Monitoring of wolf, lynx, and brown bear - Ochrona...

Monitoring of wolf, lynx, and brown bearmethods and results

Monitoring of animal, plant species, and natural ha bitat types in Poland (in the frame of State Environmental Monitoring System )

Tomasz Borowik, Włodzimierz J ędrzejewski, Zbigniew Jakubiec, Dorota Radziwiłł

Since 2006 „Monitoring of animal and plant species and natural

habitat types in Poland ( i n t h e f r a m e o f S t a t e E n v i r o n m e n t a l M o n i t o r i n g S y s t e m )

commissioned by Chief Inspectoratecommissioned by Chief Inspectorate

for Environmental Protection

performed by Instytute of Nature Conservation PAS

with the participation of about 300

experts from all over the country

funding by National Fund for Environmental Protection

and Water Management

.„Monitoring of animal and plant species and natural

habitat types in Poland”

Main tasks

•Report for EU /knowledge (about conservation status=general assessments)

•Research methods (species)

The same

•PARAMETERS of conservation status: (FV,U1,U2)

- Population

The same

for each species

on each sample plot

Differentfor the given species

on each sample plot

- Habitat for the species

- Future prospect

(Range only at the biogeograifical region level)

•The main current impacts and future threats

INDICES of- population

- habitat for species

(depending on autecology of the species)

Their valorisation (FV,U1,U2)

Organization

General coordinator for

natural habitats

National coordinators

for the natural

habitat

Coordinating institution

local experts

The results of other research (eg . wolf, lynx, bear)

Natural habitats


animals


plants

National coordinators

for the species

National Coordinators

for the species

local experts

local experts

animals

plants

„Monitoring of animal and plant species and natural

habitat types in Poland”

SCALE and the results of the project

So far 2006-2011 (first monitoring research )So far 2006-2011 (first monitoring research )

• 60 natural habitats

• 60 plant species

• 83 animal species

Alltogether on 8 000 sample plotsAlltogether on 8 000 sample plots(localities) all over the Poland

(some animals sp. so far only in certain areas)

Next time - min. in 6 years

Methodology9 volumes

of published methodological

guides

http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska/(in Polish)

Brown bear (Ursus arctos)

te

Monitoring site

Brown bear range

ŻywiecBeskid

Tatra

MaguraRefuge

JaśliskaRefuge

Bieszczady

Index Measure Way of measurement

Number Indvidual Total number of individuals in refuge based speciesinventory on transects made in spring (till the end of April),staff of State Forestry and national parksstaff of State Forestry and national parks

Reproduction Individual Number of females with cubs born in the last winter

FertilityMean number of cubs/female

Estimated based on year-round observations. In case of repeated observations of the same female, the earliestobservation should be considered

Additional indices:

• age structure of population• mortality level and mortality factors• health condition of population (parasite load)

Indexation of brown bear population conditions in a refuge

Index/Mark* FV U1 U2

Number >20 individuals 10-20 individuals <10 individuals

Reproduction >4 females 2-3 females No females or occasionallyReproduction >4 females 2-3 females No females or occasionally

Fertility >= 2 cubs 1.51-1.99 cubs <=1.5 cubs

Cardinal index:

• Number

FV – proper, U1 – unsatisfactory, U2 - bad


Forest cover % Percentage of forest stands in refuge area based on Corine Land Cover data or State Forestry database

Habitat LD index Probability of two random chosen fragments of

Additional indices:

• availability of suitable places for dens• climatic conditions• food resources

Habitat fragmentation

LD index(landscape dividion)

Probability of two random chosen fragments of ladscape to belong to the same patch of a given land use

Road net N km of roads/1km2 of refuge

Measuring the lenght of different cathegories of roads(highways, main roads, secondary roads, etc.) basedon road maps

Human density N humans/1 km2 of refuge

Mean human density of all districts overlapping refugearea

Tourism N of bed places inhotels/1 km2 of refuge

Mean number of bed places in all districts overlappingrefuge area


Forest cover >80% 70-80% <70%


No or low <= 0.5 medium 0.5-0.75 High >=0.76

Road net <1 km/1 km2 1-3 km2 >3 km2Road net <1 km/1 km 1-3 km >3 km

Human density < 30 ind/1 km2 31 – 70 ind/1 km2 >71 ind/1 km2

Tourism < 10 bed places inhotels/1 km2

10 -20 bed places inhotels/1 km2

>20 bed places in hotels/1 km2


Cardinal index:

• Forest cover


Damages Number of damages/year

Registration of damages with additional description of attacks (kind, size, time, location, etc.)

