Use of a Hair-Sampling Tube to Detect the San Joaquin Kit Fox (original) (raw)

Hair Snares for Noninvasive Sampling of Felids in North America: Do Gray Foxes Affect Success

Journal of Wildlife Management, 2007

Hair-snare sampling has become a popular technique to assess distribution and abundance of felids. Using standard hairsnaring protocols, we sampled for margays (Leopardus wiedii) in Mexico and mountain lions (Puma concolor) in California, USA, without success. However, we noted a preponderance of gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) hair at sampling stations. Our review of recent literature suggests a pattern of failure to detect target felids in hair-snare surveys conducted within the range of the gray fox. We propose, among several alternative explanations, that marking by gray foxes interferes with the tendency of felids to face-rub at sampling stations

Barbed wire hair traps as a tool for remotely collecting hair samples from beavers (Castor sp.)

Lutra, 2009

The recolonisation of much of Europe by the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) entails new management, conservation and research challenges. DNA analysis can function as a powerful method in this respect. We conducted a trial to determine the effectiveness of barbed wire hair traps for remotely plucking hair from free-ranging beavers. At all sites it was possible to rapidly obtain hair samples containing guard hairs with follicles. Barbed wire hair traps can thus be employed as a cost effective way of collecting DNA from beavers without subjecting them to the stress of capture and handling.

Effectiveness of different types of hair traps for brown bear research and monitoring

PLOS ONE, 2017

Non-invasive sampling by hair-trapping is increasingly used worldwide in wildlife research. Despite this rise and the potential of hair samples for ecology and conservation studies, the relative performance of hair collection devices has been rarely tested. Here, we compare the effectiveness of five types of hair traps for brown bears Ursus arctos in the Carpathian Mountains (SE Poland) and test the effects of trap type, season, number of days elapsed since trap installation and trap features on the trapping success in order to provide recommendations for optimal sampling in future studies. The trap types were corral, path-trap, "smola"(beechwood tar) tree-trap, turpentine tree-trap and natural rub. In 2010, we collected 858 hair samples during 2330 inspections of 175 hair traps and found that the most effective traps were smola tree-traps (mean percentage of successful inspections ± SD: 30.2% ± 26.0) and natural rubs (50.8% ± 16.7). Based on this finding, over the following 2 years we focused on 24 smola tree-traps and eight natural rubs. During this long-term survey (2010-2012, 969 inspections, 1322 samples collected) the trapping success increased with time and smola tree-traps achieved similar effectiveness to natural rubs (45.5% ± 29.7 and 45.9 ± 23.4, respectively). We show that when baiting smola tree-traps ten weeks prior to research or monitoring, sampling effectiveness can reach up to 30%. Taking into account the logistical and methodological constraints associated with detecting and using natural rubs for a proper survey design, we recommend using smola tree-traps baited in advance for hair sampling in wildlife studies.

Noninvasive sampling of mountain lion hair using modified foothold traps

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2022

Although genetic analysis is an increasingly affordable option for wildlife studies, obtaining high-quality samples from cryptic carnivores remains difficult. To address this, we modified and tested 20.3-cm (8-inch) foot snares in unbaited trail sets for noninvasive collection of hair samples from mountain lions (Puma concolor). We deployed 22 hair traps in the Black Range in southern New Mexico from May to November 2017, monitored by remote cameras, at 66 locations for 1,618 trap nights (X= 24.5 nights, SD = 7.2 nights). Photos indicated 20 instances of mountain lions passing within 2 m of a hair trap and we collected 7 mountain lion hair samples, which averaged >20 hairs/sample. All samples contained hair with visible roots and were identifiable to species; 6 of the 7 (85.7%) yielded sufficient DNA for individual identification. We attributed failure to obtain samples to 3 primary causes: individual trap saturation (2 instances), trap failure (2 instances), and non-trigger events (9 instances). Black bears (Ursus americanus) and heavy rains were the primary sources of disturbance to hair trap sets, contributing to individual trap saturation and trap failure. We speculate that low trigger rates were associated with pan tension having been set too high in the first month of the study, as well as disturbance of hair traps or leading foot placements by nontarget species. We discuss strategies to increase hair sample collection rates, including seasonal use of hair traps, more selective placement on the landscape, and altering physical attributes of the hair traps. The quality of hair samples we collected and subsequent amplification rates indicated that, along with proper deployment strategies, hair traps are a viable tool for noninvasively collecting genetic material for individual identification of mountain lions and other elusive species.

Bobcats Exhibit Low Detection Rates at Hair Collection Stations in East Texas

Wildlife Biology in Practice, 2011

We evaluated the detection rate for hair snare sampling for bobcats (Lynx rufus) using colocated hair snares and infrared-triggered cameras at 20 locations on private property in eastern Texas. Hair snares and cameras were placed together at survey stations that included both visual and olfactory attractants. In 1,680 trap-nights we photographically documented 15 visits by bobcats but collected only one bobcat hair sample. Our observations suggested limited rubbing behavior by bobcats at hair snares despite presence at hair collection stations. The explanation for this behavior remains unclear but is consistent with observations of low and variable hair trap success for this species. Although presence of other carnivores, especially gray fox, may inhibit rub response of felids, we did not document gray foxes at our hair collection stations. Low rub frequency may limit the utility of these techniques for bobcats and we suggest that alternate techniques such as camera surveys or fecal DNA collection may be more suitable.

More Hair than Wit: A Review on Carnivore Related Hair Collecting Methods

2016

Monitoring of presence or estimation of density of carnivores using invasive or disruptive methods, like hunting, life-catching or visual observation can bias research results and might be controversial when studying threatened species. Therefore, non-invasive approaches become increasingly used in the last few decades. Hair collection is one among many useful indirect methods. Knowledge on efficient hair-traps on European carnivore species is limited. Yet, hair-traps have been reported as huge success when tested in enclosures but often are challenging to use in natural environments. Our aim was to compile a comprehensive literature review on hair traps and attractants in order to find out what techniques could be used by field experts. We have found that practical application of some techniques might be hard when studying edge populations but with hair-collection methods additional information can be gathered relatively easily in species core area where animals are abundant. We ha...

Efficacy of Three Types of Live Traps Used for Surveying Small Mammals in the Pacific Northwest

Northwestern Naturalist, 2008

Capture rates of 3 trap types were compared at 5 sites in and around Portland, Oregon, USA: Sherman traps, custom-made steel-mesh traps, and pitfall traps. Simpson and Shannon diversity indices were calculated for various combinations of trap types and compared for differences. Sherman and mesh traps also were evaluated for mortality rates before and after the use of a rain shield during the rainy winter months. Of the 5 species of small mammals caught in all 3 types of traps, pitfalls were the most effective trap, followed by Sherman traps, with mesh traps a very distant third. Sherman traps significantly outperformed mesh traps overall when compared for larger species that were not contained by pitfall traps. Different combinations of trap types yielded significantly different Simpson and Shannon diversity indices, with pitfalls having the highest measures for small mammals, and a combination of Sherman and pitfall traps having the highest measures when considering both larger and smaller mammals. Use of rain shields with Sherman and mesh traps did not affect mortality rates. However, mortality was affected by trap type, with significantly higher death rates in mesh than Sherman traps.

Hair of the dog: Obtaining samples from coyotes and wolves noninvasively

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2011

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 naturalmaterial 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. ß 2011 The Wildlife Society.