Jessica L. Braunstein, Joseph D. Clark, Ben C. Augustine, Caleb R. Hickman, Justin McVey, Joseph Yarkovich
{"title":"Spatially explicit estimates of elk population demographics in North Carolina, USA","authors":"Jessica L. Braunstein, Joseph D. Clark, Ben C. Augustine, Caleb R. Hickman, Justin McVey, Joseph Yarkovich","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.22733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In an effort to restore extirpated elk to their historical range, 52 elk were reintroduced to Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in North Carolina, USA, during 2001 and 2002. Since their reintroduction, elk numbers have increased, and elk have extended their range beyond GRSM boundaries. We used spatially explicit capture-recapture (SCR) methods based on fecal DNA to identify individual elk and estimate population abundance (<i>N</i>), apparent survival (<i>φ</i>), per capita recruitment (<i>f</i>), and population growth rate (<i>λ</i>) in western North Carolina. We walked a series of transects during 3 winter field seasons (2020–2022) and collected elk pellets encountered along those transects. We created spatially explicit capture histories and incorporated those data into both closed and open population SCR models. The top performing closed SCR models for males and females estimated density by year and as a function of the scaled distance to the nearest field, with densities decreasing as the distance increased. Combined male and female <i>N</i> were 179 elk (95% CI = 149–215) in 2020, 220 elk (95% CI = 188–256) in 2021, and 240 elk (95% CI = 207–279) in 2022. The top open population model estimated both <i>φ</i> and <i>λ</i> as functions of sex and year. The estimate of <i>φ</i> for males was 0.682 (95% CI = 0.317–0.908) during 2020–2021 and 0.339 (95% CI = 0.152–0.596) during 2021–2022 and for females was 0.953 (95% CI = 0.830–1.000) during 2020–2021 and 0.829 (95% CI = 0.601–1.000) during 2021–2022. The annual population growth rate (<i>λ</i>) for males was 1.127 (95% CI = 0.806–1.575) during 2020–2021 and 0.811 (95% CI = 0.566–1.163) during 2021–2022 and for females was 1.559 (95% CI = 1.162–2.091) during 2020–2021 and 1.122 (95% CI = 0.876–1.437) during 2021–2022. Our elk abundance estimates in areas >300 m from fields were negligible, and we suggest that sampling only the areas in and adjacent to fields in the future will result in reliable but more cost-efficient population estimates. Confidence intervals for vital rate parameters were wide for our 3-year dataset, but continued annual pellet sampling will increase sample sizes for vital rate estimation and thus improve precision. If elk herd expansion on public lands is desired, we suggest habitat modification to establish open grasslands adjacent to forests.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.22733","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In an effort to restore extirpated elk to their historical range, 52 elk were reintroduced to Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in North Carolina, USA, during 2001 and 2002. Since their reintroduction, elk numbers have increased, and elk have extended their range beyond GRSM boundaries. We used spatially explicit capture-recapture (SCR) methods based on fecal DNA to identify individual elk and estimate population abundance (N), apparent survival (φ), per capita recruitment (f), and population growth rate (λ) in western North Carolina. We walked a series of transects during 3 winter field seasons (2020–2022) and collected elk pellets encountered along those transects. We created spatially explicit capture histories and incorporated those data into both closed and open population SCR models. The top performing closed SCR models for males and females estimated density by year and as a function of the scaled distance to the nearest field, with densities decreasing as the distance increased. Combined male and female N were 179 elk (95% CI = 149–215) in 2020, 220 elk (95% CI = 188–256) in 2021, and 240 elk (95% CI = 207–279) in 2022. The top open population model estimated both φ and λ as functions of sex and year. The estimate of φ for males was 0.682 (95% CI = 0.317–0.908) during 2020–2021 and 0.339 (95% CI = 0.152–0.596) during 2021–2022 and for females was 0.953 (95% CI = 0.830–1.000) during 2020–2021 and 0.829 (95% CI = 0.601–1.000) during 2021–2022. The annual population growth rate (λ) for males was 1.127 (95% CI = 0.806–1.575) during 2020–2021 and 0.811 (95% CI = 0.566–1.163) during 2021–2022 and for females was 1.559 (95% CI = 1.162–2.091) during 2020–2021 and 1.122 (95% CI = 0.876–1.437) during 2021–2022. Our elk abundance estimates in areas >300 m from fields were negligible, and we suggest that sampling only the areas in and adjacent to fields in the future will result in reliable but more cost-efficient population estimates. Confidence intervals for vital rate parameters were wide for our 3-year dataset, but continued annual pellet sampling will increase sample sizes for vital rate estimation and thus improve precision. If elk herd expansion on public lands is desired, we suggest habitat modification to establish open grasslands adjacent to forests.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.