{"title":"作为作物保护手段的田间防护:对提高田间防护的初步启示","authors":"Leah J. Findlay, R. A. Hill","doi":"10.26077/DF2C-63D3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Negative interactions between crop farmers and wild primates are an issue of significant concern. Despite many crop farmers using field guards as a method of crop protection against foraging primates, there are very few published accounts of how effective this technique is and how it might be improved. To bridge this knowledge gap, we used direct observations from a hide to collect the behaviors of field guards, chacma baboons (Papio ursinus; baboons), and vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus; vervets) foraging in a 1-ha butternut squash (Cucurbita moschata) field for 4 months (May to August) in 2013 on a 564-ha commercial farm in the Blouberg District of South Africa. Only half of the cropforaging events were chased by field guards, with vervets being chased much less frequently than baboons. Guards responded more often to events with greater primate numbers and to those that occurred earlier in the day. Guard delay in responding to crop-foraging events and baboon delay in responding to the guard both increased in the low productivity season. Baboon response delay also increased with more animals involved. Based on this case study, we suggest recommendations to improve the effectiveness of field guarding. This includes implementing an early warning alarm system, shortening field guard shifts, increasing guard numbers during the morning and low productivity season, and increasing the perceived fear of field guards, potentially by employing male guards or providing uniforms and deterrent accessories. Further evaluation in other local contexts will help determine how these findings can be adopted on a wider scale.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"2012 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Field Guarding as a Crop Protection Method: Preliminary Implications for Improving Field Guarding\",\"authors\":\"Leah J. Findlay, R. A. Hill\",\"doi\":\"10.26077/DF2C-63D3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Negative interactions between crop farmers and wild primates are an issue of significant concern. Despite many crop farmers using field guards as a method of crop protection against foraging primates, there are very few published accounts of how effective this technique is and how it might be improved. To bridge this knowledge gap, we used direct observations from a hide to collect the behaviors of field guards, chacma baboons (Papio ursinus; baboons), and vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus; vervets) foraging in a 1-ha butternut squash (Cucurbita moschata) field for 4 months (May to August) in 2013 on a 564-ha commercial farm in the Blouberg District of South Africa. Only half of the cropforaging events were chased by field guards, with vervets being chased much less frequently than baboons. Guards responded more often to events with greater primate numbers and to those that occurred earlier in the day. Guard delay in responding to crop-foraging events and baboon delay in responding to the guard both increased in the low productivity season. Baboon response delay also increased with more animals involved. Based on this case study, we suggest recommendations to improve the effectiveness of field guarding. This includes implementing an early warning alarm system, shortening field guard shifts, increasing guard numbers during the morning and low productivity season, and increasing the perceived fear of field guards, potentially by employing male guards or providing uniforms and deterrent accessories. Further evaluation in other local contexts will help determine how these findings can be adopted on a wider scale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human–Wildlife Interactions\",\"volume\":\"2012 1\",\"pages\":\"20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human–Wildlife Interactions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26077/DF2C-63D3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26077/DF2C-63D3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Field Guarding as a Crop Protection Method: Preliminary Implications for Improving Field Guarding
Negative interactions between crop farmers and wild primates are an issue of significant concern. Despite many crop farmers using field guards as a method of crop protection against foraging primates, there are very few published accounts of how effective this technique is and how it might be improved. To bridge this knowledge gap, we used direct observations from a hide to collect the behaviors of field guards, chacma baboons (Papio ursinus; baboons), and vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus; vervets) foraging in a 1-ha butternut squash (Cucurbita moschata) field for 4 months (May to August) in 2013 on a 564-ha commercial farm in the Blouberg District of South Africa. Only half of the cropforaging events were chased by field guards, with vervets being chased much less frequently than baboons. Guards responded more often to events with greater primate numbers and to those that occurred earlier in the day. Guard delay in responding to crop-foraging events and baboon delay in responding to the guard both increased in the low productivity season. Baboon response delay also increased with more animals involved. Based on this case study, we suggest recommendations to improve the effectiveness of field guarding. This includes implementing an early warning alarm system, shortening field guard shifts, increasing guard numbers during the morning and low productivity season, and increasing the perceived fear of field guards, potentially by employing male guards or providing uniforms and deterrent accessories. Further evaluation in other local contexts will help determine how these findings can be adopted on a wider scale.
期刊介绍:
Human–Wildlife Interactions (HWI) serves the professional needs of the wildlife biologist and manager in the arena of human–wildlife conflicts/interactions, wildlife damage management, and contemporary wildlife management. The intent of HWI is to publish original contributions on all aspects of contemporary wildlife management and human–wildlife interactions with an emphasis on scientific research and management case studies that identify and report innovative conservation strategies, technologies, tools, and partnerships that can enhance human–wildlife interactions by mitigating human–wildlife conflicts through direct and indirect management of wildlife and increased stakeholder engagement. Our intent is to promote a dialogue among wildlife professionals concerning contemporary management issues. As such, we hope to provide a repository for wildlife management science and case studies that document and share manager experiences and lessons learned.