青藏铁路、公路对野生动物活动的影响

2003年8月和2004年8月,在不冻泉保护站(35°17′N;93°16′E)至五道梁(35°13′N;93°04′E)一带调查青藏公路的运营和青藏铁路的建设对野生动物活动的影响,并分析了野生动物对青藏铁路上所建立的动物通道的利用情况。结果表明,青藏铁路的建设增加了青藏公路的交通运输量,青藏公路在铁路修建期间会对藏羚羊(Pantholops hodgsoni)、藏原羚(Procapra picticaudata)和藏野驴(Equus kiang)的活动产生部分影响。同时,野生动物通过自身的适应和行为调节可以减少环境改变产生的影响,如公路两侧动物的活动高峰正好是公路上车流量较少的时段、动物可以利用野生动物通道来通过青藏铁路等。藏野驴、藏羚羊与藏原羚均可利用通道穿越铁路,而藏羚羊对通道的利用频次和通道到公路的距离显著的正相关(p<0.5),大多数的动物通道因其高度、宽度和到公路的距离以及人类活动等因素的影响而不能被动物利用。总的看来,动物能够通过自己的适应和行为调节,可以适应青藏铁路修建对该地区的环境所带来的变化。     

青藏铁路线上的野生动物通道与藏羚羊保护

青藏铁路是世界上自然条件最独特而极端、海拔最高、线路最长的高原铁路。青藏高原是我国乃至全世界生态系统最脆弱的地区,沿线野生动物种类多、数量大,特别是大中型有蹄类如藏羚羊等,也是野生动物中最独特的类群,它们活动范围大,不同季节间取食、饮水和繁殖等往往需要进行大规模、长距离的迁移,青藏铁路的建设无疑也不可避免地会对它们的正常活动产生阻碍。在青藏铁路建设中,我国首次引入了国外野生动物通道的理念,根据当地的自然条件．设计了3种基本类型的野生动物通道。同时,在施工中也根据藏羚羊等迁移的特点,施工期采取了动物优先的措施,并对将来营运提出了一些参考建议。     

藏羚羊已基本适应青藏铁路通道

2008年4月17日,中国科学院动物研究所研究员杨奇森在英国Nature杂志发表文章,报道该研究组在青藏铁路沿线通过实地监测,发现藏羚羊的迁徙活动已基本适应青藏铁路野生动物通道这一事实,对前一阶段少数境外媒体就“中国政府在青藏铁路环保中是否做出努力”的质疑进行了有力回击。     

交通设施对可可西里藏羚季节性迁移的影响

本文基于对可可西里自然保护区内藏羚跨越青藏公路及青藏铁路的监测结果,初步探讨了公路及铁路对藏羚季节性迁移的影响。观测结果显示,目前对藏羚迁移的主要干扰因素为：交通设施自身的屏障作用、人为活动、公路交通流量、未清理施工现场及未恢复植被等。本文通过对野生动物通道的使用情况监测和对不同通道形式的使用评价,为未来铁路建设和野生动物通道的优化提供了科学依据。     

高原鼠兔低氧适应分子机制的研究进展

高原鼠兔（Ochotona curzoniae）是生活在青藏高原海拔3000-5000m地区的特有物种,具有极强的低温、低氧耐受能力。近十几年来,许多国内外学者从整体水平及分子水平对高原鼠兔的低氧适应机制进行了大量研究,认为该动物是研究低氧适应的理想动物模型。本文对高原鼠兔的低氧适应机制从血液学特征、肺血管的结构和功能及分子生物学研究等方面作一系统阐述,旨在阐明高原土生动物在高寒缺氧环境中生存的适应机制,这对人类适应高原及高原疾病的防治有着重要的指导意义。     

高原鼠兔低氧适应机制的研究概况

综述了新型实验动物——高原鼠兔对高原低氧环境的适应特点,并与移居大鼠、人类及世居高原人群的生理变化进行了比较,对于高原鼠兔的低氧适应机制,从血液学、氧的摄取、氧利用及肺循环的结构和功能,进行了较为系统的阐述,对高原适应的生理研究及发展方向也做了扼要介绍。     

