Papers by Aleksandar Dutsov
neighboring countries can have different criteria and time periods for the definition of cells wi... more neighboring countries can have different criteria and time periods for the definition of cells with permanent and sporadic presences] 2. Population estimates & monitoring Proper monitoring and research on brown bears in Albania have been largely lacking in the past, thus information on their numbers is mostly based on expert estimations. In the past 6 years more solid data on bear presence has been collected, mainly through the work of various projects undertaken by non-profit organizations. Recent camera-trapping surveys, tracking and sign identification as well as questionnaire surveys have generated a good amount of knowledge on the status of brown bears in the country (Trajçe et. al. 2008; Ivanov et. al. 2008; Keçi et. al. 2008; Trajçe & Hoxha 2011). Currently, experts estimate that some 180-200 bears might be roaming the mountains of Albania. There is however a clear discrepancy between the official information given by state authorities and experts' evaluations in regard to the bear population size. The latest official estimation of the bear population in Albania is presented at the Annual Report on the State of Environment for 2009 as consisting of 686 individuals (MoE, 2010). There is however no detail given on the rationale behind this assessment and according to experts' opinion and field evidence so far, this is a gross overestimation. 3. Legal status & relevant management agencies The brown bear is classified as Vulnerable (VU) according to the Red List of Albania (Red List of Flora & Fauna, 2007) and enjoys a full legal protection status sanctioned by the new Law on Wildlife Protection (2008) and Law on Hunting (2010). The species has been considered as fully protected at least since 1956 as it is sanctioned on the respective governmental decrees at the time. In the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Bego et al. 1999) the brown bear is selected as a priority species and the development of an action plan for its conservation is recommended as an immediate action to take. In 2007 an action plan was compiled (Bego 2007) and adopted by the Ministry of Environment, however no concrete action has been seen so far in accordance to the document. The institution responsible for brown bear management is the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration. 4. Population goal and population level cooperation There are no explicit population goals for brown bears in Albania. Information on the population trend is lacking, however increased incidences of poaching, habitat degradation and general human encroachment, indicate that the bear population has been facing a dramatic decrease in the past decades and is nowadays at an all time low. Population level cooperation for conservation is good among researchers and non-governmental institutions of the range countries. Unfortunately, up to date, on the GO level there has not been any major initiative of cooperation in regard to brown bear conservation and management. 5. Conflicts and conflict management The wildlife baseline survey conducted by PPNEA in 2006-07 gives primary insights on the conflicts existing between humans and brown bears in Albania. Human-brown bear conflicts seem to be widespread in the country and bears were reported to cause significant damage on crops, fruit trees, and big livestock and to a lesser extent on beehives (Trajce et. al. 2008, Keci et. al. 2008). Humanbrown bear conflicts are believed to explain to a certain extent the reasons for illegal killing of brown bears. However, a human dimension study recently conducted by PPNEA to determine public attitudes of the rural population towards large carnivores reveals that the general public opinion Permanent: 66 Sporadic: 66 Range trend unknown Depredation costs / year unknown-not estimated Number of cases / year unknown 3 Most important threats illegal killing, habitat destruction, illegal capturing and exhibiting References:
Number of compensated claims for brown bear damage in Europe obtained from national and regional ... more Number of compensated claims for brown bear damage in Europe obtained from national and regional wildlife agencies and published literature and reports, as well as from researchers and practitioners. The file also contains environmental and socioeconomic information of each of the study sites
Science (New York, N.Y.), Jan 19, 2014
The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Usi... more The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.
Conserv Genet, 2014
We tested the hypothesis that brown bears were translocated from the Romanian Carpathians to Bulg... more We tested the hypothesis that brown bears were translocated from the Romanian Carpathians to Bulgaria via air transportation during the communist regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Microsatellite analysis was performed on 199 bear samples from Bulgaria and Romania. Assignment and admixture tests revealed the existence of seven genotypes (=2.8 %) in Bulgaria that were assigned with high probabilities to the Romanian population, supporting the translocation and successful establishment of Carpathian bears in Bulgaria. While we cannot rule out the possibility that active long-distance dispersal contributed to the observed pattern, the spatial distribution and sex ratio of the detected Romanian genotypes strongly favor the translocation hypothesis.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016
1. Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from... more 1. Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. 2. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socioeconomic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005-2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. 3. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. 4. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0Á1 in Estonia to 8Á5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high
Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016
1. Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from... more 1. Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. 2. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socioeconomic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005-2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. 3. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. 4. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0Á1 in Estonia to 8Á5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high
Science (New York, N.Y.), Jan 19, 2014
The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Usi... more The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.
