PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, LISA K. HARRIS, CATHY L. BLASCH, KIANA K. G. KOENEN, JON FRANCINE
{"title":"军事行动对濒危索诺兰叉角羚行为和听力的影响","authors":"PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, LISA K. HARRIS, CATHY L. BLASCH, KIANA K. G. KOENEN, JON FRANCINE","doi":"10.2193/0084-0173(2004)157[1:EOMOOB]2.0.CO;2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Abstract: </b> Our objectives in this study were to determine whether military activities (e.g., overflight noise, noise from ordnance delivery, ground-based human activity) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) affect the behavior and hearing of Sonoran pronghorn (<i>Antilocapra americana sonoriensis</i>). We contrasted the behavior of pronghorn on BMGR with the closest population of pronghorn in the United States that was not subjected to routine military activity (i.e., on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge [BANWR], Arizona). Forty percent of the landscape used by the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in the United States is within the 5,739 km<sup>2</sup> BMGR, a bombing and gunnery facility in southwestern Arizona. The range of Sonoran pronghorn covers about 88% of BMGR. The 179 Sonoran pronghorn that lived in the United States in December 1992 declined to 99 by December 2000. The Sonoran pronghorn has been listed as endangered for >30 years, but population limiting factors are unknown. Because Sonoran pronghorn use BMGR, land and wildlife managers raised concerns about the potential effects of military activities on the population. Possible indirect effects of military activities on Sonoran pronghorn, aside from direct mortality or injury, from ordnance delivery, chaff, flares, live ammunition, aircraft mishaps, interference from ground vehicles and personnel, include alteration of behavior or physiology.</p><p>We conducted the study on the North and South Tactical Ranges (NTAC and STAC), BMGR, from February 1998 to June 2000. Hearing exams were conducted in Camp Verde, Arizona, the University of Arizona, and on the East Tactical Range (ETAC), BMGR. Interactions between pronghorn and military activity were restricted to 4 observation points that provided viewing areas from which pronghorn and military activity could be observed from ≤ 10 km. We systematically located pronghorn with spotting scopes and telemetry. When located, we described their behavior and military activity using scan sampling. We tested hearing using auditory brainstem responses (ABR). We could not test the hearing of Sonoran pronghorn because of their endangered status, so we contrasted hearing of pronghorn near Camp Verde, Arizona, and desert mule deer (<i>Odocoileus hemionus eremicus</i>) that were and were not exposed to sound pressure levels from military activity. We recorded behavior observations of Sonoran pronghorn on 172 days (44,375 observation events [i.e., 1 observation/30 second]) over 373 hours. These data were compared with 93 days of behavioral data (24,297 observation events) over 202 hours for pronghorn not regularly influenced by military aircraft. Overall, we did not detect behavioral differences (i.e., time spent bedding, standing, foraging, traveling) between males and females. Pronghorn exposed to military activity, and those that were not, bedded the same amount of time. Pronghorn at BMGR foraged less and stood and traveled more than pronghorn not exposed to military activity. These trends were the same with and without anthropogenic activity. Only 7.3% of behavioral events occurred with identifiable stimuli. Military overflights occurred 363 times (0.8%) and non-military overflights occurred 77 times (<0.2%). Pronghorn rarely responded to military aircraft, but often moved >10 m when ground stimuli were present.</p><p>Ambient noise levels ranged up to 123.1 decibels (dB). The average sound pressure level on days with military activity was 65.3 dB compared to 35.0 dB without military activity. Because we obtained hearing tests from deer and pronghorn, we were able to develop an ungulate weighting filter on the noise generated from overflights of A-10 and F-16 aircraft. Desert ungulates do not hear sound pressure levels generated from these aircraft as well as humans do (i.e., 14–19 dB lower).