Monitoring_Lynx-lynx-carpathicus

3. Výsledky zo západných Karpát / Results from the Western Carpathians________________________________________________________________________________________Monitoring lynx in Kysuce PLA, SlovakiaMARTIN DUĽA 1 , PETER DRENGUBIAK 2 , MIROSLAV KUTAL 3,4 , VLADO TRULÍK & ĽUBOSLAV HRDÝ1Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 267/2, 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic; martindulazoo@gmail.com2Kysuce PLA administration, U Tomali č. 1511, 022 01 Čadca, Slovakia3Hnutí Duha, Dolní náměstí 38, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic4Institute of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, Zemědělská 3, 613 00 Brno,Czech RepublicThe Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is one of the mostwidely distributed felid species, with a naturalrange extending from Central Europe to East Asia.Historically, intensive hunting and persecutioncontributed to drastic range loss in Europe.However, in the 1970s and 1980s animals from theCarpathians were used to repopulate several areasin central, western and southern Europe (Stehlík1979).The aim of this study is to assess the currentstatus of the Carpathian lynx population innorthern Slovakia, close to the borders with Polandand the Czech Republic. The intention is to usenon-invasive methods in order to obtain data forlong-term population monitoring programmes,management plans and conservation of the lynx inthe West Carpathians.Materials and methodsThe study was conducted in winter 2013/2014in Kysuce Protected Landscape Area (PLA) andadjacent areas (Horná Orava PLA, Malá FatraNational Park). Intensive deterministic cameratrapping and capture-mark recapture (CMR)analysis were used to estimate lynx populationabundance and density (Karanth & Nichols 2002).Camera trapping for deterministic monitoringwas conducted during a 60-day period in January–March. This was divided into 12 trapping occasionsof 5 days each, during which multiple captures ofthe same animal at a particular trap site werecounted as a single capture event.We systematically distributed 15 white flashcameras (Cuddeback Ambush) in a study area of375 km 2 according to the European EnvironmentalAgency (EEA) grid (Fig. 1). The minimum convexpolygon enclosed by the outermost camera trapsites had an area of 317 km 2 .Due to financial limitations, only one camerawas installed in any one 5 x 5 km grid square.Although many studies use two opposite-facingcameras at each site in order to photograph bothflanks of animals (e.g. Weingarth et al. 2012), Czechcolleagues have found one camera to be sufficientand cost-efficient (Kutal et al. 2014), provided thata reference database of all lynx photographed inthe study area is already available to easeidentification. Individuals were identified bycomparison of pelage patterns, particularly on thehind limbs, fore limbs and flanks.ResultsDuring intensive camera trapping wephotographed lynx at 4 out of the 15 sites. Sevenindependent lynx (3 males, 1 female, 3 unknown)and two kittens were identified. Demographicclosure was not assured during the session(program CloseTest), but we nonetheless usedprogram DENSITY 5.0 to obtain an estimatedpopulation size of 9 different individuals.We were not able to calculate the size of theeffective sample area (ESA) because only oneindividual was captured at two different sites.Furthermore, a low rate of recapture together with________________________________________________________________________________________Monitoring Lynx lynx carpathicus, Rigg & Kubala (2015) 50