Assessment of golden jackal species (Canis aureus, L.1758) records in natural areas out of their known historic range

Abstract

Golden jackals show an increasing long-distance dispersal from their known historic geographic range into new areas (Rutkowski et al. 2015). Only in the last years, single golden jackal individuals were reported in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany or Denmark and a survival cluster of 5 territorial groups (Männil 2016, pers. comm.) is monitored in West Estonia.
The known historic range of the golden jackal species including large parts of Eurasia and Africa was recently reconsidered since the results of new genetic studies suggest that African golden jackals merit recognition as a full species - they meet the primary defining criterion of a separate and independently evolving metapopulation lineage (Rueness et al. 2011; Gaubert et al. 2012; Koepfli et al. 2015). Accordingly, it was proposed that the common names ‘‘African golden wolf’’ (Canis anthus) and ‘‘Eurasian golden jackal’’ (Canis aureus) be applied to distinguish these taxa and to distinguish the former from the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis). The African golden wolf is distributed across Africa and includes individuals that have been referred to as Canis lupus lupaster or Canis aureus, sensu lato. Morphologic parallelism of African golden wolves and Eurasian golden jackals may have resulted in their mistaken attribution to a single species (Koepfli et al. 2015).
Over the past two decades evidences northward and westward of the known historic range, mostly the Balkan area, were recorded (Kryštufek et al. 1997; Arnold et al. 2011). The native and naturally colonized range of golden jackals in Europe now include Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Moldova, Ukraine, Turkey, Caucasus countries, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Denmark. Central and South-East Europe have now a very important role in the golden jackal species conservation since the European or Caucasian golden jackal (Canis aureus moreoticus, I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1835) is known as having its main populations in Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary and Romania.
The main problem in assessing golden jackal proof in new areas is inexperience due to the novelty and rareness of these situations to this point. This report aims to establish common criteria within European countries and abroad for golden jackal species new records that are reported in areas within naturally colonized range.

Full text

Assessment of golden jackal species (Canis aureus

, L.1758) records in        
naturalareasoutoftheirknownhistoricrange
TechnicalReport:GOJAGECriteriaandGuidelines

12ofFebruary2016GOJAGEeBulletin
JenniferHATLAUF,OvidiuC.BANEA,LucaLAPINI
2016©GOJAGEGoldenJackalInformalStudyGroupEurope

1)Introduction

Golden jackals show an increasing longdistance dispersal from their known historic          
geographic range into new areas (Rutkowski et al. 2015). Only in the last years, single             
golden jackal individuals were reported in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany or Denmark           
and a survival cluster of 5 territorial groups (Männil 2016, pers. comm.

) is monitored in             
WestEstonia.
The known historic range of the golden jackal species including large parts of Eurasia and              
Africa was recently reconsidered since the results of new genetic studies suggest that            
African golden jackals merit recognition as a full species  they meet the primary defining              
criterion of a separate and independently evolving metapopulation lineage (Rueness et al

.          
2011;Gaubert et al. 2012;Koepfli et al. 2015). Accordingly, it was proposed that the            
common names ‘‘African golden wolf’’ (Canis anthus

) and ‘‘Eurasian golden jackal’’ (Canis          
aureus

) be applied to distinguish these taxa and to distinguish the former from the             
Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis

). The African golden wolf is distributed across Africa and           
includes individuals that have been referred to as Canis lupus lupaster or Canis aureus

,            
sensu lato. Morphologic parallelism of African golden wolves and Eurasian golden jackals           
mayhaveresultedintheirmistakenattributiontoasinglespecies(Koepflietal.

2015).
Over the past two decades evidences northward and westward of the known historic            
range, mostly the Balkan area, were recorded (Kryštufek et al. 1997; Arnold et al. 2011).            
The native and naturally colonized range of golden jackals in Europe now include Greece,             
Albania, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia, BosniaHerzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria,       
Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Czech        
Republic, Moldova, Ukraine, Turkey, Caucasus countries, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia,        
Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Denmark. Central and SouthEast Europe have now a           
very important role in the golden jackal species conservation since the European or            
Caucasian golden jackal (Canis aureus moreoticus

, I. Geoffroy SaintHilaire, 1835) is          
known as having its main populations in Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary and            
Romania.
The main problem in assessing golden jackal proof in new areas is inexperience due to              
the novelty and rareness of these situations to this point. This report aims to establish              
common criteria within European countries and abroad for golden jackal species new           
recordsthatarereportedinareaswithinnaturallycolonizedrange.

