Advertisement

Comparing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of sampling methods for estimating population abundance and density of a recovering carnivore: the European pine marten (Martes martes)

  • Elizabeth CrooseEmail author
  • Johnny D. S. Birks
  • John Martin
  • Gareth Ventress
  • Jenny MacPherson
  • Catherine O’Reilly
Original Article

Abstract

Many methods are available to gather data on wildlife population parameters, such as population abundance and density, yet few have been compared or validated. We compared the efficacy of three survey methods (live trapping, hair tubes and scats) for estimating abundance and population density of the European pine marten (Martes martes) in Galloway Forest, Scotland. We evaluated these methods by, firstly, comparing the accuracy of the population estimate derived from each method, and, secondly, comparing the financial cost of each method. Molecular analysis of samples from all three methods was used to determine sex and individual genotype. Population abundance estimates were derived from capture-recapture programme Capwire. The non-invasive methods (hair tubes and scats combined) detected 81% of known individuals, although hair tubes and scats performed poorly alone, detecting 48% and 52% of individuals, respectively. Live trapping was the individual method that detected the most individuals (77%). Hair tubes were the most expensive method, both in financial cost and personnel hours, whilst scat sampling was the cheapest method. There was a highly significant association between the sex of the animal and the total number of detections by method. The population abundance estimate from all methods combined was 32 (95% CI 31–35) and the population density estimate was 0.27 martens/km2. This study indicates that a combined sampling approach comprising hair tubes and scats maximises the number of detections and provides a viable alternative to invasive live trapping.

Keywords

(4–6): Pine marten Population abundance Population density Non-invasive Trapping 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Andrew Jarrott, Colin Hossack and Kenny Kortland for the continued support of this work. We thank the following volunteers who assisted with fieldwork: Trina Barratt, Jacob Graham, Sammy Grey, Kevin Heywood and Jenni Mouat. We are especially grateful to Shirley Martin for her significant contributions to fieldwork, logistical and administrative support.

Funding information

This study was funded by Forestry Commission Scotland.

