Hair of the dog: Obtaining samples from coyotes and wolves noninvasively†
Corresponding Author
David E. Ausband
Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.Search for more papers by this authorJulie Young
Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBarbara Fannin
Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMichael S. Mitchell
United States Geological Survey, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJennifer L. Stenglein
Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
Search for more papers by this authorLisette P. Waits
Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJohn A. Shivik
Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
David E. Ausband
Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.Search for more papers by this authorJulie Young
Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBarbara Fannin
Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMichael S. Mitchell
United States Geological Survey, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJennifer L. Stenglein
Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
Search for more papers by this authorLisette P. Waits
Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJohn A. Shivik
Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAssociate Editor: Applegate
Abstract
Canids can be difficult to detect and their populations difficult to monitor. We tested whether hair samples could be collected from coyotes (Canis latrans) in Texas, USA and gray wolves (C. lupus) in Montana, USA using lure to elicit rubbing behavior at both man-made and natural collection devices. We used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to determine whether collected hair samples were from coyote, wolf, or nontarget species. Both coyotes and wolves rubbed on man-made barbed surfaces but coyotes in Texas seldom rubbed on hanging barbed surfaces. Wolves in Montana showed a tendency to rub at stations where natural-material collection devices (sticks and debris) were present. Time to detection was relatively short (5 nights and 4 nights for coyotes and wolves, respectively) with nontarget and unknown species comprising approximately 26% of the detections in both locations. Eliciting rubbing behavior from coyotes and wolves using lures has advantages over opportunistic genetic sampling methods (e.g., scat transects) because it elicits a behavior that deposits a hair sample at a fixed sampling location, thereby increasing the efficiency of sampling for these canids. Hair samples from rub stations could be used to provide estimates of abundance, measures of genetic diversity and health, and detection–nondetection data useful for cost-effective population monitoring. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.
LITERATURE CITED
- Andelt, W. F., and S. H. Andelt. 1984. Diet bias in scat deposition-rate surveys of coyote density. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 74–77.
- Asa, C. S., and L. D. Mech. 1995. A review of the sensory organs in wolves and their importance to life history. Pages 287–291 in L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip, editors. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Proceedings of the Second North American Symposium on Wolves. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication no. 35, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
- Ausband, D. E., M. S. Mitchell, K. Doherty, P. Zager, C. M. Mack, and J. Holyan. 2010. Surveying predicted rendezvous sites to monitor gray wolf populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1043–1049.
- Balme, G. A., L. T. B. Hunter, and R. Slotow. 2009. Evaluating methods for counting cryptic carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 433–441.
- Barja, I., F. J. de Miguel, and F. Barcena. 2004. The importance of crossroads in faecal marking behaviour in wolves (Canis lupus). Naturwissenchaften 91(10): 489–492.
- Darrow, P. A., and J. A. Shivik. 2009. Bold, shy, and persistent: variable coyote response to light and sound stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 82–87.
- De Veaux, R. D., P. F. Velleman, and D. E. Bock. 2004. Stats: data and models. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
- Foran, D. R., S. C. Minta, and K. S. Heinemeyer. 1997. DNA-based analysis of hair to identify species and individuals for population research and monitoring. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 840–847.
- Gese, E. M., and R. L. Ruff. 1997. Scent-marking by coyotes, Canis latrans: the influence of social and ecological factors. Animal Behavior 54: 1155–1166.
- Gompper, M. E., R. W. Kays, J. C. Ray, S. D. Lapoint, D. A. Bogan, and J. R. Cryan. 2006. A comparison of noninvasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in northeastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 1142–1151.
- Goossens, B., L. P. Waits, and P. Taberlet. 1998. Plucked hair samples as a source of DNA: reliability of dinucleotide microsatellite genotyping. Molecular Ecology 7: 1237–1241.
- Gould, F. W. 1975. Texas plants—a checklist and ecological summary. Texas A&M University Agricultural Experimental Station, College Station, USA.
- Harrington, F. H., and C. S. Asa. 2003. Wolf communication. Pages 66–103 in L. D. Mech, and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
- Joseph, L. N., S. A. Field, C. Wilcox, and H. P. Possingham. 2006. Presence–absence versus abundance data for monitoring threatened species. Conservation Biology 20: 1679–1687.
