吉林珲春电子围栏防控野猪危害农田的效果研究

Research on the Effectiveness of Electronic Fence in Preventing and Controlling Wild Boars Endangering Farmland in Hunchun,Jilin Province

近年来,随着野猪(Sus scrofa)数量不断增长,人与野猪之间的冲突也随之增加。2021年8至10月,在吉林省珲春市春化镇开展了电子围栏防控野猪危害农田的效果研究。研究共布设40块样地,以单次脉冲强度与栏线圈数来区分电子围栏,以防控有效期长度、进入样地野猪数量与农作物损失率衡量防控的有效性。研究结果如下:(1)电子围栏对野猪危害农田的防控效果显著,所有实验组的防控有效期长度、进入样地野猪数量、农作物损失率均与对照组存在显著差异(P<0.05)。(2)电子围栏的脉冲强度对野猪危害农田的防控效果影响不显著。电子围栏的栏线圈数为2,脉冲强度分别为0.3 J、1.0 J和2.0 J的样地中,防控有效期长度、进入样地的野猪数量、农作物损失率均无显著差异(P>0.05)。(3)电子围栏的栏线圈数不同组别,防控效果不同。3圈栏线的电子围栏组防控有效期为(29.2±1.4)d,进入样地野猪数量为(0.7±1.0)ind,农作物损失率为4.28%±8.24%;2圈栏线的电子围栏组防控有效期为(27.3±3.3)d,进入样地野猪数量为(1.0±1.3)ind,农作物损失率为7.98%±14.34%;1圈栏线的电子围栏组防控有效期为(23.0±2.3)d,进入样地野猪数量为(2.3±1.5)ind,农作物损失率为19.33%±8.14%。栏线圈数越多,防控效果越佳。因此,布设脉冲强度为0.3 J的电子围栏便可有效降低野猪对农田的危害,且3圈栏线的电子围栏防控效果最佳。

[Objectives]Electronic fence in preventing and controlling wildlife damages has been widely studied and applied overseas,but it has not been promoted in China.Chunhua Town of Hunchun,Jilin Province was chosen as the study area, and the research on the effect of electronic fences in preventing and controlling Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) damages and the influencing factors has been carried out. [Methods] A total of 40 sample plots were laid out for the study and divided into 12 groups, with a-k being the experimental group and l being the control group (Table 2). The number of wires, single pulse intensity, length of control period, crop loss rate, and the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots were recorded (Table 3). The effectiveness of the control was measured by the length of the control period, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plot and the crop loss rate. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test to determine the significance and variability of the effectiveness of electronic fence. [Results] The length of the control period, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots, and the crop loss rate of all experimental groups were significantly different from those of the control group (P < 0.05) (Table 5). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the length of the effective period of control, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots, and the rate of crop loss in the sample plots with two fence wires of electronic fence and pulse intensities of 0.3 J, 1.0 J and 2.0 J respectively (Table 4). The effective period of control was 29.2 ± 1.4 d, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots was 0.7 ± 1.0 ind and the crop loss rate was 4.28% ± 8.24% for the electronic fence group with three fence wires. The effective period of control was 27.3 ± 3.3 d, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots was 1.0 ± 1.3 ind and the crop loss rate was 7.98% ± 14.34% for the electronic fence group with two fence wires. The electronic fence group at the one fence wire had a control period of 23.0 ± 2.3 d, with 2.3 ± 1.5 ind of Wild Boars entering the sample plot and 19.33% ± 8.14% of crop loss (Table 5). [Conclusion] The electronic fence could effectively reduce the damage of Wild Boar to farmland. The pulse intensity of the electronic fence has no significant effect on the prevention and control effect of Wild Boar damage to farmland, and the more the number of coils of the electronic fence, the better the prevention and control effect of Wild Boar damage.