鄱阳湖滨藕塘生境中白鹤取食行为研究
|
摘要
2016年12月—2017年2月和2017年12月—2018年1月,采用焦点动物法对鄱阳湖滨藕塘生境中白鹤(Grus leucogeranus)的取食行为进行观察,共记录921只次成鹤和547只次幼鹤的取食行为。结果表明,白鹤栖息水深为(17.29±8.75)cm(n=1468),取食水深为(18.84±10.32)cm(n=600),单次取食持续时间为(3.10±1.69)s(n=600),取食频次为(12.24±3.89)次/min(n=1012),取食成功频次为(1.78±1.59)次/min(n=1468),取食成功率为(16.26±14.41)%(n=1012)。成鹤取食成功频次(SymbolcA@~2=70.797,df=1,P=0.000)和取食成功率(SymbolcA@~2=5.356,df=1,P=0.020)均显著高于幼鹤,表明成鹤取食能力较幼鹤强,成鹤可以获得更多的能量。成鹤除维持自身能量支出外,还需要花费较多的能量用于辅食和警戒行为。成幼鹤的取食频次和单次取食持续时间无显著差异,这与成幼鹤的体型大小、能量需求和体内氧气储存量类似有关,也与多数研究认为幼鹤觅食经验不足,觅食成功率低,需要靠多次取食来补偿能量的观点不同。成鹤取食水深极显著高于幼鹤(SymbolcA@~2=50.945,df=1,P<0.0001),这可能与体型和取食经验有关。不同栖息水深下白鹤的取食成功率(SymbolcA@~2=15.297,df=4,P=0.004)和取食成功频次(SymbolcA@~2=23.155,df=4,P<0.0001)均存在极显著差异。不同时段的取食频次、取食成功频次和取食成功率均无显著差异,这可能与藕塘生境中白鹤采取触觉取食有关。此外,白鹤昼间取食行为无明显节律性,因此昼间能量需求相似,取食参数没有显著差异。
Siberian Crane(Grus leucogeranus) is a large-sized, endangered waterbird, with about 95% of its global population(about 3500—4000 individuals) seasonally occurring in Poyang Lake, the largest freshwater lake in China. This species is listed in the First Category of National Key Protected Wildlife Species in China, and as critically endangered by the IUCN(International Union for Conservation of Nature). Prior to 2010, the population of Siberian Cranes in China existed mainly within Poyanghu National Nature Reserve, with most cranes foraging in the natural habitat of Poyang Lake. However, an increasing number of cranes now forage in lotus ponds and rice fields that surround this lake; their distribution has also expanded into other nature reserves, such as Nanjishan Wetland National Nature Reserve. The numbers of these cranes in the lotus pond habitats can at times be more than 25%(about 1200 individuals) of the total global population. However, very less is known about the foraging strategies of the Siberian Crane in the lotus pond habitats. Here, we describe and compare the foraging behaviour of these cranes in the lotus ponds. Behaviour in lotus pond habitats differs from that in natural habitats, especially for foraging, vigilance, resting, and maintenance behaviours. Using focal animal observation methods, foraging behaviour of Siberian Cranes was observed between December 2016 and February 2017, and between December 2017 and January 2018. During these periods, observations of 921 individual-time adult cranes and 547 individual-time sub-adult cranes were made. The results show that the average water depth inhabited by Siberian Cranes is 17.29±8.75 cm(n=1468), while the average depth in which they forage is 18.84±10.32 cm(n=600). Foraging behaviour persisted for 3.10±1.69 s(n=600), with mean foraging frequency of 12.24±3.89 times/min(n=1012). Mean foraging success frequency and foraging success rate were 1.78±1.59 times/min(n=1468) and(16.26±14.41)%(n=1012), respectively. Adult crane foraging success frequency(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 70.797, df=1, P=0.000) and foraging success rates(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 5.356, df=1, P=0.020) were both significantly higher than those of sub-adult cranes, indicating that adult cranes were more able to forage and could gain more energy. Adult cranes spent much energy on nurture and vigilance behaviour. No significant differences in foraging times and duration of foraging behaviour were apparent between adult and sub-adult cranes, which might be related to their similarity in body size, energy requirements, and oxygen storage capacity(in contrast to a theory that sub-adult cranes lack foraging experience, have low foraging success rates, and consequently have to forage more frequently to gain enough energy). Water depths in which adult cranes forage are significantly greater than those in which sub-adult cranes forage(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 50.945, df=1, P=0.000), which might be related to body size and foraging experience. Extremely significant differences were observed in both foraging success frequency(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 15.297, df=4, P=0.004) and foraging success rates(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 23.155, df=4, P=0.000) for different water depths. However, no significant differences were observed in foraging frequency, foraging success frequency, and foraging success rates at different times, which might be related to the crane′s tactile feeding method. In addition, cranes had similar energy requirements and foraging parameters throughout the day, with no obvious foraging rhythm.
