Latest Cover

Online Office

Contact Us

Issue:ISSN 1000-7083
          CN 51-1193/Q
Director:Sichuan Association for Science and Technology
Sponsored by:Sichuan Society of Zoologists; Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Research Foundation; Sichuan Association of Wildlife Conservation; Sichuan University
Address:College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, No.29, Wangjiang Road, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, 610064, China
Tel:+86-28-85410485
Fax:+86-28-85410485
Email:scdwzz@vip.163.com & scdwzz001@163.com
Your Position :Home->Past Journals Catalog->2015 Vol.34 No.4

Road around Water Environment Habitat Selection Analysis of Amphibians During Breeding Season in Changbai Mountains
Author of the article:LUO Yumei, PIAO Zhengji, WANG Zhuocong, WANG Chao, SUI Yacheng
Author's Workplace:Animal Institute, Changbai Mountain Academy of Science, Erdaobaihe, Jilin Province 133613, China
Key Words:amphibian; reproduction period; road area water habitat; Changbai Mountain National Nature Reserve
Abstract:Three transect lines of 10 km long were surveyed in Changbai Mountain National Nature Reserve from 2012 to 2014. All the drains and ponds along the transect lines were recorded. Eight ecological factors including pool type (PT), crown density (CD), water area (WA), depth of the water (DW), water quality (WQ), pool shape (PS), distance to roads (DR) and formation time of pool (FTP) were measured to study the habitat selection of Rana chensinensis, Salamandrella keyserlingii and Bufo gargarizans. The results showed that: (1) R. chensinensis had no significant selection for drain or pond (P>0.05). However, the selectivity of S. keyserlingii on pond was very significantly higher than on drain (P≤0.01), and B. gargarizans preferred pond. (2) S. keyserlingii chose WA>120 m2 and B. gargarizans preferred WA between 120 m2 and 180 m2. (3) S. keyserlingii had a high dependence on DW (P≤0.01), whereas R. chensinensis had no selection for DW (P>0.05). B. gargarizans preferred DW>80 cm. (4) R. chensinensis and B. gargarizans had no significant selection for DR. However, the spawning rates of S. keyserlingii were very significantly varied in different DR.
2015,34(4): 559-564 收稿日期:2014-8-20
DOI:10.11984/j.issn.1000-7083.2015.04.013
分类号:Q959.5;Q958.1
基金项目:吉林省科技厅项目(201205039); 吉林省科技厅自然科学基金项目(20140101019JC)
作者简介:罗玉梅(1983—),女,工程师,主要从事野生动物生态学研究
*通讯作者:朴正吉,E-mail:1024249856@qq.com
参考文献:
戴建洪, 戴强, 张明, 等. 2005. 若尔盖湿地国家自然保护区三种无尾两栖类夏秋季生境选择[J]. 动物学研究, 26(3): 263-271.
戴强, 戴建洪, 张晋东, 等. 2005. 若尔盖湿地国家级自然保护区三种无尾两栖类陆地核心生境[J]. 生态学报, 25(9): 2256-2262.
黄美华. 1990. 浙江动物志: 两栖类和爬行类[M]. 杭州: 浙江科学技术出版社.
鲁庆彬, 王小明, 王正寰. 2004. 四川省石渠县藏原羚秋季取食行为特征[J]. 动物学研究, 25(6): 469-476.
乔淑芬, 王红蕾, 赵玉敏, 等. 2007. 中华大蟾蜍生物学特征及实际应用价值[J]. 通化师范学院学报, 28(12): 38-40.
王绍先. 2007. 长白山保护开发区生物资源[M]. 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社: 300-346.
王晓雯. 2011. 氟化物对中华大蟾蜍幼体发育的影响[D]. 西安: 陕西师范大学.
肖永红, 廖永强, 周昌旭, 等. 2007. 除草剂草甘膦对中华大蟾蜍的慢性毒性[J]. 四川动物, 26(2): 430-433.
余慕贞, 张崇理. 1965. 不同浓度的盐溶液对蟾蜍离体排卵的影响[J]. 动物学杂志, 7(6): 262-263.
张珊珊, 诸葛慧, 张姝芳, 等. 2013. 中华大蟾蜍TAGLN2 cDNA的克隆与其组织分布[J]. 生命科学研究, 6: 1-19, 50.
周立志, 宋榆钧, 田蕴. 1998. 长春市南湖公园两栖类的生境选择和营养生态的初步研究[J]. 淮北煤师院学报, 19(1): 64-70.
Fabrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, et al. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density[J]. Biological Conservation, 73(3): 177-182.
Ficetola GF, De Bemardi F. 2004. Amphibians in a human-dominated landscape: the community structure is related to habitat features an disolation[J]. Biological Conservation, 119(2): 219-230.
Gibbs JP. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roods, and streambeds in southern New England[J]. J Wildl Manage, 62(2): 584-589.
Guerry A, Hunter M. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration[J]. Conservation Biology, 16(3): 745-754.
Joern WT, Jackson JF. 1981. Homogeneity of vegetational cover around the nest and avoidance of nest predation by Mocking birds[J]. Auk, 100: 497-499.
Knutson MG, Sauer JR, Olsen DA, et al. 1999. Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA[J]. Conservation Biology, 13(6): 1437-1446.
Kolbe JJ, Janzen FJ. 2001. The influence of propagule size and maternal nest-site selection on survival and behaviour of neonate turtles[J]. Funct Ecol, 15(6): 772-781.
Neu CW, Byers CR, Peek JM. 1974. A technique for analysis of utilization-availability data[J]. J Wildl Manage, 38(3): 541-545.
Peltzer PM, Lajmanovich RC, Beltzer AH. 2003. The effects of habitat fragmentation on amphibian species richness in the floodplain of the Middle Parana River, Argentina[J]. Herpetological Journa1, 13(2): 95-98.
Pough FH, Andrews RM, Cadle JE, et al. 2003. Herpetology (3rd ed)[M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Vos CC, Chardon JP. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35(1): 4-56.
Wilen BO, Frayer WE. 1990. Status and trends of the US wetlands and deepwater habitats[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 33(4): 181-192.
Wilson DS. 1998. Nest-site selection: microhabitat variation and its effects on the survival of turtle embryos[J]. Ecology, 79(6): 1884-1892.
Wyman RL. 1988. Soil acidity and moisture in the distribution of amphibians in five forests of south-central New York[J]. Copeia, 1988(2): 394-399.
CopyRight©2020 Editorial Office of Sichuan Journal of Zoology