基于野外痕迹点和GIS技术定量评估步道对大熊猫活动的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.07231

生物多样性 ›› 2012, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (4): 420-426. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.07231

基于野外痕迹点和GIS技术定量评估步道对大熊猫活动的影响

龚明昊¹^,³^,^*(), 侯盟¹, 蔺琛¹, 宋延龄², 欧阳志云³

1 国家林业局调查规划设计院, 北京 100714
2 中国科学院动物研究所, 北京 100101
3 中国科学院生态环境研究中心, 北京 100085

收稿日期:2011-12-15 接受日期:2012-05-14 出版日期:2012-07-20 发布日期:2012-09-12
通讯作者: 龚明昊
作者简介:*E-mail: gongmh2005@hotmail.com
基金资助:
博士后基金(2012M510568)

The quantitative assessing of trail impacts on giant panda activity based on field track points and GIS

Minghao Gong¹^,³^,^*(), Meng Hou¹, Chen Lin¹, Yanling Song², Zhiyun Ouyang³

1 Academy of Forestry Inventory and Planning, State Forestry Administration, Beijing 100714
2 Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101
3 Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085

Received:2011-12-15 Accepted:2012-05-14 Online:2012-07-20 Published:2012-09-12
Contact: Minghao Gong

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

道路建设不仅直接导致野生动物死亡, 还能对栖息地形成阻碍效应, 导致小种群出现或隔离, 增加物种灭绝的风险。生态学家在道路对野生动物影响研究中的一个重要进展是道路影响域(road-effect zone)的提出, 但影响域既不能反映道路影响的变化性, 也难以满足栖息地评估对数据的要求。为此, 我们以大熊猫(Ailuropoda melanoleuca)为例来探讨道路影响的定量评估方法。在佛坪和长青保护区内选择了3条步道, 获取了步道周边1,042个大熊猫的痕迹点数据, 通过GIS计算各痕迹点到步道的距离, 统计距离步道每20 m内的痕迹点数量, 以此作为其活动频率。在距步道每100 m处设置检测点, 通过非参数检验比较检测点前后活动频率分布的变化, 寻找道路对大熊猫活动影响的突变点, 确定影响变化的阈值距离和评价标准。研究发现在距离步道1,000 m内, 随距离的增加, 大熊猫活动频率逐渐增大, 大熊猫有明显的回避效应; 在距步道500 m、1,000 m处发现活动频率发生了显著变化, 为影响的阈值距离。本研究基于痕迹点和阈值距离的评估方法可以反映道路影响连续、渐变的特点, 使定量、准确评估其影响成为可能。

关键词: 评估, 步道, 大熊猫, 影响

Abstract

Trails have been shown to have impacts on wildlife, which may include injury, death, habitat hindrance, and then cause small population or population isolation and increase species extinction risk. Road effect zone was widely used to examine the wildlife responses to roads and trails, but had shortages in quantifying the changes of causative factors, and meeting the data requirements for habitat evaluation. In this research, we evaluated the impacts of trails on giant panda activity based on giant panda tracking data. The study sites were centered in Foping and Changqing natural reserves, and 1,042 giant panda tracking points were collected in association with three major trails. By aids of GIS, the distance of every track point to the trails was obtained, and then the amount and frequencies of track points every 20 m from trail were calculated. To identify the impact threshold of trails on giant panda activity, we established the testing points every 100 m from the trail for analysis of the activity frequency pattern. The results showed that within 1,000 m from the trails, the giant panda activity frequencies increased with the distance. The tracking point frequency showed significant changes at 500 meters and 1,000 meters from the trails, which represent impact threshold of trails on giant panda activity. The method based on track points and impact threshold can provide a more feasible and a quantitative evaluation for disturbances of trails and other infrastructure on wildlife activity.

Key words: assessing, trails, giant panda, impacts

龚明昊, 侯盟, 蔺琛, 宋延龄, 欧阳志云 (2012) 基于野外痕迹点和GIS技术定量评估步道对大熊猫活动的影响. 生物多样性, 20, 420-426. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.07231.

Minghao Gong, Meng Hou, Chen Lin, Yanling Song, Zhiyun Ouyang (2012) The quantitative assessing of trail impacts on giant panda activity based on field track points and GIS. Biodiversity Science, 20, 420-426. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.07231.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.07231

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/Y2012/V20/I4/420

图/表 4

图1 陕西长青、佛坪自然保护区内的研究步道和调查样线

Fig. 1 Study trails and sample lines in Changqing and Foping reserves

图2 20 m单位距离下大熊猫活动频率统计与检验方法示意图

Fig. 2 The method of analysis and testing on frequencies of giant panda activity every 20 meters

表1 距离步道不同距离段内大熊猫活动频率非参数检验结果

Table 1 The result of non-parameter testing on the frequency of giant panda activity within varied distance gap to trail

