using dna sampling to estimate population demographics of
TRANSCRIPT
3/21/2011
1
USFWS
American Black Bear:Ursus americanus
www.bear.org
LDWF
Historic Distribution covered most of North America
16 subspecies (Hall 1981)
Present distribution restricted to less settled, forested regions (Pelton et al. 1994)
Glacier
Kenai
Queen CharlotteIsland.
Kermode
Dall
American Black Bear:Ursus americanus
Louisiana
Florida
Eastern
Olympic
New Mexico
California
Cinnamon
Mexican
Newfoundland
Kermode
West Mexican
Vancouver Island
www.bear.org
LDWF
Historic Distribution covered most of North America
16 subspecies (Hall 1981)
Present distribution restricted to less settled, forested regions (Pelton et al. 1994)
3/21/2011
2
Historic Range
Louisiana black bear
Louisiana Black Bear: Ursus americanus luteolus
American black bear
Historically abundant in Louisiana, eastern Texas, and southern Mississippi & southern Arkansas (Hall 1981)
Louisiana Black Bear: Ursus americanus luteolus
Habitat Requirements : Relatively large areas of contiguous bottomland and upland forests (USFWS 2009)
Current Distribution
BBCC.org
3/21/2011
3
Population Decline:Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
USGW Archives Summit Lumber Co. Union Parish ~1913
Population estimated as low as 80-120 individuals (St. Amant 1959)
Population Decline: Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Suitable habitat reduced by >80% by 1980 (Neal 1992)Remaining habitat reduced in quality by fragmentation (Neal 1992)
Population Decline: Overutilization
Riparian Lands of the Mississippi River: Past—Present—Prospective, F. H. Thompkins (1901) Theodore Roosevelt & Holt
Collier 1902
Patterson, Louisiana
3/21/2011
4
1992 US Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Louisiana black bear as “Threatened” citing habitat loss and overutilization (Neal 1992)
Federal Protection
overutilization (Neal 1992)
1995 USFWS adopted a recovery plan prepared with the Black Bear Conservation Committee
1. At least two viable subpopulations,
Justification
Criteria for Recovery & Delisting
(Bowker and Jacobson 1995)
one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins;
2. Establishment of immigration and emigration corridors between the two subpopulations;
3. Protection of the habitat and interconnecting corridors that support each of the two viable subpopulations used as justification for delisting.
Current Distribution
Tensas Basin
Atchafalaya Basin
BBCC.org
3/21/2011
5
Hypothesis:
Current black bear growth rates are
Addressing the Recovery Criteria: Is the coastal population viable?
positive for the coastal Louisiana population and the probability of persistence is >95% over the next 100 years.
Objective: Population Viability Analysis
• PVA Components
Addressing the Recovery Criteria: Is the coastal population viable?
PVA Components
• Starting Population Size• Mean Growth Rate • Process Variance
G. White
Objectives:
Estimate Coastal Population :
Addressing the Recovery Criteria: Is the coastal population viable?
• Abundance
• Density
• Apparent Survival Rates
• Population Growth Rates
• Process Variance
3/21/2011
6
Population Modeling:
Methods
Jim Hilton
Closed Population Models- Assume no births, immigration, deaths, emigration
Open Population Models-Allows additions & subtractions but less precise
Robust Design (Pollock 1982)
Robust to unequal probability of capture and survival
Population open between 3 primary sampling periods-years
Population closed within 8 secondary sampling periods-weeks
Pop. Growth, Immigration,
2010Jun<Closed>Aug
Week:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2011Jun<Closed>Aug
Week:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2012Jun<Closed>Aug
Week:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Open Open
Pop. Growth, Immigration, Temporary Emigration,
Apparent Survival
Abundance, Probability of Capture & Recapture
Methods: DNA Mark-Recapture (Woods et al. 1999)
• DNA from sampled hair is “mark”
• Marks can not be lost Size in base pairs
• Few marks misread • Minimal trap response bias• Cost effective
• Estimates more precise with equal capture probability
Paetkau et al. Molecular Ecology (1995)
Pea
kh
eig
ht
3/21/2011
7
Average annual home range for coastal females: 11.8 km² (J. Murrow personal communication)
Methods: DNA Collection
11.8 km²
Average annual home range for coastal females: 11.8 km² (J. Murrow personal communication)
Methods: DNA Collection
Otis et al. (1978) recommend at least 4 traps/home range for mark-recapture
2.95 km²grid
Average annual home range for coastal females: 11.8 km² (J. Murrow personal communication)
Methods: DNA Collection
Otis et al. (1978) recommend at least 4 traps/home range for mark-recapture
Study area :~ 348 km²118 hair snares
3/21/2011
8
Methods: DNA Collection
John Ripley
Methods: DNA Collection
John Ripley
~70cm
~35 cm
3/21/2011
9
Maria Davidson LDWF
0
20
40
60
80
Week 1: 6/14-18
Week 2: 6/21-6/25
Week 3: 6/28-7/2
Week 4: 7/5-9
Week 5: 7/12-16
Week 6: 7/19-23
Week 7: 7/26-30
Week 8: 8/2-6
29 26
5231
4331
43 477 18
10
19
24
24
27 27
# Sites Visited, Sample Obtained # Sites Visited, No sample obtained
Site Visits by Week
Katie Settlage
104/118 sites visited
672 samples collected
Awaiting analysis results
80
62
104
53
107
68
99 99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Week 1: 6/14-18
Week 2: 6/21-6/25
Week 3: 6/28-7/2
Week 4: 7/5-9
Week 5: 7/12-16
Week 6: 7/19-23
Week 7: 7/26-30
Week 8: 8/2-6
Samples Collected
3/21/2011
10
• Committee Members Joe Clark, Arnold Saxton
• Technicians: John Draper, John Ripley
• Landowners of St. Mary & Iberia Parish
LDWF USGS FWS BBCC UT Institute of
Acknowledgements:
• LDWF, USGS, FWS, BBCC, UT Institute of Agriculture
• Bowker, B., and T. Jacobson. 1995. Louisiana black bear Ursusamericanus luteolus Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jackson, MS, USA.
• Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North American 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 1.181 pp.
• Neal W.A. 1992. Threatened status for the Louisiana black bear and
References:
related rules. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jackson, MS, USA.
• Otis, D.L., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, and D.R. Anderson. 1978. Statistical Inference from Capture Data on Closed Animal Populations. Wildlife Monographs. No. 62.
• Patkeau, D., W. Calvert, I. Sterling, and C. Strobeck. 1995. Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Molecular Ecology 4(3):347-354.
• Pelton, M.R., F. van Manen, A. Coley, K. Weaver, J. Pedersen, and T. Eason. 1994. Black bear conservation action plan—North America. IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group Tech. Rep. In press.
• Pollock, K.H., 1982 A capture-recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46(3): 752-757.
• St. Amant, L.S. 1959 Louisiana Wildlife Inventory and Management Plan. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. Baton Rouge, USA.
• Tompkins, F.H. Riparian lands of the Mississippi River, past-present-prospective. A.L. Swift and Co. Chicago, Il, USA.
References:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Frequently Asked Questions. Designation of critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear. <http://www.fws.gov/Lafayette/la_black_bear_PCH.html> Accessed 20 February 2011.
• White, G.C. 1996. Population viability analysis. <http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/pva/index.htm> Accessed 24 February 2011.
• Woods, J.G., D. Paetkau, D. Lewis, B.N. McClellan, C. Strobeck, and M. Proctor. 1999. Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27(3):616-627.
3/21/2011
11
Questions
Questions
Questions