洞庭湖区东方田鼠迁移的研究

洞庭湖区东方田鼠以湖滩上的芦苇＋荻或薹草沼泽为最适栖息地,枯水季节,多在其上生长、繁殖。汛期,随着湖水上涨,湖滩面积缩小,东方田鼠在拥挤的的压力下或直接被洪水所迫,越过防洪堤迁入垸内。东方田鼠在湖滩及农田间的迁移主要取决于湖水水位及种群密度,无固定的迁移时间。迁入垸内的东方田鼠主要分布于靠近防洪堤一带,其捕获率随着与防洪堤距离的增加而递减。个体较大的东方田鼠迁移距离较远。在迁移期,迁入垸内的东方田鼠的性比在不同的距离上无显著差异。湖水回落时,东方田鼠随湖滩出露而迁回沼泽草地。回迁时,个体较大的雄性首先回迁的比例较高。迁入垸内的东方田鼠,栖息在荒坡地的种群密度大于在农田中的种群密度;东方田鼠不在农田越冬,小部分可在岗地荒坡中越冬,但少有增殖。按迁移动因看,此种迁移乃洪水逼迫所至,而由逼迫外迁和自动回迁构成循环,保证了种群对湖区特殊环境的适应。     

洞庭湖区东方田鼠洞群成员分析

通过对洞庭湖区不同栖息地东方田鼠洞群结构分析,结合洞庭湖区的特定生态条件,对东方田鼠在不同繁殖期的栖息习性及其适应意义进行了分析和讨论。洞庭湖区东方田鼠的最适栖息地是洲滩,但洞庭湖湖水季节性涨落,迫使东方田鼠在洲滩与垸内农田间迁移。当东方田鼠栖息在洲滩时（10－5月）,即繁殖盛期,雌雄分居,雌性单独抚养后代。当迁入垸内农田后（6－9月）,东方田鼠营混居生活。洲滩为其理想栖息地,单个雌鼠可以正常抚养后代,分居则有利于最大限度地提高其适合度。迁入垸内后混居可减少对空间资源的需求。从野外和室内观察情况分析,东方田鼠在繁殖盛期的婚配制度以一雄一雌的可能性很小。     

洞庭湖不同退田还湖类型区东方田鼠和黑线姬鼠的繁殖特性

针对洞庭湖区实施的“退田还湖” 重大生态环境恢复工程,以原有“围湖”造的垸田和垸外湖滩为对照,对退田还湖区(含双退与单退两种形式)的啮齿动物群落于2003 ～ 2006 年进行定位观察。采用夹捕法进行采样,于每年的1 月、4 月、7 月、10 月进行。比较洞庭湖不同退田还湖类型区东方田鼠和黑线姬鼠种群的繁殖
指标参数。总体来看,调查期间东方田鼠和黑线姬鼠的繁殖指数要比上世纪80 ～90 年代报道的要高,这与前几年其种群处于年数量低谷有关,是东方田鼠和黑线姬鼠种群负反馈机制的体现。不同类型生境间的比较结果显示,单退垸与原有生境没有明显变化,而双退垸内黑线姬鼠和东方田鼠均有较显著的变化,主要表现在双退垸内夏季东方田鼠保持高的繁殖能力和黑线姬鼠的繁殖力锐减。由于双退垸的高程优势,鼠群在夏季汛期不会迁出垸内,仅迁移集中至较高区域,这种水位变化引导的害鼠种群迁移应该是造成繁殖变化的主要原因。由于黑线姬鼠不适应这种迁移以及集中后与东方田鼠的激烈竞争,迁移到高地后的黑线姬鼠几乎停止繁殖,繁殖指数仅为0.03 (I♀ = 0.05),明显低于当期其它生境。值得注意的是夏季滞留在双退垸内的东方田鼠,繁殖强度却不减,繁殖指数达1.54 (I♀ = 3.36),与春季湖滩种群的相当。说明没有经过长距离迁移的东方田鼠种群,在夏季仍会保持较高的繁殖强度,与夏季被迫远距离迁入农田的东方田鼠种群繁殖力急剧下降形成鲜明对比。由此可知,在初夏如果有适宜的栖息地(如双退垸的高台、原有堤岸等),东方田鼠仍能保持较强繁殖力。本文揭示了双退垸内水位变化引发种群迁移后东方田鼠和黑线姬鼠繁殖能力的这种迥异表现,具体深层次原因有待进一步探讨。     

