Charles W. Sanders, Stephen F. Spear, Kristina Black, Colleen Olfenbuttel, Christopher S. DePerno
{"title":"使用两种方法研究北卡罗来纳州的北美河獭(Lontra canadensis)的饮食情况","authors":"Charles W. Sanders, Stephen F. Spear, Kristina Black, Colleen Olfenbuttel, Christopher S. DePerno","doi":"10.1002/wsb.1502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"River otters (<i>Lontra canadensis</i>) are key predators in North Carolina's aquatic systems, but they are often seen as competitors by anglers and fish hatcheries. River otter diets typically consist of fish and crayfish, but also include occasional herpetofauna, mammals, and birds. While standard diet studies focus on identification of prey through manual examination of stomach contents and feces, metabarcoding DNA analysis has become more popular to determine the presence or frequency of species that are often missed, misidentified, or underestimated. We collected river otter carcasses from licensed trappers and fur dealers across North Carolina from the 2009–10 trapping season through the 2015–16 season. We conducted necropsies and analyzed the stomach contents using standard observational methods and metabarcoding DNA analysis. We manually examined 522 river otter stomachs, of which 377 contained prey items. Decapods (crustaceans) were identified in 41% of stomachs and made up similar percentages within each Furbearer Management Unit (FMU). The order Perciformes composed the majority (62%) of fish prey across all stomach samples. Coastal Plain river otters primarily consumed crustaceans (50%) and fish (40%). Piedmont and Mountain river otters consumed fish (32% and 42%, respectively) most often followed by crustaceans (62% and 50%, respectively). Prey selection was similar between the sexes. Out of 368 samples, metabarcoding DNA examination was able to reliably match 164 prey items to species, 5 classes, 18 orders, 25 families, and 42 genera. Fishes made up 33% of the identifications, particularly Perciformes (13%), Cypriniformes (7%), and Siluriformes (5%). Twelve percent of identifications was made up by Amphibia, split evenly by Anura and Urodela. No birds or reptiles were detected in the Mountain or Piedmont FMUs, and no mammals were detected in the Coastal Plain or Mountain FMU. Overall, river otters in North Carolina consume a large variety of prey that varied regionally. The manual examination provided identifications that were not provided by the DNA examination (i.e., crayfish, brown snakes), while the DNA examination provided a more accurate identification of the broad array of prey items. To understand the composition of annual river otter diets we encourage managers to expand research to evaluate river otter diets year-round and incorporate additional noninvasive methods (e.g., scat surveys) throughout the year.","PeriodicalId":23845,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diet of the North American river otter (Lontra canadensis) in North Carolina using 2 methods\",\"authors\":\"Charles W. Sanders, Stephen F. Spear, Kristina Black, Colleen Olfenbuttel, Christopher S. DePerno\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wsb.1502\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"River otters (<i>Lontra canadensis</i>) are key predators in North Carolina's aquatic systems, but they are often seen as competitors by anglers and fish hatcheries. River otter diets typically consist of fish and crayfish, but also include occasional herpetofauna, mammals, and birds. While standard diet studies focus on identification of prey through manual examination of stomach contents and feces, metabarcoding DNA analysis has become more popular to determine the presence or frequency of species that are often missed, misidentified, or underestimated. We collected river otter carcasses from licensed trappers and fur dealers across North Carolina from the 2009–10 trapping season through the 2015–16 season. We conducted necropsies and analyzed the stomach contents using standard observational methods and metabarcoding DNA analysis. We manually examined 522 river otter stomachs, of which 377 contained prey items. Decapods (crustaceans) were identified in 41% of stomachs and made up similar percentages within each Furbearer Management Unit (FMU). The order Perciformes composed the majority (62%) of fish prey across all stomach samples. Coastal Plain river otters primarily consumed crustaceans (50%) and fish (40%). Piedmont and Mountain river otters consumed fish (32% and 42%, respectively) most often followed by crustaceans (62% and 50%, respectively). Prey selection was similar between the sexes. Out of 368 samples, metabarcoding DNA examination was able to reliably match 164 prey items to species, 5 classes, 18 orders, 25 families, and 42 genera. Fishes made up 33% of the identifications, particularly Perciformes (13%), Cypriniformes (7%), and Siluriformes (5%). Twelve percent of identifications was made up by Amphibia, split evenly by Anura and Urodela. No birds or reptiles were detected in the Mountain or Piedmont FMUs, and no mammals were detected in the Coastal Plain or Mountain FMU. Overall, river otters in North Carolina consume a large variety of prey that varied regionally. The manual examination provided identifications that were not provided by the DNA examination (i.e., crayfish, brown snakes), while the DNA examination provided a more accurate identification of the broad array of prey items. To understand the composition of annual river otter diets we encourage managers to expand research to evaluate river otter diets year-round and incorporate additional noninvasive methods (e.g., scat surveys) throughout the year.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1502\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1502","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
