Mamm Res DOI 10.1007/s13364-015-0247-8 ORIGINAL PAPER One, no one, or one hundred thousand: how many wolves are there currently in Italy? Marco Galaverni1 & Romolo Caniglia 1 & Elena Fabbri1 & Pietro Milanesi1 & Ettore Randi1,2 Received: 4 June 2015 /Accepted: 1 September 2015 # Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland 2015 Abstract Large carnivores in Italy and other European coun- trend of the population for each of the two management units: tries are protected by law to ensure their long-term conserva- Alps and Apennines. Results showed the occurrence of ap- tion. Estimates of abundance and demographic trends of their proximately 321 wolf packs in Italy, corresponding to 1269– populations are crucial for implementing effective conserva- 1800 wolves, possibly still underestimated. The Apennine tion and management strategies. However, it is challenging to sub-population seems to be almost the double in size (with obtain basic demographic parameters for elusive species such ca. 1212–1711 wolves in the period 2009–2013) compared to as the wolf (Canis lupus). Monitoring wolf populations by previous estimates (600–800 wolves between 2006 and 2011). standard field methods or non-invasive genetic approaches The Alpine sub-population, despite its ongoing eastwards ex- requires huge human efforts and may be exceedingly expen- pansion, appears rather stable (with 57–89 wolves). Overall, sive on a nation-wide scale. Aiming to obtain a first approxi- the current wolf population size and trends seem favorable, mate estimate of wolf distribution and abundance in Italy, we although the species is still locally threatened by widespread developed a systematic review procedure to analyze published poaching and accidents. These results represent the first esti- data obtained from a variety of sources. We deduced relevant mate of abundance for the whole Italian wolf population in the information on wolf presence and numbers from 20 peer- last 40 years. Such information can be used to implement reviewed studies or official reports, and from 241 Standard sound conservation strategies, especially in critical human- Data Forms of Natura 2000 sites in Italy, referring to the pe- dominated landscapes, where conflicts with human activities riod 2009–2013. We estimated the species abundance by com- and increasing rates of hybridization with free-ranging domes- bining the number of individuals reported in each study area tic dogs call for updated management plans. with the values obtained by multiplying the estimated number of packs for the average pack size. Comparing our estimates Keywords Canis lupus . Wolf . Italy . Distribution . with those previously reported, we evaluated the qualitative Population size estimate . Conservation . Management Communicated by: Cino Pertoldi Marco Galaverni and Romolo Caniglia contributed equally to this work. Introduction Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13364-015-0247-8) contains supplementary material, After centuries of massive declines, in the last few decades which is available to authorized users. several populations of large carnivores (brown bear, wolf, lynx, and wolverine) started to naturally recolonize parts of * Marco Galaverni their historical ranges in many European countries (Chapron [email protected] et al. 2014). The ongoing wave of carnivore comeback can positively influence ecosystem equilibria via the reconstruc- 1 Laboratorio di Genetica, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la tion of trophic cascades (Ripple et al. 2014). On the other side, Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA), 40064 Ozzano dell’Emilia, BO, Italy the expansion of large carnivores is exacerbating conflicts 2 Department 18/ Section of Environmental Engineering, Aalborg with human activities, mainly livestock breeding and ungulate University, Sohngårdsholmsvej 57, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark hunting, especially in areas from where wild predators had Mamm Res been eradicated for a long time (Linnell and Boitani 2011). applied for monitoring Scandinavian wolves (Liberg et al. The current transition of carnivores from threatened and strict- 2012a) has never been implemented in Italy. ly protected to locally abundant species calls for updated con- Short-time monitoring projects often used heterogeneous servation and management approaches (Kaczensky et al. methods, producing data that are difficult to aggregate in co- 2013), which should be based on reliable basic demographic herent sets (Apollonio et al. 2004; Fabbri et al. 2007;Scandura information (population abundance and temporal trends). et al. 2011; Marucco and Boitani 2012). As a result, a com- However, although essential, these parameters are challenging prehensive overview of the current population