</p><p>The military activity we examined had only marginal influence on Sonoran pronghorn. Pronghorn used the ranges shared with the military throughout the year and behavioral patterns of pronghorn were similar with and without the presence of military stimuli. Furthermore, pronghorn behavior exposed to military activity was similar to behaviors of pronghorn not exposed to regular military activity. The auditory characteristics of pronghorn were similar for those that have and have not been exposed to military activity. The population of Sonoran pronghorn in the United States continues to decline and is in serious danger of extirpation. Clearly, additional work needs to be done, but military activity as measured herein is not a limiting factor.</p>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":"157 1","pages":"1-41"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2193/0084-0173(2004)157[1:EOMOOB]2.0.CO;2","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Military Operations on Behavior and Hearing of Endangered Sonoran Pronghorn\",\"authors\":\"PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, LISA K. HARRIS, CATHY L. BLASCH, KIANA K. G. KOENEN, JON FRANCINE\",\"doi\":\"10.2193/0084-0173(2004)157[1:EOMOOB]2.0.CO;2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><b>Abstract: </b> Our objectives in this study were to determine whether military activities (e.g., overflight noise, noise from ordnance delivery, ground-based human activity) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) affect the behavior and hearing of Sonoran pronghorn (<i>Antilocapra americana sonoriensis</i>). We contrasted the behavior of pronghorn on BMGR with the closest population of pronghorn in the United States that was not subjected to routine military activity (i.e., on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge [BANWR], Arizona). Forty percent of the landscape used by the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in the United States is within the 5,739 km<sup>2</sup> BMGR, a bombing and gunnery facility in southwestern Arizona. The range of Sonoran pronghorn covers about 88% of BMGR. The 179 Sonoran pronghorn that lived in the United States in December 1992 declined to 99 by December 2000. The Sonoran pronghorn has been listed as endangered for >30 years, but population limiting factors are unknown. Because Sonoran pronghorn use BMGR, land and wildlife managers raised concerns about the potential effects of military activities on the population. Possible indirect effects of military activities on Sonoran pronghorn, aside from direct mortality or injury, from ordnance delivery, chaff, flares, live ammunition, aircraft mishaps, interference from ground vehicles and personnel, include alteration of behavior or physiology.</p><p>We conducted the study on the North and South Tactical Ranges (NTAC and STAC), BMGR, from February 1998 to June 2000. Hearing exams were conducted in Camp Verde, Arizona, the University of Arizona, and on the East Tactical Range (ETAC), BMGR. Interactions between pronghorn and military activity were restricted to 4 observation points that provided viewing areas from which pronghorn and military activity could be observed from ≤ 10 km. We systematically located pronghorn with spotting scopes and telemetry. When located, we described their behavior and military activity using scan sampling. We tested hearing using auditory brainstem responses (ABR). We could not test the hearing of Sonoran pronghorn because of their endangered status, so we contrasted hearing of pronghorn near Camp Verde, Arizona, and desert mule deer (<i>Odocoileus hemionus eremicus</i>) that were and were not exposed to sound pressure levels from military activity. We recorded behavior observations of Sonoran pronghorn on 172 days (44,375 observation events [i.e., 1 observation/30 second]) over 373 hours. These data were compared with 93 days of behavioral data (24,297 observation events) over 202 hours for pronghorn not regularly influenced by military aircraft. Overall, we did not detect behavioral differences (i.e., time spent bedding, standing, foraging, traveling) between males and females. Pronghorn exposed to military activity, and those that were not, bedded the same amount of time. Pronghorn at BMGR foraged less and stood and traveled more than pronghorn not exposed to military activity. These trends were the same with and without anthropogenic activity. Only 7.3% of behavioral events occurred with identifiable stimuli. Military overflights occurred 363 times (0.8%) and non-military overflights occurred 77 times (<0.2%). Pronghorn rarely responded to military aircraft, but often moved >10 m when ground stimuli were present.