How to find a wolverine: Factors affecting detection at wolverine ( Gulo gulo) bait stations in western Canada

• Published in: Ecosphere
• Main Authors: Kortello, Andrea, Hausleitner, Doris, Mowat, Garth, Barrueto, Mirjam, Heim, Nicole, Larson, Lisa, Lucid, Michael, Clevenger, Anthony
• Other Authors: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia Basin Trust, Parks Canada, Wilburforce Foundation, Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation, Volgenau Foundation, Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Alberta Conservation Association, McLean Foundation, National Geographic Society, Disney Conservation Fund, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Alpine Club of Canada, University of Calgary, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2024
• Subjects: Gulo gulo
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4929; https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ecs2.4929

Abstract High individual detection success enables precise estimates of density and the ability to monitor trends in abundance for wolverine and other low‐density species, information that is critical for the implementation and assessment of conservation measures. We evaluated a dataset that included six different wolverine capture–recapture studies over a large gradient in wolverine ( Gulo gulo ) density to provide recommendations for increasing detection. We examined factors related to bait station components, habitat, and seasonal timing. Accounting for variation in wolverine density and trap duration, our results suggest that bait stations setups having a run pole, frame, and camera to photograph unique ventral color patterns, in addition to hair snag devices, identify more individual wolverine than those without. The presence of snow is a habitat feature that also increases individual detection. Female detection rates were lower than male detection rates at the onset of the reproductive denning season in late February and early March compared with January and early February. We found latency to detection was independent of wolverine density, but greater in areas with human influence. Relatively high rates of genotyping success (55%) were predicted by even a single guard hair left at bait stations, while underfur required ~15 hairs for similar success. Longer sampling intervals reduced genotyping success in spring, more so for underfur than guard hair. Hair samples acquired from barbwire were of higher quality than those from either alligator clips or gun brushes. To improve individual detection for wolverine inventory and monitoring, we recommend deploying run pole setups in areas with low human disturbance that will retain snow into late spring. Extending the winter trapping effort into April and May could increase the chances of detecting denning females. Latency to detection suggests that traps should be active for more than a month, especially in human‐influenced areas, but genotyping success suggests ...