Acta Theriologica

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 165–172 | Cite as

Estimation of population density of European pine marten in central Italy using camera trapping

  • Emiliano Manzo
  • Paola Bartolommei
  • J. Marcus Rowcliffe
  • Roberto Cozzolino
Original Paper

Abstract

Evaluating presence and abundance of small carnivores is essential for their conservation. In Italy, there is scarce information on European pine marten distribution, and no data are published on its abundance. Camera traps have been widely used to estimate population density applying capture–recapture models for species in which individual recognition is possible. Here we estimate the abundance of European pine martens in central Italy using camera trapping and a model that allows the estimation of population density without the need for individual recognition Rowcliffe et al. (Anim Conserv 11:185–186, 2008). Camera trapping was also used to evaluate habitat use patterns by martens. Fifteen camera traps were deployed in 90 placements for 15 days each, for a total of 1,334 camera days. Pine martens were captured in 24% of camera trap placements with a mean trap success rate of 0.33 photographs per camera placement. Estimated pine marten population density in the study area was 0.34 individuals km−2. Marten trap rate was not strongly associated with any habitat type, although there were trends towards lower probability of records at locations with high coverage of cultivated fields and higher probability of records at locations with high coverage of human-made woodland. The results suggest that pine martens in this area are not confined to wooded habitat. To our knowledge, this study is the first application of the Rowcliffe et al. (Anim Conserv 11:185–186, 2008) method to a wild carnivore population and, furthermore, the first estimation of population density of pine martens in Italy.

Keywords

Abundance estimation Camera traps Density estimation Martes martes Habitat use 

References

  1. Balestrieri A, Remonti L, Ruiz-González A, Gómez-Moliner BJ, Vergara M, Prigioni C (2010) Range expansion of the pine marten (Martes martes) in an agricultural landscape matrix (NW Italy). Mamm Biol 75:412–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartolommei P, Bonesi L, Checchi G, Guj I, Monaco A, Mortelliti A, Rossi F, Tarquini L, Tomei A (2008) Il Visone americano (Neovison vison) nel Lazio: studio pilota sui metodi di campionamento. In: Book of abstract of III Workshop Cantieri della Biodiversità. Siena, Italy, pp 35Google Scholar
  3. Brainerd SM, Rolstad J (2002) Habitat selection by Eurasian pine martens Martes martes in managed forests of Southern boreal Scandinavia. Wildl Biol 8:289–297Google Scholar
  4. Buskirk SW (1992) Conserving circumboreal forests for martens and fishers. Conserv Biol 6:318–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbone C, Christie S, Coulson T, Franklin N, Ginsberg JR, Griffiths M, Holden J, Kawanishi K, Kinnaird MF, Laidlaw R, Lynam A, Macdonald DW, Martyr D, McDougal C, Nath L, Obrien T, Seidensticker J, Smith DJL, Sunquist M, Tilson R, Wan Shahruddin WN (2001) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Anim Conserv 4:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clevenger A (1993) Pine marten comparative feeding ecology in an island and mainland population of Spain. Z Saugetierk 58:212–224Google Scholar
  7. Cutler TL, Swann DE (1999) Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildl Soc Bull 27:571–581Google Scholar
  8. D.R.E.Am. s.c. (1993) Piano di gestione dei complessi forestali regionali “La Selva” e “Le Carline”. Report for the Radicondoli Municipality, Siena, Italy, pp 15–17Google Scholar
  9. De Marinis AM, Massetti M (1993) Pine marten Martes martes on the island of Elba. Small Carniv Conserv IUCN 8:13Google Scholar
  10. DeLaune MG (2003) XTools ArcView Extension (Version 15/09/2003). http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=11526. Accessed 3 June 2009
  11. Delibes M (1983) Interspecific competition and the habitat of the stone marten Martes foina (Erxleben 1777). Eur Acta Zool Fenn 174:229–231Google Scholar
  12. R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
  13. Di Bitetti MS, Paviolo A, De Angelo C (2006) Density, habitat use and activity patterns of ocelots Leopardus pardalis in the Atlantic forest of Misiones, Argentina. J Zool 270:153–163Google Scholar
  14. Genovesi P, De Marinis AM (2003) Martes martes. In: Boitani L, Lovari S, Vigna Taglianti A (eds) Fauna d'Italia Vol. XXXVIII, Mammalia III, Carnivora-Artiodactyla. Calderini, Bologna, pp 104–113Google Scholar
  15. Gompper ME, Kays RW, Ray JC, LaPoint SD, Bogan DA, Cryan JA (2006) A comparison of non-invasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in Northeastern North America. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1142–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. González-Esteban J, Villate I, Irizar I (2004) Assessing camera traps for surveying the European mink, Mustela lutreola (Linnaeus, 1761), distribution. Eur J Wildl Res 50:33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henschel P, Ray J (2003) Leopards in African rainforests: survey and monitoring techniques. WCS Global Carnivore Program. Wildl Conserv Soc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (2000) Animal movement extension to Arcview. ver. 2.0. Alaska Science Center—Biological Science Office, US Geological Survey, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson RM, Roe JD, Wangchuk R, Hunter DO (2006) Estimating snow leopard abundance using photographic identification and capture-recapture techniques. Wildl Soc Bull 34:772–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karanth KU, Nichols JD (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karanth KU, Nichols JD (2002) Monitoring tigers and their prey: a manual for researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for wildlife studies, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly MJ, Holub EL (2008) Camera trapping of carnivores: trap success among camera types and across species, and habitat selection by species, on Salt Pond Mountain, Giles County, Virginia. Northeast Nat 15:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindström ER, Brainerd SM, Helldin JO, Overskaug K (1995) Pine marten–red fox interactions: a case of intraguild predation? Ann Zool Fenn 32:123–130Google Scholar
  24. Manzo E, Bartolommei P, Cozzolino R, Gentile G, Magrini C (2008) Activity patterns of the Pine marten (Martes martes) in a Mediterranean woodland: evaluation of preliminary data. In: Book of Abstract of 26th Mustelid Colloquium. Budapest, Hungary, pp 43Google Scholar
  25. Marchesi P (1989) Écologie et comportemant de la martre (Martes martes L.) dans le Jura Suisse. PhD thesis, Université de Neuchâtel. NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  26. Natali C, Banchi E, Ciofi C, Manzo E, Bartolommei P, Cozzolino R (2010) Characterization of 13 polymorphic microsatellite loci in the European pine marten Martes martes. Conserv Genet Resour 2:397–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O'Brien TG, Kinnaird MF, Wibisono HT (2003) Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim Conserv 6:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pereboom V, Mergey M, Villerette N, Helder R, Gerard JF, Lode T (2008) Movement patterns, habitat selection, and corridor use of a typical woodland-dweller species, the European pine marten (Martes martes), in fragmented landscape. Can J Zool 86:983–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pittiglio C (1996) Analisi comparativa di uso e selezione dell'habitat della faina e della martora in condizioni di simpatria. Master thesis, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, RomeGoogle Scholar
  30. Powell RA (2001) Weasel and skunk families. In: Macdonald D (ed) The new encyclopaedia of mammals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 106–107Google Scholar
  31. Powell RA, Zielinski WJ (1983) Competition and coexistence in mustelid communities. Acta Zool Fenn 174:223–227Google Scholar
  32. Proulx G, Aubry K, Birks J, Buskirk S, Fortin C, Frost H, Krohn W, Mayo L, Monakhov V, Payer D, Saeki M, Santos-Reis M, Weir R, Zielinski W (2005) 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 22–76Google Scholar
  33. Rivas-Martinez S, Rivas-Saenz S (1996–2009) Worldwide Bioclimatic Classification System. Phytosociological Research Center, Spain. http://www.globalbioclimatics.org. Accessed 25 May 2011
  34. Rodgers AR, Carr AP (2002) Home range extension (HRE) for ArcView GIS. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay. http://www.blueskytelemetry.co.uk/downloads.asp. Accessed 1 Feb 2009
  35. Rovero F, Marshall AR (2009) Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. J Appl Ecol 46:1011–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C (2008) Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Anim Conserv 11:185–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowcliffe JM, Field J, Turvey ST, Carbone C (2008) Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J Appl Ecol 45:1228–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silveira L, Jacomo ATA, Diniz-Filho JAF (2003) Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biol Conserv 114:351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Storch I, Lindström ER, de Jounge J (1990) Diet and habitat selection of the pine marten in relation to competition with the red fox. Acta Theriol 35:311–320Google Scholar
  40. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Tobler MW, Carrillo-Percastegui SE, Leite Pitman R, Mares R, Powell G (2008) Further notes on the analysis of mammal inventory data collected with camera traps. Anim Conserv 11:187–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trolle M, Kéry M (2003) Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. J Mammal 84:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Varma S, Pittet A, Jamadagni HS (2006) Experimenting usage of camera-traps for population dynamics study of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus in Southern India. Curr Sci (Bangalore) 91:324–331Google Scholar
  44. Wallace RB, Gomez H, Ayala G, Espinoza F (2003) Camera trapping for jaguar (Panthera onca) in the Tuichi Valley. J Neotr Mammal (Bolivia) 10:133–139Google Scholar
  45. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analisys and management of animal populations. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Zalewski A (2000) Factors affecting the duration of activity by pine martens (Martes martes) in the Białowieza National Park, Poland. J Zool 251:439–447Google Scholar
  47. Zalewski A (2001) Seasonal and sexual variation in diel activity rhythms of pine marten Martes martes in the Białowieza National Park (Poland). Acta Theriol 46:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zalewski A, Jedrzejewski W (2006) Spatial organisation and dynamics of the pine marten Martes martes population in Białowieza Forest compared with other European woodlands. Ecography 29:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zalewski A, Jedrzejewski W, Jedrzejewska B (2004) Mobility and home range use by pine martens (Martes martes) in a Polish primeval forest. Ecoscience 11:113–122Google Scholar
  50. Zielinski WJ, Kucera TE, Barrett RH (1995) Current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennati, in California. Calif Fish Game 81:104–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emiliano Manzo
    • 1
  • Paola Bartolommei
    • 1
  • J. Marcus Rowcliffe
    • 2
  • Roberto Cozzolino
    • 1
  1. 1.Ethoikos, Convento dell’OsservanzaRadicondoliItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations