Content uploaded by Matthias Hammer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthias Hammer on Jan 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
EXPEDITION REPORT
Expedition dates: 5 – 18 February 2017
Report published: January 2021
True white wilderness: Tracking lynx,
wolf and bear in the Carpathian
mountains of Slovakia
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
1
EXPEDITION REPORT
True white wilderness: Tracking lynx, wolf and bear
in the Carpathian mountains of Slovakia
Expedition dates:
5 – 18 February 2017
Report published:
January 2021
Authors:
Tomáš Hulík
Environmental Society LENS
Marcelo Mazzolli (editor)
Projeto Puma
Matthias Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
2
Abstract
This report covers the sixth year of field research in northern Slovakia’s Veľká Fatra National Park with
the support of citizen scientists and the aim of collecting biological information to improve
management practices for bears (Ursus arctos), wolves (Canis lupus), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wildcat
(Felis silvestris) in the park. Fieldwork was conducted from 6 to 17 February 2017 and concentrated
on the Ľubochnianska valley.
The study was a collaboration between Biosphere Expeditions and Environmental Society LENS. It
used a cell-based occupancy approach and recorded signs (such as footprints, animal trails of
footprints, scats, feeding remains, marking points) of large carnivores and their prey. Samples such as
scats and urine were also collect for batch DNA analysis. Camera traps were also used. The different
recording methods showed that snow-tracking can yield a substantially higher amount of distribution
information on lynx, wolf, bear and wildcat range than any other observation technique employed.
The survey area was divided into cells of 2.5 x 2.5 km size. During the expedition 27 transects were
surveyed with a total length of 344,56 km, covering 22 cells. The average length of a transect was
12.76 km and the total area surveyed was 137.5 km2. Signs of target species were recorded in 17 out
of the 22 cells surveyed. In terms of frequency, it was the best year in the history of the expedition. A
total of 219 trails and tracks left by target species were recorded, of which 23 were identified as being
left by lynx (11%), 75 by wolf (34%), 110 by bear (50%) and 11 by wildcat (5%).
Twenty camera traps were placed in a total of 23 positions and took 4290 photographs. Three camera
trap recorded wolf (Canis lupus), two recorded lynx (Lynx lynx) and one wildcat (Felis silvestris). Fox
(Vulpes vulpes), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), wild boar (Sus scrofa),
pine martin (Martes martes) and squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) were also photographed.
Eight samples (3 scats and 5 urine samples) were collected for DNA analysis, four of which (50%)
were assumed, from footprints, to be from wolf, two urine samples from lynx (25%) and two scats
sample (25%) from bear. All samples are currently awaiting DNA analysis to confirm species and
enable identification of individuals.
Survey results since 2012 suggest that the lynx population in Veľká Fatra National Park is relatively
stable. During normal winters, the lynx’s main prey, the deer, concentrate in the valleys where they are
fed at feeding stations by hunters and foresters to ensure an artificially high deer population for
hunting purposes. This abundant food supply is likely to be one important reason for the lynx’s stable
population in the park, as is the high protection status of the species in Slovakia.
In 2017 wolf signs scored their second highest frequency since 2012, but were detected in the second
lowest number of cells (n=10), probably associated with normal winter conditions, which meant that
prey animals were concentrated in valley bottoms and for that reason wolf signs were found
predominantly in the central and lower parts of the valley. The correlation between winter severity and
the distribution of prey, and therefore wolves, in the valley is strong, corroborating findings from
previous years. Here too artificially high deer prey populations, combined with the wolf’s relatively high
protection status in Slovakia, appears to contribute to a relatively stable presence of wolves in Veľká
Fatra National Park.
A record log of 110 bear footprints found indicate that they were not hibernating and able to feed on
the very high amount of beech fruits (Fagus silvaticus) present. This corroborates findings of the mild
winter of 2014. In any case, bear presence too appears to be relatively stable in Veľká Fatra National
Park.
Finally, the wildcat population appears to be stable, if small, as well as evidenced by consistent sign
records noted by the expeditions, once each in 2016, 2015 and 2013, six times in 2014 and eleven
times in 2017.
This research project had to wind down after the 2017 expedition, because our permit expired and was
not renewed by the National Park. The second editor (MH) believes this is due to widespread
corruption and destructive practices in Slovakian parks, which authorities did not want to be
documented.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
3
Súhrn
Súhrnná správa zo šiesteho ročníka terénneho monitoringu na severe Slovenska v Národnom parku
Veľká Fatra s podporou domáceho výskumníka s cieľom získať biologické informácie a prispieť k
zlepšeniu menežmentových opatrení pre medveďa hnedého (Ursus arctos), vlka dravého (Canis
lupus), rysa ostrovida (Lynx lynx) a mačky divej (Felis silvestris). Terénny monitoring sa sústredil na
Ľubochniansku dolinu v období od 6. februára do 17. februára 2017.
Táto správa je spoluprácou medzi organizáciami Biosphere Expeditions a Environmentálnou
spoločnosťou LENS. Využíva metódu prezencie/absencie v EEA sieti štvorcov a zaznamenáva
pobytové znaky (stopy, stopové dráhy, exkrementy, zbytky potravy a značkovacie miesta)
predátorov a ich koristi. Vzorky ako exkrementy, chlpy a moč sú zhromažďované za účelom DNA
analýzy. Využívané sú aj fotopasce. Tieto rôzne metódy zaznamenávania pobytových znakov
naznačujú, že zimné stopovanie môže priniesť podstatne väčšie množstvo informácií o rysoch,
vlkoch, medveďoch a mačke divej, než akékoľvek iné metódy pozorovania v teréne.
Záujmové územie bolo rozdelené na kvadranty o veľkosti 2,5 x 2,5 km. Počas terénneho výskumu
bolo monitorovaných 27 transektov v celkovej dľžke 344,56 km, zahŕňajúcich 22 kvadrantov.
Priemerná dĺžka transektu bola 12,76 km. Pobytové znaky záujmových druhov sme zaznamenali v
17 z 22 preskúmaných kvadrantov, z hľadiska zaznamenávania stop to bol najlepší rok v histórii
expedície. Identifikovaných bolo 219 nálezov stôp a stopových dráh záujmových druhov: 23 patrilo
rysovi ostrovidovi (Lynx lynx) (11%), 75 vlkovi dravému (34%), 110 medveďovi hnedému (50%) a 11
stôp patrilo mačke divej (5%).
Dvadsať fotopascí bolo umiestnených na 23 miestach v záujmovom území. Získali sme 4290
fotografií. Tri fotopasce zaznamenali vlka dravého (Canis lupus), dve zachytili rysa ostrovida (Lynx
lynx) a jedna mačku divú (Felis silvestris). Ďalšie fotografované druhy boli: líška hrdzavá (Vulpes
vulpes), jeleň lesný (Cervus elaphus), srnec hôrny (Capreolus capreolus), diviak lesný (Sus scrofa),
kunalesná (Martes martes) a vevericu hrdzavú (Sciurus vulgaris).
Nájdených bolo 8 vzoriek na DNA analýzu (3x trus, 5x moč). Na základe stôp pri vzorke boli zaistené
4 vzorky (50%) vlka dravého, dve vzorky moču patrili rysovi ostrovidovi (25%) a dve vzorky (25%)
trusu patrili medveďovi hnedému. Vzorky zatiaľ čakajú na DNA analýzu, ktorá by mala potvrdiť
predpokladané druhy zvierat a identifikovať jednotlivé individuá.
Prieskum, ktorý sa uskutočňuje od roku 2012 poukazuje na fakt, že populácia rysa ostrovida v
Národnom Parku Veľká Fatra je viac menej stabilná. Počas štandardných zimných podmienok,
hlavná potrava rysa – srnčia zver je koncentrovaná v dolinách, kde sú prikrmované lesníkmi a
poľovníkmi za účelom udržania stavu raticovej zvery a na poľovné účely. Bohatá potravná ponuka je
jedným z hlavných dôvodov stabilnej populácie rysa ostrovida, tak ako aj jeho celoročná ochrana na
území Slovenska.
V roku 2017 boli pobytové znaky vlkov zaznamené v najvyššej miere od roku 2012, ale boli
detekované v druhom najmenšom počte kvadrantov (n=10), pravdepodobne kvôli štandardným
zimným podmienkam, kedy je korisť vlkov sústredená v doline, a tak ich pobytové znaky sme v
prevažnej miere zaznamenali v centrálnych a nižších častiach doliny. V skutočnosti zaznamenávame
silný vzťah medzi zimnými podmienkami a distribúciou vlčej koristi a následne vlkov v údolných
častiach doliny. Dostatočná potravná ponuka jelenej zvery a relatívne vysoká zákonná ochrana vlka
na Slovensku prispieva ku konzistentnej prítomnosti vlka dravého v Národnom parku Veľká Fatra.
110 stopových dráh medveďa hnedého naznačuje, že nehibernovali a boli si schopné nájsť potravu v
podobe veľkého množstva bukvíc (Fagus silvaticus). Podobná situácia nastala počas miernej zimy v
roku 2014. V každom prípade, môžeme konštatovať, že populácia medveďa hnedého v Národnom
parku Veľká Fatra je taktiež stabilná.
Populácia mačky divej vyzerá byť malá a stabilná. Tento fakt potvrdzujú nálezy pobytových znakov raz v
rokoch 2016, 2015 a 2013 a šesťkrát v roku 2014 a jedenásť krát v roku 2017.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
4
Contents
Abstract
2
Súhrn
3
Contents
4
1. Expedition review
5
1.1. Background
5
1.2. Research area
5
1.3. Dates
7
1.4. Local conditions & support
7
1.5. Local scientist
8
1.6. Expedition leader
8
1.7. Expedition team
8
1.8. Expedition budget
9
1.9. Acknowledgements
10
1.10. Further information & enquiries
10
2. Monitoring large carnivores in Ľubochnianska Valley
11
2.1. Introduction
11
2.2. Study area
13
2.3. Materials & methods
14
2.4. Results
18
2.5. Discussion & conclusions
27
2.6. Literature cited
30
Appendix I: Raw data, sampling (effort), maps & camera trap photos
34
Appendix II: Expedition diary and reports
70
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
5
Please note: Each expedition report is written as a stand-alone document that can be read
without having to refer back to previous reports. As such, much of this section, which
remains valid and relevant, is a repetition from previous reports, copied here to provide the
reader with an uninterrupted flow of argument and rationale.
1. Expedition review
M. Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
1.1. Background
Biosphere Expeditions runs wildlife conservation research expeditions to all corners of the
Earth. Our projects are not tours, photographic safaris or excursions, but genuine research
expeditions placing ordinary people with no research experience alongside scientists who
are at the forefront of conservation work. Our expeditions are open to all and there are no
special skills (biological or otherwise) required to join. Our expedition team members are
people from all walks of life, of all ages, looking for an adventure with a conscience and a
sense of purpose. More information about Biosphere Expeditions and its research
expeditions can be found at www.biosphere-expeditions.org.
This project report deals with an expedition to the Carpathian Mountains of Slovakia
(Veľká Fatra National Park) that ran from 5 to 18 February 2017 with the aim of conducting
conservation research monitoring on lynx, wolf, bear and wildcat, including their
interrelationships with prey species.
With rising numbers of wolf, lynx and bear in Slovakia since the second half of the 20th
century, conflicts with local people have come to public attention. Negative aspects of their
presence often make news headlines, promoting a heightened sense of fear. Wolves
sometimes cause considerable losses to livestock, particularly sheep, and hunters think
they will wipe out game stocks. Such conflicts often lead to calls for culling, which is the
approach that almost eradicated carnivores from Slovakia in the past. The concurrent
emergence of new threats to wildlife and habitats presented by economic development
means that a more sensitive approach is required, one based on a sound understanding of
the place of carnivores in ecosystems, but also considering their impact on local people.
As very little modern scientific work has been done on large carnivores in Slovakia, there
is much to be done in order to achieve these goals.
1.2. Research area
The Carpathians are a range of mountains forming an arc roughly 1,500 km long across
Central and Eastern Europe. They stretch in an arc from the Czech Republic (3% of their
range) in the northwest through Slovakia (17%), Poland (10%), Hungary (4%) and Ukraine
(11%) to Romania (53%) in the east and on to the River Danube between Romania and
Serbia (2%) in the south.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
6
The Western Carpathian Mountains cover much of northern Slovakia, and spread into the
Czech Republic with Moravia to the east and southern Poland to the north. They are home
to many rare and endemic species of flora and fauna, as well as being a notable staging
post for a very large number of migrating birds.
The expedition’s study area was the Veľká Fatra National Park. The Bradt Travel Guide
has this to say about the park: “The gorgeous Veľká Fatra National Park is a vast 403
square kilometre area of unspoilt, undiscovered natural beauty, and you can walk all day
in peace and solitude, feeling like the first explorer to set foot in a beautiful, flower-filled
mountain meadow. Most of the area is covered by beech and fir forests, in some places by
spruce and pines. The area around Harmanec is the richest yew tree region in Europe.”
Figure 1.2a. Flag and location of Slovakia and study area. An overview of Biosphere Expeditions’ research sites,
assembly points, base camp and office locations is at Google Maps.
The national park and its buffer zone comprise most of the Veľká Fatra range, which is
part of the Outer Western Carpathians. The national park was declared on 1 April 2002 as
an upgrade from the Protected Landscape Area of the same name established in 1972.
The park protects a mountain range with a high percentage of well-preserved Carpathian
forests. Ridge-top cattle pastures date back to the 15th century, to the times of the so-
called Walachian colonisation. The Veľká Fatra National Park is also an important
reservoir of fresh water thanks to high rainfalls and low evaporation in the area. The core
of the range is built of granite, which reaches the surface only in places. More common are
various slates, creating gentle ridges and summits of the so-called Hôlna Fatra, and
limestone and dolomite rocks, creating a rough and picturesque terrain of the so-called
Bralná Fatra. There are also many karst features, namely caves. Various rocks and
therefore various soils, and diverse types of terrain with gentle upland meadows and
pastures, sharp cliffs and deep valleys provide for an extremely rich flora and fauna. All
species of large Central European carnivores live abundantly there: brown bear, grey wolf
and Eurasian lynx. The UNESCO World Heritage village of Vlkolínec with well-preserved
log cabins lies near.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
7
1.3. Dates
The project ran over a period of two weeks divided into two one-week slots, each
composed of a team of international research assistants, scientists and an expedition
leader. Slot dates were:
5 – 11 February | 12 – 18 February 2017
Team members could join for multiple slots (within the periods specified). Dates were
chosen to coincide with the best chance for snow cover for tracking purposes.
1.4. Local conditions & support
The study was a collaboration between the organisations Biosphere Expeditions and
Environmental Society LENS, a Slovakian NGO founded by the lead author of this report,
Tomáš Hulík.
Expedition base
The expedition team was based in the village of Švošov. During the heydays of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire, the area was a popular spa holiday destination, because of its beautiful
mountain setting and the presence of hot mineral springs. The team stayed in a
comfortable chalet (Chata Dolinka) with all modern amenities. Team members shared twin
or double or triple rooms, some with en-suite showers and toilets; breakfast and dinner
were provided at base and a lunch pack was supplied for each day spent in the field.
Weather
The weather during the expedition was mild wintery with temperatures around and above
zero degrees. Snow cover was thin and there were only two bouts of snowfall (see
Appendix I, Table 1).
Field communications
There was mobile phone coverage in Švošov, but there was very little mobile phone
coverage in the national park study site. There were hand-held radios for groups working
close together. The villa base had WiFi internet. The expedition leader posted a diary with
multimedia content on Wordpress and excerpts of this were mirrored on Biosphere
Expeditions’ social media sites such as Facebook and Google+.
Transport & vehicles
Team members made their own way to Bratislava or Kraľovany. From there onwards and
back to Bratislava all transport was provided for the expedition team.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
8
Medical support and incidents
The expedition leader was a trained first aider and the expedition carried a comprehensive
medical kit. Further medical support was provided via a network of mountain rescue
stations. The nearest hospital was in the nearby town of Ružomberok (30 km from base).
In case of immediate need of hospitalisation, and weather permitting, helicopters of the
mountain rescue service were also available. Safety and emergency procedures were in
place, but did not have to be invoked, as there were no medical or other emergency
incidents during the expedition.
All team members were required to carry adequate travel insurance covering emergency
medical evacuation and repatriation.
1.5. Local scientist
Tomáš Hulík is a wildlife film maker, photographer and environmentalist. He graduated
from the Faculty of Natural Sciences at the University of Komensky, Environmental
Department in Bratislava. He has participated in scientific and photographic expeditions to
the Far East of Russia, to the island of Sakhalin, as well as to Borneo and Malaysia.
Alongside his work as a biologist, he also works in environments such as a television,
either as a cameraman or as a producer. His films “Hulík and the beavers”, “High Tatras –
wilderness frozen in time”, “Miloš and the lynxes”, “King of heaven Golden Eagle” and
“Wild Slovakia” were distributed worldwide. His project “Miloš and the lynxes” has brought
him back to science. He is now working on the conservation of lynx and other big
predators and trying to establish the size of lynx and wolf territories, as well as the ecology
of these carnivores, in the Veľká Fatra National Park.
1.6. Expedition leader
Malika Fettak is half Algerian, but was born and educated in Germany. She majored in
Marketing & Communications and worked for more than a decade in both the creative
department, but also in PR & marketing of a publishing company. Her love of nature,
travelling and the outdoors (and taking part in a couple of Biosphere expeditions) showed
her that a change of direction was in order. Joining Biosphere Expeditions in 2008, she
runs the German-speaking operations and the German office and leads expeditions all
over the world whenever she can. She has travelled extensively, is multilingual, a qualified
off-road driver, diver, outdoor first aider, and a keen sportswoman.
1.7. Expedition team
The expedition team was recruited by Biosphere Expeditions and consisted of a mixture of
all ages, nationalities and backgrounds. They were (in alphabetical order and with country
of residence):
5 – 11 February 2017
Karl-Heinz Berner (Germany), Angela Crossland (UK), Philip Crossland (UK), Edward
Durell (USA), Marina Knaz (Germany), Angelika Krimmel (Germany), Gilli Mayo (UK),
Peter Pilbeam (UK), Idan Schenberg (Israel), Anne Schroedter (Germany).
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
9
12 – 19 February 2018
Timothy Burton (UK), Christian Cummins* (Austria), Edward Durell (USA), Martin Haslam
(UK), Holger May (Germany), Vincent Schaller (Sweden), Saskia van Iperen
(Netherlands), Connor Williams (UK)
*Press
1.8. Expedition budget
Each team member paid towards expedition costs a contribution of £1,330 per person per
seven-day slot. The contribution covered accommodation and meals, supervision and
induction, special research equipment and all transport from and to the team assembly
point. It did not cover excess luggage charges, travel insurance, personal expenses such
as telephone bills, souvenirs etc., or visa and other travel expenses to and from the
assembly point (e.g. international flights). Details on how this contribution was spent are
given below.
Income
£
Expedition contributions
22,060
Expenditure
Expedition base
includes all board & lodging, and extra food & meals
3,072
Transport
includes car fuel UK–Slovakia return, car fuel during expedition, train rides
677
Equipment and hardware
includes research materials & gear etc. purchased in UK & Slovakia
2,071
Staff
includes local and Biosphere Expeditions staff salaries, travel, expenses
6,733
Administration
includes miscellaneous fees & sundries
1,018
Team recruitment Slovakia
as estimated % of annual PR costs for Biosphere Expeditions
6,773
Income – Expenditure
1,716
Total percentage spent directly on project
92%
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
10
1.9. Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the volunteers, who not only dedicated their spare time to helping but
also, through their expedition contributions, funded the research. Thank you also to the
staff of the State Forestry Service in Liptovský Hrádok, specially in Ľubochňa and Veľká
Fatra National Park in Martin, and to all those who provided assistance and information.
Biosphere Expeditions would also like to thank members of the Friends of Biosphere
Expeditions and donors for their sponsorship. Finally, thank you to František Pompáš for
being such an excellent host and making us feel at home in his house.
1.10. Further information & enquiries
More background information on Biosphere Expeditions in general and on this expedition
in particular including pictures, diary excerpts and a copy of this report can be found on the
Biosphere Expeditions website www.biosphere-expeditions.org.
Enquires should be addressed to Biosphere Expeditions at the address given on the
website.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
11
Please note: Each expedition report is written as a stand-alone document that can be read
without having to refer back to previous reports. As such, much of this section, which
remains valid and relevant, is a repetition from previous reports, copied here to provide the
reader with an uninterrupted flow of argument and rationale.
2. Monitoring large carnivores in Ľubochnianska Valley
Tomáš Hulík
Environmental Society LENS
Marcelo Mazzolli (editor)
Projeto Puma
M. Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
2.1. Introduction
Populations of large predators have recovered during recent decades (Linnell et al. 1998),
particularly in Eastern Europe, and this has brought predators in increasing contact with
humans. Conflicts have increased, in the form of livestock depredation and fear of large
predators in the vicinity of households. Brown bears, for instance, cause damage to
livestock as well as to bee hives, orchards, crops, trees, and even vehicles and buildings
(Huber 2013).
Slovakia has one of the most well-preserved populations of indigenous large carnivores in
Europe, and even amongst the other Carpathian range countries. From an ecological point
of view, the Carpathian arc can be considered a ‘model area‘ due to its relatively high
percentage of intact forests. Typically, the Carpathian forests are inhabited by bears
(Ursus arctos), wolves (Canis lupus), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wildcats (Felis silvestris), all of
which are indigenous.
In spite of the relatively stable populations of these species, there is always a risk that
management practices adopted to control population numbers may compromise their
populations if harvesting quotas are based on inaccurate counts or estimates. The risk is
obvious since target species have already declined in the past from overhunting.
Sometimes specialists claim that the risk does not exist even though they recognise the
inflated counts provided by official sources. According to Okarma et al. (2000) the brown
bear, for instance, “cannot be considered a threatened species in Slovakia. Its numbers
are the highest in the last 150 years, and only 8–10% of the population may be shot
annually (47 bears were harvested in 2012 – about 5% of the specialist-based estimated
population). The existing system of bear management as well as the favourable attitude of
the public make the future of this species secure in the country.” This information has been
confirmed recently, with estimates of the total number of brown bears in Europe in the
range of 17,000 individuals, with the largest population in the Carpathians (> 7,000 bears),
mostly in Romania (Okarma et al. 2000). Slovakia, according to research and DNA
analysis of 2,800 samples at Technical University in Zvolen (Suja 2015), harbours around
1,200 bears. In spite of that, the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)
recognises the Carpathian population as Near Threatened. Populations elsewhere in
Europe vary from Least Concern to Critically Endangered. Compensation for damages by
bears are paid, varying greatly among countries. For example, Slovakia pays on average a
total of €16,000 per year as compensation for bear damages (Huber 2013).
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
12
In Europe, wolves are found in all countries except in the Benelux countries, Denmark,
Hungary and the island states (Cyprus, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, United Kingdom). The
estimated total number of wolves in Europe seems to be larger than 10,000 individuals,
with the largest populations occurring in the Carpathians and in the Dinaric-Balkan region
(> 3,000 wolves) (Chapron 2013). In Slovakia, specialist estimates of population numbers
range from 200 to 400 individuals (Chapron 2013). Official estimates, on the other hand,
speak of as many as 2,000 individuals, a fivefold difference to specialist estimates.
Whatever the true numbers, the wolf is considered widespread over all the Carpathian
range of Slovakia, but there is a strong threat from overhunting as wolves are persecuted
all over the country, including in protected areas. For example, the official harvesting quota
for 2012 was 130 individuals, but 147 were taken. This could represent a 50% decrease in
the Slovakian wolf population, if specialist estimates are correct. According to more recent
numbers presented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak
Republic, the quota for the 2013/2014 season was decreased to 80 individuals, of which
29 individuals were taken (Doczy 2015).
In addition, wolves and livestock are associated with conflicts over the whole of the
species’ range. The rough economic cost (based on reported compensation only) over the
whole range of the wolves has been estimated at over € 8 million per year, resulting from
at least 20,000 domestic animals being predated. In Slovakia alone, around € 16,000 was
the cost of damages in the year 2010 (Huber 2013). Doczy (2015) reports that livestock
predation has increased in Europe, with estimates of sheep losses doubling from 2013 to
2014 and representing 78.08% of all losses.
Lynx are found in 23 countries and, based on a range of criteria, can be grouped into ten
populations. Five are autochthonous (indigenous rather than descended from migrants or
colonists), including the Carpathian population, while the others stem from reintroductions
in the 1970s and 1980s (Dinaric, Alpine, Jura, Vosges-Palatinian and Bohemian-Bavarian
populations), as well as from recent reintroductions, such as in the Harz Mountains of
central Germany. The total number of lynx in Europe is estimated to be 9,000–10,000
individuals (excluding Russia & Belarus) (von Arx 2004). The largest and most widely
distributed populations are found in the Scandinavian region and vicinities. The
Carpathians harbour around 2,300 individuals, and Slovakia about 400 individuals (von
Arx 2004). All the reintroduced populations are of smaller size, with fewer than 200
individuals. The population of greatest conservation concern is the autochthonous Balkan
lynx population, which numbers only 40–50 individuals (von Arx 2004). The lynx is, like the
wolf, widespread over all the Carpathian range, but is considered to occur in smaller
numbers (Chapron 2013). Specialists believe official population numbers in Slovakia
overestimated the true population by as much as 50% during the 1990s (Okarma et al.
2000). The biggest threat to lynx populations is not derived from retaliation after livestock
depredation, but from hunting (including illegal forms) to reduce an assumed impact on
ungulates as game animals. This fact has been neglected and no solution has been
implemented towards reducing the problem. The IUCN recognises the Carpathian
population as Least Concern. Populations elsewhere in Europe vary from Least Concern
to Critically Endangered (von Arx 2004).
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
13
2.2. Study area
The Veľká Fatra National Park (Fig. 2.2a) is situated between the geographic coordinates
N 48°47'–49°09' and E 18°50'–19°18'. The national park is inside the Inner Western
Carpathian subprovince, the Fatransko-Tatranská region and the Veľká Fatra subregion.
The mountain range is shaped in an irregular ellipse and stretches along a northeast–
southwest pattern. The Veľká Fatra is about 40 km by 22 km in size.
Figure 2.2a. The territory of Slovakia with Malá Fatra (above) and Veľká Fatra National Parks (below) in red.
The Veľká Fatra is one of the largest mountain areas of Slovakia, with relatively little
anthropogenic impact. A granite core rises to the surface in the Smrekovica and
Ľubochnianska valleys and other parts of the area consist mainly of Mesozoic sedimentary
rocks. Streams have carved deep valleys into the Mesozoic crystalline rock, the longest
valley being the Ľubochnianska. This valley divides the Veľká Fatra National Park from
south to north and runs to the centre of the Liptov and Turiec area (Vestenický and
Vološčuk 1986). The park’s lowest point is at the River Vah near Krpelianska dam (420
metres), and the highest peak is Ostredok (1,592 metres).
Factors including geological substrate, landforms, soil and climatic conditions facilitated
the evolution of different plant species and communities in the Veľká Fatra. More than
1,000 species of vascular plants have been identified in the area (Vestenický and
Vološčuk 1986). The Veľká Fatra has retained much of its natural character, especially in
the forest communities, which make up about 90% of the land area. The area is a valuable
example of the Carpathian type of forest community, as there is a high occurrence of rare
and endangered species. In the more remote areas, where there are negligible forest
management activities, the true ancient primary forest habitat is preserved.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
14
Veľká Fatra consists mainly of beech and spruce forests. Natural spruce forests can be
found close to the treeline. The limestone and dolomite ground supports growth of Scots
pine (Pinus sylvestris) and smaller oaks (Quercus spp.). In higher or exposed areas there
are reduced-growth trees. Veľká Fatra is also characterised by a high occurrence of yew
trees (Taxus baccata), so much so that the species is on the emblem of the national park.
The Veľká Fatra is dominated by native mountain animal species. So far over 3,000
species of invertebrates have been discovered including 932 types of butterflies and 350
spiders (Vestenický and Vološčuk 1986). The region also hosts eight species of
amphibians, including the very rare Carpathian newt (Triturus montandoni), seven species
of reptiles, six species of fish, 110 species of birds and 60 species of mammals
(Vestenický and Vološčuk 1986). Common mammals include deer (Cervus elaphus), roe
deer (Capreolus capreolus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), hare (Lepus europaeus) and fox
(Vulpes vulpes). Large carnivores include the brown bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx),
wolf (Canis lupus) and wildcat (Felis silvestris). Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) occur in
the Veľká Fatra too, but are originally from the Alps. Bird species include the rare golden
eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), black grouse (Tetrao tetrix),
Alpine accentor (Prunella collaris) and wallcreeper (Tichodroma muraria).
The climate of Veľká Fatra is temperate/cold, typical of high mountain areas. The highest
altitudes of the Veľká Fatra have an extremely cold climate. Precipitation is typically from
800 to 1,200 mm per year. The whole area is characterised by a wealth of surface and
groundwater stores, mainly associated with the limestone rocks. Various sources are
important for drinking water supplies, so much so that the Veľká Fatra region was declared
a protected area of natural water accumulation in 1987.
Ľubochnianska Valley is the longest valley of Veľká Fatra, and indeed Slovakia. It contains
the Ľubochnianka River and measures 25 km in length. It runs in a north–south direction
starting at the village of Ľubochňa (district Ružomberok) and ending along the ridge of
Ploská and Čierny kameň.
2.3. Materials and methods
In this study a combination of snow-tracking and camera-trapping recording techniques
were used to provide information on species‘ presence, use of habitat and relative
numbers. Signs recorded included footprints, animal trails of footprints, scats, feeding
remains, marking points and any other signs of the presence of large carnivores that could
be detected. Samples such as scats, hair and urine were collected for DNA analysis. This
DNA analysis will hopefully take place in 2017 in a newly built laborortary in Slovakia.
Negotiations are under way.
Study design
Study design is one of the most important aspects of a study. Without a proper design, a
study is composed of fragments of incoherent information, rather than a construction that
allows ecological inferences about the environment and the populations under study.
Within studies of rare and elusive species, analyses of population densities (i.e. the
number of individuals per area) are often the main issue of a research project, because
density relates to the conservation status of a species or population.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
15
Mazzolli and Hammer (2013) argue that density estimates are, however, commonly
erroneously obtained from simple counts. Counts do not provide density estimates when
the observer does not know the fraction of the total population he has counted. The only
way to obtain that information is through capture-recapture statistics. This requires animals
to be identified individually, either by trapping them or by recognising individuals from
photographs, or by using the ’distance’ procedure. The difference in the counts from the
first to the subsequent recaptures gives the statistics necessary to estimate total
population size.
However, this report is not the place to detail and compare methodological issues. What is
of interest for this study is that estimating parameters related to density requires something
to go back to, to check if what was once seen or recorded is still there, in the same
location, in similar frequencies, or found with the same effort as before. This is the basis
for ecological inferences, or, as noted above, information will be lost.
Given this theory, short-term expeditions can collect useful information such as the
locations where different species were found (and not found), and where they were found
more or less frequently. Any combination of recording methods can be used to determine
these parameters, be it snow-tracking, camera-trapping or DNA analysis (genotyping at
species or individual level).
GPS waypoints (coordinates) are not convenient units to analyse large amounts of data
related to the presence of species in certain locations. This is because it is difficult to go
back to each individual waypoint to verify the recurrence of a species or an individual.
Another issue is the estimation of footprint frequency and density during snow-tracking,
because by and large this does not take into account autocorrelation – no breaking points
are usually established for footprint counts; that is, footprints are counted continuously, not
at established intervals as they should be. That is why a grid system is employed here.
The size of the grid may vary according to the size of the geographical area. As a rule of
thumb, the larger the area and the target species, the larger the grid cell. For example, the
European Commission employed cells of 10 x 10 km to verify the status and distribution
for large carnivores on the entire European continent (Kaczensky et al. 2013) and some
countries use reoccurrence of records in each cell to check if populations of species are
increasing, declining, or stable.
Putting it simply, cells of a grid can be traced back (revisited) more easily than GPS
waypoints and in theory this is approximately equivalent to a capture-recapture procedure
employed for the estimation of population density. This idea was first proposed by
MacKenzie et al. (2002) and for management purposes has since often been used as a
substitute for population density, also allowing for monitoring of metapopulation dynamics
involving local extinctions and recolonisations (MacKenzie et al. 2003).
Alternatively, but following the same reasoning of revisitation of a sampling location,
Linnell et al. (2007), in their snow-tracking study of lynx, used over 360 transects crossed
by individuals of the species to test indexes employing detection probabilities used in
capture-recapture statistics. Instead of grids and cells, they used independent, short
transects to detect if lynx were present or not on the transect during consecutive nights.
For this study, presence-absence identification of species using camera traps and footprint
identification, as well as snow-tracking, were the main methods employed to record data.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
16
Samples of urine, scats, hair and blood were also collected for future DNA analysis, due in
2017.
In order to generate standardised data, outputs and maps that can be compiled relatively
easily, we used the 10 x 10 km EEA grid system. We downsized the size of the grid to 2.5
x 2.5 km cells (Fig. 2.3a). This size is better suited to a foot-based volunteer survey effort
and is an ecologically more appropriate size to detect and differentiate the target species
in the research area of Veľká Fatra. Within this cell grid system, 33 transects were
surveyed, with a total length of 462 km and covering 27 cells.
Figure 2.3a. Grid system covering Veľká Fatra National Park.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
17
Training of volunteers
The first two days of each group was dedicated to the training of volunteers. The first day
dealt with the identification of signs, including footprints and their recognition/recording on
various substrates. Volunteers also received training for working with GPS devices and
data collection protocols.
The second day of training focussed on identifying footprints and the practical
implementation of newly acquired skills in the field. During the two training days,
volunteers were also instructed in the use of snowshoes and other equipment along with
the practical application of the GPS protocol directly in the field.
The following four days in each group were dedicated to field research. Volunteers were
divided into four groups and surveyed the Ľubochnianska main and side valleys in Veľká
Fatra National Park. In previous years, a few surveys were also conducted in Malá Fatra
National Park, but beginning with this study it was decided to focus on Veľká Fatra
National Park only and all hitherto unsurveyed side valleys.
Each group of volunteers was given field guides, which showed footprints and photos of
the target species, a ruler for precise measurements of length and width of footprints,
standard sheets for recording data, GPS devices (Garmin eTrex 20), radios for
communication between groups and a plastic box with bags and tubes containing alcohol
for collecting samples from which DNA can be obtained (from urine, hair, faeces or blood).
Data recording
Standardised data sheets were used by volunteers to record information, with the exact
GPS position and cell number along with details such as species observed, number of
individuals (in the case of a sighting), characteristics of footprints and animal trails left by
species (length, width and estimated age of the footprint), the direction of movement of the
individual and the substrate type (condition of snow cover). Route and track data were
recorded into a GPS device using the Tracklog and Waypoint features and these were
then backed up and consolidated onto a laptop.
Samples suitable for DNA analysis (excrement, urine, hair or blood) were collected in the
field into a tube with concentrated 90% alcohol and sealed into a plastic bag. Great care
was taken to avoid direct contact and therefore contamination of the sample. The sample
was then labelled and recorded. Samples are stored at -16°C in a dedicated laboratory of
the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava. DNA markers will be used according to
Mestemacher (2006), Schmidt and Kowalczyk (2006) and Downey et al. (2007) and
samples are due to be analysed in 2017.
Following Laass (1999 and 2002), eight camera traps (Cuddeback Capture IR,
ScoutGuard SG 560) were placed in ten locations previously determined as having
intensive species activity, such as marking sites or carcasses.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
18
Data analysis
Locations where target species had been recorded were visualised in the grid system to
check for distribution of populations and to see how different recording methods compared
to each other. The frequency of footprints per cell and the number of times a species was
recorded in a cell were considered indications of frequency of use of those cells by target
species. In case of GPS signal loss due to vegetation or terrain, missing data points were
obtained via Google Earth.
