DOCSLIB.ORG

Connecting Endangered Brown Bear Subpopulations in the Cantabrian Range (North-Western Spain) M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Connecting Endangered Brown Bear Subpopulations in the Cantabrian Range (North-Western Spain) M bs_bs_banner Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430 Connecting endangered brown bear subpopulations in the Cantabrian Range (north-western Spain) M. C. Mateo-Sánchez1, S. A. Cushman2 & S. Saura3 1 EUIT Forestal, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 2 Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Forest Service, Flagstaff, AZ, USA 3 ETSI Montes, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Keywords Abstract brown bear; connectivity; animal movement; corridors; road defragmentation; landscape The viability of many species depends on functional connectivity of their popula- matrix permeability; UNICOR. tions through dispersal across broad landscapes. This is particularly the case for the endangered brown bear in north-western Spain, with a total population of Correspondence about 200 individuals in two subpopulations that are separated by a wide gap with María C. Mateo-Sánchez, EUIT Forestal, low permeability. Our goal in this paper is to use state-of-the-art connectivity Technical University of Madrid, Ciudad modeling approaches to provide detailed and quantitative guidance for conserva- Universitaria s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain. tion planning efforts aimed at improving landscape permeability for brown bears Tel: +34 91 336 76 64; in Spain, with a particular focus on alleviating the barrier effect of transportation Fax: +34 91 336 76 70 infrastructure. We predicted a regional connectivity network for brown bear by Email: [email protected] combining a multiscale habitat suitability model with factorial least-cost path density analysis. We found that the current composition and configuration of the Editor: Matthew Gompper landscape considerably constrain brown bear movements, creating a narrow bot- Associate Editor: Sadie Ryan tleneck that limits flow of individuals between the two subpopulations. We iden- tified key locations along the predicted corridors where efforts to increase road Received 23 July 2013; accepted 15 and railway permeability should be prioritized. The results provide a foundation January 2014 for the development of spatially optimal management strategies to enhance con- nectivity within and between the subpopulations and to mitigate the impact of doi:10.1111/acv.12109 potential barriers to movement. Introduction may lead to inappropriate characterization of connections and ecological flows between habitat patches (Cushman Habitat connectivity plays a crucial role in enabling disper- et al., 2009). Instead of experiencing landscapes as categori- sal and gene flow within and among populations (e.g. cal mosaics (habitat/not habitat), it is more likely that Hanski, 1998; Flather & Bevers, 2002; Crooks & Sanjayan, organisms experience their surroundings as gradients of dif- 2006; Cushman, 2006; Cushman et al., 2013; Saura, Bodin ferential habitat quality (McGarigal & Cushman, 2005; & Fortin, 2014) and thus is considered a key consideration Cushman, 2006; Cushman et al., 2010a), and adopting this in evaluating regional viability of animal populations. perspective can profoundly change the conservation plan- Despite the clear importance of habitat connectivity for ning guidelines at the landscape scale. population persistence, the best ways to mitigate population Several approaches are available to evaluate connectivity isolation remains an object of intense debate (Crooks & across complex landscapes, including least-cost path Sanjayan, 2006; Awade, Boscolo & Metzger, 2012), and modeling (Adriaensen et al., 2003; Cushman et al., 2009, specific factors mediating connectivity are largely unknown 2010a; Cushman, Chase & Griffin, 2010b), circuit theory for most species (With, Gardner & Turner, 1997; Bowne & (McRae & Beier, 2007; McRae et al., 2008), other forms of Bowers, 2004; Cushman, 2006). One commonly proposed network analysis (Urban et al., 2009; Saura et al., 2014), approach to conserve population connectivity involves the resistant kernel modeling (Compton et al., 2007; Cushman creation and protection of movement corridors (Haas, 1995; et al., 2010b), agent-based movement (Palmer, Coulon & Beier & Noss, 1998; Crooks & Sanjayan, 2006; Cushman, Travis, 2011), gene flow simulations (Landguth & McKelvey & Schwartz, 2009). However, the ‘classic’ Cushman, 2010), statistical modeling (Cushman et al., 2006; concept of a corridor as a narrow strip of habitat that facili- Compton et al., 2007; Spear et al., 2010) or empirically tates movements of organisms between habitat patches derived understandings from detailed movement data (Simberloff et al., 1992; Rosenberg, Noon & Meslow, 1997) (Sawyer et al., 2009; Cushman et al., 2011). Most past appli- is a point of controversy, given limited evidence of their cations of these methods have focused on delineating move- effectiveness