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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Ellen, Hodges, Karen E., Sollmann, Rahel, Mills, L. Scott
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