1
|
Dissegna A, Rota M, Basile S, Fusco G, Mencucci M, Cappai N, Galaverni M, Fabbri E, Velli E, Caniglia R. How to Choose? Comparing Different Methods to Count Wolf Packs in a Protected Area of the Northern Apennines. Genes (Basel) 2023; 14:genes14040932. [PMID: 37107690 PMCID: PMC10137897 DOI: 10.3390/genes14040932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2023] [Revised: 04/14/2023] [Accepted: 04/15/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite a natural rewilding process that caused wolf populations in Europe to increase and expand in the last years, human-wolf conflicts still persist, threatening the long-term wolf presence in both anthropic and natural areas. Conservation management strategies should be carefully designed on updated population data and planned on a wide scale. Unfortunately, reliable ecological data are difficult and expensive to obtain and often hardly comparable through time or among different areas, especially because of different sampling designs. In order to assess the performance of different methods to estimate wolf (Canis lupus L.) abundance and distribution in southern Europe, we simultaneously applied three techniques: wolf howling, camera trapping and non-invasive genetic sampling in a protected area of the northern Apennines. We aimed at counting the minimum number of packs during a single wolf biological year and evaluating the pros and cons for each technique, comparing results obtained from different combinations of these three methods and testing how sampling effort may affect results. We found that packs' identifications could be hardly comparable if methods were separately used with a low sampling effort: wolf howling identified nine, camera trapping 12 and non-invasive genetic sampling eight packs. However, increased sampling efforts produced more consistent and comparable results across all used methods, although results from different sampling designs should be carefully compared. The integration of the three techniques yielded the highest number of detected packs, 13, although with the highest effort and cost. A common standardised sampling strategy should be a priority approach to studying elusive large carnivores, such as the wolf, allowing for the comparison of key population parameters and developing shared and effective conservation management plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arianna Dissegna
- Department of Biology, University of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58b, 35121 Padova, Italy
| | - Martino Rota
- Department of Biology, University of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58b, 35121 Padova, Italy
| | - Simone Basile
- Department of Biology, University of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58b, 35121 Padova, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Fusco
- Department of Biology, University of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58b, 35121 Padova, Italy
- National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), Piazza Marina 61, 90133 Palermo, Italy
| | - Marco Mencucci
- Reparto Carabinieri Parco Nazionale Foreste Casentinesi, Via G. Brocchi 7, 52015 Pratovecchio-Stia, Italy
| | - Nadia Cappai
- Foreste Casentinesi National Park, Via G. Brocchi 7, 52015 Pratovecchio-Stia, Italy
| | | | - Elena Fabbri
- Unit for Conservation Genetics (BIO-CGE), Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Via Cà Fornacetta 9, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy
| | - Edoardo Velli
- Unit for Conservation Genetics (BIO-CGE), Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Via Cà Fornacetta 9, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy
| | - Romolo Caniglia
- Unit for Conservation Genetics (BIO-CGE), Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Via Cà Fornacetta 9, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Russo BM, Jones AS, Clement MJ, Fyffe N, Mesler JI, Rubin ES. Camera trapping as a method for estimating abundance of Mexican wolves. WILDLIFE SOC B 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/wsb.1416] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Brianna M. Russo
- Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 USA
| | - Andrew S. Jones
- Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 USA
| | - Matthew J. Clement
- Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 USA
| | - Nathan Fyffe
- Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 USA
| | - Jacob I. Mesler
- Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 USA
| | - Esther S. Rubin
- Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mäntyniemi S, Helle I, Kojola I. Assessment of the residential Finnish wolf population combines DNA captures, citizen observations and mortality data using a Bayesian state-space model. EUR J WILDLIFE RES 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s10344-022-01615-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
AbstractAssessment of the Finnish wolf population relies on multiple sources of information. This paper describes how Bayesian inference is used to pool the information contained in different data sets (point observations, non-invasive genetics, known mortalities) for the estimation of the number of territories occupied by family packs and pairs. The output of the assessment model is a joint probability distribution, which describes current knowledge about the number of wolves within each territory. The joint distribution can be used to derive probability distributions for the total number of wolves in all territories and for the pack status within each territory. Most of the data set comprises of both voluntary-provided point observations and DNA samples provided by volunteers and research personnel. The new method reduces the role of expert judgement in the assessment process, providing increased transparency and repeatability.
Collapse
|