Population Ecology

, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 595–607 | Cite as

Combining data from 43 standardized surveys to estimate densities of female American black bears by spatially explicit capture–recapture

  • Eric J. Howe
  • Martyn E. Obbard
  • Christopher J. Kyle
Original article

Abstract

Spatially explicit capture–recapture (SECR) models are gaining popularity for estimating densities of mammalian carnivores. They use spatially explicit encounter histories of individual animals to estimate a detection probability function described by two parameters: magnitude (g0), and spatial scale (σ). Carnivores exhibit heterogeneous detection probabilities and home range sizes, and exist at low densities, so g0 and σ likely vary, but field surveys often yield inadequate data to detect and model the variation. We sampled American black bears (Ursus americanus) on 43 study areas in ON, Canada, 2006–2009. We detected 713 animals 1810 times; however, study area-specific samples were sometimes small (6–34 individuals detected 13–93 times). We compared AICc values from SECR models fit to the complete data set to evaluate support for various forms of variation in g0 and σ, and to identify a parsimonious model for aggregating data among study areas to estimate detection parameters more precisely. Models that aggregated data within broad habitat classes and years were supported over those with study area-specific g0 and σ (ΔAICc ≥ 30), and precision was enhanced. Several other forms of variation in g0 and σ, including individual heterogeneity, were also supported and affected density estimates. If study design cannot eliminate detection heterogeneity, it should ensure that samples are sufficient to detect and model it. Where this is not feasible, combing sparse data across multiple surveys could allow for improved inference.

Keywords

Carnivore Density estimation Individual heterogeneity Noninvasive sampling Ontario Ursus americanus 

