Bringing Science Back to the Conservation of the
Iberian Lynx
ALEJANDRO RODRÍGUEZ,∗ § JAVIER CALZADA,† ELOY REVILLA,∗ JOSÉ VICENTE LÓPEZ-BAO,‡
AND FRANCISCO PALOMARES∗
∗
Department of Conservation Biology, Estación Biológica de Doñana—CSIC, Américo Vespucio s/n, Isla de la Cartuja, 41092 Sevilla,
Spain
†Departamento de Biologı́a Ambiental y Salud Pública, Universidad de Huelva, Avda Fuerzas Armadas s/n, 21071 Huelva, Spain
‡Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences—SLU, SE-73091
Riddarhyttan, Sweden
Palomares et al. (2011) highlighted 4 factors associated
with the reduced effectiveness of efforts to conserve
Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) during the last 25 years:
conservation measures have not been applied over large
extents, few resources have been dedicated to scientific
monitoring of the effectiveness of conservation actions,
conservation efforts were implemented discontinuously,
and practitioners have limited confidence in scientific
knowledge. The authors of Simón et al. (2012) are members of the largest team currently managing Iberian lynx,
and they contend that the trends in lynx abundance reported in Palomares et al. (2011) overlook that there have
been substantial increases in the number of lynx over the
last decade, that managed areas are large enough to sustain the species, that monitoring suggests management
has increased lynx abundance, and that management, especially under a consecutive set of projects funded by the
European Union (LIFE) for the conservation of Iberian
lynx in Andalusia, is long-lasting. We disagree and argue
that available evidence, including that summarized by
Simón et al., supports our position.
Simón et al. report that the areas occupied by the 2
remaining populations of Iberian lynx and total abundance of lynx increased by a factor of 2.5 from 2002
to 2011. This increase does not affect the evidence of
long-term decline of Iberian lynx. Palomares et al. (2011)
estimated that the 2 current Iberian lynx populations occupied 19,800 km2 in 1955. On the basis of this estimate,
range loss in 2005 was 93.9%, whereas on the basis of data
provided by Simón et al., estimated range loss in 2010
was 96.4%. The recent expansion of lynx range (410 km2
from 2002 to 2010 [Simón et al.]) would be remarkable if
the past lynx range had been smaller than previously re-
ported by Rodrı́guez and Delibes (1992, 2002). Simón et
al. suggest that Rodrı́guez and Delibes (1992, 2002) overestimated the area occupied by lynx in the past. Simón
et al. argue these retrospective estimates were obtained
from indirect methods, but they ignore that the estimates
were derived from a systematic field survey in which
sampling effort was consistent throughout the potential
range of lynx and, therefore, results were spatially unbiased (Rodrı́guez & Delibes 2002). In contrast, estimates
of the past distribution of Iberian lynx presented by GilSánchez and McCain (2011) relied mostly on specimens
deposited in zoological collections and, hence, mainly
reflect the areas scientists visited to collect samples of
Iberian lynx.
Habitat management before natural or assisted recolonization is rarely applied to large areas. Simón et al.
recognize that most conservation efforts were concentrated in the 1832 km2 already occupied by the Iberian
lynx. We acknowledge that focusing habitat management
on occupied areas may increase the number of reproductive females and, therefore, the probability of long-term
population persistence (Palomares et al. 2011). As carrying capacity is approached, improving habitat quality
on the edges of lynx habitat in Sierra Morena or in the
interior of the Doñana National Park would allow more
dispersers to establish territories and breed, and fewer
dispersers would move into adjacent low-quality habitat.
There have been recent reintroductions in eastern Sierra
Morena (Simón et al.), and the European Union LIFE conservation project, which commenced at the end of 2011
(see Table 1 in Simón et al.), aims to fund conservation
of Iberian lynx in 5 regions across the Iberian peninsula.
Concentrating available resources to increase the area
§Address for correspondence: email alrodri@ebd.csic.es
Paper submitted October 27, 2012; revised manuscript accepted March 21, 2012.
.x
of breeding habitat, or creating a new, large area of lynx
habitat, could be equally or more efficient than creating a
large number of comparatively small and isolated habitat
patches. In particular, habitat management over relatively
large areas has not been undertaken outside Andalusia.
Because mean time to extinction increases quickly as carrying capacity increases (Palomares et al. 2011), a small
number of relatively large lynx populations may be the
best strategy (McCarthy et al. 2005), but we believe before multiple reintroduction attempts are embarked on,
models and data should be used to determine the optimal
number of populations to be established or maintained.
The link between the inefficiency of Iberian lynx conservation measures and a lack of scientific monitoring
was identified more than a decade ago (Rodrı́guez et al.
