Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (1): 99-109.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.010
• Human Activities and Ecosystem • Previous Articles Next Articles
Sydney M. GREENFIELD1(), Aliana C. NORRIS1, Joseph P. LAMBERT1, Wu liji2, Se yongjun2, ZHAN Jinqi1, MA Bing1, LI Deng1, SHI Kun1,3,*(
), Philip RIORDAN1,4
Received:
2020-05-14
Accepted:
2020-09-01
Online:
2021-01-30
Published:
2021-03-30
Contact:
SHI Kun
About author:
Sydney M. GREENFIELD, E-mail: Supported by:
Sydney M. GREENFIELD, Aliana C. NORRIS, Joseph P. LAMBERT, Wu liji, Se yongjun, ZHAN Jinqi, MA Bing, LI Deng, SHI Kun, Philip RIORDAN. Ungulate Mortality due to Fencing and Perceptions of Pasture Fences in Part of the Future Qilianshan National Park[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(1): 99-109.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.010
No. of Question | Chinese | English translation |
---|---|---|
1 | 有没有见过动物被缠在或者绞死在围栏上? | Have you ever seen wildlife dead or injured in fences? |
2 | 牧场围栏对您的生活工作是否有好处?解决了您哪些问题? | Are ranch fences good for your life and work? What problems did you solve? |
3 | 牧场围栏是否对您的生活工作有负面影响?具体在哪些方面? | Does the pasture fence have a negative impact on your life and work? In what ways? |
4 | 您认为牧场围栏是否会对野生动物造成影响?正面还是负面的? | Do you think the pasture fence will affect wildlife? Positive or negative? |
5 | 您是否建议为保护野生动物拆除牧场围栏? | Do you recommend removing fences from pastures to protect wildlife? |
Appendix 1 Questions asked during interviews about fencing, their perceived effect, and support for dismantling fences within YNNR
No. of Question | Chinese | English translation |
---|---|---|
1 | 有没有见过动物被缠在或者绞死在围栏上? | Have you ever seen wildlife dead or injured in fences? |
2 | 牧场围栏对您的生活工作是否有好处?解决了您哪些问题? | Are ranch fences good for your life and work? What problems did you solve? |
3 | 牧场围栏是否对您的生活工作有负面影响?具体在哪些方面? | Does the pasture fence have a negative impact on your life and work? In what ways? |
4 | 您认为牧场围栏是否会对野生动物造成影响?正面还是负面的? | Do you think the pasture fence will affect wildlife? Positive or negative? |
5 | 您是否建议为保护野生动物拆除牧场围栏? | Do you recommend removing fences from pastures to protect wildlife? |
Type of variable | Variable name | Short name | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Number of small stock | small stock | Number of sheep and goats owned | |
Household variables | Number of yak | yak | Number of yak owned |
Number of total livestock | total livestock | Number of yak, cows, horses, camels, donkeys, sheep, and goats owned | |
Income | income | Annual income reported | |
Age | age | Age of the respondent | |
Sheep in shed | sheep shed | The proportion of the year the household had a shed or walled pen to hold their sheep and goats, where each season with a pen was equal to 0.25, with a max value of 1 for the whole year | |
Hires others | hires others | The proportion of the year a household hired others to look after their livestock, where each season hired is equal to 0.25, with a max value of 1 for the whole year | |
Wildlife variables | Positive or negative impact of fences on wildlife | pos. neg. | Ranges from -1 to 1, with -1 being negative, 0 being no effect, and 1 being a positive effect |
Number wildlife observed in fences | number observed | Number of wildlife reportedly seen entangled in fences. Ranged from 0 to 2 |
Table 1 Predictor variables used to model support for dismantling fences and perceptions of the effects of fencing upon wildlife
Type of variable | Variable name | Short name | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Number of small stock | small stock | Number of sheep and goats owned | |
Household variables | Number of yak | yak | Number of yak owned |
Number of total livestock | total livestock | Number of yak, cows, horses, camels, donkeys, sheep, and goats owned | |
Income | income | Annual income reported | |
Age | age | Age of the respondent | |
Sheep in shed | sheep shed | The proportion of the year the household had a shed or walled pen to hold their sheep and goats, where each season with a pen was equal to 0.25, with a max value of 1 for the whole year | |
Hires others | hires others | The proportion of the year a household hired others to look after their livestock, where each season hired is equal to 0.25, with a max value of 1 for the whole year | |
Wildlife variables | Positive or negative impact of fences on wildlife | pos. neg. | Ranges from -1 to 1, with -1 being negative, 0 being no effect, and 1 being a positive effect |
Number wildlife observed in fences | number observed | Number of wildlife reportedly seen entangled in fences. Ranged from 0 to 2 |
Model | Formula | AICc | ΔAICc | R2 (adjusted) | Deviance explained (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Null | Dismantle fence ~1 | 50.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