Siberian Crane(Grus leucogeranus) is a large-sized, endangered waterbird, with about 95% of its global population(about 3500—4000 individuals) seasonally occurring in Poyang Lake, the largest freshwater lake in China. This species is listed in the First Category of National Key Protected Wildlife Species in China, and as critically endangered by the IUCN(International Union for Conservation of Nature). Prior to 2010, the population of Siberian Cranes in China existed mainly within Poyanghu National Nature Reserve, with most cranes foraging in the natural habitat of Poyang Lake. However, an increasing number of cranes now forage in lotus ponds and rice fields that surround this lake; their distribution has also expanded into other nature reserves, such as Nanjishan Wetland National Nature Reserve. The numbers of these cranes in the lotus pond habitats can at times be more than 25%(about 1200 individuals) of the total global population. However, very less is known about the foraging strategies of the Siberian Crane in the lotus pond habitats. Here, we describe and compare the foraging behaviour of these cranes in the lotus ponds. Behaviour in lotus pond habitats differs from that in natural habitats, especially for foraging, vigilance, resting, and maintenance behaviours. Using focal animal observation methods, foraging behaviour of Siberian Cranes was observed between December 2016 and February 2017, and between December 2017 and January 2018. During these periods, observations of 921 individual-time adult cranes and 547 individual-time sub-adult cranes were made. The results show that the average water depth inhabited by Siberian Cranes is 17.29±8.75 cm(n=1468), while the average depth in which they forage is 18.84±10.32 cm(n=600). Foraging behaviour persisted for 3.10±1.69 s(n=600), with mean foraging frequency of 12.24±3.89 times/min(n=1012). Mean foraging success frequency and foraging success rate were 1.78±1.59 times/min(n=1468) and(16.26±14.41)%(n=1012), respectively. Adult crane foraging success frequency(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 70.797, df=1, P=0.000) and foraging success rates(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 5.356, df=1, P=0.020) were both significantly higher than those of sub-adult cranes, indicating that adult cranes were more able to forage and could gain more energy. Adult cranes spent much energy on nurture and vigilance behaviour. No significant differences in foraging times and duration of foraging behaviour were apparent between adult and sub-adult cranes, which might be related to their similarity in body size, energy requirements, and oxygen storage capacity(in contrast to a theory that sub-adult cranes lack foraging experience, have low foraging success rates, and consequently have to forage more frequently to gain enough energy). Water depths in which adult cranes forage are significantly greater than those in which sub-adult cranes forage(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 50.945, df=1, P=0.000), which might be related to body size and foraging experience. Extremely significant differences were observed in both foraging success frequency(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 15.297, df=4, P=0.004) and foraging success rates(SymbolcA@~(2 )= 23.155, df=4, P=0.000) for different water depths. However, no significant differences were observed in foraging frequency, foraging success frequency, and foraging success rates at different times, which might be related to the crane′s tactile feeding method. In addition, cranes had similar energy requirements and foraging parameters throughout the day, with no obvious foraging rhythm.
引文
[1] 罗旭,艾怀森,韩联宪.高黎贡山白尾梢虹雉取食行为及春季取食地特征.西南林学院学报,2010,30(6):64- 67.
[2] Santos C D,Miranda A C,Granadeiro J P,Louren?o,P M,Saraiva S,Palmeirim J M.Effects of artificial illumination on the nocturnal foraging of waders.Acta Oecologica,2010,36(2):166- 172.
[3] Dias M P,Granadeiro J P,Palmeirim J M.Searching behaviour of foraging waders:does feeding success influence their walking?Animal Behaviour,2009,77(5):1203- 1209.
[4] 张正旺,尹荣伦,郑光美.笼养黄腹角雉繁殖期取食活动性的研究.动物学研究,1989,10(4):333- 339.
[5] 杨晓君,文贤继,王淑珍,杨岚,杨红军,董荣梅,张玉坤,董鑫,李元春.笼养大紫胸鹦鹉取食活动.动物学研究,2000,21(2):115- 120.
[6] 鲍伟东,罗小勇,孟志涛,彭宝明,李飞,沈成.北京地区黑鹳越冬期的取食行为.动物学杂志,2006,41(5):57- 61.