- Kelly, M. J., and E. L. Holub. 2008. Camera trapping of carnivores: trap success among camera types and across species, and habitat selection by species, on Salt Pond Mountain, Giles County, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 15: 249–262.
- Kendall, K. C., and K. S. McKelvey. 2008. Hair collection. Pages 135–176 in R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray, editors. Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
- Kendall, K. C., J. B. Stetz, J. Boulanger, A. C. Macleod, D. Paetkau, and G. C. White. 2009. Demography and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 3–17.
-
Kimball, B. A.,
J. J. Johnston,
J. R. Mason,
D. E. Zemlicka, and
F. S. Blom.
2000.
Development of chemical coyote attractants for wildlife management applications.
Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference
19:
304–309.
10.5070/V419110106 Google Scholar
- Kohn, M. H., E. C. York, D. A. Kamradt, G. Haught, R. M. Sauvajot, and R. K. Wayne. 1999. Estimating population size by genotyping faeces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences 266: 657–663.
- Long, R. A., and W. J. Zielinski. 2008. Designing effective noninvasive carnivore surveys. Pages 8–44 in R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray, editors. Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
- MacKay, P., W. J. Zielinski, R. A. Long, and J. C. Ray. 2008. Noninvasive research and carnivore conservation. Pages 1–7 in R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray, editors. Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
- Martin, D. J., and D. B. Fagre. 1988. Field evaluation of a synthetic coyote attractant. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 390–396.
- Marucco, F., D. H. Pletscher, L. Boitani, M. K. Schwartz, K. L. Pilgrim, and J. D. Lebreton. 2009. Wolf survival and population trend using non-invasive capture–recapture techniques in the western Alps. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1003–1010.
- McCall, B. 2009. Noninvasive genetic sampling reveals black bear population dynamics driven by changes in food productivity. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, USA.
- Mowat, G., and C. Strobeck. 2000. Estimating population size of grizzly bears using hair capture, DNA profiling, and mark–recapture analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 183–193.
- Onorato, D., C. White, P. Zager, and L. P. Waits. 2006. Detection of predator presence at elk mortality sites using mtDNA analysis of hair and scat samples. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 815–820.
- Prugh, L. R., C. E. Ritland, S. M. Arthur, and C. J. Krebs. 2005. Monitoring coyote population dynamics by genotyping faeces. Molecular Ecology 14: 1585–1596.
- Ramsey, F. L., and D. W. Schafer. 2002. The statistical sleuth: a course in methods of data analysis. Duxbury, Pacific Grove, California, USA.
- Ruell, E. W., and K. R. Crooks. 2007. Evaluation of non-invasive genetic sampling methods for felid and canid populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1690–1694.
- Ryon, J., J. C. Fentress, F. H. Harrington, and S. Bragdon. 1986. Scent rubbing in wolves (Canis lupus): the effect of novelty. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64: 573–577.
- Sargeant, G. A., D. H. Johnson, and W. E. Berg. 2003. Sampling designs for carnivore scent-station surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 289–298.
- Schauster, E. R., E. M. Gese, and A. M. Kitchen. 2002. An evaluation of survey methods for monitoring swift fox abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 464–477.
- Schwartz, M. K., and S. L. Monfort. 2008. Genetic and endocrine tools for carnivore surveys. Pages 238–262 in R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray, editors. Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
- Smith, J. B., J. A. Jenks, and R. W. Klaver. 2007. Evaluating detection probabilities for American marten in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2412–2416.
- Stenglein, J. L., L. P. Waits, D. E. Ausband, P. Zager, and C. M. Mack. 2010. Efficient, noninvasive genetic sampling monitoring reintroduced wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1050–1058.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services. 2000–2008. Rocky Mountain wolf recovery annual report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Helena, Montana, USA. <http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/>. Accessed 5 Jan 2010.
- Vila, C., V. Urios, and J. Castroviejo. 1994. Use of faeces for scent marking in Iberian wolves (Canis lupus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 374–377.
- Waits, L. P., and D. Paetkau. 2005. Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 1419–1433.
- Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu>. Accessed 11 Sep 2009.
- Woods, J. G., D. Paetkau, D. Lewis, B. N. McLellan, M. Proctor, and C. Strobeck. 1999. Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 616–627.
- Young, J. K. 2006. Spatial and behavioral ecology of coyotes in relation to food resources. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, USA.