and issues related to scale and delineation that ment corridors among small collections of habitat patches at 430 Animal Conservation 17 (2014) 430–440 © 2014 The Zoological Society of London M. C. Mateo-Sánchez, S. A. Cushman and S. Saura Enhancing connectivity to allow brown bear persistence relatively fine spatial and have not accurately accounted for the brown bear to provide an evaluation of the population- the distribution and density of dispersing organisms across wide connectivity network in the study area. The brown the landscape. To provide meaningful guidance to regional bear is a long-lived omnivorous mammal with a solitary conservation efforts, it is often essential to expand the scope social structure and promiscuous mating system (Nores & of analysis to shift from local, patch-level definition of Naves, 1993; Schwartz, Miller & Haroldson, 2003). Males habitat connectivity to a broader gradient perspective on have larger home ranges than females, and both males and landscape structure to assess performance of populations females have intra- and intersexually overlapping home across complex landscapes (Berger, Cain & Berger, 2006). ranges (Dahle & Swenson, 2003). Dispersal in brown bear One framework that is useful to accomplish this expan- populations has been reported to be sex biased, with highly sion in scope is to evaluate landscape connectivity among all philopatric females establishing their breeding home ranges the individuals of a population across the entire occupied in or adjacent to their natal areas and males dispersing long range and across multiple landscape resistance scenarios distances from their mothers’ home range (Blanchard & (e.g. Cushman et al., 2006). Synoptic least-cost movement Knight, 1991; McLellan & Hovey, 2001; Palomero et al., analysis on species-specific landscape resistance map is a 2007). Recent multiscale habitat modeling has revealed that helpful approach to comprehensively analyze the effects of the preferred habitat of brown bear in Spain consists of landscape structure on animal movement. Resistance repre- large landscapes with low human footprint and large extents sents an integration of several behavioral and physiological of forest cover (Mateo-Sánchez, Cushman & Saura, 2013). factors such as aversion, energy expenditure or mortality The brown bear population in the Cantabrian Range risk when moving through a particular environment (Zeller, (north-west Spain) has suffered a dramatic decline in the last McGarigal & Whiteley, 2012), and cost is the cumulative several centuries as a result of human persecution and pro- resistance incurred in moving from the source to the desti- gressive loss and fragmentation of its habitat (Naves et al., nation locations (Adriaensen et al., 2003). Therefore, by 2003). Currently, the Cantabrian brown bear occurs in two integrating least-cost movement assessment in a spatially small and endangered subpopulations (Palomero et al., extensive scope of analysis (i.e. across all occupied locations 2007) with limited gene flow between them, with potentially within a population), the strength of corridors and locations deleterious effects on viability (Pérez et al., 2009). The iso- of movement barriers can be rigorously evaluated lation of these two subpopulations is considered to be a (Cushman et al., 2009, 2013). result of the distribution of suitable habitat being separated Many published studies analyzing least-cost corridor by intensively modified intermediate landscapes and trans- models have made several simplifying assumptions that may portation infrastructure, which has created potential barri- lead to unrealistic characterization of organism behavior. ers to dispersal between the two subpopulations (Nores & First, very often movement parameters, such as the resist- Naves, 1993; Wiegand et al., 1998). Brown bears have been ance to movement presented by different landscape features, protected in Spain for over three decades. Much of the have been estimated through expert opinion due to lack of known range of the species is included within protected detailed information on animal movement (Zeller et al., areas such as European Nature 2000 Network, natural 2012), which is not desirable (Seoane, Bustamante & parks and recovery plans of each of the regional institutions Díaz-Delgado, 2005). To overcome this limitation, some involved in its management. Although recent studies authors proposed that resistance to movement could be esti- revealed that both subpopulations are growing, loss of mated as an inverse function of a habitat suitability model genetic diversity due to small population size and demo- (e.g. Ferreras, 2001; Chetkiewicz, St. Clair & Boyce, 2006; graphic stochasticity has hampered the recovery of O’Brien et al., 2006; Beier, Majka & Spencer, 2008). Second, the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young
