Balancing costs and confidence: volunteer-provided point observations, GPS telemetry and the genetic monitoring of Finland\u2019s wolves

Abstract

Reliable and updated population estimates are a necessity for the successful conservation and management of endangered animal populations. Citizen science has become increasingly important in wildlife monitoring and is an attractive concept due to its low costs. However, the applicability of citizen science in the monitoring of large carnivore populations is questionable for various reasons, including the difficulties associated with species identification. In Finland, where estimates of the fragmentary wolf (Canis lupus) population have varied between 140 and 280 animals in the last 10 years, population monitoring has been based on volunteer-provided data and telemetry. To compensate for a recent decrease in the proportion of territories with boundaries mapped through telemetry, a non-invasive genetics project was launched in 2016. We evaluated the experiences from this project, in which non-invasive genetic techniques were, for the first time, widely used (n = 22 territories, 54% of the 41 apparent territories hosted by wolves in March 2017) to determine the post-hunting population estimate in early March 2017, before pack sizes began to decrease due to dispersal by sub-adult wolves. In territories where the non-invasive genetic monitoring was executed in the winter of 2016/2017, the pack sizes resulting from the volunteer-provided observations and the genetic analyses were highly correlated. By using the most typical variation in the proportion of non-residents in the wolf populations (6–20%, Fuller et al. 2003), we derived a population estimate of 150–178 wolves for early March 2016, and, by considering the known mortality during the study period, a minimum estimate of 204–234 wolves for early Aug. 2016. Despite its high costs, we recommend that non-invasive genetic monitoring should cover all known territories supporting Finland’s small and exploited wolf population. This much costlier protocol may be unrealistic in Finland. In any case, there is a need for more genetic sampling to test the quality of volunteer-provided data.