffective in deterring gulls as we observed the same number of birds at the landfill during periods with and without deterrence (P=0.949). However, we counted 38% less birds during the culling periods than during the rubber shot treatment (P=0.014). We detected no sign of habituation during the 7-day culling trials. Culling was also more effective in getting the gulls to leave the site than was rubber shots (47 vs. 11%; P<0.001) and the birds took longer before returning to the site (16 vs. 2 min; P<0.001). Finally, the non-lethal method required an increased use of pyrotechnics to reduce the number of gulls to an acceptable level when compared to culling (P<0.001). The difference between culling and rubber shots may be related to the louder noise produced when firing steel shots and the view of dead or injured birds falling on the ground, which may be a deterrent factor for gulls. We also noted that the number of gulls was greater during the rearing stage when the birds have to feed their juveniles (P=0.005) and after 15:00 h when the deterrence activities were adjourned (P=0.003). Our results clearly suggest that the deterrence efforts have to be adapted to seasonal variations in bird numbers as dietary needs are higher during the chicks' rearing period. Any scaring programme should also be performed from dawn to dusk. In conclusion, the use of non-lethal rubber shots as applied in this study to deter gulls from feeding at landfill sites cannot be used as an effective alternative technique to culling.
机译:垃圾填埋场的管理人员通常需要实施吓吓程序,以阻止海鸥进食他们的站点,因为这些鸟类可能会对站点员工和周围地区的居民造成很大的滋扰。我们的目标是评估射击橡胶的效率,该方法被认为是非致命性的,但从未在鸟类威慑环境中进行过测试。将该方法与选择性剔除进行了比较,选择性剔除是一种众所周知的致命技术,有些人认为这在道德上是不可接受的。两种方法都与烟火技术结合使用。我们的研究是在加拿大蒙特利尔附近的Ste-Sophie垃圾填埋场进行的,该垃圾填埋场距环嘴鸥(Larus delawarensis)殖民地37公里,支持48,000对。在整个繁殖和繁殖后期进行每日计数和行为观察。射击橡皮球在阻止海鸥方面没有效果,因为在有和没有威慑的时期,我们在垃圾填埋场观察到相同数量的鸟类(P = 0.949)。但是,在淘汰期间,我们计算出的家禽数量要比橡皮球处理期间少38%(P = 0.014)。在为期7天的剔除试验中,我们没有发现任何习惯化的迹象。剔除也能使海鸥离开场地,比橡皮球更有效(47比11%; P <0.001),而家禽在返回场地之前花费的时间更长(16比2分钟; P <0.001)。最后,与淘汰相比,非致命方法需要更多地使用烟火技术,以将海鸥的数量减少到可接受的水平(P <0.001)。扑杀和橡胶击球之间的差异可能与射击钢球时发出的较大声音以及落在地面上的死鸟或受伤禽鸟的视野有关,这可能是鸥的威慑因素。我们还注意到,在饲养阶段,家禽必须喂食幼鸟(P = 0.005)和在15:00时休止威慑活动(P = 0.003)之后,海鸥的数量会更多。我们的结果清楚地表明,威慑力量必须适应鸟类数量的季节性变化,因为雏鸡饲养期间的饮食需求较高。任何惊吓程序也应从黎明到黄昏执行。总之,本研究中使用的非致死性橡胶粒来阻止海鸥在垃圾填埋场觅食,不能用作有效的替代剔除技术。

著录项

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