环境演变及三峡工程对洞庭湖区东方田鼠种群影响的评估

根据历史资料,分析了洞庭湖洲滩演变与东方田鼠种群变动之间的关系。再根据三峡工程建成后下泄流量调度方案,分析了三峡工程对洞庭湖湖水位及洲滩环境的影响,进而评估三峡工程对东方田鼠种群波动的影响。结果表明,洲滩出露面积的不断增大和冬、春季洲滩连续出露天数的增加,使东方田鼠的栖息地扩大,并使其种群增长期延长,从而使其种群膨胀,三峡工程建成后初期,10－11月洲滩出露天数和出露面积将比建坝前同期有较大增长,建坝后中长期,洲滩出露天数和出露面积逐渐增大,东方田鼠种群亦将随之继续增长。因此,汛期洲滩被淹后将有更多的东方田鼠迁入到垸内,对农田的危害将进一步加重。     

三峡工程和退田还湖对洞庭湖区东方田鼠种群的潜在影响

洞庭湖东方田鼠种群的暴发成灾与洲滩演替关系密切.湖泊泥沙淤积导致湖滩面积增加,大面积的湖滩为东方田鼠种群增长提供了重要基础;而围湖造田、为根除血吸虫病而围湖灭螺以及滥捕天敌是湖区东方田鼠20世纪70年代开始形成严重危害的直接原因.近些年实施的三峡工程和退田还湖会对洞庭湖环境产生深远的影响.三峡水库蓄水后对长江中下游水量的调节将导致洞庭湖中低位洲滩出露面积的增大,退田还湖的实施亦将直接增加湖滩面积,这都将会扩大东方田鼠潜在的栖息地,会使东方田鼠种群进一步增长.因此必须高度关注东方田鼠未来种群的数量变化趋势.     

洞庭湖区夏季温光条件及被迫迁移对东方田鼠繁殖的影响

在野外 ,从先年的秋初至当年春末被迫迁移前 ,东方田鼠在湖滩上能保持较高的繁殖能力 ;在夏季 ,不论栖息在农田还是岗地 ,都是东方田鼠的繁殖低谷。夏季 (6～ 8月 )在实验室自然温光条件下与人工控制较低温度条件下同时进行观察 ,结果表明 ,前种条件下东方田鼠的繁殖能力明显低于人工降低温度缩短光照条件下的繁殖力 ,此变动趋势与野外观察到的繁殖力季节动态一致 ,可以说明夏季温光条件不利于东方田鼠的繁殖。另一方面 ,东方田鼠的繁殖能力最低的 6月并非全年最热的月份 ,这是因为东方田鼠的被动迁移对体力的消耗加剧了夏季温光对繁殖的影响程度。因此 ,认为洪水引起的东方田鼠被迫迁移和夏季的温光条件共同影响了东方田鼠的繁殖。洞庭湖区东方田鼠主要在冬春季繁殖 ,而分布在高纬度地区的田鼠类动物和分布在高纬度地区的东方田鼠在夏季繁殖 ,在月份上虽不同 ,但其繁殖盛期的气温则相近 ,其实是田鼠类动物喜寒惧热特性的反映 ,乃是对当地的生态环境的适应。     

鼠类种群动态:食物资源影响力的实验评估

本研究在美国伊利诺斯州中东部测定了中等食物质量(莓系属的牧草)和低食物质量(高杆草牧场)栖息地内橙腹田鼠(Microtusochrogaster)和草原田鼠(M.pennsylvanicus)种群对附加食物的响应。在中等食物质量栖息地内投放附加食物,橙腹田鼠种群的波动幅度高于对照样地,但同类型食物质量栖息地内,种群平均密度和波动模式无显著的差异。仅在低等食物质量的高杆草栖息地内,投放附加食物可导致草原田鼠的种群密度高于对照样地。附加食物不直接影响两种栖息地内橙腹田鼠的成活率或成熟率,在中等食物质量栖息地中投放附加食物,繁殖活跃的成熟雌性个体比例及雄性成体的体重高于对照。附加食物不影响莓系属牧草内草原田鼠,也不能影响该动物在高杆草环境中的存活率。然而,投放附加食物,可缩短低等食物质量栖息地内草原田鼠的成熟期,提高繁殖活跃雌性的比例和迁入个体比例,增加并引起雄性个体体重增加。据此,本研究证明食物资源在橙腹田鼠和草原田鼠种群动态中只起极小的作用。     