</p><p>Ambient noise levels ranged up to 123.1 decibels (dB). The average sound pressure level on days with military activity was 65.3 dB compared to 35.0 dB without military activity. Because we obtained hearing tests from deer and pronghorn, we were able to develop an ungulate weighting filter on the noise generated from overflights of A-10 and F-16 aircraft. Desert ungulates do not hear sound pressure levels generated from these aircraft as well as humans do (i.e., 14–19 dB lower).</p><p>The military activity we examined had only marginal influence on Sonoran pronghorn. Pronghorn used the ranges shared with the military throughout the year and behavioral patterns of pronghorn were similar with and without the presence of military stimuli. Furthermore, pronghorn behavior exposed to military activity was similar to behaviors of pronghorn not exposed to regular military activity. The auditory characteristics of pronghorn were similar for those that have and have not been exposed to military activity. The population of Sonoran pronghorn in the United States continues to decline and is in serious danger of extirpation. Clearly, additional work needs to be done, but military activity as measured herein is not a limiting factor.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wildlife Monographs\",\"volume\":\"157 1\",\"pages\":\"1-41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2193/0084-0173(2004)157[1:EOMOOB]2.0.CO;2\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wildlife Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/0084-0173%282004%29157%5B1%3AEOMOOB%5D2.0.CO%3B2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/0084-0173%282004%29157%5B1%3AEOMOOB%5D2.0.CO%3B2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35
摘要
摘要/ Abstract摘要:本研究旨在研究巴里·m·戈德华特山脉(BMGR)的军事活动(如飞越噪声、武器发射噪声、地面人类活动)是否会影响索诺兰叉角羚(Antilocapra americana sonoriensis)的行为和听力。我们将BMGR上叉角羚的行为与美国最接近的叉角羚种群(即亚利桑那州布宜诺斯艾利斯国家野生动物保护区[BANWR])进行了对比。在美国,濒临灭绝的索诺兰叉角羚所使用的40%的景观都在5739平方公里的BMGR范围内,这是亚利桑那州西南部的一个轰炸和射击设施。索诺兰叉角羚的分布范围约占BMGR的88%。1992年12月生活在美国的179头索诺兰叉角羚到2000年12月减少到99头。索诺兰叉角羚被列为濒危物种已有30年了,但数量限制因素尚不清楚。由于索诺兰叉角羚使用BMGR,土地和野生动物管理人员对军事活动对种群的潜在影响表示担忧。军事活动对索诺兰叉角羚可能造成的间接影响,除了直接的死亡或伤害外,还包括弹药投放、箔条、照明弹、实弹、飞机事故、地面车辆和人员的干扰,包括行为或生理的改变。我们在1998年2月至2000年6月期间,对英国皇家陆军的南北战术靶场(NTAC和STAC)进行了研究。听力测试在亚利桑那州佛得角营地、亚利桑那大学和BMGR东部战术靶场(ETAC)进行。叉角羚与军事活动之间的相互作用仅限于4个观测点,这些观测点提供的观测区域可以从≤10公里处观察叉角羚和军事活动。我们用瞄准镜和遥测技术系统地定位了叉角羚。定位后,我们使用扫描采样描述了他们的行为和军事活动。我们使用听觉脑干反应(ABR)测试听力。由于Sonoran叉角羚处于濒危状态,我们无法测试它们的听力,因此我们将亚利桑那州Verde营地附近的叉角羚和沙漠骡鹿(Odocoileus hemionus eremicus)的听力进行了对比,这些叉角羚受到和没有受到军事活动声压水平的影响。我们记录了索诺兰叉角羚172天(44,375次观察事件[即1次观察/30秒])373小时的行为观察。这些数据与不受军用飞机影响的叉角羚在202小时内93天的行为数据(24,297次观察事件)进行了比较。总的来说,我们没有发现雄性和雌性之间的行为差异(即,花在床上、站立、觅食和旅行上的时间)。接触过军事活动的叉角羚和没有接触过军事活动的叉角羚睡在床上的时间是一样的。与没有接触过军事活动的叉角羚相比,BMGR中的叉角羚觅食更少,站立和行走更多。无论有没有人为活动,这些趋势都是一样的。只有7.3%的行为事件发生在可识别的刺激下。军事飞越发生363次(0.8%),非军事飞越发生77次(0.2%)。叉角羚很少对军用飞机做出反应,但当地面刺激存在时,它经常移动10米。环境噪音水平高达123.1分贝(dB)。有军事活动日的平均声压级为65.3 dB,而无军事活动日的平均声压级为35.0 dB。由于我们获得了鹿和叉角羚的听力测试,我们能够开发一种有蹄类加权滤波器,用于处理A-10和F-16飞机飞越时产生的噪音。沙漠有蹄类动物听不到这些飞机产生的声压级(即低14-19分贝)。我们考察的军事活动对索诺兰叉角羚的影响微乎其微。叉角羚使用了全年与军队共享的范围,并且无论是否存在军事刺激,叉角羚的行为模式都是相似的。此外,暴露于军事活动的叉角羚的行为与未暴露于常规军事活动的叉角羚的行为相似。对于那些接触过和没有接触过军事活动的叉角羚,它们的听觉特征是相似的。美国索诺兰叉角羚的数量持续下降,濒临灭绝。显然,需要做更多的工作,但这里所衡量的军事活动并不是一个限制因素。
Effects of Military Operations on Behavior and Hearing of Endangered Sonoran Pronghorn
