• 中文核心期刊要目总览
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • 中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)
  • 中国科技论文与引文数据库(CSTPCD)
  • 中国学术期刊文摘数据库(CSAD)
  • 中国学术期刊(网络版)(CNKI)
  • 中文科技期刊数据库
  • 万方数据知识服务平台
  • 中国超星期刊域出版平台
  • 国家科技学术期刊开放平台
  • 荷兰文摘与引文数据库(SCOPUS)
  • 日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(JST)

Do supplemental perches influence electrocution risk for diurnal raptors?

  • Abstract:
    Background Power lines are amongst the main causes of mortality for birds globally. Electrocution drives the population dynamics of several threatened species of raptors, at local and global scales. Among the many solutions that have been tested to minimize this threat are supplemental perches; however, their efficiency has rarely been assessed.
    Methods We designed 43 transects in 4 districts in mainland Portugal to gather data from birds perching on pylons with or without supplemental perches. From 2015 to 2018, transects were surveyed by car at least once. We analyzed the factors driving the use of these supplemental perches, and we analyzed if there were differences in the perceived risk (calculated from measurements and not from field surveys) depending on whether the perching was on pylons with or without supplemental perches.
    Results We recorded 548 perches of 14 species. Weather conditions seemed to play a role in birds' choice of pylons with supplemental perches versus pylons without supplemental perches. Models also indicated a strong influence of observational conditions. The use of models showed us an important specific effect in the selection of supplemental perches where available: there are some species with a greater tendency to perch on supplemental perches, even when they use both pylons with and without supplemental perches. For most of the analyzed species and species groups, perceived risk was higher in pylons without supplemental perches compared to pylons with supplemental perches, but there were differences between species.
    Conclusions Supplemental perches may be a useful and efficient tool for mitigating raptor electrocution. However, there are many influential factors affecting their success, and their effectiveness with different species groups is not homogeneous. Some studies show higher electrocution rates for certain species and devices and thus, their efficacy must be validated. We propose a two-step validation process, first in controlled conditions and then in the field. A common protocol should be established to enable comparisons between studies.

     

/

返回文章
返回