Roadkills as a Method to Monitor Raccoon Dog Populations
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Temporal and Road Type-Based Trends of Raccoon Dog Roadkills
3.2. Population Numbers, Hunting Bag and Roadkills of the Raccoon Dog at the Country Scale
3.3. Raccoon Dog Hunting Bag and Roadkills at the Local Scale
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Practical Implementation
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rabe, M.J.; Rosenstock, S.S.; deVos, J.C., Jr. Review of big-game survey methods used by wildlife agencies of the western United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 46–52. [Google Scholar]
- Feureisel, J. Economical approach on hunting. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Hunting Modern Aspects of Sustainable Management of Game Population, Zemun-Belgrade, Serbia, 22–24 June 2012; Faculty of Agriculture: Zemun, Serbia, 2012; pp. 168–175. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.; Shao, Q.; Yue, H. Surveying wild animals from satellites, manned aircraft and unmanned aerial systems (UASs): A review. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prosekov, A.; Kuznetsov, A.; Rada, A.; Ivanova, S. Methods for monitoring large terrestrial animals in the wild. Forests 2020, 11, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eberhardt, L.L. Appraising variability in population studies. J. Wildl. Manag. 1978, 42, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myrberget, S. Hunting statistics as indicators of game population size and composition. Stat. J. U. N. Econ. Comm. Eur. 1988, 5, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imperio, S.; Ferrante, M.; Grignetti, A.; Santini, G.; Focardi, S. Investigating population dynamics in ungulates: Do hunting statistics make up a good index of population abundance? Wildl. Biol. 2010, 16, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aubry, P.; Guillemain, M.; Sorrenti, M. Increasing the trust in hunting bag statistics: Why random selection of hunters is so important. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rödel, H.G.; Dekker, J.J.A. Influence of weather factors on population dynamics of two lagomorph species based on hunting bag records. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2012, 58, 923–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raveling, D.G.; Heitmeyer, M.E. Relationships of population size and recruitment of pintails to habitat conditions and harvest. J. Wildl. Manag. 1989, 53, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunde, P.; Asferg, T. How does harvest size vary with hunting season length? Wildl. Biol. 2014, 20, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aubry, P.; Guillemain, M. Attenuating the nonresponse bias in hunting bag surveys: The multiphase sampling strategy. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soininen, E.M.; Fuglei, E.; Pedersen, Å.Ø. Complementary use of density estimates and hunting statistics: Different sides of the same story? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016, 62, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balčiauskas, L. The influence of roadkill on protected species and other wildlife in Lithuania. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Seattle, WA, USA, 21–25 August 2011; Wagner, P.J., Nelson, D., Murray, E., Eds.; North Carolina State University, Center for Transportation and the Environment: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012; pp. 647–655. [Google Scholar]
- Canal, D.; Camacho, C.; Martín, B.; de Lucas, M.; Ferrer, M. Magnitude, composition and spatiotemporal patterns of vertebrate roadkill at regional scales: A study in southern Spain. Anim. Biodiv. Conserv. 2018, 41, 281–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tatewaki, T.; Koike, F. Synoptic scale mammal density index map based on roadkill records. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Morales, B.; Díaz-Varela, E.R.; Marey-Pérez, M.F. Spatiotemporal analysis of vehicle collisions involving wild boar and roe deer in NW Spain. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 60, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bil, M.; Kubeček, J.; Sedonik, J.; Andrašik, R. Srazenazver.cz: A system for evidence of animal-vehicle collisions along transportation networks. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 213, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garriga, N.; Franch, M.; Santos, X.; Montori, A.; Llorente, G.A. Seasonal variation in vertebrate traffic casualties and its implications for mitigation measures. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kučas, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Temporal patterns of ungulate-vehicle collisions in Lithuania. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 273, 111172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balčiauskas, L.; Stratford, J.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Kučas, A. Importance of professional roadkill data in assessing diversity of mammal roadkills. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 87, 102493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagany, R. Wildlife-vehicle collisions—Influencing factors, data collection and research methods. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 251, 108758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Périquet, S.; Roxburgh, L.; le Roux, A.; Collinson, W.J. Testing the value of citizen science for roadkill studies: A case study from South Africa. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 6, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valerio, F.; Basile, M.; Balestrieri, R. The identification of wildlife-vehicle collision hotspots: Citizen science reveals spatial and temporal patterns. Ecol. Process. 2021, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, A.L.W.; Shilling, F.M.; Perkins, S.E. The value of monitoring wildlife roadkill. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2020, 66, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kauhala, K.; Kowalczyk, R. Invasion of the raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides in Europe: History of colonization, features behind its success, and threats to native fauna. Curr. Zool. 2011, 57, 584–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CABI. Invasive Species Compendium. Nyctereutes procyonoides (Raccoon Dog). 2021. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/72656 (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Tedeschi, L.; Biancolini, D.; Capinha, C.; Rondinini, C.; Essl, F. Invasive alien mammals of European Union concern. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeki, M.; Macdonald, D.W. The effects of traffic on the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides viverrinus) and other mammals in Japan. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 118, 559–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, G.J.; Delahay, R.J. A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildl. Res. 2001, 28, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boddicker, M.; Rodriguez, J.J.; Amanzo, J. Indices for assessment and monitoring of large mammals within an adaptive management framework. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2002, 76, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barea-Azcón, J.M.; Virgós, E.; Ballesteros-Duperón, E.; Moleón, M.; Chirosa, M. Surveying carnivores at large spatial scales: A comparison of four broad-applied methods. In Vertebrate Conservation and Biodiversity; Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation; Hawksworth, D.L., Bull, A.T., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gompper, M.E.; Kays, R.W.; Ray, J.C.; Lapoint, S.D.; Bogan, D.A.; Cryan, J.R. A Comparison of noninvasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in Northeastern North America. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2006, 34, 1142–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyra-Jorge, M.C.; Ciocheti, G.; Pivello, V.R.; Meirelles, S.T. Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: Camera traps and track plots. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2008, 54, 739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, A.C.; Neilson, E.; Moreira, D.; Ladle, A.; Steenweg, R.; Fisher, J.T.; Bayne, E.; Boutin, S. Wildlife camera trapping: A review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 675–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valente, A.M.; Binantel, H.; Villanua, D.; Acevedo, P. Evaluation of methods to monitor wild mammals on Mediterranean farmland. Mamm. Biol. 2018, 91, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fragoso, J.M.V.; Gonçalves, F.; Oliveira, L.F.B.; Overman, H.; Levi, T.; Silvius, K.M. Visual encounters on line transect surveys under-detect carnivore species: Implications for assessing distribution and conservation status. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cretois, B.; Linnell, J.D.; Grainger, M.; Nilsen, E.B.; Rød, J.K. Hunters as citizen scientists: Contributions to biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Global Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Litvaitis, J.A.; Tijušas, E. Citizen scientists showed a four-fold increase of lynx numbers in lithuania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Litvaitis, J.A.; Tijušas, E. Adaptive monitoring: Using citizen scientists to track wolf populations when winter-track counts become unreliable. Wildl. Res. 2021, 48, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grilo, C.; Bissonette, J.A.; Santos-Reis, M. Spatial–temporal patterns in Mediterranean carnivore road casualties: Consequences for mitigation. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, R.A.L.; Mota-Ferreira, M.; Aguiar, L.M.S.; Ascensão, F. Predicting wildlife road-crossing probability from roadkill data using occupancy-detection models. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Canova, L.; Balestrieri, A. Long-term monitoring by roadkill counts of mammal populations living in intensively cultivated landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rendall, A.R.; Webb, V.; Sutherland, D.R.; White, J.G.; Renwick, L.; Cooke, R. Where wildlife and traffic collide: Roadkill rates change through time in a wildlife-tourism hotspot. Global Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 27, e01530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolley, R.E.; Lehman, L.E. Relationships among raccoon road-kill surveys, harvests, and traffic. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1992, 20, 313–318. [Google Scholar]
- Danielsen, F.; Enghoff, M.; Poulsen, M.K.; Funder, M.; Jensen, P.M.; Burgess, N.D. The concept, practice, application, and results of locally based monitoring of the environment. BioScience 2021, 71, 484–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott, D.M.; Baker, R.; Charman, N.; Karlsson, H.; Yarnell, R.W.; Mill, A.C.; Smith, G.C.; Tolhurst, B.A. A citizen science based survey method for estimating the density of urban carnivores. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linares, O.; Carranza, J.; Soliño, M.; Delibes-Mateos, M.; Ferreras, P.; Descalzo, E.; Martínez-Jauregui, E. Citizen science to monitor the distribution of the Egyptian mongoose in southern Spain: Who provide the most reliable information? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2020, 66, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, J.; Leite, P.; Valente, A.M.; Fonseca, C.; Torres, R.T. Stakeholders engagement as an important step for the long-term monitoring of wild ungulate populations. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 2021, 2, e12088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llaneza, L.; García, E.J.; López-Bao, J.V. Intensity of territorial marking predicts wolf reproduction: Implications for wolf monitoring. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eitzel, M.V.; Cappadonna, J.L.; Santos-Lang, C.; Duerr, R.E.; Virapongse, A.; West, S.E.; Kyba, C.; Bowser, A.; Cooper, C.B.; Sforzi, A.; et al. Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2017, 2, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vercayie, D.; Herremans, M. Citizen science and smartphones take roadkill monitoring to the next level. Nat. Conserv. 2015, 11, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zimmermann Teixeira, F.; Kindel, A.; Hartz, S.M.; Mitchell, S.; Fahrig, L. When road-kill hotspots do not indicate the best sites for road-kill mitigation. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 1544–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kreling, S.E.S.; Gaynor, K.M.; Coon, C.A.C. Roadkill distribution at the wildland-urban interface. J. Wildl. Manag. 2019, 83, 1427–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kent, E.; Schwartz, A.L.; Perkins, S.E. Life in the fast lane: Roadkill risk along an urban–rural gradient. J. Urban Ecol. 2021, 7, juaa039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balčiauskas, L. Distribution of species-specific wildlife.vehicle accidents on Lithuanian roads, 2002.2007. Est. J. Ecol. 2009, 58, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Balčiauskas, L.; Stratford, J.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Kučas, A. Roadkills as a Method to Monitor Raccoon Dog Populations. Animals 2021, 11, 3147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113147
Balčiauskas L, Stratford J, Balčiauskienė L, Kučas A. Roadkills as a Method to Monitor Raccoon Dog Populations. Animals. 2021; 11(11):3147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113147
Chicago/Turabian StyleBalčiauskas, Linas, Jos Stratford, Laima Balčiauskienė, and Andrius Kučas. 2021. "Roadkills as a Method to Monitor Raccoon Dog Populations" Animals 11, no. 11: 3147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113147