Non-invasive genetic sampling of brown bears and Asiatic black bears in the Russian Far East: A pilot study

Latham, Erin; Stetz, Jeff B.; Seryodkin, Ivan V.; Miquelle, Dale G.; Gibeau, Michael L.

doi:10.2192/ursus-d-11-00022r2.1

Cited by 52 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…), while Latham et al . () demonstrated that optimal hair sampling methods may differ between bear species ( Ursus spp.). Several additional studies determined that sampling with scat detection dogs provided the highest capture rates (Wasser et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating noninvasive genetic sampling techniques to estimate large carnivore abundance

Mumma

Zieminski

Fuller

et al. 2015

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring large carnivores is difficult because of intrinsically low densities and can be dangerous if physical capture is required. Noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) is a safe and cost-effective alternative to physical capture. We evaluated the utility of two NGS methods (scat detection dogs and hair sampling) to obtain genetic samples for abundance estimation of coyotes, black bears and Canada lynx in three areas of Newfoundland, Canada. We calculated abundance estimates using program capwire, compared sampling costs, and the cost/sample for each method relative to species and study site, and performed simulations to determine the sampling intensity necessary to achieve abundance estimates with coefficients of variation (CV) of <10%. Scat sampling was effective for both coyotes and bears and hair snags effectively sampled bears in two of three study sites. Rub pads were ineffective in sampling coyotes and lynx. The precision of abundance estimates was dependent upon the number of captures/individual. Our simulations suggested that ~3.4 captures/individual will result in a < 10% CV for abundance estimates when populations are small (23-39), but fewer captures/individual may be sufficient for larger populations. We found scat sampling was more cost-effective for sampling multiple species, but suggest that hair sampling may be less expensive at study sites with limited road access for bears. Given the dependence of sampling scheme on species and study site, the optimal sampling scheme is likely to be study-specific warranting pilot studies in most circumstances.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating noninvasive genetic sampling techniques to estimate large carnivore abundance

Mumma

Zieminski

Fuller

et al. 2015

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps more than any other taxa, noninvasive genetic sampling methods have been used for monitoring brown Ursus arctos and American black bear Ursus americanus populations, most often by collecting hair samples from baited, barbed-wire hair traps deployed systematically and surveyed at 10-14-d intervals (e.g., Woods et al 1999;Kendall et al 2008;Sawaya et al 2012;van Manen et al 2012). Increasingly, however, researchers are obtaining hair samples by exploiting bears' natural behavior of rubbing on trees, power poles, and similar objects (hereafter, ''bear rubs''; Karamanlidis et al 2007;Kendall et al 2009;Stetz et al 2010;Latham et al 2012;Sawaya et al 2012). Although this behavior is not well-understood, it is believed to be nearly ubiquitous across the ranges of brown and black bears (Burst and Pelton 1983;Green and Mattson 2003;Karamanlidis et al 2007;Latham et al 2012), and it provides a safe, efficient means to genetically sample a potentially large proportion of a population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increasingly, however, researchers are obtaining hair samples by exploiting bears' natural behavior of rubbing on trees, power poles, and similar objects (hereafter, ''bear rubs''; Karamanlidis et al 2007;Kendall et al 2009;Stetz et al 2010;Latham et al 2012;Sawaya et al 2012). Although this behavior is not well-understood, it is believed to be nearly ubiquitous across the ranges of brown and black bears (Burst and Pelton 1983;Green and Mattson 2003;Karamanlidis et al 2007;Latham et al 2012), and it provides a safe, efficient means to genetically sample a potentially large proportion of a population. Relative to hair traps, bear rub surveys are often conducted at longer and more variable intervals, ranging from days to months (Stetz et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Exposure on Genotyping Success Rates of Hair Samples from Brown and American Black Bears

