云南大山包越冬黑颈鹤调查简报

云南大山包是昭通市辖区西部79km的一个乡,属高原缓丘草甸地貌的贫困农牧业高寒山区,是近二年新发现的国家一类保护动物黑颈鹤(Grus nigricollis)分布数量最大的越冬地。在这里越冬的黑颈鹤主要栖息在跳礅河水库和大海子水库。1990年2月,进行多次分组同步调查结果,计有黑颈鹤181只。其中跳礅河稳定栖息的为141只,种群结构为2只亲鸟带2只幼鹤的家庭2家,2只亲鸟带1只幼鹤的家庭8家,配对的非繁殖成鹤家庭11家,孤成鹤2只,亚成鹤85只。另有11只灰鹤。大海子稳定栖息的为40只,种群结构仅有2只亲鸟带1只幼鹤的1家,余下的37只均为亚成鹤。另计有2只…     

云南省纳帕海自然保护区越冬黑颈鹤的集群特征

2004年10月-2005年5月,在云南纳帕海自然保护区采用定点扫描法对越冬黑颈鹤(Grus nigricollis)的集群类犁和集群大小进行了观察.结果表明黑颈鹤夜间集群夜栖,形成较大的夜栖群,平均群体大小为67.9只(16-157,n=17):按照有无灰鹤加入,又将其分为同种集群和混种集群两种类型,其中同种集群的黑颈鹤数量占整个越冬种群的65.3%.在白昼,黑颈鹤以家庭鹤、集群鹤及特殊群体3种类型活动,家庭鹤和集群鹤的平均大小分别为2.7只(2-4,n=145)和16.1只(3-65,n=1017).黑颈鹤的集群大小并不稳定,在日内和月份间均有明显变化(P=0.000＜0.05).存越冬期,最大集群形成于12月,其次为11月和1月;在日内,早上8时集群最大,随后减小并保持相对稳定,18时黑颈鹤开始向夜栖地靠拢,使得集群再次开始增大.随后观察中还发现,黑颈鹤的家庭解体过程开始于3月底,当幼鹤被成鹤驱逐离群后,逐渐加入集群鹤活动,从而使得家庭鹤和集群鹤的大小和组成发生改变.黑颈鹤的集群大小和组成受自身状况、种内关系、天气、食物等多种因素的共同影响,随时间和季节变动而发生变化,是对自身、种群和环境条件变化的综合反映.     

东昆仑-阿尔金山地区黑颈鹤种群分布与秋季数量变化

黑颈鹤(Grus nigricollis)是青藏高原特有物种,在新疆主要分布在与青海、西藏相邻的阿尔金山、东昆仑山地区。2011年9～11月,对该地区黑颈鹤的分布、种群大小、数量变化、生存状况等进行了详细调查。在乌尊硝尔、铁木里克乡、玉素甫阿勒克、鸭子泉、阿达滩、祁曼塔格乡、吐拉牧场等25个样点,都观察到有黑颈鹤分布。利用样点调查法和直接计数法,重复调查164次,共记录到黑颈鹤158只。其中,在依协克帕提湿地(N37°15'～37°23',E90°11'～90°20',海拔3 903 m)最多一次记录到126只黑颈鹤集群。结合早期的科学考察记录,推测在整个东昆仑-阿尔金山地区共有黑颈鹤220～260只左右。黑颈鹤家庭成员数量为1～4只,4种类型的家庭所占比例分别为5.9%、60.3%、29.4%和4.4%。在10月份之前,主要以家庭为单位活动;10月中旬,开始大规模集群,10月29日集群数量达到最高峰,并开始迁徙;11月6日黑颈鹤全部迁徙离开。此外,还观察到有少量的灰鹤(G.grus)和蓑羽鹤(Anthropoides virgo)与黑颈鹤混居在一起。     

西藏黑颈鹤的保护与研究现状

西藏是黑颈鹤Grus nigricollis主要的繁殖地和越冬地.每年在西藏繁殖的黑颈鹤数量在4000只以上,越冬的数量达6000多只.目前西藏保护黑颈鹤为主体的国家级自然保护区有两个,即西藏色林错黑颈鹤繁殖栖息地自然保护区(8936.3 km2 )和西藏雅鲁藏布江中游河谷黑颈鹤越冬栖息地自然保护区(6143.5 km2),这两个保护区在黑颈鹤的保护工作中处于重要的地位.本文记述了20世纪80年代以来我国学者对分布在西藏的黑颈鹤研究和保护的成果及其进展,包括黑颈鹤在西藏的地理分布、种群生态、生境现状以及保护管理现状,并对目前黑颈鹤保护所面临的问题提出了相应的建议.     

甘肃盐池湾黑颈鹤筑巢栖息地偏好及人为干扰的影响

作为高原旗舰物种, 黑颈鹤(Grus nigricolli)是反映高原生态健康状况的重要参考。为了解黑颈鹤如何在多因素作用下适应人类改造过的栖息地环境, 本研究利用遥感解译、最近邻分析与随机森林模型对繁殖于甘肃盐池湾国家级自然保护区党河湿地的黑颈鹤的筑巢栖息地偏好及人为干扰进行研究。2019年和2020年每年的4-9月在党河湿地内对巢位点等数据进行收集。研究结果表明: 党河湿地内巢址与人为干扰的分布位置明显不同, 两者的主要分布区呈现镶嵌状。距深水沼泽距离、距浅水沼泽距离与距湖泊距离是影响黑颈鹤筑巢栖息地选择最关键的3个环境因子。黑颈鹤筑巢时偏好在距离深水沼泽< 125 m、距离浅水沼泽< 130 m、距离湖泊< 270 m的区域内筑巢。黑颈鹤对沼泽、湖泊等资源的偏好是其巢址分布格局的主要驱动力, 而房屋与公路等人为干扰对栖息地选择的影响很小。黑颈鹤筑巢时强烈偏好的栖息地在湿地内占比低、分布聚集且适宜范围有限, 繁殖区域较狭窄。黑颈鹤巢址间距离的上升表明黑颈鹤栖息地质量可能有所下降, 牲畜数量的增长、冬季牧场的多季节利用以及气候变化可能是主要原因。建议在党河湿地内不新增房屋及公路等人为干扰, 同时继续适当限牧, 并给予牧民充足的经济补偿。     

