Evaluating measures of hunting effort in a bushmeat system
Evaluating measures of hunting effort in a bushmeat system
复制标题
评估丛林肉系统中狩猎努力的措施
DOI：
10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.005
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
E. Milner‐Gulland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Rist;M. Rowcliffe;G. Cowlishaw;E. Milner‐Gulland
狩猎丛林肉对猎物物种的负面影响经常被声称，但很少有人考虑如何最适当地衡量狩猎水平。目前的方法范围从定性描述到量化测量，在许多情况下，这些方法被用来推断狩猎的生物影响，而实际上它们是猎人投入努力的经济测量。所使用的衡量标准的选择对于正确地将观测到的猎物丰度水平归因于特定的狩猎水平，以及使用狩猎统计数据作为丰度指数具有重要意义。利用在赤道几内亚15个月期间收集的200多名猎人追随者和8个狩猎营地日记的信息，我们调查了如何最恰当地衡量狩猎努力。我们探讨了使用时间作为努力的衡量标准，狩猎方法的影响，并比较了猎人和猎物对捕获量的看法，以调查与不同措施相关的可能的偏差来源。我们表明：(1)总时间衡量可能是有偏见的，高估了与生物相关的努力；(2)由于诱捕检查率、诱捕群体组成和物种诱捕专一性不同，量化诱捕努力是有问题的；(3)从猎人的角度来看，与经济相关的捕获量衡量低估了狩猎的真正生物影响。据我们所知，这是调查和明确量化不同狩猎努力措施之间存在的偏差来源的第一项研究。我们的结果对于未来的研究应该如何衡量狩猎努力，以便正确评估丛林肉狩猎的生物学影响具有重要意义，但需要进一步的比较研究，以调查在一系列狩猎系统中是否存在有偏见的努力措施。
The negative impact of bushmeat hunting on prey species has been frequently claimed, but little thought has been given to how the level of hunting should most appropriately be measured. Current methods range from qualitative descriptions to quantified measures, and in many cases these are used to infer the biological impact of hunting, when they are in fact economic measures of the effort invested by a hunter. The choice of measure used has important implications for correctly attributing observed levels of prey abundance to a particular level of hunting, and for the use of hunting statistic data as an index of abundance. Using information from over 200 hunter follows and eight hunting camp diaries collected over a 15 month period in Equatorial Guinea, we investigate how hunting effort is most appropriately measured. We explore the use of time as a measure of effort, the effect of hunting method and compare hunter and prey perspectives of catch, in order to investigate the possible sources of bias associated with different measures. We show (1) that total time measures can be biased, overestimating biologically relevant effort; (2) that quantifying trapping effort is problematic due to variable trap checking rates, variable trap group composition and species trap specificity; and (3) that economically relevant measures of catch, taken from the hunter perspective underestimate the true biological impact of hunting. To our knowledge this is the first study to investigate and explicitly quantify the sources of bias that exist between different hunting effort measures. Our results have important implications for how future studies should measure hunting effort in order to assess properly the biological impact of bushmeat hunting, but further comparative studies are needed to investigate the existence of biased effort measures in a range of hunting systems.