洞庭湖东方田鼠肥满度时空特征及与降水、温度、归一化植被指数的关系研究

为明确洞庭湖区东方田鼠Microtus fortis肥满度的时空特征及其与东方田鼠常用预警生态因子的关系,采用夹日法对洞庭湖7个调查区域不同生境的东方田鼠进行调查分析;收集洞庭湖区降水、温度、归一化植被指数(NDVI)等环境因子数据,分析不同性别东方田鼠肥满度与降水、温度、NDVI的关系。结果表明:1)不同性别东方田鼠肥满度时空特征较一致,春季和冬季不同生境雌雄东方田鼠的差异有高度统计学意义;在洲滩芦苇生境,雄雌东方田鼠在各季节间的差异有高度统计学意义;在洲滩苔草+芦苇+杨树生境,雄性肥满度各季节间的差异有统计学意义。2)雌性肥满度与季平均降水量呈显著正相关,雄性肥满度与季平均降水量无显著的相关关系。3)雌性和雄性的肥满度与季平均温度均无显著的相关关系。4)雌性肥满度与农田生境的NDVI呈显著正相关,雄性肥满度与农田生境的NDVI无显著的相关关系;雌性和雄性的肥满度与洲滩生境的NDVI均无显著的相关关系。研究认为,洞庭湖东方田鼠肥满度可以在一定程度上反映其对环境压力的反应,雌性对不利环境较雄性更加敏感,但在特定情况下,栖息地、食物可获得性等通过影响雌性东方田鼠肥满度,进一步影响东方田鼠种群增长。     

气候因子和水位变化对鄱阳湖东方白鹳越冬种群数量的影响

分析了鄱阳湖国家级自然保护区1984—2011年东方白鹳越冬种群动态,探讨了其种群动态与气候和水位变化的相关性。结果表明,1984—2011年,保护区东方白鹳越冬种群数量平均为(1296±177)只,种群年间波动较大,但总体呈显著的线性增长趋势。保护区东方白鹳种群数量动态与鄱阳湖年最低水位、10月份平均水位、12月份平均水位存在显著负相关,这可能与冬季水位增加导致东方白鹳栖息地面积减小和人类干扰强度增大有关;保护区东方白鹳种群数量与越冬期11月份平均最低气温呈显著正相关,东方白鹳主要在11月份到达鄱阳湖,此时适宜的温度可能有利于提高东方白鹳食物资源的可获得性,迅速补充能量,并降低体温调节所需的能量消耗。逐步线性回归分析表明,鄱阳湖区11月份平均最低气温、前一年1月份高水位持续时间、前二年7月份高水位持续时间是保护区东方白鹳种群数量的显著预测因子,共同解释了保护区东方白鹳最大种群数量变化的78.3%。     

洞庭湖区夏季温光条件及被迫迁移对东方田鼠和繁殖的影响

在野外,从先年的秋初至当年春末被迫迁移前,东方田鼠在湖滩上能保持较高的繁殖能力;在夏季,不论栖息在农田还是岗地,都是东方田鼠的繁殖低谷。夏季（６～８月）在实验室自然温光条件下与人工控制较低温度条件下同时进行观察,结果表明,前种条件下东方田鼠的繁殖能力明显低于人工降低温度缩短光照条件下的繁殖力,此变动真挚势与野外观察到的繁殖力季节动态一致,可以说明夏季温光条件不利于东方田鼠的繁殖。另一方面,东方田鼠     

洞庭湖区东方田鼠种群暴发期间的行为特征观察

2007年6月下旬洞庭湖区东方田鼠(Microtus fortis calamorum)再度暴发,作者观察到其种群暴发期间的迁移、栖息与取食行为具有典型的"逃难"与临时"集群"特征,大多数东方田鼠在迁移过程中死亡,迁到大堤的鼠聚集在大石下、木头下、矮灌木和草丛等较隐蔽场所,一个月后扩散到农田和荒地中,多扩散到杂草茂盛的荒地内。迁移过程中不仅取食农作物,而且取食老树皮等,农作物损失严重。了解其在迁移期间的行为特征,可为了解东方田鼠的生活史适应特性和防控东方田鼠危害提供依据。     

洞庭湖洲滩及滨湖区鼠类分布格局及其多样性

为全面了解洞庭湖洲滩及滨湖区鼠类分布格局,统计自2003—2013年该湖区15个调查点5种不同生境的鼠类群落调查数据,并对鼠类群落的物种多样性进行分析。结果表明:2003—2013年洞庭湖区捕获鼠类有10种,主要优势种为黑线姬鼠(Apodemus agrarius)和东方田鼠(Microtus fortis);不同生境下的优势种不同,东方田鼠为湖滩生境优势种,黑线姬鼠是滨湖农田和退田还湖洲滩生境优势种,针毛鼠(Niviventer fulvescens)和社鼠(Niviventer confucianus)为滨湖丘岗林地优势种,小家鼠(Mus musculus)及黄胸鼠(Rattus tanzumi)则多出现在农房生境;不同生境的鼠类群落物种多样性不同,滨湖丘岗林地生境受人类活动或洪水干扰程度最低,因此,优势集中性指数最低,而物种多样性Shannon-Wiener指数在干扰较少的滨湖丘岗林地生境物种多样性指数最高。尽管湖滩生境受三峡工程的影响,物种数大量增加,但由于仍受汛期洪涝的干扰,依然具有优势种突出的特征。研究表明,人类社会活动或洪涝等干扰因素降低了鼠类群落物种多样性,致使优势种突出,形成只利于少数几个种群栖息的环境,最终导致种群大暴发。     