检测点前后距离步道的长度段 The distance gap to trail before and after testing point (m)	TFWDG	MFWDG	Z	P
0-100; 100-200	36; 33	7.20; 6.60	-0.54	0.59
0-200; 200-400	69; 70	6.90; 7.00	-0.19	0.85
0-300; 300-600	102; 106	6.80; 7.07	-0.02	0.98
0-400; 400-800	139; 148	6.95; 7.40	-0.35	0.72
0-500; 500-1,000	158; 210	6.32; 8.40	-2.26	0.02*
500-600; 600-700	50; 42	10.00; 8.40	-0.74	0.46
500-700; 700-900	92; 76	9.20; 7.60	-1.03	0.30
500-800; 800-1,100	129; 120	8.60; 8.00	-0.42	0.68
500-900; 900-1,300	168; 143	8.40; 7.15	-1.06	0.29
500-1,000; 1,000-1,500	210; 145	8.40; 5.80	-2.86	0.004*

图3 距离步道1,500 m范围内大熊猫活动频率

Fig. 3 Frequency of giant panda activity within the 0-1,500 m distance from trail

参考文献 33

[1]	Alisa WC (2007) From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 396-406.
[2]	BoarmanW, Sazaki M (2006) A highway’s road-effect zone for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Journal of Arid Environments, 65, 94-101.
[3]	Brody AJ, Pelton MR (1989) Effects of roads on black bear movements in western north Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17, 5-10.
[4]	Carr LW, Fahrig L (2001) Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conservation Biology, 15, 1071-1078.
[5]	Dai Q (戴强), Yuan ZP (袁佐平), Zhang JD (张晋东), Yang Y (杨勇), Zhang M (张明), Zhang Q (张强), Gu HJ (顾海军), Liu ZJ (刘志君), Qian Y (蹇依), Wang YZ (王跃招) (2006) Road and road construction effects on habitat use of small mammals and birds in Zoige alpine wetland. Biodiversity Science (生物多样性), 14, 121-127. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	David MM, Noelle GB (2004) Effects of forest roads on the abundance and activity of terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications, 14, 1882-1891.
[7]	Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2009) Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 24. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art24/
[8]	Forman RTT (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 207-231.
[9]	Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, Fahrig L, France R, Goldman CR, Heanue K, Jones JA, Swanson FJ, Turrentine T, Winter TC (2003) Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
[10]	Gong MH, Yang ZS, Yan WB, Song YL (2010) Giant panda habitat networks and conservation: is this species adequately protected? Wildlife Research, 37, 531-538.
[11]	Goosem M (2001) Effects of tropical rainforest roads on small mammals: inhibition of crossing movements. Wildlife Research, 28, 351-364.
[12]	Hanski I, Moilenen A, Gyllenberg M (1996) Minimum viable metapopulation size. American Naturalist, 147, 527-541.
[13]	Hu JC (胡锦矗) (2001) Research on the Giant Panda (大熊猫研究). Shanghai Scientific and Technological Education Publishing House, Shanghai. (in Chinese)
[14]	Hu ZJ (胡忠军), Yu CQ (于长青), Xu HF (徐宏发), Wang Y (王洧) (2005) Ecological effects of roads on terrestrial animals. Chinese Journal of Ecology (生态学杂志), 24, 433-437. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	Kong YP (孔亚平), Wang Y (王云), Zhang F (张峰) (2011) Review on road-effect zone of wildlife. Sichuan Journal of Zoology (四川动物), 30, 986-991. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	Li YH (李月辉), Hu YM (胡远满), Li XZ (李秀珍), Xiao DN (肖笃宁) (2003) A review on road ecology. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 14, 447-452. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	Liu JG, Ouyang ZY, Taylor W, Group R, Tan YC, Zhang HM (1999) A framework for evaluating the effects of human factors on wildlife habitat: the case of giant panda. Conservation Biology, 13, 1360-1370.
[18]	Liu YZ (刘应竹), Zhu SB (朱世兵), Zhang SF (张士芳) (2007) Road construction with wildlife conservation. Territory & Natural Resources Study (国土与自然资源研究), (4), 61-62. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	Mackinnon J, Wulf RD (1994) Designing protected areas for giant pandas in China. In: Mapping the Diversity of Nature (ed. Miller RI), pp. 127-142. Chapman & Hall, London.
[20]	Mader HJ (1984) Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation, 29, 81-96.
[21]	Marsh DM, Beckman NG (2004) Effects of forest roads on the abundance and activity of terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications, 14, 1882-1891.
[22]	Mech LD, Fritts SH, Radde GL (1988) Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16, 85-87.
[23]	O’Brien SJ, Pan WS, Lü Z (1994) Pandas, people and policy. Nature, 369, 179.
[24]	Ouyang ZY (欧阳志云), Liu JG (刘建国), Xiao H (肖寒) (2001) An assessment of giant panda habitat in Wolong Nature Reserve. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 21, 1869-1874. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	Pan WS (潘文石), Lü Z (吕植), Zhu XJ (朱小健), Wang DJ (王大军), Wang H (王昊), Long Y (龙玉), Fu DL (付达莉), Zhou X (周欣) (2001) A Chance for Lasting Survival (继续生存的机会). Peking University Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[26]	Reijnen R, Foppen R (1994) The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers breeding close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 85-94.
[27]	Ron S, Jyrki K (2001) Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based suitability modeling. Landscape Urban Plan, 55, 79-93.
[28]	State Forestry Administration (国家林业局) (2006) The Third National Survey Report on Giant Panda in China (全国第三次大熊猫调查报告). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[29]	Taylor BD, Goldingay RL (2010) Roads and wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife management in Australia. Wildlife Research, 37, 320-331.
[30]	Trombulak SC, Frissel CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, 14, 18-30.
[31]	Xu WH, Ouyang ZY, Andres V, Zheng H, Liu JG, Xiao Y (2006) Designing a conservation plan for protecting the habitat for giant pandas in the Qionglai Mountain range, China. Diversity and Distributions, 12, 610-619.
[32]	Yan X (严旬) (2005) Status, challenge and prospect of wild giant pandas. Acta Theriologica Sinica (兽类学报), 25, 402-406. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	Yang ZS, Hu JC, Liu NF (2007) The influence of dispersal on the metapopulation viability of giant panda (Aliuropoda melanoleuca) in the Minshan Mountain. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 53, 169-184.

