Susannah Woodruff, Rob Lonsinger, Lisette Waits Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho MONITORING SPECIES OF CONCERN ON MILITARY LANDS USING NONINVASIVE GENETIC SAMPLING

OUTLINE  Need for noninvasive genetic monitoring  Project goals and objectives  Methodological approach  Application to Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis)  Benefits of approach  Conclusions and future applications

PROBLEM STATEMENT  DoD needs reliable monitoring methods to:  Evaluate impacts of military training  Monitor at-risk species  Monitoring programs should:  Provide unbiased and reliable data  Apply to large spatial areas  Be conducted over multiple seasons or years  Be cost-effective

PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES  Demonstrate effectiveness noninvasive genetic sampling and capture-recapture methods (NGS-CR) to monitor species  Design and implement monitoring for kit fox (transect) and Sonoran pronghorn (targeted)

PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES  Demonstrate effectiveness noninvasive genetic sampling and capture-recapture methods (NGS-CR) to monitor species  Design and implement monitoring for kit fox (transect) and Sonoran pronghorn (targeted)  Compare cost-benefit of monitoring based on NGS-CR versus alternatives  Facilitate use of method on other DoD installations

TRADITIONAL METHODS

WHAT IS NONINVASIVE GENETIC SAMPLING?  Inventory and monitor -- collecting feces, hair, feathers  Primary advantages: > Lack of disturbance > Tag permanence > Reduce capture bias; increase probabilities Spencer Rettler 2013

SPECIES ID Developed mtDNA primer Mule deer vs. Pronghorn Woodruff et al Rapid species identification of Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) from fecal pellet DNA.

SPECIES ID Sonoran pronghorn ~124 bp

SPECIES ID Mule deer ~179 bp

INDIVIDUAL ID Kit Fox: 7-9 nuclear (n) DNA microsatellite loci Pronghorn: 8-10 nDNA microsatellite loci 11 Sample 133 / 3642 / 44 Sample 233 / 3644 / 44 Sample 333 / 3942 / 48 Locus 1 Locus 2 Locus 3

Pollock’s Robust Design: = field capture occasion Time (e.g., 1 year) Primary Period 1 Primary Period 2 CAPTURE RECAPTURE METHODS Primary Period K abundance survival, reproduction, movements Time (e.g., 1 year) survival, reproduction, movements abundance

Pollock’s Robust Design: = field capture occasion Primary Period 1 Primary Period 2 CAPTURE RECAPTURE METHODS Primary Period K abundance survival, reproduction, movements survival, reproduction, movements abundance  CAPWIRE (Capture With Replacement)  Allows for sampling individuals multiple times per session

 1800s: 1000’s of Sonoran pronghorn  Habitat loss, drought, human disturbance  2002: <50 remain after severe drought  2014: 202 (CI: ) in United States SONORAN PRONGHORN

Source: USFWS Final EA for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn

SAMPLING LOCATIONS

TARGETED SAMPLING

3-4 times 1 time

TARGETED SAMPLING

 Capture history for each individual INDIVIDUAL CAPTURE HISTORY

RESULTS

CAPTURE DISTRIBUTIONS - PRONGHORN 22

MINIMUM COUNTS 2014 SiteNumber of Samples/Session# Individuals S1S2S3DNAObs. ER CB KH UK NH DH PP J38679NA

MINIMUM COUNTS 2014 SiteNumber of Samples/Session# Individuals S1S2S3DNAObs. ER CB KH UK NH DH PP J38679NA

RESULTS Season# Samples# Individuals PCR Success nDNA Summer (49M:30F:15FA)82% Summer (56M:34F:19FA)82% New Sites Summer (5M:8F:2FA)82% M-=male, F=female, FA=fawn

POPULATION ESTIMATE

SURVIVAL BY CLASS

BENEFITS OF APPROACH  Greater spatial extent covered (K)  Increased temporal frequency (P)  More individuals detected (KP)  More parameters estimated (KP)  Precise estimates (CV < 10%) and standardized approach (KP)  Easier to implement than current methods (KP)  Lower cost/detection (KP) K=kit fox P=pronghorn

 NGS is a valuable new monitoring approach  Detect species  Estimate population size  Detect movements  Survival, reproduction, genetic diversity  Lab costs of ~$20/sample species ID, $40-$50/sample for individual ID  Provides cost-effective, easy-to-implement monitoring alternative  Potential application to many DoD species  Many sampling alternatives CONCLUSIONS

 JOHN HERVERT  ROBERT KNIGHT  WAITS LAB  JIM ATKINSON  ERIC GESE  OTHERS I FORGOT… ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

QUESTIONS?