Geology topics

Lisette Waits

Publications and source records attributed to Lisette Waits.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Comparison of seven DNA metabarcoding sampling methods to assess diet in a large avian predator

DNA metabarcoding is a rapidly advancing tool for diet assessment in wildlife ecology. Studies have used a variety of field collection methods to evaluate diet; however, there is a pressing need to understand the differences among sampling methods and the downstream inferential consequences they may have on our ability to document diet accurately and efficiently. We evaluated seven DNA metabarcoding sampling methods to assess the diet of a large avian predator: Buteo lagopus (rough-legged hawk). We collected beak swabs, talon swabs, cheek (buccal) swabs, cloacal swabs, and cloacal loops from captured birds, and collected fecal samples from both captured and uncaptured birds. We described and compared variation in prey recovery within and among the seven sampling methods and identified appropriate analytical methods to compare diet among individuals sampled via different methods. Beak and talon swabs produced the highest prey detection rates, yielded the greatest prey richness per sample, and contributed the most to an individual's total prey richness per sampling occasion compared to other sampling methods. Within individuals sampled using five methods during a single capture occasion, cloacal swabs and cheek swabs positively predicted prey richness and average prey mass, respectively, from fecal samples. While all methods identified similar dominant prey taxa that were consistent with prior diet studies, beak and talon swabs detected greater prey richness at both the individual and population levels. We propose a food residue duration hypothesis whereby methods which sample areas containing food DNA consumed from longer and more continuous pre-sampling time intervals explain variation among sampling methods in observed prey richness. Choice of sampling method can influence predator diet characterization and is particularly important if researchers wish to quantify uncommon diet items or compare diet metrics using samples collected via different methods.

Environmental DNA↗

USGS2021

Effective population size remains a suitable, pragmatic indicator of genetic diversity for all species, including forest trees

Fady & Bozzano highlight some challenges to a proposed Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) indicator of genetic diversity based on effective population size, Ne ( Fady and Bozzano, 2020 ; Hoban et al., 2020 ). We appreciate the thoughtful debate and concur that genetic diversity indicators must be reliable and scalable. We fully agree that “genetic diversity should be better considered in the CBD post-2020 framework to prevent the irreplaceable loss of biodiversity… existing indicators are far from satisfactory.” As Fady & Bozzano state, Ne is essential for monitoring vital aspects of genetic diversity: loss of genetic diversity due to drift (genetic erosion), inbreeding rate (genetic health), and potential for adaptation and long term survival (resilience) ( Fady and Bozzano, 2020 ).

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2020

Does harvest affect genetic diversity in grey wolves?

Harvest can affect vital rates such as reproduction and survival, but also genetic measures of individual and population health. Grey wolves ( Canis lupus ) live and breed in groups, and effective population size is a small fraction of total abundance. As a result, genetic diversity of wolves may be particularly sensitive to harvest. We evaluated how harvest affected genetic diversity and relatedness in wolves. We hypothesized that harvest would (a) reduce relatedness of individuals within groups in a subpopulation but increase relatedness of individuals between groups due to increased local immigration, (b) increase individual heterozygosity and average allelic richness across groups in subpopulations and (c) add new alleles to a subpopulation and decrease the number of private alleles in subpopulations due to an increase in breeding opportunities for unrelated individuals. We found harvest had no effect on observed heterozygosity of individuals or allelic richness at loci within subpopulations but was associated with a small, biologically insignificant effect on within-group relatedness values in grey wolves. Harvest was, however, positively associated with increased relatedness of individuals between groups and a net gain (+16) of alleles into groups in subpopulations monitored since harvest began, although the number of private alleles in subpopulations overall declined. Harvest likely created opportunities for wolves to immigrate into nearby groups and breed, thereby making groups in subpopulations more related over time. Harvest appears to affect genetic diversity in wolves at the group and population levels, but its effects are less apparent at the individual level given the population sizes we studied.

