Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores
400
Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores
400eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Presented in a straightforward and readable style, Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores is a comprehensive guide for wildlife researchers who seek to conduct carnivore surveys using the most up-to-date scientific approaches. Twenty-five experts from throughout North America discuss strategies for implementing surveys across a broad range of habitats, providing input on survey design, sample collection, DNA and endocrine analyses, and data analysis. Photographs from the field, line drawings, and detailed case studies further illustrate on-the-ground application of the survey methods discussed.
Coupled with cutting-edge laboratory and statistical techniques, which are also described in the book, noninvasive survey methods are effi cient and effective tools for sampling carnivore populations. Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores allows practitioners to carefully evaluate a diversity of detection methods and to develop protocols specific to their survey objectives, study area, and species of interest. It is an essential resource for anyone interested in the study of carnivores, from scientists engaged in primary research to agencies or organizations requiring carnivore detection data to develop management or conservation plans.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781610911399 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Island Press |
| Publication date: | 09/26/2012 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 400 |
| File size: | 17 MB |
| Note: | This product may take a few minutes to download. |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores
By Robert A. Long, Paula MacKay, William J. Zielinski, Justina C. Ray
ISLAND PRESS
Copyright © 2008 Island PressAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-61091-139-9
CHAPTER 1
Noninvasive Research and Carnivore Conservation
Paula MacKay, William J. Zielinski, Robert A. Long, and Justina C. Ray
Mammalian carnivores face myriad challenges in our overcrowded world. As the all-too-familiar threats of habitat loss and fragmentation continue to increase against a backdrop of global climate change, many carnivore populations have experienced dramatic range contractions (Laliberte and Ripple 2004) and are in urgent need of protection (Ginsberg 2001; MacDonald 2001). Meanwhile, in some regions, carnivores that suffered serious declines in the past century are reclaiming lost ground as a result of natural reforestation (Foster et al. 2002; Falcucci et al. 2007) or targeted conservation inspired by their ecological importance, public appeal, or conflicts with humans (Ray 2005). Given these and other compelling scenarios, it is more critical than ever for scientists to produce relevant and sound data pertaining to carnivore distribution, habitat use, and other biological and ecological measures. While good science does not guarantee quality conservation, the latter will not be possible without the former.
The methods described in this book are especially important tools for those seeking to conduct surveys for members of the order Carnivora. The 230-odd species in this group exhibit remarkable diversity in body form, function, and ecology, yet they share a propensity to leave identifiable evidence of their presence in the form of tracks and droppings. Arguably more than any other animal group, carnivore foot morphology displays interspecific variation. Further, many species are characterized by territoriality, curiosity, traveling along routes, and marking behaviors that result in the prominent placement of sign—traits that lend themselves well to noninvasive survey methods. Carnivore movement patterns are also conducive to the strategic placement of devices to "capture" evidence of species presence. At the same time, the low-density populations and elusive and wide-ranging nature of most carnivores render them difficult to study with observational or traditional capture-based methods. The unique fit between noninvasive survey methods and carnivores, coupled with their importance in the conservation arena, is the impetus for this book.
The Meaning of Noninvasive
The methods described in the following chapters, which we've liberally assembled under the umbrella noninvasive, share the common attribute that they do not require target animals to be directly observed or handled by the surveyor. Given that the term noninvasive may inherently imply judgment against methods that could be lumped together under the antonymous term invasive, we feel it is appropriate to discuss this apparent (and somewhat misleading) dichotomy in a bit more detail.
The word noninvasive has historically been used in a medical context, as in a diagnostic procedure that doesn't involve penetrating the skin or organism with an incision or an injection—as opposed to an invasive procedure, which does (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1988). During the last fifteen years, noninvasive has been more generally applied to the remote collection of DNA samples (e.g., hair, feces) from free-ranging animals. Garshelis (2006) attributes the term's first use in this regard to Morin and Woodruff (1992). In recent applications, usage has expanded to include non-DNA-based wildlife survey techniques as well (e.g., Moruzzi et al. 2002; Gompper et al. 2006; Long et al. 2007b; Schipper 2007).
The survey methods included here are noninvasive in the broadest sense. For the reasons discussed, we grappled with other terms that might be used instead; for example, nonintrusive or remote. Numerous researchers have employed the latter term in this fashion (Sloane et al. 2000; Piggott and Taylor 2003; Frantz et al. 2004), and Garshelis (2006) suggests that this is a more exact and suitable adjective to describe sampling that occurs without human presence. We were concerned, however, that remote survey methods might be confused with remote sensing and other such technologies. Furthermore, we have observed that noninvasive has become somewhat conventional in the wildlife literature and felt that it might behoove us to adhere to an increasingly familiar term. Last, we appreciate the intention of the word noninvasive from the perspective of being minimally invasive with the animals we study.
