Mink on the brink: comparing survey methods for detecting a critically endangered carnivore, the European mink Mustela lutreola
-
Published:2023-03-13
Issue:2
Volume:69
Page:
-
ISSN:1612-4642
-
Container-title:European Journal of Wildlife Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur J Wildl Res
Author:
Croose Elizabeth, Hanniffy Ruth, Harrington Andrew, Põdra Madis, Gómez Asun, Bolton Polly L., Lavin Jenna V., Browett Samuel S., Pinedo Javier, Lacanal David, Galdos Iñaki, Ugarte Jon, Torre Aitor, Wright Patrick, MacPherson Jenny, McDevitt Allan D., Carter Stephen P., Harrington Lauren A.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractMonitoring rare and elusive species is critical in guiding appropriate conservation management measures. Mammalian carnivores are challenging to monitor directly, due to their generally nocturnal and solitary lifestyle, and relatively large home ranges. The European minkMustela lutreolais a critically endangered, small, semi-aquatic carnivore and is one of the most threatened mammal species in Europe. In northern Spain, the European mink population is monitored regionally using different methods and approaches, making assessment of national population status difficult. There is an urgent need to 1) assess the efficacy of survey methods and 2) identify a standard monitoring methodology that can be deployed rapidly and inexpensively over large areas of the mink’s range. We deployed four methods—camera trapping, hair tubes, live trapping, and environmental DNA (eDNA) from water samples—to compare the probability of detecting European mink when present at 25 sampling sites within five 10 × 10 km2, and the economic cost and time required for each method. All four methods successfully detected European mink but the probability of detection varied by method. Camera trapping and hair tubes had the highest probability of detection; however, eDNA and live trapping detected mink in one 10 × 10 km2where the latter two methods did not. For future European mink monitoring programs, we recommend a combination of at least two methods and suggest that camera traps or hair tubes are combined with live trapping or eDNA (depending on the scale and aims of the study), to gather critical information on distribution, occupancy and conservation status.
Funder
Vincent Wildlife Trust People's Trust for Endangered Species University of Salford Universidad Internacional de La Rioja Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico TRAGSATEC
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference56 articles.
1. Barea-Azcón JM, Virgós E, Ballesteros-Duperón E, Moleón M, Chirosa M (2006) Surveying carnivores at large spatial scales: a comparison of four broad-applied methods. Vertebrate Conserv Biodivers 387–404 2. Boyer F, Mercier C, Bonin A, Le Bras Y, Taberlet P, Coissac E (2016) obitools: aunix-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol Resour 16(1):176–182 3. Broadhurst HA, Gregory LM, Bleakley EK, Perkins JC, Lavin JV, Bolton P, Browett SS, Howe CV, Singleton N, Tansley D, Sales NG, McDevitt AD (2021) Mapping differences in mammalian distributions and diversity using environmental DNA from rivers. Sci Total Environ 801:149724 4. Campbell SP, Clark JA, Crampton LH, Guerry AD, Hatch LT, Hosseini PR, Lawler JJ, O’Connor RJ (2002) An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecol Appl 12(3):674–681 5. Carpenter B, Gelman A, Hoffman MD, Lee D, Goodrich B, Betancourt M, Brubaker M, Guo J, Li P, Riddell A (2017) Stan: A probabilistic programming language. J Stat Softw 76:1–32
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|