Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 1213–1230 | Cite as

Surveying carnivores at large spatial scales: a comparison of four broad-applied methods

  • José Miguel Barea-Azcón
  • Emilio Virgós
  • Elena Ballesteros-Duperón
  • Marcos Moleón
  • Manuel Chirosa
Original Paper

Abstract

Reliable methods to estimate species richness are very important to managers and conservationists because they provide key data to make the right decisions in conservation programmes. In the case of carnivore mammals, traditional methods, such as direct count censuses, are not useful since these animals are usually scarce, elusive and nocturnal. Difficulties in carnivore sampling are compounded when monitoring programmes are developed at large spatial scales, where high economic costs and field efforts are necessary to achieve reliable richness or abundance estimates. These problems have highlighted the need to find more effective carnivore survey methods, especially in regions with high rates of landscape change, such as the Mediterranean basin. The present study, performed in a typical Mediterranean area, was the first in Europe to test simultaneously the relative efficiencies of four broad-applied sampling methods to detect carnivore species at large spatial scales. Sign surveys based on scat detection, scent stations, camera-trapping and live-trapping were investigated. We compared efficiencies using biological parameters and by considering both the logistic and economic costs of each method. Overall, scent stations and sign surveys were the most efficient methods both in economic and logistic terms. In addition, the use of scent stations may be necessary to detect species rarely detected by scats. Detailed and extensive training programmes for conducting sign surveys and scent stations may overcome perceived problems thus enhancing the widespread use of both methods. Our results are applicable not only to other Mediterranean areas, but also to other habitats and regions of the world. More research into the suitability of these and other methods in relation to different landscapes, seasons and species is required.

Keywords

Carnivore conservation Economic costs Mediterranean region Large-scale monitoring Relative abundance Species richness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to José M. Gil-Sánchez, Manuel Otero, Rogelio López, Francisco Martín, José F. Sánchez-Clemot and Juan Bellido for their assistance during the field work. Miguel Á. Simón, Ignacio Maldonado, Rafael Cadenas and Ramón Suárez for their logistical assistance. We also thank the people of the Delegación Provincia de Granada of the Consejería de Medio Ambiente (Junta de Andalucía), Egmasa (Empresa de Gestión Medio Ambiental. Consejería de Medio Ambiente. Junta de Andalucía) and the Endangered Species Recovery Centre “El Blanqueo”. We thank Prof. Peter Jeffries, University of Kent, UK, for improving the English editing of this manuscript. We also thank the useful comments and improvements of an anonymous referee. This work has been supported by the project “Carnivore mammals in the Granada province: distribution, status and management”, conducted by the Consejería de Medio Ambiente (Junta de Andalucía).