    By Blane Klemek MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young Naturalists the Slinky,Stinky Weasel family ave you ever heard anyone call somebody a weasel? If you have, then you might think Hthat being called a weasel is bad. But weasels are good hunters, and they are cunning, curious, strong, and fierce. Weasels and their relatives are mammals. They belong to the order Carnivora (meat eaters) and the family Mustelidae, also known as the weasel family or mustelids. Mustela means weasel in Latin. With 65 species, mustelids are the largest family of carnivores in the world. Eight mustelid species currently make their homes in Minnesota: short-tailed weasel, long-tailed weasel, least weasel, mink, American marten, OTTERS BY DANIEL J. COX fisher, river otter, and American badger. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer May–June 2003 n e MARY CLAY, DEMBINSKY t PHOTO ASSOCIATES r mammals a WEASELS flexible m Here are two TOM AND PAT LEESON specialized mustelid feet. b One is for climb- ou can recognize a ing and the other for hort-tailed weasels (Mustela erminea), long- The long-tailed weasel d most mustelids g digging. Can you tell tailed weasels (M. frenata), and least weasels eats the most varied e food of all weasels. It by their tubelike r which is which? (M. nivalis) live throughout Minnesota. In also lives in the widest Ybodies and their short Stheir northern range, including Minnesota, weasels variety of habitats and legs. Some, such as badgers, hunting. Otters and minks turn white in winter. In autumn, white hairs begin climates across North are heavy and chunky. Some, are excellent swimmers that hunt to replace their brown summer coat.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes Americana Humboldtensis)
    Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes americana humboldtensis) R. Hamlin, L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch Photo credit: Six Rivers National Forest Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, California 95521 (707) 822-7201 www.fws.gov/arcata September 2010 i The suggested citation for this report is: Hamlin, R., L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch 2010. Species assessment for the Humboldt marten (Martes americana humboldtensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. 34 + iv pp. ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 1 Species Description ................................................................................................... 1 Taxonomy.................................................................................................................. 1 Life History ............................................................................................................... 4 Reproduction .................................................................................................. 5 Diet ................................................................................................................ 5 Home Range
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fur Harvester Digest 3 SEASON DATES and BAG LIMITS
    2021 Michigan Fur Harvester Digest RAP (Report All Poaching): Call or Text (800) 292-7800 Michigan.gov/Trapping Table of Contents Furbearer Management ...................................................................3 Season Dates and Bag Limits ..........................................................4 License Types and Fees ....................................................................6 License Types and Fees by Age .......................................................6 Purchasing a License .......................................................................6 Apprentice & Youth Hunting .............................................................9 Fur Harvester License .....................................................................10 Kill Tags, Registration, and Incidental Catch .................................11 When and Where to Hunt/Trap ...................................................... 14 Hunting Hours and Zone Boundaries .............................................14 Hunting and Trapping on Public Land ............................................18 Safety Zones, Right-of-Ways, Waterways .......................................20 Hunting and Trapping on Private Land ...........................................20 Equipment and Fur Harvester Rules ............................................. 21 Use of Bait When Hunting and Trapping ........................................21 Hunting with Dogs ...........................................................................21 Equipment Regulations ...................................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan for Europe