2.4. Results
During the expedition period, 27 transects were surveyed, with a total length of 344 km,
covering 22 cells of the grid system and encompassing a surveyed area of 138 square
kilometeres. The average length of a transect was 12.8 km. Comparative data from other
expedition years are summarised in Table 2.5a.
Tracking and snow-tracking allowed researchers to identify and follow lynx, wolf, bear and
wildcat trails, obtaining information on their occurrence over a large area. In total, lynx
trails were followed over 1.6 km, wolf trails over 7.6 km, bear trails over 4.6 km and a
wildcat trail over 0.7 km. Besides the target species, the hazel grouse Tetrastes bonansia
was recorded in one cell. Camera traps recorded red deer Cervus elaphus, roe deer
Capreolus capreolus, red fox Vulpes vulpes, wild boar Sus scrofa, squirell Sciurus
vulgaris, pine marten Martes martes, wolf Canis lupus and lynx Lynx lynx (photos and
tables in Appendix I). Full tracking and other details are in Appendix I also and a summary
of results over the years in Table 2.5a.
Eight samples were collected (3 scats, 5 urine) for DNA analysis: 4 samples (50%) were
confirmed, by footprints, to be from wolf, two samples were from lynx (25%) and two
samples from bear (25%).
Wolf was detect in 10 cells, lynx in 10 cells, bear in 15 cells and wildcat in five cells. Lynx,
wolves, bear and wildcat shared records in 2 cells in which they were recorded (Table
2.4a). Full sampling details, including cell, spatial and temporal resampling effort are in
Appendix I.
Table 2.4a. Cells in which lynx, wolves, bear and wildcat were recorded (matching cells for lynx, wolf, bear and wildcat in
red, matching cells for lynx, wolf and bear in green, matching cells for wolf, bear and wildcat in yellow, matching cells for
wolves and bear in orange, matching cells for lynx and bear in blue, matching cells for wolves and lynx in violet)).
Wolf
Lynx
Bear
Wildcat
I9
I9
I9
I9
J9
J9
J9
J9
I7
I7
I7
J7
I8
I8
I8
J8
J7
I10
J7
J6
J8
J11
J8
J10
J12
J10
K10
K9
K10
I11
I11
K9
I10
J11
J12
K8
I12
I6
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
19
Figure 2.4a. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of occurrence of lynx, wolves, bears and wildcats per cell.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
20
Lynx Lynx lynx
Lynx was recorded in 10 out of 22 cells. Snow-tracking contributed to the recording of lynx,
and camera-trapping recorded lynx in two cells. Prospective lynx samples were also
collected.
Figure 2.4b. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of occurrence
of lynx per cell according to different recording methods.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
21
Wolf Canis lupus
Wolf was recorded in 10 out of 22 cells surveyed. It is also worth noting that snow-tracking
contributed to the recording of wolves in all 10 cells and camera-trapping recorded wolves
in 2 cells. Prospective wolf samples were also collected.
Figure 2.4c. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of occurrence of wolves per cell.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
22
Bear Ursus arctos
Bear presence was recorded in 15 out of 22 cells surveyed by snow tracking. No bears
were camera-trapped. The expedition also collected a bear sample.
Figure 2.4d. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of occurrence of bear per cell.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
23
Wildcat Felis silvestris
Wildcat presence was recorded in 5 out of 22 cells surveyed by snow tracking and in one
cell wildcat was captured by camera trap.
Figure 2.4e. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of occurrence of wildcat per cell.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
24
Other carnivores (otter, pine marten, red fox, badger, golden eagle)
Recording carnivores other than the main target species is important in order to
understand how they interact with target species, and may also give an indication of the
quality of the ecosystem. The golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos was recorded from
observations; badger Meles meles, stoat Mustela erminea and otter Lutra lutra were
recorded by snow-tracking; pine marten Martes martes was recorded by snow-tracking
and camera-trapping; and red fox Vulpes vulpes was recorded by camera-trapping. Red
fox was the most recorded (n=13 cells), followed by pine marten (n=8 cells), then otter and
badger (n=3 cell for each). Golden eagle and stoat were recorded in one cell each.
Figure 2.4f. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of carnivores other than lynx, wolf, bear and wildcat per cell.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
25
Ungulates (roe deer, red deer, wild boar) and hare
Red deer Cervus elaphus, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, wild boar Sus scrofa and hare
Lepus europaeus are major prey species for carnivores, hence recording their presence is
important. Roe deer and red deer were recorded in 6 cells, wild boar in 5 cells and hare in
one cell. Roe deer, red deer and wild boar were recorded by observation, snow-tracking
and from camera traps; hare were recorded only by snow-tracking.
Figure 2.4g. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of occurrence of roe and red deer,
wild boar and hare per cell.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
26
Hazel grouse Tetrastes bonasia
By request from the State Forestry Department in Liptovský Hrádok, the expedition also
monitored hazel grouse, which was recorded in one cell by tracks in the snow.
Figure 2.4h. Sampled cells (2.5 x 2.5 km in size) and results of occurrence of hazel grouse per cell.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
27
2.5. Discussion & conclusions
Recording of signs is one of the most commonly used method in monitoring large
carnivores. Signs such as footprints, animal trails of footprints, scats, feeding remains,
marking points and any other signs of the presence of large carnivores are recorded on
transects. Passive recording of signs is the most commonly employed method for
obtaining the necessary data concerning the size and structure of populations of large
carnivores in Slovakia. Linnell et al. (1998) recommend the use of this method for
monitoring reproductive and family groups of lynx and wolf in combination with other
approaches. For this study the conditions for winter tracking and monitoring have varied in
recent years and have not been optimal, because there has been either too little or too
much snow. Air temperature and snow cover significantly affect the results of the research.
Most prominently, this reflects on the presence of brown bears in the area of interest –
Ľubochnianska Valley in Veľká Fatra.
Table 2.5a. Survey effort and results over expedition years 2012-2017.
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
No. of expedition weeks
3
2
2
2
2
2
No. of expedition participants
21
22
26
22
18
17
No. of transects surveyed
50
38
36
34
33
27
Total transect length surveyed per exp. (km)
356
307
548
438
462
345
Total transect length surveyed per week (km)
119
153
274
219
231
173
Total area surveyed (sq km)
*
136
181
134
169
138
No. of lynx trails found
25
15
27
23
13
23
No. of wolf trails found
25
20
50
49
90
75
No. of bear trails found
9
0
50
1
11
110
No. of wildcat trail found
0
1
6
1
1
11
No. of cells that lynx was detected in
*
7
11
9
6
10
No. of cells that wolf was detected in
*
8
16
12
17
10
No. of cells that bear was detected in
*
1
17
1
6
15
No. of cells that wildcat was detected in
*
1
4
1
1
5
No. camera traps used / in different positions
9/15
10/10
10/12
10/10
8/11
20/23
Lynx recorded on camera trap
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Wolf recorded on camera trap
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Bear recorded on camera trap
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Wildcat recorded on camera trap
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No. of presumed lynx DNA samples collected
9
3
3
15
0
2
No. of presumed wolf DNA samples collected
9
9
13
13
11
4
No. of presumed bear DNA samples collected
0
0
5
0
1
2
No. of presumed wildcat DNA samples coll.
0
0
0
0
0
0
* cell methodology was not used in 2012
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
28
Lynx distribution and detection
Six years of annual winter surveys from 2012 to 2017 show the lynx population to be
relatively stable and relatively unaffected by winter conditions. The number of cells that
lynx was detected in, as well as the number of lynx signs found, were comparable with
years 2012, 2014, 2015. Only years 2013 and 2016 - due to unusually mild winter
conditions with low snow coverage - are likely to have enabled the lynx to find enough
food in higher or remote positions of Velka Fatra, which were not surveyed. This is
because the lynx’s main prey, the roe deer (Jobin et al. 2000, Okarma et al. 1997), were
not concentrated in the valleys at this time. During winters such as 2017, lynx depend on
the various feeding stations set up by hunters and foresters to ensure an artificially high
roe and red deer population for hunting purposes (Schmidt 2008).
Wolf distribution and detection
Our finding this year corroborate again that there appears to be a strong correlation
between winter severity and wolf distribution/detection.
In 2017, during normal winter conditions we detected 75 wolf signs in 10 cells. This is
similar to the years of harsher winters of 2012 & 2013, and the normal winter of 2015. In
2017 we only found carcass of a young red deer. In contrast, in 2015 wolves were
detected in 12 cells and four wolf kill carcasses were found near the feeding stations in the
valley bottom (Hulik et al. 2016). In 2013 wolf presence was detected in eight cells,
centred next to three carcasses around feeding stations in the valley bottom (Hulik et al.
2014). The same was true in 2012, when the current cell methodology was not yet being
used by the expedition, but six carcasses close to feeding stations and associated wolf
signs were found (Hulik et al. 2012). In 2016, during a mild winter, wolf signs equalled the
highest frequency since the beginning of annual winter surveys in 2012 (signs were
detected in 16 cells). This matches detection rates in 2014, when the winter was also mild
and wolf signs were also detected in 16 cells. Thus in 2014 and 2016 wolves had to hunt
in a much larger area than in previous years, as confirmed by their detection in 16 cells
(Hulik et al. 2015). Corroborating evidence includes the fact that surveys in 2016 did not
detect any wolf prey carcasses, as kills would have been spread widely around the study
site and as such harder to detect.
Jȩdrzejewski et al. (2000) and Find'o (2002) have previously argued that during mild
winters, deer and wild boar, the main wolf prey species, can remain on high ground, where
food is still readily available due to little or no snow cover. By contrast, harsh winters with
high snow cover on the hills force ungulates into the valleys in search of food. In mild
winters this means that, firstly, prey are not concentrated around feeding stations and
therefore distributed more widely through the park, making them harder to track down.
Secondly, no snow or low snow levels make prey escape easier and therefore hunting
success lower, as the snow does not hamper movement.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
29
Bear distribution and detection
As with wolves, there also appears to be a strong correlation between winter severity and
bear distribution/detection. This is perhaps unsurprising as bears usually hibernate during
winter and hibernation will obviously be strongly correlated to detection.
However, unlike with wolves, it appears that both very mild and very harsh winters can
disrupt hibernation. Very mild winters lead to the continued availability of food, thereby
removing the necessity of hibernation for survival, and very harsh winters mean that very
cold temperatures interrupt hibernation, especially of young and inexperienced bears who
lack the skills to build sufficiently insulated dens.
However, the pattern in 2017 was different. Normal winter conditions prevailed, but also a
record of 110 bear signs detected in 15 cells. We believe this was due to a bumper crop of
beech nuts (Fagus silvaticus) in 2017, which meant that bears were able to find enough
food supply to survive winter without the need to hibernate. This is corroborated by Cicnja
et al. (1987) who in Yugoslavia, and Hashimoti et al. (2003) who in Japan, found nuts to
be an important autumn and winter component of bear diet, as well as Jakubas et al.
(1983) who in the USA found a strong correlation between bear fecundity and nut
production of American beech (Fagus grandifolia).
The 2016 survey found 12 fresh and older bear footprints, indicating that a significant part
of the Veľká Fatra National Park bear population was not hibernating during the mild
winter (Hulik et al. 2017). This matches with 2014, also a mild winter with near autumn-like
conditions and an absence of snow cover, when a surprising and interesting number of 50
trails were found (Hulik et al. 2015). In that year bears occurred in a greater number of
cells than any other species of interest, in an area we believe containing enough resting
places and shelter for winter hibernation (Hulik et al. 2015).
In 2013 no bear signs were recorded, but one bear was photographed once (Hulik et al.
2014). In 2015 one older bear footprint was recorded during normal winter conditions
(Hulik et al. 2016). This is strong evidence that most bears were in hibernation in those
years due to stable winter conditions.
In 2012, when nine bear signs were found, the extremely low temperatures approaching -
30°C are likely to have interrupted hibernation, especially of young bears, who are not
experienced enough to build or find suitably sheltered places for winter hibernation and so
can be woken by very low temperatures (Hulik et al. 2012).
Wildcat remarks
Wildcat in Slovakia mainly occur in the south, as well as the northeast, near the border
with Poland and Ukraine. Hell et al. (2004) report that the smallest population denstity of
wildcat in Slovakia is in mountainous areas with coniferous forest. Sládek and Mošanský
(1985) showed that snow cover, which lasts over 100 days, which in Slovakia usually
happens above 700 meters, had a negative impact on the ecology of wildcat. Optimal
ecological conditions for wildcat occur when snow cover is around 10-20 cm, so the
ecological optimum for wildcat is at lower altitudes, comparable to lynx habitat preferences
(Hell et al. 2004).
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
30
Surveys in 2017 highlighted a surprising presence of wildcat along Ľubochnianska Valley.
Five cells yielded eleven signs, most probably from two or three different individuals, and
one camera trap photo. Wildcat signs were previously recorded once in 2016 and in 2015
(Hulik et al. 2016), six times in 2014 (Hulik et al. 2015) and once in 2013 (Hulik et al.
2014). It is hard to say why we recorded so many signs, but it may well have been due to
simple good luck and stochastic effects.
Cessation of expedition
This research project had to wind down after the 2017 expedition, because our permit
expired and was not renewed by the National Park. The second editor (MH) believes
this is due to widespread corruption and destructive practices in Slovakian parks, which
authorities did not want to be documented.
We wish to thank all those involved in making the expeditions between 2012 and 2017 a
success and regret having to take this step.
2.6. Literature cited
Chapron, G. (2013) Wolf – Europe summary. In: Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M.,
Huber, D., Andrén, H. & Linnell, J. (editors) Status, management and distribution of large
carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe. European Commission, Istituto di
Ecologia Applicata and the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. pp. 40–53.
Cicnjak, L., Huber, D., Roth, H., Ruff, R. & Vinovrski, Z. (1986) Food Habits of Brown
Bears in Plitvice Lakes National Park, Yugoslavia. In: Bears: Their Biology and
Management, Vol. 7, A Selection of Papers from the Seventh International Conference on
Bear Research and Management, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, and Plitvice Lakes,
Yugoslavia, February and March 1986 (1987), pp. 221-226, International Association for
Bear Research and Management.
Doczy, J. (2015) Protection, management and monitoring of the wolf population in
Slovakia. Powerpoint presentation available here.
Downey, P., Hellgre, E., Caso, A., Carvajai, S. & Frangioso, K. (2007) Hair snares for
noninvasive sampling of felids in North America: do gray foxes affect success? Journal of
Wildlife Management 71(6): 2090–2094.
Find’o, S. (2002) Feeding ecology of the European Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Slovak
Carpathians. In: Urban, P. (ed.) Research and protection of mammals in Slovakia V. pp.
43–57.
Forrester, G., Baily, P., Conettac D., Forrester, L., Kintzing, E. & Jareckie, L. (2015)
Comparing monitoring data collected by volunteers and professionals shows that citizen
scientists can detect long-term change on coral reefs. Journal for Nature Conservation 24:
1–9.
Hashimoto, Y., Kaji, M., Sawada, H. & Takatsuki, H. (2003) Five-year study on the autumn
food habits of the Asiatic black bear in relation to nut production. Ecological Research 18:
485–492.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
31
Hell, P., Slamečka, J. & Gašparík, J. (2004) Rys a divá mačka v slovenských Karpatoch a
vo svete. PaRPRESS, Bratislava, 160 pp.
Holt, B. Rioja-Nieto, R. MacNeil, A., Lupton, J. & Rahbek, C. (2013) Comparing diversity
data collected using a protocol designed for volunteers with results from a professional
alternative. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(4): 383–392.
Huber, D. (2013) Bear – Europe summary. In: Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M.,
Huber, D., Andrén, H. & Linnell, J. (Editors) Status, management and distribution of large
carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe. European Commission, Istituto di
Ecologia Applicata and the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. pp. 16–27.
Hulik, T., Hammer, M. & Stickler, A. (2012) True white wilderness: winter wolf and lynx
tracking in the Carpathian mountains of Slovakia. Biosphere Expeditions report 2012
available via www.biospheere-expeditions.org/reports.
Hulik, T., Mazzoli, M. & Hammer, M. (2014) True white wilderness: winter wolf and lynx
tracking in the Carpathian mountains of Slovakia. Biosphere Expeditions report 2013
available via www.biospheere-expeditions.org/reports.
Hulik, T., Mazzoli, M. & Hammer, M. (2015) True white wilderness: winter wolf and lynx
tracking in the Carpathian mountains of Slovakia. Biosphere Expeditions report 2014
available via www.biospheere-expeditions.org/reports.
Hulik, T., Mazzoli, M. & Hammer, M. (2016) True white wilderness: winter wolf and lynx
tracking in the Carpathian mountains of Slovakia. Biosphere Expeditions report 2015
available via www.biospheere-expeditions.org/reports.
Hulik, T., Mazzoli, M. & Hammer, M. (2017) True white wilderness: winter wolf and lynx
tracking in the Carpathian mountains of Slovakia. Biosphere Expeditions report 2016
available via www.biospheere-expeditions.org/reports.
Jakubas, W.,McLaughlin, C., & Jensen, P. (2005) Alternate year beechnut production and
its influence on bear and marten populations. In: Behavior, biochemistry, and hibernation
in black, grizzly, and polar bears. International Conference on Bear Research and
Management 5, pp. 284-290.
Jȩdrzejewski, W., Jȩdrzejewska, B., Okarma, H., Schmidt, K., Zub, K. & Musiani, M.
(2000) Prey selection and predation by wolves in Białowieźa Primeval Forest (Poland).
Journal of Mammalogy 81(1): 197–212.
Jȩdrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Okarma, H. & Kowalczyk, R. (2002) Movement pattern and
home range use by the Eurasian lynx in Białowieźa Primeval Forest (Poland). Annales
Zoologica Fennici 39: 29–41.
