【作者】 周绍春；

【导师】 张明海；

【作者基本信息】 东北林业大学 ， 野生动植物保护与利用， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 作者于2002-2009年通过野外抽样调查、访问调查,再结合地理信息系统和多元统计分析的方法在黑龙江省完达山东部林区进行了东北虎与猎物(野猪、马鹿和狍子)的种群大小、生境选择与评价研究,获得结果如下：1、东北虎种群数量及其分布：通过野外调查收集的东北虎足迹掌垫宽度等信息进行东北虎个体识别,结果表明完达山东部林区研究期间最多时分布有7只东北虎个体(2雄性、3雌性、2个幼体),其中在2008年死亡亚成体1只(刚脱离母虎的幼体),截止2009年该区域分布有由6只东北虎个体组成的繁殖家族种群,该种群主要分布在以神顶峰为中心的周边区域,包括永丰、向阳、东林、五泡、青山、河口、五林洞、永幸、石场、大岱等林场。2、东北虎猎物种群数量及其分布：1)通过野外调查收集的野猪、马鹿和狍子的活动痕迹,利用足迹指标计算种群数量,并根据活动点判断其种群分布,结果表明野猪种群数量为711-816只、马鹿种群数量为398-429只、狍子种群数量为1012-1018只。3个物种主要分布在河口、奇源、青山、五林洞、海音山、东林、五泡、永丰等林场,海拔在100-550 m的区域。2)利用Bootstrape方法分析抽样强度对猎物种群数量调查的影响表明,在完达山东部林区布设120条样线(抽样距离600 km)、150条样线(抽样距离750 km)和115条样线(抽样距离575 km)能满足野猪、马鹿、狍子种群数量调查准确性的最低需求。3)猎物种群死亡分析表明87.42%的东北虎猎物死亡是由人类盗猎引起,自然死亡占12.58%。人类活动引起的死亡主要集中在冬季和早春时期。人类盗猎给猎物种群生存带来了巨大的威胁。3、东北虎猎物生物量：野猪、马鹿和狍子的生物量分别为74 767.50-87825.00 kg、79744.50-85984.50 kg和31 337.00-31 525.50kg,3种猎物生物量共计185849.00-205335.00 kg。研究地区猎物总生物量为209619.89-231 598.24 kg。3种主要猎物生物量可满足5-6只东北虎个体的食物需求,研究地区猎物总生物量可满足5-7只东北虎个体的食物需求。4、猎物生境选择与评价1)野猪、马鹿和狍子都偏向于选择东坡：野猪和狍子回避西坡,马鹿回避西北坡。野猪、狍子倾向于选择海拔在150-300 m的区域,马鹿倾向于选择300-450 m的区域。野猪倾向选择针阔混交林,马鹿和狍子偏好选择阔叶混交林,回避农田生境。3种动物偏好选择距居民点距离大于3000 m的区域。回避距居民点小于1 500 m的干扰区域。2)东坡向易发生野猪死亡。3种动物在300450 m的海拔区域易发生死亡,高海拔区域不易发生死亡。野猪倾向于在针阔混交林中发生死亡,马鹿和狍子倾向于在阔叶林生境中发生死亡,灌丛和农田生境不易发生死亡。距公路1500 m的范围内,3种动物易发生死亡,距公路干扰距离大于4000 m的区域,不易发生死亡。3)利用生境适宜性指数建立的猎物出现-死亡生境评价模型分析表明：不适宜3个物种栖息的生境为297.49 km2,占总面积的8.06%；200.44 km2为第1沦陷生境,占总面积的5.43%;1209.85 km2为第2沦陷生境,占总面积的32.76%,302.77 km2为第3沦陷生境,占总面积的8.20%；329.00 km2为第1资源类生境,占总面积的8.91%；1 127.22 km2为第2资源类生境,占总面积的30.53%；225.29 km2为第三资源类生境,占总面积的6.11%。5、东北虎的生境选择、利用与评价1)影响东北虎生境选择和利用的因子包括猎物种群、坡向、海拔、林型、居民点和主要公路。利用这几个生境因子,经逻辑斯蒂回归建立东北虎生境选择函数预测模型,模型正确预测率为91.81%,模型准确反映了东北虎的生境选择。2)东北虎偏向于利用3个猎物物种分布的生境,对灌丛生境、农田生境表现为回避；东北虎倾向于利用东坡向和东南坡向,以及海拔大于200 m的区域,小于200 m海拔的区域表现为回避；东北虎强烈回避小于距公路1 500 m的区域,对1 500m-3000 m的区域表现出一般回避,而对大于3000 m的区域表现出偏好性利用；东北虎明显回避居民点周围3000 m范围的区域,偏好利用距居民点干扰距离大于3000m的区域。3)东北虎分布的适宜生境面积为1 288.76 km2；次适宜生境面积为1 033 km2；一般适宜生境面积为680.00 km2,不适宜生境面积为690.30 km2。适宜生境面积和次适宜生境面积占总面积的62.87%,表明该区域东北虎栖息的生境较好。6、东北虎保护规划1)调查确定了五林洞临近乌苏里江区域,大塔山和珍宝岛一带两个生态廊道区域。2)重点东北虎保护景观位于东北虎主要活动区域,生境质量好,但存在盗猎事件发生。人类活动等威胁因素严重影响到东北虎的生存,需要重点保护。重点东北虎恢复景观成斑块分布,需要重点加强管理。更多还原

