European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 253–261 | Cite as

A non-invasive genetic method to identify the sympatric mustelids pine marten (Martes martes) and stone marten (Martes foina): preliminary distribution survey on the northern Iberian Peninsula

  • Aritz Ruiz-González
  • Jonathan Rubines
  • Oskar Berdión
  • Benjamín J. Gómez-Moliner
Original Paper

Abstract

The closely related mustelids European pine marten (Martes martes) and stone marten (Martes foina) sympatrically inhabit a large area of Europe. However, given our limited knowledge of their bioecological relationships, their extremely elusive behaviour and the fact that their faeces cannot be distinguished on the basis of morphology alone, it is very difficult to monitor their populations. In this study, we describe a reliable non-invasive polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method for distinguishing between M. martes and M. foina based on the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid extracted from faeces samples. The method was specifically designed to avoid possible interference from potential prey mammals and other sympatric carnivores. The procedure consists of PCR amplifying a mitochondrial D-loop region followed by digesting the resulting 276-bp-long amplicons with the restriction enzymes HaeIII and RsaI. To assess the efficiency of this technique, we conducted a preliminary field study across the potential sympatric distribution areas of both marten species in the northern Iberian Peninsula. Out of 359 faeces samples collected, we identified 80 as specimens from the stone marten and 235 from the pine marten. Unequivocal species identification was thus possible in 88% of the faeces samples collected. These findings reveal the combined use of non-invasive genetic sampling and GIS technology to be a reliable and cost-effective procedure for improving our knowledge of the spatial distributions of sympatric marten species. This protocol could also be used to identify and improve information gaps, to develop effective research and management programmes and in population and landscape genetics studies of marten species.

