Population Monitoring. Though the presence of gorillas has been confirmed at eleven localities in Nigeria and Cameroon, the total area habitually used by gorillas remains unclear. Surveys in recent years have shown that the gorillas occupy significantly larger areas of habitat than had been assumed, but data from a number of sites, particularly in lowland areas, remain limited. Ongoing monitoring at all known gorilla localities is needed to better understand the gorillas‟ ranging patterns, map core habitat areas, and evaluate the impacts of hunting and other human disturbance. A regular research presence at the gorilla sites would also contribute to protection, community outreach, and community benefits from employment.
Population Monitoring. 1. To achieve its conservation goals, it is fundamentally important that the Co-management Committee have access to accurate information on harbor seal populations throughout Alaska. There are several sources for such information, including scientific information as well as local and traditional knowledge.
Population Monitoring. Measure 8: Monitoring of Boreal Caribou Population Metrics (e.g. population size, population trend, calf recruitment) Activities Target Timeline Parties to the Agreement Potential Collaborators* Explore opportunities and provide recommendations for CLFN participation in population monitoring, including by building on results from Measure 4. Year 1 - Year 2: Identify opportunities for CLFN participation Year 3 - Year 4: Implement recommendations, as appropriate CLFN: Engage Alberta to explore opportunities for participation and support, provide recommendations ECCC: Support as required DND: Contribute to planning by defining military constraints to land availability and CLAWR access considerations. Contribute to implementation by considering access to the CLAWR without unduly risking safety or military security. Alberta: Ongoing delivery of provincial caribou population monitoring programming, including population size estimates, population trend estimates (e.g. DNA analysis, using fecal pellets), and annual calf recruitment surveys.
Population Monitoring. Effective Number of Breeding Individuals (Nb): The Centennial Valley Arctic Grayling CCAA requires specific monitoring associated with the conversation measures implemented under this agreement and resulting biological responses of Arctic Grayling populations. FWP, under the guidance of geneticists and with the approval of USFWS, began systematically using genetic monitoring for Centennial Valley Arctic Grayling in 2010 (Table 3), but estimates of genetic variation are also available from historical sampling in the 1990s and 2000s (Figure 3). Justification for genetic monitoring is listed below: Determining trends in population abundance of rare or highly migratory fish species can be difficult. Genetic analysis is an effective alternative or supplemental method to determine the health and long-term persistence of fish populations (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2007). Using non-lethal sampling techniques geneticists can analyze the structure of an Arctic Grayling population and determine its long-term viability by estimating genetic diversity in a population (Allelic richness and average expected heterozygosity), effective number of breeding individuals that produced a given cohort (Nb), and ultimately the overall genetic effective population size (Ne). These estimates provide important population information on potential rate of loss of genetic variability and inbreeding depression, population dynamics, and the efficacy of management actions. Moreover, genetic data ensure that conservation efforts maintain the historic diversity found within and among Arctic Grayling populations, and thus, the continued evolutionary legacy of the species [Upper Missouri River Arctic Grayling Conservation Strategy, in preparation]. Table 3. Estimates of the number of effective breeders (Nb) for Arctic grayling from upper Red Rock Creek. N is number of individuals genotyped, LCI and UCI are the lower and upper (respectively) 95% confidence intervals for the Nb estimate from each year. Year N Nb LCI UCI 2010 34 273.1 86.1 ∞ 2011 63 207.1 106.4 544.1 2012 51 406.3 131.0 ∞ 2013 88 356.7 167.1 1714.4 2014 95 453.7 229.5 3914.3 2015 34 47.6 36.5 66 2016 29 35.8 26.3 53.2 2017 15 25.7 14.4 78 Figure 3. Temporal trends in measures of genetic variation in upper Red Rock Creek.
Population Monitoring. FWC staff and others have monitored bald eagle nests in Florida since 1972. The information gathered during the past 35 years includes the locations of thousands of eagle nests and nesting territories, breeding productivity, core nesting areas, reproductive success, and population trends. Current information pertaining to the status and trends of the eagle population in Florida, as well as the current status of all known active eagle nests, is available online at <xxx.xxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxx>. An online database for reporting new or previously undiscovered eagle nests in the state is anticipated to be available during spring 2008. Continued monitoring of bald eagle nests in Florida will provide the scientific data necessary to evaluate whether the objectives of this management plan are being achieved, and to determine whether future modification of this management plan and its guidelines may be warranted. A survey of all known bald eagle nests in Florida is conducted annually between November and March of each nesting season. Surveys are flown by FWC biologists or contractors, and, for Everglades National Park, by National Park Service staff. New or previously undiscovered nests are searched for opportunistically during the regular survey flights. Replication of the survey methodology ensures that effort is comparable among years. All nesting and productivity data for bald eagles in Florida are compiled and analyzed to generate annual population estimates that are used to determine population trends. Additional surveys were conducted during the 2006–2007 nesting season to determine the efficiency of the current protocol for finding previously undiscovered bald eagle nests and to locate new nests in potential bald eagle habitat. FWC researchers have identified 16 core areas of bald eagle nesting activity (Figure 3). Changes in size, configuration, and location of these areas will be monitored, and their importance to the overall bald eagle population in Florida will be determined as new data become available. - 38 - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bald Eagle Management Plan Chapter 4: Recommended Conservation Actions The Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan (USFWS 2007c) recommends that bald eagle nests be monitored every five years for three eagle generations (24 years). Monitoring eagle nests and nesting territories in Florida at a five-year interval would not provide adequate information to verify that the conservation objectiv...
Population Monitoring. Maintain the long-term marking, re- sighting and counting programmes at the main Irish wintering site of Wexford. Develop a complementary Scottish marking programme, at locations which allow for sustained resighting effort. Maintain the annual international population census, improving coverage where deficient, and collecting more extensive assessments of age-ratios throughout the range. Enhance knowledge of numbers and distribution on the staging and breeding areas to develop site safeguard programmes. Many of the actions above will be enhanced by developing better awareness of the conservation needs of the geese. In particular, there is a need to develop engagement with people likely to come into contact with the geese at different stages of their life-cycle, especially with farming communities and hunters. There is particular scope to develop educational programmes related to the geese as outlined in the Annex below. Further needs identified by the workshop are summarised in the Annex, together with more information on the priorities above. Future international co-operation: next steps The four Range States agreed to work together to
Population Monitoring. The DNR, Service, and other cooperators will collaborate to implement a monitoring strategy to track status and trends of EMR populations. Surveys will include quantitative data on select populations and habitat. The survey design will reflect the available funding resources and may include selecting a subset of sites that can serve as representatives for other similar situated populations (size, geographically, etc.) or help to provide a periodic benchmark for the status of the species. As resources allow, the DNR and the Service will also seek to target population monitoring efforts on key managed lands or population monitoring to help address uncertainties related to critical management questions. The DNR and the Service will continue to seek reliable, cost-effect survey methodologies. Given the reality of limited non-game funding and the intensity of Service’s currently recommended protocols if utilized, the DNR does not anticipate increasing EMR surveys beyond current levels. Monitoring the status and trends of the EMR will take place once the CCAA is permitted and will build on existing baseline data or baseline data acquired during early implementation. For status and trends monitoring, survey protocols and schedules will be established during the initial phase of implementation (years 1 through 5). Where feasible, the DNR and the Service will draw from relevant and established monitoring protocols. Unless the DNR and the Service agree to adopt an alternative monitoring approach the Service’s Recommended Standard Survey Protocol for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/midwest/endangered/reptiles/eama-survey.html) will be used to inform cooperative and collaborative monitoring efforts. These protocols stress that surveys at each site be intensive (40 hours of searching per site) and only be done by highly trained observers. Survey results will be recorded in Michigan’s natural heritage database. These surveys will be the responsibility of each Enrolled Landowner and survey intensity and frequency will likely depend on time and funding constraints of individual Enrolled Landowners. Survey data, findings, and any assessment of trends will be reported to the DNR within the calendar year of performing the surveys.
