Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predicting carnivore occurrence with noninvasive surveys and occupancy modeling

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Terrestrial carnivores typically have large home ranges and exist at low population densities, thus presenting challenges to wildlife researchers. We employed multiple, noninvasive survey methods—scat detection dogs, remote cameras, and hair snares—to collect detection–nondetection data for elusive American black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus) throughout the rugged Vermont landscape. We analyzed these data using occupancy modeling that explicitly incorporated detectability as well as habitat and landscape variables. For black bears, percentage of forested land within 5 km of survey sites was an important positive predictor of occupancy, and percentage of human developed land within 5 km was a negative predictor. Although the relationship was less clear for bobcats, occupancy appeared positively related to the percentage of both mixed forest and forested wetland habitat within 1 km of survey sites. The relationship between specific covariates and fisher occupancy was unclear, with no specific habitat or landscape variables directly related to occupancy. For all species, we used model averaging to predict occurrence across the study area. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of our black bear and fisher models suggested that occupancy modeling efforts with data from noninvasive surveys could be useful for carnivore conservation and management, as they provide insights into habitat use at the regional and landscape scale without requiring capture or direct observation of study species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arthur SM, Krohn WB, Gilbert JR (1989) Habitat use and diet of fishers. J Wildl Manag 53:680–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Penrod KL, Luke C, Spencer WD, Cabañero C (2006) South Coast missing linkages: restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the USA. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 555–586

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Betts MG, Ganio LM, Huso MMP, Som NA, Huettmann F, Bowman J, Wintle BA (2009) Comment on ‘‘Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review’’. Ecography 32:374–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody AJ, Pelton MR (1989) Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North Carolina. Wildl Soc B 17:5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell LA (2004) Distribution and habitat associations of mammalian carnivores. Dissertation, University of California, Davis

  • Cooch E, White GC (2005) Program MARK: a gentle introduction. http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book. Accessed 15 Aug 2005

  • Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darrah AJ, Krementz DG (2009) Distribution and habitat use of king rails in the Illinois and Upper Mississippi River Valleys. J Wildl Manag 73:1380–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eng J (2005) ROC analysis: web-based calculator for ROC curves. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. http://www.jrocfit.org. Accessed 3 Jan 2010

  • Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garant Y, Crête M (1997) Fisher, Martes pennanti, home range characteristics in a high density untrapped population in southern Québec. Can Field Nat 111:359–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg JR (2001) Setting priorities for carnivore conservation: what makes carnivores different? In: Gittleman JL, Funk SM, Macdonald D, Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 498–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall ER (1981) The mammals of North America. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond F (2002) The effects of resort and residential development on black bears in Vermont Stratton Mountain Black Bear study. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamler JF, Gipson PS (2000) Home range, habitat selection, and survival of Bobcats, Lynx rufus, in a prairie ecosystem in Kansas. Can Field Nat 114:388–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll AJ, Duke SD, Runde DE, Arnett EB, Austin KA (2006) Modeling habitat occupancy of orange-crowned warblers in managed forests of Oregon and Washington, USA. J Wildl Manag 71:1089–1097

    Google Scholar 

  • Litvaitis JA, Sherburne JA, Bissonette JA (1986) Bobcat habitat use and home range size in relation to prey density. J Wildl Manag 50:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long RA, Donovan TM, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ, Buzas JS (2007a) Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores. J Wildl Manag 71:2007–2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long RA, Donovan TM, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ, Buzas JS (2007b) Comparing scat detection dogs, cameras, and hair snares for surveying carnivores. J Wildl Manag 71:2018–2025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long RA, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ, Ray JC (eds) (2008) Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovallo MJ, Anderson EM (1996a) Bobcat (Lynx rufus) home range size and habitat use in northwest Wisconsin. Am Midl Nat 135:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovallo MJ, Anderson EM (1996b) Bobcat movements and home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildl Soc B 24:71–76

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Bailey LL (2004) Assessing the fit of site-occupancy models. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 9:300–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Royle JA (2005) Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. J Appl Ecol 42:1105–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell MS, Zimmerman JW, Powell RA (2002) Test of a habitat suitability index for black bears in the southern Appalachians. Wildl Soc B 30:794–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Bailey LL, O’Connell AF Jr, Talancy NW, Campbell Grant EH, Gilbert AT, Annand EM, Husband TP, Hines JE (2008) Multi-scale occupancy estimation and modelling using multiple detection methods. J Appl Ecol 45:1321–1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000) Evaluation the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Model 133:225–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell RA (1994) Effects of scale on habitat selection and foraging behavior of fishers in winter. J Mammal 75:349–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers LL (1987) Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northern Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 97:1–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson C, Huot J (2002) Spatial and temporal interactions between female American black bears in mixed forests of eastern Canada. Can J Zool 79:633–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh J, Estes JA, Paquet P, Ralls K, Boyd-Heger D, Miller BJ, Noss RF (1999) The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In: Soulé ME, Terborgh J (eds) Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Washington, pp 39–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecol 15:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson WL (2004) Sampling rare or elusive species: concepts, designs and techniques for estimating population parameters. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson EH, Sorenson ER (2000) Wetland, woodland, wildland: a guide to the natural communities of Vermont. The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hanover

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyre AJ, Tenhumberg B, Field SA, Niejalke D, Parris K, Possingham HP (2003) Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates. Ecol Appl 13:1790–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2005) County population data. http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/. Accessed 5 Aug 2005

  • White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R (2001) Strategies for carnivore conservation: lessons from contemporary extinctions. In: Gittleman JL, Funk SM, Macdonald D, Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates MD, Muzika RM (2006) Effect of forest structure and fragmentation on site occupancy of bat species in Missouri Ozark Forests. J Wildl Manag 70:1238–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank B. Davenport, D. MacKenzie, B. Mitchell, D. Paetkau, A. Royle, S. Wasser, S. Weigley, J. Weldon, and various field personnel and scat detection dogs for their contributions to this project. The Vermont Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, the University of Vermont, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Funding for this project was provided by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Northeastern States’ Research Cooperative, the Jon C. and Katherine L. Harvey Charitable Foundation, the Southern Lake Champlain Valley Office of the Nature Conservancy, Sweet Water Trust, the USDA Forest Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Finally, we thank Robert L. Schooley and two reviewers for their valuable comments on this manuscript. Mention of services used in this research does not confer endorsement by the U.S. federal government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. Long.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Long, R.A., Donovan, T.M., MacKay, P. et al. Predicting carnivore occurrence with noninvasive surveys and occupancy modeling. Landscape Ecol 26, 327–340 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9547-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9547-1

Keywords

Navigation