[7] Santos C D,Saraiva S,Palmeirim J M,Granadeiro J P.How do waders perceive buried prey with patchy distributions?The role of prey density and size of patch.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,2009,372(1/2):43- 48.
[8] 邝粉良.黑颈鹤越冬初期的觅食行为和产卵前后行为的性别差异[D].昆明:西南林学院,2008.
[9] 袁芳凯,李言阔,李凤山,李佳,缪泸君,谢光勇.年龄、集群、生境及天气对鄱阳湖白鹤越冬期日间行为模式的影响.生态学报,2014,34(10):2608- 2616.
[10] Fortin D.Searching behavior and use of sampling information by free-ranging bison (Bos bison).Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,2003,54(2):194- 203.
[11] 蒋剑虹,戴年华,邵明勤,黄志强,卢萍.鄱阳湖区稻田生境中灰鹤越冬行为的时间分配与觅食行为.生态学报,2015,35(2):270- 279.
[12] Bates EM,Ballard BM.Factors influencing behavior and success of foraging Reddish Egrets (Egretta rufescens).Waterbirds,2014,37(2):191- 202.
[13] Bellio M,Kingsford R T.Alteration of wetland hydrology in coastal lagoons:implications for shorebird conservation and wetland restoration at a Ramsar site in Sri Lanka.Biological Conservation,2013,167:57- 68.
[14] 郑光美.世界鸟类分类与分布名录.北京:科学出版社,2002.
[15] 单继红,马建章,李言阔,钱法文,涂晓斌.近十年来鄱阳湖区越冬白鹤种群数量与分布.动物学研究,2012,33(4):355- 361.
[16] Burnham J,Baren J,Pidgeon A M,Sun B T,Wu J D,Liu G H,Jiang H X.Novel foraging by wintering Siberian Cranes Leucogeranus leucogeranus at China′s Poyang Lake indicates broader changes in the ecosystem and raises new challenges for a critically endangered species.Bird Conservation International,2017,27(2):204-223.
[17] 孙志勇,黄晓凤.鄱阳湖越冬白鹤觅食地特征分析.动物学杂志,2010,45(6):46- 52.
[18] 吴建东,李凤山,Burnham J.鄱阳湖沙湖越冬白鹤的数量分布及其与食物和水深的关系.湿地科学,2013,11(3):305- 312.
[19] 邵明勤,龚浩林,戴年华,植毅进,徐宁,卢萍.鄱阳湖围垦区藕塘越冬白鹤的时间分配与行为节律.生态学报,2018,38(14):5206- 5212.
[20] 车育婧,蒋梅鑫,钟业喜.基于土地利用变化的鄱阳湖生态经济区生态系统服务价值时空变化研究.江西师范大学学报:自然科学版,2018,42(1):45- 51.
[21] 朱治州,钟业喜,徐羽.鄱阳湖流域生态系统服务价值演变研究.江西师范大学学报:自然科学版,2017,41(5):538- 545.
[22] Shao M Q,Jiang J H,Guo H,Zeng B B.Abundance,distribution and diversity variations of wintering water birds in Poyang Lake,Jiangxi Province,China.Pakistan Journal of Zoology,2014,46(2):451- 462.
[23] 崔鹏,夏少霞,刘观华,吴建东,曾南京,伍旭东.文思标,罗盛金,纪伟涛,雷富民.鄱阳湖越冬水鸟种群变化动态.四川动物,2013,32(2):292- 296.
[24] 赵正阶.中国鸟类志.长春:吉林科学技术出版社,2001.
[25] 吕九全,李保国.秦岭川金丝猴的昼间活动时间分配.兽类学报,2006,26(1):26- 32.
[26] 张笑辰,金斌松,陈家宽,吴建东,刘观华,马志军.鄱阳湖四种水鸟的栖息地利用与水深和食物的关系.动物学杂志,2014,49(5):657- 665.
[27] 胡振鹏.白鹤在鄱阳湖越冬生境特性及其对湖水位变化的响应.江西科学,2012,30(1):30- 35,120.
[2] Santos C D,Miranda A C,Granadeiro J P,Louren?o,P M,Saraiva S,Palmeirim J M.Effects of artificial illumination on the nocturnal foraging of waders.Acta Oecologica,2010,36(2):166- 172.
[3] Dias M P,Granadeiro J P,Palmeirim J M.Searching behaviour of foraging waders:does feeding success influence their walking?Animal Behaviour,2009,77(5):1203- 1209.
