鸟类种群密度调查和估算方法初探

为探讨不同调查方法对鸟类种群密度估计的差异,于2010年12月15~20日,对云南省昆明市嵩明县嘉丽泽地区常见的四种鸟(白脊鹡鸰Motacilla alba、黑喉石駑(嶋)Saxicola torquata、白鹭Egretta garzetta、苍鹭Ardea cinerea)进行调查研究.之后分别采用无距离样线法、固定距离样线法以及可变距离样线法(Distance软件)分析,得出其相对丰富度、种群密度等相关信息.对比三种样线法在鸟类数量估计方面的优劣,认为无距离样线法不能真实地反映鸟类数量的多少,固定距离样线法结合样带计数法往往低估鸟类种群密度,呵变距离样线法结合Distance软件分析是相对更为先进和精准的种群密度估算方法.对如何进一步利用Distance软件的分析结果也进行了初步探讨.     

鸟类调查的样线法和样点法比较:以崇明东滩春季盐沼鸟类调查为例

为了探讨样线法和样点法对盐沼湿地鸟类调查的有效性及适用性, 我们于2008年3–5月采用固定距离样线法和固定半径样点法对崇明东滩盐沼鸟类进行了调查。5次调查共记录到鸟类24种, 其中样线法记录到19种, 样点法记录到21种, 两种调查方法平均每次记录到的鸟类种数没有显著差异, 表明两种方法对盐沼鸟类种类的发现能力相似。两种方法得到的鸟类密度之间有显著的相关性,说明两种方法在反映鸟类群落中每种鸟类的相对数量方面具有可比性。但除了仅在一种调查方法中记录到的种类, 样点法调查得到的每种鸟类密度和鸟类总密度均高于样线法的调查结果。因此, 在对鸟类种群或群落的时空特征进行比较时, 需要考虑所采用的调查方法对调查结果的影响。     

2种调查方法对四川黑竹沟国家级自然保护区3种雉类种群密度调查的比较

种群数量是物种的重要生态学基础资料,合适的密度调查方法是数量估算的基础。2016年4-5月,采用广泛应用于鸡形目Galliformes鸟类种群密度调查的样线法和样点法,调查了四川黑竹沟国家级自然保护区3种鸡形目鸟类(白腹锦鸡Chrysolophus amherstiae、红腹角雉Tragopan temminckii和血雉Ithaginis cruentus)的种群密度。样线法和样点法估算的雄体密度分别是:白腹锦鸡1.20只/km^2和(6.31±0.98)只/km^2,红腹角雉5.41只/km^2和(0.39±0.17)只/km^2,血雉3.01只/km^2和(5.97±2.70)只/km^2。除红腹角雉外,样点法估算的白腹锦鸡、血雉种群密度均大于样线法。建议针对不同鸡形目鸟类采用不同的调查方法,并尽量扩大样本数量,从而提高调查结果的准确性。     

关于使用样线法估计种群密度

样线法是在大范围内估计野生动物种群密度的优良方法这一。我们在本文中说明了使用以平均垂直距离作为有效样带宽度来计算种群密度的简单数学公式一般不会得到可靠的效果。即使野外实施方式正确,使用该数学计算式估计出的密度结果也往往过于偏高。因此,我们建议最好合作计算机软件DISTANCE调查野生动物种群密度,并能熟悉样线距离取样法的理论基础。     

红外相机技术与其他几种森林鸟类多样性调查方法的比较

为了探讨红外相机技术、网捕法、固定距离样线法和固定半径样点法对森林鸟类多样性调查的有效性和实用性,我们于2011–2016年,用这几种方法调查了广东南岭国家级自然保护区和车八岭国家级自然保护区的鸟类多样性。在南岭,固定距离样线法和固定半径样点法记录鸟类222种,网捕鸟类43种,红外相机拍到鸟类47种;其中1种鸟仅网捕到,6种鸟仅被红外相机拍到,164种鸟仅被固定距离样线法和固定半径样点法记录到。在车八岭,固定距离样线法和固定半径样点法记录鸟类109种,网捕鸟类42种,红外相机拍到鸟类27种,其中9种鸟仅网捕到,3种鸟仅被红外相机拍到,97种鸟仅被固定距离样线法和固定半径样点法记录到。随着鸟类的体重、体长、翅长和跗蹠增加,网捕到的鸟类个体数量减少,鸟类身体大小与网捕到的鸟类数量呈显著负相关;而红外相机拍到的鸟类数量随鸟类的身体大小增大而增加,并且呈显著的正相关。本文的结果显示,网捕法和红外相机技术针对不同类群的鸟类调查效力不同,但都是固定距离样线法和固定半径样点法的有效补充。建议今后开展森林鸟类多样性调查与监测时,尽量采用多种研究方法相结合,以求达到最优的效果。     

