United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, 2820 East University Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32641, USA.
Environ Manage. 2013 Jun;51(6):1187-93. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0046-4. Epub 2013 Apr 23.
Given the popularity of feeding white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Texas and the increasing amount of corn that is distributed, more information is needed on the impacts of this activity on non-target wildlife. Our objectives were to report visitation, intra- and interspecific contact, and contact rates of wildlife at artificial feeding sites in Texas. Our study was conducted at three sites in Kleberg and Nueces counties, Texas. We trapped animals from February to April and August to September, 2009 and marked animals with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. At each site and season, we placed one feeder system containing a PIT tag reader within 600 m of trap locations. Readers detected PIT tags from a distance of 25 cm. We determined a contact event to occur when two different PIT tags were detected by feeder systems within 5 s. We recorded 62,719 passes by raccoons (Procyon lotor), 103,512 passes by collared peccaries (Pecari tajacu), 2,923 passes by feral swine (Sus scrofa), 1,336 passes by fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), and no passes by opossums (Didelphis virginiana) at feeder systems. For site-season combinations in which contact events occurred, we found intraspecific contact rates (contacts per day) for raccoons, collared peccaries, and feral swine to be 0.81-124.77, 0.69-38.08, and 0.0-0.66, respectively. Throughout our study we distributed ~2,625 kg of whole kernel corn, which resulted in 6,351 contact events between marked wildlife (2.4 contacts per kg of corn). If 136 million kg of corn is distributed in Texas annually, we would expect >5.2 billion unnatural contact events between wildlife would result from this activity each year in Texas. Consequently, we do not believe that it is wise for natural resource managers to maintain artificial feeding sites for white-tailed deer or other wildlife due to pathogen transmission risks.
鉴于德克萨斯州投喂白尾鹿(Odocoileus virginianus)的流行程度和分发的玉米数量不断增加,我们需要更多关于这种活动对非目标野生动物影响的信息。我们的目标是报告德克萨斯州人工投喂点野生动物的访问、种内和种间接触以及接触率。我们的研究在德克萨斯州的克莱伯格县和努埃塞斯县的三个地点进行。我们于 2009 年 2 月至 4 月和 8 月至 9 月期间进行了动物诱捕,并使用被动式集成射频识别(PIT)标签对动物进行了标记。在每个地点和季节,我们在距离诱捕地点 600 米的范围内放置了一个包含 PIT 标签读取器的投喂系统。读取器可以在 25 厘米的距离内检测到 PIT 标签。当两个不同的 PIT 标签在 5 秒内被投喂系统检测到时,我们确定发生了一次接触事件。我们记录了浣熊(Procyon lotor)62719 次通过、野猪(Pecari tajacu)103512 次通过、野猪(Sus scrofa)2923 次通过、狐松鼠(Sciurus niger)1336 次通过,以及在投喂系统中没有负鼠(Didelphis virginiana)通过。对于发生接触事件的地点-季节组合,我们发现浣熊、野猪和野猪的种内接触率(每天接触次数)分别为 0.81-124.77、0.69-38.08 和 0.0-0.66。在整个研究过程中,我们分发了约 2625 公斤整粒玉米,导致标记野生动物之间发生了 6351 次接触事件(每公斤玉米 2.4 次接触)。如果德克萨斯州每年分发 1.36 亿公斤玉米,我们预计每年在德克萨斯州,这种活动将导致野生动物之间发生超过 520 亿次非自然接触事件。因此,我们认为自然资源管理者没有理由维持人工投喂白尾鹿或其他野生动物的投喂点,因为这存在病原体传播风险。