CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Wildlife Ecology and ConservationCensus and Population EstimationGenetic diversity and population structure

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Estimating red deer (Cervus elaphus) population size based on non-invasive genetic sampling

Open access
Ebert, Cornelia, Sandrini, Julian, Welter, Bettina, Thiele, Bernhard, Hohmann, Ulf·2021·European Journal of Wildlife Research
DOI 10.1007/s10344-021-01456-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Some deer species are of conservation concern; others are officially managed as a food source or for their trophies, whereas in many regions, deer are regarded as overabundant or even as a nuisance causing damages. Regardless of local management issues, in most cases, reliable data on deer population sizes and sex ratios are lacking. Non-invasive genetic approaches are promising tools for the estimation of population size and structure. We developed and tested a non-invasive genetic approach for red deer (Cervus elaphus) population size and density estimation based on faeces collected from three free-ranging red deer populations in south-western Germany. Altogether, we genotyped 2762 faecal samples, representing 1431 different individuals. We estimated population density for both sexes separately using two different approaches: spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) approach and a single-session urn model (CAPWIRE). The estimated densities of both approaches were similar for all three study areas, ranging between total densities of 3.3 (2.5–4.4) and 8.5 (6.4–11.3) red deer/km2. The estimated sex ratios differed significantly between the studied populations (ranging between 1:1.1 and 1:1.7), resulting in considerable consequences for management. In further research, the issues of population closure and approximation of the effectively sampled area for density estimation should be addressed. The presented approach can serve as a valuable tool for the management of deer populations, and to our knowledge, it represents the only sex-specific approach for estimation of red deer population size and density.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10344-021-01456-8

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Allombert S, Stockton S, Martin JL (2005) A natural experiment in the impact of overabundant deer on forest invertebrates. Conserv Biol 19:1917–1929 · DOI
  2. Apollonio M, Belkin VV, Borkowski J, Borodin OI, Borowik T, Cagnacci F, Danilkin AA, Danilov PI, Faybich A, Ferretti F, Gaillard JM, Hayward M, Heshtaut P, Heurich M, Hurynovich A, Kashtalyan A, Kerley GIH, Kjellander P, Kowalczyk R, Kozorez A, Matveytchuk S, Milner JM, Mysterud A, Ozoliņš J, Panchenko DV, Peters W, Podgórski T, Pokorny B, Rolandsen CM, Ruusila V, Schmidt K, Sipko TP, Veeroja R, Velihurau P, Yanuta G (2017) Challenges and science-based implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate populations. Mammal Research 62(3):209–217 · DOI
  3. Barrio J (2007) Population viability analysis of the Taruka, Hippocamelus antisensis (D’Orbigny, 1834) (Cervidae) in southern Peru. Revista Peruana de Biologia 14:193–200 · DOI
  4. Beja-Pereira A, Oliveira R, Alves PC, Schwartz MK, Luikart G (2009) Advancing ecological understandings through technological transformations in noninvasive genetics. Mol Ecol Resour 9:1279–1301 · DOI
  5. Bertouille SB, De Crombrugghe S (2002) Fertility of red deer in relation to area, age, body mass and mandible length. Z Jagdwiss 48:87–98
  6. Bischof R, Dupont P, Milleret C, Chipperfield J, Royle JA (2020) Conequences of ignoring group association in spatial capture-recapture analysis. Wildl Biol 2020. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00649 · DOI
  7. Borchers DL, Efford MG (2008) Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture-recapture studies. Biometrics 64:377–385 · DOI
  8. Brazeal JL, Weist T, Sacks BN (2017) Noninvasive genetic spatial capture-recapture for estimating deer population abundance. J Wildl Manag 81:629–640 · DOI
  9. Brinkman TJ, Person DK, Chapin FS III, Smith W, Hundertmark KJ (2011) Estimating abundance of Sitka black-tailed deer using DNA from fecal pellets. J Wildl Manag 75:232–242 · DOI
  10. Broquet T, Petit E (2004) Quantifying genotyping errors in noninvasive population genetics. Mol Ecol 13:3601–3608 · DOI
  11. Bonenfant C, Gaillard JM, Loison A, Klein F (2003) Sex-ratio variation and reproductive costs in relation to density in a forest-dwelling population of red deer (Cervus elaphus). Behav Ecol 14:862–869 · DOI
  12. Boulanger J, McLellan B (2001) Closure violation in DNA-based mark-recapture estimation of grizzly bear populations. Can J Zool 79:642–651 · DOI
  13. Boulanger J, Stenhouse G, Munro R (2004) Sources of heterogeneity bias when DNA mark-recapture sampling methods are applied to grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) populations. J Mammal 85:618–624 · DOI
  14. Boulanger J, Kendall KC, Stetz JB, Roon DA, Waits LP (2008) Multiple data sources improve DNA-based mark-recapture population estimates of grizzly bears. Ecol Appl 18:577–589 · DOI
  15. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, New York
  16. Collier BA, Ditchkoff SS, Ruth CR, Raglin JB (2013) Spotlight surveys for white - tailed deer: monitoring panacea or exercise in futility? J Wildl Manag 77:165–171 · DOI
  17. Clutton-Brock TH, Guiness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer – behaviour and ecology of two sexes. The University of Chicago Press, Wildlife behaviour and ecology series, 378 pp
  18. Clutton-Brock TH, Lonergan ME (1994) Culling regimes and sex ratio biases in highland red deer. J Appl Ecol 31:521–527 · DOI
  19. Clutton-Brock TH, Coulson TN, Milner-Gulland EJ, Thomson D, Armstrong HM (2002) Sex differences in emigration and mortality affect optimal management of deer populations. Nature 415:633–637 · DOI
  20. Daniels MJ (2006) Estimating red deer Cervus elaphus populations: an analysis of variation and cost-effectiveness of counting methods. Mammal Rev 36:235–247 · DOI
  21. De Barba M, Waits LP, Genovesi P, Randi E, Chirichella R, Cetto E (2010) Comparing opportunistic and systematic sampling methods for non-invasive genetic monitoring of a small translocated brown bear population. J Appl Ecol 47:172–181 · DOI
  22. De Oliveira ML, Zarate do Couto HT, Barbanti Duarte JM (2019) Distribution of the elusive and threatened Brazilian dwarf brocket deer refined by non-invasive genetic sampling and distribution modelling. Eur J Wildl Res 65: 21 · DOI
  23. Dreher BP, Winterstein SR, Scribner KT, Lukacs PM, Etter DR, Rosa GJM, Lopez VA, Libants S, Filcek KB (2007) Non-invasive estimation of black bear abundance incorporating genotyping errors and harvested bear. J Wildl Manag 71:2684–2693 · DOI
  24. Dupont P, Milleret C, Gimenez O, Bischof R (2019) Population closure and the bias-precision trade-off in spatial capture-recapture. Methods Ecol Evol 2019:1–12
  25. Ebert C, Knauer F, Storch I, Hohmann U (2010) Individual heterogeneity as a pitfall in population estimates based on non-invasive genetic sampling: a review and recommendations. Wildl Biol 16:225–240 · DOI
  26. Ebert C, Sandrini J, Spielberger B, Thiele B, Hohmann U (2012) Non-invasive genetic approaches for estimation of ungulate population size: a study on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) based on faeces. Anim Biodivers Conserv 35:267–275 · DOI
  27. Efford MG, Dawson DK, Robbins S (2004) DENSITY: software for analysing capture-recapture data from passive detector arrays. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:217–228 · DOI
  28. Efford MG (2011) Estimation of population density by spatially explicit capture-recapture analysis of data from area searches. Ecology 92:2202–2207 · DOI
  29. Ferreira CM, Sabino-Marques H, Paupério J, Barbosa S, Costa P, Encarnação C, Alpizar-Jara R, Pita R, Beja P, Mira A, Searle JB, Paupério J, Alves PC (2018) Genetic non-invasive sampling (gNIS) as a cost-effective tool for monitoring elusive small mammals. Eur J Wildl Res 64 No. 46 · DOI
  30. Garel M, Bonenfant C, Hamann JL, Klein F, Gaillard JM (2010) Are abundance indices derived from spotlight counts reliable to monitor red deer Cervus elaphus populations? Wildl Biol 16:77–84 · DOI
  31. Goode MJ, Beaver JT, Muller LI, Clark JD, van Manen FT, Harper C, Basinger PS (2014) Capture-recapture of white-tailed deer using DNA from fecal pellet groups. Wildl Biol 20:270–278 · DOI
  32. Gordon IJ, Hester AJ, Festa-Bianchet M (2004) The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives. J Appl Ecol 41:1021–1031 · DOI
  33. Granjon A-C, Rowney C, Vigilant L, Langergraber KE (2016) Evaluating genetic capture-recapture using a chimpanzee population of known size. J Wildl Manag 81:279–288 · DOI
  34. Gurgul A, Radko A, Slota E (2010) Characteristics of X- and Y-chromosome specific regions of the amelogenin gene and a PCR-based method for sex identification in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Mol Biol Rep 37:2915–2918 · DOI
  35. Hamann JL, Klein F, Saint-Andrieux C (1997) Domaine vital diurne et déplacements des biches (Cervus elaphus) sur le secteur de La Petite Pierre (Bas-Rhin). Gibier Faune Sauvage 14:1–17
