The influence of road characteristics and species on detection probabilities of carnivore faeces
Bryan M. Kluever A C , Eric M. Gese A B and Steven J. Dempsey A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.
B United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: klueverb@gmail.com
Wildlife Research 42(1) 75-82 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14244
Submitted: 12 June 2014 Accepted: 19 April 2015 Published: 22 May 2015
Abstract
Context: Determining reliable estimates of carnivore population size and distributions are paramount for developing informed conservation and management plans. Traditionally, invasive sampling has been employed to monitor carnivores, but non-invasive sampling has the advantage of not needing to capture the animal and is generally less expensive. Faeces sampling is a common non-invasive sampling technique and future use is forecasted to increase due to the low costs and logistical ease of sampling, and more advanced techniques in landscape and conservation genetics. For many species, faeces sampling often occurs on or alongside roads. Despite the commonality of road-based faeces sampling, detectability issues are often not addressed.
Aim: We sought to test whether faeces detection probabilities varied by species – coyote (Canis latrans) versus kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) – and to test whether road characteristics influenced faeces detection probabilities.
Methods: We placed coyote and kit fox faeces along roads, quantified road characteristics, and then subsequently conducted ‘blind’ road-based faeces detection surveys in Utah during 2012 and 2013. Technicians that surveyed the faeces deposition transects had no knowledge of the locations of the placed faeces.
Key results: Faeces detection probabilities for kit foxes and coyotes were 45% and 74%, respectively; larger faeces originated from coyotes and were more readily detected. Misidentification of placed faeces was rare and did not differ by species. The width of survey roads and the composition of a road’s surface influenced detection probabilities.
Conclusion: We identified factors that can influence faeces detection probabilities. Not accounting for variable detection probabilities of different species or not accounting for or reducing road-based variables influencing faeces detection probabilities could hamper reliable counts of mammalian faeces, and could potentially reduce precision of population estimates derived from road-based faeces deposition surveys.
Implications: We recommend that wildlife researchers acknowledge and account for imperfect faeces detection probabilities during faecal sampling. Steps can be taken during study design to improve detection probabilities, and during the analysis phase to account for variable detection probabilities.
Additional keywords: Canis latrans, coyote, kit fox, population estimate, scat deposition, survey, Vulpes macrotis.
References
Anderson, D. R., and Burnham, K. P. (2002). Avoiding pitfalls when using information theoretic approaches. Journal of Wildlife Management 66, 912–918.Allen, B. L. (2012). Scat happens: spatiotemporal fluctuation in dingo scat collection probabilities. Australian Journal of Zoology 60, 137–140.
| Scat happens: spatiotemporal fluctuation in dingo scat collection probabilities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Allen, B. L., and Leung, L. K. P. (2012). Assessing predation risk to threatened fauna from their prevalence in predator scats: dingoes and rodents in arid Australia. PLoS One 7, e36426.
| Assessing predation risk to threatened fauna from their prevalence in predator scats: dingoes and rodents in arid Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XntlWgsrg%3D&md5=8a663411ab40f762dc18450832becda2CAS | 22563498PubMed |
Bhagavatula, J., and Singh, L. (2006). Genotyping faecal samples of Bengal tiger Panthera tigris tigris for population estimation: a pilot study. BMC Genetics 7, 48.
| Genotyping faecal samples of Bengal tiger Panthera tigris tigris for population estimation: a pilot study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17044939PubMed |
Blott, S. J., and Pye, K. (2012). Particle size scales and classification of sediment types based on particle size distributions: review and recommended procedures. Sedimentology 59, 2071–2096.
| Particle size scales and classification of sediment types based on particle size distributions: review and recommended procedures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clark, F. W. (1972). Influence of jackrabbit density on coyote population change. Journal of Wildlife Management 36, 343–346.
Cypher, B. L., Bjurlin, C. D., and Nelson, J. L. (2009). Effects of roads on endangered San Joaquin kit foxes Journal of Wildlife Management 73, 885–893.
de la Rosa, S., Choudhery, R. N., and Chatziastros, A. (2011). Visual object detection, categorization, and identification tasks are associated with different time courses and sensitivities. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 37, 38–47.
| Visual object detection, categorization, and identification tasks are associated with different time courses and sensitivities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21038993PubMed |
de Oliveira, M. L., Norris, D., Ramirez, J. F. M., Peres, P. H. D., Galetti, M., and Duarte, J. M. B. (2012). Dogs can detect scat samples more efficiently than humans: an experiment in a continuous Atlantic Forest remnant. Zoologia 29, 183–186.
| Dogs can detect scat samples more efficiently than humans: an experiment in a continuous Atlantic Forest remnant.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dempsey, S. J. (2013). Evaluation of survey methods and development of species distribution models for kit foxes in the Great Basin desert. M.Sc. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Dempsey, S. J., Gese, E. M., and Kluever, B. M. (2014). Finding a fox: an evaluation of survey methods to estimate abundance of a small desert carnivore. PLoS One 9, e105873.
| Finding a fox: an evaluation of survey methods to estimate abundance of a small desert carnivore.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25148102PubMed |
Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Gudrun, C., Carré, G., Garcia Marquéz, J. R., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitao, P. J., Munkemuller, T., McClean, C., Osborn, P. E., Reineking, B., Schroder, B., Skidmore, A. K., Zurell, D., and Lautenbach, S. (2013). Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46.
| Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dodge, W. B., and Kashian, D. M. (2013). Recent distribution of coyotes across an urban landscape in southeastern Michigan. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4, 377–385.
Elbroch, M. (2003). ‘Mammal Tracks and Sign: a Guide to North American Species.’ (Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA.)
Farrell, L. E., Romant, J., and Sunquist, M. E. (2000). Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores identified by molecular analysis of scats. Molecular Ecology 9, 1583–1590.
| Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores identified by molecular analysis of scats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3crgt1Cmtg%3D%3D&md5=d0c8cbb9e23a820f71c151a53a3fca7aCAS | 11050553PubMed |
Favelle, S. K., Palmisano, S, Burke, D, and Hayward, W. G.. (2006). The role of attention in processing configural and shape information in 3-D novel objects. Visual Cognition 13, 623–642.
| The role of attention in processing configural and shape information in 3-D novel objects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Feldhamer, G. A., Thompson, B. C., and Chapman, J. A. (2003). ‘Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation.’ (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.)
Gese, E. M. (2001). Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. In ‘Carnivore Conservation’. (Eds J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald and R. K. Wayne.) pp. 372–396. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)
Gittleman, J. L., Funk, S. M., Macdonald, D. W., and Wayne, R. K. (2001). Why ‘carnivore conservation’? In ‘Carnivore Conservation’. (Eds J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald and R. K. Wayne.) pp. 1–7. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)
Godbois, I. A., Conner, L. M., Leopold, B. D., and Warren, R. J. (2005). Effect of diet on mass loss of bobcat scat after exposure to field conditions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, 149–153.
| Effect of diet on mass loss of bobcat scat after exposure to field conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Güthlin, D., Kroschel, M., Kuchemhoff, H., and Storch, I. (2012). Faecal sampling along trails, a questionable standard for estimating red fox (Vulpes vulpes) abundance. Wildlife Biology 18, 374–382.
| Faecal sampling along trails, a questionable standard for estimating red fox (Vulpes vulpes) abundance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Güthlin, D., Storch, I., and Kuchenhoff, H. (2013). Landscape variables associated with relative abundance of generalist mesopredators. Landscape Ecology 28, 1687–1696.
| Landscape variables associated with relative abundance of generalist mesopredators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Güthlin, D., Storch, I., and Kuchenhoff, H. (2014). Toward reliable estimates of abundance: comparing index methods to assess the abundance of a mammalian predator. PLoS One 9, e94537.
| Toward reliable estimates of abundance: comparing index methods to assess the abundance of a mammalian predator.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24743565PubMed |
Harrison, R. L. (2006). A comparison of survey methods for detecting bobcats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, 548–552.
| A comparison of survey methods for detecting bobcats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harrison, R. L., Barr, D. J., and Dragoo, J. W. (2002). A comparison of population survey techniques for swift foxes (Vulpes velox) in New Mexico. American Midland Naturalist 148, 320–337.
| A comparison of population survey techniques for swift foxes (Vulpes velox) in New Mexico.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Herrick, J. E., Van Zee, J. W., Havstad, K. M., Burkett, L. M., and Whitford, W. G. (2005). Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems. Pages 9–15. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range.
Kaartinen, S., Kojola, I., and Colpaert, A. (2005). Finnish wolves avoid roads and settlements. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42, 523–532.
Keane, S. K., Hayward, W. G., and Burke, D. (2003). Detection of three types of changes to novel objects. Visual Cognition 10, 101–127.
| Detection of three types of changes to novel objects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kelly, M. J., Betsch, J., Wultsch, C., Mesa, B., and Mills, L. S. (2012). Noninvasive sampling of carnivores. In ‘Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques‘. (Eds L. Boitani and R. A. Powell.) pp. 47–69. (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)
Knowlton, F. F. (1984). Feasibility of assessing coyote abundance in small areas. Final report, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Denver, CO.
Kohn, M. H., York, E. C., Kamradt, D. A., Haugt, G., Sauvajot, R. M., and Wayne, R. K. (1999). Estimating population size by genotyping faeces. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 266, 657–663.
| Estimating population size by genotyping faeces.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3mtFKksA%3D%3D&md5=1f91d2e24a9f0e9a96690befe4b1dad0CAS |
Kozlowski, A. J., Gese, E. M., and Arjo, W. M. (2008). Niche overlap and resource partitioning between sympatric kit foxes and coyotes in the Great Basin Desert of Utah. American Midland Naturalist 160, 191–208.
| Niche overlap and resource partitioning between sympatric kit foxes and coyotes in the Great Basin Desert of Utah.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kruckenhauser, L., Rauer, G., Daubl, B., and Haring, E. (2009). Genetic monitoring of a founder population of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in central Austria. Conservation Genetics 10, 1223–1233.
