Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers: A New Synthesis
Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers: A New Synthesis
复制标题
DOI：
10.7591/9780801466076
复制
发表时间：
2017-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Aubry;W. Zielinski;M. Raphael;G. Proulx;S. Buskirk
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Aubry;W. Zielinski;M. Raphael;G. Proulx;S. Buskirk
本书综合了 2009 年 9 月举行的第五届国际马丁研讨会的受邀口头报告。它反映了非常广泛的当前知识，这些知识通常是通过 1994 年第一本此类书籍之前不具备的技术获得的。本书有五个部分，但各部分之间存在如此广泛的重叠，因此我认为它们不是最佳选择；这根本不影响个别论文，但组织有点奇怪。这些是科学撰写的论文，因此是针对同行和严肃的博物学家。有几个技术点让我困扰。在绝大多数科学著作中，从一到十的整个数字都是拼写出来的，而不是写成数字。对于长期阅读科学的读者来说，看到“5”而不是“五”会引起阅读障碍。找到标有 0.6、0.8、1、1.2 等的图表轴也确实很烦人。创建图表的作者只是接受了草率的默认值，他们应该始终坚持使用一致的小数位（例如 1.0，而不是 1）。然而，这些论文在其他方面都写得很好，并且论证有效。第一篇论文《貂进化史综合》为本书中讨论的动物奠定了基础。尽管该属内的关系已得到很好的描述，但对该属与其他鼬科动物之间的背景进行分支图和简要讨论是适当的。读者在这里面临的可能性是，经过更多的分析，狼獾和泰拉可能被包括在貂中，但是水獭、獾和黄鼠狼相对于貂及其亲属在哪里呢？有两篇论文是关于寄生虫的；奇怪的是，题为“火星中的复杂宿主-寄生虫系统：对保护生物学的影响……”的文章并没有出现在有关保护的部分中。尽管如此，这两篇论文都写得很好而且很有趣（不，这位审稿人不是寄生虫学家！）。 Gabriel、Wengart 和 Brown 撰写的第二篇论文包含了一个庞大的表格，其中大概列出了与该属相关的所有已知寄生虫……总共有近 250 种寄主寄生虫关系。对于刚开始研究貂寄生虫学的人来说，这张桌子就是黄金。关于栖息地利用的章节揭示了一个意想不到的结果，即这些动物并不像人们想象的那样依赖于古老的森林，无论是在欧洲还是北美。鉴于缺乏旧的生长，这对于重新引入计划来说是个好消息。然而，普遍的共识是，在可用的情况下，通常在老树中发现的复杂森林结构是首选。关于研究技术的部分包括涵盖从粪便检测狗到无线电遥测和建模的所有章节。在大多数情况下，历史技术（即 1994 年之前）会与当前技术进行比较。每种技术的优点和缺点经常被讨论，让读者能够批判性地评估它们。最后一部分包含五章，讨论貂种群的保护。开篇的章节虽然写得很好，但包含的地图却令人失望……像素化的，就北美地图而言，使用的投影强调了美国，一个基本上没有这些动物的国家，以及一个压缩的加拿大，其中大部分细节确实是必要的。本章中的两个图表各有七条曲线，导致不必要的混乱。这本来可以做得更好。像这样的论文评论或合并（包括评论）有两个优点。首先，读者可以获得不同作者的意见，在本例中，有 62 位作者。第二个是引用的大量文献……对任何从事此类研究的人来说都是一个福音，无论是新手还是职业火星学家。这本书引用了1600多篇论文……难道有一篇论文被遗漏了吗？
This book is a synthesis of the invited, oral presentations from the Fifth International Martes Symposium held in September 2009. It reflects a very broad range of the current knowledge, often acquired with techniques not available prior to the first book of this nature in 1994. There are five sections to this book, but such a broad overlap between the sections exists that I don’t think they were the best choices; this does not detract from the individual papers at all, but the organization is just a bit odd. These are scientifically written papers, and as such, are directed at peers and serious naturalists. There are a few technical points which bothered me. In the vast majority of scientific writings, the whole num bers one through ten are spelled out, not written as numbers. For long-time readers of science, seeing “5” instead of “five” gives rise to a reading hiccup. It’s also really quite irritating to find a graph axis labelled 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.2, etc. Authors creating the graphs simply ac cepted sloppy defaults, where they should have insisted on consistent decimal places (e.g. 1.0, not 1) throughout. However, the papers are otherwise quite well written and make the arguments effectively. The first paper, Synthesis of Martes Evolutionary History sets the stage for the animals discussed in this tome. Although the relationships within the genus are well described, a cladogram and brief discussion of the context of the genus among other mustelids would have been appropriate. The reader is exposed here to the possibility that the Wolverine and the Tayra may, with more analysis, be included in Martes, but where are the ot ters, badgers and weasels relative to the martens and their kin? There are two papers centring on parasites; curiously, the one entitled Complex Host-Parasite systems in Martes: Implications for Conservation Biology... does not appear in the section on conservation. None-theless, both papers are well-written and quite interesting (no, this reviewer is not a parasitologist!). The second paper by Gabriel, Wengart and Brown includes a massive table of presumably all the known parasites associated with the genus...a total of almost 250 hostparasite relationships. This table alone would be gold to someone starting out in Martes parasitology. The chapters on habitat use bring to light the unexpected result that these animals are not, as presumed, dependent on old growth forests, neither in Europe nor North America. Given the lack of old growth, this is good news for reintroduction programs. However, the general consensus is that when available, complex forest structure, often found in old growth is preferred. The section on research techniques includes chapters covering the gamut from scat-detecting dogs through radiotelemetry and modelling. In most cases, historical techniques (i.e. prior to 1994) are compared with current ones. Advantages and disadvantages of each technique are often discussed, allowing the reader to critically assess them. The final section contains five chapters dealing with the conservation of Martes populations. The opening chapter, although well written, contains disappointing maps...pixellated and, in the case of the North American maps, uses projections which emphasize the United States, a country largely devoid of these animals, and a compressed Canada, where most of the detail is really necessary. Two graphs within this chapter have seven curves each, giving rise to an unnecessary amount of clutter. This could have been done better. There are two strengths associated with reviews or amalgams of papers like this one (which include re views). The first is that the reader gets the opinions of a diversity of authors, in this case, 62 of them. The second is the wealth of literature cited...a boon to anyone doing this type of research, whether a novice or career Martesologist. This volume cites over 1600 works... could a single paper have been missed?