Idaho↗

USGS2020

Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved

The 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will soon agree to a post-2020 global framework for conserving the three elements of biodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity) while ensuring sustainable development and benefit sharing. As the most significant global conservation policy mechanism, the new CBD framework has far-reaching consequences- it will guide conservation actions and reporting for each member country until 2050. In previous CBD strategies, as well as other major conservation policy mechanisms, targets and indicators for genetic diversity (variation at the DNA level within species, which facilitates species adaptation and ecosystem function) were undeveloped and focused on species of agricultural relevance. We assert that, to meet global conservation goals, genetic diversity within all species, not just domesticated species and their wild relatives, must be conserved and monitored using appropriate metrics . Building on suggestions in a recent Letter in Science (Laikre et al., 2020) we expand argumentation for three new, pragmatic genetic indicators and modifications to two current indicators for maintaining genetic diversity and adaptive capacity of all species, and provide guidance on their practical use. The indicators are: 1) the number of populations with effective population size above versus below 500, 2) the proportion of populations maintained within species, 3) the number of species and populations in which genetic diversity is monitored using DNA-based methods. We also present and discuss Goals and Action Targets for post-2020 biodiversity conservation which are connected to these indicators and underlying data. These pragmatic indicators and goals have utility beyond the CBD; they should benefit conservation and monitoring of genetic diversity via national and global policy for decades to come.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2018

Stable pack abundance and distribution in a harvested wolf population

Harvesting gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) could affect the abundance and distribution of packs, but the frequency of change in pack occurrence (i.e., turnover) and relative effects of harvest compared to environmental factors is unclear. We used noninvasive genetic sampling, hunter surveys, and occupancy models to evaluate the effect of harvest on occurrence and turnover of packs in a population of wolves managed with intensive harvest in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, 2012–2014. We tested 2 alternative hypotheses: the abundance and distribution of wolf packs were dynamic because of harvest or the abundance and distribution of wolf packs were generally stable regardless of harvest. We found the mean annual probability for wolf pack occupancy ranged 0.72–0.74 and the estimated distribution of wolf packs was consistent over time, 2012–2014. Our top model indicated wolf pack occupancy was positively associated with forest cover and the probability of detecting a wolf pack was positively associated with the intensity of harvest for wolves in that area. We observed frequent turnover of individuals within packs that were genetically sampled consecutive years but not of entire packs. Because turnover of packs occurred infrequently during our study, we could not reject our hypothesis that occurrence of packs was generally stable in a harvested population of wolves. Our results suggest environmental factors have a stronger effect than harvest on the abundance and distribution of wolf packs in southwestern Alberta, but harvest appears to strongly influence turnover of individuals within packs. We hypothesize local dispersal from within the study area and neighboring packs on the periphery of the study area helped promote pack stability. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

Alberta↗

USGS2018

Spatiotemporal heterogeneity in prey abundance and vulnerability shapes the foraging tactics of an omnivore

Prey abundance and prey vulnerability vary across space and time, but we know little about how they mediate predator–prey interactions and predator foraging tactics. To evaluate the interplay between prey abundance, prey vulnerability and predator space use, we examined patterns of black bear ( Ursus americanus ) predation of caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) neonates in Newfoundland, Canada using data from 317 collared individuals (9 bears, 34 adult female caribou, 274 caribou calves). During the caribou calving season, we predicted that landscape features would influence calf vulnerability to bear predation, and that bears would actively hunt calves by selecting areas associated with increased calf vulnerability. Further, we hypothesized that bears would dynamically adjust their foraging tactics in response to spatiotemporal changes in calf abundance and vulnerability (collectively, calf availability). Accordingly, we expected bears to actively hunt calves when they were most abundant and vulnerable, but switch to foraging on other resources as calf availability declined. As predicted, landscape heterogeneity influenced risk of mortality, and bears displayed the strongest selection for areas where they were most likely to kill calves, which suggested they were actively hunting caribou. Initially, the per‐capita rate at which bears killed calves followed a type‐I functional response, but as the calving season progressed and calf vulnerability declined, kill rates dissociated from calf abundance. In support of our hypothesis, bears adjusted their foraging tactics when they were less efficient at catching calves, highlighting the influence that predation phenology may have on predator space use. Contrary to our expectations, however, bears appeared to continue to hunt caribou as calf availability declined, but switched from a tactic of selecting areas of increased calf vulnerability to a tactic that maximized encounter rates with calves. Our results reveal that generalist predators can dynamically adjust their foraging tactics over short time‐scales in response to changing prey abundance and vulnerability. Further, they demonstrate the utility of integrating temporal dynamics of prey availability into investigations of predator–prey interactions, and move towards a mechanistic understanding of the dynamic foraging tactics of a large omnivore.

Journal of Animal Ecology↗