2)Methods

These methods are used by members of the GOlden JAckal informal study Group in             
Europe (GOJAGE). More than 80 scientists from Europe and abroad form this group. Its             
sole purpose is to gather information about the golden jackal population ecology and            
biogeography in all European countries as well as the entire known range, and further to              
communicatejointresearchactivitiesandspecializedspeciesintegratedmonitoring.
1


Directmethods
Indirectmethods
1) Livespecimen:directobservations
duringdaytimeorwithspotlight
2) Deadspecimen:roadkilled,
harvestedorconserved
3) Laboratory
 Identification by sampling saliva that is left       
in connection to bite wounds on prey or       
scavengedremnants,otherspecimentissues
Hair,urineordroppingsnuclearDNA
1) BioAcousticStimulation(BAS)
2) Photoandvideotrapping
3) Fieldwork:searchingfordens,tracks
andsignsduringsurveystages,
ecologicalfactorsassessment
4) Questionnaires,Interviews
5) Huntingbagdata,availablelocal
newspaperandliteraturereview

3)Criteria

To avoid misleading estimations of the golden jackal range or species misidentification we            
suggest the classification of new reports into three categories based on the reliability of the              
evidence adopted and modified from SCALP (Status and Conservation of the Alpine Lynx            
Population) of MolinariJobin et al. (2003). We added a new category to clearly           
discriminate reliability of evidence (C1,C2,C3 categories) from no evidence: this category          
is C4 (No Evidence). We also proposed additional criteria (GOJAGE Expert Criteria) based            
on complementary expert analysis using GOJAGE direct and indirect methods like direct           
observations, genetic analysis of liquids, excrements and hair, BAS, photo and video           
trapping, questionnaires, hunting, not verified reports presented in local newspapers,         
fieldwork or specific surveys. This process will permit a better assessment of the golden             
jackalspeciesrangeexpansion.

Category

Nr&Name
GOJAGEExpert/NonExpertCriteria

modifiedfromSCALP
GOJAGEExpertCriteria
number of methods with positive results     
assessedalwaysbyexperts
C1

Strong
Evidence
Unchallenged observations from experts   
“hard facts” e.g. all reports of golden jackals       
killed or found dead and photographs taken      
byexperts

 threeindirectmethods
OR
 onedirectmethod
C2

Verified
Evidence
Sightings,recordsoftracksanddroppings

→ifreportedorverifiedbyexperts

 threeindirectmethods

C3

Weak
Evidence
Sightings,recordsoftracksanddroppings
→ reported by nonexperts as well as all       
sightings and spontaneous howls that cannot     
beverified

 twoindirectmethods
C4

No
Evidence
Sightings,recordsoftracksanddroppings
→ reported by nonexperts as well as all       
sightings and spontaneous howls that cannot     
beverified

 nomethod
2




Forassessingareportyoucanfollowthekeyprotocol„Distinctionofgoldenjackal
evidence“

attheendofthistechnicalreport:GOJAGEGUIDELINES

Reports of C2, C3 categories could change into a C1 category if new mentioned methods              
are performed by experts and after new analysis with GOJAGE Expert criteria. If reports             
cannot be assessed according to these recommendations or to the GOJAGE guidelines,           
theserecordsshouldbeignoredandclassifiedasC4(NoEvidence).

4)Whattodowithpotentialevidence?

If a supposed golden jackal specimen is seen, photographed or found dead, the following             
stepsaresuggested.

4.1Report
→ Shot or roadkilled: Take a photo of the specimen (whole animal/ breast/ paws/ tail)              
and report it to the Nature Protection Authorities and the GOJAGE team. If this is not               
possible a sample of muscle tissue (for example from inner hind leg muscle) for genetic              
analysiscanbetaken.
→Photograph:SendthePicturetotheGOJAGEexpertteam
→Track:Ifpossible,takeapicturewithareferenceobject(ortakeagypsumimpression)
→ Sighting: Write a note as detailed as possible (exact location, time, number of             
animals,...)totheGOJAGEexpertteam

4.2Verification
The habitat should additionally be verified  Pictures or videos (also photo and video             
camera trappings) etc. can support the report. Species experts should investigate          
ecologicalfactorsinordertocompletethefindings.

4.3FieldworkwiththeGOJAGEexpertteam
The GOJAGE team will perform bioacoustic monitoring (BAM) or census, habitat          
assessment and species ecology assessment with or without costs according to local           
nature protection or game management authorities. For bioacoustic monitoring it is          
suggestedtoassigncategoriestojackalhowlingsignaturesaswell:

BAMC1
Strongevidence(typicalyiphowlsequences)
BAMC2
Equivocalordoubt(onlyoneanimal,barkingorwithoutyiphowl)
BAMNR
Anotherspeciesornoresponse,thissituationrequiresfurtherstudies

5)Legalframework(AnnexVaandVIfromtheEUHabitatsDirective)

The golden jackal (Canis aureus

) is a Community Interest species ("Habitats Directive"          
92/43/EEC) listed in Annex Va together with pine marten (Martes martes

), European          
polecat (Mustela putorius

) and chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra

). Monitoring of conservation       
status is an obligation arising from Article 11 of the Habitats Directive for all habitats (as               
listedinAnnexI)andspecies(aslistedinAnnexII,IVandV)ofCommunityinterest.
Consequently, this provision is not restricted to Natura 2000 sites and data need to be              
collected both in and outside the Natura 2000 network to achieve a full appreciation of the               
3

conservation status. The main results of this monitoring need to be reported to the             
Commission every six years according to Article 17 of the directive. Article 14 places a              
requirement for further surveillance of exploited species of flora and fauna listed in Annex             
V where necessary. Only after monitoring and scientific reports to the Commission,           
managementmeasurescanbeassessed.

When management measures are applied in case of Community Interest species like        
the golden jackal or chamois a series of hunting methods should be avoided. These             
hunting methods which are prohibited are listed in the Annex VI of the "Habitats            
Directive"92/43/EEC.

6)RepresentativesofGOldenJAckalinformalstudyGroupEuropeGOJAGE

Country
Name
Contact
Romania
OvidiuC.Banea
ovidiubanea@gmail.com
Romania
CristianR.Papp
papp_cr@yahoo.co.uk
Italy
LucaLapini
lucalapini@libero.it
France
NathanRanc
nathan.ranc@gmail.com
Spain
DanielPerezVazquez
danipeva@yahoo.es
Portugal
FranciscoAlvares
falvares@cibio.up.pt
Austria
JenniferHatlauf
hatlauf@hotmail.com
Greece
GiorgosGiannatos
ygiannatos@gmail.com
Greece
DespinaMigli
desmigli@gmail.com
Hungary
LászlóSzabó
mag.polaris@gmail.com
Hungary
MiklósGáborHeltai
heltai.miklos@gmail.com
Hungary
JózsefLanszki
lanszkij@gmail.com
Slovenia
MihaKrofel
miha.krofel@gmail.com
Bulgaria
NikolaiSpassov
nspassov@nmnhs.com
Bulgaria
IlyaAcostaPankov
ilyaacosta@gmail.com
Bulgaria
StoyanStoyanov
stoyans@abv.bg
Serbia
DuškoĆirović
dcirovic@bio.bg.ac.rs
Serbia
AleksandraPenezić
aleksandra.penezic@yahoo.com
Croatia
IvanaSelanec
ivanaselanec@gmail.com
CzechRepublic
JaroslavČervinka
jara.cervinka@centrum.cz
CzechRepublic
MartinŠalek
martin.sali@post.cz
Poland
WieslawBogdanowicz
wieslawb@miiz.waw.pl
Lithuania
GintarėŽalkauskaite
gintare.zalkauskaite@gmail.com
Estonia
PeepMännil
peep.mannil@gmail.com
Germany
FelixBöcker
fel.boecker@googlemail.com
Ukraine
MykolaRozhenko
rogenkonikolaj@gmail.com
Ukraine
AndriyTarasBashta
atbashta@gmail.com
Ukraine
GrigoriyKolomytsev
g.kolomytsev@gmail.com
Ukraine
VasylPrydatko
vasylprydatko@yahoo.com
Ukraine
IgorZagorodniuk
zoozag@ukr.net
Turkey
CoşkunTez
tezc@erciyes.edu.tr
Turkey
OsmanIbis
ibis.osman@gmail.com
Belarus
ValeryDombrovski
valdombr@rambler.ru

GOJAGE members (2011): Giorgos Giannatos (Greece), Luca Lapini (Italy), Dumitru Murariu          
(Romania), Miha Krofel (Slovenia), Dusko Cirovic (Serbia), László Szabó (Hungary), Ovidiu Banea           
(Romania), Petre Gargarea (Romania), Daniel Perez Vazquez (Spain), Jaroslav Cervinka (Czech          
Republic), Martin Salek (Czech Republic), Aleksandra Penezic (Serbia), Frank Zachos (Austria),          
Mark Hajdu (Hungary), Letizia Kozlan (Italy). GOJAGE members (20122016): Ivana Selanec          
(Croatia), Alexandra Grigore (Romania), Nicoleta Dinculescu (Romania), Krassimir Kurtev        
4