Indeed, few would question the benefits of minimizing disturbance to target animals during wildlife surveys. We nonetheless recognize the potential risk of the term noninvasive conveying an ethical rather than a scientific basis for this publication. Further, some readers may interpret our emphasis on noninvasive methods as a criticism of those that require live-capture, such as more traditional telemetry methods. Neither assessment would be accurate. First, as alluded to earlier and demonstrated throughout the book, noninvasive methods are particularly appropriate for the scientific study of carnivores given their ecology and behavior. Second, many of the contributors to this volume (including the editors) have used or continue to use telemetry methods in their work, and there is no disputing the valuable role that these methods play in wildlife research. Our goal is not to compare noninvasive techniques with capture-based methods, nor to advocate their use simply because they are noninvasive. Rather, we seek to provide researchers with information on the applicability of such methods for meeting survey goals. The exciting fact is that noninvasive survey methods can now yield high-quality data for modeling site occupancy, estimating population distribution and abundance, and achieving other ecological objectives. To our knowledge, no existing resource provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary noninvasive techniques. This is the gap we seek to fill.
Conventions aside, we recognize that noninvasive survey methods are not necessarily nonintrusive. While it's true that, by definition, these methods do not require physical contact between the surveyor and the surveyed, they too can have behavioral consequences. In a recent study, for example, Schipper (2007) found that camera flashes at remote camera stations resulted in trap avoidance by arboreal kinkajous (Potos flavus), and this effect has been observed in tigers (Panthera tigris) as well (Wegge et al. 2004). Further, some track stations, remote cameras, and hair collection methods utilize bait, which can result in trap avoidance or trap-happiness (see chapters 4, 5, 6, and 10), and notoriously shy species (e.g., coyotes [Canis latrans]) have been shown to avoid survey equipment (Harris and Knowlton 2001). It seems feasible that scat detection dog surveys could have behavioral ramifications as well—for instance, due to the presence of dogs or the removal of scats deposited for territorial marking—although no such effects have been documented to our knowledge. More generally, the mere presence of humans can clearly disturb wildlife, and injuries are not out of the question with noninvasive methods if equipment (e.g., barbed-wire hair collection devices, nails used to secure bait) is improperly deployed or interacted with by animals in unanticipated ways. Reciprocally, radio-based or global positioning system (GPS)-based telemetry may be virtually noninvasive after the initial capture (Garshelis 2006).
The bottom line is that researchers conducting any wildlife survey must weigh the tradeoffs associated with methods that will allow them to achieve their goals. For some surveys, the target species and primary objectives will lend themselves well to one or more affordable and effective noninvasive methods. We presume that such methods will be the obvious choice when this is the case. In other situations, the required data may only be obtainable via more traditional capture- or observation-based methods.
Even with recent advances in noninvasive methods, telemetry still offers unique advantages when attempting to address certain objectives (Mech and Barber 2002). It has only been since the advent of telemetry, particularly via satellite, that we have been able to gain a scientific appreciation of large-scale animal movement (e.g., Inman et al. 2004). If it is necessary to locate animals during key life stages (e.g., denning), or to access carcasses to document causes of mortality, telemetry may be required. Similarly, telemetry may provide more informative assessments of habitat use if both the movement and fate (e.g., survival and mortality) of individual animals can be closely tracked (Garshelis 2006). Further, the accuracy of abundance estimates for wide-ranging species may increase if information about the extent of geographic closure is available. Such data are readily accessible if a proportion of the population is telemetered. In a comparison of abundance estimators, Choate et al. (2006) found that the capture and marking of cougars (Puma concolor) via telemetry was the most costly of the techniques employed, but also the most sensitive for estimating population size.
A Brief History of Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores
Noninvasive methods for the study of carnivores probably date back to the origin of humans—presumably, we have always sought information on the whereabouts and habits of species that can harm us or provide us with valuable resources (e.g., hides for clothing and shelter, meat). The modern scientific study of mammalian carnivores, however, began after commercial agriculture diminished the need to hunt and gather, human social structures and technological developments (e.g., firearms, steel traps, poison) reduced the perceived threat of large carnivores, and some carnivore populations exhibited signs of decline.
In the mid- and late-twentieth century, a few field-savvy experts catalyzed public interest in tracking and other outdoor skills. These individuals captured their expertise in field guides, primarily for an audience of commercial and recreational fur trappers and naturalists striving to develop field skills as a recreational pastime. Expert naturalists such as Olaus Murie (Murie 1954), Tom Brown (Brown 1983), and Jim Halfpenny (Halfpenny 1986) provided descriptions of wildlife tracks and trails in natural substrates, and these accounts became an important foundation for the scientific study of free-ranging mammals. New descriptive accounts of animal sign continue to materialize today (e.g., Elbroch 2003; Lowery 2006), and there is a renaissance of interest in experiencing animal sign first-hand among lay persons and citizen scientists (e.g., Keeping Track, www.keepingtrack.org; CyberTracker Conservation, www.cybertracker.co.za).
In the 1970s and 1980s, the field of mammal inventory and monitoring began to emerge from the foundation established by naturalists. The close of the twentieth century found more people dwelling in cities, and fewer in rural locations where they could encounter and experience wild mammals and their sign. The number of individuals who possessed and could share skills in mammal track and trail identification dwindled.
