<<

Large Carnivores in Central : Experiences in Monitoring, Management, and Communication 18-20 April 2016, Berlin, History, status, and conservation perspectives of the Urs Breitenmoser & Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten University of Bern & KORA, Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in Monitoring, Management, and Communication 18-20 April 2016, Berlin, Germany History, status, and conservation perspectives of the Eurasian lynx Urs Breitenmoser & Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten University of Bern & KORA, Switzerland

1. History and present status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

1. History and present status

Ridinger 1737 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Historic distribution of Lynx lynx and Lynx pardinus in Europe

Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx  Fossil records only  Early historic times  About 1800  About 1960

Iberic lynx Lynx pardinus  About 1800  About 1960 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Present distribution of Lynx lynx in Europe

Lynx lynx  Permanent presence  Sporadic presence Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012 (Kaczensky et al. 2013a) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Present distribution of Lynx lynx in Central Europe

Autochthonous populations:  1. Baltic L. l. lynx 2. Balkan L. l. balcanicus 3. Carpathian L. l. carpathicus

 Reintroduced populations:    4. Alpine 5. Bohemian‐Bavarian   6. Dinaric  7. 8. Jura  9. Vosges‐Palatinian

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012 (Kaczensky et al. 2013a) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

1. Baltic Population

• Lynx l. lynx • Adjacent to large Russian population • Without Belarus • Reintroduction in NE- (L. l. lynx) • Reintroduction in C-Poland (mixed) • Highly fragmented in & Poland • IUCN Red List: LC

Country Abundance Trend 790 Stable Latvia <600 Stable Lithuania 40-60 Increasing Poland NE 96 Stable 10x10 km cells occupied: Ukraine 80-90 Stable? Permanent: 823 Total 1600 Stable Sporadic: 447 All: 1270 Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

2. Balkan Population

• Lynx l. balcanicus • 20–39 mature individuals • IUCN Red List: CR (D)

Country Abundance Trend 10x10 km cells occupied: FYROM 27-52 Permanent: 45 Albania ind. lynx decreasing Sporadic: 147 All: 186 Montenegro 0 (sporadic) 1 (sporadic) Greece 0 (sporadic) Total 27-52 decreasing Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

3. Carpathian Population • Lynx l. carpathicus • Source for many reintroductions • Expanding in the south (SRB, BG) • No scientific robust monitoring • Probably over-estimated (ex. SK) • IUCN Red List: LC

Country Abundance Trend 1200-1500 Stable Slovakia 300-400 Stable? Poland 200 Stable Ukraine 350-400 Stable? Czech Rep. 13 Stagnant? Hungary 1-3 Stagnant Serbia 50 Slight incr. 10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 1126 Bulgaria 11 Expanding Sporadic: 347 Total 2300-2400 Stable All: 1473 Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

3. Carpathian Population

Bottleneck of the Carpathian population Country Minimum Minimum Population population year 2012 Romania 100-120 1933-38 1200-1500 Slovakia 40-50 1934 300-400 Poland few 1946 200 Ukraine <100 1960 350-400 Czech Rep. 0 1909 13 Hungary 0 1915 1-3 Serbia - - 50 Bulgaria 0 1935 11 Total 240-270 2300-2400

Sources: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

4. Alpine Population

• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (CH, SLO) • Jura/Alps mixed • SCALP-Monitoring • IUCN Red List: EN (D)

Country Abundance Trend 10x10 km cells occupied: Switzerland 96‐107 Stable/incr. Permanent: 93 Few Stagnant Sporadic: 150 All: 243 Italy 10‐15 Stagnant Austria 3‐5 Stagnant France 13 Stagnant Total 130 Stagnant Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

5. Bohemian-Bavarian Population

• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reindroduced population • IUCN Red List: CR (D)

10x10 km cells occupied: Country Abundance Trend Permanent: 56 Czech Republic 30-40 Stable Sporadic: 101 Germany 12 Stagnant All: 157 Austria 5-10 Stagnant Total 50 Stable/decr.

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

6. Dinaric Population

• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (SLO) • Possible inbreeding depression • Situation BIH unclear • IUCN Red List: EN (D)

10x10 km cells occupied: Country Abundance Trend Permanent: 202 Sporadic: 98 Slovenia 10-15 Decreasing All: 300 50 Stable Bosnia-Herzegovina 70 (?) Increasing Total 120-130 Stagnant

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

7. Harz Population

• Lynx l. ssp. (Zoo ) • Reintroduced (D)

Country Abundance Trend Germany (28)1 Increasing Total - Increasing

1AMiddelhoff & Anders (2015): 10x10 km cells occupied: 16 independent + 12 juvenile lynx Permanent: 3 in a reference area of 746 km² in Sporadic: 21 the western Harz Mountains. All: 24

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

8. Jura Population

• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (CH) • CH source for translocations • IUCN Red List: EN (D)

Country Abundance Trend Switzerland 28-36 Increasing France 76 Increasing Total >100 Increasing 10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 94 Sporadic: 84 All: 178

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

9. Vosges-Palatinian Population

• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (F) • Recent decrease (no detection) • Reintroduction project in Palatinia • IUCN Red List: CR (C2a(i, ii) D)

Country Abundance Trend France 19 Stagnant Germany 0 Decreasing Total 19 Decreasing 10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 14 Sporadic: 46 All: 60

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Palatinia

Black always males… Kalkalpen

 Source  reintrduced  spontaneous 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Assessment and legal status of Lynx lynx in Central Europe

Assessment of populations according to IUCN Red List (from Kaczensky et al. 2023a) Autochthonous populations: 1. Baltic L. l. lynx LC Listing of the 2. Balkan L. l. balcanicus CR (C2a(i, ii) D) Lynx lynx in Europe

3. Carpathian L. l. carpathicus LC EU Habitat Directives: Annex II + IV Reintroduced populations:

4. Alpine EN (D) Bern Convention: Appendix III 5. Bohemian‐Bavarian CR (D) 6. Dinaric EN (D) 7. Harz n.a. [CR] 8. Jura EN (D) 9. Vosges‐Palatinian CR (C2a(i, ii) D) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

2. Monitoring principles 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

2. Monitoring principles

Categorise observations according to certainty and verifiability.  Not all observations have the same significance.

1. Categorisation 2. Stratification

Stratify data sets according to resolution and reliability.  High-quality data are expensi- ve to gain and cannot be ga- thered over large areas. 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

1. Categorisation Category 1 = “hard facts”  verified and unchallenged, e.g. dead lynx, pictures, genetic identification Category 2 = “confirmed observations  killed livestock or wild prey, and lynx tracks or other field signs confirmed by a trained person Category 3 = Unconfirmed or uncon- firmable observations  all observations reported by laymen, Lynx distribution Switzerland 2014 according not documented in a way that they can to SCALP categories be confirmed 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

1. Categorisation

Observed lynx distribution in the Alps and Dinaric Mountains 2014 based on a 10x10 km grid. A distinction was made between different SCALP categories and whether the observation included reproduction or not1. Lynx populations outside of the Alpine and Dinaric range are not shown (no data is available from Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Molinari et al. 2015). 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

2. Stratification

Concept of stratified monitoring: Level Range Questions Distribution, range, relative Species range, area, Europe I abundance/trend, Distribution, dynamics,

Population, meta-population II status, fragmentation, Jura Mts, Alps, Carpathian Mts conservation Dynamics, abundance, (Sub-)Population Question III status, conflicts, country, „compartment“ conservation

Ecology, land-tenure system, calibration and Answers Reference area, study area IV density, diet, conflicts 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

2. Stratification

IV Reference area

III

Country

II

Population

I

Europe 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

2. Stratification LC compartment

Reference area Country 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

2. Stratification and methods III – Country (e.g. Switzerland) • Compilation of data from Ref. IV a – Reference area Areas and Compartments • Deterministic camera trapping • Yearly questionnaire to game • Abundance with confidence wardens interval • Yearly update of monitoring report • Chance observations; kills, dead lynx, sightings, etc. II – Population (e.g. Alps) • Compilation of data from countries IV b – LC-Compartment • SCALP Categories • Opportunistic camera trapping • Occupancy analyses • Minimum number of lynx • Report every 3 years • Chance observations; kills, dead lynx, sightings, etc. • Extrapolation of Ref. Area data I – Europe • Questionnaire to LCIE members • 10x10 km grid approach • Report every 6 years 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