Jobin, A., Molinari, P. & Breitenmoser, U. (2000) Prey spectrum, prey preference and
consumption rates of Eurasian lynx in the Swiss Jura Mountains. Acta Theriol. 45(2): 243–
252.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
32
Jones, M. (2013) Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on Threatened Species in UK
Waters. PloS One 8(1), p.e54216.
Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H. & Linnell, J. (editors)
(2013) Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf &
wolverine – in Europe. European Commission, Istituto di Ecologia Applicata and the
IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe.
Kubala, J., Apfelová, M., Iľko, T., Remeník, L., Reťkovský, R., Rigg, R., Schestág, J.,
Smolko, P., Tám, B., Žiak, J., Breitenmoser-Wursten, C., Foresti, D., Zimmermann, F.,
Breitenmoser, U. (2015) Abundance and density of Eurasian lynx in the Štiavnica Mts. and
Veľká Fatra, Slovakia. In: Monitoring the status of Carpathian lynx in Switzerland and
Slovakia, Rigg R. & Kubala J. eds., Slovak Wildlife Society, Liptovský Hrádok: 42 - 47.
Laass, J. (1999) Evaluation von Photofallen für ein quantitatives Monitoring einer
Luchspopulation in den Schweizer Alpen. Diplomarbeit Universität Wien, 74 pp.
Laass, J. (2002) Fotofallen-Monitoring im westlichen Berner Oberland 2001 - Fotofallen-
Extensiv-Einsatz 2001, Fotofallen-Intensiv-Einsatz Winter 2001/2002. Hagen, S. and
Siegenthaler, A. KORA Bericht, Muri Bern, KORA 14: 1–27.
Lewandowski, E. & Specht, H. (2015) Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on
data quality of biological surveys. Conservation Biology 29(3): 713–723.
Linnell, J.D.C., Swenson, J.E., Landa, A. & Kvam, T. (1998) Methods for monitoring
European large carnivores – A worldwide review of relevant experience. NINA
Oppdragsmelding, 549, 38 p.
Linnell, J.D.C., Fiske, P., Herfindal, I., Odden, J., Brøseth, H. & Andersen, R. (2007) An
evaluation of structured snow-track surveys to monitor Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx
populations. Wildlife Biology 13(4): 456–466.
MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachman, G.B., Droege, S., Royle, J.A. & Langtimm, C.A.
(2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.
Ecology 83(8): 2248–2255.
MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Hines, J.E., Knustson, M.G. & Franklin, A.B. (2003)
Estimating site occupancy, colonization and local extinction when a species is detected
imperfectly. Ecology 84: 2200–2207.
Marucco, F., Pletscher, D. H., Boitani, L., Schwartz, M. K., Pilgrim, K. L. and Lebreton, J.-
D. (2009) Wolf survival and population trend using non-invasive capture–recapture
techniques in the Western Alps. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1003–1010.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01696.
Mazzolli, M. & Hammer, M. (2013) Sampling and analysis of data for large terrestrial
mammals during short-term volunteer expeditions. Biosphere Expeditions, 23 pp. Available
via www.biosphere-expeditions.org/reports.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
33
Mazzolli, M.,Haag, T., Lippert, B.G., Eizirik, E., Hammer, M. & Al Hikmani, K. (Accepted for
publication) Multiple methods increase detection and enable crosschecking of recorded
distributions of large and medium-sized mammals of southeast Arabian Peninsula. Oryx.
Mestemacher, U. (2006) Applicability of scent stations and snow tracking for an
intensification of the Lynx monitoring in the Palatine Forest. Dissertation, Faculty of Forest
Sciences and Forest Ecology, University of Göttingen, 186 pp.
Okarma, H., Dovhanych, Y., Findo, S., Ionescu, O., Koubek, P. & Szemethy, L. (2000)
Status of carnivores in the Carpathians ecoregion. Carpathians Ecoregion Initiative, WWF.
36 pp.
Okarma, H., Jędrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Kowalczyk, R. & Jędrzejewska, B. (1997)
Predation of Eurasian lynx on roe deer and red deer in Białowieża Primeval Forest,
Poland. Acta Theriologica 42: 203–224.
Schmidt, K. (2008) Behavioural and spatial adaptation of the Eurasian lynx to a decline in
prey availability. Acta Theriologica 53: 1–16.
Schmidt, K. & Kowalczyk, R. (2006) Using scent-marking stations to collect hair samples
to monitor Eurasian Lynx populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(2): 462–466.
Sládek, J., Mošanský, A. (1985) Cicavce okolo nás, Osveta, Martin 1985, 247 pp.
Suja, M., (2015) Vieme koľko medveďov žije na Slovensku.
http://naszvolen.sme.sk/c/8084268/vieme-kolko-medvedov-zije-na-slovensku.html
von Arx, M., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Zimmermann, F. & Breitenmoser, U. (2004) Status
and conservation of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe in 2001. Kora Bericht 19: 1–
330.
Vestenický, K. and Vološčuk, I. (1986) Veľká Fatra - Chránená krajinná oblasť. Príroda,
Bratislava, 384 pp.
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
34
APPENDIX I: Raw data, sampling (effort), maps & camera trap photos
Table 1. Overview of temperature values at Švošov and Ľubochňa valley.
Date
Temperature in ºC
at 7:00
Švošov
Temperature in ºC
at 16:00
Švošov
Temperature in ºC
at 8:00
Valley
Fresh snow in
valley (cm)
04. 02. 2017
2
0.7
-
-
05. 02. 2017
1.4
2.1
-
-
06. 02. 2017
0.2
1
-2.5
-
07. 02. 2017
-2.5
-3.1
-2
-
08. 02. 2017
-5.8
-4.6
-5
-
09. 02. 2017
-4.8
-4.5
-4
-
10. 02. 2017
1.7
2.5
-1
-
11. 02. 2017
-
-
-
-
12. 02. 2017
1.4
3.2
-
-
13. 02. 2017
3
-1
0
-
14. 02. 2017
-6
0
-8
-
15. 02. 2017
-5
2
-6
-
16. 02. 2017
-4
2
-4
-
17. 02. 2017
-2
2
-2
-
© Bios phere Expediti ons, an i nternat ional n ot-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Enviro nment Foru m
Offici ally acc redited membe r of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
35
Table 2. Summary of results: transects surveys by group and presence of lynx, wolf, bear and wildcat tracks on transects.
Transects surveyed
Lynx tracks
following
lynx trail
wolf tracks
following
wolf trail
bear trac ks
following
bear trai l
Wild cat tracks
following wildcat trail
n
km
cells
cells
n
track/km
n
km
cells
n
track/km
n
km
cells
n
track/km
n
km
cells
n
track/km
n
km
Slot1
14
168.57
15
6
17
9.92
4
0.74
8
57
2.95
4
1.72
13
77
2.19
14
4.6
3
10
16.86
2
0.65
Slot2
13
175.99
22
5
6
29.33
2
0.89
8
18
9.78
10
5.86
13
33
5.33
0
0
1
1
175.99
0
0
Total
27
344.56
22
10
23
14.98
6
1.63
10
75
4.59
16
16.06
15
110
3.13
1
0.79
4
11
31.32
2
0.65
© Bios phere Expediti ons, an i nternat ional n ot-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Enviro nment Foru m
Offici ally acc redited membe r of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
36
Table 3. Summary of results: cell resampling information.
Cell
number
Number of times cells have been sampled (check cells)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
J9
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
J10
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
J7
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
J6
x
x
x
I7
x
x
x
x
I8
x
x
x
x
x
x
J8
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I10
x
x
x
x
x
I9
x
x
x
J12
x
x
x
x
x
J13
x
K8
x
x
I5
x
I6
x
x
x
J11
x
x
x
x
x
K10
x
x
x
K9
x
I11
x
x
J5
x
K11
x
I12
x
J13
x
© Bios phere Expediti ons, an i nternat ional n ot-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Enviro nment Foru m
Offici ally acc redited membe r of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
37
Table 4. Summary of results: temporal resampling of species – “capture history“ in 2017.
Target species
4 Feb
6 Feb
7 Feb
8 Feb
9 Feb
10 Feb
13 Feb
14 Feb
15 Feb
16 Feb
17 Feb
Wolf
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lynx
x
x
x
x
x
x
Wildcat
x
x
x
Bear
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Golden eagle
x
x
x
Otter
x
x
x
Hazel grouse
x
© Bios phere Expediti ons, an i nternat ional n ot-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally accredited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Enviro nment Foru m
Offici ally acc redited membe r of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
38
Table 5. Summary of results: spatial resampling of species.