黑颈鹤种群动态模型

本研究据已收集到的数据,用非参数统计方法确定了黑颈鹤种群的性比为1:1,避免了大量取样。根据黑颈鹤的特点,我们将其种群分成4个年龄组,并求出了各年龄组的存活率和繁殖率,据此建立了描述黑颈鹤种群动态的数学模型。用模型计算得出在乌蒙山区越冬的黑颈鹤种群的自然增长率为1.85‰;理想的种群结构为幼鹤、亚成鹤、成鹤、老鹤分别占总数的15.5％、21.5％、60.2％、2.8％,最后预测了乌蒙山黑颈鹤种群在1988～2000年越冬期的数量。1989年1月经实地调查该种群总数为310只,而预测值为303只,误差约2％。     

若尔盖沼泽夏季涉禽游禽观察

１９９１年５月２２日－６月１９日,笔者在若尔盖沼泽观察到涉禽、游禽２６种,隶属６目８科,其中：白翅浮鸥等１３种属若尔盖沼泽夏季新记录;黑颈鹤等１２种为繁殖鸟,绿头鸭等５种为若尔盖沼泽繁殖新记录;赤麻鸭、红脚鹬、普通燕鸥、黑颈鹤、灰雁等７种为优势种。调查区内共观察到黑颈鹤２３９只,估计整个若尔盖沼泽有黑颈鹤６１０只。建议在此建立面积２３．９万公顷的湿地保护管理区。     

若尔盖沼泽夏秀涉禽游禽观察

１９９１年５月２２日－６月１９日,笔者的若尔盖沼泽观察到涉禽,游禽２６种,隶属６目８科,其中：白翅浮鸥等１３种属若尔盖沼泽夏季新记录;黑颈鹤等１２种为繁殖鸟,绿头鸭等５种为若尔盖沼泽繁殖新记录;赤麻鸭、红脚鹬、普通燕鸥、灰雁等７种为优势种。调查区内共观察到黑颈鹤２３９只,估计整个若尔盖沼泽有黑颈鹤６１０只。建议在此建立面积２３．９万公顷的湿地保护管理区。     

广西邦亮东黑冠长臂猿新群体的发现及种群数量现状

东黑冠长臂猿是极度濒危物种,全球种群数量极其稀少。2015年5月和8月,采用在固定地点监听鸣叫的方法在广西邦亮长臂猿国家级自然保护区内对东黑冠长臂猿开展两次实地调查,发现在中国境内形成了由1只成年雄性,2只成年雌性和1只婴猿组成的新群体。这是自2006年该物种在中国被重新发现后,首次在中国境内发现形成新群体。中国境内东黑冠长臂猿的种群数量也由3群22只,增长到4群26只。有限的栖息地可能是未来限制东黑冠长臂猿新群体形成的主要因素之一,所以栖息地恢复对东黑冠长臂猿种群数量增长尤为重要。放牧不利于栖息地恢复,要逐步减少,进而杜绝在保护区内放牧。另外,东黑冠长臂猿跨国界分布,中越两国政府之间应加强协调,避免在保护区内实施对栖息地不利的边境管理活动。如果两国间出现种群隔离,对东黑冠长臂猿种群数量的增长将会非常不利。     

鄱阳湖围垦区藕塘越冬白鹤的时间分配与行为节律

2016年12月—2017年3月,采用瞬时扫描法研究了鄱阳湖围垦区藕塘生境中白鹤Grus leucogeranus越冬期的行为,共扫描2560次,23219只次,包括18031只次成鹤和5188只次幼鹤。结果表明,觅食(41.78%)、警戒(25.02%)、修整(15.00%)和休息(10.84%)是白鹤越冬期的主要行为。与自然生境相比,藕塘生境中白鹤主要采取多休息和修整的策略来节省能量支出。成鹤的觅食行为(35.29%)显著低于幼鹤(62.42%)(F_(1,12)=45.977,P0.01),警戒行为(28.66%)则显著高于幼鹤(10.26%)(F_(1,12)=38.975,P0.01)。家庭群成鹤觅食行为(43.96%)极显著高于非家庭群成鹤(27.04%)(F_(1,12)=60.169,P0.01)。家庭群成鹤需要喂食幼鹤,它们花费更多的时间觅食弥补能量的消耗。行为节律上,白鹤各时段觅食行为占总行为的比例均较高,11:00—11:59出现明显高峰,占总行为的48.64%。警戒行为无明显的低谷和高峰。成鹤在各时段的觅食行为比例均明显低于幼鹤,成鹤和幼鹤的觅食曲线变化趋势相似,即觅食比例的升高和降低比较同步。成鹤在各时段的警戒行为和修整行为比例均明显高于幼鹤,成幼鹤的休息行为比例在各时段差别不大,均在14:00—14:59有个明显的高峰。家庭群成鹤的觅食行为比例几乎在各时段均明显高于非家庭群,家庭群成鹤的修整行为和休息行为在大部分时段均低于非家庭群成鹤。因此家庭群成鹤采取多取食,少休息和修整的策略提高自身的适合度,同时保证对后代的抚育。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor