Long-term use of non-invasive sampling methods: does successful sampling of brown bears by hair snares and camera traps change over time?
A. E. Lincoln
A C D , A. J. Wirsing B and T. P. Quinn A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, 1122 NE Boat Street, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
B School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, 4000 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
C Present address: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, River and Floodplain Management Section, 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
D Corresponding author. Email: alinc2@uw.edu
Wildlife Research 47(6) 499-508 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19156
Submitted: 4 September 2019 Accepted: 18 May 2020 Published: 17 August 2020
Abstract
Context: Non-invasive sampling methods are widely used by ecologists to collect animal hair, images, tissue or signs. Sampling devices are imperfect, and collection success may vary over time owing to behavioural changes in study organisms or other factors. If collection success decreases, the utility of non-invasive sampling devices for longitudinal studies that rely on consistency may be compromised.
Aims: Our primary objectives were to evaluate whether collection success of brown bear (Ursus arctos) hair by using hair snares and camera traps changed over time, and whether hair- and image-collection success was influenced by bear activity around the sampling site.
Methods: We paired non-invasive sampling by hair snares with motion-activated cameras at six streams in Alaska over 4–6 years, so as to evaluate how often brown bears left samples on wires or were photographed by cameras, and whether this sampling success changed over time. Changes in sampling success were evaluated in the context of bear activity per sampling period as determined by camera data (number of bear–wire encounters) or hair snare (number of barbs with hair); genetic analyses allowed us to evaluate whether the same bears were sampled repeatedly.
Key results: Overall, hair was collected in 78% and images in 73% of 2-day sampling periods when bears visited sites, and we observed no substantial change in the probability of successful sampling over time at 11 sites. The number of bear–wire encounters was positively correlated with the number of hair samples collected, as would be expected if sampling rates remained constant over time, and individual bears with previous wire experience were sampled in multiple years.
Conclusions: Overall, the results indicated that sampling success by using hair snare and camera trap showed substantial interannual variability, but changes over time were not consistently identified across sites. Among-site variation in sampling success highlighted the importance of accounting for site-specific differences in sampling success, and neither method sampled unfailingly.
Implications: Sampling by wires and cameras remained effective over time, suggesting that these non-invasive sampling methods may be successfully employed in long-term studies.
Additional keywords: barbed wire, imperfect detection, non-invasive sampling devices, paired sampling, trap shy, Ursus arctos.
References
Adams, M. S., Service, C. N., Bateman, A., Bourbonnais, M., Artelle, K. A., Nelson, T., Paquet, P. C., Levi, T., and Darimont, C. T. (2017). Intrapopulation diversity in isotopic niche over landscapes: spatial patterns inform conservation of bear–salmon systems. Ecosphere 8, e01843.| Intrapopulation diversity in isotopic niche over landscapes: spatial patterns inform conservation of bear–salmon systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Beier, L. R., Lewis, S. B., Flynn, R. W., Pendleton, G., and Schumacher, T. V. (2005). A single-catch snare to collect brown bear hair for genetic mark–recapture studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, 766–773.
| A single-catch snare to collect brown bear hair for genetic mark–recapture studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bicknell, A. W. J., Godley, B. J., Sheehan, E. V., Votier, S. C., and Witt, M. J. (2016). Camera technology for monitoring marine biodiversity and human impact. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, 424–432.
| Camera technology for monitoring marine biodiversity and human impact.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boulanger, J., Kendall, K. C., Stetz, J. B., Roon, D. A., Waits, L. P., and Paetkau, D. (2008). Multiple data sources improve DNA-based mark–recapture population estimates of grizzly bears. Ecological Applications 18, 577–589.
| Multiple data sources improve DNA-based mark–recapture population estimates of grizzly bears.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18488618PubMed |
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., Bayne, E., and Boutin, S. (2015). Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 675–685.
Clare, J., McKinney, S. T., DePue, J. E., and Loftin, C. S. (2017). Pairing field methods to improve inference in wildlife surveys while accommodating detection covariance. Ecological Applications 27, 2031–2047.
| Pairing field methods to improve inference in wildlife surveys while accommodating detection covariance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28644579PubMed |
Clevenger, A. P., and Sawaya, M. A. (2010). Piloting a non-invasive genetic sampling method for evaluating population-level benefits of wildlife crossing structures. Ecology and Society 15, 7.
| Piloting a non-invasive genetic sampling method for evaluating population-level benefits of wildlife crossing structures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coggins, L. G., Bacheler, N. M., and Gwinn, D. C. (2014). Occupancy models for monitoring marine fish: a Bayesian hierarchical approach to model imperfect detection with a novel gear combination. PLoS One 9, e108302.
| Occupancy models for monitoring marine fish: a Bayesian hierarchical approach to model imperfect detection with a novel gear combination.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25255325PubMed |
Cutler, T. L., and Swann, D. E. (1999). Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, 571–581.
Dorazio, R. M., and Royle, J. A. (2003). Mixture models for estimating the size of a closed population when capture rates vary among individuals. Biometrics 59, 351–364.
| Mixture models for estimating the size of a closed population when capture rates vary among individuals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12926720PubMed |
Gervasi, V., Ciucci, P., Boulanger, J., Boitani, L., and Randi, E. (2010). Addressing challenges in non invasive capture–recapture based estimates of small populations: a pilot study on the Apennine brown bear. Conservation Genetics 11, 2299–2310.
| Addressing challenges in non invasive capture–recapture based estimates of small populations: a pilot study on the Apennine brown bear.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gimenez, O., Cam, E., and Gaillard, J.-M. (2018). Individual heterogeneity and capture–recapture models: what, why and how? Oikos 127, 664–686.
| Individual heterogeneity and capture–recapture models: what, why and how?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Green, M. L., Herzing, D. L., and Baldwin, J. D. (2007). Noninvasive methodology for the sampling and extraction of DNA from free-ranging Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis). Molecular Ecology Notes 7, 1287–1292.
| Noninvasive methodology for the sampling and extraction of DNA from free-ranging Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hilderbrand, G. V., Farley, S. D., Robbins, C. T., Hanley, T. A., Titus, K., and Servheen, C. (1996). Use of stable isotopes to determine diets of living and extinct bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74, 2080–2088.
| Use of stable isotopes to determine diets of living and extinct bears.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Issaris, Y., Katsanevakis, S., Salomidi, M., Tsiamis, K., Katsiaras, N., and Verriopoulos, G. (2012). Occupancy estimation of marine species: dealing with imperfect detectability. Marine Ecology Progress Series 453, 95–106.
| Occupancy estimation of marine species: dealing with imperfect detectability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kelly, M. J., Betsch, J., Wultsch, C., Mesa, B., and Mills, L. S. (2012). Noninvasive sampling for carnivores. In ‘Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: a Handbook of Techniques’. (Eds L. Boitani, and R. A. Powell.) pp. 47–69. (Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA.)
Kendall, K. C., and McKelvey, K. S. (2008). Hair collection. In ‘Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores’. (Eds R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray.) pp. 141–182. (Island Press: Washington, DC, USA.)
Lamb, C. T., Walsh, D. A., and Mowat, G. (2016). Factors influencing detection of grizzly bears at genetic sampling sites. Ursus 27, 31–44.
| Factors influencing detection of grizzly bears at genetic sampling sites.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Long, R. A., and Zielinski, W. J. (2008). Designing effective noninvasive carnivore surveys. In ‘Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores’. (Eds R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray.) pp. 8–44. (Island Press: Washington, DC, USA)
Long, R. A., Donovan, T. M., MacKay, P., Zielinski, W. J., and Buzas, J. S. (2007). Comparing scat detection dogs, cameras, and hair snares for surveying carnivores. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 2018–2025.
| Comparing scat detection dogs, cameras, and hair snares for surveying carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Long, R. A., Donovan, T. M., MacKay, P., Zielinski, W. J., and Buzas, J. S. (2011). Predicting carnivore occurrence with noninvasive surveys and occupancy modeling. Landscape Ecology 26, 327–340.
| Predicting carnivore occurrence with noninvasive surveys and occupancy modeling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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 |
Mace, R. D., Minta, S. C., Manley, T. L., and Aune, K. E. (1994). Estimating grizzly bear population size using camera sightings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22, 74–83.
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Knutson, M. G., and Franklin, A. B. (2003). Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84, 2200–2207.
| Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Madon, B., Gimenez, O., McArdle, B., Baker, C. S., and Garrigue, C. (2011). A new method for estimating animal abundance with two sources of data in capture–recapture studies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2, 390–400.
| A new method for estimating animal abundance with two sources of data in capture–recapture studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McCallum, J. (2013). Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types. Mammal Review 43, 196–206.
| Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McClintock, B. T. (2015). multimark: an R package for analysis of capture–recapture data consisting of multiple ‘noninvasive’ marks. Ecology and Evolution 5, 4920–4931.
| multimark: an R package for analysis of capture–recapture data consisting of multiple ‘noninvasive’ marks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26640671PubMed |
Monterroso, P., Rich, L. N., Serronha, A., Ferreras, P., and Alves, P. C. (2014). Efficiency of hair snares and camera traps to survey mesocarnivore populations. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60, 279–289.
| Efficiency of hair snares and camera traps to survey mesocarnivore populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pauli, J. N., Whiteman, J. P., Riley, M. D., and Middleton, A. D. (2010). Defining noninvasive approaches for sampling of vertebrates. Conservation Biology 24, 349–352.
| Defining noninvasive approaches for sampling of vertebrates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19624526PubMed |
Petit, E., and Valiere, N. (2006). Estimating population size with noninvasive capture–mark–recapture data. Conservation Biology 20, 1062–1073.
| Estimating population size with noninvasive capture–mark–recapture data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16922223PubMed |
Piggott, M. P., and Taylor, A. C. (2003). Remote collection of animal DNA and its applications in conservation management and understanding the population biology of rare and cryptic species. Wildlife Research 30, 1–13.
| Remote collection of animal DNA and its applications in conservation management and understanding the population biology of rare and cryptic species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., and Karanth, K. U. (2012). Estimating demographic parameters. In ‘Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: a Handbook of Techniques’. (Eds L. Boitani, and R. A. Powell.) pp. 169–187. (Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA.)