References

  1. Alt GL, Matula GJ Jr, Alt FW, Lindzey JS (1980) Dynamics of home range and movements of adult black bears in northeastern Pennsylvania. Int Conf Bear Res Manage 4:131–136Google Scholar
  2. Anderson DR (2008) Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belant JL, Van Stappen JF, Paetkau D (2005) American black bear population size and genetic diversity at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Ursus 16:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boersen MR, Clark JD, King TL (2003) Estimating black bear population density and genetic diversity at Tensas River, Louisiana using microsatellite DNA markers. Wildl Soc Bull 31:197–207Google Scholar
  5. Boitani N, Powell RA (eds) (2012) Carnivore ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Borchers DL, Efford MG (2008) Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics 64:377–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulanger J, White GC, McLellan BN, Woods J, Proctor M, Himmer S (2002) A meta- analysis of grizzly bear DNA mark-recapture projects in British Columbia, Canada. Ursus 13:137–152Google Scholar
  8. Boulanger J, Stenhouse G, Munro R (2004) Sources of heterogeneity bias when DNA mark-recapture sampling methods are applied to grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) populations. J Mammal 85:618–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boulanger J, Proctor M, Himmer S, Stenhouse G, Paetkau D (2006) An empirical test of DNA mark-recapture sampling strategies for grizzly bears. Ursus 17:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castle JH (2010) Mate searching as a cost of reproduction for American black bears (Ursus americanus) in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest region of Ontario, Canada. Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  11. Conn PB, Arthur AD, Bailey LL, Singleton GR (2006) Estimating the abundance of mouse populations of known size: promises and pitfalls of new methods. Ecol Appl 16:829–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costello CM (2008) The spatial ecology and mating system of black bears (Ursus americanus) in New Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Montana State University, Bozeman, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Cubaynes S, Pradel R, Choquet R, Duchamp C, Gaillard J-M, Lebreton J-D, Marboutin E, Miquel C, Reboulet A-M, Poillot C, Taberlet P, Giminez O (2010) Importance of accounting for detection heterogeneity when estimating abundance: the case of French wolves. Conserv Biol 24:621–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czetwertynski SM, Boyce MS, Schmiegelow FK (2007) Effects of hunting on demographic parameters of American black bears. Ursus 18:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis SA, Akison LK, Farroway LN, Singleton GR, Leslie KE (2003) Abundance estimators and truth: accounting for individual heterogeneity in wild house mice. J Wildl Manage 67:634–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeBruyn TD (1999) Walking with bears. Lyons Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Dice LR (1938) Some census methods for mammals. J Wildl Manage 2:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doherty PF, White GC, Burnham KP (2012) Comparison of model building and selection strategies. J Ornithol 152(Supplement 2):317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dorazio RM, Royle AJ (2003) Mixture models for estimating the size of a closed population when capture rates vary among individuals. Biometrics 59:351–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dreher BP, Winterstein SR, Scribner KT, Lukacs PM, Etter DR, Rosa GJM, Lopez VA, Libants S, Filcek KB (2007) Noninvasive estimation of black bear abundance incorporating genotyping errors and harvested bear. J Wildl Manage 71:2684–2693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ebert C, Knauer F, Storch I, Hohmann U (2010) Individual heterogeneity as a pitfall in population estimates based on non-invasive genetic sampling—review and recommendations. Wildl Biol 16:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Efford MG (2004) Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Efford MG (2010) Program DENSITY (version 4.4.5.1): software for spatially explicit capture–recapture. http://www.otago.ac.nz/density/index.html
  24. Efford MG (2011) Estimation of population density by spatially explicit capture–recapture analysis of data from area searches. Ecology 92:2202–2207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Efford MG (2012) secr: Spatially explicit capture–recapture models. R package version 2.3.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=secr
  26. Efford MG, Dawson DK, Robbins CS (2004) DENSITY: software for analyzing capture–recapture data from passive detector arrays. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:217–228Google Scholar
  27. Efford MG, Borchers DL, Byrom AE (2009) Density estimation by spatially explicit capture–recapture: likelihood-based methods. In: Thompson DL, Cooch EG, Conroy MJ (eds) Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer, New York, pp 255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ennis S, Gallagher TS (1994) A PCR-based sex-determination assay in cattle based on the bovine amelogenin locus. Anim Genet 25:425–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foster RJ, Harmsen BJ (2012) A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data. J Wildl Manage 76:224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gardner B, Royle JA, Wegan MT (2009) Hierarchical models for estimating density from DNA mark-recapture studies. Ecology 90:1106–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gardner B, Royle JA, Wegan MT, Rainbolt R, Curtis P (2010) Estimating black bear density using DNA data from hair snares. J Wildl Manage 74:318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garshelis DL (1992) Mark-recapture density estimation for animals with large home ranges. In: McCullough DR, Barret RH (eds) Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp 1098–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Garshelis DL (1994) Density-dependent population regulation of black bears. In: Taylor M (ed) Density-dependent population regulation of black, brown, and polar bears. Int Conf Bear Res Manage Monograph 3. Knoxville, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  34. Garshelis DL, Pelton MR (1980) Activity of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J Mammal 61:8–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerber BD, Karpanty SM, Kelly MJ (2012) Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture–recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic-sampling data of the Malagasy civet. Popul Ecol 54:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gervasi V, Ciucci P, Boulanger J, Randi E, Boitani L (2012) A multiple data source approach to improve abundance estimates of small populations: the brown bear in the Apennines, Italy. Biol Conserv 152:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gray TNE, Prum S (2012) Leopard density in post-conflict landscape, Cambodia: evidence from spatially explicit capture–recapture. J Wildl Manage 76:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hurvitch CM, Tsai C-L (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Immell D, Anthony RG (2008) Estimation of black bear abundance using a discrete DNA sampling device. J Wildl Manage 72:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones MD, Pelton MR (2003) Female American black bear use of managed forest and agricultural lands in coastal North Carolina. Ursus 14:188–197Google Scholar
  41. Kalle R, Ramesh T, Qureshi Q, Sankar K (2011) Density of tiger and leopard in a tropical deciduous forest of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, southern India, as estimated using photographic capture–recapture sampling. Acta Theriol 56:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Karanth KU (1995) Estimating tiger (Panthera tigris) populations from camera trap data using capture–recapture models. Biol Conserv 71:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kéry M, Gardener B, Stoeckle T, Weber D, Royle AJ (2011) Use of spatial capture–recapture modeling and DNA data to estimate densities of elusive animals. Conserv Biol 25:356–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kitahara E, Isagi Y, Ishibashi Y, Saitoh T (2000) Polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in the Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus. Mol Ecol 9:1661–1662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koehler GM, Pierce DJ (2003) Black bear home range sizes in Washington: climatic, vegetative, and social influences. J Mammal 84:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kolenosky GB (1990) Reproductive biology of black bears in east-central Ontario. Int Conf Bear Res Manage 8:385–392Google Scholar