    Chapter 6 Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan for Europe IUCN Category: Lower Risk, least concern CITES Listing: Appendix II Scientific Name: Ursus arctos Common Name: brown bear Figure 6.1. General brown bear (Ursus arctos) distribution in Europe. European Brown Bear Action Plan (Swenson, J., et al., 1998). 250 km ICELAND 250 miles Original distribution Current distribution SWEDEN FINLAND NORWAY ESTONIA RUSSIA LATVIA DENMARK IRELAND LITHUANIA UK BELARUS NETH. GERMANY POLAND BELGIUM UKRAINE LUX. CZECH SLOVAKIA MOLDOVA FRANCE AUSTRIA SWITZERLAND HUNGARY SLOVENIA CROATIA ROMANIA BOSNIA HERZ. THE YUGOSL. FEDER. ANDORRA BULGARIA PORTUGAL ITALY MACEDONIA SPAIN ALBANIA TURKEY GREECE CYPRUS 55 Introduction assumed to live in southwestern Carinthia, representing an outpost of the southern Slovenian population expanding In Europe the brown bear (Ursus arctos) once occupied into the border area with Austria and Italy (Gutleb 1993a most of the continent including Scandinavia, but since and b). The second population is located in the Limestone about 1850 has been restricted to a more reduced range Alps of Styria and Lower Austria and comprises 8–10 (Servheen 1990), see Figure 6.1. individuals; it is the result of a reintroduction project started by WWF-Austria in 1989. In addition to these populations, the Alps of Styria and Carinthia and to a lesser Status and management of the extent also of Salzburg and Upper Austria, are visited by brown bear in Austria migrating individuals with increasing frequency. A third Georg Rauer center of bear distribution is emerging in northwestern Styria and the bordering areas of Upper Austria (Dachstein, Distribution and current status Totes Gebirge, and Sengsengebirge) where, since 1990, 1–3 bears have been present almost continuously (Frei, J., At present, there are just a few brown bears living in Bodner, M., Sorger, H.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Marten Management System and Database
    MARTEN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND DATABASE SEPTEMBER 1990 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Wildlife Resource Assessment Section Mammal Group MARTEN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I MARTEN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................... 5 MANAGEMENT GOALS............................................................................ 5 ASSUMPTIONS......................................................................................... 6 MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS ............................................................... 7 INPUT CRITERIA FOR MARTEN MANAGEMENT ................................... 9 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 14 CHRONOLOGY OF MARTEN MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................. 15 PART II MARTEN MANAGEMENT DATA BASE.......................................................... 16 MARTEN DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY....................................................... 17 MARTEN HARVEST DATA ..................................................................... 17 HARVEST VERSUS ALLOWABLE HARVEST........................................ 17 EFFORT .................................................................................................. 18 REGIONAL AND TRAPPER OBSERVATIONS....................................... 18 LITERATURE CITED
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States
    United States The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores Department of Agriculture Forest Service American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, Rocky Mountain and Wolverine Forest and Range Experiment Station in the Western United States Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 General Technical Report RM-254 Abstract Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p. This cooperative effort by USDA Forest Service Research and the National Forest System assesses the state of knowledge related to the conservation status of four forest carnivores in the western United States: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. The conservation assessment reviews the biology and ecology of these species. It also discusses management considerations stemming from what is known and identifies information needed. Overall, we found huge knowledge gaps that make it difficult to evaluate the species’ conservation status. In the western United States, the forest carnivores in this assessment are limited to boreal forest ecosystems. These forests are characterized by extensive landscapes with a component of structurally complex, mesic coniferous stands that are characteristic of late stages of forest development. The center of the distrbution of this forest type, and of forest carnivores, is the vast boreal forest of Canada and Alaska. In the western conterminous 48 states, the distribution of boreal forest is less continuous and more isolated so that forest carnivores and their habitats are more fragmented at the southern limits of their ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • A Yellow-Throated Marten Martes Flavigula Carrying a Small Indian Civet Viverricula Indica