[4] 张正旺,尹荣伦,郑光美.笼养黄腹角雉繁殖期取食活动性的研究.动物学研究,1989,10(4):333- 339.
[5] 杨晓君,文贤继,王淑珍,杨岚,杨红军,董荣梅,张玉坤,董鑫,李元春.笼养大紫胸鹦鹉取食活动.动物学研究,2000,21(2):115- 120.
[6] 鲍伟东,罗小勇,孟志涛,彭宝明,李飞,沈成.北京地区黑鹳越冬期的取食行为.动物学杂志,2006,41(5):57- 61.
[7] Santos C D,Saraiva S,Palmeirim J M,Granadeiro J P.How do waders perceive buried prey with patchy distributions?The role of prey density and size of patch.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,2009,372(1/2):43- 48.
[8] 邝粉良.黑颈鹤越冬初期的觅食行为和产卵前后行为的性别差异[D].昆明:西南林学院,2008.
[9] 袁芳凯,李言阔,李凤山,李佳,缪泸君,谢光勇.年龄、集群、生境及天气对鄱阳湖白鹤越冬期日间行为模式的影响.生态学报,2014,34(10):2608- 2616.
[10] Fortin D.Searching behavior and use of sampling information by free-ranging bison (Bos bison).Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,2003,54(2):194- 203.
[11] 蒋剑虹,戴年华,邵明勤,黄志强,卢萍.鄱阳湖区稻田生境中灰鹤越冬行为的时间分配与觅食行为.生态学报,2015,35(2):270- 279.
[12] Bates EM,Ballard BM.Factors influencing behavior and success of foraging Reddish Egrets (Egretta rufescens).Waterbirds,2014,37(2):191- 202.
[13] Bellio M,Kingsford R T.Alteration of wetland hydrology in coastal lagoons:implications for shorebird conservation and wetland restoration at a Ramsar site in Sri Lanka.Biological Conservation,2013,167:57- 68.
[14] 郑光美.世界鸟类分类与分布名录.北京:科学出版社,2002.
[15] 单继红,马建章,李言阔,钱法文,涂晓斌.近十年来鄱阳湖区越冬白鹤种群数量与分布.动物学研究,2012,33(4):355- 361.
[16] Burnham J,Baren J,Pidgeon A M,Sun B T,Wu J D,Liu G H,Jiang H X.Novel foraging by wintering Siberian Cranes Leucogeranus leucogeranus at China′s Poyang Lake indicates broader changes in the ecosystem and raises new challenges for a critically endangered species.Bird Conservation International,2017,27(2):204-223.
[17] 孙志勇,黄晓凤.鄱阳湖越冬白鹤觅食地特征分析.动物学杂志,2010,45(6):46- 52.
[18] 吴建东,李凤山,Burnham J.鄱阳湖沙湖越冬白鹤的数量分布及其与食物和水深的关系.湿地科学,2013,11(3):305- 312.
[19] 邵明勤,龚浩林,戴年华,植毅进,徐宁,卢萍.鄱阳湖围垦区藕塘越冬白鹤的时间分配与行为节律.生态学报,2018,38(14):5206- 5212.
[20] 车育婧,蒋梅鑫,钟业喜.基于土地利用变化的鄱阳湖生态经济区生态系统服务价值时空变化研究.江西师范大学学报:自然科学版,2018,42(1):45- 51.
[21] 朱治州,钟业喜,徐羽.鄱阳湖流域生态系统服务价值演变研究.江西师范大学学报:自然科学版,2017,41(5):538- 545.
[22] Shao M Q,Jiang J H,Guo H,Zeng B B.Abundance,distribution and diversity variations of wintering water birds in Poyang Lake,Jiangxi Province,China.Pakistan Journal of Zoology,2014,46(2):451- 462.
[23] 崔鹏,夏少霞,刘观华,吴建东,曾南京,伍旭东.文思标,罗盛金,纪伟涛,雷富民.鄱阳湖越冬水鸟种群变化动态.四川动物,2013,32(2):292- 296.
[24] 赵正阶.中国鸟类志.长春:吉林科学技术出版社,2001.
[25] 吕九全,李保国.秦岭川金丝猴的昼间活动时间分配.兽类学报,2006,26(1):26- 32.
[26] 张笑辰,金斌松,陈家宽,吴建东,刘观华,马志军.鄱阳湖四种水鸟的栖息地利用与水深和食物的关系.动物学杂志,2014,49(5):657- 665.
[27] 胡振鹏.白鹤在鄱阳湖越冬生境特性及其对湖水位变化的响应.江西科学,2012,30(1):30- 35,120.