论文部分内容阅读
目的确定一种比较好的现场抽样与钉螺调查方法。方法从安徽省池州市贵池区秋浦河沿岸的14个滩地中随机选择一个滩地作为研究现场,分别设计常规调查、个人重复调查、交叉重复调查和交叉复核随机抽检调查4种方法收集钉螺数据,从调查的钉螺密度和钉螺漏捡率两个角度分析评价不同调查方法的优劣。结果个人重复调查、交叉重复调查和交叉复核随机抽检调查3种调查方法得到的钉螺密度经Kruskal-WallisH检验,差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.87,P=0.144),两两比较差异亦无统计学意义,而它们与常规调查的差异有统计学意义(U=309.00,P<0.01);交叉复核随机抽检调查的漏捡率(0.57%)、交叉重复调查(5.24%)和个人重复调查的漏捡率(10.26%)经Kruskal-WallisH检验,差异有统计学意义(χ2=37.44,P<0.01),并且两两比较差异有统计学意义。交叉复核随机抽检调查的漏捡率最低。结论交叉复核随机抽检调查的效果最好,可用于现场的定量钉螺调查研究中。湖沼地区常规调查的数据应当慎重地用于钉螺相关的定量研究。
Objective To determine a better method of site sampling and snail investigation. Methods A total of 14 beach sites were selected from 14 beaches in QiuPu River, Chizhou City, Anhui Province as research sites. Snail data were collected by four methods: routine survey, repeated survey, cross-repeat survey and cross-check random sampling survey. The advantages and disadvantages of different survey methods were evaluated and analyzed from the survey of snail density and snail spill picking rate. Results The results of Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that there was no significant difference (χ2 = 3.87, P = 0.144) between the two surveyed methods of repeated surveys, cross-repeat surveys and cross-check randomized surveys. (U = 309.00, P <0.01). The rate of missed selection (0.57%), cross-repeat survey (5.24%) and repeated survey of individuals in the randomized cross-examination were significantly higher than those in the routine survey The leakage rate (10.26%) by Kruskal-WallisH test, the difference was statistically significant (χ2 = 37.44, P <0.01), and the pairwise comparison was statistically significant. Cross-check random sampling survey missed the lowest pick rate. Conclusion The cross-check random sampling survey is the best and can be used in the field quantitative snail investigation. Data from routine surveys in lakes and mountains should be used with caution in quantitative studies related to Oncomelania.