CSIRO Publishing Home Books & CDs Journals About Us Shopping Cart
Wildlife Research
  50 years of publishing quality research
You are here: Journals > Wildlife Research   
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   
Journal Home
General Information
Scope
Editorial Board
Editorial Contacts
Print Publication Dates
Online Content
For Authors
For Referees
How to Order

 Most Read
Visit our Most Read page regularly to keep up-to-date with the most downloaded papers in this journal.

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 

Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

S. J. Vine A B, M. S. Crowther A C H, S. J. Lapidge D, C. R. Dickman A, N. Mooney E, M. P. Piggott F and A. W. English G

A Institute of Wildlife Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
B Present address: World Wildlife Fund-Australia, Level 13, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
C Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), PO Box 1967, Hurstville, NSW 2220, Australia.
D Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 48 Oxford Terrace, Unley, SA 5601, Australia.
E Wildlife Management Branch and Fox Eradication Branch, Department of Primary Industries and Water, GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
F Australian Centre for Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia. Present address: The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
G Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Werombi Road, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
H Corresponding author. Email: m.crowther@usyd.edu.au


Abstract

Choosing the appropriate method to detect and monitor wildlife species is difficult if the species is rare or cryptic in appearance or behaviour. We evaluated the effectiveness of the following four methods for detecting red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) on the basis of equivalent person hours in a rural landscape in temperate Australia: camera traps, hair traps (using morphology and DNA from hair follicles), scats from bait stations (using DNA derived from the scats) and spotlighting. We also evaluated whether individual foxes could be identified using remote collection of their tissues. Genetic analysis of hair samples was the least efficient method of detection among the methods employed because of the paucity of samples obtained and the lack of follicles on sampled hairs. Scat detection was somewhat more efficient. Scats were deposited at 17% of bait stations and 80% of scats were amplified with a fox-specific marker, although only 31% of confirmed fox scats could be fully genotyped at all six microsatellite loci. Camera trapping and spotlighting were the most efficient methods of detecting fox presence in the landscape. Spotlighting success varied seasonally, with fox detections peaking in autumn (80% of spotlighting transects) and being lowest in winter (29% of transects). Cameras detected foxes at 51% of stations; however, there was limited seasonality in detection, and success rates varied with camera design. Log-linear models confirmed these trends. Our results showed that the appropriate technique for detecting foxes varies depending on the time of the year. It is suggested that wildlife managers should consider both seasonal effects and species biology when attempting to detect rare or elusive species.

Wildlife Research 36(5) 436–446    doi:10.1071/WR08069
Submitted: 12 May 2008    Accepted: 4 May 2009    Published: 21 July 2009





   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 View
Issue Contents
PDF (294 KB) $25
Export Citation
Cited by
 Tools
Print
Email this page
    


 
Top  Email this page
 


Legal & Privacy | Sitemap | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2010