Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Mei-hsiu Hwang

Publications and source records attributed to Mei-hsiu Hwang.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Review of field methods for monitoring Asian bears

Efficient and effective monitoring methods are required to assess population status and gauge efficacy of conservation actions for threatened species. Here we review the spectrum of field methods useful for monitoring distribution, occupancy, abundance, and population trend for the five species of Asian terrestrial bears. Methods reviewed include expert opinion, local knowledge, bear sign, visual observations, camera traps, DNA-based methods (hair and scat derived), and radio telemetry. We examine the application of each method in terms of realizing specific monitoring objectives, their assumptions, challenges, and advantages. Our goal is to assist researchers in matching appropriate field methods with sought-after project objectives and to highlight shortfalls and trade-offs. Methods vary greatly in terms of cost, logistics, required number and expertise of staff, and the reliability of the data they provide. Many Asian bear population assessments have relied on expert opinion, local interviews, and sign surveys to provide estimates of distribution, abundance, and trend, in part because these are inexpensive and relatively easy to employ. However, increasing use of camera traps and DNA-based methods now allow for better monitoring via occupancy or rigorous capture–recapture population estimation, with the caveat that these methods may be restricted by inadequate budgets or logistical constraints. For distribution monitoring, camera traps and DNA yield the most definitive records of presence, but in low density bear populations, sign and local knowledge may be more effective. For occupancy, camera traps and DNA are advantageous in providing definitive detections in known time periods. For abundance/density or population trend monitoring in relatively small areas (<10,000 km 2 ), bears must be individually identified and used in a mark-recapture design. This requires DNA from collections of hair or scat, or a camera-based survey in which natural chest marks are clearly visible and individually distinguishable. DNA-methods or camera traps within individual identification is best for population trend when sufficient funding is available. Alternatively, careful use of local knowledge or expert opinion may be viable options, but come with greater uncertainty. For the foreseeable future, we believe that expert opinion will likely continue to play a large part in monitoring Asian bears, but these opinions should be informed by more rigorous data from the other methods we discuss.

Global Ecology and Conservation

The need to step-up monitoring of Asian bears

Many wildlife species are threatened in Asia, including the five species of terrestrial bears (Asiatic black, Ursus thibetanus ; brown, U. arctos ; sloth, Melursus ursinus ; sun, Helarctos malayanus ; giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca ): many populations of these bears are thought to be declining or imperiled by small population size. Here our aim is to document how population assessments have been conducted for bears in Asia. We searched the literature and identified 102 studies published during 1999–2021 that investigated the status of an Asian bear population; these occurred in 24 of the 32 bear range countries in Asia. At the most basic level, 11% of studies verified presence of bears in places where they were not known to exist. The most common objective (53% of papers) was a distribution map, often derived from presence locations in a habitat-based model. Occupancy studies (15%) used temporal (time stamps on images from cameras) or spatial (transect segments) replicates, but tended to focus on “use”, so detector spacing was sometimes not appropriate for occupancy. Purported population indices, such as sign density or camera trap encounter rates, were reported in 16% of studies. One third of studies provided a population estimate, but only 10 studies in two decades used a rigorous method (e.g., mark–recapture). Sign surveys and interviews were the most common methods for determining bear presence, and local interviews were heavily relied upon for assessing population trend. Camera trapping has become increasingly prevalent, but only one study obtained a population estimate using photographs to distinguish natural individual markings. Only three studies used hair traps to obtain DNA-based population estimates, and three other studies obtained population estimates from DNA in scats. Just three studies quantitatively measured change in population size or occupancy over time, and none of these showed a decline. Unique rangewide sign surveys of giant pandas showed significant geographic expansion. The opinions of experts and local people, now heavily relied upon for population assessments, are not reliable or sensitive enough for monitoring. Quantitative population assessments are desirable to direct conservation actions toward the most perilous situations, and provide a means to gauge the effectiveness of conservation actions. This paper demonstrates the paucity of rigorous monitoring of Asian bears, and leads off a series of papers that propose improved methods for assessing distribution, occupancy, and density

Global Ecology and Conservation