Are Scat Surveys a Reliable Method for Assessing Distribution and Population Status of Pine Martens?

  • Johnny Birks
  • John Messenger
  • Tony Braithwaite
  • Angus Davison
  • Rachael Brookes
  • Chris Strachan


Systematic searches for marten feces or’ scats’ have been used since 1980 for assessing the status of protected populations of pine martens (Martes martes) in Britain. Previous surveys using scats have relied on unsubstantiated assumptions that martens typically defecate along roads and trails, that martens inhabit primarily woodland habitats, and that scats from martens can reliably be distinguished from those of other carnivores. Results of scat surveys have drawn conflicting conclusions about population status, which has lead to disagreement about conservation action, and doubts about the reliability and validity of assumptions associated with the technique. We reviewed the recent history of survey programs for pine marten populations in Great Britain. We examined the assumptions made in different surveys and considered these critically. The scat survey technique has several limitations, and is likely to be least reliable where populations of martens are low and where distribution is uneven. New DNA testing approaches revealed the inaccuracy of marten scat identification in the field. We recommend that scat surveys should be conducted only when genetic verification is available to confirm scat identity.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Aune, K. E., and P. Schladweiler. 1997. Age, sex structure, and fecundity of the American marten in Montana. Pages 61–77 in G. Proulx, H. N. Bryant, and P. M. Woodard, editors. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Balharry, D. 1993. Factors affecting the distribution and population density of pine martens (Martes martes L.) in Scotland. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Balharry, E. A., G. M. McGowan, H. Kruuk, and E. Halliwel 1996. Distribution of pine martens in Scotland as determined by field survey and questionnaire. SNH Survey and Monitoring Report No. 48. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Birks, J. D. S. 2002. The Pine Marten. The Mammal Society, London.Google Scholar
  5. -, J. E. Messenger, and A. Davison. 1997. A 1994 pine marten Martes martes (L.) record for Lancashire, including a preliminary genetic analysis. Naturalist 122:13–18.Google Scholar
  6. Boyce, N. 1988. Bowels of the beasts. New Scientist 22 August:36–39.Google Scholar
  7. Bright, P. W., and S. Harris, 1994. Reintroduction of the pine marten: feasibility study. English Nature Contract Report F72-11-10. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
  8. -, R. McDonald, and S. Harris. 1995a. Survey of pine martens in the Kielder Region. Pages 3–6 in Initiating a Recovery Programme for the Pine Marten in England and Wales. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, London, UK.Google Scholar
  9. -,-and-. 1995b. Determining the minimum woodland area requirements to sustain pine marten populations. Pages 7–15 in Initiating a Recovery Programme for the Pine Marten in England and Wales. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, London, UK.Google Scholar
  10. -, and T. J. Smithson. 1997. Species Recovery Programme for the pine marten in England: 1995–96. English Nature Research Report No. 240. English Nature, Peterborough, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Clevenger, A. P. 1993. The European Pine Marten Martes martes in the Balearic Islands, Spain. Mammal Review 23:65–72.Google Scholar
  12. Corbet, G. B. 1966. The Terrestrial Mammals of Western Europe. G. T. Foulis, London, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Davison, A., J. D. S. Birks, R. C. Brookes, A. C. Braithwaite, and J. E. Messenger. 2002. On the origin of faeces: morphological versus molecular methods for surveying rare carnivores from their scats. Journal of Zoology (London) 257:141–143.Google Scholar
  14. Gese, E. M. 2001. Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. Pages 372–396 in J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, editors. Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Gorman, M. L. and B. J. Trowbridge. 1989. The role of odour in the social lives of carnivores. Pages 57–88 in J. L. Gittleman, editor. Carnivore behavior, ecology and evolution. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Hansen, M. M., and L. Jacobsen. 1999. Identification of mustelid species: otter (Lutra lutra), American mink (Mustela vison) and polecat (Mustela putorius), by analysis of DNA from faecal samples. Journal of Zoology, London 247:177–181.Google Scholar
  17. Helldin, J. O. 1998. Pine marten (Martes martes) population limitation: food, harvesting or predation? Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, Silvestria 60.Google Scholar
  18. -, and E. R. Lindström. 1995. Late winter social activity in pine marten (Martes martes)-false heat or dispersal? Annales Zoologica Fennici 32:145–149.Google Scholar
  19. Hurrell, H. G. 1968. Pine Martens. Forest Record No. 64. HMSO, London, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Jefferies, D. J. 1986. The value of otter Lutra lutra surveying using spraints: an analysis of its successes and problems in Britain. Journal of the Otter Trust 1:25–32.Google Scholar
  21. -, and C. H. Critchley. 1994. A new pine marten Martes martes (L.) record for the North Yorkshire Moors: skull dimensions and confirmation of species. Naturalist 119:145–150.Google Scholar