1 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + hires others | 50.42 | -0.40 | 0.03 | 8.2 |
2 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + sheep shed | 48.63 | 1.39 | 0.08 | 17.4 |
3 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + small stock | 59.23 | -9.21 | 0.08 | 16.5 |
4 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + yak | 51.93 | -1.91 | 0.002 | 5.07 |
5 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + total livestock | 52.15 | -2.13 | 0.01 | 4.62 |
6 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + age | 51.55 | -1.53 | 0.02 | 5.87 |
7 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + income | 51.57 | -1.55 | 0.02 | 5.62 |
8 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + hires others | 45.67 | 4.35 | 0.18 | 22.4 |
9 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + sheep shed | 47.17 | 2.85 | 0.16 | 23.9 |
10 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + small stock | 48.03 | 1.99 | 0.15 | 22.4 |
11 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + yak | 49.38 | 0.64 | 0.13 | 14.5 |
12 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + total livestock | 49.46 | 0.56 | 0.16 | 27.2 |
13 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + age | 48.47 | 1.55 | 0.12 | 16.4 |
14 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + income | 49.30 | 0.72 | 0.10 | 14.7 |
15 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed | 50.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 4.7 |
16 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. | 47.50 | 2.52 | 0.12 | 13.7 |
17 | Dismantle fence ~ hires others | 50.91 | -0.89 | 0.0002 | 2.6 |
18 | Dismantle fence ~ sheep shed | 48.75 | 1.27 | 0.03 | 11.5 |
19 | Dismantle fence ~ small stock | 49.78 | 0.24 | 0.04 | 10.0 |
20 | Dismantle fence ~ yak | 51.59 | -1.57 | -0.01 | 1.2 |
21 | Dismantle fence ~ total stock | 52.16 | -2.14 | -0.02 | 0.003 |
22 | Dismantle fence ~ age | 51.60 | -1.58 | -0.01 | 1.2 |
23 | Dismantle fence ~ income | 51.93 | -1.91 | -0.01 | 0.5 |
Appendix 2 Formulas for GAM models for support for dismantling fences in YNNR
Model | Formula | AICc | ΔAICc | R2 (adjusted) | Deviance explained (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Null | Dismantle fence ~1 | 50.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
1 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + hires others | 50.42 | -0.40 | 0.03 | 8.2 |
2 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + sheep shed | 48.63 | 1.39 | 0.08 | 17.4 |
3 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + small stock | 59.23 | -9.21 | 0.08 | 16.5 |
4 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + yak | 51.93 | -1.91 | 0.002 | 5.07 |
5 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + total livestock | 52.15 | -2.13 | 0.01 | 4.62 |
6 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + age | 51.55 | -1.53 | 0.02 | 5.87 |
7 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed + income | 51.57 | -1.55 | 0.02 | 5.62 |
8 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + hires others | 45.67 | 4.35 | 0.18 | 22.4 |
9 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + sheep shed | 47.17 | 2.85 | 0.16 | 23.9 |
10 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + small stock | 48.03 | 1.99 | 0.15 | 22.4 |
11 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + yak | 49.38 | 0.64 | 0.13 | 14.5 |
12 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + total livestock | 49.46 | 0.56 | 0.16 | 27.2 |
13 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + age | 48.47 | 1.55 | 0.12 | 16.4 |
14 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. + income | 49.30 | 0.72 | 0.10 | 14.7 |
15 | Dismantle fence ~ number observed | 50.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 4.7 |
16 | Dismantle fence ~ pos. neg. | 47.50 | 2.52 | 0.12 | 13.7 |
17 | Dismantle fence ~ hires others | 50.91 | -0.89 | 0.0002 | 2.6 |
18 | Dismantle fence ~ sheep shed | 48.75 | 1.27 | 0.03 | 11.5 |
19 | Dismantle fence ~ small stock | 49.78 | 0.24 | 0.04 | 10.0 |
20 | Dismantle fence ~ yak | 51.59 | -1.57 | -0.01 | 1.2 |
21 | Dismantle fence ~ total stock | 52.16 | -2.14 | -0.02 | 0.003 |
22 | Dismantle fence ~ age | 51.60 | -1.58 | -0.01 | 1.2 |
23 | Dismantle fence ~ income | 51.93 | -1.91 | -0.01 | 0.5 |
Fig. 3 Response curve for the perceived effects of fencing on wildlife against the number of wildlife found entangled in fences Note: The perceived effect of fencing on wildlife is expressed as binary, where 1 is no effect and 0 is a negative effect. The solid line shows the response to the independent variable and the shaded region shows the 95% confidence interval.