广西弄岗国家级自然保护区蛤蚧分布与种群数量

2008年5～6月,采用访问调查和样线法,对弄岗国家级自然保护区蛤蚧Gekko gecko的分布和种群数量进行了调查.结果表明,弄岗片蛤蚧分布较多,陇山片和陇呼片分布较少;用样线法重点对弄岗片蛤蚧数量进行调查,根据统计数据计算出种群密度为13.45对/km2.     

用距离取样技术估算森林生境中的梅花鹿密度

作者于 1999年 9、 10月在日本国日光国立公园的一个梅花鹿 (Cervusnippon)高密度区域实施了 16次夜间探照样带距离法取样调查。采用车载探照记数和激光测距仪测距 ,记录了梅花鹿的结群大小和距样带中心样线的垂直距离。应用距离取样技术 (Distancesamplingtechnique ,DST)计算的结果表明 ,梅花鹿的密度为12 5 8头 /km2 (95%CI 10 0 7-157 3 ) ,在两侧 80m宽度的调查样带内梅花鹿的总发现率为 52 5% ;对线样带法的传统动物密度计算方法 (King s ,Hayne s ,Leopold s ,Gates sⅠ ,Gates sⅡ ,Gates sⅢ和Frye s方法 )的结果验证表明 ,这些传统密度计算方法过高估算梅花鹿的密度 ,其结果为距离取样技术 (DST)计算结果的 1 76(Frye′s法 ) -6 10 (Hayne′s法 )倍。因此 ,作者建议在使用线样带法测定动物密度时应尽量避免使用这些传统计算方法 ;不同地区间及同一地区不同季节间应用线样带法调查得到的动物个体记数值之间的比较存在偏差 ,应该使用距离取样技术计算动物的密度     

样线法和网捕法在机场鸟情调查中的应用比较

鸟击事件主要发生在机场范围内,对机场周边生境的鸟类组成进行调查,是制定鸟击防范对策的重要前提。国内多数机场已经开展了相关的鸟类组成调查,但是选用的调查方法却存在较大差异。以样线法和网捕法两种常用的调查方法对沈阳桃仙国际机场周边的迁徙期鸟类进行了研究,旨在比较两种调查方法在机场鸟类群落组成调查中的效果及调查的鸟类群落组成差异。结果表明：两种方法均适合机场鸟类调研,共记录到鸟类97种,网捕法记录的鸟类种数（83种vs.57种）高于样线法,网捕法单独记录的鸟类种数（40种vs.14种）也高于样线法。尽管两种方法每期（半个月）调查的物种数和目的数量无明显差别,但随调查强度（如调查次数）增加,网捕法累计记录到的鸟类种类明显高于样线法,且较晚达到渐近线。另外,两种方法调查记录的鸟类群落组成也具有显著的差别,如网捕法记录到较多鹌鹑和鸮形目等夜间迁徙或活动鸟类,而样线法可记录到鹭科和雁鸭类水鸟等。这说明两种调研方法在鸟类调查中有较好的互补性。因此,本研究认为机场鸟情调研时应该根据鸟情特点,选择合适的鸟类调研方法,综合采用多种调研方法可更有利于获得科学的鸟情信息。     