References

  1. Andelt WF, Andelt SH (1984) Diet bias in scat deposition-rate surveys of coyote density. Wildlife Soc Bull 12:74–77Google Scholar
  2. Baker PJ, Harris S, Robertson CPJ, Saunders G, White PCL (2001) Differences in the capture rate of cage-trapped red foxes Vulpes vulpes and an evaluation of rabies control measures in Britain. J Appl Ecol 38:823–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker PJ, Harris S, Webbon CC (2002) Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers. Nature 419:34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barea-Azcón JM, Ballesteros-Duperón E, Moleón M, Gil-Sánchez JM, Virgós E, Chirosa M (2005) Distribución de los mamíferos carnívoros en la provincia de Granada. Acta Granat 3:43–53Google Scholar
  5. Bekoff M, Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and the study of carnivores: doing science while respecting animals. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behaviour, ecology and evolution, vol 2. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, London, pp 15–45Google Scholar
  6. Beltrán JF, Delibes M, Rau JR (1991) Methods of censusing red fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations. Hystrix 3:199–214Google Scholar
  7. Birks J, Kitchener AC (1999) The distribution and status of the Polecat Mustela putorius in Britain in the 1990s. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 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) Marten and fishers in human-altered environments. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 235–252Google Scholar
  9. Brand CJ, Keith LB (1979) Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J Wildlife Manage 43:827–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bull EL, Holthausen RS, Bright LR (1992) Comparison of three techniques to monitor marten. Wildlife Soc Bull 20:406–410Google Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Laake JL (1980) Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monogr 72:1–202Google Scholar
  12. Caughley G, Sinclair ARE (1994) Wildlife ecology and management. Blackwell Science Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavallini P (1994) Faeces count as an index of fox abundance. Acta Theriol 39:417–424Google Scholar
  14. Clevenger AP (1993) Sign surveys as an important tool in carnivore conservation research and management programmes. In: Seminar on the management of small populations of threatened mammals. Council of Europe, Sofia, pp 44–54Google Scholar
  15. Conner MC, Labisky RF, Progulske DR (1983) Scent station indices as measures of population abundance for bobcats, racoons, grey foxes and opossums. Wildlife Soc Bull 11:146–152Google Scholar
  16. Corbett LK (1979) Feeding ecology and social organization of wildcats (Felis silvestris) and domestics cats (Felis catus) in Scotland. PhD. Thesis, University of AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  17. Cresswell P, Harris S, Bunce RGH, Jefferies D (1989) The badger, Meles meles in Britain: present status and future population changes. Biol J Linn Soc 38:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davison A, Birks J, Brookes RC, Braithwaite AC, 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
  19. Díaz M, Campos P, Pulido FJ (1997) The Spanish dehesas: a diversity in land-use and wildlife. In: Pain DJ, Pienkowski MW (eds) Farming and birds in Europe. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 178–209Google Scholar
  20. Edwards PJ, May RM, Webb NR (1994) Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. British Ecological Society. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Foresman KR, Pearson DE (1998) Comparison of proposed survey procedures for detection of forest carnivores. J Wildlife Manage 62:1217–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gese EM (2001) Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. In: Gittleman JL, Funk SM, Macdonald DW, Wayne KR (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp 372–396Google Scholar
  23. Ginsberg JR, Macdonald DW (1990) Foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: an action plan for the conservation of canids. IUCN, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Gros PM, Kelly MJ, Caro TM (1996) Estimating carnivore densities for conservation purposes: indirect methods compared to baseline demographic data. Oikos 77:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guzmán JN, García FJ, Garrote G, Pérez de Ayala R, Iglesias MC (2003) Censo diagnostico de las poblaciones de lince ibérico en España 2000–2003. Boletín de Programas de Conservación de Especies Amenazadas y del Inventario de Biodiversidad 5. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza, MadridGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris S, Saunders G (1993) The control of canid populations. Symp Zool Soc Lond 65:441–464Google Scholar
  27. Heydon MJ, Reynolds JC, Short MJ (2000) Variation in abundance of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) between three regions of rural Britain, in relation to landscape and other variables. J Zool Lond 251:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutchings MR, Service KM, Harris S (2002) Is population density correlated with faecal and urine scent marking in European badgers (Meles meles) in the UK? Mammal Biol 67:286–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. de Juana E (2004) Cambios en el estado de conservación de las aves en España, años 1954 a 2004. Ardeola 51:19–50Google Scholar
  30. Karanth KU, Nichols JD (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kruuk H, Conroy JWH, Glimmerveen U, Ouwerkerk EJ (1986) The use of spraints to survey populations of otters Lutra lutra. Biol Conserv 35:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linhart SB, Knowlton FF (1975) Determining the relative abundance of coyotes by scent station lines. Wildlife Soc Bull 3:119–124Google Scholar
  33. Lozano J, Virgós E, Malo AF, López-Huertas D, Casanovas JG (2003) Importance of scrub-pastureland mosaics for wild-living cats occurrence in a Mediterranean area: implications for the conservation of the wildcat (Felis silvestris). Biodivers Conserv 12:921–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mace RD, Minta SC, Manley TL, Aune KA (1994) Estimating grizzly bear population size using camera sightings. Wildlife Soc Bull 22:74–83Google Scholar
  35. Macdonald DW, Barrett P (1993) Mammals of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. McDonald RA, Harris S (1999) The use of trapping records to monitor populations of stoats Mustela erminea and weasels Mustela nivalis: the importance of trapping effort. J Appl Ecol 36:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Macdonald DW, Mace G, Rushton S (1998) Proposals for future monitoring of British mammals. Department of the Environment, Transport and The Regions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Messenger JE, Birks J, Jefferies DJ (2000) Monitoring the very rare: pine marten populations. In: Griffiths HI (ed) Mustelids in a modern world. Management and conservation aspects of small carnivore human interactions. Backhuys, Leiden, Netherlands, pp 217–230Google Scholar
