澳大利亚飞狐营地的分散尝试回顾

IF 1 4区 生物学 Q3 ZOOLOGY Australian Journal of Zoology Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1071/ZO20043
B. Roberts, M. Mo, M. Roache, P. Eby
{"title":"澳大利亚飞狐营地的分散尝试回顾","authors":"B. Roberts, M. Mo, M. Roache, P. Eby","doi":"10.1071/ZO20043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The permanent exclusion of flying-foxes from camps (camp dispersal) near human settlements is a management tool commonly used to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. We summarised information on the costs and outcomes of 48 camp dispersals in Australia. Our aim was to improve the information base on which camp management decisions are made. Camp dispersals were largely triggered by impacts on neighbouring residents (75%). A disproportionately high number occurred in 2013–14, associated with changes in Queensland flying-fox management policy following an increase in the number of urban camps. Repeat actions over months or years were typically required to exclude flying-foxes from camps (58%). In 88% of cases, replacement camps formed within 1 km and became sites of transferred conflict. Only 23% of dispersal attempts were successful in resolving conflict for communities, generally after extensive destruction of roost habitat. Costs were poorly documented, although no dispersal attempt costing less than AU$250 000 proved successful. We conclude that camp dispersal is a high-risk, high-cost tool for mitigating human–wildlife conflict, in situ management strategies and tools should be developed, evidence-based information on management options should be made available to stakeholders via a nationally curated resource library, and research is required on impacts of camp management practices on flying-foxes.","PeriodicalId":55420,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Zoology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of dispersal attempts at flying-fox camps in Australia\",\"authors\":\"B. Roberts, M. Mo, M. Roache, P. Eby\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/ZO20043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The permanent exclusion of flying-foxes from camps (camp dispersal) near human settlements is a management tool commonly used to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. We summarised information on the costs and outcomes of 48 camp dispersals in Australia. Our aim was to improve the information base on which camp management decisions are made. Camp dispersals were largely triggered by impacts on neighbouring residents (75%). A disproportionately high number occurred in 2013–14, associated with changes in Queensland flying-fox management policy following an increase in the number of urban camps. Repeat actions over months or years were typically required to exclude flying-foxes from camps (58%). In 88% of cases, replacement camps formed within 1 km and became sites of transferred conflict. Only 23% of dispersal attempts were successful in resolving conflict for communities, generally after extensive destruction of roost habitat. Costs were poorly documented, although no dispersal attempt costing less than AU$250 000 proved successful. We conclude that camp dispersal is a high-risk, high-cost tool for mitigating human–wildlife conflict, in situ management strategies and tools should be developed, evidence-based information on management options should be made available to stakeholders via a nationally curated resource library, and research is required on impacts of camp management practices on flying-foxes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Zoology\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Zoology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO20043\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ZOOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Zoology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO20043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ZOOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

永久禁止狐蝠进入人类住区附近的营地(营地分散)是一种通常用于缓解人类与野生动物冲突的管理工具。我们总结了澳大利亚48次营地分散的成本和结果。我们的目标是改善军营管理决策所依据的信息库。营地的分散主要是由对邻近居民的影响引起的(75%)。2013-14年发生了不成比例的高数量,这与城市营地数量增加后昆士兰州飞狐管理政策的变化有关。通常需要几个月或几年的重复动作才能将狐蝠排除在营地之外(58%)。在88%的情况下,在1公里范围内形成了替代营地,并成为转移的冲突地点。只有23%的分散尝试成功地解决了社区的冲突,通常是在栖息地被大面积破坏之后。成本记录很差,尽管成本低于25万澳元的分散尝试都没有成功。我们认为,营地分散是一种高风险、高成本的缓解人类与野生动物冲突的工具,应开发就地管理策略和工具,通过国家管理资源库向利益相关者提供有关管理方案的循证信息,并需要研究营地管理实践对狐蝠的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Review of dispersal attempts at flying-fox camps in Australia
The permanent exclusion of flying-foxes from camps (camp dispersal) near human settlements is a management tool commonly used to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. We summarised information on the costs and outcomes of 48 camp dispersals in Australia. Our aim was to improve the information base on which camp management decisions are made. Camp dispersals were largely triggered by impacts on neighbouring residents (75%). A disproportionately high number occurred in 2013–14, associated with changes in Queensland flying-fox management policy following an increase in the number of urban camps. Repeat actions over months or years were typically required to exclude flying-foxes from camps (58%). In 88% of cases, replacement camps formed within 1 km and became sites of transferred conflict. Only 23% of dispersal attempts were successful in resolving conflict for communities, generally after extensive destruction of roost habitat. Costs were poorly documented, although no dispersal attempt costing less than AU$250 000 proved successful. We conclude that camp dispersal is a high-risk, high-cost tool for mitigating human–wildlife conflict, in situ management strategies and tools should be developed, evidence-based information on management options should be made available to stakeholders via a nationally curated resource library, and research is required on impacts of camp management practices on flying-foxes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Zoology is an international journal publishing contributions on evolutionary, molecular and comparative zoology. The journal focuses on Australasian fauna but also includes high-quality research from any region that has broader practical or theoretical relevance or that demonstrates a conceptual advance to any aspect of zoology. Subject areas include, but are not limited to: anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, genetics, reproductive biology, developmental biology, parasitology, morphology, behaviour, ecology, zoogeography, systematics and evolution. Australian Journal of Zoology is a valuable resource for professional zoologists, research scientists, resource managers, environmental consultants, students and amateurs interested in any aspect of the scientific study of animals. Australian Journal of Zoology is published with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Academy of Science.
期刊最新文献
Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) hatching success at Raine and Heron Islands Tracking the spread of the eastern dwarf tree frog (Litoria fallax) in Australia using citizen science Phylogenetic relationships in the Eugongylini (Squamata: Scincidae): generic limits and biogeography Characterisation of volatile organic compounds in dingo scat and a comparison with those of the domestic dog Changes in parasite species distributions could be driven by host range expansions: the case of hybridisation between two Australian reptile ticks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1