Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Ungulate Mortality due to Fencing and Perceptions of Pasture Fences in Part of the Future Qilianshan National Park
Sydney M. GREENFIELD, E-mail: sydney.greenfield@aggiemail.usu.edu |
Received date: 2020-05-14
Accepted date: 2020-09-01
Online published: 2021-03-30
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China(31470567)
Fencing is an important part of husbandry for pastoral communities; however, these same fences can have unintended consequences for wildlife populations by restricting movement, reducing connectivity, and causing direct mortality. This paper assesses the current status and effects of fencing present in Yanchiwan National Nature Reserve, soon to be part of the recently proposed Qilianshan National Park. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 70 households to gauge local herders’ perceptions of fences, threats of fencing to native ungulates, and the number of wildlife found entangled in fencing. We found that local communities rely on fencing for livestock management and individuals who had encountered wildlife entangled in fences were more likely to perceive fences as having negative effects. Furthermore, those who perceived fencing as harmful to wildlife were more likely to support the dismantling of fences. On the other hand, families who needed to hire others to tend to their livestock were less likely to support dismantling efforts. However, the best model was only able to account for some of the data variability, suggesting that while perceptions of fences are important, other factors could be influencing support for fence dismantling. Hence, increasing awareness of threats alone may not be enough to generate community support of a fence dismantling program. Therefore, outreach and community collaboration to reduce the impacts of fence alterations upon livestock management will be necessary for a successful fence dismantling program within the new national park. Finally, those surveyed reported finding kiang, argali, and Tibetan gazelle dead in fences, with kiang found more often than the other two. This suggests that these three species may be more vulnerable to fence entanglement and that they are good targets for future studies and dismantling efforts.
Key words: fencing; Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau; ungulates; China
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 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.010
Fig. 1 Location of Yanchiwan National Nature Reserve |
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? |
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 |
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. 2 Benefits of pasture fences as reported by resident herders |
Fig. 3 Response curve for the perceived effects of fencing on wildlife against the number of wildlife found entangled in fencesNote: 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 modelNote: 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. |
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 |
Fig. 5 The total numbers of each animal species found dead in the fences by interviewees within Yanchiwan National Nature Reserve |
Fig. 6 The number of each species reportedly found by residents in YNNR by season |
Fig. 7 An adult kiang entangled in pasture fencing in YNNR Note: Photo credit to Buyin SAI. |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[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] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2019. The IUCN red list of threatened species. www.iucnredlist.org. Viewed 29 Jan 2020.
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[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] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |