Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in...
Transcript of Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in...
History, status, and conservation perspectives of the Eurasian lynx
Urs Breitenmoser & Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten
University of Bern & KORA, Switzerland
Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in Monitoring, Management, and Communication 18-20 April 2016, Berlin, Germany
1. History and present status
2. Monitoring principles
3. Conservation challenges
4. Conservation perspectives
History, status, and conservation perspectives of the Eurasian lynx
Urs Breitenmoser & Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten
University of Bern & KORA, Switzerland
Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in Monitoring, Management, and Communication 18-20 April 2016, Berlin, Germany
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
1. History and present status
Ridinger 1737
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx
Fossil records only
Early historic times
About 1800
About 1960
Iberic lynx Lynx pardinus
About 1800
About 1960
Historic distribution of Lynx lynx and Lynx pardinus in Europe
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Present distribution of Lynx lynx in Europe
Lynx lynx
Permanent presence
Sporadic presence
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012
(Kaczensky et al. 2013a)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Present distribution of Lynx lynx in Central Europe
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012
(Kaczensky et al. 2013a)
Autochthonous populations:
1. Baltic L. l. lynx
2. Balkan L. l. balcanicus
3. Carpathian L. l. carpathicus
Reintroduced populations:
4. Alpine
5. Bohemian‐Bavarian
6. Dinaric
7. Harz
8. Jura
9. Vosges‐Palatinian
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
1. Baltic Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 823 Sporadic: 447 All: 1270
• Lynx l. lynx • Adjacent to large Russian population • Without Belarus • Reintroduction in NE-Poland (L. l. lynx) • Reintroduction in C-Poland (mixed) • Highly fragmented in Lithuania & Poland • IUCN Red List: LC
Country Abundance Trend
Estonia 790 Stable
Latvia <600 Stable
Lithuania 40-60 Increasing
Poland NE 96 Stable
Ukraine 80-90 Stable?
Total 1600 Stable
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
2. Balkan Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Country Abundance Trend
FYROM 27-52 ind. lynx
decreasing Albania
Montenegro 0 (sporadic)
Kosovo 1 (sporadic)
Greece 0 (sporadic)
Total 27-52 decreasing
10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 45 Sporadic: 147 All: 186
• Lynx l. balcanicus • 20–39 mature individuals • IUCN Red List: CR (D)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
3. Carpathian Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Country Abundance Trend
Romania 1200-1500 Stable
Slovakia 300-400 Stable?
Poland 200 Stable
Ukraine 350-400 Stable?
Czech Rep. 13 Stagnant?
Hungary 1-3 Stagnant
Serbia 50 Slight incr.
Bulgaria 11 Expanding
Total 2300-2400 Stable
10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 1126 Sporadic: 347 All: 1473
• Lynx l. carpathicus • Source for many reintroductions • Expanding in the south (SRB, BG) • No scientific robust monitoring • Probably over-estimated (ex. SK) • IUCN Red List: LC
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
3. Carpathian Population
Sources: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008
Country Minimum population
Minimum year
Population 2012
Romania 100-120 1933-38 1200-1500
Slovakia 40-50 1934 300-400
Poland few 1946 200
Ukraine <100 1960 350-400
Czech Rep. 0 1909 13
Hungary 0 1915 1-3
Serbia - - 50
Bulgaria 0 1935 11
Total 240-270 2300-2400
Bottleneck of the Carpathian population
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
4. Alpine Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Country Abundance Trend
Switzerland 96‐107 Stable/incr.
Slovenia Few Stagnant
Italy 10‐15 Stagnant
Austria 3‐5 Stagnant
France 13 Stagnant
Total 130 Stagnant
10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 93 Sporadic: 150 All: 243
• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (CH, SLO) • Jura/Alps mixed • SCALP-Monitoring • IUCN Red List: EN (D)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
5. Bohemian-Bavarian Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 56 Sporadic: 101 All: 157
• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reindroduced population • IUCN Red List: CR (D)
Country Abundance Trend
Czech Republic 30-40 Stable
Germany 12 Stagnant
Austria 5-10 Stagnant
Total 50 Stable/decr.
