Monitoring_Lynx-lynx-carpathicus

3. Výsledky zo západných Karpát / Results from the Western Carpathians________________________________________________________________________________________Camera trapping Eurasian lynx in the Czech–Slovakia borderlandMIROSLAV KUTAL 1,2 , MARTIN VÁŇA 1 , MICHAL BOJDA 1 , LEONA KUTALOVÁ 1 & JOSEF SUCHOMEL 31Hnutí Duha, Dolní náměstí 38, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic; miroslav.kutal@hnutiduha.cz2Institute of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, Zemědělská 3, 613 00 Brno,Czech Republic3Institute of Zoology, Fisheries, Hydrobiology and Apiculture, Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University, Zemědělská 1,613 00 Brno, Czech RepublicThe Moravskoslezské Beskydy and Javorníky Mts.are located on the Czech-Slovak border. The area,including Beskydy Protected Landscape Area (PLA)in the Czech Republic and Kysuce PLA in Slovakia, iscurrently at the western edge of stable occurrenceof Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in the Carpathians. Thepopulation was studied in 2003–2012 mainly bysnow tracking carried out by volunteers of the WolfPatrol project, organized by the Olomouc localgroup of Hnutí Duha (Kutal & Bláha 2008). Thecollected dataset provided a baseline for assessingthe relative abundance of the species in differentparts of Beskydy PLA and the number of familygroups (Kutal et al. 2013, Kovařík et al. 2014). Here,we present a short summary of a combination ofcamera trapping and photographic capture-markrecapture(CMR) together with snow tracking toobtain the first empirical estimate of the actualabundance and density of the lynx population atthe edge of the West Carpathians.MethodsWe placed 20 digital white-flash cameras in twostudy blocks (Fig. 1) during 50 days of deterministicmonitoring in winter 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.Total sampling effort was 925 and 905 trap nights,respectively. Estimates were based on non-spatialCMR models and the ½MMDM approach with abuffer radius in the range 4.1–8.0 km. In additionwe carried out intensive snow tracking (750 walkedtrails), searched for lynx kills (roe and red deer) andcollected non-invasive genetic samples during theperiod of continuous snow cover both winters.ResultsWe obtained a total of 45 pictures of lynx inwinter 2011/2012 and 51 in 2012/2013. Aftercomparison of their distinct pelage pattern (Fig. 2),we visually identified nine different lynx in the twostudy blocks (effective sample area = 850 km 2 )during the first winter. Using the best model (M 0)and program CAPTURE the population estimatewas 9 ± 0.3 individuals. Two additionalindependent lynx found by opportunistic cameratrapping (usually near kill sites; Fig. 3) indicated thetotal population in the area covered by intensivesnow tracking (1 550 km 2 ) was at least 11.During the second winter we recorded 10independent lynx in an ESA of 1 044 km 2 and withan estimation of 10 ± 0.466 using model M 0. Sincean additional individual was recorded byopportunistic camera trapping in the Beskydy block(Fig. 4), we estimate the total population in thesecond winter to also be 11 animals.Both camera trapping and snow trackingindicated uneven lynx distribution and significantdifferences between study blocks, with higherpopulation density and abundance in Javorníky.Only five out of eleven independent lynx (45%)were detected in both winters, indicating a highpopulation turnover.The overall population density of Eurasian lynxin a study area of ~ 1 500 km 2 was estimated at 0.71lynx/100 km 2 in both years. This estimate is similarto results from the Czech-Bavarian-Austrianpopulation, in the Bavarian Forest, where densitiesof 0.4–0.9 ind./100 km 2 were obtained with a________________________________________________________________________________________Monitoring Lynx lynx carpathicus, Rigg & Kubala (2015) 55