STANDARDIZED MONITORING OF HERDS BODY CONDITION CARMA 7 30 November-3 December 2010 Vancouver, BC, Canada Robert White University of Alaska Anchorage BREAKOUT OBJECTIVES What is proving USEFUL? How can we make it BETTER? Can we make it more ACCESSIBLE? Are there similar tools or resources out there? WEB BASED PROTOCOLS RESOURCESnce.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.) CARMA MANUALS contd SUPPORT TOOLS VIDEO & DVD Hunter training video (Susan Kutz team) http://www.carmanetwork.com/display/public/Hunt er+Training+Video+%28Summary%29http://www.carmanetwork.com/display/public/Hunt er+Training+Video+%28Summary%29 REPORTS COMMUNITY-BASED MONITORING OF WILDLIFE POPULATIONS AND HEALTH IN THE SAHTU CARIBOU REINDEER ATLAS (Ryan Brooks) BODY CONDITION PROJECTS BODY CONDITION PROJECTS Bathurst Body Condition Chokotka Body Condition Taimyr Body Condition Lena-Olenyk Body Condition Porcupine Body Condition L1 Lena-Olenyk Body Condition Porcupine Body Condition L1 Porcupine Body Condition L3 Bluenose West Body Condition Akia-Maniitsoq Body Condition Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut Body Condition N Quebec Collections Kofinas, G., D.E. Russell and R.G. White Monitoring Caribou Body Condition: Workshop Proceedings. Technical Report Series No Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, 31 pp. 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 Monitoring Caribou Body Condition: Workshop Proceedings. Technical Report Series No Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, 31 pp. A.Backfat depth B.Marrow SPRING cm not inches 1 COMPARISON OF DICHOTOMOUS KEY WITH PREDICTED BODY FAT LEVEL BREAKOUT OBJECTIVES What is proving USEFUL? How can we make it BETTER? Can we make it more ACCESSIBLE? Are there similar tools or resources out there? SUPPORT TOOLS SOME EXAMPLES FOLLOW APPLICATIONS FROM PREDICTION OF WHOLE BODY FAT AND PROTEIN RESERVES IN GREENLAND COLLECTION IN MARCH (Christine Cuyler) DATA PRESENTED AT NACW IN WINNIPEG 2010 WARBLE AND NASAL BOT LARVAE DISTRIBUTION BY REPRODUCTIVE CLASS FAT RESERVES IN INDICES 1 BONE ~8 BONES ~3.2% of BF Probability of visually reporting fat indices by reproductive class 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 FAT DISTRIBUTION BY REPRODUCTIVE CLASS 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.