Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in...

History, status, and conservation perspectives of the Eurasian lynx

Urs Breitenmoser & Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten

University of Bern & KORA, Switzerland

Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in Monitoring, Management, and Communication 18-20 April 2016, Berlin, Germany

1. History and present status

2. Monitoring principles

3. Conservation challenges

4. Conservation perspectives

History, status, and conservation perspectives of the Eurasian lynx

Urs Breitenmoser & Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten

University of Bern & KORA, Switzerland

Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in Monitoring, Management, and Communication 18-20 April 2016, Berlin, Germany

1. History and status 2. Monitoring principles 3. Conservation challenges 4. Conservation perspectives

1. History and present status

Ridinger 1737


Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx

Fossil records only

Early historic times

About 1800

About 1960

Iberic lynx Lynx pardinus

About 1800

About 1960

Historic distribution of Lynx lynx and Lynx pardinus in Europe


Present distribution of Lynx lynx in Europe

Lynx lynx

Permanent presence

Sporadic presence

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012

(Kaczensky et al. 2013a)


Present distribution of Lynx lynx in Central Europe

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012

(Kaczensky et al. 2013a)

Autochthonous populations:

1. Baltic L. l. lynx

2. Balkan L. l. balcanicus

3. Carpathian L. l. carpathicus

Reintroduced populations:

4. Alpine

5. Bohemian‐Bavarian

6. Dinaric

7. Harz

8. Jura

9. Vosges‐Palatinian


1. Baltic Population

Source: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)

10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 823 Sporadic: 447 All: 1270

• Lynx l. lynx • Adjacent to large Russian population • Without Belarus • Reintroduction in NE-Poland (L. l. lynx) • Reintroduction in C-Poland (mixed) • Highly fragmented in Lithuania & Poland • IUCN Red List: LC

Country Abundance Trend

Estonia 790 Stable

Latvia <600 Stable

Lithuania 40-60 Increasing

Poland NE 96 Stable

Ukraine 80-90 Stable?

Total 1600 Stable


2. Balkan Population



FYROM 27-52 ind. lynx

decreasing Albania

Montenegro 0 (sporadic)

Kosovo 1 (sporadic)

Greece 0 (sporadic)

Total 27-52 decreasing


• Lynx l. balcanicus • 20–39 mature individuals • IUCN Red List: CR (D)


3. Carpathian Population



Romania 1200-1500 Stable

Slovakia 300-400 Stable?

Poland 200 Stable

Ukraine 350-400 Stable?

Czech Rep. 13 Stagnant?

Hungary 1-3 Stagnant

Serbia 50 Slight incr.

Bulgaria 11 Expanding

Total 2300-2400 Stable


• Lynx l. carpathicus • Source for many reintroductions • Expanding in the south (SRB, BG) • No scientific robust monitoring • Probably over-estimated (ex. SK) • IUCN Red List: LC


3. Carpathian Population

Sources: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b)

Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008

Country Minimum population

Minimum year

Population 2012

Romania 100-120 1933-38 1200-1500

Slovakia 40-50 1934 300-400

Poland few 1946 200

Ukraine <100 1960 350-400

Czech Rep. 0 1909 13

Hungary 0 1915 1-3

Serbia - - 50

Bulgaria 0 1935 11

Total 240-270 2300-2400

Bottleneck of the Carpathian population


4. Alpine Population



Switzerland 96‐107 Stable/incr.

Slovenia Few Stagnant

Italy 10‐15 Stagnant

Austria 3‐5 Stagnant

France 13 Stagnant

Total 130 Stagnant


• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (CH, SLO) • Jura/Alps mixed • SCALP-Monitoring • IUCN Red List: EN (D)


5. Bohemian-Bavarian Population



• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reindroduced population • IUCN Red List: CR (D)


Czech Republic 30-40 Stable

Germany 12 Stagnant

Austria 5-10 Stagnant

Total 50 Stable/decr.


