• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Comparisons of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) trapping efficiency and incidental take of non-target water birds using covered and uncovered float sets.
【24h】

Comparisons of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) trapping efficiency and incidental take of non-target water birds using covered and uncovered float sets.

机译：使用覆盖的和未覆盖的浮标组比较麝香捕蝇草（Ondatra zibethicus）的诱捕效率和非目标水禽的偶然捕获的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) have been a highly sought after furbearer species in North Dakota because of recent pelt prices. In 2011, regulation changes allowed trappers to use float sets to trap muskrats during the spring season. The current regulations require float sets used during the spring trapping season to have a covering made of either wire mesh, wood, or plastic and must not have an opening exceeding 20.32 cm (8 in) to attempt to minimize the incidental take of non-target species. The primary goals of this project were to determine if muskrat float set covers are effective in eliminating incidental take of non-target species and to compare trapping efficiency at covered and uncovered float sets. The study was conducted over a two year period in an area used heavily by migrating waterfowl in eastern North Dakota. Float sets used included uncovered, 2.54 cm by 2.54 cm (1 in x 1 in) wire mesh, and 15.24 cm by 15.24 cm (6 in x 6 in) wire mesh float sets. Trapping efforts were focused to four areas: Devils Lake Basin, Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Chase Lake Wetland Management Districts (WMD), and Tewaukon NWR. During the study, 490 muskrats (157 on uncovered, 124 on 1 in x 1 in, and 209 on 6 in x 6 in) and seven non-targets species (three black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax ), two blue-winged teal (Anas discors), and two painted turtles (Chrysemys picta)) were captured over 4,245 trap nights. All non-targets were captured on uncovered float sets except for the painted turtles (1 in x 1 in and 6 in x 6 in). Although we found relatively low non-target captures, the birds were all captured on uncovered floats suggesting some vulnerability to these floating sets. In addition to float sets, cameras were placed at each float set to evaluate behaviors of muskrats and non-target species as they encounter float sets. Cameras captured 9,356 encounters with float sets from 311,377 one minute video recordings. We found that cover type did not influence encounter rates of water birds at float sets. Water birds in general were 7.5 times more likely to encounter a float in the spring as compared to the fall. When examining behaviors at the floats, we found non-duck water birds were 10.1 times more likely to contact float sets as compared to puddle and diving ducks. Regardless of guild, birds were 2.3 times less likely to contact a float set with a 1 in x 1 in cover as compared to an uncovered float set, suggesting covers with smaller mesh sizes may be less attractive to birds. We captured 490 muskrats over 4,245 trap nights (0.115 muskrat per trap night) during fall and spring trapping season at all study locations over the two year study period. We evaluated 1,149 muskrat encounters with float sets over the two year study period from the video collected by trail cameras at each float set. Muskrats had a daily encounter rate of 0.27 encounters per day. Most muskrats would simply swim by the float without contacting it in any way (45.3%). Muskrats would also contact float by bumping the sides (14.6%) or climb onto the float which may or may not have resulted in getting trapped (40.1%). We found that there was no influence from a 1 x 1 or 6 x 6 cover type on whether a muskrat contacted or went on top/was trapped at a float set. Further, we found that the use of covered float sets did not negatively impact trapping efficiency. In fact, larger mesh size (6 in x 6 in) showed a slight increase in efficiency compared to an uncovered float set. Further research is needed on different designs of float sets to better understand the impact on muskrat trapping efficiency and non-target incidental take.
机译：由于最近的兽皮价格，麝香鼠（Ondatra zibethicus）在北达科他州备受追捧。 2011年，法规变更允许捕虫者在春季使用漂浮装置诱捕麝香。当前的法规要求在春季诱捕季节使用的浮子套件必须具有由金属丝网，木材或塑料制成的覆盖物，并且其开口不得超过20.32厘米（8英寸），以尽量减少偶然捕获的非目标物种类。该项目的主要目标是确定麝香鼠浮游物的覆盖是否能有效消除偶然捕获的非目标物种，并比较有盖和未覆盖浮游物的诱捕效率。这项研究是在北达科他州东部水禽迁徙频繁的地区进行了为期两年的研究。使用的浮标包括未覆盖的2.54厘米乘2.54厘米（1英寸x 1英寸）金属丝网和15.24厘米乘15.24厘米（6英寸x 6英寸）金属丝网浮装置。诱捕工作主要集中在四个领域：魔鬼湖盆地，阿罗伍德国家野生动物保护区（NWR）和大通湖湿地管理区（WMD）和Tewaukon NWR。在研究过程中，有490个麝香（无遮盖的157个，1英寸x 1英寸的124个，6英寸x 6英寸的209个）和七个非目标物种（三个黑冠夜鹭（Nycticorax nycticorax），两个蓝翅鸟在4,245个诱捕之夜捕获了蓝绿色的水鸭（Anas discors）和两只彩绘的海龟（Chrysemys picta）。除了彩绘的海龟（1英寸x 1英寸和6英寸x 6英寸）以外，所有非目标物体都被捕获在未覆盖的漂浮物上。尽管我们发现非目标捕获量相对较低，但所有鸟类均被捕获在未覆盖的漂浮物上，这表明这些漂浮物有些脆弱。除了漂浮装置外，还将摄像机放置在每个漂浮装置上，以评估麝香鼠和非目标物种在遇到漂浮装置时的行为。摄像机从311,377分钟一分钟的录像中捕获了9,356次与浮动装置的遭遇。我们发现盖的类型不影响漂浮集上水禽的遭遇率。与秋天相比，春季水鸟总体上漂浮的可能性高7.5倍。当检查浮标时的行为时，我们发现非鸭水禽接触浮标的可能性是水坑和潜水鸭的10.1倍。无论公会如何，与未覆盖的漂浮组件相比，鸟类接触具有1英寸x 1覆盖率的漂浮组件的可能性要低2.3倍，这表明较小网眼大小的覆盖物对鸟类的吸引力可能较小。在为期两年的研究期内的所有研究地点，我们在秋季和春季诱捕季节的4,245个诱捕夜中捕获了490个麝香鼠，每个诱捕夜为0.115麝香鼠。我们在两年的研究期内，通过在每个浮动装置上由追踪相机收集的视频，评估了1,149具浮动装置在麝香鼠中的遭遇。麝香鼠每天的遭遇率为0.27。大多数麝香鼠会在浮标上游动而不会以任何方式接触（45.3％）。麝香鼠还会通过碰碰侧面（14.6％）或爬上浮标而与浮标接触，这可能会或可能不会导致被困（40.1％）。我们发现，1 x 1或6 x 6的封面类型对麝香鼠是接触还是顶在上面/是否被困在漂浮装置上没有影响。此外，我们发现带盖浮子组的使用不会对捕集效率产生负面影响。实际上，与未覆盖的浮球组相比，较大的筛孔尺寸（6英寸x 6英寸）显示效率略有提高。需要对浮子装置的不同设计进行进一步研究，以更好地了解对麝香捕鼠器捕获效率和非目标杂物的影响。

著录项

  • 作者

    Gross, Rodney Allen, Jr.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of North Dakota.;

  • 授予单位 The University of North Dakota.;
  • 学科 Wildlife management.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2015
  • 页码 96 p.
  • 总页数 96
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号