Scientists Peter Kaňuch and Peter Klinga wrote an opposing opinion to a recently published study on estimating the number of brown bears in Slovakia. In it, scientists from Charles University and the Czech University of Agriculture estimated the size of the population of this beast at 1,056 (and a range of 1,012 to 1,275 bears).
According to Kaňuch and Kling, the conclusions reached by the Czechs are not correct. They were also surprised by the sharp reaction of the Czech researchers to their opinion, which, according to them, significantly deviates from the usual standards for review procedures.
“They are talking nonsense. They try to erase the fact that the data is weak with refined verbal equilibria. Their informative value about the number of bears with the methodology used may be limited. They cannot be used for an objective estimate of the number of bears in the whole of Slovakia. If someone approached me with such data and a request, tell me how many bears there are in Slovakia, I would return it saying that it cannot be done well. That I can add it up for Poľana, Muránská planina, Malá and Veľká Fatra, but I can’t tell you from these data how many bears there are in Slovakia,” says Peter Kaňuch. Together with Peter Kling, they talk about it in an interview:
why are they convinced that there are more bears in Slovakia than the Charles University study claims; that the study has its shortcomings as well as valuable information that must be correctly interpreted and further worked with; that the State Nature Conservancy did not like their opinion; also how they would solve problems with bears in Slovakia.
How did you get into writing an opposing review?
Peter Kaňuch: It was at the Mammal Research and Conservation conference last November. There we met with the Director General of the State Nature Protection of the Slovak Republic, Dušan Karask, who personally addressed us that he needed to make an assessment on this study and as soon as possible.
What do you do professionally?
Peter Klinga: We deal with conservation genetics, population genetics, behavioral biology of animals, phylogeography, the relationship of organisms with the environment, the influence of landscape elements and natural elements on the fragmentation of populations and their viability.
Can you say you are a geneticist?
Peter Kaňuch: We use genetics as a working tool, like a computer. Based on that, I wouldn’t call myself a geneticist or an IT specialist. And it must be said that the study is not even about genetics, about genes or sequences and chromosomes. The number of bears was determined by means of molecular-genetic tools, since it is not possible to physically capture, mark and count all bears. Nor can they be counted only on the basis of observation – with camera traps, visual and acoustic monitoring and the like, as with some other species.
Peter Klinga: In every population survey, it is essential to capture as many individuals as possible at a certain time in a certain space so that the population is closed.
You and the authors of the study use the terms closed and open population, what does it mean?
Peter Klinga: Look at this cup. If it leaks, and I keep adding water, because the level will always drop, we will never measure its volume, even though I poured the whole bucket. This is synonymous with open population. A closed population means that at a certain point when I stop adding water, we will accurately measure the volume of liquid – although we are still collecting new samples, we are not adding genetically new individuals and the samples are from those we have already counted.
According to your conclusions, is the conclusion of the study that the bear population in Slovakia has not increased?
Peter Kaňuch: There is a lot
This article is exclusive content for Denník N subscribers.
Are you a subscriber? Log in