3. Conservation challenges 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Managing conflicts

Potential conflicts: insignificant 1. Fear of people

2. Attacks on livestock

3. Competition over game 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Attacks on livestock • Livestock depredation low for most populations • Exception: Nordic populations: 7’000–10’000 and 7’000–8’000 per year compensated as lynx kills • Most countries have evaluation and compensation schemes

Livestock killed by lynx in Switzerland 1973 - 2015 Sources: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b); KORA (www.kora.ch) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Attacks on livestock

Swiss Lynx Management Plan: • Single cases of depredation are examined (state game wardens) and compensated if confirmed as lynx kills • A lynx can be removed (e.g. shot by state game wardens) if it kills ≥15 sheep/ per season • If attacks continue (“hot spots”), sheep/goats have to be moved • Protective measures recommended, but not mandatory for lynx. Protective measures against attacks are however effective against lynx, too • From 1997–2003, 8 lynx were shot as sheep raiders, since then, no more permit for removal was asked • The above measures have helped mitigating the conflict with livestock herders 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Competition with hunters for game (roe , ) Lynx, depredation, and in the Bernese Alps

 Lynx sightings  Dead lynx

 Killed sheep

Lynx indices Lynx

 Hunting bag

 Road kills

Number or roe der roe or Number

(Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Mitigation of conflicts with hunters through lynx limitation?

 Lynx sightings  Dead lynx

 Killed sheep

Lynx indices Lynx

4 Peak lynx density: 3.5 ~2.6 ind. lx/100 km² 3 2.5 2 Illegal killings: 1.5 ≥2.0 ind. lx/100 km² 1

Lynx/1000.5 km² Low lynx density:

0 ~0.9–1.1 ind. lx/100 km²

1998 1999 2000

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

(Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Mitigation of conflicts with hunters through lynx limitation?

Observations: • Lynx can show remarkable numeric Social consensus: Large carnivore responses to prey (roe deer) fluctuations round table in Switzerland • Under certain conditions, impact of lynx on roe deer (chamois) can be prominent • Low acceptance and retaliation killings seem to be correlated to concrete conflict level • Lynx conservation requires a “societal compromise” Questions: • Can conflict level be managed through limitation of lynx density? • Can illegal killing be reduced/contained WWF Switzerland, Swiss Sheep Breeders through legal control options? Association, ProNatura, and Swiss Hun- ters Federation (08.05.2012). 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Genetic challenges

NW-Alps Jura

Vosgues

Dinaric B-B-Forest

Carpathian

Fraction Component Analyses (FCA) based on allele frequencies 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Genetic challenges

0.7 6

0.6 0.63 5 4.8 0.5 0.52 4

0.4 3.2 3

0.3 Heterozygosity 2 Alleles per locus 0.2

1 0.1

0 0 autochthonous re-introduced

Differences in heterzygosity () and alleles per loci () in autochthonous and reintroduced lynx populations in Europe 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

Genetic challenges

Genetic variability of lynx populations in Europe based on 20 micro-satel-

lites. Hexp = expected heterozygosity, Hobs = observed heterozygosity; a = autochthonous, r = reintroduced

Population N Typ Hexp Hobs Alleles/Locus Autochtones populations >0.70 4.4–5.0 30 a 0.606 0.575 4.32 30 a 0.558 0.528 4.00 30 a 0.671 0.667 5.05 Latvia 29 a 0.686 0.713 5.41 Estonia 32 a 0.679 0.713 5.00 NE Poland 8 a 0.567 0.601 3.59 Balkans 10 a 0.481 0.420 2.68 Carpathian Mountains 31 a 0.633 0.592 4.59 Reintroduced populations Swiss Alps 35 r 0.448 0.460 2.45 Jura Mountains 32 r 0.517 0.517 2.91 Vosges Mountains 5 r 0.581 0.573 2.77 Dinaric Range 32 r 0.494 0.518 3.09 Bavarian-/Bohemian Forest 14 r 0.529 0.501 3.23 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