  22. Kleef, H. L. 1997. Boommarterinventarisatie in Nederland: aanpak en resultaten, toegespitst op Noord-Nederland. Pages 11–22 in K. J. Canters and H. J. W. Wijsman, editors. Wat Doen we met de boommarter. Werkgroep Boommarter Nederland, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Kohn, M. H., and R. K. Wayne. 1997. Facts from feces revisited. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruuk, H., J. W. H., Conroy, U. Glimmerveen, and E. J. Ouwerkerk. 1986. The use of spraints to survey populations of otters Lutra lutra. Biological Conservation 35:87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Langley, P. J. W., and D. W. Yalden. 1977. The decline of the rarer carnivores in Great Britain during the nineteenth century. Mammal Review 7:95–116.Google Scholar
  26. Lenton, E. J., P. R. F. Chanin, and D. J. Jefferies. 1980. Otter Survey of England 1977–79. Nature Conservancy Council, London, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Lindström, E. R., S. M., Brainerd, J. O. Helldin, and K. Overskaug. 1995. Pine marten-red fox interactions: a case of intraguild predation? Annales Zoologica Fennici 32:123–30.Google Scholar
  28. Lockie, J. D. 1964. Distribution and fluctuations of the pine marten, Martes martes (L.), in Scotland. Journal of Animal Ecology 33:349–356.Google Scholar
  29. Macdonald, D. W., G. Mace, and S. Rushton. 1998. Proposals for future monitoring of British mammals. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Macpherson, H. A. 1892. A Vertebrate Fauna of Lakeland. Douglas, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Mason, C. F., and S. M. Macdonald. 1987. The use of spraints for surveying oner Lutra lutra populations: an evaluation. Biological Conservation 41:167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDonald, R., P. W. Bright, and S. Harris. 1994. Baseline Survey of Pine Martens in Wales. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor, UK.Google Scholar
  33. Messenger, J. E., J. D. S. Birks, and D. J. Jefferies. 1997. What is the status of the pine marten in England and Wales? British Wildlife 8:273–279.Google Scholar
  34. -, and-. 2000. Monitoring the very rare: pine marten populations in England and Wales. Pages 217–230 in H. I. Griffiths, editor. Mustelids in a modern world. Management and conservation aspects of small carnivore: human interactions. Backhuys, Leiden. Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Pullianen, E. 1982. Scent marking in the pine marten (Martes martes) in Finnish forest Lapland in winter. Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde 47:91–99.Google Scholar
  36. Putman, R. J. 1984. Facts from faeces. Mammal Review 14:79–97.Google Scholar
  37. Rackham, O. 1990. Trees and woodland in the British Landscape. Phoenix, London, UK.Google Scholar
  38. Sloane, M. A., P. Sunnucks, D. Alpers, L. B. Beheregaray, and A. C. Taylor. 2000. Highly reliable genetic identification of individual northern hairy-nosed wombats from single remotely collected hairs: a feasible censusing method. Molecular Ecology 9:1233–1240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, D., K. Rails, B. Davenport, B. Adams, and J. E. Maldonado. 2001. Canine assistants for conservationists. Science 291:435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Strachan, R., J. D. S. Birks, P. R. F. Chanin, and D. J. Jefferies. 1990. Otter survey of England 1984–86. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.Google Scholar
  41. -, D. J. Jefferies, and P. R. F. Chanin. 1996. Pine marten survey of England and Wales 1987–1988. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Strickland, M. 1994. Harvest management of fishers and American martens. Pages 149–164 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael and R. A. Powell, editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Tapper, S. 1992. Game Heritage. Game Conservancy Trust. Fordingbridge. UK.Google Scholar
  44. Toms, M. P., G. M. Siriwardena, and J. J. D. Greenwood. 1999. Developing a mammal monitoring programme for the UK. BTO Research Report No. 223. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UK.Google Scholar
  45. Velander, K. A. 1983. Pine marten survey of Scotland, England and Wales 1980–1982. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London, UK.Google Scholar
  46. -, 1986. A study of pine marten ecology in Inverness-shire. Nature Conservancy Council CSD Report 651. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.Google Scholar
  47. Webster J. A. 2001. A review of the historical evidence of the habitat of the pine marten in Cumbria. Mammal Review 31:17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woods, J. G., D. Paetkau, D. Lewis, B. N. McLellan, M. Proctor, and C. Strobeck. 1999. Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:616–627.Google Scholar
  49. Zalewski, A. 2000. Factors affecting the duration of activity by pine martens (Martes martes) in the Białowieża National Park, Poland. Journal of Zoology (London) 251:439–447.Google Scholar
  50. Zielinski, W. J., and T. E. Kucera. 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, California, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johnny Birks
  • John Messenger
  • Tony Braithwaite
  • Angus Davison
  • Rachael Brookes
  • Chris Strachan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations