Spatially explicit estimates of elk population demographics in North Carolina, USA

Abstract In an effort to restore extirpated elk to their historical range, 52 elk were reintroduced to Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in North Carolina, USA, during 2001 and 2002. Since their reintroduction, elk numbers have increased, and elk have extended their range beyond GRSM boundaries. We used spatially explicit capture‐recapture (SCR) methods based on fecal DNA to identify individual elk and estimate population abundance ( N ), apparent survival ( φ ), per capita recruitment ( f ), and population growth rate ( λ ) in western North Carolina. We walked a series of transects during 3 winter field seasons (2020–2022) and collected elk pellets encountered along those transects. We created spatially explicit capture histories and incorporated those data into both closed and open population SCR models. The top performing closed SCR models for males and females estimated density by year and as a function of the scaled distance to the nearest field, with densities decreasing as the distance increased. Combined male and female N were 179 elk (95% CI = 149–215) in 2020, 220 elk (95% CI = 188–256) in 2021, and 240 elk (95% CI = 207–279) in 2022. The top open population model estimated both φ and λ as functions of sex and year. The estimate of φ for males was 0.682 (95% CI = 0.317–0.908) during 2020–2021 and 0.339 (95% CI = 0.152–0.596) during 2021–2022 and for females was 0.953 (95% CI = 0.830–1.000) during 2020–2021 and 0.829 (95% CI = 0.601–1.000) during 2021–2022. The annual population growth rate ( λ ) for males was 1.127 (95% CI = 0.806–1.575) during 2020–2021 and 0.811 (95% CI = 0.566–1.163) during 2021–2022 and for females was 1.559 (95% CI = 1.162–2.091) during 2020–2021 and 1.122 (95% CI = 0.876–1.437) during 2021–2022. Our elk abundance estimates in areas >300 m from fields were negligible, and we suggest that sampling only the areas in and adjacent to fields in the future will result in reliable but more cost‐efficient population estimates. Confidence intervals for vital rate parameters were wide for our 3‐year dataset, but continued annual pellet sampling will increase sample sizes for vital rate estimation and thus improve precision. If elk herd expansion on public lands is desired, we suggest habitat modification to establish open grasslands adjacent to forests.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Wildlife Management
Published
2025-02-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22733
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.43
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Spatially explicit estimates of elk population demographics in North Carolina, USA

Joseph Yarkovich, Caleb R. Hickman, Justin M. McVey, Jessica Braunstein et al.
2 citations
Journal of Wildlife Management
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
3.43
article

Spatially explicit estimates of elk population demographics in North Carolina, USA

Joseph Yarkovich, Caleb R. Hickman, Justin M. McVey, Jessica Braunstein, Ben C. Augustine, Joseph D. Clark
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract In an effort to restore extirpated elk to their historical range, 52 elk were reintroduced to Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in North Carolina, USA, during 2001 and 2002. Since their reintroduction, elk numbers have increased, and elk have extended their range beyond GRSM boundaries. We used spatially explicit capture‐recapture (SCR) methods based on fecal DNA to identify individual elk and estimate population abundance ( N ), apparent survival ( φ ), per capita recruitment ( f ), and population growth rate ( λ ) in western North Carolina. We walked a series of transects during 3 winter field seasons (2020–2022) and collected elk pellets encountered along those transects. We created spatially explicit capture histories and incorporated those data into both closed and open population SCR models. The top performing closed SCR models for males and females estimated density by year and as a function of the scaled distance to the nearest field, with densities decreasing as the distance increased. Combined male and female N were 179 elk (95% CI = 149–215) in 2020, 220 elk (95% CI = 188–256) in 2021, and 240 elk (95% CI = 207–279) in 2022. The top open population model estimated both φ and λ as functions of sex and year. The estimate of φ for males was 0.682 (95% CI = 0.317–0.908) during 2020–2021 and 0.339 (95% CI = 0.152–0.596) during 2021–2022 and for females was 0.953 (95% CI = 0.830–1.000) during 2020–2021 and 0.829 (95% CI = 0.601–1.000) during 2021–2022. The annual population growth rate ( λ ) for males was 1.127 (95% CI = 0.806–1.575) during 2020–2021 and 0.811 (95% CI = 0.566–1.163) during 2021–2022 and for females was 1.559 (95% CI = 1.162–2.091) during 2020–2021 and 1.122 (95% CI = 0.876–1.437) during 2021–2022. Our elk abundance estimates in areas >300 m from fields were negligible, and we suggest that sampling only the areas in and adjacent to fields in the future will result in reliable but more cost‐efficient population estimates. Confidence intervals for vital rate parameters were wide for our 3‐year dataset, but continued annual pellet sampling will increase sample sizes for vital rate estimation and thus improve precision. If elk herd expansion on public lands is desired, we suggest habitat modification to establish open grasslands adjacent to forests.

Journal of Wildlife ManagementVol. 89(4)
United States Geological Survey (US), National Park Service (US), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (US), Cherokee Nation (US), Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté (FR), Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
3.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.