Reproductive success of Woodlarks Lullula arborea in traditional and recently colonized habitats

Capsule Set-aside schemes have allowed breeding Woodlarks to colonize farmland, but heathland and forestry habitats remain the stronghold.

Aims To determine which habitats provide the best conditions for breeding Woodlarks and whether a buffer effect is operating, with density increasing faster in the poorer quality habitat as the population grows.

Methods Habitat colonization was examined and breeding success compared among heathland, clear-felled and young conifer plantations, and farmland set-aside.

Results Woodlarks on heathland and forestry habitats had similar clutch sizes and nesting success, but clutch sizes may be lower on farmland. Heathland was recolonized when population density was low in forest habitats, while farmland was colonized when density was increasing, and areas close to forest were preferentially occupied. Woodlarks breeding on farmland preferred set-aside stubbles to other field types.

Conclusion Forestry and heathland habitats are similar in quality for breeding Woodlarks, with no evidence for a buffer effect. Farmland set-aside may be suboptimal but the area available is much greater than the area of forest or heathland, and could therefore make a significant contribution to the conservation of the Woodlark population. However, set-aside should not be seen as an alternative to the conservation of forest and heathland.     

Dynamics of habitat distribution in breeding mallards: assessing the applicability of current habitat selection models

The applicability of ideal free, ideal despotic and ideal preemptive habitat selection models to explain dynamics of habitat distribution of breeding mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) was explored. Data from 35 lakes studied between 1985 and 2000 were used to examine overall habitat distribution of breeding pairs, breeding success in different habitats, within-year order of habitat occupation, and density dependence of habitat distribution and breeding success. Two habitat types, rich and poor, were defined based on the structure and luxuriance of shore vegetation; each lake belonged to one or the other of the habitat types. Breeding pairs used the rich habitat more than expected, breeding density also being higher there than in the poor habitat. Both average brood density and breeding success were higher in the rich habitat than in the poor. Breeding success was not density dependent, neither when analysed separately for the habitat types, nor in the study area in general. Within season, arriving mallard pairs did not occupy rich lakes earlier than poor lakes. An isodar analysis based on between-year variation of the breeding density in rich and poor habitats revealed that habitat distribution of breeding pairs was not density dependent. By contrast, density in the rich habitat increased and proportional use of the poor habitat decreased with increasing overall population density, i.e. the rich habitat got increasingly crowded. None of the habitat selection models considered was applicable to explain the dynamics of habitat distribution of breeding mallards.     

Multiple habitat associations: the role of offsite habitat in determining onsite avian density and species richness

Many animal populations continue to decline despite occurring in protected areas or on sympathetically managed sites. Frequently, this is because a specific habitat patch may not fulfil all the niche requirements of a threatened species. For instance, species often move between, and make use of, multiple habitat types for breeding, roosting and feeding within the same landscape. These cross‐habitat interactions present a challenge for conservation. Here we quantify how the habitat associations of individual species and assemblages occurring within two distinct but adjacent habitat types (moorland and farmland) determine a suite of density and richness indicators, using the bird community of the English uplands as a case study. There was a clear association between onsite avian density and richness and offsite habitat structure (e.g. vegetation height, percent cover of dominant plant species, land management practices). Although such effects are not universal across all species and assemblages, where present (for five farmland and three moorland indicators) the increase in explanatory power offered by including offsite habitat structure can be large. By constructing scenarios of possible changes to management practice on both moorland and farmland, we demonstrate a real conservation benefit can be obtained by altering management in offsite habitats. For example, reducing burning intensity on moorland can result in a five‐fold increase in snipe Gallinago gallinago density on farmland, without an alteration in farmland habitat. For one species (Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata), we demonstrate the frequency with which birds move between and utilise farmland and moorland during the breeding season, and therefore the importance of both habitat types to maintaining population densities. The multiple habitat dependency phenomenon quantified here is common and not restricted to birds. The successful conservation of many threatened species will thus depend on coordinated cross‐habitat management.