The number and distribution of wolf (Canis lupus) has shown a constant growth in the last 15 year... more The number and distribution of wolf (Canis lupus) has shown a constant growth in the last 15 years. Regarding the offi cial census data there are about 2000 wolves inhabiting the country the last years. Attempts for density control are made and annually around 200-400 individuals are shot. Wolves are harvested while hunting wild boar -80% of the cases. Remaining 20% are shared between organized drive hunt for predators -5%, bating sites (with carcass) -5%, from herds man -5% and accidental -5%. Offi cial census data reports wolf number in West Rhodope Mountains for the period 2001 -2006 to be between 280 (in 2003) to 216 individuals (in 2006). Our estimation gives an average number of wolves in the area of 91 individuals. The average annual harvest is about 58,3 individuals, which is 64,1% of the estimated wolves number. Wolf packs in the region of the West Rhodopes are 30 with between 2 up to 11 pack members, average pack members are 4.4±2.09. Five of the packs were raised from 1 to 6 puppies.
Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 2014
Please cite this article in press as: Frosch, C., et al., Noninvasive genetic assessment of brown... more Please cite this article in press as: Frosch, C., et al., Noninvasive genetic assessment of brown bear population structure in Bulgarian mountain regions. Mammal. Biol. (2014), https://dx.
Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2011
Conservation Genetics, 2014
We tested the hypothesis that brown bears were translocated from the Romanian Carpathians to Bulg... more We tested the hypothesis that brown bears were translocated from the Romanian Carpathians to Bulgaria via air transportation during the communist regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Microsatellite analysis was performed on 199 bear samples from Bulgaria and Romania. Assignment and admixture tests revealed the existence of seven genotypes (=2.8 %) in Bulgaria that were assigned with high probabilities to the Romanian population, supporting the translocation and successful establishment of Carpathian bears in Bulgaria. While we cannot rule out the possibility that active long-distance dispersal contributed to the observed pattern, the spatial distribution and sex ratio of the detected Romanian genotypes strongly favor the translocation hypothesis.
by Luděk Bufka, Olof Liberg, Henrik Andrén, Jon Swenson, P.-y. Quenette, Vaidas Balys, Aleksandar Stojanov, Klemen Jerina, Hubert Potočnik, Robin Rigg, Jakub Kubala, Sasa Kunovac, Fridolin Zimmermann, Janis Ozoliņš, Aleksandër Trajçe, Yorgos Mertzanis, Ilpo Kojola, Katja Holmala, Paolo Ciucci, Peter Bedo, Miroslav Kutal, László Szemethy, and Aleksandar Dutsov Science (New York, N.Y.), Jan 19, 2014
The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Usi... more The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.
The Balkan Peninsula and the Carpathian region host natural landscapes outstanding in Europe for ... more The Balkan Peninsula and the Carpathian region host natural landscapes outstanding in Europe for their low degree of fragmentation. Additionally, they form the most important distribution range for large mammals in Europe. Nevertheless, mainly the new EU Member-States in this region are currently facing a socio-economic transition, combined with an increased development of transport infrastructure. Despite several European Union conservation regulations such as the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) which are mandatory for all member states and which form an important basis for conservation measures in EU accession countries, there is a great danger of underrating landscape conservation requirements in favour of infrastructure development. Consequently, to prevent the Balkan and Carpathian region from landscape fragmentation, causing irreversible destruction of habitats of large mammals, balancing of infrastructure planning and conservation issues is pivotal. Sound research and fieldwork to assess the current situation, but also the impact newly constructed transport infrastructure may have on nature, species and ecological corridors is required from the outset. Wide ranging mammals (large carnivores and ungulates) form an important part of European fauna communities and biodiversity. While extinct or strongly decreased in many western European countries, they are still represented in comparably large numbers in the Carpathian and Balkan region. This is mainly related to the fact that here non-fragmented habitats are still present. Due to their spatial requirements though, those animal species occur in low densities which makes them very susceptible to mortality on roads, as well as to fragmentation of habitats and disruption of their migration routes. Thus, they may serve as umbrella species in order to ensure connectivity of important habitats on a large spatial scale. Avoidance and mitigation of conflicts between new transport infrastructure and existing ecological corridors for wildlife are essential. In addition, preservation of landscape and habitat connectivity is of great importance. For all species of animals, unlimited possibilities of movement throughout their potential range are fundamental to maintain viable populations. Against the background of development of transport infrastructure in Europe, this can only be secured by establishing and protecting a network of ecological corridors.
Uploads
Papers by Aleksandar Dutsov