Chapter 6 Hair Collection Katherine C. Kendall and Kevin S. McKelvey The identification of species from hair samples is den sites, snow track routes, or other areas fre- probably as old as humanity, but did not receive quented by the species of interest (McKelvey et al. much scientific attention until efficient and rela- 2006; also see chapter 3), but here we focus only on tively inexpensive methods for amplifying DNA be- sampling devices specifically designed and deployed came available. Prior to this time, keys were used to to collect hair. We assume that sampled hair will un- identify species through the microscopic analysis of dergo genetic analysis. hair shaft morphology (Moore et al. 1974; also see A hair sampling method is inherently multitiered. Raphael 1994 for a review of pre-DNA approaches At the most basic level, it typically comprises a hair to species identification). For North American car- collection device or series of devices—such as nivores, such analyses are reliable primarily at the barbed wire, glue or adhesives, or brushes—forming family level. Canid hairs, for example, can consis- or strategically situated within a collection structure, tently be differentiated from felid hairs (McDaniel et such as a corral or cubby. These structures are in al. 2000), but hairs of closely related species are often turn sited within a sampling framework, thus per- difficult to distinguish. Indeed, for most species, mitting the acquisition of meaningful data. For the DNA analysis is required to confirm species identifi- method to be effective, the collection structure must cation from hair samples, as well as to determine in- permit or promote use by the animal, the collection dividual identification and population characteris- device must snag the animal’s hair, and the resulting tics such as abundance (Woods et al. 1999), hair samples must contain useful DNA. substructure (Proctor et al. 2002, 2005), movement Hair collection methods can be broadly subdi- (Proctor 2003; Proctor et al. 2004), relatedness (Rit- vided into baited and passive (unbaited) approaches. land 1996), and population bottlenecks (Luikart and Although baited methods are most frequently used, Cornuet 1998). passive approaches tend to be more effective for In this chapter, we describe methods for collect- sampling certain species and for addressing fine- ing hair with hair snagging devices that are posi- scale habitat use and a number of other survey ob- tioned so that target animals either make contact jectives because behavior is not influenced by the with them naturally or via the use of attractants. draw of bait. Passive methods also have the advan- Hair can also be collected opportunistically from tage of requiring no induced response from the 136 NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR CARNIVORES target animal; samples are collected during normal b. Adhesives (such as double-sided sticky tape) behavior, and there is little risk of individuals be- hung across travel routes are used to sample coming averse or habituated to a hair collection hairy-nosed wombats (Lasiorhinus krefftii) structure. We have further subdivided baited meth- in Australia, and have been employed for ods into four distinct types: some North American carnivores. c. Modified snares and traps are leg and body 1. Hair corrals are structures that use at least snares or traps that have been adapted to al- one strand of barbed wire to encircle an attrac- low animals to escape but deposit hair sam- tant and are predominantly used to sample ples in the process. These are used for a vari- ursids. ety of species. 2. Rub stations are structures saturated with scent lures to induce rubbing, and they typically use Background one of two types of hair collection devices: a. Barbed rub pads usually consist of a carpet Although the DNA analysis of animal hair dates from pad with protruding nails (or, in some cases, the early 1990s (Morin and Woodruff 1992), the stiff natural fibers) and are used primarily monitoring of rare North American carnivores via for felids. noninvasively collected samples began more recently b. Adhesive rub stations typically consist of with the analysis of mitochondrial DNA to identify blocks of wood covered with adhesives and different species (Foran et al. 1997a, b; Paxinos et al. are used mainly for canids. 1997; also see chapter 9). Foran et al. (1997a, b), for 3. Tree and post hair snares are wrapped with example, discussed reliable and inexpensive methods barbed wire or fitted with alternative hair for identifying many species based on universal DNA snagging devices and have generally been used primers (Kocher et al. 1989) from scats (Foran et al. to sample wolverines (Gulo gulo). 1997a ) and hair (Foran, et al. 1997b). 