Puechmaille, S. J., and Petit, E. J. (2007). Empirical evaluation of non-invasive capture–mark–recapture estimation of population size based on a single sampling session. Journal of Applied Ecology 44, 843–852.
| Empirical evaluation of non-invasive capture–mark–recapture estimation of population size based on a single sampling session.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quinn, T. P., Wetzel, L., Bishop, S., Overberg, K., and Rogers, D. E. (2001). Influence of breeding habitat on bear predation and age at maturity and sexual dimorphism of sockeye salmon populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79, 1782–1793.
| Influence of breeding habitat on bear predation and age at maturity and sexual dimorphism of sockeye salmon populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quinn, T. P., Gende, S. M., Ruggerone, G. T., and Rogers, D. E. (2003). Density-dependent predation by brown bears (Ursus arctos) on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60, 553–562.
| Density-dependent predation by brown bears (Ursus arctos) on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quinn, T. P., Wirsing, A. J., Smith, B., Cunningham, C. J., and Ching, J. (2014). Complementary use of motion-activated cameras and unbaited wire snares for DNA sampling reveals diel and seasonal activity patterns of brown bears (Ursus arctos) foraging on adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Zoology 92, 893–903.
| Complementary use of motion-activated cameras and unbaited wire snares for DNA sampling reveals diel and seasonal activity patterns of brown bears (Ursus arctos) foraging on adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quinn, T. P., Cunningham, C. J., and Wirsing, A. J. (2017). Diverse foraging opportunities drive the functional response of local and landscape-scale bear predation on Pacific salmon. Oecologia 183, 415–429.
| Diverse foraging opportunities drive the functional response of local and landscape-scale bear predation on Pacific salmon.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27873066PubMed |
R Core Development Team (2017). ‘R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria.) Available at https://www.r-project.org/ [verified 27 June 2020].
Royle, J. A., Stanley, T. R., and Lukacs, P. M. (2008). Statistical modeling and inference from carnivore survey data. In ‘Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores’. (Eds R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray.) pp. 293–312. (Island Press: Washington, DC, USA.)
Shardlow, T. F., and Hyatt, K. D. (2013). Quantifying associations of large vertebrates with salmon in riparian areas of British Columbia streams by means of camera-traps, bait stations, and hair samples. Ecological Indicators 27, 97–107.
| Quantifying associations of large vertebrates with salmon in riparian areas of British Columbia streams by means of camera-traps, bait stations, and hair samples.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Solberg, K. H., Bellemain, E., Drageset, O., Taberlet, P., and Swenson, J. E. (2006). An evaluation of field and non-invasive genetic methods to estimate brown bear (Ursus arctos) population size. Biological Conservation 128, 158–168.
| An evaluation of field and non-invasive genetic methods to estimate brown bear (Ursus arctos) population size.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sollmann, R., Gardner, B., Chandler, R. B., Shindle, D. B., Onorato, D. P., Royle, J. A., and O’Connell, A. F. (2013). Using multiple data sources provides density estimates for endangered Florida panther. Journal of Applied Ecology 50, 961–968.
| Using multiple data sources provides density estimates for endangered Florida panther.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stansbury, C. R., Ausband, D. E., Zager, P., Mack, C. M., Miller, C. R., Pennell, M. W., and Waits, L. P. (2014). A long-term population monitoring approach for a wide-ranging carnivore: noninvasive genetic sampling of gray wolf rendezvous sites in Idaho, USA. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78, 1040–1049.
| A long-term population monitoring approach for a wide-ranging carnivore: noninvasive genetic sampling of gray wolf rendezvous sites in Idaho, USA.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Waits, L. P., and Paetkau, D. (2005). Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. The Journal of Wildlife Management 69, 1419–1433.
| Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wegge, P., Pokheral, C. P., and Jnawali, S. R. (2004). Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Animal Conservation 7, 251–256.
| Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wirsing, A. J., Quinn, T. P., Cunningham, C. J., Adams, J. R., Craig, A. D., and Waits, L. P. (2018). Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos) aggregate and display fidelity to foraging neighborhoods while preying on Pacific salmon along small streams. Ecology and Evolution 8, 9048–9061.
| Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos) aggregate and display fidelity to foraging neighborhoods while preying on Pacific salmon along small streams.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30271565PubMed |
Wirsing, A. J., Quinn, T. P., Adams, J. R., and Waits, L. P. (2020). Optimizing selection of brown bear hair for noninvasive genetic analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin 44, 94–100.
| Optimizing selection of brown bear hair for noninvasive genetic analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wold, K., Wirsing, A. J., and Quinn, T. P. (2020). Do brown bears (Ursus arctos) avoid barbed wires deployed to obtain hair samples? A videographic assessment. Wildlife Biology , .
| Do brown bears (Ursus arctos) avoid barbed wires deployed to obtain hair samples? A videographic assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Woods, J. G., Paetkau, D., Lewis, D., McLellan, B. N., Proctor, M., and Strobeck, C. (1999). Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, 616–627.