  36. Harris RB, Winnie J Jr, Amish SJ, Beja-Pereira A, Godinho R, Costa V, Luikart G (2010) Argali abundance in the Afghan Pamir using capture-recapture modelling from fecal DNA. J Wildl Manag 74:668–677 · DOI
  37. Hickey JR, Sollmann R (2018) A new mark-recapture approach for abundance estimation of social species. PLoS One 13:e0208726 · DOI
  38. Kendall WL (1999) Robustness of closed capture-recapture methods to violations of the closure assumption. Ecology 80:2517–2525
  39. Kendall KC, Stetz JB, Boulanger J, Macleod AC, Paetkau D, White GC (2009) Demography and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. J Wildl Manag 73:3–17 · DOI
  40. Lang J, Huckschlag D, SIMON O (2016) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Wildbestandsschätzung für Rotwild mittels retrospektiver Kohortenanalyse am Beispiel des Rotwildgebietes “Pfälzerwald”. Beiträge zur Jagd-und Wildforschung [in german] 41:351–360
  41. Lucchini V, Fabbri E, Marucco F, Ricci S, Biotani L, Randi E (2002) Noninvasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the western Italian Alps. Mol Ecol 11:857–868 · DOI
  42. Luikart G, Ryman N, Tallmon DA, Schwartz MK, Allendorf FW (2010) Estimation of census and effective population sizes: the increasing usefulness of DNA-based approaches. Conserv Genet 11:355–373 · DOI
  43. Lukacs PM, Burnham KP (2005a) Estimating population size from DNA-based closed capture-recapture data incorporating genotyping error. J Wildl Manag 69:396–403 · DOI
  44. Lukacs PM, Burnham KP (2005b) Review of capture-recapture methods applicable to non-invasive genetic sampling. Mol Ecol 14:3909–3919 · DOI
  45. Lunt N, Mhlanga MR (2011) Defecation rate variability in the common duiker: importance of food quality, season, sex and age. S Afr J Wildl Res 41:29–35 · DOI
  46. Maudet C, Luikart G, Dubray D, von Hardenberg A, Taberlet P (2004) Low genotyping error rates in wild ungulate faeces sampled in winter. Mol Ecol Notes 4:772–775 · DOI
  47. Marucco F, Pletscher DH, Boitani L, Schwartz MK, Pilgrim KL, Lebreton J-D (2009) Wolf survival and population trend using non-invasive capture-recapture techniques in the Western Alps. J Appl Ecol 46:1003–1010 · DOI
  48. Marucco F, Boitani L, Pletscher DH, Schwartz MK (2011) Bridging the gap between non-invasive genetic sampling and population parameter estimation. Eur J Wildl Res 57:1–13 · DOI
  49. McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2004) Genetic errors associated with population estimation using non-invasive molecular tagging: problems and new solutions. J Wildl Manag 68:439–448 · DOI
  50. Miller CR, Joyce P, Waits LP (2005) A new method for estimating the size of small populations from genetic mark-recapture data. Mol Ecol 14:1991–2005 · DOI
  51. Milner J, Bonenfant C, Mysterud A, Gaillard J-M, Csányi S, Stenseth NC (2006) Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors. J Appl Ecol 43:721–734 · DOI
  52. Mysterud A, Meisingset EL, Veiberg V, Langvatn R, Solberg E, Loe LE, Stenseth NC (2007) Monitoring population size of red deer Cervus elaphus: an evaluation of two types of census data from Norway. Wildl Biol 13:285–298 · DOI
  53. Obbard ME, Howe EJ, Kyle CJ (2010) Empirical comparison of density estimators for large carnivores. J Appl Ecol 47:76–84 · DOI
  54. Parmenter RR, Yates TL, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Dunnum JL, Franklin AB, Friggens MT, Lubow BC, Miller M, Olson GS, Parmenter CA, Pollard J, Rexstad E, Shenk TM, Stanley TR, White GC (2003) Small-mammal density estimation: a field comparison of grid-based vs. web-based density estimators. Ecol Monogr 73:1–26 · DOI
  55. Pennel MW, Stansbury CR, Waits LP, Miller CR (2013) Capwire: a R package for estimating population census size from non-invasive genetic sampling. Mol Ecol Resour 13:154–157 · DOI
  56. Petit E, Valière N (2006) Estimating population size with non-invasive capture-recapture data. Conserv Biol 20:1062–1073 · DOI
  57. Pledger S, Efford M (1998) Correction of bias due to heterogeneous capture probability in capture-recapture studies of open populations. Biometrics 54:888–898 · DOI
  58. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildl Monogr 107:1–97
  59. Pompanon F, Bonin A, Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2005) Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions. Nat Rev Genet 6:847–859 · DOI
  60. Poole KG, Reynolds DM, Mowat G, Paetkau D (2011) Estimating mountain goat abundance using DNA from fecal pellets. J Wildl Manag 75:1527–1543 · DOI
  61. Puechmaille SJ, Petit E (2007) Empirical evaluation of non-invasive capture-capture-recapture estimation of population size based on a single sampling session. J Appl Ecol 44:843–852 · DOI