Meanwhile, the environmental movement and associated legislation (e.g., National Environmental Protection Act [1970], Endangered Species Act of 1973), produced a political climate in which natural resource decision makers required scientifically defensible information about the status of wildlife. Scientists were being called into service to help society develop rigorous methods for detecting species and inventorying and monitoring their populations. Dependence on a declining number of experts who had developed descriptive, and often qualitative, means of identifying wildlife tracks, trails, and sign was unacceptable. Without quantitative methods to identify mammals from sign, information from traditional sources was not considered reliable enough for scientific endeavors or legal challenges. Quality control issues assumed priority, and scientists sought methods that could yield credible results when deployed and interpreted by biologists with limited field experience. This era was inaugurated in North America by efforts to determine the distribution of uncommon mustelids (i.e., Barrett 1983; Jones and Raphael 1993), and in Europe and New Zealand by stoat (Mustela erminea) research conducted by King and colleagues (King and Edgar 1977). Two new methods were developed during this period: (1) specially designed track-receptive surfaces enclosed in small boxes or tubes, and (2) line-triggered instamatic (110) film camera stations. These methods, along with more traditional techniques involving snow tracking and live-capture, were summarized in an important review paper on mustelids in the mid-1990s (Raphael 1994).
The field of noninvasive survey methods began to explode in the mid-1990s. In response, the USDA Forest Service sponsored and published a manual describing standardized protocols for detecting forest carnivores (i.e., American martens [Martes americana], fishers [Martes pennanti], wolverines [Gulo gulo], and Canada lynx [Lynx canadensis]) using track stations, remote cameras, and snow tracking methods (Zielinski and Kucera 1995a). This popular handbook supported a burgeoning interest, among professional biologists and amateurs alike, in detecting the presence of rare, forest-dwelling carnivores.
The most important new device presented in the Zielinski and Kucera (1995a) publication was the remote, 35mm camera triggered by either a motion sensor or the interruption of a light beam by an animal. Unlike its line-triggered predecessor, this system could be left unattended in the field for weeks and could collect up to thirty-six images (Kucera and Barrett 1993; Kucera et al. 1995a). Particularly influential during this period was the Trailmaster camera system (Goodson & Associates, Lenexa, KS). Also on the horizon, however, loomed a new and powerful technology that was destined to be introduced to the wildlife profession ever since the development of the polymerase chain reaction: DNA analysis. Zielinski and Kucera's manual foreshadowed the important role of this development, but it was not generally described to wildlife conservation practitioners until the late 1980s and early 1990s, via the papers of Kocher et al. (1989) and Morin and Woodruff (1992). Methods for the collection of genetic samples via hair snaring (Foran et al. 1997b) and scat collection via dogs (Smith et al. 2003; Wasser et al. 2004) emerged shortly thereafter.
The chapters included in this book describe the current state of the art, and their respective authors help forecast the future of noninvasive methods. Indeed, today is an exhilarating time to be a part of this field. It is now possible to identify species, sex, population, matrilines, and individuals with noninvasive methods—possibilities that our predecessors could not have imagined when they were gleaning information from tracks. With time, we presume that the methods presented here will too become outdated, and thus become part of the unfolding history of survey methods for carnivores.
History and Scope of This Volume
This book was inspired, in part, by the Zielinski and Kucera (1995a) manual mentioned earlier. Recognizing the need for a timely and up-to-date resource for field biologists, agency personnel, graduate students, and others seeking to undertake carnivore surveys, we originally envisioned a technical report or white paper. Alas, our modest ambitions took on new fervor when we gathered together a small group of experts at the Essex Conference Center and Retreat (Essex, MA) in June 2005 (see Contributors at the end of the volume). This intensive, two-day workshop provided us with a unique opportunity to discuss noninvasive survey methods in great detail with experienced researchers. We were also able to work through our vision for a publication and to flesh out a comprehensive outline. In the end, the enthusiasm, knowledge, and dedication of the workshop participants encouraged us to pursue a book.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores by Robert A. Long, Paula MacKay, William J. Zielinski, Justina C. Ray. Copyright © 2008 Island Press. Excerpted by permission of ISLAND PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
List of North American Carnivore SpeciesAcknowledgments
Chapter 1. Noninvasive Research and Carnivore Conservation
Chapter 2. Designing Effective Noninvasive Carnivore Surveys
Chapter 3. Natural Sign: Tracks and Scats
Chapter 4. Track Stations
Chapter 5. Remote Cameras
Chapter 6. Hair Collection
Chapter 7. Scat Detection Dogs
Chapter 8. Integrating Multiple Methods to Achieve Survey Objectives
Chapter 9. Genetic and Endocrine Tools for Carnivore Surveys
Chapter 10. Attracting Animals to Detection Devices
Chapter 11. Statistical Modeling and Inference from Carnivore Survey Data
Chapter 12. Synthesis and Future Research Needs
References
Index