6. Dinaric Population



Slovenia 10-15 Decreasing

Croatia 50 Stable

Bosnia-Herzegovina 70 (?) Increasing

Total 120-130 Stagnant


• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (SLO) • Possible inbreeding depression • Situation BIH unclear • IUCN Red List: EN (D)


7. Harz Population



Germany (28)1 Increasing

Total - Increasing


• Lynx l. ssp. (Zoo animals) • Reintroduced (D)

1AMiddelhoff & Anders (2015): 16 independent + 12 juvenile lynx in a reference area of 746 km² in the western Harz Mountains.


8. Jura Population



Switzerland 28-36 Increasing

France 76 Increasing

Total >100 Increasing 10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 94 Sporadic: 84 All: 178

• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (CH) • CH source for translocations • IUCN Red List: EN (D)


9. Vosges-Palatinian Population



France 19 Stagnant

Germany 0 Decreasing

Total 19 Decreasing 10x10 km cells occupied: Permanent: 14 Sporadic: 46 All: 60

• Lynx l. carpathicus • Reintroduced (F) • Recent decrease (no detection) • Reintroduction project in Palatinia • IUCN Red List: CR (C2a(i, ii) D)


Source reintrduced spontaneous

Palatinia

Black Forest

Kalkalpen always males…


Assessment and legal status of Lynx lynx in Central Europe

Assessment of populations according to IUCN Red List

(from Kaczensky et al. 2023a)

Autochthonous populations:

1. Baltic L. l. lynx LC

2. Balkan L. l. balcanicus CR (C2a(i, ii) D)

3. Carpathian L. l. carpathicus LC

Reintroduced populations:

4. Alpine EN (D)

5. Bohemian‐Bavarian CR (D)

6. Dinaric EN (D)

7. Harz n.a. [CR]

8. Jura EN (D)

9. Vosges‐Palatinian CR (C2a(i, ii) D)

Listing of the species Lynx lynx in Europe EU Habitat Directives: Annex II + IV Bern Convention: Appendix III





1. Categorisation

2. Stratification

Categorise observations according to certainty and verifiability. Not all observations have the same significance.

Stratify data sets according to resolution and reliability. High-quality data are expensi- ve to gain and cannot be ga- thered over large areas.


Lynx distribution Switzerland 2014 according to SCALP categories

Category 1 = “hard facts”

verified and unchallenged, e.g. dead lynx, pictures, genetic identification

1. Categorisation

Category 2 = “confirmed observations

killed livestock or wild prey, and lynx tracks or other field signs confirmed by a trained person

Category 3 = Unconfirmed or uncon- firmable observations

all observations reported by laymen, not documented in a way that they can be confirmed


1. Categorisation

Observed lynx distribution in the Alps and Dinaric Mountains 2014 based on a 10x10 km grid. A distinction was made between different SCALP categories and whether the observation included reproduction or not1. Lynx populations outside of the Alpine and Dinaric range are not shown (no data is available from Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Molinari et al. 2015).


2. Stratification

Level Range Questions

I Species range, area, Europe Distribution, range, relative abundance/trend, taxonomy

II Population, meta-population

Jura Mts, Alps, Carpathian Mts

Distribution, dynamics, status, fragmentation, conservation

III (Sub-)Population

country, „compartment“

Dynamics, abundance, status, conflicts, conservation

IV Reference area, study area Ecology, land-tenure system, density, diet, conflicts

Qu

est

ion

An

swe

rs a

nd

cal

ibra

tio

n

Concept of stratified monitoring:


2. Stratification

I

II

III

IV

Europe

Population

Country

Reference area


2. Stratification

Reference area

LC compartment

Country


2. Stratification and methods

IV a – Reference area • Deterministic camera trapping • Abundance with confidence

interval • Chance observations; kills, dead

lynx, sightings, etc.

IV b – LC-Compartment • Opportunistic camera trapping • Minimum number of lynx • Chance observations; kills, dead

lynx, sightings, etc. • Extrapolation of Ref. Area data

II – Population (e.g. Alps) • Compilation of data from countries • SCALP Categories • Occupancy analyses • Report every 3 years

III – Country (e.g. Switzerland) • Compilation of data from Ref.

Areas and Compartments • Yearly questionnaire to game

wardens • Yearly update of monitoring report

I – Europe • Questionnaire to LCIE members • 10x10 km grid approach • Report every 6 years


3. Conservation challenges


Managing conflicts

Potential conflicts:

1. Fear of people

2. Attacks on livestock

3. Competition over game

insignificant


Attacks on livestock

• Livestock depredation low for most populations

• Exception: Nordic populations: 7’000–10’000 sheep and 7’000–8’000 reindeer per year compensated as lynx kills

• Most countries have evaluation and compensation schemes

Sources: LCIE/SPOIS 2012; (Kaczensky et al. 2013a, b); KORA (www.kora.ch)

Livestock killed by lynx in Switzerland 1973 - 2015


Attacks on livestock

Swiss Lynx Management Plan:

• Single cases of depredation are examined (state game wardens) and compensated if confirmed as lynx kills

• A lynx can be removed (e.g. shot by state game wardens) if it kills ≥15 sheep/goats per season

• If attacks continue (“hot spots”), sheep/goats have to be moved

• Protective measures recommended, but not mandatory for lynx. Protective measures against wolf attacks are however effective against lynx, too

• From 1997–2003, 8 lynx were shot as sheep raiders, since then, no more permit for removal was asked

• The above measures have helped mitigating the conflict with livestock herders


Competition with hunters for game (roe deer, chamois) Ly

nx

ind

ices

N

um

ber

or

roe

der

Lynx sightings Dead lynx Killed sheep

Hunting bag Road kills

Lynx, depredation, and roe deer in the Bernese Alps

(Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008)


Lyn

x in

dic

es

Lynx sightings Dead lynx Killed sheep

(Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008)

Mitigation of conflicts with hunters through lynx limitation?

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

/02

20

02

/03

20

03

/04

20

04

/05

20

05

/06

20

06

/07

20

07

/08

Ly

nx

/1

00

km

²

Peak lynx density: ~2.6 ind. lx/100 km²

Low lynx density: ~0.9–1.1 ind. lx/100 km²

Illegal killings: ≥2.0 ind. lx/100 km²


Mitigation of conflicts with hunters through lynx limitation?

Observations:

• Lynx can show remarkable numeric responses to prey (roe deer) fluctuations

• Under certain conditions, predation impact of lynx on roe deer (chamois) can be prominent

• Low acceptance and retaliation killings seem to be correlated to concrete conflict level

• Lynx conservation requires a “societal compromise”

Questions:

• Can conflict level be managed through limitation of lynx density?

• Can illegal killing be reduced/contained through legal control options?

Social consensus: Large carnivore round table in Switzerland

WWF Switzerland, Swiss Sheep Breeders Association, ProNatura, and Swiss Hun-ters Federation (08.05.2012).


Genetic challenges

Fraction Component Analyses (FCA) based on allele frequencies

NW-Alps Jura

Dinaric

Carpathian

Vosgues

B-B-Forest


Genetic challenges

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

autochthonous re-introduced

Hete

rozyg

osit

y

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

All

ele

s p

er

locu

s

0.63

0.52

3.2

4.8

Differences in heterzygosity () and alleles per loci () in autochthonous and reintroduced lynx populations in Europe


Genetic challenges

Genetic variability of lynx populations in Europe based on 20 micro-satel-lites. Hexp = expected heterozygosity, Hobs = observed heterozygosity; a = autochthonous, r = reintroduced Population N Typ Hexp Hobs Alleles/Locus

Autochtones populations

Russia >0.70 4.4–5.0 Norway 30 a 0.606 0.575 4.32 Sweden 30 a 0.558 0.528 4.00 Finland 30 a 0.671 0.667 5.05 Latvia 29 a 0.686 0.713 5.41 Estonia 32 a 0.679 0.713 5.00 NE Poland 8 a 0.567 0.601 3.59 Balkans 10 a 0.481 0.420 2.68 Carpathian Mountains 31 a 0.633 0.592 4.59

Reintroduced populations

Swiss Alps 35 r 0.448 0.460 2.45

Jura Mountains 32 r 0.517 0.517 2.91 Vosges Mountains 5 r 0.581 0.573 2.77 Dinaric Range 32 r 0.494 0.518 3.09 Bavarian-/Bohemian Forest 14 r 0.529 0.501 3.23


4. Conservation perspectives


4. Conservation perspectives – two main questions:

1. How can a demographic and genetic viable metapopulation be integrated and maintained in the fragmented landscapes of Central Europe?