河獭(Lontra canadensis)是北卡罗来纳州水生系统中的主要捕食者,但垂钓者和鱼苗孵化场通常将它们视为竞争对手。河獭的食物通常包括鱼类和小龙虾,但偶尔也包括爬行动物、哺乳动物和鸟类。标准的食性研究主要是通过人工检查胃内容物和粪便来识别猎物,而元条码 DNA 分析则更受欢迎,它可以确定经常被遗漏、误认或低估的物种的存在或出现频率。从 2009-10 年捕猎季节到 2015-16 年捕猎季节,我们从北卡罗来纳州的持证捕猎者和毛皮经销商处收集了河獭尸体。我们进行了尸体解剖,并使用标准观察方法和代谢条码 DNA 分析方法对胃内容物进行了分析。我们人工检查了 522 只河獭的胃,其中 377 只含有猎物。在41%的胃中发现了十足目动物(甲壳类),并且在每个兽类管理单元(FMU)中所占比例相似。在所有胃样本中,鲈形目鱼类猎物占大多数(62%)。沿海平原河獭主要食用甲壳类(50%)和鱼类(40%)。皮埃蒙特河水獭和山地河水獭最常捕食鱼类(分别为 32% 和 42%),其次是甲壳类(分别为 62% 和 50%)。雌雄水獭对猎物的选择相似。在 368 个样本中,代谢编码 DNA 检验能够可靠地将 164 种猎物与物种、5 个类、18 个目、25 个科和 42 个属相匹配。鱼类占鉴定总数的 33%,尤其是鲈形目(13%)、鲤形目(7%)和丝形目(5%)。两栖类占鉴定总数的 12%,其中有尾目和无尾目各占一半。在山区或皮德蒙特 FMU 没有发现鸟类或爬行动物,在沿海平原或山区 FMU 没有发现哺乳动物。总体而言,北卡罗来纳州的河獭捕食的猎物种类繁多,且因地区而异。人工检查提供了 DNA 检查所不能提供的鉴定结果(如小龙虾、褐蛇),而 DNA 检查则对大量猎物提供了更准确的鉴定。为了了解河獭全年食物的组成,我们鼓励管理者扩大研究范围,对全年的河獭食物进行评估,并在全年采用更多的非侵入性方法(如粪便调查)。
Diet of the North American river otter (Lontra canadensis) in North Carolina using 2 methods
River otters (Lontra canadensis) are key predators in North Carolina's aquatic systems, but they are often seen as competitors by anglers and fish hatcheries. River otter diets typically consist of fish and crayfish, but also include occasional herpetofauna, mammals, and birds. While standard diet studies focus on identification of prey through manual examination of stomach contents and feces, metabarcoding DNA analysis has become more popular to determine the presence or frequency of species that are often missed, misidentified, or underestimated. We collected river otter carcasses from licensed trappers and fur dealers across North Carolina from the 2009–10 trapping season through the 2015–16 season. We conducted necropsies and analyzed the stomach contents using standard observational methods and metabarcoding DNA analysis. We manually examined 522 river otter stomachs, of which 377 contained prey items. Decapods (crustaceans) were identified in 41% of stomachs and made up similar percentages within each Furbearer Management Unit (FMU). The order Perciformes composed the majority (62%) of fish prey across all stomach samples. Coastal Plain river otters primarily consumed crustaceans (50%) and fish (40%). Piedmont and Mountain river otters consumed fish (32% and 42%, respectively) most often followed by crustaceans (62% and 50%, respectively). Prey selection was similar between the sexes. Out of 368 samples, metabarcoding DNA examination was able to reliably match 164 prey items to species, 5 classes, 18 orders, 25 families, and 42 genera. Fishes made up 33% of the identifications, particularly Perciformes (13%), Cypriniformes (7%), and Siluriformes (5%). Twelve percent of identifications was made up by Amphibia, split evenly by Anura and Urodela. No birds or reptiles were detected in the Mountain or Piedmont FMUs, and no mammals were detected in the Coastal Plain or Mountain FMU. Overall, river otters in North Carolina consume a large variety of prey that varied regionally. The manual examination provided identifications that were not provided by the DNA examination (i.e., crayfish, brown snakes), while the DNA examination provided a more accurate identification of the broad array of prey items. To understand the composition of annual river otter diets we encourage managers to expand research to evaluate river otter diets year-round and incorporate additional noninvasive methods (e.g., scat surveys) throughout the year.
期刊介绍:
The Wildlife Society Bulletin is a journal for wildlife practitioners that effectively integrates cutting edge science with management and conservation, and also covers important policy issues, particularly those that focus on the integration of science and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin includes articles on contemporary wildlife management and conservation, education, administration, law enforcement, and review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. This includes:
Reports on practices designed to achieve wildlife management or conservation goals.
Presentation of new techniques or evaluation of techniques for studying or managing wildlife.
Retrospective analyses of wildlife management and conservation programs, including the reasons for success or failure.
Analyses or reports of wildlife policies, regulations, education, administration, law enforcement.
Review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. as well as other pertinent topics that are deemed more appropriate for the Wildlife Society Bulletin than for The Journal of Wildlife Management.
Book reviews that focus on applied research, policy or wildlife management and conservation.