Abstract
For centuries, wolf depredation on livestock has triggered human–wildlife conflicts throughout Europe. Free-ranging dogs, however, are increasingly abundant and may also act as predators of livestock herds. This calls for combined efforts aimed at identifying the causes of depredation events and optimizing the procedures towards predators’ identification. Here, we analysed 56 livestock depredation events in central Portugal, an area where conflict between wolves and human populations takes place. We estimated the mean minimum sampling effort (number of swabs) required to detect at least one potential predator and examined how extrinsic factors (i.e. time, meteorological conditions and vegetation cover) drive sample degradation and predator identification success. Free-ranging dogs were the only putative predator detected in most attacks (66%). Results indicate that a minimum of three swabs are needed to detect at least one predator, but using at least four would substantially increase the detection rate. We found that the longer the interval between an attack and sample collection and the higher the local humidity, the lower is the probability of identification success. On the other hand, higher temperatures and precipitation levels seem to be associated with a higher probability of success. The unexpected positive effect of precipitation may be linked to specific environmental contexts (i.e. higher precipitation levels in colder weather may still favour sample conservation). As identification success depends on time and weather conditions, the time span between a depredation event and sample collection should be reduced whenever possible, and sufficient samples should be collected to ensure an adequate detection success.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from LIFE WolFlux Consortium but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used with permisson for the current study, and are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of LIFE WolFlux Consortium.
References
Álvares F, Barroso I, Espírito-Santo C, Ferrão da Costa G, Fonseca C, Godinho R et al (2015) Situação de referência para o plano de ação para a conservação do lobo‐ibérico em Portugal. ICNF/CIBIO-INBIO/CE3C/UA, Lisboa, pp 67
Blanco J, Cortés Y (2002) Ecología, censos, percepción y evolución del lobo en España: Análisis de un conflicto. Sociedad Española para la Conservación y Estudio de los Mamíferos, Málaga
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Cadete D, Costa G, Borges C, Simões F (2014) Action A.2: Ex-ante detailed survey of wolf presence in the Portuguese project areas. Final Report. In: Simões F, Petrucci-Fonseca F (eds) Project LIFE MedWolf (LIFE11NAT/IT/069). Grupo Lobo/INIAV/FCUL, Lisbon, p 52
Caniglia R, Fabbri E, Mastrogiuseppe L, Randi E (2013) Who is who? Identification of livestock predators using forensic genetic approaches. Forensic Sci Int Genet 7:397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.11.001
Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Hsieh TC, Sander EL, Ma KH, Colwell RK et al (2014) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol Monogr 84:45–67. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0133.1
Chapron G, Kaczensky P, Linnell JDC, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H et al (2015) Data from: recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes, Dryad, Dataset. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.986mp
Ciucci P, Boitani L (1998) Wolf and dog depredation on livestock in central Italy. Wildl Soc Bull (1973–2006) 26, 504–514. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783763
DeCesare NJ, Wilson SM, Bradley EH, Gude JA, Inman RM, Lance NJ et al (2018) Wolf-livestock conflict and the effects of wolf management. J Wildl Manage 82:711–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21419
Echegaray J, Vilà C (2010) Noninvasive monitoring of wolves at the edge of their distribution and the cost of their conservation. Anim Conserv 13:157–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00315.x
Farrell LE, Roman J, Sunquist ME (2000) Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores identified by molecular analysis of scats. Mol Ecol 9:1583–1590. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01037.x
González-Eguren V (2015) La ganadería y el lobo en España. Academia de Ciencias Veterinarias de Castilla y León, León
Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x
Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A (2016) iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol Evol 7:1451–1456. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12613
IPMA (2022) Rainfall, Temperature and Humidity levels per day for 15 municipalities (2019–2021). Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera. https://www.ipma.pt
Kassambara A, Mundt F (2020) Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses [R package factoextra version 1.0.7]
Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 25:1–8. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01
