欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

生态学杂志

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

鄱阳湖稻田生境中越冬灰鹤行为模式及其影响因素

龚浩林1,邵明勤1*,卢萍2,朱光琛1,戴年华2,曾健辉1   

  1. 1江西师范大学生命科学学院, 南昌 330022;2江西省科学院生物资源研究所, 南昌 330096)
  • 出版日期:2020-02-10 发布日期:2020-02-10

Behavior patterns and affecting factors of wintering common cranes inhabiting paddy fields of Poyang Lake.

GONG Hao-lin1, SHAO Ming-qin1*, LU Ping2, ZHU Guang-chen1, DAI Nian-hua2, ZENG Jian-hui1   

  1. (1College of Life Science, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China; 2Institute of Biological Resources, Jiangxi Academy of Science, Nanchang 330096, China).
  • Online:2020-02-10 Published:2020-02-10

摘要: 2018年10月—2019年3月,采用焦点动物法研究了鄱阳湖区稻田生境中灰鹤(Grus grus)越冬期的行为模式及其影响因素。结果表明:越冬期灰鹤的主要行为是觅食(77.45%)、警戒(11.17%)和修整(7.82%);行为模式以取食警戒取食或取食修整取食为主;幼鹤取食行为的时间分配和持续时间均极显著高于成鹤(P<0.01),推测幼鹤取食效率低,单次取食持续时间和总时间较长;成鹤警戒行为(P<0.01)极显著高于幼鹤,成、幼鹤警戒行为的持续时间无显著差异,取食间隔的警戒频次和时间分配均显著高于幼鹤(P<0.05),说明成鹤是通过增加警戒次数来确保幼鹤的安全;取食行为的持续时间和时间分配在整个越冬期均显著升高,取食间隔期间的行走行为也逐渐上升,这与食物资源的可获得性有关;建议适当降低家鸭放牧等人类活动,减少灰鹤越冬期的取食难度;灰鹤不同家庭群的行走行为和取食间隔的行走行为均有显著性差异,推测与各家庭群占有的食物资源质量相关;行为节律上,灰鹤各时段取食行为占总行为的比例均较高,在10:00—10:59、12:00—12:59和16:00—16:59出现取食小高峰;警戒行为保持在一个稳定水平,修整行为高峰出现在取食行为高峰之后,这是因为灰鹤保持取食行为积累疲劳后进行修整;成鹤的取食行为节律性较幼鹤明显,幼鹤的取食行为曲线随机性强,这与幼鹤取食经验不足有关;幼鹤警戒行为的高峰出现在成鹤警戒的低谷,推测与保持整个家庭群较高的总体警戒水平有关。

关键词: 水解酶活性, 湿地松, 氮添加, 氧化酶活性, 红壤

Abstract: We analyzed the daily wintering behavior patterns and their affecting factors in common crane (Grus grus) inhabiting paddy field near Poyang Lake from October 2018 to March 2019, using focal sampling methods. Foraging (77.45%), vigilance (11.17%), and grooming (7.82%) were the main behaviors of cranes, with the predominant patterns being: foraging vigilance foraging and foraging grooming foraging. The time budget and duration spent for foraging by juvenile cranes was significantly higher than that of adult cranes (P<0.01). This is probably due to lower feeding efficiency in young cranes and longer total foraging time and individual foraging duration. The vigilance behavior of adult cranes (P<0.01) was significantly greater than that of juvenile cranes, with no significant difference in the duration of vigilance behavior betweenjuvenile and adult individuals. The frequency and time budget of vigilance in adult cranes during foraging intervals were significantly greater than that of juvenile cranes (P<0.05). This result indicates that adult cranes protected the safety of juvenile cranes by increasing the number of vigilance scans. The duration and time budget of foraging behaviors increased throughout the overwintering period. Locomotion was increased throughout the wintering period, which was related to the availability of food resources. Reduced intensities of human activities, such as grazing domestic ducks, would decrease foraging difficulty for cranes. There were significant differences in locomotion behavior among different crane families and during foraging intervals, which may be related to the differences of food resources. In terms of the activity rhythms, foraging behavior was generally at a high level during the daytime, with small peaks at 10:00-10:59, 12:00-12:59, and 16:00-16:59. Vigilance behavior remained at a stable level. A peak in grooming behavior occurred after a peak of foraging behavior because cranes groom after becoming fatigued from foraging. The behavioral rhythm of juvenile cranes was different from that of adults, with the foraging behavior of adults being more rhythmical and that of juvenile cranes is more random. This is related to the lack of foraging experience. The peak of vigilance behavior in young cranes occurred in the trough of such behavior in adult cranes, which may relate to the consistence of the vigilance in the whole family group.

Key words: oxidase activity., Pinus elliottii, red soil, nitrogen addition, hydrolase activity