Conservation Genetics

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 1219–1224

The impact of time and field conditions on brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA amplification

  • Melanie A. Murphy
  • Katherine C. Kendall
  • Andrew Robinson
  • Lisette P. Waits
Short Communications


To establish longevity of faecal DNA samples under varying summer field conditions, we collected 53 faeces from captive brown bears (Ursus arctos) on a restricted vegetation diet. Each faeces was divided, and one half was placed on a warm, dry field site while the other half was placed on a cool, wet field site on Moscow Mountain, Idaho, USA. Temperature, relative humidity, and dew point data were collected on each site, and faeces were sampled for DNA extraction at <1, 3, 6, 14, 30, 45, and 60 days. Faecal DNA sample viability was assessed by attempting PCR amplification of a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) locus (∼150 bp) and a nuclear DNA (nDNA) microsatellite locus (180–200 bp). Time in the field, temperature, and dew point impacted mtDNA and nDNA amplification success with the greatest drop in success rates occurring between 1 and 3 days. In addition, genotyping errors significantly increased over time at both field sites. Based on these results, we recommend collecting samples at frequent transect intervals and focusing sampling efforts during drier portions of the year when possible.


DNA preservation Faecal DNA Noninvasive genetic sampling Ursus arctos 


  1. Bellemain E, Swenson JE, Tallmon D, Brunberg S et al (2005) Estimating population size from hunter-collected feces: four methods for brown bears. Conserv Biol 19:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2004) Improved non-invasive genotyping method: application to brown bear (Ursus arctos) faeces. Mol Ecol Notes 4:519–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dallas JF, Carss DN, Marshall F, Koepfli K-P et al (2000) Sex identification of the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra by PCR typing of spraints. Conserv Gen 1:181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farrell LE, Roman J, Sunquist ME (2000) Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores identified by molecular analysis of scats. Mol Ecol 9:1583–1590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fernando PJ, Pfrender ME, Encalada SE, Lande R (2000) Mitochondrial DNA variation, phylogeography and population structure of the Asian elephant. Heredity 84: 362–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flagstad Ø, Roed K, Stacy JE, Jakobsen KS (1999) Reliable noninvasive genotyping based on excremental PCR of nuclear DNA purified with a magnetic bead protocol. Mol Ecol 8:879–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frantz AC, Pope LC, Carpenter PJ, Roper TJ et al (2003) Reliable microsatellite genotyping of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) using faecal DNA. Mol Ecol 12:1649–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goossens B, Chikhi L, Utami SS, Ruiter Jd et al (2000) A multi-samples, multi-extracts approach for microsatellite analysis of faecal samples in an arboreal ape. Conserv Gen 1:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lucchini V, Fabbri E, Marucco F, Ricci S et al (2002) Noninvasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the western Italian Alps. Mol Ecol 11:857–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maudet C, Luikart G, Dubray D, Von Hardenberg A, Taberlet P (2004) Low genotyping error rates in ungulate feces sampled in winter. Mol Ecol Notes 4:772–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller C, Joyce P, Waits L (2002) Assessing allelic dropout and genotype reliability using maximum likelihood. Genetics 160:357–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC (2000) Quantitative evaluation of fecal drying methods for brown bear DNA analysis. Wildl Soc Bull 28:951–957Google Scholar
  13. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC (2003) The influence of diet on faecal DNA amplification and sex identification in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Mol Ecol 12:2261–2265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC, Wasser SK et al (2002) An evaluation of long-term preservation methods for brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA samples. Conserv Gen 3:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nsubuga AM, Robbins MM, Roeder AD, Morin PA et al (2004) Factors affecting the amount of genomic DNA extracted form ape faeces and the identification of an improved sample storage method. Mol Ecol 13:2089–2094PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paetkau D, Calvert A, Stirling J, Strobeck C (1995) Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol Ecol 4:347–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Piggott MP (2004) Effect of sample age and season of collection on the reliability of microsatellite genotyping of faecal DNA. Wildl Res 31:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Piggott MP, Bellemain E, Taberlet P, Taylor AC (2004) A multiplex pre-amplification method that significantly improves microsatellite amplification and error rates for faecal DNA in limiting conditions. Conserv Gen 5:417–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Piggott MP, Taylor AC (2003) Extensive evaluation of faecal preservation and DNA extraction methods in Australian native and introduced species. Aust J Zool 51:341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reed Z, Tollit DJ, Thompson PM, Amos W (1997) Molecular scatology: the use of molecular genetic analysis to assign species, sex and individual identity to seal faeces. Mol Ecol 6:225–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SAS Institute Inc. (1999) SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 8, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  22. Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B, Questiau S, et al (1996) Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 24:3189–3194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taberlet P, Waits LP, Luikart G (1999) Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. Trends Ecol Evol 14:323–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wasser SK, Houston CS, Koehiler GM, Cadd GG et al (1997) Techniques for applications of faecal DNA methods to field studies of Ursids. Mol Ecol 6:1091–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wehausen JD, Ramey RR II, Epps CW (2004) Experiments in DNA extraction and PCR amplification from Bighorn Sheep feces: the importance of DNA extraction method. J Heredity 95:503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie A. Murphy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katherine C. Kendall
    • 3
  • Andrew Robinson
    • 4
    • 5
  • Lisette P. Waits
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Fish and Wildlife ResourcesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  3. 3.USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science CenterGlacier Field StationWest GlacierUSA
  4. 4.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  5. 5.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of MelbourneVICAustralia

Personalised recommendations