1 / 16

STANDARDIZED MONITORING OF HERDS BODY CONDITION

STANDARDIZED MONITORING OF HERDS BODY CONDITION. CARMA 7 30 November-3 December 2010 Vancouver, BC, Canada Robert White University of Alaska Anchorage. What is proving USEFUL? How can we make it BETTER? Can we make it more ACCESSIBLE? Are there similar tools or resources out there?.

tresaf
Download Presentation

STANDARDIZED MONITORING OF HERDS BODY CONDITION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STANDARDIZED MONITORING OF HERDSBODY CONDITION CARMA 7 30 November-3 December 2010 Vancouver, BC, Canada Robert White University of Alaska Anchorage

  2. What is proving USEFUL? • How can we make it BETTER? • Can we make it more ACCESSIBLE? • Are there similar tools or resources out there? BREAKOUT OBJECTIVES

  3. http://carmanetwork.onconfluence.com/display/public/home Level 1 Protocols (Download) 
Level 2 Protocols (Download • FIELD PROTOCOLS • BODY CONDITION ASSESSMENT • This manual describes monitoring at the scale of the individual caribou and is focused on health and physical condition. • The actual field protocols are presented at two levels. • Level 1 methods that can be performed by hunters after minimal training. • Level 2 protocols for intensive monitoring (require trained staff to collect and document the health and condition of individual caribou.) WEB BASED PROTOCOLSRESOURCES

  4. CARMA MANUALS contd

  5. CARMA MANUALS contd

  6. VIDEO & DVD Hunter training video (Susan Kutz team) • http://www.carmanetwork.com/display/public/Hunter+Training+Video+%28Summary%29 • REPORTS • COMMUNITY-BASED MONITORING OF WILDLIFE POPULATIONS AND HEALTH IN THE SAHTU • CARIBOU – REINDEER ATLAS (Ryan Brooks) SUPPORT TOOLS

  7. Bathurst Body Condition • Chokotka Body Condition • Taimyr Body Condition • Lena-Olenyk Body ConditionPorcupine Body Condition L1 • Porcupine Body Condition L3 • Bluenose West Body Condition • Akia-Maniitsoq Body Condition • Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut Body Condition • N Quebec Collections BODY CONDITION PROJECTS


  8. PREDICTION OF BODY FAT: APPLICATION OF THE CARMA DICHOTOMOUS KEY (Note: the key was devised from insights from an autumn collection) CARMA LEVEL 1: Measurement of backfat only Kofinas, G., D.E. Russell and R.G. White. 2002. Monitoring Caribou Body Condition: Workshop Proceedings. Technical Report Series No. 396. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, 31 pp.

  9. COMPARISON OF DICHOTOMOUS KEY WITH PREDICTED BODY FAT LEVEL SPRING <1 >1 cm not inches • Backfat depth • Marrow Kofinas, G., D.E. Russell and R.G. White. 2002. Monitoring Caribou Body Condition: Workshop Proceedings. Technical Report Series No. 396. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, 31 pp.

  10. What is proving USEFUL? • How can we make it BETTER? • Can we make it more ACCESSIBLE? • Are there similar tools or resources out there? BREAKOUT OBJECTIVES

  11. SUPPORT TOOLS

  12. APPLICATIONS FROM PREDICTION OF WHOLE BODY FAT AND PROTEIN RESERVES IN GREENLAND COLLECTION IN MARCH (Christine Cuyler) • DATA PRESENTED AT NACW IN WINNIPEG 2010 SOME EXAMPLES FOLLOW

  13. WARBLE AND NASAL BOT LARVAE DISTRIBUTION BY REPRODUCTIVE CLASS

  14. ~3.2% of BF ~8 BONES 1 BONE FAT RESERVES IN INDICES

  15. 1) concordance between indices is poor • 2) backfat (rump) may reflect fat reserves entering winter • 3) omental (gut) fat is used after rump • 4) kidney fat appears to be conserved PROBABILITY Probability of visually reporting fat indices by reproductive class

  16. 1) pregnant animals had highest amount of fat (~6 kg) representing ~8 %BWt. • 2) non-pregnant animals had 4 kg fat, representing 6.5 %BWt. • 3) short yearlings at 1 kg fat represented 5.5 %BWt. FAT DISTRIBUTION BY REPRODUCTIVE CLASS

More Related