| 刘刚,龚明昊,官天培,谌利民,李惠鑫,张翼,周天元.2016.生态旅游对大熊猫影响评价方法研究——以四川唐家河国家级自然保护区为例.动物学杂志,51(5):724-733. |
| 生态旅游对大熊猫影响评价方法研究——以四川唐家河国家级自然保护区为例 |
| A Framework to Evaluate Impacts of Tourism on Giant Pandas: A Case Study in Tangjiahe National Nature Reserve |
| 投稿时间：2015-12-15 修订日期：2016-07-01 |
| DOI：DOI: 10.13859/j.cjz.201605002 |
| 中文关键词: 大熊猫 旅游影响 徒步 自驾 回避距离 |
| 英文关键词:Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) Tourism impact Hiking trail Driving road Avoiding distance |
| 基金项目:国家林业局行业标准项目“建设项目对大熊猫影响评价方法”* 通讯作者,E-mail: gongmh2005@hotmail.com；第一作者介绍 刘刚,男,助理研究员；研究方向：动物生态学；E-mail: liugang9988@126.com。 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1954 |
| 全文下载次数: 2194 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 旅游活动及伴随的人流、车流逐渐成为野生动物的主要干扰源，威胁着濒危物种的繁殖和生存。准确认识旅游活动对野生动物的影响是制定保护对策和提高保护成效的基础，但生态学领域有关旅游对野生动物影响的量化研究还比较少，可借鉴的评估方法仍较为缺乏。本研究比较唐家河国家级自然保护区旅游开发前（2000年）和开发后（2012年）大熊猫（Ailuropoda melanoleuca）痕迹点距离路线的平均回避距离和最小回避距离，发现大熊猫对徒步路线表现出明显的回避效应，表明近年来的旅游活动对大熊猫确实产生了影响。通过最小回避距离和距离递增法确定旅游活动对大熊猫的影响等级和阈值距离。确定了距离徒步路线和自驾路线的第一等级距离阈值分别为0 ~ 57 m和0 ~ 460 m、第二等级为57 ~ 800 m和460 ~ 1 000 m、第三等级为800 ~ 1 400 m和大于1 000 m。基于距离徒步路线和自驾路线一定范围内的痕迹点分布数量，大熊猫对不同路线两侧每100 m的栖息地平均利用频率分别为1.9 ± 0.23和0.8 ± 0.15，通过Mann-Whitney U检验，发现二者间存在显著性差异（Z =﹣3.48，P = 0.000)。通过对每100 m海拔区间内大熊猫痕迹距离自驾路线和徒步路线的距离分析，发现二者差异显著（t = 3.76，P = 0.003），对自驾路线，大熊猫在海拔2 000 ~ 2 100 m时回避距离最小，而对徒步路线，最小回避距离发生在2 100 ~ 2 200 m。基于本研究，为自然保护区内最小接触区或禁止旅游区的划分提供了依据，同时为其他保护区探索适合的生态旅游影响评价方法提供了示范和经验。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| The increase of tourism has taken an amount of people and vehicles in the recent decade to the Nature Reserves in which wildlife inhabit. The unreasonable behaviors of tourists and vehicle noise have produced an displeasure pressure on the survival and reproduction of some endangered species. Understanding the way of tourism impacts on wildlife is a basis for the nature reserve managers to make a reasonable conservation strategies for the wildlife species under the tourist pressure. Unfortunately, few field studies related to this problem has been conducted in the nature reserve. In this paper we evaluated the reaction of Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) to the tourists by comparing the mean and minimum distance from the signs of Giant Panda presence to hiking trails and vehicle roads located in the year 2000 before the tourism development with those found in the year 2012 when the tourists were crowd in the summer at the Tangjiahe National Nature Reserve. The Giant Panda showed significant avoidance from both trails and roads (P = 0.024, Table 1). The first least avoiding distance threshold was 0﹣57 m and 0﹣460 m for hiking trails and roads, the second threshold was 57﹣800 m and 460﹣1 000 m, and the third one was 800﹣1 400 m and ＞1 000 m respectively. By the Mann-Whitney U test, we found that the mean signs of Giant Pandas in every 100 m across the distance to the haiking trails and driving roads showed a significant difference (1.9 ± 0.23 vs. 0.8 ± 0.15, Z =﹣3.48, P = 0.000) between the year 2000 and 2012. Meanwhile, the distance from the location of Giant Panda presence to the hiking trails and roads in every 100 m altitude range varied significantly (t = 3.76, P = 0.003, Table 2). The minimum avoiding distance occurred at altitude 2 000﹣2 100 m for the driving roads, while this distance for the hiking trails were at the altitude 2 100﹣2 200 m. Our data revealed the minimum safe distance which produce minimum influence on the Giant Panda by the tourists. Our approach that evaluated the influence of tourism for the Giant Panda can be used in the other nature reserves when they consider to accept the tourists. |
| 附件 |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