References

  1. Baines D, Aebischer NJ, Macleod A (2016) Increased mammalian predators and climate ch1ange predict declines in breeding success and density of Capercaillie tetrao urogallus, an old stand specialist, in fragmented Scottish forests. Biodivers Conserv 25(11):2171–2186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balharry D (1993) Factors affecting the distribution and population density of pine martens (Martes martes) in Scotland. Ph.D. dissertation. University of AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartolommei P, Mazon E, Cozzolino R (2013) Evaluation of three indirect methods for surveying European pine marten in a forested area of central Italy. Hystrix Italian J Mammal 23(2):91–94Google Scholar
  4. Belbachir F, Pettorelli N, Wacher T, Belbachir-Bazi A, Durant SM (2015) Monitoring rarity: the critically endangered Saharan cheetah as a flagship species for a threatened ecosystem. PLoS One 10(1):e0115136.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115136 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainerd SM, Helldin J-O, Lindstrӧm ER, Rolstad E, Storch I (1995) Pine marten (Martes martes) selection of resting and denning sites in Scandinavian managed forests. Ann Zool Fenn 32:151–157Google Scholar
  6. Bright PW, Smithson TJ (1997) Species Recovery Programme for the pine marten in England: 1995-96. English Nature Research Reports No 240Google Scholar
  7. Croose E, Birks JDS, Schofield HW (2013) Expansion zone survey of pine marten (Martes martes) distribution in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 520Google Scholar
  8. Croose E, Birks JDS, Schofield HW, O’Reilly C (2014) Distribution of the pine marten (Martes martes) in southern Scotland in 2013. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 740Google Scholar
  9. Croose E, Birks JDS, O’Reilly C, Turner P, Martin J, MacLeod ET (2016) Sample diversity adds value to non-invasive genetic assessment of a pine marten (Martes martes) population in Galloway Forest, southwest Scotland. Mammal Res 61:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diggins CA, Gilley M, Kelly CA, Ford M (2016) Comparison of survey techniques on detection of northern flying squirrels. Wildl Soc Bull 40(4):654–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards GP, de Preu ND, Shakeshaft BJ, Crealy IV (2000) An evaluation of two methods of assessing feral cat and dingo abundance in central Australia. Wildl Res 27:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Efford MG (2011) Estimation of population density by spatially explicit capture– recapture analysis of data from area searches. Ecology. 92(12):2202–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forest Enterprise (2012) Galloway Forest Fleet Basin Forest Design Plan 2012–2022. Dumfries and Galloway: Forest EnterpriseGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbs JP, Snell HL, Causton CE (1999) Effective monitoring for adaptive wildlife management: lessons from the Galapagos Islands. J Wildl Manag 63:1055–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hackett HM, Lesmeister DB, Desanty-Combes J, Montague WG, Millspaugh JJ, Gompper ME (2006) Detection rates of eastern spotted skunks (Spilogale Putorius) in Missouri and Arkansas using live capture and non-invasive techniques. Am Midl Nat 158(1):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halliwell E (1997) The ecology of red squirrels in Scotland in relation to pine marten predation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  17. Kleef HL, Wijsman HJW (2015) Mast, mice and pine marten (Martes martes): the pine marten’s reproductive response to wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) fluctuations in the Netherlands. Lutra. 58(1):23–33Google Scholar
  18. Kubasiewicz LM, Minderman J, Woodall LC, Quine CP, Coope R, Park KJ (2016) Fur and faeces: an experimental assessment of non-invasive DNA sampling for the European pine marten. Mammal Res 61:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kubasiewicz LM, Quine CP, Summers RW, Coope R, Cottrell JE, A’Hara SW, Park KJ (2017) Non-invasive genotyping and spatial mark-recapture methods to estimate European pine marten density in forested landscapes. Hystrix Ital J Mammal 28(2):265–271Google Scholar
  20. Kurki A, Nikula A, Helle P, Lindon H (1998) Abundances of red fox and pine marten in relation to the composition of boreal forest landscapes. J Anim Ecol 67:874–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langley PJW, Yalden DW (1977) The decline of the rarer carnivores in Great Britain during the nineteenth century. Mammal Rev 7:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Long RA, Donovan TM, Mackay P, Zielinski WJ, Buzas JS (2007) Comparing scat detection dogs, cameras and hair snares for surveying carnivores. J Wildl Manag 71(6):2018–2025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lynch AB, Brown MJF, Rochford JM (2006) Fur snagging as a method of evaluating the presence and abundance of a small carnivore, the pine marten (Martes martes). J Zool 270:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manzo E, Bartolommei P, Rowcliffe JM, Cozzolino R (2012) Estimation of population density of European pine marten in central Italy using camera trapping. Acta Theriol 57:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merrick MJ, Koprowski JL (2017) Should we consider individual behavior differences in applied wildlife conservation studies? Biol Conserv 209:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Met Office (2013) Western Scotland: climate [online]. Available at: <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/regional-climates/ws> [Accessed 29 Jan 2018]
  27. Miller CR, Joyce P, Waits LP (2005) A new method for estimating the size of small populations from genetic mark–recapture data. Mol Ecol 14:1991–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mills LS, Citta JJ, Lair KP, Schwartz MK, Tallmon DA (2000) Estimating animal abundance using noninvasive DNA sampling: promise and pitfalls. Ecol Appl 10(1):283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mullins J, Statham MJ, Roche T, Turner PD, O’Reilly C (2010) Remotely plucked hair genotyping: a reliable and non-invasive method for censusing pine marten (Martes martes, L. 1758) populations. Eur J Wildl Res 56:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mumma MA, Zieminski C, Fuller TK, Mahoney SP, Waits LP (2015) Evaluating noninvasive genetic sampling techniques to estimate large carnivore abundance. Mol Ecol Resour 15:1133–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy MA, Kendall KC, Robinson AP, Waits LP (2007) The impact of time and field conditions on brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA amplification. Conserv Genet 8:1219–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 Res 2:397–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Mahony DT, Powell C, Power J, Hanniffy R, Marnell F, Turner P, O’Reilly C (2017) Non-invasively determined multi-site variation in pine marten Martes martes density, a recovering carnivore in Europe. Eur J Wildl Res 63(48).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1108-3
  34. O'Mahony DT (2014) Socio-spatial ecology of pine marten (Martes martes) in conifer forests, Ireland. Acta Theriol 59:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O'Mahony D, Turner P, O’Reilly C (2015) Pine marten (Martes martes) abundance in an insular mountainous region using non-invasive techniques. Eur J Wildl Res 61(1):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildl Monogr 62:3–135Google Scholar
  37. Power J (2015) Non-invasive genetic monitoring of pine marten (Martes martes) and stone marten (Martes foina) in and around the Nietoperek bat hibernation site, Poland. PhD thesis: Waterford Institute of Technology, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  38. Putman RJ (1995) Ethical considerations and animal welfare in ecological field studies. Biodivers Conserv 4:903–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riddle AE, Pilgrim KL, Mills LS, McKelvey KS, Ruggiero LF (2003) Identification of mustelids using mitochondrial DNA and non-invasive sampling. Conserv Genet 4:241–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Riley M, Soutyrina S, Miquelle D, Hayward G, Goodrich G, Buskirk S (2017) Comparison of methods for estimating Amur tiger abundance. Wildl Biol 2017:wlb.00253.  https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson L, Cushman SA, Lucid MK (2017) Winter bait stations as a multispecies survey tool. Ecol Evol 7:6826–6838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Royle JA, Chandler RB, Sollmann R, Gardner B (2013) Spatial capture-recapture. Waltham, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  43. Sheehy E, Lawton C (2014) Population crash in an invasive species following the recovery of a native predator: the case of the American grey squirrel and the European pine marten in Ireland. Biodivers Conserv 23(3):753–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheehy E, O’Meara DB, O’Reilly C, Smart A, Lawton C (2013) A non-invasive approach to determining pine marten abundance and predation. Eur J Wildl Res 60(2):223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheehy E, Sutherland C, O’Reilly C, Lambin X (2018) The enemy of my enemy is my friend: native pine marten recovery reverses the decline of the red squirrel by suppressing grey squirrel populations. Proc R Soc B 285:20172603.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2603 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Summers RW, Willi J, Selvidge J (2009) Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus Nest loss and attendance at Abernethy Forest, Scotland. Wildl Biol 15(3):319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Velli E, Bologna MA, Silvia C, Ragni B, Randi E (2015) Non-invasive monitoring of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris Schreber, 1777): comparative analysis of three different monitoring techniques and evaluation of their integration. Eur J Wildl Res 61:657–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ (2001) A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildl Res 28:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Witmer GW (2005) Wildlife population monitoring: some practical considerations. Wildl Res 32:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zalewski A (1999) Identifying sex and individuals of pine marten using snow track measurements. Wildl Soc Bull 27(1):28–31Google Scholar
  51. Zalewski A, Jędrzejewski W (2006) Spatial organisation and dynamics of the pine marten Martes martes population in Białowieża Forest (E Poland) compared with other European woodlands. ECOGRAPH. 29:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vincent Wildlife TrustLedburyUK
  2. 2.Environment and Sustainability InstituteUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK
  3. 3.Swift Ecology LtdWorcesterUK
  4. 4.Myotismart LtdGrange-over-SandsUK
  5. 5.Forest Enterprise ScotlandDunkeldUK
  6. 6.Waterford Institute of TechnologyWaterfordRepublic of Ireland

Personalised recommendations