基于无人机遥感的三江源国家公园藏野驴种群数量及生境时空变化研究

藏野驴（Asinus kiang）是青藏高原特有物种,我国一级野生保护动物。三江源国家公园黄河源园区是藏野驴的主要栖息地之一,而生物多样性保护也是国家公园的重要职能,准确了解藏野驴的种群数量及栖息地变化无论是从野生动物保护还是从国家公园建设指导来看均具有重要意义。以三江源国家公园黄河源园区为研究区,利用无人机遥感技术开展藏野驴种群数量调查工作,在此基础上利用选择指数与因子分析揭示藏野驴的生境选择偏好,识别其适宜栖息地范围。并深入探讨近20年藏野驴适宜栖息地的时空变化特征,探讨驱动因素。结果表明：（1）无人机可以有效识别藏野驴个体,在调查样带内共发现藏野驴252头,经过推算2017年春季三江源国家公园黄河源园区内共有藏野驴20989头。（2）藏野驴倾向于选择距居民点1 km以外,距道路1-3 km范围内,距水源1 km以内,且植被覆盖度介于0.4-0.8之间的坡度小于5°的平坦区域做为栖息地。（3）2000-2018年间,三江源国家公园黄河源园区内的藏野驴适宜生境面积增加了330.76 km²,达到4747.10 km²,面积占比增加1.73%,达到了24.85%。这主要是气候变化与人类活动协同作用下导致的水体扩张与植被覆盖度增加驱动的。此外,虽然道路的扩张仅限制了小面积的适宜栖息地增加,但可能造成栖息地连通性下降等更为严重的后果。本研究证明了无人机遥感技术在青藏高原等开阔区域进行野生动物调查及栖息地研究的可行性与优势,相关技术方法与研究成果可为三江源国家公园生物多样性保护工作提供参考与支撑。     

野化放归丹顶鹤活动节律、家域特征和栖息地选择

了解野放丹顶鹤的运动模式、家域和栖息地选择的时间节律特征对丹顶鹤种群保护和栖息地管理尤为重要。基于GPS-GSM跟踪数据,综合运用3S技术、动态布朗桥模型、栖息地选择指数,研究了盐城海滨湿地野放丹顶鹤在不同生活周期的活动节律、家域的面积和重叠指数,以及栖息地选择。结果表明：(1)丹顶鹤日活动节律具有明显的周期性特征。丹顶鹤活动强度：育成期>越冬期>孵化期>育雏期,孵化期和育雏期日间活动强度平稳,育成期和越冬期呈“双峰”模式。(2)丹顶鹤95%家域面积均值介于(111.18±22.15)hm²—(621.28±105.77)hm²,育成期((621.28±105.77) hm²)>育雏期((226.83±54.86) hm²)>孵化期((112.40±7.72) hm²)>越冬期((111.18±22.15) hm²);核心家域面积均值介于(0.53±0.26)—(45.78±6.66) hm²,育成...     

鸿雁迁徙对停歇地的选择特征

建立合理的湿地水鸟保护地是缓解水鸟栖息地丧失和种群下降的重要手段。以往的保护地设计中,由于越冬地和和繁殖地水鸟停留时间长、种群数量大,受到较多的关注。分析湿地水鸟对停歇地的选择偏好,掌握停歇地的自然条件和人类活动特征可为水鸟保护网络优化和保护地管理提供决策依据。而在水鸟迁徙过程中,停歇地作为保护网络的重要节点也发挥了重要作用。因此选择鸿雁为伞护种,获取了29只鸿雁项圈追踪数据,分析蒙古国Khukh湖-中国东北鸭绿江口秋季迁徙路线对停歇地生境选择偏好,识别了鸿雁在湿地周边不同距离梯度下的活动频率变化。根据鸿雁停歇数据共识别停歇地63处,以此为基础分析停歇的自然条件和人类活动因素特征。结果表明,鸿雁除选择湖泊和沼泽为停歇地外,周边250m内的裸地和草地也是重要栖息地;当鸿雁停歇地人类活动较少时,鸿雁倾向于选择土壤肥沃、食物丰富区,而人类活动强度加大时,栖息地植被条件提高能够为鸿雁提供遮避条件,也吸引了更多鸿雁停歇。研究建议,在水鸟迁徙重要廊道区应增加水鸟停歇地保护区,保护区的设计应根据关键保护对象活动频率加强对湿地周边的栖息地保护,减少水滨人类活动对鸿雁停歇的负面影响;在人类活动强度较大的地区设立水鸟保护地,还应加强对植被的保护,在水鸟利用频率较高的停歇地周边进行植被修复。     

航道整治期间长江江豚临时庇护所建设及效果评估

航道整治期间为受扰动江豚提供临时庇护所,是在就地保护和迁地保护之外的一种尝试。2020年1月至2021年12月,在长江干线武汉至安庆段6 m水深航道整治过程中,选取马当圆水道建设长江江豚临时庇护所,通过禁止渔业捕捞,增殖放流和通航引导等措施来提升庇护所质量。监测结果表明,庇护所设立后其作为长江江豚栖息地的质量得到提高:夏季鱼类密度从(3361.2±1991.7)条/hm²上升到(12439.1±10734.5)条/hm²,冬季鱼类密度从(501.3±381.8)条/hm²上升至(1684.4±3770.9)条/hm²。通航船舶显著减少,水下噪声低于长江干流的平均水平。长江江豚临时庇护所建立后,枯水期庇护所水域内长江江豚的平均目击次数(4.3±0.6)、观察头次(6)和群体大小(1.4±0.5)都要显著高于庇护所建设前(P<0.05),丰水期则无显著性差异(P>0.05),说明庇护所在枯水期发挥了对长江江豚的保护作用。但长江江豚对庇护所的利用主要集中在进出水道两端,可能是枯水期部分水域过浅限制了江豚对庇护所的利用。分析认为,航道整治等涉水工程施工期间为江豚提供临时庇护所是一项可行措施,但要充分发挥庇护所对江豚的保护作用,必须全面考虑江豚对各项生态因子的需求,防止因关键因子带来的"木桶效应"制约庇护所的整体适合度。     

浙江黑麂栖息地评价及保护对策

运用地理信息系统技术,在分析黑麂栖息地的地形、植被、水系和人为干扰等地理特征的基础上,系统研究九龙山和古田山自然保护区黑麂栖息地分布、栖息地质量与空间格局。结果表明,在九龙山自然保护区有黑麂潜在栖息地3172．6hm^2,由于人类活动的影响导致栖息地丧失501．5hm^2,目前尚存的黑麂适宜栖息地2671．1hm^2。它们主要分布于上寮坑、九龙山、内北坪、外九龙和大岩前附近区域。古田山自然保护区有黑麂潜在栖息地4635．75hm^2,在人类活动影响下丧失栖息地1118．11hm^2,目前尚存的黑麂适宜栖息地3517．64hm^2。它们主要分布于青尖、古田山、巧观尖、催顶尖附近区域。目前九龙山和古田山自然保护区内的黑麂栖息地基本上处于多斑块破碎化状态。为了使黑麂能得到更好的保护,对这两个研究区域黑麂栖息地的恢复和重建工作亟待加强。     

Species turnover in ant assemblages is greater horizontally than vertically in the world's tallest tropical forest

Abiotic and biotic factors structure species assembly in ecosystems both horizontally and vertically. However, the way community composition changes along comparable horizontal and vertical distances in complex three‐dimensional habitats, and the factors driving these patterns, remains poorly understood. By sampling ant assemblages at comparable vertical and horizontal spatial scales in a tropical rainforest, we tested hypotheses that predicted differences in vertical and horizontal turnover explained by different drivers in vertical and horizontal space. These drivers included environmental filtering, such as microclimate (temperature, humidity, and photosynthetic photon flux density) and microhabitat connectivity (leaf area), which are structured differently across vertical and horizontal space. We found that both ant abundance and richness decreased significantly with increasing vertical height. Although the dissimilarity between ant assemblages increased with vertical distance, indicating a clear distance‐decay pattern, the dissimilarity was higher horizontally where it appeared independent of distance. The pronounced horizontal and vertical structuring of ant assemblages across short distances is likely explained by a combination of microclimate and microhabitat connectivity. Our results demonstrate the importance of considering three‐dimensional spatial variation in local assemblages and reveal how highly diverse communities can be supported by complex habitats.     

How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies?

Aim Studies on habitat fragmentation of insect communities mostly ignore the impact of the surrounding landscape matrix and treat all species equally. In our study, on habitat fragmentation and the importance of landscape context, we expected that habitat specialists are more affected by area and isolation, and habitat generalists more by landscape context. Location and methods The study was conducted in the vicinity of the city of Göttingen in Germany in the year 2000. We analysed butterfly communities by transect counts on thirty‐two calcareous grasslands differing in size (0.03–5.14 ha), isolation index (2100–86,000/edge‐to‐edge distance 55–1894 m), and landscape diversity (Shannon–Wiener: 0.09–1.56), which is correlated to percentage grassland in the landscape. Results A total of 15,185 butterfly specimens belonging to fifty‐four species are recorded. In multiple regression analysis, the number of habitat specialist (n = 20) and habitat generalist (n = 34) butterfly species increased with habitat area, but z‐values (slopes) of the species–area relationships for specialists (z = 0.399) were significantly steeper compared with generalists (z = 0.096). Generalists, but not specialists, showed a marginally significant increase with landscape diversity. Effects of landscape diversity were scale‐dependent and significant only at the smallest scale (landscape context within a 250 m radius around the habitat). Habitat isolation was not related to specialist and generalist species numbers. In multiple regression analysis the density of specialists increased significantly with habitat area, whereas generalist density increased only marginally. Habitat isolation and landscape diversity did not show any effects. Main conclusions Habitat area was the most important predictor of butterfly community structure and influenced habitat specialists more than habitat generalists. In contrast to our expectations, habitat isolation had no effect as most butterflies could cope with the degree of isolation in our study region. Landscape diversity appeared to be important for generalist butterflies only.