Abstract: Our objectives in this study were to determine whether military activities (e.g., overflight noise, noise from ordnance delivery, ground-based human activity) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) affect the behavior and hearing of Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis). We contrasted the behavior of pronghorn on BMGR with the closest population of pronghorn in the United States that was not subjected to routine military activity (i.e., on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge [BANWR], Arizona). Forty percent of the landscape used by the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in the United States is within the 5,739 km2 BMGR, a bombing and gunnery facility in southwestern Arizona. The range of Sonoran pronghorn covers about 88% of BMGR. The 179 Sonoran pronghorn that lived in the United States in December 1992 declined to 99 by December 2000. The Sonoran pronghorn has been listed as endangered for >30 years, but population limiting factors are unknown. Because Sonoran pronghorn use BMGR, land and wildlife managers raised concerns about the potential effects of military activities on the population. Possible indirect effects of military activities on Sonoran pronghorn, aside from direct mortality or injury, from ordnance delivery, chaff, flares, live ammunition, aircraft mishaps, interference from ground vehicles and personnel, include alteration of behavior or physiology.
We conducted the study on the North and South Tactical Ranges (NTAC and STAC), BMGR, from February 1998 to June 2000. Hearing exams were conducted in Camp Verde, Arizona, the University of Arizona, and on the East Tactical Range (ETAC), BMGR. Interactions between pronghorn and military activity were restricted to 4 observation points that provided viewing areas from which pronghorn and military activity could be observed from ≤ 10 km. We systematically located pronghorn with spotting scopes and telemetry. When located, we described their behavior and military activity using scan sampling. We tested hearing using auditory brainstem responses (ABR). We could not test the hearing of Sonoran pronghorn because of their endangered status, so we contrasted hearing of pronghorn near Camp Verde, Arizona, and desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus eremicus) that were and were not exposed to sound pressure levels from military activity. We recorded behavior observations of Sonoran pronghorn on 172 days (44,375 observation events [i.e., 1 observation/30 second]) over 373 hours. These data were compared with 93 days of behavioral data (24,297 observation events) over 202 hours for pronghorn not regularly influenced by military aircraft. Overall, we did not detect behavioral differences (i.e., time spent bedding, standing, foraging, traveling) between males and females. Pronghorn exposed to military activity, and those that were not, bedded the same amount of time. Pronghorn at BMGR foraged less and stood and traveled more than pronghorn not exposed to military activity. These trends were the same with and without anthropogenic activity. Only 7.3% of behavioral events occurred with identifiable stimuli. Military overflights occurred 363 times (0.8%) and non-military overflights occurred 77 times (<0.2%). Pronghorn rarely responded to military aircraft, but often moved >10 m when ground stimuli were present.
Ambient noise levels ranged up to 123.1 decibels (dB). The average sound pressure level on days with military activity was 65.3 dB compared to 35.0 dB without military activity. Because we obtained hearing tests from deer and pronghorn, we were able to develop an ungulate weighting filter on the noise generated from overflights of A-10 and F-16 aircraft. Desert ungulates do not hear sound pressure levels generated from these aircraft as well as humans do (i.e., 14–19 dB lower).
The military activity we examined had only marginal influence on Sonoran pronghorn. Pronghorn used the ranges shared with the military throughout the year and behavioral patterns of pronghorn were similar with and without the presence of military stimuli. Furthermore, pronghorn behavior exposed to military activity was similar to behaviors of pronghorn not exposed to regular military activity. The auditory characteristics of pronghorn were similar for those that have and have not been exposed to military activity. The population of Sonoran pronghorn in the United States continues to decline and is in serious danger of extirpation. Clearly, additional work needs to be done, but military activity as measured herein is not a limiting factor.