Fig. 4 Response curves for willingness to dismantle the fences to the two variables retained in the best model Note: Willingness to dismantle is binary, where 1 indicates support and 0 indicates did not support dismantling the fences. (a) Effect of fences on wildlife is on a scale of -1 to 1, where -1 is a negative effect, 0 is no effect, and 1 is a positive effect of fences upon wildlife. (b) Hires others is the portion of the year a herder hired someone to look after their livestock. In both (a) and (b) the solid line shows the response of the dependent variable to one independent variable when the response to the other is held constant at its median, and the shaded region shows the 95% confidence interval.
Number | Formula | AICc | ΔAICc | R2 (adjusted) | Deviance explained (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Null | Dis. fence ~1 | 50.02 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
8 | Dis. Fence ~ pos. neg. + hires others | 45.67 | 4.35 | 0.18 | 22.4 |
9 | Dis. Fence ~ pos. neg. + sheep shed | 47.17 | 2.85 | 0.16 | 23.9 |
16 | Dis. Fence ~ pos. neg. | 47.50 | 2.52 | 0.12 | 13.7 |
Table 2 The three best GAM models and the null model for comparison
Number | Formula | AICc | ΔAICc | R2 (adjusted) | Deviance explained (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Null | Dis. fence ~1 | 50.02 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
8 | Dis. Fence ~ pos. neg. + hires others | 45.67 | 4.35 | 0.18 | 22.4 |
9 | Dis. Fence ~ pos. neg. + sheep shed | 47.17 | 2.85 | 0.16 | 23.9 |
16 | Dis. Fence ~ pos. neg. | 47.50 | 2.52 | 0.12 | 13.7 |
[1] |
Barua M, Bhagwat S A, Jadhav S. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation, 157:309-316.
DOI URL |
[2] |
Bhatnagar Y V, Wangchuk R, Prins H H T, et al. 2006. Perceived conflicts between pastoralism and conservation of the kiang Equus kiang in the Ladakh trans-Himalaya, India. Environmental Management, 38(6):934-941.
DOI URL |
[3] |
Cao J, Yeh E T, Holden N M, et al. 2013a. The roles of overgrazing, climate change and policy as drivers of degradation of China’s grasslands. Nomadic Peoples, 17(2):82-101.
DOI URL |
[4] |
Cao J, Yeh E T, Holden N M, et al. 2013b. The effects of enclosures and land-use contracts on rangeland degradation on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Arid Environments, 97:3-8.
DOI URL |
[5] | China Forestry Network. 2018. List of national protected wildlife. http://www.forestry.gov.cn/main/3954/content-1063883.html. Viewed 3 Apr 2019.(in Chinese) |
[6] | China Forestry Network. 2019. Qilianshan National Park master plan. http://www.forestry.gov.cn/main/198/20190215/091344699121299.html. Viewed 25 May 2020.(in Chinese) |
[7] | Daniel J. 2011. Choosing the type of nonprobability sampling. In: Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices. London, UK: SAGE Publications, 103-105. |
[8] |
Epps C W, Palsbøll P J, Wehausen J D, et al. 2005. Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep. Ecology Letters, 8(10):1029-1038.
DOI URL |
[9] |
Fox J L, Dhondup K, Dorji T. 2009. Tibetan antelope Pantholops hodgsonii conservation and new rangeland management policies in the western Chang Tang Nature Reserve, Tibet: Is fencing creating an impasse? Oryx, 43(2):183-190.
DOI URL |
[10] | Hanophy W. 2009. Fencing with wildlife in mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. |
[11] |
Harrington J L, Conover M R. 2006. Characteristics of ungulate behavior and mortality associated with wire fences. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(5):1295-1305.
DOI URL |
[12] |
Hogg J T, Forbes S H, Steele B M, et al. 2006. Genetic rescue of an insular population of large mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1593):1491-1499.
