European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 377–384 | Cite as

The accuracy of scat identification in distribution surveys: American mink, Neovison vison, in the northern highlands of Scotland

  • Lauren A. Harrington
  • Andrew L. Harrington
  • Joelene Hughes
  • David Stirling
  • David W. Macdonald
Original Paper

Abstract

Distribution data for elusive species are often based on detection of field signs rather than of the animal itself. However, identifying field signs can be problematic. We present here the results of a survey for American mink, Neovison vison, in the northern highlands of Scotland to demonstrate the importance of verifying field sign identification. Three experienced surveyors located scats, which they identified as mink scats, at seven of 147 sites surveyed and “possible” mink scats at a further 50 sites. Mitochondrial DNA was successfully extracted from 45 of 75 (60%) scats, collected from 31 of the 57 “positive” sites; sequencing of amplified DNA fragments showed that none of these scats was actually of mink origin. We consider the implications of erroneous survey data and the potential waste of resources and misdirection of conservation/management actions. We discuss potential methods that may be useful to verify field sign identification, including the use of DNA analysis, and stress that verification is crucial to ensure rigorous and reliable survey data.

Keywords

DNA analysis Genetic identification Mustelids Neovison Sign surveys Scats 

References

  1. Birks JDS (2008) The polecat survey of Britain 2004–2006. A report on the polecat's distribution, status and conservation. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Birks J, Messenger J, Braithwaite T, Davison A, Brookes R, 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 in human-altered environments. Springer US, New York, pp 235–252Google Scholar
  3. Bonesi L, Macdonald DW (2004) Critical evaluation of sign surveys as a way to estimate the relative abundance of American mink (Mustela vison). J Zool 262:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bukinski J, McArthur C (2000) Observer error in counts of macropod scats. Wild Res 27:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham E, Bender LC, Eiceman GA, Pierce KM, Prasad S (2008) Use of volatile organic components in scat to identify canid species. J Wildl Manage 72:792–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craik JCA (1997) Long-term effects of North American mink Mustela vison on seabirds in western Scotland. Bird Study 44:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darling JA, Blum MJ (2007) DNA-based methods for monitoring invasive species: a review and prospectus. Biol Invas 9:751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 257:141–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunstone N (1993) The mink. T & AD Poyser Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernández GJ, Corley JC, Capurro AF (1997) Identification of cougar and jaguar feces through bile acid chromatography. J Wildl Manage 61:506–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser E, Glass D, Hogg S (2005) The distribution of water voles in Caithness. Caithness Biodiversity GroupGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia P, Ayres C, Mateos I (2009) Seasonal changes in American mink (Neovison vison) signs related to Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) presence. Mammalia 73:253–256Google Scholar
  13. Gibbs JP (2000) Monitoring populations. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology, controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, p 422Google Scholar
  14. Green R, Green J (1997) Otter survey of Scotland: 1991–1994. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, LondonGoogle 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 247:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrington LA (2007) The American mink, Mustela vison: its management and interactions with two native mustelids, the European polecat, M. putorius, and the Eurasian otter, Lutra lutra. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrington LA, Macdonald DW (2008) Spatial and temporal relationships between invasive American mink and native European polecats in the southern United Kingdom. J Mammal 89:991–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrington LA, Harrington AL, Macdonald DW (2008a) Estimating the relative abundance of American mink Mustela vison on lowland rivers: evaluation and comparison of two techniques. Eur J Wildl Res 54:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrington LA, Harrington AL, Macdonald DW (2008b) Distinguishing the tracks of mink Mustela vison and polecat M. putorius. Eur J Wildl Res 54:367–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janečka JE, Jackson R, Yuquang Z, Diqiang L, Munkhtsog B, Buckley-Beason V, Murphy WJ (2008) Population monitoring of snow leopards using noninvasive collection of scat samples: a pilot study. Anim Conserv 11:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jefferies DJ (2003) The water vole and mink survey of Britain 1996–1998 with a history of the long-term changes in the status of both species and their causes. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson MK, Belden RC, Aldred DR (1984) Differentiating mountain lion and bobcat scats. J Wildl Manage 48:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Kruuk H (2006) Otters. Ecology, behaviour and conservation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Long RA, Donovan TM, Mackay P, Zielinski WJ, Buzas JS (2007) Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores. J Wildl Manage 71:2007–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Macdonald DW, Harrington LA (2003) The American mink: the triumph and tragedy of adaptation out of context. NZ J Zool 30:421–441Google Scholar
  27. Major M, Johnson MK, Davis WS, Kellogg TF (1980) Identifying scats by recovery of bile acids. J Wildl Manage 44:290–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKelvey KS, Kienast JV, Aubry KB, Koehler GM, Maletzke BT, Squires JR, Lindquist EL, Loch S, Schwartz MK (2006) DNA analysis of hair and scat collected along snow tracks to document the presence of Canada lynx. Wildl Soc Bull 34:451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prugh LR, Ritland CE (2005) Molecular testing of observer identification of carnivore feces in the field. Wildl Soc Bull 33:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reed JE, Baker RJ, Ballard WB, Kelly BT (2004) Differentiating Mexican gray wolf and coyote scats using DNA analysis. Wildl Soc Bull 32:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reynolds JC, Short MJ, Leigh RJ (2004) Development of population control strategies for mink Mustela vison, using floating rafts as monitors and trap sites. Biol Conserv 120:533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. RSPB (2002) The population status of birds in the UK. Birds of conservation concern: 2002–2007. RSPB, Sandy, BedfordshireGoogle Scholar
  33. Sidorovich VE (1999) How to identify mustelid tracks. Small Carniv Conserv 20:22–27Google Scholar
  34. Smith DA, Ralls K, Hurt A, Adams B, Parker M, Davenport B, Smith MC, Maldonado JE (2003) Detection and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Anim Conserv 6:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strachan R (1995) Mammal detective. Whittet Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Strachan R (2007) National survey of otter Lutra lutra distribution in Scotland 2003–04. SNH Commissioned Report No. 211. SNH, InvernessGoogle Scholar
  37. Strachan C, Jefferies DJ, Baretto GR, Macdonald DW, Strachan R (1998) The rapid impact of resident American mink on water voles: case studies in lowland England. In: Dunstone N, Gorman ML (eds) Behaviour and ecology of Riparian mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wasser SK, Davenport B, Ramage ER, Hunt KE, Parker M, Clarke C, Stenhouse G (2004) Scat detection dogs in wildlife research and management: application to grizzly and black bears in the Yellowhead Ecosystem, Alberta, Canada. Can J Zool 82:475–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson DE, Reeder DM (eds) (2005) Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd edn. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  40. Yamaguchi N, Macdonald DW (2003) The burden of co-occupancy: intraspecific resource competition and spacing patterns in American mink, Mustela vison. J Mammal 84:1341–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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, California, USA. (available at www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/gtr-157)
  42. Zuercher GL, Gipson PS, Stewart GC (2003) Identification of carnivore feces by local peoples and molecular analyses. Wildl Soc Bull 31:961–970Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren A. Harrington
    • 1
  • Andrew L. Harrington
    • 1
  • Joelene Hughes
    • 1
  • David Stirling
    • 2
  • David W. Macdonald
    • 1
  1. 1.Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of HaematologyRoyal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations