Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Abundance, genetic diversity and conservation of Louisiana black bears (Ursus americanus luteolus) as detected through noninvasive sampling

  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, there have been no attempts to estimate range-wide abundance. This subspecies was thought to occupy a near contiguous range across southern Mississippi, Louisiana and east Texas but is now restricted to three isolated areas in Louisiana. In 1964, Louisiana initiated a restocking program in which black bears from Minnesota were introduced into two of these areas. It is not clear how the additions affected population structure or if substantial breeding occurred between native and introduced bears. Using baited sites to snare hair samples, and microsatellite DNA analysis to distinguish individuals, we estimated abundance of two geographically isolated bear populations in south central Louisiana: Inland and Coastal. Additionally, we examined genetic variation both within and between the two populations. Mark recapture analysis of the distribution of individual captures during two primary sampling periods resulted in population estimates of 77 ± 9 for Coastal and 41 ± 6 for Inland. Genetic analysis revealed significant population differentiation (F ST = 0.206) between the two populations. The apparently smaller Inland population exhibited more diversity than the Coastal, which suggests that the genetic structure of the Inland population has been influenced by the reintroduction. Both of these populations are isolated and face considerable demographic and genetic threats, thus conservation measures to protect both are warranted. However, the Coastal population is more representative of Louisiana black bears prior to reintroduction and special consideration should be given to insure its integrity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allendorf FW (1986)Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo Bio., 5, 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf FW, Leary, RF (1986)Heterozygosity and tness in natural populations of animals. In:The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding (ed. Thornhill NW), pp. 57–76. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersen M, 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, 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke CM, Immell D, Wasser SK (2001)Technical consider-ations for hair genotyping methods in black bears. West. Workshop Black Bear Res. Manage., 7, 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson PL, Liepins IS (1994)Grizzly bear population esti-mate and characteristics in the Anderson and Horton Rivers Area, Northwest Territories, 1987–1989. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage., 9, 213-221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran WG (1977)Sampling Techniques, 3rd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornuet J-M, Luikart G (1996)Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics, 144, 2001–2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craighead J, Paetkau D, Reynolds HV, Vyse ER, Strobeck C (1995)Microsatellite analysis of paternity and reproduction in Arctic grizzly bears. J. Heredity, 86, 255–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin M, Shideler J, Hechtel J, Strobeck C, Paetkau D (1999) Genetic relationships of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos )in the Prudhoe Bay Region of Alaska:Inference from microsatel-lite DNA, mitochondrial DNA, and eld observations. J. Heredity, 90, 622–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csiki I, Lam C, Key A, Coulter E, Clark JD, Pace, III RM, Smith KG, Rhoads DD (2003)Genetic variation in black bears in Arkansas and Louisiana using microsatellite DNA markers. J. Mammal., 84, 691–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derocher AE, Stirling I (1995)Estimation of polar bear population size and survival in western Hudson Bay. J. Wildl. Manage., 59, 215–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly P (1995)Nonindependence of matches at different loci in DNA pro les:Quantifying the effect of close relatives on the match probability. Heredity, 75, 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Systems Research Institute (1996–1998)Arc View GIS (Version 3. 1). Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney DJ (1948)The Fisher-Yates test of significance in 2 ·2 contingency tables. Biometrika, 35, 145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foran S, Minta C, Heinemeyer, KS (1997)DNA-based analysis of hair to identify species and individuals for population research and monitoring. Wildl. Soc. Bul., 25, 840–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R (1995)Inbreeding and extinction:A threshold effect. Conserv. Biol., 99, 792–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagneux P, Boesch C, Woodruff DS (1997)Microsatellite scor-ing errors associated with noninvasive genotyping based on nuclear DNAampli ed from shed hair. Mol. Ecol., 6, 861–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garshelis DL, Visser LG (1997)Enumerating megapopulations of wild bears with an ingested biomarker. J. Wildl. Manage., 59, 215–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goossens B, Waits LP, Taberlet P (1998)Plucked hair samples as a source of DNA:Reliability of dinucleotide microsatellite genotyping. Mol. Ecol., 7, 1237–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goudet J (2000)FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and xation indices (version 2. 9. 1). Updated from Goudet 1995.

  • Haig SM (1998)Molecular contributions to conservation. Ecology, 79, 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley S, Pace RM III, Johnston JB, Swan M, O'Neal CP, Handley L, Smith L (2000)A Gap analysis of Louisiana. p. 558. US Geological Survey, Lafayette, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellgren EC, Vaughn MR (1989)Demographic analysis of a black bear population in the Great Dismal Swamp. J. Wildl. Manage., 53, 969–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes CR, Queller DC (1993)Detection of highly polymorphic microsatellite loci in a species with little allozyme polymorphism. Mol. Ecol., 2, 131–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller LF, Waller DM (2002)Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends. Ecol. Evol., 17, 230–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitahara E, Isagi Y, Ishabashis Y, Saitoh T (2000)Polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in the Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus. Mol. Ecol., 9, 1661–1686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn M, Knauer F, Stoffela A, Schroder W, Pa ¨a ¨bo S (1995) Conservation genetics of the European brown bear-a study using excremental PCR of nuclear and mitochondrial sequences. Mol. Eco., 4, 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowery GH (1974)The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luikart G, Cornuet J-M, Allendorf FW (1999)Temporal changes in allele frequencies provide estimates of population bottleneck size. Cons. Biol., 13, 523–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunn NJ, Paetkau D, Calvert W, Atkinson S, Taylor M, Strobeck C (2000)Cub adoption by polar bears (Ursus maritimus ):Determining relatedness with microsatellite markers. J. Zool. Lond., 251, 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace RD, Minta SC, Manley TL, Aune KE (1994)Estimating grizzly bear population size using camera sightings. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 22, 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maehr DS (1984)Distribution of black bears in eastern North America. East Workshop Black Bear Res. and Manage., 7, 74–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel GW, McKelvey KS, Squires JR, Ruggiero LF (2000) Efficacy of lures and hair snares to detect lynx. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 28, 119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam CH (1893)The yellow bear of Louisiana, Ursus luteolus Griffith. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington., 8, 147–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller DA, Hallerman EM, Vaughn MR, Kasbohm JW (1998) Genetic variation in black bear populations from Louisiana and Arkansas:Examining the potential influence of reintroductions from Minnesota. Ursus, 10, 335–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills LS, Citta JJ, Lair KP, Schwartz MK, Tallmon DA (2000) Estimating animal abundance using noninvasive DNA sampling:Promise and pitfalls. Ecol. Appl., 10, 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitton JB (1993)Theory and data pertinent to relationship between heterozygosity and fitness. In:Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity (ed. Soule ME), pp. 57–76. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowat G, Strobeck C (2000)Estimating population size of grizzly bears using hair capture, DNA profiling, and mark-recapture analysis. J. Wildl. Manage., 64, 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal WA (1992)Listing the Louisiana black bear as a threatened species and designation of other free-living bears of the species U. americanus as threatened due to similarity of appearance. Federal Register, 58, 588–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1975)The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution, 29, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak RM (1986)Status of the Louisiana black bear. Office of Endangered Species, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson, DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildl. Monogr., 62, 1–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace RM III, Anderson DR, Shively S (2000)Sources and patterns of mortality in Louisiana black bears. Southeastern Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies., 54, 365–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paetkau D (2003)An empirical exploration of data quality in DNA-based population inventories. Mol. Ecol., 12, 1375–1387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paetkau D, Calvert W, Stirling I, Strobeck C (1995)Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol. Ecol., 4, 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paetkau D, Shields GF, Strobeck C (1998)Gene flow between insular, coastal and interior populations of brown bears in Alaska. Mol. Ecol., 7, 1283–1292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paetkau D, Strobeck C (1994)Microsatellite analysis of genetic variation in black bear populations. Mol. Ecol., 3, 489–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paetkau D, Strobeck C (1995)The molecular basis and evolutionary history of a microsatellite null allele in bears. Mol. Ecol., 4, 519–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paetkau D, Waits LP, Clarkson PL, Craighead L, Strobeck C (1997)An empirical valuation of genetic distance statistics using microsatellite data from bear (Ursidae)populations. Genetics, 147, 1943–1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palsboll PJ, Allen J, Berube M, Clapham PJ, Feddersen TP, Hammond PS, Hudson RR, Jorgensen H, Katona S, Larsen AH, Larsen F, Lien J, Mattila DK, Sigurjonsson J, Sears R, Smith T, Sponer R, Stevick P, Oien N (1997)Genetic tagging of humpback whales. Nature, 388, 767–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker PG, Snow AA, Schug MD, Booton GC, Fuerst, PA(1998) What molecules can tell us about a population:Choosing and using a molecular marker. Ecology, 79, 361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelton MR (1982)Black bear. In:Wild Mammals of North America (eds. Chapman JA, Feldhamer, GA), pp. 504–514. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelton MR (1989)The Louisiana Black Bear:Status and Future. Special report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi.