4. Cubbies are boxes or tubes containing attrac- The use of noninvasive hair collection methods to tants and fitted with snaring devices at the en- survey wildlife has expanded rapidly since the mid- tries or along the inside walls and are used 1990s. Studies of high-profile, rare, and elusive spe- mostly for mustelids but can be effective for cies such as grizzly bears (Ursus arctos; Woods et al. other small- to medium-sized species. 1999; Poole et al. 2001; Boulanger et al 2002; Paetkau 2003), American black bears (U. americanus; Boersen Finally, we have grouped passive methods into et al. 2003), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis; McDaniel two categories: et al. 2000; J. Weaver, Wildlife Conservation Society, pers. comm.), and American martens (Martes ameri- 1. Natural rub objects are objects found in nature cana; Foran et al. 1997b; Mowat and Paetkau 2002) (e.g., bear rub trees) that are fitted with hair were among the first to exploit DNA-based hair- snagging devices. snaring techniques in North America, and have gen- 2. Travel route snares are hair snagging structures erated the bulk of literature available in this field. that target animal travel routes or other areas Hair sampling is now common and has expanded to of concentration such as dens, burrows, beds, include numerous other carnivore species (table 6.1). and latrines. Travel route snares employ one of three types of hair snagging devices: Target Species a. Barbed wire strands strung across travel routes are primarily used to sample ursids, The following section describes the primary carni- but they have also been used for badgers. vore species studied with noninvasive hair sampling Table 6.1. References for hair collection surveys of North American carnivore species Modified leg or Barbed Barbed or Cubby, enclosure, Barbed wire or body snares Barbed wire wire- wrapped adhesive box, tube, adhesive tape and traps Species corral tree or post rub pad or bucket Natural rub object on travel route on travel route Coyote Harrison 2006a; Shinn 2002a; NLSb Gray wolf Poole et al. 2001a Fisher 2004a; Mulders NLSb Clevenger et al. at al. 2005a; Dumond 2005 2005a Gray fox Harrison 2006a; Bremner-Harrison Shinn 2002a; et al. 2006 Downey 2005a Arctic fox Fisher 2004a; Mulders at al. 2005a; Dumond 2005a Kit fox Bremner-Harrison et al. 2006 Red fox Fisher 2004a; Mulders at al. 2005a; Dumond 2005a Ocelot Shinn 2002; Weaver et al. 2005 Canada lynx McDaniel et al. 2000; NLSb Bobcat NLSb Cougar NLSb; Sawaya et al. 2005c Striped skunk Belant 2003a Western spotted skunk Zielinski et al. 2006 Wolverine Fisher 2004; Mulders at al. 2005; Dumond 2005 Table 6.1. (Continued) Modified leg or Barbed Barbed or Cubby, enclosure, Barbed wire or body snares Barbed wire wire- wrapped adhesive box, tube, adhesive tape and traps Species corral tree or post rub pad or bucket Natural rub object on travel route on travel route North American DePue and river otter Ben- David,2007American marten Foran et al. 1997b; Mowat and Paet- kau 2002; Cush- man et al., case study 6.1; Zielinski et al. 2006 Fisher Mowat and Paet- kau 2002; Zielinski et al. 2006; Cush- man et al.; case study 6.1; Belant 2003a Ermine Mowat and Paet- kau 2002 Long-tailed weasel Mowat and Paet- kau 2002 American mink DePue and Ben- David 2007 American badger Franz et al. 2004 Ringtail Zielinski et al. 2006 Raccoon Belant 2003a DePue and Ben- David 2007 American black bear Proctor 2003; NLSa,b; Long et al. Boulanger et al. Clevenger et al. Proctor et al. 2004; 2007ba 2008; Kendall and 2005; Beier et al. Kendall and Stetz, Stetz, case study 2005; Haroldson case study 6.2; 6.2 et al. 2005; Boulanger et al. Mowat et al. 2005 2006; Boulanger et al. 2008 Brown bear; grizzly bear Proctor 2003; Boulanger et al. Beier et al. 2005; DePue and Ben- Proctor et al. 2004; 2008; Kendall and Haroldson et al. David 2007 Kendall and Stetz, Stetz, case study 2005; Mowat et al. case study 6.2; 6.2; 2005 Boulanger et al. 2006; Boulanger et al. 2008 Note: The exclusion of certain species from this table reflects a lack of published accounts of their detection via this survey method. aThis survey did not target the given species, but was somewhat or quite effective at collecting hair from this species. bNational Lynx Survey (NLS; K. McKelvey, unpubl. data). cProduced very low detection rates. 140 NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR CARNIVORES methods and the types of hair collection devices and bobcats (K. McKelvey, unpubl. data). The NLS also structures that have most often been used for these detected numerous cougars (Puma concolor) and a species. few domestic cats (Felis catus). A rub pad survey of ocelots conducted in southern Texas detected Ursids twenty-nine bobcats, as well as eight ocelots (Leopar- A variety of hair collection techniques are effective dus pardalis) and a single cougar (Shinn 2002). Ap- for sampling American black bears and grizzly bears parent detection rates were also high in another rub (also referred to as brown bears).