4. Conservation perspectives 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

4. Conservation perspectives – two main questions:

1. How can a demographic and genetic viable metapopulation be integrated and maintained in the fragmented landscapes of Central Europe? 2. How can an ecological functional lynx population (predation) be integrated into the wildlife and forest management systems of Central Europe? 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

4. Conservation perspectives – two main questions:

1. How can a demographic and genetic viable metapopulation be integrated and maintained in the fragmented landscapes of Central Europe? • Central and Western Europe has still many landscapes that could host small to medium-sized lynx populations • Such landscapes will not be spontaneously colonised because lynx are (e.g. compared to ) bad colonisers • Reintroduced lynx populations suffer from genetic impoverishment because (a) the founder group was too small (inbreeding), and (b) the population growth was too slow (genetic drift) Solution: Create and maintain a big managed metapopulation of lynx in Central Europe including the Carpathian source population 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives Lynx movements in Central-Western Europe:

?

Spontaneous Translocations done Translocations planned 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

4. Conservation perspectives – two main questions:

2. How can an ecological functional lynx population (predation) be integrated into the wildlife and forest management systems of Central Europe? • Lynx (predation) is important for biodiversity conservation (ecological functionality, evolutionary potential) and should be reintegrated into ecosystems wherever possible • All countries with reintroduced lynx populations have a wildlife management and forestry system that is not adapted to the presence of large carnivores • Under the present wildlife management/hunting system in C/W Europe, no lynx population can survive against the explicit opposition of the hunters Solution: Integrate lynx in wildlife management systems and seek consensus between conservationists, hunters, and foresters 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

4. Conservation perspectives – conclusions

1. All reintroduced lynx populations in Europe are small and suffer from inbreeding in need of active remedy 2. The Carpathian (source) population is considered LC, but no robust monitoring 3. A lot of suitable lynx habitat is still available in C/W Europe, but spontaneous colonisation will not happen 4. Reintroductions or reinforcements of lynx most often fail because of the opposition of hunters 5. Conservation of lynx in C/W Europe needs much more active intervention and management and more engagement of the GOs 6. International cooperation (strategy) and transboundary management of (meta-) populations is needed 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

4. Conservation perspectives – conclusions

© Ch. Angst 2001) 1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

References Kaczensky P, Chapron G, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, Linnell J. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – , lynx, wolf & – in Europe. Part 1. 72 pp. Kaczensky P, Chapron G, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, Linnell J. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe. Part 2. 200 pp.

Hellborg et Rueness et al. Schmidt et al. Sindičić et al. Paule et al. Breitenmoser et al. Bull et al. al. 2002 2002 2009 2013 Unpubl in prep. 2016 # STRs 11 10 6 19 20 12 He #A/loc He #A/loc He #A/lo He #A/loc He He #A/loc He #A/loc c Population Scandinavia 0.51 4.7 Norway 0.52 4.4 0.61 4.3 Sweden 0.51 4.1 0.56 4.0 Finland 0.62 5.3 0.63 5.4 0.67 5.1 Baltics 0.60 5.3 0.61 4.7 Estonia 0.60 5.0 0.68 5.0 0.66 4.2 Latvia 0.66 5.8 0.69 5.4 0.68 4.3 NE Poland 0.62 4.3 0.57 3.6 Russia 0.70 5.0 0.73 0.70 4.4 Carpathians 0.51 2.8 0.59 3.9 0.63 4.6 0.52 3.2 Slovakia 0.54 Czech Rep. 0.47 Romania 0.54 Balkans 0.48 2.7 Alps 0.45 2.5 Jura Mts 0.52 2.9 Dinaric Mts 0.47 3.2 0.49 3.1 0.51 3.2 BBF 0.53 3.2 0.47 3.3 Vosges Mts 0.58 2.8 0.47 2.8