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
6. Dinaric Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Country Abundance Trend
Slovenia 10-15 Decreasing
Croatia 50 Stable
Bosnia-Herzegovina 70 (?) Increasing
Total 120-130 Stagnant
10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 202 Sporadic: 98 All: 300
• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (SLO) • Possible inbreeding depression • Situation BIH unclear • IUCN Red List: EN (D)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
7. Harz Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Country Abundance Trend
Germany (28)1 Increasing
Total - Increasing
10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 3 Sporadic: 21 All: 24
• Lynx l. ssp. (Zoo animals) • Reintroduced (D)
1AMiddelhoff & Anders (2015): 16 independent + 12 juvenile lynx in a reference area of 746 km² in the western Harz Mountains.
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
8. Jura Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Country Abundance Trend
Switzerland 28-36 Increasing
France 76 Increasing
Total >100 Increasing 10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 94 Sporadic: 84 All: 178
• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (CH) • CH source for translocations • IUCN Red List: EN (D)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
9. Vosges-Palatinian Population
Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)
Country Abundance Trend
France 19 Stagnant
Germany 0 Decreasing
Total 19 Decreasing 10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 14 Sporadic: 46 All: 60
• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (F) • Recent decrease (no detection) • Reintroduction project in Palatinia • IUCN Red List: CR (C2a(i, ii) D)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Source reintrduced spontaneous
Palatinia
Black Forest
Kalkalpen always males…
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Assessment and legal status of Lynx lynx in Central Europe
Assessment of populations according to IUCN Red List
(from Kaczensky et al. 2023a)
Autochthonous populations:
1. Baltic L. l. lynx LC
2. Balkan L. l. balcanicus CR (C2a(i, ii) D)
3. Carpathian L. l. carpathicus LC
Reintroduced populations:
4. Alpine EN (D)
5. Bohemian‐Bavarian CR (D)
6. Dinaric EN (D)
7. Harz n.a. [CR]
8. Jura EN (D)
9. Vosges‐Palatinian CR (C2a(i, ii) D)
Listing of the species Lynx lynx in Europe EU Habitat Directives: Annex II + IV Bern Convention: Appendix III
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
2. Monitoring principles
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
2. Monitoring principles
1. Categorisation
2. Stratification
Categorise observations according to certainty and verifiability. Not all observations have the same significance.
Stratify data sets according to resolution and reliability. High-quality data are expensi- ve to gain and cannot be ga- thered over large areas.
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Lynx distribution Switzerland 2014 according to SCALP categories
Category 1 = “hard facts”
verified and unchallenged, e.g. dead lynx, pictures, genetic identification
1. Categorisation
Category 2 = “confirmed observations
killed livestock or wild prey, and lynx tracks or other field signs confirmed by a trained person
Category 3 = Unconfirmed or uncon- firmable observations
all observations reported by laymen, not documented in a way that they can be confirmed
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
1. Categorisation
Observed lynx distribution in the Alps and Dinaric Mountains 2014 based on a 10x10 km grid. A distinction was made between different SCALP categories and whether the observation included reproduction or not1. Lynx populations outside of the Alpine and Dinaric range are not shown (no data is available from Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Molinari et al. 2015).
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
2. Stratification
Level Range Questions
I Species range, area, Europe Distribution, range, relative abundance/trend, taxonomy
II Population, meta-population
Jura Mts, Alps, Carpathian Mts
Distribution, dynamics, status, fragmentation, conservation
III (Sub-)Population
country, „compartment“
Dynamics, abundance, status, conflicts, conservation
IV Reference area, study area Ecology, land-tenure system, density, diet, conflicts
Qu
est
ion
An
swe
rs a
nd
cal
ibra
tio
n
Concept of stratified monitoring:
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
2. Stratification
I
II
III
IV
Europe
Population
Country
Reference area
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
2. Stratification
Reference area
LC compartment
Country
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
2. Stratification and methods
IV a – Reference area • Deterministic camera trapping • Abundance with confidence
interval • Chance observations; kills, dead
lynx, sightings, etc.