四川老君山自然保护区的鸡形目种群密度研究

2006年4月~5月,对四川省老君山自然保护区鸡形目鸟类种群的鸣叫雄鸟的密度进行了调查。调查发现了4种鸡形目鸟类:灰胸竹鸡(Bambusicola thoracica)、白腹锦鸡(Chrysolophus amherstiae)、四川山鹧鸪(Arborophila rufipectus)和红腹角雉(Tragopan temminckii)。采用鸣叫计数的方法,在调查区域的3种生境(原始林、人工林和次生林)中记录了鸣叫雄鸟的数量和距调查点的距离。应用距离取样法对数据的计算估计,4种鸡形目鸟类的鸣叫雄鸟在调查区域的密度(只/km2)分别为20.19±6.07、1.48±0.46、4.24±0.60和11.19±2.97。在原始林、人工林和次生林3种生境的鸡形目鸟类密度,灰胸竹鸡分别为7.19±4.19、26.89±8.92和17.79±9.49;白腹锦鸡密度分别为0.74±0.43、2.92±1.42和1.19±0.58;四川山鹧鸪密度分别为7.94±0.99、1.99±1.63和3.06±0.60;红腹角雉密度分别为17.66±5.98、0和12.58±4.85。鸡形目鸟类群落Shannon-Weiner物种多样性指数和Pielou均匀度指数大小依次均为次生林>人工林>原始林,Simpson优势度指数大小则相反。     

内蒙古白银库伦鸟类多样性研究

为探讨不同生境鸟类多样性和植物多样性之间的关系,2007年8月和2008年8月,采用样方法和固定距离样线法对白银库伦五蕊柳湿地和浑善达克沙地的鸟类与植物进行了调查,通过Shannon-Wiener指数、Pielou指数、鸟类密度指数等对各数据进行分析,结果表明:两种生境鸟类群落的相似性极低;植物多样性的改变影响鸟类群落的多样性;鸟类多样性的变化反映植物多样性的变化.     

北京市珍珠泉乡不同昆虫采集方法采集效果对比分析

为了探究科研调查中不同昆虫采集方法的采集效率差异,在北京珍珠泉乡不同的生境类型中,采用样线法、马氏网法、灯诱法、陷阱法(糖醋液)4种采集方法进行昆虫采集,按生境类型对不同采集方法采集的昆虫进行统计分析.在实验中共采集昆虫3996头,隶属12目87科,其中在昆虫种类数量上,鳞翅目最多,其次是半翅目和鞘翅目;在数量上,半翅目昆虫数量最多,依次是双翅目和鳞翅目.样线法共采集到昆虫61科72种、灯诱法共采集到45科95种、马氏网法共采集到39科41种、陷阱法共采集到14科25种.在调查中,不同方法在不同生境采集昆虫种类数多存在显著差异(P<0.05).不同的采集方式间除马氏网和样线法采集昆虫的种类相似度为中等不相似(q=0.436),其他方法间均为极不相似.采用不同的采集方式可以采集到更多的昆虫种类.马氏网法是最优选的采集方式,马氏网采集昆虫最方便,节省人力;样线法采集的效果最稳定;灯诱法的采集效果好,但是应用较为复杂;糖醋液陷阱法采集昆虫效率对比其他三种方法,既不能采集到大量昆虫也没有采集到特定种昆虫,如无特别需求可以考虑减少或者放弃使用.     

吉林省长白山区野猪种群资源现状调查

于2007年至2009年的两个冬季,采用样带法对长白山区的野猪资源现状进行了调查.根据野猪的生物学特性以及长白山地区的自然环境特征,随机布设样带189条.对样带内野猪活动新鲜足迹链进行记录,并对其它痕迹进行综合分析,转化成实体数,计算样带密度,运用DPS7.05软件进行统计分析,求出吉林省东部长白山区野猪的种群数量,结...     

Double-Observer Line Transect Methods: Levels of Independence

Summary .  Double-observer line transect methods are becoming increasingly widespread, especially for the estimation of marine mammal abundance from aerial and shipboard surveys when detection of animals on the line is uncertain. The resulting data supplement conventional distance sampling data with two-sample mark–recapture data. Like conventional mark–recapture data, these have inherent problems for estimating abundance in the presence of heterogeneity. Unlike conventional mark–recapture methods, line transect methods use knowledge of the distribution of a covariate, which affects detection probability (namely, distance from the transect line) in inference. This knowledge can be used to diagnose unmodeled heterogeneity in the mark–recapture component of the data. By modeling the covariance in detection probabilities with distance, we show how the estimation problem can be formulated in terms of different levels of independence. At one extreme, full independence is assumed, as in the Petersen estimator (which does not use distance data); at the other extreme, independence only occurs in the limit as detection probability tends to one. Between the two extremes, there is a range of models, including those currently in common use, which have intermediate levels of independence. We show how this framework can be used to provide more reliable analysis of double-observer line transect data. We test the methods by simulation, and by analysis of a dataset for which true abundance is known. We illustrate the approach through analysis of minke whale sightings data from the North Sea and adjacent waters.     

