Cargando…
Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species
Understanding population dynamics requires reliable estimates of population density, yet this basic information is often surprisingly difficult to obtain. With rare or difficult‐to‐capture species, genetic surveys from noninvasive collection of hair or scat has proved cost‐efficient for estimating d...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28861226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3137 |
_version_ | 1783259908723965952 |
---|---|
author | Cheng, Ellen Hodges, Karen E. Sollmann, Rahel Mills, L. Scott |
author_facet | Cheng, Ellen Hodges, Karen E. Sollmann, Rahel Mills, L. Scott |
author_sort | Cheng, Ellen |
collection | PubMed |
description | Understanding population dynamics requires reliable estimates of population density, yet this basic information is often surprisingly difficult to obtain. With rare or difficult‐to‐capture species, genetic surveys from noninvasive collection of hair or scat has proved cost‐efficient for estimating densities. Here, we explored whether noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) also offers promise for sampling a relatively common species, the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus Erxleben, 1777), in comparison with traditional live trapping. We optimized a protocol for single‐session NGS sampling of hares. We compared spatial capture–recapture population estimates from live trapping to estimates derived from NGS, and assessed NGS costs. NGS provided population estimates similar to those derived from live trapping, but a higher density of sampling plots was required for NGS. The optimal NGS protocol for our study entailed deploying 160 sampling plots for 4 days and genotyping one pellet per plot. NGS laboratory costs ranged from approximately $670 to $3000 USD per field site. While live trapping does not incur laboratory costs, its field costs can be considerably higher than for NGS, especially when study sites are difficult to access. We conclude that NGS can work for common species, but that it will require field and laboratory pilot testing to develop cost‐effective sampling protocols. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5574800 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55748002017-08-31 Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species Cheng, Ellen Hodges, Karen E. Sollmann, Rahel Mills, L. Scott Ecol Evol Original Research Understanding population dynamics requires reliable estimates of population density, yet this basic information is often surprisingly difficult to obtain. With rare or difficult‐to‐capture species, genetic surveys from noninvasive collection of hair or scat has proved cost‐efficient for estimating densities. Here, we explored whether noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) also offers promise for sampling a relatively common species, the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus Erxleben, 1777), in comparison with traditional live trapping. We optimized a protocol for single‐session NGS sampling of hares. We compared spatial capture–recapture population estimates from live trapping to estimates derived from NGS, and assessed NGS costs. NGS provided population estimates similar to those derived from live trapping, but a higher density of sampling plots was required for NGS. The optimal NGS protocol for our study entailed deploying 160 sampling plots for 4 days and genotyping one pellet per plot. NGS laboratory costs ranged from approximately $670 to $3000 USD per field site. While live trapping does not incur laboratory costs, its field costs can be considerably higher than for NGS, especially when study sites are difficult to access. We conclude that NGS can work for common species, but that it will require field and laboratory pilot testing to develop cost‐effective sampling protocols. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5574800/ /pubmed/28861226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3137 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Cheng, Ellen Hodges, Karen E. Sollmann, Rahel Mills, L. Scott Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species |
title | Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species |
title_full | Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species |
title_fullStr | Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species |
title_full_unstemmed | Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species |
title_short | Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species |
title_sort | genetic sampling for estimating density of common species |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28861226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3137 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chengellen geneticsamplingforestimatingdensityofcommonspecies AT hodgeskarene geneticsamplingforestimatingdensityofcommonspecies AT sollmannrahel geneticsamplingforestimatingdensityofcommonspecies AT millslscott geneticsamplingforestimatingdensityofcommonspecies |