  47. Lindzey FG, Barber KR, Peters RD, Meslow EC (1986) Responses of a black bear population to a changing environment. Int Conf Bear Res Manage 6:57–63Google Scholar
  48. Link WA (2004) Nonidentifiability of population size from capture–recapture data with heterogeneous detection probabilities. Biometrics 59:1123–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lukacs PM, Burnham KP (2005) Review of capture–recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling. Mol Ecol 14:3909–3919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Sutton N, Kawanishi K (2005) Improving inferences in population studies of rare species that are detected imperfectly. Ecology 86:1101–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marques TA, Thomas L, Royle AJ (2011) A hierarchical model for spatial capture–recapture data: comment. Ecology 92:526–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marshall IB, Wiken EB, Hirvonen H (1998) (Compilers) Terrestrial ecoprovinces of Canada. Ecosystem Sciences Directorate, Environment Canada and Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa/HullGoogle Scholar
  53. Marucco F, Boitani L, Pletscher DH, Schwartz MK (2011) Bridging the gaps between non-invasive genetic sampling and population parameter estimation. Eur J Wildl Res 57:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McKelvey KS, Pearson DE (2001) Population estimation with sparse data: the role of estimators versus indices revisited. Can J Zool 79:1754–1765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McLaren, MA, Obbard ME, Pond, BA (2005) Black bear population index network: Results from 2000–2005 and efficiency of the technique. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, South-central Science and Information Section, Bracebridge, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller SD, White GC, Sellers RA, Reynolds HV, Schoen JW, Titus K, Barnes VG Jr, Smith RB, Nelson RR, Ballard WB, Schwartz CC (1997) Brown and black bear density estimation in Alaska using radiotelemetry and replicated mark-resight techniques. Wildl Monogr 133Google Scholar
  57. Mowat G, Heard DC, Seip DR, Poole KG, Stenhouse G, Paetkau DW (2005) Grizzly Ursus arctos and black bear U. americanus densities in the interior mountains of North America. Wildl Biol 11:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Norris JL, Pollock KH (1995) A capture–recapture model with heterogeneity and behavioural response. Environ Ecol Stat 2:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Noss AJ, Gardner B, Maffei L, Cuéllar E, Montaño R, Romero-Muñoz A, Sollmann R, O’Connell AF (2012) Comparison of density estimation methods for mammal populations with camera traps in the Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco landscape. Anim Conserv 15:527–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Noyce KV, Garshelis DL (2011) Seasonal migrations of black bears: causes and consequences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:823–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Noyce KV, Garshelis DL, Coy PL (2001) Differential vulnerability of black bears to trap and camera sampling and resulting biases in mark-recapture estimates. Ursus 12:211–225Google Scholar
  62. Obbard ME, Howe EJ (2008) Demography of black bears in hunted and unhunted areas of the boreal forest of Ontario. J Wildl Manage 72:869–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Obbard ME, Howe EJ, Kyle CJ (2010) Empirical comparison of density estimators for large carnivores. J Appl Ecol 47:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. O’Brien TG, Kinnaird MF (2011) Density estimation of sympatric carnivores using spatially explicit capture–recapture methods and standard trapping grid. Ecol Appl 21:2908–2616Google Scholar
  65. Paetkau D, Strobeck C (1994) Microsatellite analysis of genetic variation in black bear populations. Mol Ecol 3:489–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paetkau D, Calvert W, Stirling I, Strobeck C (1995) Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol Ecol 4:347–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pelletier A, Obbard ME, Mills K, Howe EJ, Burrows FG, White BN, Kyle CJ (2012) Delineating genetic groupings in continuously distributed species across largely homogeneous landscapes: a study of American black bears (Ursus americanus) in Ontario, Canada. Can J Zool 90:999–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pledger S (2000) Unified maximum likelihood estimates for closed capture–recapture models using mixtures. Biometrics 56:434–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pledger S (2005) The performance of mixture models in heterogeneous closed population capture–recapture. Biometrics 61:868–873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Powell RA, Zimmerman JW, Seaman DE (1997) Ecology and behavior of North American black bears: home ranges, habitat and social organization. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Proctor M, McLellan B, Boulanger J, Apps C, Stenhouse G, Paetkau D, Mowat G (2010) Ecological investigations of grizzly bears in Canada using DNA from hair, 1995–2005: a review of methods and progress. Ursus 21:169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.15. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
  73. Rogers LL (1987) Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 97Google Scholar
  74. Rowe JS (1972) Forest regions of Canada. Canadian Forestry Service Publication No. 1300. Environment Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  75. Royle AJ, Karanth U, Gopalaswamy AM, Kumar NS (2009) Bayesian inference in camera trapping studies for a class of spatial capture–recapture models. Ecology 90:3233–3244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Royle AJ, Magoun AJ, Gardner B, Valkenburg P, Lowell RE (2011) Density estimation in a wolverine population using spatial capture–recapture models. J Wildl Manage 75:604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schenk A, Obbard ME, Kovacs KM (1998) Genetic relatedness and home-range overlap among female black bears (Ursus americanus) in northern Ontario, Canada. Can J Zool 76:1511–1519Google Scholar
  78. Sollmann R, Furtado MM, Gardner B, Hofer H, Jácomo ATA, Tôrres NM, Silveira L (2011) Improving density estimates for elusive carnivores: accounting for sex-specific detection and movements using spatial capture–recapture models for jaguars in central Brazil. Biol Conserv 144:1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sollmann R, Gardner B, Belant JL (2012) How does spatial study design influence density estimates from capture recapture models? PLoS ONE 7:e34575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taberlet P, Camarra J–J, Griffin S, Hanotte O, Waits LP, Dubois-Paganon C, Burke T, Bouvet J (1997) Noninvasive genetic tracking of the endangered Pyrenean brown bear population. Mol Ecol 6:869–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wegan M (2008) Aversive conditioning, population estimation, and habitat preference of black bears (Ursus americanus) on Fort Drum Military Installation in northern New York. MSc Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, USAGoogle Scholar
  82. White GC (2005) Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities. Wildl Res 32:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. White GC, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Otis DL (1982) Capture–recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory Rep. LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos, NM, USAGoogle Scholar
  84. Wooding JB, Hardisky TS (1994) Home range, habitat use, and mortality of black bears in North-Central Florida. Int Conf Bear Res Manage 9:349–356Google Scholar
  85. Woods JG, Paetkau D, Lewis D, McLellan BN, Proctor M, Strobeck C (1999) Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildl Soc Bull 27:616–627Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric J. Howe
    • 1
  • Martyn E. Obbard
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Kyle
    • 2
  1. 1.Wildlife Research and Development Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  2. 2.Forensic Science Department, Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensics CentreTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations