Beyond Roadkill, Radiotracking, Recapture and FST—a Review of Some Genetic Methods to Improve Understanding of the Influence of Roads on Wildlife

Abstract

2010. Beyond roadkill, radiotracking, recapture and F ST -a review of some genetic methods to improve understanding of the influence of roads on wildlife. Ecology and Society 15(1): 9. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/ art9/

Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge

“…It is worth noting that moderate to low crossing rates may not necessarily imply functional connectivity (Riley et al 2006). This type of information is logistically difficult to obtain using other than genetic methods (Clevenger and Sawaya 2010;Simmons et al 2010). Because the impact of railways is relatively recent, highly variable markers such as microsatellites are the most suitable method for estimating demographic and population genetic effects.…”

“…For instance, Clevenger and Sawaya (2010) showed that the passive hair-collection methods based on barbed wire and/or adhesive strings, followed by microsatellite analyses, was an effective technique for monitoring wildlife pass use at an individual level for cougars (Puma concolor), and black and brown bears in Canada. Furthermore, as costs for genetic analyses are become lower, the sample sizes have increased in recent studies (Simmons et al 2010). The main limitation of this method is that it is only suitable for large animals whose remains (hairs, feathers, scats) can be found in the field in sufficient quantity to extract DNA from them.…”

“…Radio-tracking-based projects share some of the advantages (fine-scale, individual-based) and disadvantages (intrusive, time-and budget-consuming) of the previous methods, although the increasing effectiveness (e.g., satellite-based telemetry) and decreasing price currently make radio-tracking suitable for a wide variety of organisms (Simmons et al 2010). Furthermore, the devices are becoming miniaturized to the point of being a feasible alternative for some invertebrates (e.g., Hedin and Ranius 2002).…”

“…However, NGS also enables individual identification based on microsatellite analysis (Balkenhol and Waits 2009;Clevenger and Sawaya 2010;Simmons et al 2010), the so-called "fingerprinting" or "DNA profiling," which is a kind of capture-mark-recapture method. For instance, Clevenger and Sawaya (2010) showed that the passive hair-collection methods based on barbed wire and/or adhesive strings, followed by microsatellite analyses, was an effective technique for monitoring wildlife pass use at an individual level for cougars (Puma concolor), and black and brown bears in Canada.…”

“…(4) Capture-mark-recapture (hereinafter "CMR"). These are fine-scale methods as they are individual-based, but they are intrusive, time-and budget-consuming, and require safety measures both for the animals and the researchers working around the transport infrastructures; all this leads to small-to modest-sized samples (Simmons et al 2010). Tagging must be adapted to the size and the ecology of the target species.…”