同域分布的珍稀野生动物对放牧的行为响应策略

保护区内放牧活动对野生动物保护存在负面影响,明确不同物种对放牧干扰的行为响应对制定更有针对性的保护管理政策具有重要意义。使用红外相机研究卧龙自然保护区放牧活动对多种珍稀野生动物的影响,分析放牧激励政策实施前后大熊猫(Ailuropoda melanoleuca)及其同域分布的小熊猫(Ailurus fulgens)、川金丝猴(Rhinopithecus roxellana)、水鹿(Rusa unicolor) 4种珍稀野生动物的照片数、空间分布以及活动模式的变化,探讨这4种动物对放牧的行为响应策略。结果表明:(1)一期(2012—2013),2012年10月实施了禁马政策,同年12月实施放牧(牛羊)激励政策)家畜照片数量很少,4种野生动物照片数相对较多。二期(2014—2015)家畜的照片数显著增加(P0.01),小熊猫(P0.05)与川金丝猴(P0.01)的照片数均显著减少,大熊猫、水鹿的照片数也呈减少趋势;到三期(2016—2017),大熊猫、小熊猫及水鹿3种关注野生动物的照片数基本回升到激励政策实施前的水平,无川金丝猴照片记录。(2)一期,4种野生动物在研究区域有较广的分布;二期,大熊猫、小熊猫的空间分布范围均缩小,无川金丝猴空间分布信息,而家畜、水鹿的空间分布范围有所增加;到三期,大熊猫、小熊猫的空间分布基本恢复到放牧激励政策实施前的区域,无川金丝猴的空间分布信息。(3)放牧激励政策实施前后,大熊猫、小熊猫及川金丝猴活动模式无明显变化,但水鹿的活动更加集中于傍晚,以避开人类与家畜的活动高峰。同域分布的不同的野生动物对人类活动(如放牧)的行为响应策略不同,各保护区在制定相关保护政策时应综合考虑人类干扰对多个物种的影响,增加决策的科学性与合理性。

Divergent behavioral responses of sympatric species to grazing disturbance

Livestock grazing within protected areas may negatively affect wildlife; therefore, it is important to determine divergent behavioral responses of various species towards grazing disturbance. Infrared cameras were used to monitor grazing status in Hetaoping area, Wolong National Nature Reserve, Sichuan, where the government implemented an incentive policy to encourage livestock production (including yaks and goats). We used the images to study the spatial distribution and activity patterns of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), red panda (Ailurus fulgens), golden monkey (Rhinopithecus roxellana), and sambar (Rusa unicolor), and evaluated divergent behavioral responses of these four species to livestock grazing. The results showed the following:(1) in the first phase (2012-2013), the local government banned all horse grazing beginning in October 2012. The incentive policy was implemented in December 2012; it allowed 10 households in each village to get a loan without interest to support yak and goat rearing. There were few images of livestock, but many images of the four species. In the second phase (2014-2015), the number of images of livestock (P < 0.01) increased significantly, while images of the red panda (P < 0.05) and golden monkey (P < 0.01) decreased significantly. Images of the giant panda and sambar also decreased. In the third phase (2016-2017), the number of images of the giant panda, red panda, and sambar increased. Late in the third phase, i.e., January 2017, the number of images of the giant panda, red panda, and sambar basically rebounded to the levels observed before the policy was implemented. However, there were no images of golden monkeys. (2) The four species had wide distribution in this study area in the first phase. In the second phase, the spatial distribution of the giant panda and red panda shrank after the implementation of the livestock policy, and the spatial distribution of livestock and sambar increased. Spatial distribution information for the golden monkey was not available. In the third phase, the spatial distribution of the giant panda and red panda returned to the levels observed before the incentive policy was implemented. Additionally, there was no spatial distribution information for the golden monkey. (3) There were no differences in the daily activity patterns of the giant panda, red panda, and golden monkey before and after the implementation of the livestock policy, but images of the sambar were obtained more often at dusk after the implementation of the livestock policy. These results indicated that different wildlife taxa show divergent behavioral responses towards grazing disturbance. Consequently, to formulate more scientific and effective management and conservation policies, more comprehensive evaluation of the effects of human disturbance (e.g., livestock grazing) on multiple species are required in the future.