Agression cases N cases/year Registration of agression cases with division intoAgression cases N cases/year Registration of agression cases with division intoscaring away and attack and description of bear and human behaviours

Synanthropisationcases

N cases/year Registration of cases when brown bear visits farm settlements, with description of livestock behaviour, etc.


Damages lack <20 >20

Agression cases lack <3 >3

Synanthropisationcases

lack <2 >2

WHENpopulation condition, habitat condition, human-brow n bear relationship are the same (FV, U1, or U2)THENProspect asessment gets the same mark

WHENpopulation condition gets mark FV and habitat condi tion and human-brown bearrelationship are assessed lower (U1)THENProspect asessment gets the mark U1

WHENpopulation condition and habitat condition get mark s U1 or U2, and human-brown bear relationship gets F1THENProspect asessment gets the lowest mark of pair pop ulation and habitat condition

General assessment = the lowest value of any parame ter

General assessment = conservation status

Conservation status of species in studied locality

Indices Description Mark

Population

NumberTotal number of individuals in a refuge15-20 individuals

FV

FVReproductionNumber of females with cubs born in the last winter1 female and 2 cubs

U2

FertilityMean number of cubs/female2 cubs

U2

Habitat

Forest coverPercentage of forest stands in refuge area61,43%

U2

U2


LD index0.6226

U1

Road netN km of roads/1 km2 of refuge0.60 km/1 km2 of refuge

FV

Humandensity

N humans/1 km2

133.8U2

TourismN bed places in hotels/1 km2

25.7U2



Brown bear-human relationship

DamagesNumber of damagesLack

FV

Number of casesU2Agression cases

Number of casesLack

FV

Synathropisationcases

Number of cases4 cases

U2

Prospects

U1 U1

General assesment

U1

Assessment of parameters in studied areas

AreasMarks

Populationcondition

Habitatcondition

Prospects General assessment

śywiec Beskid U2 U1 U2 U2

Tatra U1 FV U1 U1

Magura Refuge U2 FV FV U1*

Jaśliska Refuge U2 FV FV U1*

Bieszczady FV FV FV FVBieszczady FV FV FV FV

Current impacts and future threats

Roads Campings and hostels

TourismHunting

Wolf (Canis lupus)

AugustówRefuge

KnyszynRefuge

BiałowieżaForest

te

Monitoring site

Wolf range

Lynx (Lynx lynx)

AugustówRefuge

KnyszynRefuge

BiałowieżaForest

te

Monitoring site

Lynx range


Populationdensity

N indviduals/100km2 Full inventory including snow-tracking and year-roundregistration of any traces of wolf presence; every year; staff of State Forestry and national parks

Pack N packs/100km2 Full inventory including snow-tracking and year-round

WOLF

Packnumber

N packs/100km Full inventory including snow-tracking and year-roundregistration of any traces of wolf presence; every year

LYNXIndex Measure Way of measurement

Populationdensity

N indviduals/100km2

Full inventory including snow-tracking and year-roundregistration of any traces of wolf presence; every year; administration of State Forestry and national parks

N femaleswith kittens

N females/100km2 Inventory based on snow-trackining and directobservations of females with kittens; every year

Mean numberof kittens per female

N kittens/female Inventory based on snow-trackining and directobservations of females with kittens; every year


Populationdensity

>2.5 1.5-2.5 <1.5

Pack number >0.5 0.3-0.5 <0.3

WOLF


LYNXIndex/Mark* FV U1 U2

Populationdensity

>2 1-2 <1

N femaleswith kittens

>0.5 0.3-0.5 <0.3

Mean numberof kittens per female

>2 1-2 <1


Forest cover % Percentage of forest stands in study area; based on Corine Land Cover data; every 5 years


N km/1 km2 The lenght of forest edge line per 1 km2 of the forest; analyses inGIS based on Corine Land Cover data; every 5 years

Food N kg/1 km2 Biomass of wild ungulates (roe deer and red deer for lynx) per 1

WOLF AND LYNX

Foodavailability

N kg/1 km Biomass of wild ungulates (roe deer and red deer for lynx) per 1 km2 of forest; analyses based on biomass index derived fromdensity indices calculated based on annual game inventoriesconducted by forest districts, national parks and hunting clubs; every 2 years

Road density N km/1 km2 The lenght of main and secondary roads per 1 km2; analyses inGIS based on vector maps of road infrastructure of Poland; every5 years

Level of habitat isolation

Analyses in GIS (i.e. Least Cost Path Method)1 – continuous connections with other areas inhabited by wolves2 – weak connections, interrupted3 – total isolation;every 5 years


Forest cover >40% 20-40% <20%

WOLF AND LYNX


<3 km/1 km2 3-5 km/1 km2 >5 km/1 km2

Food availability >100 kg/1 km2 50-100kg/ 1 km2 <50 kg/1 km2

Road density < 0.1 km/1 km2 0.1-0.2 km/1 km2 >0.2 km/1 km2


1 2 3


Prospect assessment = expert assessment

Problems to be considered:

• assessment of future population developement in a given area• evaluation of connection (migratory corridors) with other woodlands and ability of free

WOLF AND LYNX

• evaluation of connection (migratory corridors) with other woodlands and ability of free migration, whether there are any threats which may lower corridor ability to be passed (e.g. traffic infrastructure developement or any new infrastructure overlaping migratory corridors)• new predator populations were confirmed in neighboring woodlands and what is a condition of these populations• if any investments in predator habitats are planned, how high can be their impact on predator populations• what type of other threats can influence predator populations in a given area (e.g. poaching, high anthropopresion, mortality on local roads, mortality due to hunting in neighboring countries, deseases and parasite transmition from domestic animals)• if there is any threats concerning availability of prey (wild ungulate) – due to high hunting pressure or poaching in a given area

WOLF AND LYNX

General assessment = the lowest value of any parame ter

General assessment = conservation status



Population

Populationdensity

Total number of individuals per 100 km2

2-2.5U1

U1Pack number

Pack number per 100 km2

0.4U1

Habitat

WOLF in Knyszyn Refuge

Forest coverPercentage of forest in refuge50%

FV

U1


The lenght of forest edge line in km per 1 km2 of refuge2.5

FV

Foodavailabilty

Biomass of wild ungulates in kg per 1 km2 of refuge169

FV

Road densityThe lenght of road in km per133.8

U1


Descriptive index in 3 level scale1 – continuous connections with other woodlands inhabitedby wolves

FV



Prospects

Prospects of species preservation are unsatisfactory on account of numerous road investments planned in a refuge. The rate of ongoing U1 U1

WOLF in Knyszyn Refuge

numerous road investments planned in a refuge. The rate of ongoingchanges is high

U1 U1

General assessment

U1 U1

AreasMarks

Populationcondition

Habitatcondition


Augustów Refuge FV FV FV FV

Knyszyn Refuge U1 FV,U1 FV,U1 U1

BiałowieŜa Forest FV FV FV FV

Assessment of parameters in studied areas

WOLF


AreasMarks

Populationcondition

Habitatcondition


Augustów Refuge U1 FV, U1 U1 U1

Knyszyn Refuge U1 FV, U1 U1 U1


LYNX


WOLF

Forest activities Poaching Ubanisation Transportnetworks

Roads

LYNX


LYNX

Removal of dead trees form the forest

Poaching Ubanisation Transportnetworks

Roads

Dziękujemy za uwag ę

Monitoring of wolf, lynx, and brown bear - Ochrona...

Documents

Transcript of Monitoring of wolf, lynx, and brown bear - Ochrona...