Home Range Size and Choice of Management Strategy for Lynx in Scandinavia

Annual and seasonal home ranges were calculated for 47 Eurasian lynx in four Scandinavian study sites (two in Sweden and two in Norway). The observed home ranges were the largest reported for the species, with study site averages ranging from 600 to 1400 km² for resident males and from 300 to 800 km² for resident females. When home range sizes were compared to the size of protected areas (national parks and nature reserves) in Scandinavia, it was concluded that very few protected areas contained sufficient forest to provide space for more than a few individuals. As a direct consequence of this, most lynx need to be conserved in the multiuse seminatural forest habitats that cover large areas in Scandinavia. This conservation strategy leads to a number of conflicts with some land uses (sheep and semidomestic reindeer herding, and roe deer hunters), but not all (forestry and moose harvest). Accordingly research must be aimed at understanding the ecology of these conflicts, and finding solutions.     

Detecting Rare Species with Random or Subjective Sampling: a Case Study of Red-Listed Saproxylic Beetles in Boreal Sweden

Abstract:  Efficient sampling design in field studies is important for economical and statistical reasons. We compared two ways to distribute sampling effort over an area, either randomly or subjectively. We searched for red-listed saproxylic (wood-living) beetles in 30 spruce stands in boreal Sweden by sifting wood from dead trees. We randomly selected positions within each stand with a geographic positioning system and sampled the nearest dead tree (random sample). In the same stand we also sampled dead trees that, based on literature, were likely to host such species (subjective sampling). The subjective sampling (two to five samples per stand, depending on stand size) was compared with the higher, random sampling effort (fixed level of 12 samples/stand). Subjective sampling was significantly more efficient. Red-listed species were found in 36% of the subjective samples and in 16% of the random samples. Nevertheless, the larger random effort resulted in a comparable number of red-listed species per stand and in 13 detected species in total (vs. 12 species with subjective sampling). Random sampling was less efficient, but provided an unbiased alternative more suitable for statistical purposes, as needed in, for example, monitoring programs. Moreover, new species-specific knowledge can be gained through random searches.