Comparison of survey methods for wintering grassland birds

ABSTRACT Although investigators have evaluated the efficacy of survey methods for assessing densities of breeding birds, few comparisons have been made of survey methods for wintering birds, especially in grasslands. In winter, social behavior and spatial distributions often differ from those in the breeding season. We evaluated the degree of correspondence between density estimates based on different survey methods. Surveys were conducted during two winters (2001–2002 and 2002–2003) on 16 grassland sites in southwestern Oklahoma. Line‐transect (using a detection function to account for birds present but not detected) and area‐search (where density was based on the total count within a given area) methods were employed. Observations on line transects were also analyzed as strip transects, where density was based on total count within a given strip width and no detection function was used. Savannah Sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis), LeConte's Sparrows (Ammodramus leconteii), Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia), Smith's Longspurs (Calcarius pictus), Chestnut‐collared Longspurs (C. ornatus), and Eastern Meadowlarks (Sturnella magna) were sufficiently abundant to allow comparison. Area‐search density estimates tended to be higher than line‐transect estimates for Savannah Sparrows, Song Sparrows, and Eastern Meadowlarks, suggesting that some individuals initially located close to the transect line were not detected on line transects. The area‐search and line‐transect methods gave similar density estimates for Chestnut‐collared and Smith's longspurs. Area‐search estimates of Eastern Meadowlarks were significantly higher in the second year of the study only. For this species, area‐search estimates did not differ from those of strip transects covering an equal area, so the reason for the differing meadowlark estimates is not clear. Higher density estimates using the area‐search method likely resulted from: (1) birds that might escape detection by hiding were more likely detected (flushed) during area searches because of the repeated passes through the area, and (2) birds close to the line in line transects escape detection by hiding, biasing those estimates low. We also evaluated the correspondence of density rankings for the six species as determined by the different survey methods and for the same species across survey sites. Correlations among the six species of the area‐search results with those of line transects and strip transects generally were high, increasing in 2002–2003 when densities of birds were greater. All three methods provided similar density rankings among species. Density rankings within species across sites for the four non‐longspur species generally were concordant for the three methods, suggesting that any of them will adequately reflect among‐site differences, especially when densities vary greatly across sites. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which grassland birds are missed on line transects. We suggest that workers using line transects to study these species give careful consideration and make additional efforts to satisfy the distance‐sampling assumption that all birds on or near the line are detected. If density is measured as a total count in a fixed area, we recommend that observers pass within <10 m of all points in the area.     

A survey of the apes in the Dzanga-Ndoki National Park, Central African Republic: a comparison between the census and survey methods of estimating the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nest group density

A survey of apes was carried out between October 1996 and May 1997 in the Dzanga sector of the Dzanga‐Ndoki National Park, Central African Republic (CAR), to estimate gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) densities. The density estimates were based on nest counts. The strip transect census and the line transect survey method (Standing Crop Nest Count) were used to estimate the gorilla nest group density. The strip transect has been most commonly used to date. It assumes that all nest groups within the width of the strip are detected, but as this assumption is easily violated in the dense tropical rain forest, the line transect survey was also used. In this method, only the nest groups on the transect line itself should be detected. This method proved to be an adequate and easy technique for estimating animal densities in dense vegetation. The gorilla density of 1.6 individuals km^?2 (line transect survey method) found for the Dzanga sector is one of the highest densities ever reported in the literature for the Western lowland gorilla. The density estimate for chimpanzees was 0.16 individuals km^?2 (census method). The results of this study confirm the importance of the Dzanga‐Ndoki National Park for primate conservation.