Article

Estimating population size and trends of the Swedish brown bear Ursus arctos population

[ "*Present address: National Centre for Biosystematics, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1172 Blindern, NO-0318 Oslo, Norway"]; [ "Corresponding author: Jonas Kindberg"]; [ "Associate Editor: Olivier Gimenez"]; [ "Jonas Kindberg & Göran Ericsson, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-90183 Umeå, Sweden - e-mail addresses: (Jonas Kindberg); (Göran Ericsson)"]; [ "Jon E. Swenson, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway, and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway - e-mail: "]; [ "Eva Bellemain*, Christian Miquel & Pierre Taberlet, Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France - e-mail addresses; (Eva Bellemain); (Christian Miquel); (Pierre Taberlet)"]
Wildlife Biology (Impact Factor: 1.1). 07/2011; DOI: 10.2981/10-100

ABSTRACT Estimating population size and trends are key issues in the conservation and management of large carnivores. The rebounding brown bear Ursus arctos population in Sweden is monitored by two different systems, both relying on voluntary resources. Population estimates have been calculated using Capture-Mark-Recapture methods, based on DNA-based scat surveys in five of the six Swedish counties with established bear populations. A total of 1,358 genotypes were identified using DNA extracted from collected scats. An independent ongoing programme, the Large Carnivore Observation Index (LCOI), was initiated in 1998. The LCOI uses effort-corrected observations of bears by moose Alces alces hunters during the moose hunt (> 2 million observation hours/year) and has shown a good correlation with relative population density of bears using the DNA-based method. From this, we have calculated population trends during the period 1998-2007. Using an exponential model, we estimated the yearly increase in the bear population to be 4.5% at the national level, varying between 0 and 10.2% in different counties. We used the regional population estimates and the trends from the LCOI, taking the variation from both systems into account using parametric bootstrapping, to calculate the regional as well as the national population size in Sweden in fall 2008. In one case (the northernmost county; Norrbotten) a DNA-scat survey was lacking, so we used assumptions based on data from the neighbouring county to estimate population size. We estimated the Swedish brown bear population to be 3,298 individuals (2,968-3,667; 95% confidence intervals) in 2008. Our results suggest that reliable information, necessary for the management of the brown bear population can be obtained from volunteers using standardised methods.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
298 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accurate estimates of abundance are fundamental to the conservation of threatened species, but are often difficult to obtain directly. Population size assessments of marine turtles are often based on counts of nests, which are then related to abundance using the mean number of clutches laid by individuals within a season. Due to low re-encounter probabilities, clutch frequency has proven difficult to estimate reliably, particularly for large populations that make a major contribution to global stock assessments. We use a combination of VHF radio-telemetry and Argos-linked Fastloc™ GPS devices to improve clutch frequency estimates for one of the world’s largest green turtle rookeries at Ascension Island. Females fitted with VHF tags at the start of the season (n = 40) were re-encountered with a probability of 85% and laid a minimum average of 5.8 clutches. Three of these turtles were fitted with VHF and GPS devices and using the data collected by the latter, were found to lay an average of 6.3 clutches. GPS-telemetry detected emergences observed using radio-telemetry, and confirmed that some radio-tagged turtles laid again after their last observed emergence. Correcting for missed nesting events yielded a mean clutch frequency of 6.3, more than doubling the previous estimate of 3.0 for this population. Applying this revised assessment to annual nest counts reduces the estimated size of this population by 52%. Conventional tagging approaches may considerably underestimate annual fecundity of turtles, resulting in inflated population size estimates. We call for urgent reassessment of baseline abundance values for regionally important populations.
    Biological Conservation 01/2013; · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large carnivores were persecuted to near extinction during the last centuries, but have now recovered in some countries. It has been proposed earlier that the recovery of the Northern European brown bear is supported by migration from Russia. We tested this hypothesis by obtaining for the first time continuous sampling of the whole Finnish bear population, which is located centrally between the Russian and Scandinavian bear populations. The Finnish population is assumed to experience high gene flow from Russian Karelia. If so, no or a low degree of genetic differentiation between Finnish and Russian bears could be expected. We have genotyped bears extensively from all over Finland using 12 validated microsatellite markers and compared their genetic composition to bears from Russian Karelia, Sweden, and Norway. Our fine masked investigation identified two overlapping genetic clusters structured by isolation-by-distance in Finland (pairwise FST = 0.025). One cluster included Russian bears, and migration analyses showed a high number of migrants from Russia into Finland, providing evidence of eastern gene flow as an important driver during recovery. In comparison, both clusters excluded bears from Sweden and Norway, and we found no migrants from Finland in either country, indicating that eastern gene flow was probably not important for the population recovery in Scandinavia. Our analyses on different spatial scales suggest a continuous bear population in Finland and Russian Karelia, separated from Scandinavia.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(5):e97558. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Croatia is currently being managed through trophy hunting, with quotas allocated to local hunting organisations. Human–bear conflict is present at a low level, but any losses are compensated by the hunting organisations that benefit from bear hunting. Attitudes towards bears are generally positive, and the bear population appears stable, or even increasing. Croatia's current bear hunting policy relies upon both the ecological sustainability of the quotas and the economic sustainability of the hunting organisations. To address the first of these pillars of current policy, we used a two-sex matrix model of the bear population to investigate the biological sustainability of current hunting levels. The model suggests that if the annual allocated quota were fully realised, the population would suffer a considerable decrease over 10 years. A likely explanation for the mismatch between this result and the observed stability of the population is that the bear population size is underestimated. To address the second pillar, we quantified the current structure, costs and benefits of bear hunting to hunting organisations through an interview survey with hunting managers. We found that bear hunting is a substantial component of hunting organisations' income, supporting the other activities of the organisation. Croatia's recent accession to the EU will require changes in their bear management system, potentially stopping bear trophy hunting. Therefore, we assessed the changes in hunting organisations' budgets in the absence of bear hunting. Our results demonstrate that a loss of bear trophy hunting would result in a substantial loss of income to the hunting organisations. Moving bear hunting and compensation mechanisms from local management and responsibility to a more centralised system without trophy hunting, as suggested by EU legislation, will lead to considerable uncertainties. These include how to make centralised decisions on population targets and offtake levels for population control, given the uncertainty around population estimates, and on compensation payments given the loss of the current system which relies heavily on local income from trophy hunting, local relationships and informal monetary and non-monetary compensation.
    European Journal of Wildlife Research 06/2013; · 1.36 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
128 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014