  39. Moore N, Whiterow A, Kelly P, Garthwaite D, Bishop J, Langton S, Cheeseman C (1999) Survey of badger Meles meles damage to agriculture in England and Wales. J Appl Ecol 36:974–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Norton PM (1990) How many leopards? A criticism of Martin and de Meulenaer’s population estimates for Africa. S Afr J Sci 86:218–220Google Scholar
  41. Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monogr 62:1–135Google Scholar
  42. Pigozzi G (1990) Latrine use and the function of territoriality in the European badger, Meles meles, in a Mediterranean coastal area. Anim Behav 39:1000–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pullianen E (1981) A transect survey of small land carnivores and red fox populations on a subartic fell in Finnish forest Lapland over 13 winters. Ann Zool Fenn 18:270–278Google Scholar
  44. Revilla E, Palomares F (2002) Spatial organization, group living and ecological correlates in low-density populations of Eurasian badgers, Meles meles. J Anim Ecol 71:497–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rexstad E, Burnham KP (1991) User’s guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Abundance estimation of closed animal populations. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds JC, Tapper SC (1996) Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mammal Rev 26:127–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roughton RD, Sweeny MW (1982) Refinements in scent-station methodology for assessing trends in carnivore populations. J Wildlife Manage 46:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadlier LMJ, Webbon CC, Baker PJ, Harris S (2004) Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer? Mammal Rev 34:75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sargeant GA, Johnson DH, Berg WE (1998) Interpreting carnivore scent-station surveys. J Wildlife Manage 62:1235–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saunders G, McIlroy J, Berghout M, Kay B, Gifford E, Perry R, van de Ven R (1995) The effects of induced sterility on the territorial behaviour and survival of foxes. J Appl Ecol 39(1):56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sharp A, Norton M, Marks A, Holmes K (2001) An evaluation of two indices of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) abundance in an arid environment. Wildlife Res 28:419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Silveira L, Jácomo ATA, Alexandre J, Diniz-Filho F (2003) Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biol Conserv 114:351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smallwood KS, Fitzhugh EL (1995) A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biol Conserv 71:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith WP, Borden DL, Endres KM (1994) Scent station visits as an index to abundance of raccons – an experimental manipulation. J Mammal 75:637–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Staender PE (1998) Spoor counts as indices of large carnivore populations: the relationship between spoor frequency, sampling effort and true density. J Appl Ecol 35:378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tapper S (1992) Game heritage: an ecological review from shooting and gamekeeping records. The Game Conservancy Trust, FordingbridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Toms MP, Siriwardena GP, Greenwood JJD (1999) Developing a mammal monitoring programme for the UK. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, NorfolkGoogle Scholar
  58. Torre I (2003) Distribution, population dynamics and habitat selection of small mammals in Mediterranean environments: the role of climate, vegetation structure and predation risk. PhD. Thesis, Universidad de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  59. Travaini A, Laffite R, Delibes M (1996) Determining the relative abundance of European red foxes by scent station methodology. Wildlife Soc Bull 24:500–504Google Scholar
  60. Travaini A, Zapata SC, Zoratti C, Soria G, Escobar F, Aguilera G, Collavino P (2003) Diseño de un programa de seguimiento de poblaciones de cánidos silvestres en ambientes esteparios de la Patagonia, Argentina. Acta Zool Mex 90:1–14Google Scholar
  61. Tuyttens FAM, Macdonald DW, Swait S, Cheeseman CL (1999) Estimating population size of Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) using mark-recapture and mark-resight data. J Mammal 80:950–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tuyttens FAM, Long B, Fawcett T, Skinner A, Brown JA, Cheeseman CL, Roddam AW, Macdonald DW (2001) Estimating group size and population density of Eurasian badgers Meles meles by quantifying latrine use. J Appl Ecol 38:1114–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Virgós E (2001) Relative value of riparian woodlands in landscapes with different forest cover for the medium-sized Iberian carnivores. Biodivers Conserv 10:1039–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Virgós E, Travaini A (2005) Relationship between small game hunting and carnivore diversity in central Spain. Biodivers Conserv 14:3475–3486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Virgós E, Recio MR, Cortés Y (2000) Stone Marten (Martes foina) use of different landscape types in the mountains of central Spain. Z Säugetierk 65:375–379Google Scholar
  66. Walsh PD, White LJT (1999) What will take to monitor forest elephant populations? Conserv Biol 13:1194–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Webbon C, Baker PJ, Harris S (2004) Faecal counting for monitoring changes in red fox numbers in rural Britain. J Appl Ecol 41:768–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ (2001) A review of the methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildlife Res 28:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson G, Harris S, McLaren G (1997) Changes in the British badger population 1988 to 1997. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. 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, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  71. Zielinski WJ, Stauffer HB (1996) Monitoring Martes populations in California: survey design and power analysis. Ecol Appl 6:1254–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Miguel Barea-Azcón
    • 1
  • Emilio Virgós
    • 2
  • Elena Ballesteros-Duperón
    • 1
  • Marcos Moleón
    • 1
    • 3
  • Manuel Chirosa
    • 4
  1. 1.Empresa de Gestión Medio AmbientalConsejería de Medio AmbienteGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Matemáticas, Física Aplicada y Ciencias de la Naturaleza, Área de Biodiversidad y ConservaciónEscuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y TecnologíaMóstoles, MadridSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Biología Animal y Ecología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  4. 4.Centro de Investigación y Formación Agraria (CIFA)GranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations