Busse平取向笼与Emlen漏斗的相容性、差异及结论

The Ring Pub Date : 2017-12-01 DOI:10.1515/ring-2017-0001
P. Busse
{"title":"Busse平取向笼与Emlen漏斗的相容性、差异及结论","authors":"P. Busse","doi":"10.1515/ring-2017-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper focuses on field practice using different types of orientation cages. The two orientation cage designs most commonly used in field work, i.e. Emlen’s funnel and Busse’s flat orientation cage, are described in detail and compared for compatibility of results, simplicity of use and time effectiveness. Apart from cage designs and field procedures (60-min nocturnal tests in Emlen’s funnel vs. 10-min diurnal tests according to Busse’s procedure), the standard data evaluation procedures are compared and discussed. The data used in the discussion were collected for four species of nocturnal migrants (the Reed Warbler, the Sedge Warbler, the Willow Warbler and the Whitethroat) at the Kalimok Bird Station (Bulgaria): altogether 141 individuals were tested in Emlen’s funnel in 2001 and 788 in Busse’s cage in 2001-2007. The following conclusions were drawn: (1) Busse’s flat cage design and its standard procedures yield results fully compatible with those obtained using Emlen’s funnel and the associated procedures; this means full compatibility in terms of the directionality of tested birds in the diurnal and nocturnal tests; (2) the procedures compared have distinct differences in terms of constraints on the methods: – Emlen’s cage is extremely stressful for the bird and should be avoided as much as possible in practice due to animal welfare concerns; – Emlen’s standard procedure of testing the bird for 60 minutes is completely useless, as this is inefficient in terms of quality of results and causes more stress to the bird than is necessary; – Busse’s 10-minute standard makes it possible to collect a vast amount of data (12 birds per hour and person) in real field work, even performed in wilderness areas; (3) At the stage of evaluation of raw data it is essential to use evaluation tools which take into account the fact that raw data items show a high percentage of multimodal distributions, and therefore tools assuming unimodal distribution are unsuitable.","PeriodicalId":296929,"journal":{"name":"The Ring","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Busse’s flat orientation cage vs. Emlen’s funnel – compatibility, differences and conclusions\",\"authors\":\"P. Busse\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ring-2017-0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper focuses on field practice using different types of orientation cages. The two orientation cage designs most commonly used in field work, i.e. Emlen’s funnel and Busse’s flat orientation cage, are described in detail and compared for compatibility of results, simplicity of use and time effectiveness. Apart from cage designs and field procedures (60-min nocturnal tests in Emlen’s funnel vs. 10-min diurnal tests according to Busse’s procedure), the standard data evaluation procedures are compared and discussed. The data used in the discussion were collected for four species of nocturnal migrants (the Reed Warbler, the Sedge Warbler, the Willow Warbler and the Whitethroat) at the Kalimok Bird Station (Bulgaria): altogether 141 individuals were tested in Emlen’s funnel in 2001 and 788 in Busse’s cage in 2001-2007. The following conclusions were drawn: (1) Busse’s flat cage design and its standard procedures yield results fully compatible with those obtained using Emlen’s funnel and the associated procedures; this means full compatibility in terms of the directionality of tested birds in the diurnal and nocturnal tests; (2) the procedures compared have distinct differences in terms of constraints on the methods: – Emlen’s cage is extremely stressful for the bird and should be avoided as much as possible in practice due to animal welfare concerns; – Emlen’s standard procedure of testing the bird for 60 minutes is completely useless, as this is inefficient in terms of quality of results and causes more stress to the bird than is necessary; – Busse’s 10-minute standard makes it possible to collect a vast amount of data (12 birds per hour and person) in real field work, even performed in wilderness areas; (3) At the stage of evaluation of raw data it is essential to use evaluation tools which take into account the fact that raw data items show a high percentage of multimodal distributions, and therefore tools assuming unimodal distribution are unsuitable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":296929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Ring\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Ring\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ring-2017-0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Ring","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ring-2017-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要:本文重点介绍了不同类型定向笼的野外实践。详细介绍了现场工作中最常用的两种定向笼设计,即Emlen的漏斗式和Busse的扁平定向笼,并对结果的兼容性、使用的简单性和时间有效性进行了比较。除了笼设计和现场程序(在Emlen漏斗中进行60分钟夜间试验与根据Busse程序进行10分钟日间试验)之外,还比较和讨论了标准数据评估程序。讨论中使用的数据是在卡利莫克鸟类站(保加利亚)收集的四种夜间候鸟(芦苇莺、芦苇莺、柳莺和白喉莺)的数据:2001年在Emlen的漏斗中测试了141只,2001-2007年在Busse的笼子中测试了788只。得出以下结论:(1)Busse平笼设计及其标准程序与Emlen漏斗及其相关程序的结果完全一致;这意味着在白天和夜间测试中,测试鸟类的方向完全兼容;(2)比较的程序在方法约束方面存在明显差异:- Emlen的笼对鸟的压力极大,在实践中应尽量避免,因为考虑到动物福利;Emlen的60分钟测试鸟的标准程序是完全无用的,因为从结果的质量来看,这是低效的,并且给鸟带来了不必要的压力。- Busse的10分钟标准使得在实际的野外工作中收集大量数据成为可能(每小时12只鸟和一个人),甚至在荒野地区进行;(3)在原始数据评估阶段,必须使用评估工具,考虑到原始数据项显示出高比例的多模态分布,因此假设单模态分布的工具是不合适的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Busse’s flat orientation cage vs. Emlen’s funnel – compatibility, differences and conclusions
Abstract This paper focuses on field practice using different types of orientation cages. The two orientation cage designs most commonly used in field work, i.e. Emlen’s funnel and Busse’s flat orientation cage, are described in detail and compared for compatibility of results, simplicity of use and time effectiveness. Apart from cage designs and field procedures (60-min nocturnal tests in Emlen’s funnel vs. 10-min diurnal tests according to Busse’s procedure), the standard data evaluation procedures are compared and discussed. The data used in the discussion were collected for four species of nocturnal migrants (the Reed Warbler, the Sedge Warbler, the Willow Warbler and the Whitethroat) at the Kalimok Bird Station (Bulgaria): altogether 141 individuals were tested in Emlen’s funnel in 2001 and 788 in Busse’s cage in 2001-2007. The following conclusions were drawn: (1) Busse’s flat cage design and its standard procedures yield results fully compatible with those obtained using Emlen’s funnel and the associated procedures; this means full compatibility in terms of the directionality of tested birds in the diurnal and nocturnal tests; (2) the procedures compared have distinct differences in terms of constraints on the methods: – Emlen’s cage is extremely stressful for the bird and should be avoided as much as possible in practice due to animal welfare concerns; – Emlen’s standard procedure of testing the bird for 60 minutes is completely useless, as this is inefficient in terms of quality of results and causes more stress to the bird than is necessary; – Busse’s 10-minute standard makes it possible to collect a vast amount of data (12 birds per hour and person) in real field work, even performed in wilderness areas; (3) At the stage of evaluation of raw data it is essential to use evaluation tools which take into account the fact that raw data items show a high percentage of multimodal distributions, and therefore tools assuming unimodal distribution are unsuitable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信