Species
Cells
(no repeat cells)
Type of record
Wolf
I7, J7, I8, J8, I9, J9, K9, J10, K10, I11
Footprints, urine, camera trap
Lynx
I7, I8, I9, J9, K9, I10, J11, J12
Footprints, camera trap
Wildcat
J6, J7, J8, I9, J9
Footprints, camera trap
Bear
I6, I7, J7, I8, J8, K8, I9, J9, I10, J10, K10, I11, J11, I12, J12
Footprints, scat
Red deer
J6, J7, I9, J9, J10,
Footprints, camera trap
Roe deer
J6, I7, J7, I8, J8, J9, J10
Footprints, observations, camera trap
Golden eagle
J10
Observation
Otter
J9, J10, J11, J12
Footprints
Wild boar
I7, J7, I8, J8, K9, K10, J12
Footprints, camera trap
Pine marten
I7, I8, J8, J10, J12
Footprints, camera trap
Red fox
I6, J6, J7, J8, J9, J10, K10
Footprints, camera trap
Badger
I7, J7, I8, I9
Footprints
Hazel grouse
J7
Footprints
Hare
I7
Footprints
Stoat
J12
Footprints
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally acc redited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited membe r of th e Interna tional Union for the Conservation of Nature
39
Table 6. Overview of footprints and animal trails recorded and samples collected for DNA analysis.
Date
No.
#
Species
Position
Footprint size (in
cm)
Age of trail
Moving
direction
CE
LL
Other notes
de
g
mi
n
sec
Width
Length
Very
fresh
Fre
sh
Old
er
Not sure
4.2.17
001
Canis
lupus
N
49
00
33.21
10
11 0
x
J10
E
01
9
08
44.43
4.2.17
002
A
Canis
lupus
N
49
01
50.54
9
11 0
x
J9
start following wolf
trail
E
01
9
08
44.43
4.2.17
002
B
Canis
lupus
N
49
01
45.11
10
11
x
J9
following ends
E
01
9
09
4.01
6.2.17
003
Canis
lupus
N
49
0
31.6
9
10
x
from 0 to
180, 200
J10
wolf pack 3+
E
01
9
08
49.6
6.2.17
004
Aquila
chrysae
tos
N
49
0
21.5
J10
2 adult, 1 juvenile
E
01
9
9
21.1
7.2.17
005
A
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
05
15.6
5
6
x
200
J6
Track followed
transect
E
01
9
10
25.7
7.2.17
005
B
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
05
13.5
5
5
x
325
J6
Leaving track
E
01
9
10
19.1
7.2.17
005
C
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
05
08.7
5
5
x
255
J6
Track followed
transect
E
01
9
10
14.4
7.2.17
005
D
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
05
07.7
5
5
x
306
J7
Leaving transect
E
01
9
10
09.7
7.2.17
005
E
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
05
04.4
5
5
x
270
J7
Exits right
E
01
9
09
52.9
7.2.17
005
F
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
04
52.4
5
6
x
320
J7
Crosses trail
E
01
9
09
58.5
7.2.17
005
G
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
O
4
42.7
5
5
x
J7
Joined trail
E
01
9
09
57.3
7.2.17
005
H
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
04
42.7
5
5
x
J7
Last print on
transect
E
01
9
09
57.7
7.2.17
006
Ursus
arctos
N
49
04
41.0
15
20
x
94
J7
Leaving track, start
following
E
01
9
10
10.3
7.2.17
006
A
Ursus
arctos
N
49
04
27.0
15
20
x
190
J7
Starts on road,
finished following
E
01
9
09
50.2
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally acc redited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited membe r of th e Interna tional Union for the Conservation of Nature
40
7.2.17
007
Tetraste
s
bonasia
N
49
04
26.5
5
5
x
J7
E
01
9
10
08.3
7.2.17
008
Ursus
arctos
N
49
04
25:3
15
20
x
290
J7
Following the
transect
E
01
9
10
16.5
7.2.17
009
Ursus
arctos
N
49
04
20
16
27
x
180
J7
Crossing track
E
01
9
09
54.4
7.2.17
010
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
09.7
8
10.5
X
170
J7
E
01
9
09
04.7
7.2.17
010
A
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
09.7
11
13
X
50
J7
E
01
9
09
04.7
7.2.17
010
B
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
09.7
9
11
X
170
J7
E
01
9
09
04.7
7.2.17
010
C
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
09.7
7
10
X
50
J7
E
01
9
09
04.7
7.2.17
010
D
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
7.18
X
J7
E
01
9
08
53.71
7.2.17
010
E
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
09.7
X
J7
E
01
9
09
04.7
7.2.17
010
F
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
09.7
X
J7
sample: Urine
E
01
9
09
04.7
7.2.17
011
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
04.6
9
11
X
from 150 to
270
I7
E
01
9
08
39.4
7.2.17
012
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
08.5
9
11
X
from 1 to
128
I7
E
01
9
08
23.1
7.2.17
013
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
11.5
7
8
X
140
I7
E
01
9
08
38.7
7.2.17
014
Ursus
arctos
N
49
04
25.7
20
30
X
140
I7
E
01
9
07
54.0
7.2.17
015
Ursus
arctos
N
49
04
29.0
16
32
X
40
I7
E
01
9
07
46.5
7.2.17
016
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
09.9
X
60
I7
E
01
9
07
26.1
7.2.17
017
Ursus
arctos
N
49
03
55.7
X
0
I8
E
01
9
07
25.8
7.2.17
018
Canis
lupus
N
49
03
55.3
X
0
I8
E
01
9
07
26.1
7.2.17
019
Ursus
arctos
N
49
04
29,0
16
32
X
40
I8
E
01
9
07
46,5
7
.
2
.
1
7
020
Canis
N
49
03
54.1
8
9.5
X
160
J7
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally acc redited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited membe r of th e Interna tional Union for the Conservation of Nature
41
lupus
E
01
9
08
49.6
7.2.17
020
A
Canis
lupus
N
49
03
54.1
8.5
10
X
190
J7
E
01
9
08
49.6
7.2.17
020
B
Canis
lupus
N
49
03
55.1
9
11.5
X
190
J7
E
01
9
08
49.7
7.2.17
021
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
05.2
9.5
10.5
X
70
I7
E
01
9
08
20.9
7.2.17
022
Canis
lupus
N
49
04
07.5
8
10
X
50
I7
E
01
9
08
16.5
7.2.1
7
023
Lynx
lynx
N
49
00
34,8
9
X
75 - 251
I10
start following lynx
trail
E
19
08
04.7
7.2.1
7
023
A
Lynx
lynx
N
49
00
35.0
115 - 230
I10
LYNX TRACK
FINISH
E
19
08
00.3
7.2.1
7
024
Ursus
arctos
N
49
00
50.8
X
VERY
OLD
127 - 250
I10
E
19
08
01.1
7.2.1
7
024
A
Ursus
arctos
N
49
00
48,1
x
very old
I10
Bear track finished
E
19
07
57,7
7.2.1
7
025
Lynx
lynx
N
49
00
12.4
X
I10
start following trail
E
19
07
24.4
7.2.1
7
025
A
Lynx
lynx
N
49
00
19.42
X
I10
stop following trail
E
19
07
40.94
8.2.1
7
026
Canis
lupus
N
49
02
55.9
10,5
13
X
older
from 0 to
190
J8
E
19
08
43.5
8.2.1
7
027
Canis
lupus
N
49
02
58.8
9
12,5
X
x
from 50 to
220
J8
stop following trail
E
19
08
33.3
8.2.17
028
Ursus
arctos
N
49
02
59.5
14
19
X
from 330 to
155
I8
bear trai l starts
E
01
9
08
27.5
8.2.17
029
Ursus
arctos
N
49
02
58.6
18
23
X
from 0 to
180
I8
E
01
9
08
26.1
8.2.17
028
A
Ursus
arctos
N
49
02
54.6
14
X
from 10 to
205
J8
E
01
9
08
34.8
8.2.17
030
Ursus
arctos
N
49
02
54.5
14.5
23
X
from 158 to
340
J8
E
01
9
08
35.6
8.2.17
028
B
Ursus
arctos
N
49
02
51.74
X
J8
bear scat
E
01
9
08
39.86
8.2.17
028
C
Ursus
arctos
N
49
02
46.1
X
J8
bear trai l end
E
01
9
08
50.35
8.2.17
031
Canis
lupus
N
49
02
50.7
9.5
11
X
from down
transect to
220
J9
E
01
9
08
43.9
8
.
2
.
1
7
032
Ursus
N
49
02
29.8
X
from 160 to
J9
3 tracks of bears,
© Bios phere Expeditions, an international not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in England, Germany, France, Australia and the USA
Offici ally acc redited member of the United Nations Environment Programme's Governing Council & Global Ministerial Environment Forum
Offici ally acc redited membe r of th e Interna tional Union for the Conservation of Nature
42
arctos
E
01
9
08
50.2
transect
splits on transect,
pics from Peter
8.2.17
033
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
02
31.1
5
4
X
from 180 to
40
I9
E
01
9
08
22.2
8.2.17
033
A
Felis
silvestri
s
N
49
02
31.1
4
4
X
along
transect
I9
E
01
9
08
22.2
8.2.17
034
Lynx
lynx
N
49
02
36.7
9.5
8
X
from 86 to
260
I8
two tracks in a loop
E
01
9
08
15.8
8.2.17
035
Lynx
lynx
N
49
02
46.4
8.5
8
X
from 62 to
NA
I8
two tracks parallel,
back and forth
E
01
9
08
02.4
8.2.17
035
A
Lynx
lynx
N
49
02
46.4