Sammanställning av släktträdet över den skandinaviska vargpopulationen fram till 2019

Under inventeringsperioden 2019/2020 påvisades 45 familjegrupper av varg i Skandinavien. Inför parningssäsongen 2019 fanns i en av dessa familjegrupper en revirmarkerande immigrant och i fem av fallen revirmarkerande F1:or, d.v.s. avkommor till immigranterna i Galven/Prästskogen eller Kynna 2. Den genomsnittliga inavelskoefficienten bland avkommorna i familjegrupperna under vintern 2019/2020 (F= 0,24) visade en minskning med 0,01 i förhållande till vintern innan

Sammanställning av släktträdet över den skandinaviska vargpopulationen fram till 2020

Under inventeringsperioden 2020/2021 påvisades 48 familjegrupper av varg i Skandinavien. Inför parningssäsongen 2020 fanns i en av dessa familjegrupper en revirmarkerande immigrant och i sju av fallen fanns en eller två revirmarkerande F1:or, d.v.s. avkommor till immigranterna i Galven/Prästskogen, Kynna 2 eller Tiveden 2. Den genomsnittliga inavelskoefficienten bland avkommorna i familjegrupperna under vintern 2020/2021 (F = 0,23) var 0,01 lägre än vintern innan. Minskande F under de senaste två säsongerna förklaras främst av en minskande andel familjegrupper med inavelskoefficient över 0,4, samt att fyra F1: or (samtliga avkommor från Tiveden-tiken) reproducerade sig för första gången under 2020

Wolf monitoring in Scandinavia: evaluating counts of packs and reproduction events

Large carnivores are elusive and use large areas, which causes monitoring to be challenging and costly. Moreover, management to reduce conflicts and simultaneously ensure long‐term population viability require precise population estimates. In Scandinavia, the monitoring of wolves (Canis lupus) is primarily based on counting packs, identifying reproduction, and genetically identifying territorial wolves from noninvasive DNA samples. We assessed the reliability of wolf monitoring in Scandinavia by estimating the detectability of territorial pairs, packs, and reproduction. Our data, comprising snow‐tracking data and DNA‐identified individuals from 2005–2016, covered 11 consecutive winter monitoring seasons (Oct–Mar). Among 343 cases where we identified a wolf pack, territorial wolves were also detected in the same area during the previous season in 323 (94.2%) cases. In only 6 of the remaining 20 cases, there was no prior knowledge of territorial wolves in the area. Among the 328 detected reproduction events (litter born to a pack), we detected 97% during the monitoring period and identified the rest ≥1 year later from kinship assessments of all DNA‐detected individuals. These results suggest that we failed to detect only few packs with reproduction events during the monitoring season that followed breeding. Yearly monitoring of territorial individuals and continuous updates of the pedigree allowed us to retrospectively identify reproduction events and packs that were not identified earlier.publishedVersio

Wolf monitoring in Scandinavia: evaluating counts of packs and reproduction events

Large carnivores are elusive and use large areas, which causes monitoring to be challenging and costly. Moreover, management to reduce conflicts and simultaneously ensure long-term population viability require precise population estimates. In Scandinavia, the monitoring of wolves (Canis lupus) is primarily based on counting packs, identifying reproduction, and genetically identifying territorial wolves from noninvasive DNA samples. We assessed the reliability of wolf monitoring in Scandinavia by estimating the detectability of territorial pairs, packs, and reproduction. Our data, comprising snow-tracking data and DNA-identified individuals from 2005-2016, covered 11 consecutive winter monitoring seasons (Oct-Mar). Among 343 cases where we identified a wolf pack, territorial wolves were also detected in the same area during the previous season in 323 (94.2%) cases. In only 6 of the remaining 20 cases, there was no prior knowledge of territorial wolves in the area. Among the 328 detected reproduction events (litter born to a pack), we detected 97% during the monitoring period and identified the rest >= 1 year later from kinship assessments of all DNA-detected individuals. These results suggest that we failed to detect only few packs with reproduction events during the monitoring season that followed breeding. Yearly monitoring of territorial individuals and continuous updates of the pedigree allowed us to retrospectively identify reproduction events and packs that were not identified earlier

Course Supervision Challenges in PhD Education

A large portion of the PhD education in Sweden is dedicated to courses. This made it interesting to explore potential course supervision challenges in the PhD programme. A multiple-case study was conducted to identify such challenges and explore how these are perceived by students and supervisors at the Faculty of Engineering of Lund University. By interviewing students and supervisors in five different research groups, insights were gained into how the main stakeholders reason about courses. The findings indicate that courses that are to be included in the education are characterized by a large degree of freedom tailored to individual student needs and preferences. However, the type, timing, availability, value, and convalidation of courses are challenges that limit this freedom

No Allee effect detected during the natural recolonization by a large carnivore despite low growth rate

Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) have recently naturally recolonized southern Sweden. The first documented reproduction of lynx in recent times occurred in 2003, and the population increased from 2 to 48 family groups (the unit of measurement in Swedish monitoring) during its first 18 years (2003/2004-2020/2021). We did not detect any Allee effect, that is, lower growth rate at low population density, during the recolonization of southern Sweden, although our population simulations revealed a non-negligible (30%) chance that population observed development could include an Allee effect. The probable absence of an Allee effect was likely because colonizing females did not lack mating partners, as a larger number of wide-ranging males were established in the area before documented reproduction took place. Despite the absence of an Allee effect, the growth rate during recolonization was lower in southern Sweden (lambda = 1.20) than in central Sweden (lambda = 1.29). We have no evidence of higher mortality, including that from poaching, or lower reproduction in southern Sweden could explain the lower growth rate. Instead, we suggest that the lower growth rate during the recolonization of southern Sweden was explained by fewer immigrants arriving from central Sweden due to areas of less suitable habitat between central and southern Sweden, partially preventing immigration southward. From a conservation point of view, it is positive that this small population could recover without being negatively influenced by an Allee effect, as small populations with an Allee effect experience lower viability than those without