[1]李莉,王春良,李晓龙,等.苹果园几种鸟雀驱避技术效果研究[J].北方园艺,2016,40(01):19-22.[doi:10.11937/bfyy.201601005]
　LI Li,WANG Chunliang,LI Xiaolong,et al.Study on Several Bird Scaring Technologies’s Effect in Apple Orchards[J].Northern Horticulture,2016,40(01):19-22.[doi:10.11937/bfyy.201601005]
点击复制

苹果园几种鸟雀驱避技术效果研究

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S] 卷: 第40卷 期数: 2016年01 页码: 19-22 栏目: 出版日期: 2016-01-15
Title:
Study on Several Bird Scaring Technologies’s Effect in Apple Orchards
作者:
李莉1; 王春良2; 李晓龙2; 贾永华2; 王永忠3; 潘志广3
（1.宁夏大学 农学院，宁夏 银川 750021；2.宁夏农林科学院 种质资源研究所，宁夏 银川 750002；3.宁夏银川市河东生态园艺试验中心，宁夏 银川 750001）
Author(s):
LI Li1; WANG Chunliang2; LI Xiaolong2; JIA Yonghua2; WANG Yongzhong3; PAN Zhiguang3
(1.College of Agricultural，Ningxia University，Yinchuan，Ningxia 750021；2.Institute of Germplasm,Ningxia Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences，Yinchuan，Ningxia 750002；3.Hedong Ecological Gardening Test Center of Yinchuan in Ningxia，Yinchuan，Ningxia 750001)
关键词:
果实损失率; 鸟雀啄食率; 鸟雀驱避技术
Keywords:
fruit loss rate; birds peck rate; bird scaring technologies
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.201601005
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
选择种有“美国八号”（早熟）、“嘎啦”（中熟）、“富士”（晚熟）的混栽果园4片（各2/3 hm2）为研究对象，设置4个处理（分别为有色防鸟网、风动叶轮、超声波、生物驱避剂），对比了4种鸟雀驱避技术，调查其驱避效果，以筛选出最优的鸟雀驱避技术。结果表明：在相同品种条件下，4种鸟雀驱避技术防鸟害的有效程度以有色防鸟网驱避效果最好，持效性最长，稳定性最好；其受啄率分别为“美国八号”0.44%、“嘎啦”0.16%、“富士”0.20%。其次为生物驱避剂，其受啄率分别为“美国八号”1.92%、“嘎啦”2.24%、“富士”1.52%。然后为超声波驱避技术，其受啄率分别为“美国八号”9.64%、“嘎啦”5.56%，“富士”3.24%。驱避效果最差、持效性最短、稳定性最差的是风动叶轮驱鸟，其受啄率分别为“美国八号”10.00%、“嘎啦”6.52%、“富士”2.60%。3个品种综合调查结果表明，早熟苹果受啄率最高，其次是中熟品种，受啄率最低的是晚熟品种。
Abstract:
Four mixed orchards that planted ‘American No.Eight’ apple(early-maturing),‘Gala ’apple(middle-maturing)，and ‘Red Fuji’apple(late-maturing)，and set four treatment（colored net，vane wheel，ultrasonic and biological insecticides) which was 2/3 hm2.Four bird scaring technologies were compared and the effect of driving bird was studied，to choose the best driving technologies.The results showed that the colored net were the best under the same variety，also its stability and the persistence were the best.For pecking rate，‘American No.Eight’ apple was 0.44%,‘Gala’ apple was 0.16%,and ‘Red Fuji’ apple was 0.20%.The second was biological insecticides，for pecking rate，‘American No.Eight’ apple was 1.92%,‘Gala’ apple was 2.24%，and ‘Red Fuji’ apple was 1.52%；the third was ultrasonic，for pecking rate，‘American No.Eight’ apple was 9.64%,‘Gala’ apple was 5.56%，and ‘Red Fuji’ apple was 3.24%；The vane wheel`s stability and persistence was the worst,and the pecking rate of ‘American No.Eight’ apple was 10.00%,‘Gala’ apple was 6.52%，and ‘Red Fuji’ apple was 2.60%.The comprehensive survey results of three different varieties showed that the pecking rate of early maturity apple was the highest，next was middle maturity apple,and the lowest was the late maturity apple.

参考文献/References:

 

[1]谭树人.果园鸟害防御措施[J].西北园艺,2007(6):45.

[2]余韵,丁宁,夏磊,等.超声波防鸟在葡萄园中的应用[J].中外葡萄与葡萄酒,2010(9):33.

[3]王丹.林果产业中常用几种驱鸟方法的介绍[J].吉林农业(C版),2011(3):214.

[4]孟环.驱鸟利器十八般[EB/OL].2012-05-22.http://bjwb.bjd.com.cn/html/2012-05-22/content_88357.htm.

[5]赵红玉,魏博.接触网鸟害防治方案研究[J].铁道标准设计,2012(2):98-101.

备注/Memo

第一作者简介：李莉（1992-），女，宁夏吴忠人，硕士研究生，研究方向为园艺学。Email:421473752@qq.com.责任作者：王春良（1960-），男，陕西岐山人，研究员，国家苹果产业体系银川综合试验站站长，现主要从事苹果栽培管理技术等研究工作。基金项目：农业部现代苹果产业技术体系银川苹果综合试验站资助项目（cars-28）。收稿日期：2015-08-18

更新日期/Last Update: 2016-02-25