高山动物对低氧的生理适应

本文综述了典型高山动物、哺乳类和鸟类对高山低氧环境的适应特点,并与一般动物、人类进入高原以及高原世居居民的生理变化进行对比。对于高山动物的适应机制,从呼吸、代谢和血液循环等系统适应,直到细胞和亚细胞水平对氧的摄取和利用,进行了较为系统的阐述。对与生理功能相关联的高山动物的结构适应和生化机能的变化,也作了扼要的介绍。最后对高山动物生理研究中存在一些主要问题和对今后的发展方向进行了讨论。     

神农架世界自然遗产地川金丝猴通道设计

旅游公路会带来野生动物致死、生境破碎化、栖息地丧失、基因隔离等一系列生态问题。设计和修建跨公路的野生动物通道作为缓解旅游公路负面效应的一种有效途径。野生动物通道在国外研究较多, 但在我国实际案例较少。作者针对湖北神农架世界自然遗产国家一级保护动物川金丝猴(Rhinopithecus roxellana)被旅游公路隔离的生态问题, 通过实地考察和分析该物种的长期监测结果, 构建了跨公路动物通道的设计方案。神农架川金丝猴通道主要技术参数为: (1) 在遗产地的大龙潭和小龙潭各建川金丝猴上跨式通道1 座, 宽度以80 m 为宜; (2) 通道上铺设土壤, 厚度2.2 m-2.4 m; (3) 通道上种植巴山冷杉(Abies fargesii)、长松萝(Usnea longissimi)、红桦(Betula albosinensis)、千金榆(Carpinus cordata)、猫儿屎(Decaisnea insignis)、米心水青冈(Fagus engleriana)等川金丝猴喜食的植物, 培育形成郁闭度0.7-0.8 的针阔混交林; (4) 在通道入口和中部设立红外监测系统, 并对监测数据进行自动实时传输与分析; (5) 完善配套设施建设, 如在通道入口两侧设立高2.4 m 的栅栏、通道两侧设立有藤蔓植物覆盖的生态保护墙、树立“注意野生动物”、“前方有野生动物通道”警示牌等。通道建成后, 须加强通道维护管理、持续开展科研监测、积极宣传保护理念, 以期实现川金丝猴通道功能高效持久的发挥。     

保护地旅游公路的野生动物通道设计原则与技术参数

保护地以其丰富的生物多样性和优美的自然环境为生态旅游的开展提供了基础条件。近年来, 保护地的生态旅游与旅游道路建设得到了飞速发展。旅游公路的修建, 在促进经济发展的同时, 也带来了野生动物致死、基因隔离、栖息地丧失、生境破碎化等一系列生态问题。因此设立合适的野生动物通道作为一种有效方式, 成为缓解公路对野生动物负面影响的主要途径。本文基于动物通道相关研究, 提出通道设计应遵从针对性、科学性、持续有效性、可行性四条原则, 道路生态学与保护生物学相关理论、保护地管理法规与管理规划、关键物种或类群生态学特性与栖息地现状以及沿线地形地貌特征都应作为通道设置的参考依据; 并从通道建设的数量、位置、类型、尺寸、表面设计、配套设施以及后期监测等方面提出了通道建设的技术参数。为长期有效地发挥野生动物通道的生态功能, 建议制定通道建设技术规范, 细化通道技术参数, 积极开展科研监测, 以缓解道路对野生动物的影响。     

高寒草甸3种啮齿动物内脏器官及相关性比较

内脏器官是动物生理功能的基础,脏器质量及脏器指数能反映出动物对环境的适应。为进一步了解高原动物对各自生存环境的适应对策,本研究比较了高寒草甸3种啮齿动物脏器指数及脏器质量与体质量的相关性。结果显示:高原鼠兔的心脏、肝脏指数低于高原鼢鼠和根田鼠,根田鼠的脾脏、肺脏和肾脏指数高于高原鼢鼠和高原鼠兔,高原鼠兔的肾脏指数高于高原鼢鼠;3种动物肝脏均与体质量呈显著正相关关系,高原鼠兔和根田鼠的肾脏与体质量显著正相关,根田鼠心脏与体质量呈显著正相关关系。结果表明,不同物种脏器指数及器官与体质量的相关性差异可能是物种对物质环境、能量环境、生物个体大小、外界病原体、能量代谢需求等多方面综合因素进化适应的结果。     

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