【Abstract】 A study was conducted to establish the relationship between amur tiger and prey, including population size, habitat selection and evaluation, in Eastern Wandashan Mountains of Heilongjiang Province, China, between 2002 and 2009. Based on field survey and questionnaire survey, the main results by geomatics techniques and multiple statistical analysis were revealed as followes:1 Distribution and number of amur tigerTiger pugmarks indicated the presence of seven individuals (two males, three females and two young individuals). One tiger was killed by poachers in 2008, leaving six individuals in 2009. Amur tigers were mainly active in nine forest farms (Yongfeng, Xiangyang, Wupao, Qingshan, Hekou, Wulindong, Yongxing, Shichang and Dadai) around Shendingfeng Mountain, which is a highly suitable habitat block.2 Distribution and number of prey1) Track analyses showed that the main prey species of amur tiger (711-816 wild boar, 398-429 red deer and 1012-1018 roe deer) were wildly distributed in Eastern Wandashan Mountains. These prey species were concentrated in seven forest farms (Hekou, Qingshan, Wulindong, Haiyinshan, Donglin, Wupao, Yongxing) at an elevation of 100-550 m.2) Bootstrap analysis of surveyed prey indicated that population sizes could reasonably be established from 120 line transects for wild boar (sampling distance:600 km),150 line transects for red deer (sampling distance:750 km) and 115 line transects for roe deer (sampling distance:575 km).3) In addition, the percent of human-caused prey mortality (87.42%) was higher than natural mortality(12.58%), with human-caused mortality being concentrated in late winter and early spring.3 Prey biomassPrey biomass of the three ungulate species was estimated at 185 849.00-205 335.00 kg, comprising 74 767.50-87 825.00 kg for wild boar,79 744.50-85 984.50 kg for red deer and 31 337.00-31 525.50 kg for roe deer. Within the study area, the estimated total biomass of all prey species was 209 619.89-231 598.24 kg. Prey biomass, as represented by the three ungulate species, could support five or six amur tigers and the estimated total biomass of all prey species could support between five and seven individuals.4 Habitat selection and evaluation of prey1) The three main prey species favored east-facing mountain slopes. Wild boar and roe deer tend to avoid west-facing slopes, whereas red deer avoided northeastern-facing slopes. Wild boar and roe deer had a preference for terrain with an elevation between 150 and 300 m. Red deer, on the other hand, favored areas with elevations from 300 to 450 m. Wild boar preferred coniferous forests, whereas red and roe deer favored mixed broadleaf woodlands. All three prey species showed a preference for areas >3000 m from human settlements and avoided areas (<1500 m) close to settlements.2) Mortality of the three prey species usually occurred at an area with elevation from 300 to 450 m. Wild boar mortality occurred mainly in coniferous plantations on east-facing slopes, whereas mortality of red and roe deer occurred in broadleaf woodlands. There was less association between shrub terrain and farmland and mortality of the three species. A higher mortality of prey species was recorded for areas <1500 m from main roads compared with areas >4000m from main roads.3) An integrated occurrence-mortality habitat model for prey classified 8.06%(297.49 km2) of the study area as unsuitable habitat,5.43%(200.44 km2),32.76%(1 209.85 km2) and 8.20%(302.77 km2) as first-, second- and third-level attractive sink-like habitats, respectively, and 8.91%(329.00 km2),30.53%(1 127.22 km2) and 6.11%(225.29 km2) as first-, second-and third-level source-like habitats, respectively.5 Habitat selection, use and evaluation of amur tiger1) Six factors, including prey, aspect, elevation, vegetation type, disturbance distance from settlements and main roads, affected habitat selection of the amur tiger. A logistic regression model was developed with a classification rating of 91.81%, indicating that the model may reflect the habitat distribution of amur tiger.2) Amur tiger showed a preference for forest habitat where the three prey species co-occurred, and totally avoided farmland, wetlands and shrub terrain. They favored east- or south-facing slopes, coniferous/broadleaf mixed forests, and areas with elevation >200 m and a disturbance distance from main roads of >3000 m. They avoided areas with disturbance distance from human settlements of <3000 m.3) Regarding habitat suitability, the model classified 1 288.76 km2 of the study area as high,1033 km2 as medium,608.00 km2 as low and 690.30 km2 as unsuitable habitat for amur tiger. Thus,62.87% of the study area (i.e. sum of high and medium suitability) contained suitable habitats, indicating that Eastern Wandashan Mountains is a suitable region for amur tiger.6 Conservation plans1) As regards conservation of the amur tiger, we recommend that Datashan, Zhenbaodao and Wulindong forest farms should be designated conservation zones as two ecological corridors for amur tiger migration.2) Two management zones should be also established for amur tiger conservation. The first management zone, designated the key amur tiger conservation area, would encompass high quality habitat where serious threats could occur to limit tiger survival. The second management zone, designated the key amur tiger recovery area, would mainly comprise medium suitability habitats, which occur as fragmented blocks around the key conservation area, and pose greater threats to amur tiger survival. This is the area that needs to be protected to help recovery of the amur tiger population.更多还原