IV b – LC-Compartment • Opportunistic camera trapping • Minimum number of lynx • Chance observations; kills, dead
lynx, sightings, etc. • Extrapolation of Ref. Area data
II – Population (e.g. Alps) • Compilation of data from countries • SCALP Categories • Occupancy analyses • Report every 3 years
III – Country (e.g. Switzerland) • Compilation of data from Ref.
Areas and Compartments • Yearly questionnaire to game
wardens • Yearly update of monitoring report
I – Europe • Questionnaire to LCIE members • 10x10 km grid approach • Report every 6 years
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
3. Conservation challenges
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Managing conflicts
Potential conflicts:
1. Fear of people
2. Attacks on livestock
3. Competition over game
insignificant
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Attacks on livestock
• Livestock depredation low for most populations
• Exception: Nordic populations: 7’000–10’000 sheep and 7’000–8’000 reindeer per year compensated as lynx kills
• Most countries have evaluation and compensation schemes
Sources: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b); KORA (www.kora.ch)
Livestock killed by lynx in Switzerland 1973 - 2015
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Attacks on livestock
Swiss Lynx Management Plan:
• Single cases of depredation are examined (state game wardens) and compensated if confirmed as lynx kills
• A lynx can be removed (e.g. shot by state game wardens) if it kills ≥15 sheep/goats per season
• If attacks continue (“hot spots”), sheep/goats have to be moved
• Protective measures recommended, but not mandatory for lynx. Protective measures against wolf attacks are however effective against lynx, too
• From 1997–2003, 8 lynx were shot as sheep raiders, since then, no more permit for removal was asked
• The above measures have helped mitigating the conflict with livestock herders
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Competition with hunters for game (roe deer, chamois) Ly
nx
ind
ices
N
um
ber
or
roe
der
Lynx sightings Dead lynx Killed sheep
Hunting bag Road kills
Lynx, depredation, and roe deer in the Bernese Alps
(Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Lyn
x in
dic
es
Lynx sightings Dead lynx Killed sheep
(Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008)
Mitigation of conflicts with hunters through lynx limitation?
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
/02
20
02
/03
20
03
/04
20
04
/05
20
05
/06
20
06
/07
20
07
/08
Ly
nx
/1
00
km
²
Peak lynx density: ~2.6 ind. lx/100 km²
Low lynx density: ~0.9–1.1 ind. lx/100 km²
Illegal killings: ≥2.0 ind. lx/100 km²
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Mitigation of conflicts with hunters through lynx limitation?
Observations:
• Lynx can show remarkable numeric responses to prey (roe deer) fluctuations
• Under certain conditions, predation impact of lynx on roe deer (chamois) can be prominent
• Low acceptance and retaliation killings seem to be correlated to concrete conflict level
• Lynx conservation requires a “societal compromise”
Questions:
• Can conflict level be managed through limitation of lynx density?
• Can illegal killing be reduced/contained through legal control options?
Social consensus: Large carnivore round table in Switzerland
WWF Switzerland, Swiss Sheep Breeders Association, ProNatura, and Swiss Hun-ters Federation (08.05.2012).
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Genetic challenges
Fraction Component Analyses (FCA) based on allele frequencies
NW-Alps Jura
Dinaric
Carpathian
Vosgues
B-B-Forest
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Genetic challenges
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
autochthonous re-introduced
Hete
rozyg
osit
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
All
ele
s p
er
locu
s
0.63
0.52
3.2
4.8
Differences in heterzygosity () and alleles per loci () in autochthonous and reintroduced lynx populations in Europe
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Genetic challenges
Genetic variability of lynx populations in Europe based on 20 micro-satel-lites. Hexp = expected heterozygosity, Hobs = observed heterozygosity; a = autochthonous, r = reintroduced Population N Typ Hexp Hobs Alleles/Locus
Autochtones populations
Russia >0.70 4.4–5.0 Norway 30 a 0.606 0.575 4.32 Sweden 30 a 0.558 0.528 4.00 Finland 30 a 0.671 0.667 5.05 Latvia 29 a 0.686 0.713 5.41 Estonia 32 a 0.679 0.713 5.00 NE Poland 8 a 0.567 0.601 3.59 Balkans 10 a 0.481 0.420 2.68 Carpathian Mountains 31 a 0.633 0.592 4.59
Reintroduced populations
Swiss Alps 35 r 0.448 0.460 2.45
Jura Mountains 32 r 0.517 0.517 2.91 Vosges Mountains 5 r 0.581 0.573 2.77 Dinaric Range 32 r 0.494 0.518 3.09 Bavarian-/Bohemian Forest 14 r 0.529 0.501 3.23
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
4. Conservation perspectives
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
4. Conservation perspectives – two main questions:
1. How can a demographic and genetic viable metapopulation be integrated and maintained in the fragmented landscapes of Central Europe?
