Balancing costs and confidence: volunteer-provided point observations, GPS telemetry and the genetic monitoring of Finland’s wolves

Abstract

Reliable and updated population estimates are a necessity for the successful conservation and management of endangered animal populations. Citizen science has become increasingly important in wildlife monitoring and is an attractive concept due to its low costs. However, the applicability of citizen science in the monitoring of large carnivore populations is questionable for various reasons, including the difficulties associated with species identification. In Finland, where estimates of the fragmentary wolf (Canis lupus) population have varied between 140 and 280 animals in the last 10 years, population monitoring has been based on volunteerprovided data and telemetry. To compensate for a recent decrease in the proportion of territories with boundaries mapped through telemetry, a non-invasive genetics project was launched in 2016. We evaluated the experiences from this project, in which noninvasive genetic techniques were, for the first time, widely used (n = 22 territories, 54% of the 41 apparent territories hosted by wolves in March 2017) to determine the post-hunting population estimate in early March 2017, before pack sizes began to decrease due to dispersal by sub-adult wolves. In territories where the non-invasive genetic monitoring was executed in the winter of 2016/2017, the pack sizes resulting from the volunteer-provided observations and the genetic analyses were highly correlated. By using the most typical variation in the proportion of non-residents in the wolf populations (6-20%, Fuller et al. 2003), we derived a population estimate of 150-178 wolves for early March 2016, and, by considering the known mortality during the study period, a minimum estimate of 204-234 wolves for early Aug. 2016. Despite its high costs, we recommend that non-invasive genetic monitoring should cover all known territories supporting Finland's small and exploited wolf population. This much costlier protocol may be unrealistic in Finland. In any case, there is a need for more genetic sampling to test the quality of volunteer-provided data.

Does public information about wolf (Canis lupus) movements decrease wolf attacks on hunting dogs (C. familiaris)?

“…In Finland, the mean proportion of wolf territories with collared wolves is approximately 25%. Wolf attacks on hunting dogs are much less frequent in western Finland than in our study area in eastern Finland (Kojola et al unpublished data), where approximately half of the Finnish territories are located (Kojola et al 2018). One reason for the higher risk might be lower ungulate biomass in eastern territories than in the other territories (Kojola et al unpublished data).…”

“…The midpoints of such territories were estimated using point observations provided by a network of large carnivore contact persons (ca. 2 000 people; Kojola et al 2018) who record wolf observations and input the data into a digital large carnivore observation system, specifying the observation type (sighting, track, prey kill site, or livestock depredation), date, geographic location, age, status, number of animals, and front paw-print dimensions. Contact persons are nominated by local game management associations and are educated about the biology, ecology and movement behaviour of wolves and footprint identification (Kojola et al 2018).…”

“…For the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons, the polygons for the territories of wolves without collars were evaluated using volunteer-provided point observations and genetic monitoring by professionals (Kojola et al 2018). In total, there were 48 territories within the study area in eastern Finland (Fig.…”

Analysis of central place foraging behaviour of wolves using hidden Markov models

“…The grey wolf ( Canis lupus ) population in Finland is endangered (Liukko et al., 2016) and has been monitored during recent decades through volunteer‐provided observations, telemetry data and, recently, by collection of DNA samples (Kojola et al., 2018). The Finnish wolf population has been concentrated in the eastern management zone but has spread to the western coast in recent decades (Kojola et al., 2014).…”

“…The Finnish wolf population has been concentrated in the eastern management zone but has spread to the western coast in recent decades (Kojola et al., 2014). Especially in the areas recently occupied by wolves, attitudes towards this carnivore are often negative due to concerns about human safety (Kojola et al., 2018). Proper understanding of wolf movement behaviour is thereby useful, for example for predicting and preventing human–wildlife conflict.…”