Stetz

Seitz

Sawaya

2014

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noninvasively collected hair samples have been used in numerous studies to answer questions about the demographic and genetic status and trends of wildlife populations. In particular, these methods are well-suited for researching and monitoring ursid populations, which are typically difficult to study because of their rare and cryptic nature. Recently, researchers have taken increasing advantage of natural bear behaviors to obtain hair samples for genetic analyses by conducting surveys of bear rubs (objects that bears rub against such as trees and power poles). The low quality and quantity DNA in noninvasively collected samples, however, can result in low genotyping success rates, which may be exacerbated by potentially lengthy duration of environmental exposure. We investigated the effects of environmental exposure (sunlight, moisture, and duration of exposure) on genotyping success rates of brown bear Ursus arctos and American black bear Ursus americanus hair samples. We exposed a total of 238 hair samples from one brown bear and one black bear to multiple treatments for either 30-d or 60-d, periods consistent with collection intervals of recent bear rub survey projects. Sample treatments consisted of full or dappled sunlight, kept dry or saturated with water one to two times daily. We genotyped each sample at three microsatellite loci commonly used in noninvasive genetic studies of bear populations. Our results were consistent with predictions, with all three factors significantly reducing genotyping success rates. Based on our results, we recommend that the specific conditions of field exposure be considered when selecting a suite of microsatellite markers for noninvasive genetic sampling projects, and that researchers carefully consider the duration and environmental conditions that hair samples will be exposed to when designing field studies. Limiting exposure to moisture and sunlight by collecting hairs from bear rubs at relatively short intervals and selecting dry and shaded sites should reduce DNA degradation and thus result in higher genotyping success rates.

show abstract

“…[ 46 ], [ 29 ]), had four times lower effectiveness than natural rubs in our survey. In Eurasia, hair traps utilizing rubbing behavior seem to be more effective than corrals [ 28 ] and therefore, more widely used by researchers in field studies. The ultimate reason is unknown, but it may be related to the fact that, contrary to North America, supplementary feeding practices are common in Europe and occur in six of the ten European bear populations [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hair traps for bears were first designed in 1995 [ 26 ], and since then researchers have developed a wide variety of hair collection devices to sample ursids [ 27 ]. Although optimal hair collection devices vary among bear species [ 28 ], those constructed of barbed wire are most popular, because the wire facilitates hair collection, catches larger samples with more follicles, and reduces the percentage of mixed samples, i.e. containing hairs from various individuals [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of different types of hair traps for brown bear research and monitoring

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-invasive sampling by hair-trapping is increasingly used worldwide in wildlife research. Despite this rise and the potential of hair samples for ecology and conservation studies, the relative performance of hair collection devices has been rarely tested. Here, we compare the effectiveness of five types of hair traps for brown bears Ursus arctos in the Carpathian Mountains (SE Poland) and test the effects of trap type, season, number of days elapsed since trap installation and trap features on the trapping success in order to provide recommendations for optimal sampling in future studies. The trap types were corral, path-trap, “smola”(beechwood tar) tree-trap, turpentine tree-trap and natural rub. In 2010, we collected 858 hair samples during 2330 inspections of 175 hair traps and found that the most effective traps were smola tree-traps (mean percentage of successful inspections ± SD: 30.2% ± 26.0) and natural rubs (50.8% ± 16.7). Based on this finding, over the following 2 years we focused on 24 smola tree-traps and eight natural rubs. During this long-term survey (2010–2012, 969 inspections, 1322 samples collected) the trapping success increased with time and smola tree-traps achieved similar effectiveness to natural rubs (45.5% ± 29.7 and 45.9 ± 23.4, respectively). We show that when baiting smola tree-traps ten weeks prior to research or monitoring, sampling effectiveness can reach up to 30%. Taking into account the logistical and methodological constraints associated with detecting and using natural rubs for a proper survey design, we recommend using smola tree-traps baited in advance for hair sampling in wildlife studies.

show abstract

Non-invasive genetic sampling of brown bears and Asiatic black bears in the Russian Far East: A pilot study

Cited by 52 publications

References 34 publications

Evaluating noninvasive genetic sampling techniques to estimate large carnivore abundance

Evaluating noninvasive genetic sampling techniques to estimate large carnivore abundance

Effects of Exposure on Genotyping Success Rates of Hair Samples from Brown and American Black Bears

Effectiveness of different types of hair traps for brown bear research and monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About