Keywords

Non-invasive genetic sampling Genetic species identification Faecal DNA 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Biodiversity Section, Dept. of Territorial Planning and Environment of the Basque Government. A. Ruiz-González holds a Ph.D. fellowship awarded by the Dept. of Education Universities and Research (Basque Government). The authors wish to thank the following persons and institutions for supplying tissue and faecal samples: the technical staff of the National Parks of Ordesa and Monte Perdido (E. Villagrasa), Picos de Europa (A. Mora) and Aigüestortes i Estany de Saint Mauricy (J. Canut); J.Herr (Department of Biology and Environmental Science, University of Sussex.), Dr. A. Abramov (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences), A. Fernandez (Doñana Biological Station-University of Oviedo), Dr. I. Barja and his research group (UAM), F. López-Giraldez (DNA and Tissue Collection, Pompeu Fabra University), P. Aymerich (PN Alt Pirineu), J.M. Fernandez (IAN), G. Belamendia (CEA–MCN Álava), P. Lizarraga and L. Lorza (CRF Martioda-DFA), J. Pinedo (DFA), I. Amigo (DFV), H. Aguirre, P. Pérez and G. Dominguez. We are also indebted to Mikel Gurrutxaga (Dept. of Natural Environment and Geographical Information System, IKT) for his help with the GIS treatment of data and preparing maps.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Bikandi J, San Millán R, Rementeria A, Garaizar J (2004) In silico. analysis of complete bacterial genomes: PCR, AFLP-PCR, and endonuclease restriction. Bioinformatics 20:798–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birks JDS, Messenger JE, Braithwaite TC, Davison A, Brookes RC, Strachan C (2004) Are scat surveys a reliable method for assessing distribution and population status of pine martens? In: Harrison DJ, Fuller AK, Proulx G (eds) Martens and fishers (Martes) in human-altered environments: an international perspective. Springer, New York, pp 235–252Google Scholar
  3. Broquet T, Ménard N, Petit E (2006) Noninvasive population genetics: a review of sample source, diet, fragment length and microsatellite motif effects on amplification success and genotyping error rates. Conserv Genet 8:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broquet T, Petit E (2004) Quantifying genotyping errors in noninvasive population genetics. Mol Ecol 13:3601–3608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colli L, Cannas R, Deiana AM, Gandolfi G, Tagliavini J (2005) Identification of mustelids (Carnivora: Mustelidae) by mitochondrial DNA markers. Mamm Biol 6:384–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalén L, Götherström A, Angerbjörn A (2004) Identifying species from pieces of faeces. Conserv Genet 5:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davison A, Birks JDS, Brookes RC, Braithwaite TC, Messenger JE (2002) On the origin of faeces: morphological versus molecular methods for surveying rare carnivores from their scats. J Zool (Lond) 257:141–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davison A, Birks JDS, Brookes RC, Messenger JE, Griffiths HI (2001) Mitochondrial phylogeography and population history of pine martens Martes martes compared with polecats Mustela putorius. Mol Ecol 10:2341–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davison A, Birks JDS, Griffiths HI, Kitchener AC, Bigginns D, Butlin RK (1999) Hybridization and the phylogenetic relationships between polecats and domestic ferrets in Britain. Biol Conserv 87:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delibes M (1983) Interspecific competition and the habitat of the stone marten Martes foina (Erxleben, 1777) in Europe. Acta Zool Fenn 174:229–231Google Scholar
  11. Domingo-Roura X (2002) Genetic distinction of marten species by fixation of a microsatellite region. J Mammal 83:907–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Gómez-Moliner BJ, Cabria MT, Rubines J, Garin I, Madeira MJ, Elajalde A, Aihartza J, Fournier P, Palazón S (2004) PCR-RFLP identification of mustelid species: European mink (Mustela lutereola), American mink (Mustela vison) and polecat (Mustela putorius) by analysis of excremental DNA. J Zool (Lond) 262:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grakov NN (1994) Kidus-a hybrid of the sable and the pine marten. Lutreola 1:1–4Google Scholar
  15. Hansen MM, Jacobsen L (1999) Identification of mustelid species: otter (Lutra lutra), American mink (Mustela vison) and polecat (Mustela putorius), by analysis of DNA from faecal samples. J Zool (Lond) 247:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helldin JO (1998) Pine marten (Martes martes) population limitation. Dissertation, Swedish University, Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, SweedenGoogle Scholar
  17. Höss M, Kohn M, Pääbo S, Knauer F, Scgroder W (1992) Excremental analysis by PCR. Nature 359:199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalz B, Jewgenow K, Fickel J (2006) Structure of an otter (Lutra lutra) population in Germany—results of DNA and hormone analyses from faecal samples. Mamm Biol 71:321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kocher TD, Thomas WK, Meyer A, Edwards SV, Pääbo S, Villablanca FX, Wilson AC (1989) Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:6196–6200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohn MH, Wayne RK (1997) Facts from feces revisited. TREE 12:223–227Google Scholar
  21. Lynch ÁB, Brown MJF, Rochford JM (2006) Fur snagging as a method of evaluating the presence and abundance of a small carnivore, the pine marten (Martes martes). J Zool (Lond) 270:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marchesi P, Lachat N, Lienhard R, Debieve PH, Mermod C (1989) Comparaison des régimes alimentaires de la fuine (Martes foina Erxl) et de la martre (Martes martes L) dans une région du Jura suisse. Rev Suisse Zool 96:127–146Google Scholar
  23. Messenger JE, Birks JDS (2000) Monitoring the very rare pine marten populations in England and Wales. In: Griffiths HI (ed) Mustelids in a modern world: management and conservation aspects of small carnivore: human interactions. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 153–162Google Scholar
  24. Miller CR, Joyce P, Waits LP (2002) Asessing allelic dropout and genotype reliability using maximum likelihood. Genetics 160:357–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mowat G, Paetkau D (2002) Estimating marten Martes americana population size using hair capture and genetic tagging. Wildl Biol 8:201–209Google Scholar
  26. Murakami T (2002) Species identification of mustelids by comparing partial sequences on mitochondrial DNA from fecal samples. J Vet Med Sci 64:321–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Piggott MP, Taylor AC (2003) Remote collection of animal DNA and its applications in conservation management and understanding the population biology of rare and cryptic species. Wildl Res 30:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pilot M, Gralak B, Goszczyński J, Posłuszny M (2006) A method of genetic identification of pine marten (Martes martes) and stone marten (Martes foina) and its application to faecal samples. J Zool (Lond) 271:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Proulx G, Aubry KB, Birks J, Buskirk SW, Fortin C, Frost HC, Krohn WB, Mayo L, Monakhov V, Payer D, Saeki M, Santos-Reis M, Weir R, Zielinski WJ (2004) World distribution and status of the genus Martes in 2000. In: Harrison DJ, Fuller AK, Proulx G (eds) Martens and fishers (Martes) in human-altered environments: an international perspective. Springer, New York, pp 21–76Google Scholar
  30. Randi E, Lucchini V (2002) Detecting rare introgression of domestic dog genes into wild wolf (Canis lupus) populations by Bayesian admixture analyses of microsatellite variation. Conserv Genet 3:31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riddle AE, Pilgrim KL, Mills LS, McKelvey KS, Ruggiero LF (2003) Identification of mustelids using mitochondrial DNA and non-invasive sampling. Conserv Genet 4:241–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Russell AJM, Storch I (2004) Summer food of sympatric red fox and pine marten in the German Alps. Eur J Wildl Res 50:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz MK, Tallmon DA, Luikart G (1998) Review of DNA based census and effective population size estimators. Anim Conserv 1:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B, Questiau S, Manceau V, Escaravage N, Waits LP, Bouvet J (1996) Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 24:3189–3194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taberlet P, Waits LP, Luikart G (1999) Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. TREE 14:323–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tamura K (2000) On the estimation of the rate of nucleotide substitution for the control region of human mitochondrial DNA. Gene 259:189–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The ClustalX windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 24:4876–4882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vercillo F, Lucentini L, Mucci N, Ragni B, Randi E, Panara F (2004) A simple and rapid PCR-RFLP method to distinguishing Martes martes and Martes foina. Conserv Genet 5:869–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zielinski WJ, Kucera TE (1995) American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. General Technical Report PSW-157. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aritz Ruiz-González
    • 1
  • Jonathan Rubines
    • 1
  • Oskar Berdión
    • 1
  • Benjamín J. Gómez-Moliner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Animal Cell Biology, Zoology Laboratory, Facultad de FarmaciaUniversidad del País Vasco (UPV-EHU)VitoriaSpain

Personalised recommendations