Review of field methods for monitoring Asian bears

Efficient and effective monitoring methods are required to assess population status and gauge efficacy of conservation actions for threatened species. Here we review the spectrum of field methods useful for monitoring distribution, occupancy, abundance, and population trend for the five species of Asian terrestrial bears. Methods reviewed include expert opinion, local knowledge, bear sign, visual observations, camera traps, DNA-based methods (hair and scat derived), and radio telemetry. We examine the application of each method in terms of realizing specific monitoring objectives, their assumptions, challenges, and advantages. Our goal is to assist researchers in matching appropriate field methods with sought-after project objectives and to highlight shortfalls and trade-offs. Methods vary greatly in terms of cost, logistics, required number and expertize of staff, and the reliability of the data they provide. Many Asian bear population assessments have relied on expert opinion, local interviews, and sign surveys to provide estimates of distribution, abundance, and trend, in part because these are inexpensive and relatively easy to employ. However, increasing use of camera traps and DNA-based methods now allow for better monitoring via occupancy or rigorous capture–recapture population estimation, with the caveat that these methods may be restricted by inadequate budgets or logistical constraints. For distribution monitoring, camera traps and DNA yield the most definitive records of presence, but in low density bear populations, sign and local knowledge may be more effective. For occupancy, camera traps and DNA are advantageous in providing definitive detections in known time periods. For abundance/density or population trend monitoring in relatively small areas (<10,000 km²), bears must be individually identified and used in a mark-recapture design. This requires DNA from collections of hair or scat, or a camera-based survey in which natural chest marks are clearly visible and individually distinguishable. DNA-methods or camera traps within individual identification is best for population trend when sufficient funding is available. Alternatively, careful use of local knowledge or expert opinion may be viable options, but come with greater uncertainty. For the foreseeable future, we believe that expert opinion will likely continue to play a large part in monitoring Asian bears, but these opinions should be informed by more rigorous data from the other methods we discuss.