    A Yellow-throated Marten Martes flavigula carrying a Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica Babu Ram LAMICHHANE1*, Chiranjibi Prasad POKHERAL1, Ambika Prasad KHATIWADA1, Rama MISHRA2 and Naresh SUBEDI1 Abstract Yellow-throated Marten Martes flavigula has a wide geographic distribution, but little is known about its ecology and behaviour. A camera-trap survey in and around Chitwan National Park, Nepal, photographed a solitary Marten carrying a Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica. The animal was in a grassland patch amid Sal Shorea robusta forest. It is unclear whether the Marten killed the Civet. Recent camera-trap surveys suggest that Yellow-throated Marten is widespread in Chitwan NP with records from altitudes of 190–675 m; many records are from Sal forest. Keywords: camera-trap, Chitwan National Park, behaviour, distribution, intra-guild carnivore predation, locality records, Nepal, Sal forest मऱसाप्रोऱे सानो ननरबिराऱो आहाराको 셁पमा 쥍याईरहेको बौगोलरक वितयणऺेत्र ठू रो बएताऩनन भरसाप्रोको आननफानीको फायेभा थोयैभात्र जानाकायी यहेको छ। मसि셍ष (२०७० सारभा) 啍माभया ट्रमावऩङ प्रविधधको प्रमोग गयी गरयएको सिेऺणको क्रभभा सारिनरे घेरयएको घाॉसे भैदान ऺेत्रभा भरसाप्रोरेए啍रै एउटा िम�क ननयबफयारो 쥍माईयहेको पोटो खिचेको धथमो। पोटोको आधायभा भात्र उ啍त भरसाप्रोरे ननयबफयारो भायेको हो कक होईन एककन गनष सककएन। मसैगयी ऩनछ쥍रा केही ि셍षभा गरयएका 啍माभेया ट्रमावऩङ सिेऺणको क्रभभा धचतिनको धेयैजसो ऺत्रे भा भरसाप्रोरे विचयण गने गयेको य १९० देखि ६७५ लभटय स륍भको उचाईभा ऩाईएको धथमो। भरसाप्रोको पोटो खिधचएका धेयैजसो ठाउॉ सारिन ऺत्रे भा ऩदषछन।् Introduction riverine and mixed hardwood), 12% grassland, 5% exposed surface and 3% water bodies (Thapa 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Small Carnivores of Karnataka: Distribution and Sight Records1
    Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 104 (2), May-Aug 2007 155-162 SMALL CARNIVORES OF KARNATAKA SMALL CARNIVORES OF KARNATAKA: DISTRIBUTION AND SIGHT RECORDS1 H.N. KUMARA2,3 AND MEWA SINGH2,4 1Accepted November 2006 2 Biopsychology Laboratory, University of Mysore, Mysore 570 006, Karnataka, India. 3Email: [email protected] 4Email: [email protected] During a study from November 2001 to July 2004 on ecology and status of wild mammals in Karnataka, we sighted 143 animals belonging to 11 species of small carnivores of about 17 species that are expected to occur in the state of Karnataka. The sighted species included Leopard Cat, Rustyspotted Cat, Jungle Cat, Small Indian Civet, Asian Palm Civet, Brown Palm Civet, Common Mongoose, Ruddy Mongoose, Stripe-necked Mongoose and unidentified species of Otters. Malabar Civet, Fishing Cat, Brown Mongoose, Nilgiri Marten, and Ratel were not sighted during this study. The Western Ghats alone account for thirteen species of small carnivores of which six are endemic. The sighting of Rustyspotted Cat is the first report from Karnataka. Habitat loss and hunting are the major threats for the small carnivore survival in nature. The Small Indian Civet is exploited for commercial purpose. Hunting technique varies from guns to specially devised traps, and hunting of all the small carnivore species is common in the State. Key words: Felidae, Viverridae, Herpestidae, Mustelidae, Karnataka, threats INTRODUCTION (Mukherjee 1989; Mudappa 2001; Rajamani et al. 2003; Mukherjee et al. 2004). Other than these studies, most of the Mammals of the families Felidae, Viverridae, information on these animals comes from anecdotes or sight Herpestidae, Mustelidae and Procyonidae are generally records, which no doubt, have significantly contributed in called small carnivores.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Trade Commission § 301.0
    Federal Trade Commission § 301.0 NAME GUIDE § 301.0 Fur products name guide. NAME GUIDE Name Order Family Genus-species Alpaca ...................................... Ungulata ................ Camelidae ............. Lama pacos. Antelope ................................... ......do .................... Bovidae ................. Hippotragus niger and Antilope cervicapra. Badger ..................................... Carnivora ............... Mustelidae ............. Taxida sp. and Meles sp. Bassarisk ................................. ......do .................... Procyonidae .......... Bassariscus astutus. Bear ......................................... ......do .................... Ursidae .................. Ursus sp. Bear, Polar ............................... ......do .................... ......do .................... Thalarctos sp. Beaver ..................................... Rodentia ................ Castoridae ............. Castor canadensis. Burunduk ................................. ......do .................... Sciuridae ............... Eutamias asiaticus. Calf .......................................... Ungulata ................ Bovidae ................. Bos taurus. Cat, Caracal ............................. Carnivora ............... Felidae .................. Caracal caracal. Cat, Domestic .......................... ......do .................... ......do .................... Felis catus. Cat, Lynx ................................. ......do .................... ......do .................... Lynx refus. Cat, Manul ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS
    OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022 Please Note: Major changes are underlined throughout this synopsis. License Requirements Trapper Education Requirement By action of the 1985 Oregon Legislature, all trappers born after June 30, Juveniles younger than 12 years of age are not required to purchase a 1968, and all first-time Oregon trappers of any age are required to license, except to hunt or trap bobcat and river otter. However, they must complete an approved trapper education course. register to receive a brand number through the Salem ODFW office. To trap bobcat or river otter, juveniles must complete the trapper education The study guide may be completed at home. Testing will take place at course. Juveniles 17 and younger must have completed hunter education Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) offices throughout the to obtain a furtaker’s license. state. A furtaker’s license will be issued by the Salem ODFW Headquarters office after the test has been successfully completed and Landowners must obtain either a furtaker’s license, a hunting license for mailed to Salem headquarters, and the license application with payment furbearers, or a free license to take furbearers on land they own and on has been received. Course materials are available by writing or which they reside. To receive the free license and brand number, the telephoning Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, I&E Division, 4034 landowner must obtain from the Salem ODFW Headquarters office, a Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302, (800) 720-6339 x76002. receipt of registration for the location of such land prior to hunting or trapping furbearing mammals on that land.
    [Show full text]
  • Life and Human Coexistence with Large Carnivores
    LIFE NATURE | LIFE AND HUMAN COEXISTENCE WITH LARGE CARNIVORES POPULATION PROJECT TITLE CANTABRIAN LIFE94 NAT/E/004827 Action program for the conservation of the brown bear and its habitats in the Cantabrian mountains - 2nd phase (Asturias) LIFE94 NAT/E/004829 Action program for the conservation of the brown bear and its habitats in the Cantabrian mountains - 2nd phase (Castilla y Léon) LIFE95 NAT/E/001154 Action programme for the conservation of the brown bear and its habitat in the Cantabrian mountains - 3rd phase (Castilla y Leon) LIFE95 NAT/E/001155 Action programme for the conservation of the brown bear and its habitat in the Cantabrian mount mountains - 3rd phase (Castilla y Leon) LIFE95 NAT/E/001156 Action programme for the conservation of the brown bear and its habitat in the Cantabrian mount mountains - 3rd phase (Castilla y Leon) LIFE95 NAT/E/001158 Action programme for the conservation of the brown bear and its habitat in the Cantabrian mount mountains - 3rd phase (Castilla y Leon) LIFE98 NAT/E/005305 Oso en Asturias - Program for the conservation of the brown bear in Asturias LIFE98 NAT/E/005326 Oso/núcleos reproductores - Conservation of the cantabrian Brown bear breeding nucleus LIFE99 NAT/E/006352 Ancares project : co-ordinate management of two adjoining comunitarian sites of interest (LIC) LIFE99 NAT/E/006371 Ancares/Galicia - Ancares Project : co-ordinate management of two adjoining sites of community interest CARPATHIAN LIFE02 NAT/RO/008576 Vrancea 30/11/2005 - In situ conservation of large carnivore in Vrancea County
    [Show full text]
  • American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection Agriculture
    United States Department of American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Abstract Zielinski, William J.; Kucera, Thomas E., technical editors. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-157. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 163 p. The status of the American marten (Martes americana), fisher (Martes pennanti), lynx (Lynx canadensis), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) is of increasing concern to managers and conservationists in much of the western United States. Because these species are protected throughout much of their range in the west, information on population status and trends is unavailable from trapping records. This report describes methods to detect the four species using either remote photography, track plates, or snow tracking. A strategy for systematic sampling and advice on the number of devices used, their deployment, and the minimum sampling duration for each sampling unit are provided. A method for the disposition of survey data is recommended such that the collective results of multiple surveys can describe regional distribution patterns over time. The report describes survey methods for detection only but also provides some considerations for their use to monitor population change. Retrieval Terms: furbearers, forest carnivores, survey methods, monitoring, inventory, western United States Technical Editors William J. Zielinski is research wildlife biologist with the Station's TimberlWildlife Research Unit, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA 95521; and an Associate Faculty, Wildlife Department, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521. Thomas E.
    [Show full text]