  • Pelton MR (1990)Black bears in the southeast:To list or not to list?East Workshop Black Bear Res. Manage., 10, 155–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical-inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildl. Monogr., 107, 1–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000)Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics, 155, 945–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queller DC, Strassman JE, Hughes CR (1993)Microsatellites and kinship. Trends Ecol. Evol., 8, 285–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond M, Rousset F (1995)GENEPOP (version 1. 2): Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Heredity, 86, 248–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. (1990)SAS User 's Guide:version 6. 12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.

  • Schenk A, Kovacs KM (1996)Genetic variation in a population of black bears as revealed by DNA ngerprinting. J. Mam-mal., 77, 942–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1511–1519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seber GAF (1982)The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters, 2nd edition Charles Griffin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith TR, Pelton, MR (1990)Home ranges and movements of black bears in a bottomland hardwood forest in Arkansas. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage., 8, 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taberlet P, Bouvet J (1992)Bear conservation genetics. Nature, 358, 197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taberlet P, Camarra JJ, Uhres GE, Hannotte O, Waits LP, Dubois-Paganon C, Burke CT, Bouvet J (1997)Noninvasive genetic tracking of the endangered Pyrenean brown bear population. Mol. Ecol., 6, 869–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B, Questiau S, Manceau V, Escaravage N, Waits LP, Bouvet J (1996)Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucl. Acids Res., 24, 3189–3194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taberlet P, Luikart, G (1999)Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 68, 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taberlet P, Mattock H, Dubois-Paganon C, Bouvet J (1993) Sexing free-ranging brown bears Ursus arctos using hairs found in the field. Mol. Ecol., 2, 399–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor DF (1971)A Radio-Telemetry Study of the Black Bear (Euarctos americanus )with Notes on its History and Present Status in Louisiana. MS Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

  • Triant DA (2001)Estimating Population Size and Genetic Diversity of Two Populations of Black Bears in South Central Louisiana. MS Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service (1995)Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi.

  • van Noordwijk AJ (1994)The interaction of inbreeding depression and environmental stochasticity in the risk of extinction of small populations. In:Conservation Genetics (eds. Loeschcke V, Tomiuk J, Jain SK), pp. 131–146. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner HW, Sefc KM (1999)Identity 1. 0. Center for Applied Genetics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna, Austria.

  • Wagner RO (1995)Movement Patterns of Black Bears in South Central Louisiana. MS Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

  • Waits JL, Leberg PL (2000)Biases associated with population estimation using molecular tagging. Anim. Conserv., 3, 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warrillow J, Culver M, Hallerman E, Vaughn M (2001)Subspecific affinity of black bears in the White River National Wildlife Refuge. J. Heredity, 92, 226–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Otis DL (1982) Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

  • Wooding JB, Cox JR, Pelton MR (1994)Distribution of black bears in the southeastern coastal plain. Proc. Annu. Conf. of the Southeast. Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies., 48, 270–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 616–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1943)Isolation by distance. Genetics, 28, 114–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1965)The interpretation of population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution, 19, 395–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu R, Zeng Z-B (2001)Joint linkage and linkage disequilibrium mapping in natural populations. Genetics, 157, 899–909.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA

    Deborah A. Triant, Richard M. Pace & Michael Stine

  2. Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Deborah A. Triant

Authors
  1. Deborah A. Triant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard M. Pace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Stine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Triant, D.A., Pace, R.M. & Stine, M. Abundance, genetic diversity and conservation of Louisiana black bears (Ursus americanus luteolus) as detected through noninvasive sampling. Conservation Genetics 5, 647–659 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-003-1861-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-003-1861-6

Search

Navigation