(Bulgaria), Gabriella Dragne (Greece), Dan Vasiu (Romania), Franco Milani (Italy), Stefano          
Pecorella (Italy), Tomaž Berce (Slovenia), CristianRemus Papp (Romania), Coşkun Tez (Turkey),          
Osman Ibiş (Turkey), Mateja Deržič (Slovenia), Jasna Mladenovič (Slovenia), Ivan Budinski          
(Croatia), Lejla Colic (Croatia), Stefano Filacorda (Italy), Andrea Caboni (Italy), Luca Dorigo (Italy),            
Marco Pavanello (Italy), Peep Männil (Estonia), Kaja Lotman (Estonia), Liisi Laos (Estonia), Alex            
Lotman (Estonia), Tonis Ulm (Estonia), Antti Halkka (Finland), Hiroshi Tsunoda (Japan), Ilya           
Acosta Pankov (Bulgaria), Felix Böcker (Germany), Dominique Van Asperen (Greece), Igor          
Zagorodniuk (Ukraine), Mykola Rozhenko (Ukraine), Sergey Zhyla (Ukraine), Valery Dombrovski         
(Belarus), Viktor Demianchik (Belarus), Elena Dyatlova (Ukraine), AndriyTaras Bashta (Ukraine),         
Jose Luis Alvarez Piernas (Spain), Lucian Parfon (Romania), Radu Mot (Romania), Chandika           
Jayaratne (Sri Lanka), Maria Petridou (Greece), Grygoriy Kolomytsev (Ukraine), Michelle Drew          
(Australia), Stoyan Stoyanov (Bulgaria), Timo Maran (Estonia), Janez Tarman (Slovenia), Julie K.           
Young (USA), Jeffrey Sweetbaum (Montenegro), Nathan Ranc (France), Wojciech Solarz (Poland),          
Sebastijan Lamut (Slovenia), Anita Kurys (Hungary), Francisco Jorge Álvares (Portugal), Maciej          
Romanski (Poland), Gintarė Žalkauskaite (Lithuania), Jos Stratford (United Kingdom), Aakriti Singh          
(India), Jennifer Hatlauf (Austria), Klaus Hackländer (Austria), Janos Botond Kiss (Romania),          
Liselotte Wesley Andersen (Denmark), Neculai Selaru (Romania), Calin Gherman (Romania),         
Vladimir Talpes (Romania), Angela Ionica (Romania). Scientific support: Janosch Arnold        
(Austria), Boris Krystufek (Slovenia), Grigore Baboianu (Romania), Nikolai Spassov (Bulgaria),         
VassilGolemansky(Bulgaria),WieslawBogdanowicz(Poland),VasylPrydatko(Ukraine).



Literature

Arnold Janosch, Humer Anna, Heltai Miklós, Murariu Dumitru, Spassov Nikolai, and Hackländer Klaus. 2011.             
“Current Status and Distribution of Golden Jackals Canis Aureus in Europe.” Mammal Review 42 (1):              
1–11.

Gaubert, Philippe, Cécile Bloch, Slim Benyacoub, Adnan Abdelhamid, Paolo Pagani, Chabi Adéyèmi Marc            
Sylvestre Djagoun, Arnaud Couloux, and Sylvain Dufour. 2012. “Reviving the African Wolf Canis Lupus             
Lupaster in North and West Africa: A Mitochondrial Lineage Ranging More than 6,000 Km Wide.” PloS               
One7(8):e42740.

Koepfli, KlausPeter, John Pollinger, Raquel Godinho, Jacqueline Robinson, Amanda Lea, Sarah Hendricks,           
Rena M. Schweizer, et al. 2015. “GenomeWide Evidence Reveals That African and Eurasian Golden             
JackalsAreDistinctSpecies.”CurrentBiology:CB25(16):2158–65.

Kryštufek B., Murariu D., and Kurtonur C. 1997. “Present Distribution of the Golden Jackal Canis Aureus in the                 
BalkansandAdjacentRegions.”MammalReview27(2):109–14.

MolinariJobin, A., Molinari, P., BreitenmoserWürsten, C., Wölfl, M., Stanisa, C., Fasel, M., Stahl, P., Vandel,              
J., Rotelli, L., Kaczensky, P., Huber, T., Adamic, M., Koren, I., & Breitenmoser, U. (2003). PanAlpine               
ConservationStrategyfortheLynx.Natureandenvironment130,CouncilofEuropePublishing.