基于野外痕迹点和GIS技术定量评估步道对大熊猫活动的影响

The quantitative assessing of trail impacts on giant panda activity based on field track points and GIS

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 33

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	彭昀月, 罗永梅, 徐泽楠, 靳彤. 集中式大型光伏及风电电场生态影响研究：进展与展望[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23212-0.
[2]	王丽媛, 胡慧建, 姜杰, 胡一鸣. 南岭哺乳类和鸟类物种丰富度空间分布格局及其影响因子[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23026-.
[3]	朱建国, 王林, 任国鹏. 《国家重点保护野生动物名录》调整的评估方法探讨[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(8): 23045-.
[4]	廖美哲, 张宗文, 白可喻. 中国农业生态系统多样性保护研究现状与展望[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(7): 23017-.
[5]	董庆栋, 陈超男, 李艳红, 赵体侠, 孙梓欣, 张哲, 朱连奇. 基于NPP和人类扰动指数评估河南伏牛山地区国家级自然保护区群保护成效与溢出/泄漏效应[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(5): 22503-.
[6]	李钊丞, 张燕雪丹. 基于物种濒危状况评价与种群增长的一种新评估方法在水生野生动物保护司法中的应用[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(3): 22319-.
[7]	马瑞霞, 郭屹立, 李冬兴, 王斌, 向悟生, 黄甫昭, 陆芳, 文淑均, 李健星, 陆树华, 李先琨. 桂西南喀斯特季节性雨林幼树更新的空间分布格局及机制[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(2): 22251-.
[8]	唐楚飞, 葛成, 曹烨, 曹弘毅, 宋晓晓, 廖怀建. 城市森林不同林分类型的昆虫多样性: 以南京紫金山南麓为例[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(2): 22357-.
[9]	王彦平, 张敏楚, 詹成修. 嵌套分布格局研究进展: 分析方法、影响机制及保护应用[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(12): 23314-.
[10]	申小虎, 朱翔宇, 史洪飞, 王传之. 基于机器学习鸟声识别算法研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(11): 23272-.
[11]	左艳洁, 彭明春, 王崇云, 沈泽昊, 李永萍, 周新茂, 周杰, 周光信, 任佳昕, 刘忠安. 滇中高原半湿润常绿阔叶林的岛屿化与物种多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(11): 23252-.
[12]	刘文聪, 田希, 杨涛, 饶杰生, 王晓凤, 钱恒君, 涂梦灵, 单子铭, 欧晓昆, 沈泽昊. 云南鸡足山半湿润常绿阔叶林优势树种的种群结构与更新特征[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(11): 23251-.
[13]	岑渝华, 王鹏, 陈庆春, 张承云, 余上, 胡珂, 刘阳, 肖荣波. 城市绿地动物声景的时空特征及其驱动因素[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(1): 22359-.
[14]	赵琳, 程建斌, 曾文, 李果, 龚海兵, 张贵权, 刘定震. 大熊猫母兽可根据幼仔的尖叫声辨别自己的后代[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(1): 22362-.
[15]	张语克, 张琼悦, 张跃, 肖维阳, 杜杰, 谢超, 赵上娟, 余水英, 翟宗玉, 郭沂, 杨为亚, 王定瑶, 格让久, 杨金秀, 李英, 王燕, 孙鸿鸥, 郭西南, 周亮. 自然保护地环境解说资源研究: 以九寨沟芦苇海解说步道为例[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(2): 21235-.