Linnell JDC, Cretois B (2018) Research for AGRI Committee—the revival of wolves and other large predators and its impact on farmers and their livelihood in rural regions of Europe. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels
Monteiro-Henriques T, Martins MJ, Cerdeira JO, Silva P, Arsénio P, Silva Á et al (2016) Bioclimatological mapping tackling uncertainty propagation: application to mainland Portugal. Int J Climatol 36:400–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4357
Murphy MA, Kendall KC, Robinson A, Waits LP (2007) The impact of time and field conditions on brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA amplification. Conserv Genet 8:1219–1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-006-9264-0
Nakamura M, Godinho R, Rio-Maior H, Roque S, Kaliontzopoulou A, Bernardo J et al (2017) Evaluating the predictive power of field variables for species and individual molecular identification on wolf noninvasive samples. Eur J Wildl Res 63:53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1112-7
Palacios V, García EJ, Santos R, Borges C, Simões F (2017) Action D.3: assessment of wolf presence in expansion areas in Portugal. Final report. In: Ribeiro S, Petrucci-Fonseca F (eds) Project LIFE MedWolf (LIFE11NAT/IT/069). Grupo Lobo/INIAV/FCUL, Lisbon, p 61
Piaggio AJ, Shriner SA, Young JK, Griffin DL, Callahan P, Wostenberg DJ et al (2020) DNA persistence in predator saliva from multiple species and methods for optimal recovery from depredated carcasses. J Mammal 101:298–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyz156
Plumer L, Talvi T, Männil P, Saarma U (2018) Assessing the roles of wolves and dogs in livestock predation with suggestions for mitigating human–wildlife conflict and conservation of wolves. Conserv Genet 19:665–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-1045-4
R Development Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Sundqvist A-K, Ellegren H, Vilà C (2008) Wolf or dog? Genetic identification of predators from saliva collected around bite wounds on prey. Conserv Genet 9:1275–1279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9454-4
Torres RT, Ferreira E, Rocha RG, Fonseca C (2017) Hybridization between wolf and domestic dog: first evidence from an endangered population in central Portugal. Mamm Biol 86:70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2017.05.001
Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York
Vilà C, Savolainen P, Maldonado JE, Amorim IR, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL et al (1997) Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 276:1687–1689. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5319.1687
Weather Underground I (2022) Weather History https://www.wunderground.com/ Accessed Mar 2022
Zuur A, Ieno EN, Smith GM (2007) Analyzing ecological data. Springer-Verlag, New York
Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009a) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer-Verlag, New York
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009b) GLM and GAM for absence–presence and proportional data. In: Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (eds) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, pp 245–259
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by LIFE WolFlux (LIFE17 NAT/PT/000554), funded by the LIFE Programme of the European Union, the EU's funding instrument for the environmental and climate action. This research was also funded by FCT/MCTES (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P), through national funds and the co-funding by the FEDER within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020, by supporting CESAM (UIDP/50017/2020+UIDB/50017/2020+LA/P/0094/2020), cE3c (UIDB/00329/2020) and CHANGE (LA/P/0121/2020). S.L was supported by a Ph.D. grant [SFRH/BD/147252/2019] from FCT; J.M.F was supported by a Ph.D. grant [PD/BD/150645/2020] from FCT; J.C was supported by a research contract [CEECIND/01428/2018] from FCT. E.F. is funded by national funds (OE) through FCT in the scope of framework contract foreseen in the numbers 4, 5, and 6 of the article 23, of the Decree-Law 57/2016, of August 29, changed by Law 57/2017, of July 19. We thank Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera (IPMA) for kindly providing the meteorological data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualisation: EF, JC; methodology: SL, AL, JMF, EF, JC; formal analysis and investigation: SL, AL, JMF; writing—original draft preparation: SL; writing—review and editing: SL, AL, EF, SA, DC, LMR, JC; funding acquisition: CF, SA, DC, JC; resources: CF, SA, DC, JC; supervision: CF, LMR, JC.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handling editor: Luca Corlatti.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lino, S., Lino, A., Fernandes, J.M. et al. Environmental field conditions and sampling effort affect the molecular identification success of livestock predators. Mamm Biol 103, 339–345 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-023-00347-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-023-00347-6