Using non–invasive genetic techniques to assist in maned wolf conservation in a remnant fragment of the Brazilian Cerrado

Mannise, Natalia; Trovat, R. G.; Duarte, José Maurício Barbanti; Maldonado, Jesús E.; González, Silvia García

doi:10.32800/abc.2018.41.0315

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…endocrine function, nutritional status). Canid species, many of which are of conservation concern [105][106][107] , the focus of intense management efforts 108 and key to the proper functioning of ecosystems 109,110 , rely primarily on scent for communication. Olfactory messages are key to their social cohesion, spatial organisation and competitions for resources.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring canid scent marking in space and time using a biologging and machine learning approach

Bidder

Virgilio

Hunter

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for canid species, scent marking plays a critical role in territoriality, social dynamics, and reproduction. However, due in part to human dependence on vision as our primary sensory modality, research on olfactory communication is hampered by a lack of tractable methods. in this study, we leverage a powerful biologging approach, using accelerometers in concert with GpS loggers to monitor and describe scent-marking events in time and space. We performed a validation experiment with domestic dogs, monitoring them by video concurrently with the novel biologging approach. We attached an accelerometer to the pelvis of 31 dogs (19 males and 12 females), detecting raised-leg and squat posture urinations by monitoring the change in device orientation. We then deployed this technique to describe the scent marking activity of 3 guardian dogs as they defend livestock from coyote depredation in California, providing an example use-case for the technique. During validation, the algorithm correctly classified 92% of accelerometer readings. High performance was partly due to the conspicuous signatures of archetypal raised-leg postures in the accelerometer data. Accuracy did not vary with the weight, age, and sex of the dogs, resulting in a method that is broadly applicable across canid species' morphologies. We also used models trained on each individual to detect scent marking of others to emulate the use of captive surrogates for model training. We observed no relationship between the similarity in body weight between the dog pairs and the overall accuracy of predictions, although models performed best when trained and tested on the same individual. We discuss how existing methods in the field of movement ecology can be extended to use this exciting new data type. This paper represents an important first step in opening new avenues of research by leveraging the power of modern-technologies and machine-learning to this field. Scent marking is a critically important form of olfactory communication, shaping affiliative and agonistic interactions within and across species. The use of scent marks provides animals a means to defend resources 1,2 , advertise availability to mates 3-5 , and communicate with conspecifics 6,7. It also serves to minimise the risk of injuries from agonistic encounters with potential competitors 2. Prey species are also known to 'eavesdrop' on these communications to avoid contact with their predators 8. Thus, scent marking is a critical communication system, the nuances of which dictate where animals occur on the landscape, with implications for individual fitness and, ultimately, population dynamics. Despite its importance, research on this and other forms of olfactory communication in the wild is hampered by a lack of tractable methods. This is due in part to human dependence on vision as our primary sensory modality. If new methods could be developed that address the deficiencies in our olfactory senses using modern technology, this could open up numerous avenues for future research on this significa...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring canid scent marking in space and time using a biologging and machine learning approach

Bidder

Virgilio

Hunter

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Environmental DNA sampling includes field collection of faeces (e.g. Mannise et al, 2018) as long as these do not affect territory marking (see Box 1), DNA collection from footprints in the snow, such as those from the Swedish Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) (Dalén & Götherström, 2007), and from saliva on twigs, such as from ungulate browsing (Nichols et al, 2012). When DNA is collected in the presence of the animal, the effects of sampling can be minimised by avoiding or drastically limiting handling.…”

Section: Examples Of Non-disruptive or Minimally Disruptive Dna Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood, sweat and tears: a review of non-invasive DNA sampling

Lefort¹,

Cruickshank²,

Descovich³

et al. 2022

Peer Community Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of DNA data is ubiquitous across animal sciences. DNA may be obtained from an organism for a myriad of reasons including identification and distinction between cryptic species, sex identification, comparisons of different morphocryptic genotypes or assessments of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. DNA should be obtained while minimizing the impact on the fitness, behaviour or welfare of the subject being tested, as this can bias experimental results and cause long-lasting effects on wild animals. Furthermore, minimizing impact on experimental animals is a key Refinement principle within the '3Rs' framework which aims to ensure that animal welfare during experimentation is optimised. The term 'non-invasive DNA sampling' has been defined to indicate collection methods that do not require capture or cause disturbance to the animal, including any effects on behaviour or fitness. In practice this is not always the case, as the term 'non-invasive' is commonly used in the literature to describe studies where animals are restrained or subjected to aversive procedures. We reviewed the non-invasive DNA sampling literature for the past six years (380 papers published in 2013-2018) and uncovered the existence of a significant gap between the current use of this terminology (i.e. 'non-invasive DNA sampling') and its original definition. We show that 58% of the reviewed papers did not comply with the original definition. We discuss the main experimental and ethical issues surrounding the potential confusion or misuse of the phrase 'non-invasive DNA sampling' in the current literature and provide potential solutions. In addition, we introduce the terms 'non-disruptive' and 'minimally disruptive' DNA sampling, to indicate methods that eliminate or minimise impacts not on the physical integrity/structure of the animal, but on its behaviour, fitness and welfare, which in the literature reviewed corresponds to the situation for which an accurate term is clearly missing. Furthermore, we outline when these methods are appropriate to use.

show abstract

“…Environmental DNA sampling includes field collection of faeces (e.g. [36]) as long as these do not affect territory marking (see section 3.2), DNA collection from footprints in the snow, such as those from the Swedish Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) [91], and from saliva on twigs, such as from ungulate browsing [92]. When DNA is collected in the presence of the animal, the effects of sampling can be minimised by avoiding or drastically limiting handling.…”

Section: Examples Of Non-disruptive or Minimally Disruptive Dna Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood, sweat and tears: a review of non-invasive DNA sampling

Lefort

Cruickshank

Descovich

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of DNA data is ubiquitous across animal sciences. DNA may be obtained from an organism for a myriad of reasons including identification and distinction between cryptic species, sex identification, comparisons of different morphocryptic genotypes or assessments of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. DNA should be obtained while minimizing the impact on the fitness, behaviour or welfare of the subject being tested, as this can bias experimental results and cause long-lasting effects on wild animals. Furthermore, minimizing impact on experimental animals is a key Refinement principle within the ‘3Rs’ framework which aims to ensure that animal welfare during experimentation is optimised. The term ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ has been defined to indicate collection methods that do not require capture or cause disturbance to the animal, including any effects on behaviour or fitness. In practice this is not always the case, as the term ‘non-invasive’ is commonly used in the literature to describe studies where animals are restrained or subjected to aversive procedures. We reviewed the non-invasive DNA sampling literature for the past six years (380 papers published in 2013-2018) and uncovered the existence of a significant gap between the current use of this terminology (i.e. ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’) and its original definition. We show that 58% of the reviewed papers did not comply with the original definition. We discuss the main experimental and ethical issues surrounding the potential confusion or misuse of the phrase ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ in the current literature and provide potential solutions. In addition, we introduce the terms ‘non-disruptive’ and ‘minimally disruptive’ DNA sampling, to indicate methods that eliminate or minimise impacts not on the physical integrity/structure of the animal, but on its behaviour, fitness and welfare, which in the literature reviewed corresponds to the situation for which an accurate term is clearly missing. Furthermore, we outline when these methods are appropriate to use.

show abstract

Using non–invasive genetic techniques to assist in maned wolf conservation in a remnant fragment of the Brazilian Cerrado

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

Monitoring canid scent marking in space and time using a biologging and machine learning approach

Monitoring canid scent marking in space and time using a biologging and machine learning approach

Blood, sweat and tears: a review of non-invasive DNA sampling

Blood, sweat and tears: a review of non-invasive DNA sampling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About