DOI URL PMID |
[13] | Holmes G. 2007. Protection, politics and protest: Understanding resistance to conservation. Conservation and Society, 5(2):184-201. |
[14] | IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2019. The IUCN red list of threatened species. www.iucnredlist.org. Viewed 29 Jan 2020. |
[15] |
Jakes A F, Jones P F, Paige L C, et al. 2018. A fence runs through it: A call for greater attention to the influence of fences on wildlife and ecosystems. Biological Conservation, 227:310-318.
DOI URL |
[16] | Jalkotzy M. 2000. Habitat selection by bighorn ewes on three winter ranges in the east Kootenays. Report prepared for Columbia Basin fish and wildlife compensation program. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd. and East Kootenay Wildlife Association. |
[17] | Kaczensky P, Dresley V, Vetter D, et al. 2010. Water use of Asiatic wild asses in the Mongolian Gobi. Exploration into the Biological Resources of Mongolia (Halle/Saale, Germany), 11:291-298. |
[18] |
Kaczensky P, Ganbataar O, Altansukh N, et al. 2011a. The danger of having all your eggs in one basket—Winter crash of the re-introduced Przewalski’s Horses in the Mongolian Gobi. Plos One, 6(12):e28057. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028057.
DOI URL PMID |
[19] |
Kaczensky P, Kuehn R, Lhagvasuren B, et al. 2011b. Connectivity of the Asiatic wild ass population in the Mongolian Gobi. Biological Conservation, 144(2):920-929.
DOI URL PMID |
[20] | Liu N F, Zhang H C, Dou Z G. 2010. Synthetical scientific investigation on Yanchiwan National Reserve in Gansu Province. Lanzhou, China: Lanzhou University Press. (in Chinese) |
[21] | McDonald J H. 2014. Multiple tests. In: Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Balitmore, Maryland: Sparky House Publishing, 254-260. |
[22] |
Meijaard E, Mengersen K, Buchori D, et al. 2011. Why don’t we ask? A complementary method for assessing the status of Great Apes. Plos One, 6(3):e18008. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018008.
DOI URL PMID |
[23] | Ministry of the Environment. 2017. Report on the state of the ecology and environment in China 2017. Beijing. Retrieved from english.mee.gov.cn/Resources/Reports/soe/. |
[24] |
Olsson M P O, Widen P. 2008. Effects of highway fencing and wildlife crossings on moose Alces alces movements and space use in southwestern Sweden. Wildlife Biology, 14(1):111-118.
DOI URL |
[25] | Paige C. 2012. A landowner’s guide to wildlife friendly fences (2nd ed.). Private Land Technical Assistance Program. Helena, USA: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. |
[26] | R Development Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. |
[27] |
Rey A, Novaro A J, Guichón M L. 2012. Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) mortality by entanglement in wire fences. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(5):280-283.
DOI URL |
[28] |
Riley S P D, Pollinger J P, Sauvajot R M, et al. 2006. A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular Ecology, 15(7):1733-1741.
DOI URL PMID |
[29] | Schaller G B. 2000. Kiang (Tibetan Wild Ass). In: Wildlife of the Tibetan steppe. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press, 165-167. |
[30] | Schaller G B. 2012. Tibet wild: A naturalist’s journeys on the roof of the world. Washington DC, USA: Island Press, 154-155. |
[31] |
Starr C, Nekaris K A I, Streicher U, et al. 2011. Field surveys of the Vulnerable pygmy slow loris Nycticebus pygmaeus using local knowledge in Mondulkiri Province, Cambodia. Oryx, 45(1):135-142.
DOI URL |
[32] |
Willi Y, Van Buskirk J, Hoffmann A A. 2006. Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37(1):433-458.
DOI URL |
[33] |
Wingard G J, Harris R B, Pletscher D H, et al. 2011. Argali food habits and dietary overlap with domestic livestock in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 75(2):138-145.
DOI URL |
[34] | Wood S. 2019. MGCV: Mixed GAM computation vehicle with GCV/AIC/ REML smoothness estimation. |
[35] |
You Z, Jiang Z, Li C, et al. 2013. Impacts of grassland fence on the behavior and habitat area of the critically endangered Przewalski’s gazelle around the Qinghai Lake. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(18):2262-2268.
DOI URL |
[36] |
Ziembicki M R, Woinarski J C Z, Mackey B. 2013. Evaluating the status of species using indigenous knowledge: Novel evidence for major native mammal declines in northern Australia. Biological Conservation, 157:78-92.
DOI URL |
[37] | Zuur A F, Ieno E N, Smith G M. 2007. Analysing ecological data. New York, USA: Springer. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||