留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

Long-term trends in a forest ungulate community: park establishment increases numbers, but poaching is a constant threat

Rong Hou Rafael Reyna-Hurtado Patrick Omeja Charles Tumwesigye Dipto Sarkar Jan F. Gogarten Colin A. Chapman

Rong Hou, Rafael Reyna-Hurtado, Patrick Omeja, Charles Tumwesigye, Dipto Sarkar, Jan F. Gogarten, Colin A. Chapman. Long-term trends in a forest ungulate community: park establishment increases numbers, but poaching is a constant threat. Zoological Research, 2021, 42(2): 207-211. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.325
Citation: Rong Hou, Rafael Reyna-Hurtado, Patrick Omeja, Charles Tumwesigye, Dipto Sarkar, Jan F. Gogarten, Colin A. Chapman. Long-term trends in a forest ungulate community: park establishment increases numbers, but poaching is a constant threat. Zoological Research, 2021, 42(2): 207-211. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.325

森林有蹄类动物种群的长期动态变化:公园的建立增加了个体数量,但偷猎仍是一个持续的威胁

doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.325

Long-term trends in a forest ungulate community: park establishment increases numbers, but poaching is a constant threat

Funds: This research was supported by the National Key Programme of Research and Development, Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2016YFC0503202), National Natural Science Foundation of China (31870396) and an IDRC grant “Climate Change and Increasing Human-Wildlife Conflict”
More Information
  • 摘要: 森林砍伐是热带森林哺乳动物的最大威胁之一,而非法狩猎极大地加剧了这种情况。科学有效的保护计划应该基于栖息地退化、更新、狩猎以及动物数量变化的长期数据。我们研究了乌干达Kibale国家公园中常见的有蹄类动物(薮羚Tragelaphus scriptus;小羚羊属的一种Cephalophus sp.;蓝小羚羊Cephalophus moniticola)的种群在八个研究地点(原始林=3;采伐林=3;再生林=2)过去23年的变化情况。我们结合公园的管理政策、区域经济指标以及非法狩猎的次数来评估物种丰富度的变化(数据源于363次实地调查,总计1,450公里)。结果发现,从1996年到2009年,原始林和采伐林地区薮羚的丰富度呈增加趋势,随后在这一水平上下波动或下降。两种小羚羊的丰富度表现出了相似的变化模式,但是从1996年到现在,它们在原始林地区的丰富度总体上增加。另外,两种小羚羊的丰富度在采伐林呈现早期增加,随后波动的趋势。尽管公园内的人口规模、生活成本和教育成本都有所增加,但在过去十年里,每次巡护时发现的的非法狩猎迹象变化并不大,这似乎反映了我们在公众保护教育和执法管理方面的努力取得了一定的成效。我们的研究证实了公园建设、森林巡护和保护工作对有蹄类种群的积极影响,并表明森林哺乳动物种群对不同管理方案的适应性。
  • Figure  1.  The study sites within Kibale National Park, Uganda and the variation of relative abundance of studied ungulates from 1995 to 2019

    A: Location of study sites within Kibale National Park. Red dots indicate recorded locations where UWA patrols found traps/snares between 2005 and 2016; large black dots represent centroid of that area with its unique disturbance history; large blue area represents 2 km centroid of each area. B: Abundance (sightings/km of transects walked±SE) of bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) and duiker (red duiker Cephalophus sp. and blue duiker Cephalophus monticola; combined) in Kibale National Park, Uganda.

    Table  1.   Characteristics of ungulate censuses conducted at different locations in Kibale National Park, Uganda (ordered from north to south) at different times