| Genetic monitoring of a founder population of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in central Austria.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lampa, S., Henle, K., Klenke, R., Hoehn, M., and Gruber, B. (2013). How to overcome genotyping errors in non-invasive genetic mark–recapture population size estimation – a review of available methods illustrated by a case study. Journal of Wildlife Management 77, 1490–1511.
| How to overcome genotyping errors in non-invasive genetic mark–recapture population size estimation – a review of available methods illustrated by a case study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Link, W. (2003). Nonidentifiability of population size from capture–recapture data with heterogeneous detection probabilities. Biometrics 59, 1123–1130.
| Nonidentifiability of population size from capture–recapture data with heterogeneous detection probabilities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14969493PubMed |
Long, R. A., Donovan, T. M., Mackay, P., Zielinski, W. J., and Buzas, J. S. (2007). Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 2007–2017.
| Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Long, R. A., MacKay, P., Zielinski, W. J., and Ray, J. C. (2008). ‘Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores.’ (Island Press: Washington, DC.)
Lukacs, P. M., and Burnham, K. P. (2005). Review of capture–recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling. Molecular Ecology 14, 3909–3919.
| Review of capture–recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16262847PubMed |
Mackenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, J. A., and Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy probabilities when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83, 2248–2255.
| Estimating site occupancy probabilities when detection probabilities are less than one.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mackenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Royle, J. A., Pollock, K. H., Bailey, L. L., and Hines, J. E. (2006). ‘Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence.’ (Academic Press: Burlington, MA.)
Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., and White, G. C. (1978). Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62, 135.
Peissig, J. J., and Tarr, M. J. (2007). Visual object recognition: do we know more now than we did 20 years ago? In ‘Annual Review of Psychology’. pp. 75–96. (Annual Reviews: Palo Alto, CA.)
Proulx, G., Cattet, M. R. L., and Powell, R. A. (2012). Humane and efficient capture and handling of carnivores. In ‘Carnivore Ecology and Conservation’. (Eds L. Boitani and R. A. Powell.) pp. 70–129. (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)
Purvis, A., Mace, G. M., and Gittleman, J. L. (2001). Past and future carnivore extinctions: a phylogenetic perspective. In ‘Carnivore Conservation’. (Eds J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald and R. K. Wayne.) pp. 11–34. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)
R Development Core Team (2012). ‘R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.’ (Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna.)
Ralls, K., and Smith, D. A. (2004). Latrine use by San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and coyotes (Canis latrans). Western North American Naturalist 64, 544–547.
Rosenberg, D. K., Overton, W. S., and Anthony, R. G. (1995). Estimation of animal abundance when capture probabilities are low and heterogeneous. Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 252–261.
| Estimation of animal abundance when capture probabilities are low and heterogeneous.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schaller, G. B. (1996). Introduction: carnivores and conservation biology. In ‘Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution’. (Ed. J. L. Gittleman.) pp. 1–10. (Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.)
Schauster, E. R., Gese, E. M., and Kitchen, A. M. (2002). An evaluation of survey methods for monitoring swift fox abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 464–477.
Smith, D. A., Ralls, K., Cypher, B. L., and Maldonado, J. E. (2005). Assessment of scat-detection dog surveys to determine kit fox distribution. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, 897–904.
| Assessment of scat-detection dog surveys to determine kit fox distribution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stenglein, J. L., Waits, L. P., Ausband, D. E., Zager, P., and Mack, C. M. (2010). Efficient, noninvasive genetic sampling for monitoring reintroduced wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1050–1058.
| Efficient, noninvasive genetic sampling for monitoring reintroduced wolves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stoddart, L. C. (1984). Relative abundance of coyotes, lagomorphs, and rodents on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Annual report on predator ecology and behavior project. Idaho Falls, ID.
Storfer, A., Murphy, M. A., Spear, S. F., Holderegger, R., and Waits, L. P. (2010). Landscape genetics: where are we now? Molecular Ecology 19, 3496–3514.
| Landscape genetics: where are we now?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20723061PubMed |
Thompson, W. L. (1998). ‘Monitoring Vertebrate Populations.’ (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)
Thacker, R. K., Flinders, B. H., Blackwell, B. H., and Smith, H. D. (1995). Comparison and use of four techniques for censusing three sub-species of kit fox. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Treves, A., and Bruskotter, J. (2014). Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science 344, 476–477.
| Tolerance for predatory wildlife.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2cXovFSrsLo%3D&md5=96cdf4d4c2b2a08f650d145a9bcea385CAS | 24786065PubMed |
Ullman, S. (2000). ‘High Level Vision: Object Recognition and Visual Cognition.’ 3rd edn. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA.)
White, G. C. (2005). Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities. Wildlife Research 32, 211–216.
| Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whittington, J., St. Clair, C. C., and Mercer, G. (2005). Spatial responses of wolves to roads and trails in mountain valleys. Ecological Applications 15, 543–553.
Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D., and Conroy, M. L. (2002). ‘Analysis and Management of Animal Populations.’ (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)
Zar, J. H. (2010). ‘Biostatistical Analysis,’ 5th edn. (Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.)