status at the to obtain (Chapron et al. 2014). national scale is still lacking, with the most recent population Large carnivores in Europe are elusive and nocturnal, and estimate tracing back to the 1970s (Zimen and Boitani 1975). usually live at low densities over wide territorial ranges and in Local population size and predictions of population expansion forested areas difficult to access (Boitani 2003). The available have been estimated only in subsets of the Italian wolf popu- monitoring methods require heavy human and economic ef- lation (Marucco et al. 2009; Marucco and McIntire 2010 for forts and are all error-prone (Solberg et al. 2006; Barea-Azcón the Alps; Caniglia et al. 2012, 2014 for the Northern et al. 2006; Gervasi et al. 2014). Aerial counting is impossible Apennines). Expert-based reports produced by the Large in forested areas, snow tracking is seldom applicable in warm Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE/IUCN) indicate ca. Mediterranean regions, camera trapping is limited by difficult 600–800 wolves in the Italian peninsula and about 67 on the individual identifications, radiotelemetry is hampered by low Alps (Kaczensky et al. 2013). However, these reports are trapping success, and non-invasive genetic approaches need based upon qualitative evaluations and could represent strong well-planned, protracted field sampling strategies (Barea- underestimates of the current population size. For instance, by Azcón et al. 2006; Solberg et al. 2006; Luikart et al. 2010; simply applying a mean 7 % annual rate of increase (Ciucci Marucco et al. 2010). Recently, sophisticated demographic and Boitani 1998) to the minimum population size reported in models have been developed, taking into account biological the 1970s, after 40 years we would expect an approximate and environmental covariates (e.g., open/closed populations, number of 1400 wolves currently living in Italy. individual detection heterogeneity, individual survival rates, In order to provide an updated estimation of the current migration, fecundity, sampling effort), allowing to obtain ac- population size of the Italian wolf, including both the curate assessments of population abundance (Luikart et al. Apennine and the Alpine ranges, we have performed a sys- 2010). Population size estimates based on non-invasive genet- tematic review (sensu Khan et al. 2003) of all the available ics sampling have been reported for many carnivores, such as wolf assessment data published from 2009 to 2013, integrat- bear (Ursus spp.; Woods et al. 1999), coyote (Canis latrans; ing them in a uniform framework. Kohn et al. 1999), wolf (Canis lupus; Creel et al. 2003; Marucco et al. 2009; Caniglia et al. 2012), and European badger (Meles meles; Wilson et al. 2003), sometimes incorpo- Materials and methods rating multiple methods (Solberg et al. 2006). However, most of these models assume expensive long-term monitoring pro- All the accessible information on wolf presence and grams and homogeneous Capture-Marking-Recapture data, abundance in Italy referring to the period 2009–2013 which are exceedingly difficult to obtain over long periods was exhaustively collected, either from the internet, from and large sampling areas (Ebert et al. 2010). the library of the National Institute for Environmental The wolf in Italy represents a typical case of such a chal- Protection and Research (ISPRA), or by direct request lenge (Randi 2011). At the end of the Second World War, to the authors, from three main information sources: (I) wolves in Italy were close to extinction, surviving at their papers published in internationally peer-reviewed historical minimum size of less than 100 individuals in two journals and (II) reports produced by regional, provin- isolated areas in the Southern Apennines (Boitani 1984; cial, and local administrations and Parks, or LIFE pro- Boitani 1992; Zimen and Boitani 1975). During the last jects. Whenever for a certain geographic area the sources 40 years, the Italian wolves started to expand, recolonizing (I) and (II) were not available, we gathered the (III) parts of their historical range along the Apennine ridge and records obtained from Standard Data Forms (SDF) of in the western Alps (Fabbri et al. 2007;Ciuccietal.2009; theNatura2000sites(http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu, Fabbri et al. 2014). The expansion of the Italian wolf is still the network of protected areas instituted after the continuing, even in low-hill, plain, and coastal areas (Caniglia European BHabitat^ Directive 92/43/EEC), wherever the et al. 2013 , 2014). However, although several Bbest guess^ or wolf presence was documented. Bexpert opinion^ evaluations have been published, no robust We categorized the available data sources based on the estimates of wolf population