Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance
Abstract Although genetic and analytical methods for estimating wildlife abundance have improved rapidly over the last decade, effective methods for collecting hair samples from terrestrial carnivores in a mark–recapture framework have lagged. Hair samples are generally collected using methods that...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2012-06-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.137 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850256868655497216 |
|---|---|
| author | Heather K. Stricker Jerrold L. Belant Dean E. Beyer Jr. Jeanette Kanefsky Kim T. Scribner Dwayne R. Etter Jean Fierke |
| author_facet | Heather K. Stricker Jerrold L. Belant Dean E. Beyer Jr. Jeanette Kanefsky Kim T. Scribner Dwayne R. Etter Jean Fierke |
| author_sort | Heather K. Stricker |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Although genetic and analytical methods for estimating wildlife abundance have improved rapidly over the last decade, effective methods for collecting hair samples from terrestrial carnivores in a mark–recapture framework have lagged. Hair samples are generally collected using methods that permit sampling of multiple individuals during a single sampling period that can cause genotyping errors due to cross‐contamination. We evaluated a modified body snare as a single‐sample method to obtain bobcat hair samples suitable for individual identification using DNA analyses to estimate population size. We used a systematic grid (2.5 × 2.5 km) overlaid on a 278.5 km2 study area in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to distribute sampling effort. In each of 44 grid cells, we placed 2–6 snares at established sampling stations and collected hair samples weekly for 8 weeks during January–March 2010. We collected 230 hair samples overall, with 91% of sampling stations obtaining at least 1 hair sample. Fifty‐seven percent of samples had sufficient DNA for species identification, which included bobcat (Lynx rufus, n = 17); raccoon (Procyon lotor, n = 62); coyote, dog, or wolf (Canis spp., n = 29); fox (Vulpes vulpes or Urocyon cinereoargenteus, n = 4); and fisher (Martes pennanti, n = 1). We identified 8 individual bobcats and using Huggins closed capture population models with a one‐half mean maximum distance moved buffer, estimated 10 individuals within the trapping area (95% confidence interval = 8–28) with a density of 3.0 bobcats/100 km2. Our method provides an effective, single‐sample technique for detecting bobcats and estimating abundance. © 2012 The Wildlife Society. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7af8bf826c3e4e85bce96d6060961182 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-7af8bf826c3e4e85bce96d60609611822025-08-20T01:56:32ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402012-06-0136225726310.1002/wsb.137Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundanceHeather K. Stricker0Jerrold L. Belant1Dean E. Beyer Jr.2Jeanette Kanefsky3Kim T. Scribner4Dwayne R. Etter5Jean Fierke6Carnivore Ecology Laboratory, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USACarnivore Ecology Laboratory, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USAWildlife Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Marquette, MI 49855, USADepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USADepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USARose Lake Wildlife Research Station, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48823, USAWildlife Disease Laboratory, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48910, USAAbstract Although genetic and analytical methods for estimating wildlife abundance have improved rapidly over the last decade, effective methods for collecting hair samples from terrestrial carnivores in a mark–recapture framework have lagged. Hair samples are generally collected using methods that permit sampling of multiple individuals during a single sampling period that can cause genotyping errors due to cross‐contamination. We evaluated a modified body snare as a single‐sample method to obtain bobcat hair samples suitable for individual identification using DNA analyses to estimate population size. We used a systematic grid (2.5 × 2.5 km) overlaid on a 278.5 km2 study area in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to distribute sampling effort. In each of 44 grid cells, we placed 2–6 snares at established sampling stations and collected hair samples weekly for 8 weeks during January–March 2010. We collected 230 hair samples overall, with 91% of sampling stations obtaining at least 1 hair sample. Fifty‐seven percent of samples had sufficient DNA for species identification, which included bobcat (Lynx rufus, n = 17); raccoon (Procyon lotor, n = 62); coyote, dog, or wolf (Canis spp., n = 29); fox (Vulpes vulpes or Urocyon cinereoargenteus, n = 4); and fisher (Martes pennanti, n = 1). We identified 8 individual bobcats and using Huggins closed capture population models with a one‐half mean maximum distance moved buffer, estimated 10 individuals within the trapping area (95% confidence interval = 8–28) with a density of 3.0 bobcats/100 km2. Our method provides an effective, single‐sample technique for detecting bobcats and estimating abundance. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.137 |
| spellingShingle | Heather K. Stricker Jerrold L. Belant Dean E. Beyer Jr. Jeanette Kanefsky Kim T. Scribner Dwayne R. Etter Jean Fierke Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| title | Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance |
| title_full | Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance |
| title_fullStr | Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance |
| title_full_unstemmed | Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance |
| title_short | Use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance |
| title_sort | use of modified snares to estimate bobcat abundance |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.137 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT heatherkstricker useofmodifiedsnarestoestimatebobcatabundance AT jerroldlbelant useofmodifiedsnarestoestimatebobcatabundance AT deanebeyerjr useofmodifiedsnarestoestimatebobcatabundance AT jeanettekanefsky useofmodifiedsnarestoestimatebobcatabundance AT kimtscribner useofmodifiedsnarestoestimatebobcatabundance AT dwayneretter useofmodifiedsnarestoestimatebobcatabundance AT jeanfierke useofmodifiedsnarestoestimatebobcatabundance |