2. How can an ecological functional lynx population (predation) be integrated into the wildlife and forest management systems of Central Europe?



1. How can a demographic and genetic viable metapopulation be integrated and maintained in the fragmented landscapes of Central Europe?

• Central and Western Europe has still many landscapes that could host small to medium-sized lynx populations

• Such landscapes will not be spontaneously colonised because lynx are (e.g. compared to wolves) bad colonisers

• Reintroduced lynx populations suffer from genetic impoverishment because (a) the founder group was too small (inbreeding), and (b) the population growth was too slow (genetic drift)

Solution: Create and maintain a big managed metapopulation of lynx in Central Europe including the Carpathian source population


Spontaneous Translocations done Translocations planned

?

Lynx movements in Central-Western Europe:



2. How can an ecological functional lynx population (predation) be integrated into the wildlife and forest management systems of Central Europe?

• Lynx (predation) is important for biodiversity conservation (ecological functionality, evolutionary potential) and should be reintegrated into ecosystems wherever possible

• All countries with reintroduced lynx populations have a wildlife management and forestry system that is not adapted to the presence of large carnivores

• Under the present wildlife management/hunting system in C/W Europe, no lynx population can survive against the explicit opposition of the hunters

Solution: Integrate lynx in wildlife management systems and seek consensus between conservationists, hunters, and foresters


4. Conservation perspectives – conclusions

1. All reintroduced lynx populations in Europe are small and suffer from inbreeding in need of active remedy

2. The Carpathian (source) population is considered LC, but no robust monitoring

3. A lot of suitable lynx habitat is still available in C/W Europe, but spontaneous colonisation will not happen

4. Reintroductions or reinforcements of lynx most often fail because of the opposition of hunters

5. Conservation of lynx in C/W Europe needs much more active intervention and management and more engagement of the GOs

6. International cooperation (strategy) and transboundary management of (meta-) populations is needed


4. Conservation perspectives – conclusions

© Ch. Angst 2001)


References

Kaczensky P, Chapron G, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, Linnell J. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe. Part 1. 72 pp.

Kaczensky P, Chapron G, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, Linnell J. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe. Part 2. 200 pp.

Hellborg et

al. 2002

Rueness et al.

2002

Schmidt et al.

2009

Sindičić et al.

2013

Paule et al.

Unpubl

Breitenmoser et al.

in prep.

Bull et al.

2016

# STRs 11 10 6 19 20 12

He #A/loc He #A/loc He #A/lo

c

He #A/loc He He #A/loc He #A/loc

Population

Scandinavia 0.51 4.7

Norway 0.52 4.4 0.61 4.3

Sweden 0.51 4.1 0.56 4.0

Finland 0.62 5.3 0.63 5.4 0.67 5.1

Baltics 0.60 5.3 0.61 4.7

Estonia 0.60 5.0 0.68 5.0 0.66 4.2

Latvia 0.66 5.8 0.69 5.4 0.68 4.3

NE Poland 0.62 4.3 0.57 3.6

Russia 0.70 5.0 0.73 0.70 4.4

Carpathians 0.51 2.8 0.59 3.9 0.63 4.6 0.52 3.2

Slovakia 0.54

Czech Rep. 0.47

Romania 0.54

Balkans 0.48 2.7

Alps 0.45 2.5

Jura Mts 0.52 2.9

Dinaric Mts 0.47 3.2 0.49 3.1 0.51 3.2

BBF 0.53 3.2 0.47 3.3

Vosges Mts 0.58 2.8 0.47 2.8

Date post:	13-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Large Carnivores in Central Europe: Experiences in...

Documents