    AreaForest typeLogging intensity (%)Size (ha)Census periodTransect length (m)# of transectsTotal distance (km)
    SebitoliLogged5005/08/14/194 20038160
    K-15Logged5034796/05/08/14/194 00076304
    K-14Logged2540596/05/08/14/193 60069248
    K-30Old-growth<128296/05/08/14/194 00072288
    NyakatojoRegenerating1006005/14/194 0002392
    DuraOld-growth<1c05/08/14/194 45035156
    MainaroOld-growth<1c05/08/14/194 00030120
    Plantation 1Regenerating100120 m205/14/194 0002184
    Logging intensity is an estimate of number of stems (>30 cm DBH) killed. Areas that are a part of continuous forest and not considered as a forestry compartment are labeled c. Total distance surveyed was 1 450 km.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] Anyanzwa J. 2019. Uganda, Kenya Hit by Rising Cost of Living. Kampala, Uganda.
    [2] Bennett EL, Rao M. 2002. Wild meat consumption in Asian tropical forest countries: is this a glimpse of the future for Africa. In: Mainka S, Trivedi M. Links between Biodiversity, Conservation, Livelihoods and Food Security: the Sustainable Use of Wild Species for Meat. Cambridge: IUCN, 39–44.
    [3] Chapman CA, Bortolamiol S, Matsuda I, Omeja PA, Paim FP, Reyna-Hurtado R, et al. 2018. Primate population dynamics: variation in abundance over space and time. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(5): 1221−1238. doi: 10.1007/s10531-017-1489-3
    [4] Chapman CA, Corriveau A, Schoof VAM, Twinomugisha D, Valenta K. 2017. Long-term simian research sites: significance for theory and conservation. Journal of Mammalogy, 98(3): 652−660. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw157
    [5] Chapman CA, Struhsaker TT, Skorupa JP, Snaith TV, Rothman JM. 2010. Understanding long-term primate community dynamics: implications of forest change. Ecological Applications, 20(1): 179−191. doi: 10.1890/09-0128.1
    [6] Chapman CA, van Bavel B, Boodman C, Ghai RR, Gogarten JF, Hartter J, et al. 2015. Providing health care to improve community perceptions of protected areas. Oryx, 49(4): 636−642. doi: 10.1017/S0030605313001592
    [7] Fa JE, Peres CA, Meeuwig J. 2002. Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology, 16(1): 232−237. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00275.x
    [8] Fretwell SD, Lucas Jr HL. 1969. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheoretica, 19(1): 16−36. doi: 10.1007/BF01601953
    [9] Hoppe-Dominik B, Kühl HS, Radl G, Fischer F. 2011. Long-term monitoring of large rainforest mammals in the Biosphere Reserve of Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire. African Journal of Ecology, 49(4): 450−458. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2011.01277.x
    [10] Infield M. 1988. Hunting, Trapping and Fishing in Villages within and on the Periphery of the Korup National Park. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
    [11] Infield M. 1989. Hunters claim a stake in the forest. New Scientist: 52−55
    [12] Kablan YA, Diarrassouba A, Mundry R, Campbell G, Normand E, Kühl HS, et al. 2019. Effects of anti-poaching patrols on the distribution of large mammals in Taï National Park, Côte d'Ivoire. Oryx, 53(3): 469−478. doi: 10.1017/S0030605317001272
    [13] Kasenene J, Ross EA. 2008. Community Benefits from Long-term Research Programs: A Case Study from Kibale National Park, Uganda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–114.
    [14] Kirumira D, Baranga D, Hartter J, Valenta K, Tumwesigye C, Kagoro W, et al. 2019. Evaluating a union between health care and conservation: a mobile clinic improves park-people relations, yet poaching increases. Conservation and Society, 17(1): 51−62. doi: 10.4103/cs.cs_17_72
    [15] Koster SH, Hart JA. 1988. Methods of estimating ungulate populations in tropical forests. African Journal of Ecology, 26(2): 117−126. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.1988.tb00962.x
    [16] Krief S, Berny P, Gumisiriza F, Gross R, Demeneix B, Baptiste Fini J, et al. 2017. Agricultural expansion as risk to endangered wildlife: pesticide exposure in wild chimpanzees and baboons displaying facial dysplasia. Science of the Total Environment, 598: 647−656. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.113
    [17] Lwanga JS. 2006. The influence of forest variation and possible effects of poaching on duiker abundance at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 44(2): 209−218. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00629.x
    [18] MacKenzie CA, Salerno J, Hartter J, Chapman CA, Reyna R, Tumusiime DM, et al. 2017. Changing perceptions of protected area benefits and problems around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal of Environmental Management, 200: 217−228.
    [19] MacLeod SB, Kerley GIH, Gaylard A. 1996. Habitat and diet of bush buck Tragelaphus scriptus in the Woody Cape Nature Reserve: observations from faecal analysis. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 26(1): 19−25.
    [20] McCoy J. 1995. Responses of Blue and Red Duikers to Logging in the Kibale Forest of Western Uganda. Master thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
    [21] Ministry of Education and Sports. 2016. National Education Accounts Report Uganda. Kampala, Uganda, 248.
    [22] Mugume S, Isabirye-Basuta G, Otali E, Reyna-Hurtado R, Chapman CA. 2015. How do human activities influence the status and distribution of terrestrial mammals in forest reserves?. Journal of Mammalogy, 96(5): 998−1004. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyv104
    [23] Nummelin M. 1990. Relative habitat use of duikers, bush pigs, and elephants in virgin and selectively logged areas of the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Tropical Zoology, 3(2): 111−120. doi: 10.1080/03946975.1990.10539455
    [24] Pulliam HR. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. The American Naturalist, 132(5): 652−661. doi: 10.1086/284880
    [25] Sarkar D, Chapman CA, Valenta K, Angom SC, Kagoro W, Sengupta R. 2019. A tiered analysis of community benefits and conservation engagement from the Makerere University Biological Field Station, Uganda. The Professional Geographer, 71(3): 422−436. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2018.1547976
    [26] Struhsaker TT. 1997. Ecology of an African Rain Forest: Logging in Kibale and the Conflict Between Conservation and Exploitation. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
    [27] Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 2017. The National Population and Housing Census 2014 – Area Specific Profile Series. Kampala, Uganda: Government of Uganda.
    [28] Walsh PD, Abernethy KA, Bermejo M, Beyers R, De Wachter P, Akou ME, et al. 2003. Catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial Africa. Nature, 422(6932): 611−614. doi: 10.1038/nature01566
    [29] Wilkie DS, Carpenter JF. 1999. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: an assessment of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 8(7): 927−955.
  • ZR-2020-325-Supplementary Figure S1.pdf
  • 加载中
图(1) / 表(1)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  1100
  • HTML全文浏览量:  530
  • PDF下载量:  167
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2020-12-05
  • 录用日期:  2021-01-20
  • 网络出版日期:  2020-02-01
  • 刊出日期:  2021-03-18

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回