  62. Putman RJ, Moore NP (1998) Impact of deer in lowland Britain on agriculture, forestry and conservation habitats. Mammal Rev 28:141–164 · DOI
  63. Rea RV, Johnson CJ, Murray BW, Hodder DP, Crowley SM (2016) Timing moose pellet collections to increase genotyping success of fecal DNA. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 7:461–466 · DOI
  64. Roon DA, Waits LP, Kendall KC (2005) A simulation test of the effectiveness of several methods for error-checking non-invasive genetic data. Anim Conserv 8:203–215 · DOI
  65. Royle JA, Young KV (2008) A hierarchical model for spatial capture-recapture data. Ecology 9:2281–2289 · DOI
  66. Royle JA, Chandler RB, Sollmann R, Gardner B (2014) Spatial capture-recapture. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 612 pp
  67. Seber GAF (1982) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters, 2nd edn. Charles Griffin, London
  68. Skrbinšek T, Lustrik R, Majić-Skrbinšek A, Potočnik H, Kljun F, Jelenčič M, Kos I, Trontelj P (2019) From science to practice: genetic estimate of brown bear population size in Slovenia and how it influenced bear management. European Journal of Wildlife Research 65. No.29 · DOI
  69. Smart JCR, Ward A, White PCL (2004) Monitoring woodland deer populations in the UK: an imprecise science. Mammal Rev 34:99–114 · DOI
  70. Taberlet P, Luikart G (1999) Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification. Biol J Linn Soc 68:41–55 · DOI
  71. Tioli S, Cagnacci F, Stradiotto A, Rizzoli A (2009) Edge effect on density estimates of a radiotracked population of yellow-necked mice. J Wildl Manag 73:184–190 · DOI
  72. Tsaparis D, Karaiskou N, Mertzanis Y, Triantafyllidis A (2014) Non-invasive genetic study and population monitoring of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) (Mammalia: Ursidae) in Kastoria region – Greece. J Nat Hist 49:393–410 · DOI
  73. Valière N (2002) GIMLET: a computer program for analysing genetic individual identification data. Mol Ecol Notes 2:377–379 · DOI
  74. Valière N, Bonenfant C, Toigo C, Luikart G, Gaillard J-M, Klein F (2007) Importance of a pilot study for non-invasive genetic sampling: genotyping errors and population size estimation in red deer. Conserv Genet 8:69–78 · DOI
  75. Waits LP, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2001) Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol 10:249–256 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Waits LP, Paetkau D (2005) Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. J Wildl Manag 69:1419–1433 · DOI
  77. Ward AI (2005) Expanding ranges of wild and feral deer in Great Britain. Mammal Rev 35:165–173 · DOI
  78. Wilberg MJ, Dreher BP (2004) GENECAP: a program for analysis of multilocus genotype data for non-invasive sampling and capture-recapture population estimation. Mol Ecol Notes 4:783–785 · DOI
  79. Wilson KR, Anderson DR (1985) Evaluation of two density estimators of small mammal population size. J Mammal 66:31–21 · DOI
  80. Woodruff SP, Johnson TR, Waits LP (2015) Evaluating the interaction of faecal pellet deposition rates and DNA degradation rates to optimize sampling design for DNA-based mark-recapture analysis of Sonoran pronghorn. Mol Ecol Resour 15:843–854 · DOI
  81. Woodruff S, Lukacs P, Waits LP (2016) Estimating Sonoran pronghorn abundance and survival with fecal DNA and capture-recapture methods. Conserv Biol 30:1102–1111 · DOI
  82. Woods JG, Paetkau D, Lewis D, McLellan BN, Proctor M, Strobeck C (1999) Genetic tagging of free ranging black and brown bears. Wildl Soc Bull 27:616–627

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ebert, C., Sandrini, J., Welter, B., Thiele, B., & Hohmann, U.
Affiliations
Forschungsanstalt für Waldökologie und Forstwirtschaft Rheinland-Pfalz (DE)
Corresponding author
Ebert, Cornelia
ORCID
Ebert, Cornelia
Venue
European Journal of Wildlife Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-03-09
Volume
67
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0044-2887 (ISSN-L)
  • 1612-4642
  • 1439-0574
DOI
10.1007/s10344-021-01456-8
OpenAlex
W3135438477
Cited by
22
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
European Journal of Wildlife Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Federal Ministry of Forestry Rheinland-Palatinate (1434-FAWF-2016_FB53_No51, 1434-FAWF-2012_FB63_No61, 1434-FAWF-2015_FB63_No83)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
red deer, population size estimation, population density, sex ratio, non-invasive genetic sampling, fecal DNA, spatial capture-recapture, deer management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review