| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Chapron, Guillaume, et al.
(författare)
-
Restoration of wolverines: Considerations for translocation and post-release monitoring
- 2013
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Successful reintroduction of wolverines to historically occupied, suitable habitat could function as a major proactive step toward improving wolverine status and genetic diversity in the contiguous United States. However, because wolverine reintroduction has not been previously attempted, there is a need to assemble information to develop the most appropriate techniques in case this management option becomes desirable and politically feasible. In this document we describe pros and cons of various approaches (and identify obvious nonstarters) and advocate an adaptive approach for reintroductions. We find this preferable to a more prescriptive approach because the “right” answer is largely unknown without prior experience. We suggest that ongoing assessment and modification of capture, transport, and care of captive animals is used to ensure the highest probability of survival and site fidelity. Wherever possible, activities should be undertaken in a manner that maximizes the ability to learn from experiences and adapt to improve. Protocols will likely change as more information and experience is accumulated. We suggest sourcing wolverines that maximize genetic diversity of the reintroduced population after consideration of other factors such as the sustainability of removals from source populations and matching habitat and prey between source and relocation sites. A mixture of wolverines from multiple locations including Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon Territory, and Northwest Territory would provide a broad genotypic representation. Additional areas that provide unique genetic material (e.g., Manitoba, Nunavut) could also prove beneficial but would require careful selection due to smaller source populations and differences in habitat/prey/mortality sources. Total numbers translocated from any one site should be carefully considered based on locally available data. Our consensus regarding the number of wolverines to move during an initial translocation was strong for a larger number of individuals over several years (i.e., >10/year for multiple years) rather than a smaller, more conservative number. This approach would protect against stochastic failure and reduce time to reestablishment. To determine season of capture and method of release most likely to be successful, we considered effects that translocation may have on wolverine survival, site fidelity, and reproduction. Consensus formed around winter captures (Oct–Dec) followed by a provisioned release (release into natural snow-covered chambers where supplemental food has been placed) after a short stay at a captive transfer facility. The option of retaining pregnant females at a captive facility until or just prior to parturition (Feb 1 or later if ultrasound or other information is available) may help improve site fidelity. This could be particularly useful if large movements away from the reintroduction site are deemed to be a problem. Because same-year reproductions may occur and are valuable for improving site fidelity, genetic diversity, and successful establishment of a population, careful consideration of how to release males, if at all, is warranted (some species have been reestablished by moving pregnant females and allowing male offspring to mature, disperse, and breed). We provide details of aspects to consider during capture, handling, inspection, and transportation of wolverines. We also briefly discuss monitoring of translocated populations.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Liberg, Olof, et al.
(författare)
-
An updated synthesis on appropriate science-based criteria for "favourable reference population" of the Scandinavian wolf (Canis lupus) population : Assignment from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)
- 2015
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report provides an updated synthesis on appropriate science-based criteria for "favourable reference population" FRP for the Scandinavian wolf (Canis lupus) population and present quantitative values on FRP. The assignment was given by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to the SKANDULV research group at Grimsö, SLU, Sweden. A thorough review of the ecology and genetics of the wolf population is provided, including measurements of inbreeding depression in the population. Results from earlier MVP analyses of the Scandinavian wolf population are presented, as are former suggestions of FRP or other management goals for the population. A consensus was not possible to achieve among all involved scientist, the results are therefore presented in two different parts. OL, CW, øF, PW and HS suggest that the population value for FRP should be 340 for Scandinavia, and 300 for Sweden. They argue that this Scandinavian sub-population should be connected to a larger meta-population with the minimum size of Ne=500, corresponding to approximately 1700 wolves, and the connection should be minimum one immigrant from the large meta-population to the Scandinavian wolf population per generation. They acknowledge a meta-population that includes also wolves living outside of EU territory, as long as there is the stipulated connectivity. GC evaluated FCS based on a strict interpretation of Habitats Directive informed by previous rulings by the European Court of Justice and documents from the European Commission. He finds that if Sweden cannot include wolves from outside its national territory to fulfill its obligations under the Habitats Directive, FCS will be achieved at 1700 wolves (Ne=500) or at the country carrying capacity. If on the contrary Sweden can include wolves living in a separate population from another country to fulfill its obligations under the Habitats Directive, FCS will be achieved at half the country carrying capacity (preliminarily estimated at 1200/2=600 wolves) or more according to the connectivity naturally achieved. Non EU Member States cannot contribute to this meta-population. There was consensus between all researchers that the target for the population inbreeding coefficient should be 0.2 or lower.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