Rueness, Eli Knispel, Maria Gulbrandsen Asmyhr, Claudio SilleroZubiri, David W. Macdonald, Afework Bekele,            
Anagaw Atickem, and Nils Chr Stenseth. 2011. “The Cryptic African Wolf: Canis Aureus Lupaster Is              
NotaGoldenJackalandIsNotEndemictoEgypt.”PloSOne6(1):e16385.

Rutkowski, Robert, Miha Krofel, Giorgos Giannatos, Duško Ćirović, Peep Männil, Anatoliy M. Volokh, József             
Lanszki, et al. 2015. “A European Concern? Genetic Structure and Expansion of Golden Jackals             
(CanisAureus)inEuropeandtheCaucasus.”PloSOne10(11):e0141236.


5



Distinctionofgoldenjackal(Canisaureus,

L.1758)evidencesGOJAGEGUIDELINES

TYPE
WHO
REPORTS
EXPERTINVITED
KEY
QUALITY
GOJAGE
CRITERIA

Picture*
Video*


Expert

Positive
Sure
C1
Doubt
Possible
C3
Non‐Expert
yes
Positive
Sure
C1
Doubt
Possible
C3
Negative
Wrong
C4
No

Possible
C3
Hair*
Scat*
Bones*
Dead
Specimen*

Laboratory
Positive
Sure
C1
Negative
Wrong
C4
Withoutlaboratory
‐butwithexpert
Positive
Possible
C2
Doubt
Unsure
C3
Negative
Wrong
C4
Withoutlaboratory

Unsure
C3
Tracks
Footprint
Fieldwork
survey
Expert

Positive
Sure
C2
Doubt
Possible
C3
Negative
Wrong
C4
Non‐Expert
Yes
Positive
Sure
C2
Doubt
Possible
C3
Negative
Wrong
C4
No

Unsure
C3
Sightings
Expert

Positive
Likely
C2
Doubt
Possible
C3
Negative
Wrong
C4
Non‐Expert
Yes**
Positive
Possible
C3
Doubt
Unsure
C3
Negative
Wrong
C4
No

Unsure
C3
Spontaneous
howling
BioAcoustic
Monitoring
(BAM)

Expert

Positive
(yip‐howl)
Sure
BAMC1
Doubt
(1animal,
barking)
Possible
BAMC2
Negative
Wrong***
BAMNR***
Non‐Expert
Yes**
Positive
Unsure
C3
Doubt
Unsure
C3
Negative
Wrong
C4
No

Unsure
C3
6

*Iftheseevidencesarenotavailableanymore,whencontrolled–assessmentoftheevidenceshouldbedealtwithaccordingto
„sightings“
**Evaluationofplausibility
***BAMNRsituationrequiresfurtherinvestigationsasfornow,noresponsedoesnotexcludespeciespresence

Qualitydescriptions:
This table is adapted from the criteria proposal for lynx monitoring from the Forstliche Versuchs und Forschungsanstalt                
BadenWürtemberg (www.wildtiermonitoring.de) that includes SCALP Criteria (MolinariJobin et al. 2003). Their criteria enable an            
evenmoredistinctassessmentthroughadditionalQualitydescriptions:1.sure2.likely3.possible4.unsure5.wrong


GOJAGEDATABASE

Newgoldenjackalreportsdatabasewillbeupdatedandperiodicallypublishedintheonline 
GOJAGEeBulletin(here) 

ToreportnewrecordsyoucancontactGOJAGErepresentativesormembersinyourowncountry(chapter6).
Toreportrecordsoutofknownrangepleasecontact:

Mrs.JenniferHatlauf,MSc
inWildlifeEcologyandWildlifeManagement,GOJAGE
Email:hatlauf@hotmail.com

PleaseprovidedataasisshowedinthefollowingtableandwaitGOJAGEexpertise
CATEGORY
thiscolumnis
reservedto
GOJAGEexpert
DATE
AGE


ifavailable
GENDER


ifavailable
LOCATION

‐City,country
‐GPScoordinates
EXPERT
NON‐EXPERT

‐name,contactdetails





















Correspondingauthors:GOJAGECo‐Founders

OvidiuC.Banea,EnvironmentalEcologist,MSc.
EcologyDept.ofCrispusNGOSibiu,
Str.Muncel5/79550320SIBIU,ROMANIA.
Phone:0034‐661557293
LucaLapini,Biologist,Dr.inNat.Sciences
ZoologicalSect.oftheFriulianNaturalHistoryMuseum,
ViaMarangoni39,I33100UDINE,ITALY. 
Phone:0039‐3461576021

7