Literature DB >> 10736046

Molecular tracking of mountain lions in the Yosemite valley region in California: genetic analysis using microsatellites and faecal DNA.

H B Ernest1, M C Penedo, B P May, M Syvanen, W M Boyce.   

Abstract

Twelve microsatellite loci were characterized in California mountain lions (Puma concolor) and sufficient polymorphism was found to uniquely genotype 62 animals sampled at necropsy. Microsatellite genotypes obtained using mountain lion faecal DNA matched those from muscle for all of 15 individuals examined. DNA from potential prey species and animals whose faeces could be misidentified as mountain lion faeces were reliably distinguished from mountain lions using this microsatellite panel. In a field application of this technique, 32 faecal samples were collected from hiking trails in the Yosemite Valley region where seven mountain lions previously had been captured, sampled, and released. Twelve samples yielded characteristic mountain lion genotypes, three displayed bobcat-type genotypes, and 17 did not amplify. The genotype of one of the 12 mountain lion faecal samples was identical to one of the mountain lions that previously had been captured. Three of the 12 faecal samples yielded identical genotypes, and eight new genotypes were detected in the remaining samples. This analysis provided a minimum estimate of 16 mountain lions (seven identified by capture and nine identified by faecal DNA) living in or travelling through Yosemite Valley from March 1997 to August 1998. Match probabilities (probabilities that identical DNA genotypes would be drawn at random a second time from the population) indicated that the samples with identical genotypes probably came from the same mountain lion. Our results demonstrate that faecal DNA analysis is an effective method for detecting and identifying individual mountain lions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10736046     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00890.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  13 in total

1.  Assessing allelic dropout and genotype reliability using maximum likelihood.

Authors:  Craig R Miller; Paul Joyce; Lisette P Waits
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Feeding interactions in an assemblage of terrestrial carnivores in central Mexico.

Authors:  Yuriana Gómez-Ortiz; Octavio Monroy-Vilchis; Germán D Mendoza-Martínez
Journal:  Zool Stud       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 2.058

3.  An evaluation of the PCR-RFLP technique to aid molecular-based monitoring of felids and canids in India.

Authors:  Shomita Mukherjee; Ashalakshmi Cn; Chandrima Home; Uma Ramakrishnan
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2010-06-07

4.  Disease and freeways drive genetic change in urban bobcat populations.

Authors:  Laurel E K Serieys; Amanda Lea; John P Pollinger; Seth P D Riley; Robert K Wayne
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 5.183

5.  Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern california puma (Puma concolor) population.

Authors:  Holly B Ernest; T Winston Vickers; Scott A Morrison; Michael R Buchalski; Walter M Boyce
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  How Behavior of Nontarget Species Affects Perceived Accuracy of Scat Detection Dog Surveys.

Authors:  Karen E DeMatteo; Linsey W Blake; Julie K Young; Barbara Davenport
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Using pedigree reconstruction to estimate population size: genotypes are more than individually unique marks.

Authors:  Scott Creel; Elias Rosenblatt
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Individual identification and genetic variation of lions (Panthera leo) from two protected areas in Nigeria.

Authors:  Talatu Tende; Bengt Hansson; Ulf Ottosson; Mikael Akesson; Staffan Bensch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Long-term persistence of horse fecal DNA in the environment makes equids particularly good candidates for noninvasive sampling.

Authors:  Sarah R B King; Kathryn A Schoenecker; Jennifer A Fike; Sara J Oyler-McCance
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  Assessing Animal Welfare in Animal-Visitor Interactions in Zoos and Other Facilities. A Pilot Study Involving Giraffes.

Authors:  Simona Normando; Ilaria Pollastri; Daniela Florio; Linda Ferrante; Elisabetta Macchi; Valentina Isaja; Barbara de Mori
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.