2. How can an ecological functional lynx population (predation) be integrated into the wildlife and forest management systems of Central Europe?
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
4. Conservation perspectives – two main questions:
1. How can a demographic and genetic viable metapopulation be integrated and maintained in the fragmented landscapes of Central Europe?
• Central and Western Europe has still many landscapes that could host small to medium-sized lynx populations
• Such landscapes will not be spontaneously colonised because lynx are (e.g. compared to wolves) bad colonisers
• Reintroduced lynx populations suffer from genetic impoverishment because (a) the founder group was too small (inbreeding), and (b) the population growth was too slow (genetic drift)
Solution: Create and maintain a big managed metapopulation of lynx in Central Europe including the Carpathian source population
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
Spontaneous Translocations done Translocations planned
?
Lynx movements in Central-Western Europe:
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
4. Conservation perspectives – two main questions:
2. How can an ecological functional lynx population (predation) be integrated into the wildlife and forest management systems of Central Europe?
• Lynx (predation) is important for biodiversity conservation (ecological functionality, evolutionary potential) and should be reintegrated into ecosystems wherever possible
• All countries with reintroduced lynx populations have a wildlife management and forestry system that is not adapted to the presence of large carnivores
• Under the present wildlife management/hunting system in C/W Europe, no lynx population can survive against the explicit opposition of the hunters
Solution: Integrate lynx in wildlife management systems and seek consensus between conservationists, hunters, and foresters
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
4. Conservation perspectives – conclusions
1. All reintroduced lynx populations in Europe are small and suffer from inbreeding in need of active remedy
2. The Carpathian (source) population is considered LC, but no robust monitoring
3. A lot of suitable lynx habitat is still available in C/W Europe, but spontaneous colonisation will not happen
4. Reintroductions or reinforcements of lynx most often fail because of the opposition of hunters
5. Conservation of lynx in C/W Europe needs much more active intervention and management and more engagement of the GOs
6. International cooperation (strategy) and transboundary management of (meta-) populations is needed
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
4. Conservation perspectives – conclusions
© Ch. Angst 2001)
1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives
References
Kaczensky P, Chapron G, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, Linnell J. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe. Part 1. 72 pp.
Kaczensky P, Chapron G, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, Linnell J. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe. Part 2. 200 pp.
Hellborg et
al. 2002
Rueness et al.
2002
Schmidt et al.
2009
Sindičić et al.
2013
Paule et al.
Unpubl
Breitenmoser et al.
in prep.
Bull et al.
2016
# STRs 11 10 6 19 20 12
He #A/loc He #A/loc He #A/lo
c
He #A/loc He He #A/loc He #A/loc
Population
Scandinavia 0.51 4.7
Norway 0.52 4.4 0.61 4.3
Sweden 0.51 4.1 0.56 4.0
Finland 0.62 5.3 0.63 5.4 0.67 5.1
Baltics 0.60 5.3 0.61 4.7
Estonia 0.60 5.0 0.68 5.0 0.66 4.2
Latvia 0.66 5.8 0.69 5.4 0.68 4.3
NE Poland 0.62 4.3 0.57 3.6
Russia 0.70 5.0 0.73 0.70 4.4
Carpathians 0.51 2.8 0.59 3.9 0.63 4.6 0.52 3.2
Slovakia 0.54
Czech Rep. 0.47
Romania 0.54
Balkans 0.48 2.7
Alps 0.45 2.5
Jura Mts 0.52 2.9
Dinaric Mts 0.47 3.2 0.49 3.1 0.51 3.2
BBF 0.53 3.2 0.47 3.3
Vosges Mts 0.58 2.8 0.47 2.8