Polar Bear Electronic Deterrent and Detection Systems
Polar Bear Electronic Deterrent and Detection Systems
复制标题
北极熊电子威慑和检测系统
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1983
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Donald R. Wooldridge
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Donald R. Wooldridge
在一项为期4年的研究中，评估了自由放养的北极熊（Ursus maritimus）对声学和生物围栏驱避剂以及绊网和接近检测系统的反应。天然和合成的声学驱避剂阻止了69%（N = 71）的熊谁试图进入测试周长。扬声器的位置，声音的振幅，和时间的介绍是重要的因素，在有效性的声学排斥。20 kV电网对入侵熊的驱避率为35%（N = 52），60 kV电网对入侵熊的驱避率为33%（N = 6）。对一块北极熊皮毛的测试表明，需要标称200 kV才能通过这种高度绝缘的毛发可靠地提供电击。测试单，双，和三重绊线围栏检测入侵熊取得了93%（N = 161）的成功率。接近（电容传感）检测系统检测到100%（N = 13）的熊进入，但对杂散电输入太敏感。在第二季的一个修改后的系统检测到63%（N = 41）的入侵。这些设备的改进版本可以为必须在自由放养的北极熊、黑熊附近工作的人员提供显著的安全改善。美洲），或灰熊（美国）。arctos）。国际会议熊资源和管理。5：264-269在加拿大和美国的北极，北极熊经常被石油和地质勘探人员，科学人员和当地居民遇到，经常造成伤害或致命的后果。Jonkel，unpubl.代表，可以的.很好服务，1975; I.斯特林，未公开。代表，可以的.很好服务，1975年a）。北方人类活动的增加是由于加强利用自然资源、勘探这些资源或北极沿海城镇和村庄人口增加，并导致这些潜在危险遭遇的数量增加。当地已经推广了几种适合吓唬熊的装置，包括气溶胶船喇叭，汽车发动机的轰鸣声，闪电，闪光弹，狼牙棒和其他催泪弹，枪声，以及各种各样的其他未经科学检验的装置。不幸的是，在许多情况下，在真实的攻击中使用这些设备进行防御，几乎没有时间对过程或结果进行客观的科学分析。这项研究是在加拿大北极地区博福特海（I.斯特林，未出版），一名埃索资源加拿大近海钻井平台的雇员被一只亚成年雄性北极熊杀死和吃掉时开始的。代表，可以的.很好服务，1975年b）。埃索组织表示有兴趣评价使用超声波发生器作为防止北极熊入侵的威慑手段。一些研究人员已经试验了使用声音刺激作为驱避剂; Belton和Kempster（1962）使用超声波蝙蝠模拟物从玉米地驱避蛾，Dracy和Sander（未出版）。annu.代表WC 123、S.达克美国州立大学，布鲁金斯，1975年）试图用超声波来阻止郊狼，麦克莱恩（1974年）用超声波来驱赶老鼠。Sprock等人（1967年）使用具有生物学意义的声音（记录的大鼠痛苦声音）来驱赶实验室大鼠。对北极熊的初步研究始于对高强度和高频率（16 kHz，120 dB）的超声波的评估（D.R.Wooldridge，P.Belton和C.C.Mueller，unpubl.代表，1976; Wooldridge and Belton 1980）。这些研究表明，对自由放养和捕获的北极熊和棕熊的有效驱避潜力有限。随后，捕获的北极熊的侵略性叫声被记录和电子分析的频谱内容和振幅包络（相对振幅与频率在1/3倍频程带），并产生了几个合成的“咆哮”。这些声音夸大或澄清了几个被认为对北极熊重要的成分，并在捕获和自由放养的黑熊，灰熊和北极熊上进行了测试。有几种声音被认为是有效的（Wooldridge和Belton 1980）。吉尔伯特和罗伊（1977年）的研究表明，在阿尔伯塔北方，将电栅栏和氯化锂处理过的诱饵结合起来，可以减少黑熊的光顾和对养蜂场的破坏。这些测试使用标准的牛“击剑手”设备，以1至2 Hz的频率提供约500 V的电压。在更高的频率（30至50 Hz）下实现非自主强直肌肉反应。
The responses of free-ranging polar bears (Ursus maritimus) to acoustic and electrified-fence repellents, and to tripwire and proximity detection systems, were evaluated in a 4-year study. Natural and synthesized acoustic repellents deterred 69% (N = 71) of bears who attempted to enter a test perimeter. Position of speakers, sound amplitude, and the timing of presentations are important factors in the effectiveness of acoustic repellents. A 20-kV electrified fence repelled 35% (N = 52), and a 60-kV fence repelled 33% (N = 6) of intruding bears. Tests on a patch of polar bear fur indicated that a nominal 200 kV is required to reliably deliver an electric shock through the highly insulating hair of this species. Tests on single, double, and triple trip-wire fences yielded a 93% (N = 161) success rate for detecting intruding bears. A proximity (capacitance-sensing) detection system detected 100% (N = 13) of bear entries, but was too sensitive to stray electrical inputs. A modified system in the 2nd season detected 63% (N = 41) of intrusions. Refined versions of these devices could offer significant improvements in safety for personnel who must work in close proximity to free-ranging polar bears, black bears (U. americanus), or grizzly bears (U. arctos). Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:264-269 In the Canadian and American arctic, polar bears are frequently encountered by oil and geological exploration personnel, scientific personnel, and local inhabitants, often with injurious or fatal consequences (C. Jonkel, unpubl. rep., Can. Wildl. Serv., 1975; I.Stirling, unpubl. rep., Can. Wildl. Serv., 1975a). Increased human activity in the north has resulted from enhanced utilization of natural resources, exploration for these resources, or population increases in coastal arctic towns and villages, and has led to an increase in the numbers of these potentially dangerous encounters. Several devices have been locally promoted as suitable for scaring bears, including aerosol boat horns, the roaring of car engines, thunderflashes, teleshot flares, mace and other lachrimators, gunshots, and a wide variety of other scientifically untested devices. Unfortunately, in many instances, use of these devices in defense during a real attack leaves little time for an objective scientific analysis of the process or outcome. This research was initiated when an employee of an ESSO Resources Canada off-shore drilling rig was killed and consumed by a subadult male polar bear on the Beaufort Sea in the Canadian arctic (I.Stirling, unpubl. rep., Can. Wildl. Serv., 1975b). ESSO expressed interest in evaluating the use of ultrasonic sound generators as a deterrent against polar bear intrusions. Several researchers have experimented with the use of acoustic stimuli as repellents; Belton and Kempster (1962) used ultrasonic bat mimics to repel moths from corn fields, Dracy and Sander (unpubl. annu. rep. WC123, S. Dak. State Univ., Brookings, 1975) attempted to deter coyotes with ultrasonics, and Maclean (1974) used ultrasonics to repel rats. Biologically significant sounds (recorded rat distress sounds) were used by Sprock et al. (1967) to repel lab rats. Initial investigation on polar bears began with an evaluation of ultrasonics of high intensity and frequency (16 kHz, 120 dB) (D.R.Wooldridge, P.Belton, and C.C.Mueller, unpubl. rep., 1976; Wooldridge and Belton 1980). These studies indicated a limited potential for effective repellency on both free-ranging and captured polar and brown bears. Subsequently, the aggressive vocalizations of captured polar bears were recorded and electronically analyzed for spectral content and amplitude envelope (relative amplitude vs. frequency in 1/3-octave bands), and several synthesized "roars" were produced. These sounds exaggerated or clarified several components thought to be significant to polar bears, and were tested on captured and free-ranging black, grizzly, and polar bears. Several of the sounds were found to be generally effective (Wooldridge and Belton 1980). Studies by Gilbert and Roy (1977) indicated that a combination of electrified fences and lithium chloride-treated baits could reduce black bear visits and damage to beeyards in northern Alberta. These tests utilized a standard cattle "fencer" device, delivering approximately 500 V at a frequency of 1 to 2 Hz. An involuntary tetanic muscle response is achieved at much higher frequencies (30 to 50 Hz).