2000). Simón et al. argue that the Iberian lynx LIFE project
team conducts scientific monitoring because the team includes scientists who evaluate management actions, the
conservation programs are reviewed by an external scientific panel, and the populations of lynx and their prey
(the European rabbit [Oryctolagus cuniculus]) are monitored with standardized techniques. Monitoring should
examine the extent to which the change one observes
in a given behavioral or demographic parameter in the
Iberian lynx can be attributed to one or more conservation actions. Estimating abundances of lynx and rabbits
(Garrote et al. 2011; Gil-Sánchez et al. 2011) with methods such as camera trapping and counting rabbits in linear transects, respectively, will allow data collected over
time to be compared. But use of such methods does not
directly address the more important question of whether
changes in lynx abundance are the result of previous
management efforts.
Simón et al. seem to assume that increases in abundance or number of populations of lynx or rabbits are
mostly a consequence of management, but such relations
may be correlative. For example, during the last decade
many lynx emigrated from and started to breed outside
Doñana National Park. In other words, natural colonization occurred first, breeding females were discovered
later (because areas outside the park were not monitored
until lynx were occasionally detected), and management
was eventually applied to colonized areas. We question
whether such expansion could be attributed to management.
Likewise Simón et al. report significant increases in
rabbit abundance in some areas but, as pointed out
by Palomares et al. (2011), it is unclear whether these
increases were a response to management or largely
to extrinsic factors (e.g., higher resistance to viral diseases or reduced mortality attributed to other predators),
whether some measures were more efficient than others,
or whether particular measures will reliably increase rabbit abundance elsewhere. Nevertheless, the short-term
assessment of effects of supplementary feeding on lynx
behavior and demography by López-Bao and co-workers
Conservation Biology
Volume 26, No. 4, 2012
is a recent example of monitoring of the efficiency of a
specific conservation measure, perhaps the only case in
the history of Iberian lynx conservation. In this case, lynx
responses (López-Bao et al. 2008, 2010) and some of the
mechanisms involved in their responses (López-Bao et al.
2009, 2011) were investigated.
Simón et al. conclude that efforts to conserve the
Iberian lynx have been consistent because funding for
conservation projects has been continuous since 1994.
However, the actions implemented, the locations where
they were applied, and funding of each action in each
area often varied from one 5-year LIFE project to the
next. As a result, it is difficult to assess the efficacy of a
given conservation action (López-Bao et al. 2010). Also,
actions that are expected to be beneficial only in the
long term were interrupted before they could have a
measurable effect. For example, a plan to increase the
carrying capacity of the core area of Doñana National
Park for breeding lynx was initiated in 2004 under the
auspices of the Iberian lynx LIFE project team. Although
preliminary results were promising in terms of retention
of breeding adults (López-Bao et al. 2008, 2010), actions
such as supplementary feeding of lynx or rabbit restocking in predator-proof enclosures were discontinued 3
years later. Three years may be too short a period to expect definitive results or even to generate sufficient data
on which to base decisions about the effectiveness of a
specific plan. For example, although food availability increased, general lynx scarcity in the region resulted in little immigration and reduced opportunities for dispersers
to establish territories in managed habitat (López-Bao
et al. 2010).
Table 1 in Simón et al. shows the reliance of conservation of Iberian lynx on external funding. Although
regional governments execute environmental policies,
including species conservation, on average European
Union funds made up 68.3% of the total cost of the 27
projects (93%) reported on in Simón et al. (LIFE Nature
2012). Dependence on EU funding makes continuity of
conservation action even less likely, especially during periods of economic uncertainty. Moreover, regional recovery plans were made mandatory by a 1990 law, but it
took 13–21 years to approve the plans in 3 autonomous
regions, and 2 other regions have not approved them yet.
Limited funding and marked slowness in establishing specific regulations suggest there is room for improvement
in the resolution with which regional governments act
regarding Iberian lynx conservation.
Until 2008 managers and professional researchers cooperated, and scientific knowledge guided management,
especially in the Doñana population of lynx. Since 2002
scientists who are members of the Iberian lynx LIFE
project team have documented variation in lynx and rabbit abundances, which is necessary but not sufficient to
evaluate implemented management actions on the basis of sound science. Data from scientific monitoring of
specific conservation actions will inform decisions on
how to efficiently apply the relatively scarce economic
resources available to maintain Iberian lynx in areas they
currently occupy and to increase the probability of recolonization of currently unoccupied areas.
Literature Cited
Garrote, G., et al. 2011. Estimation of the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)
population in the Doñana area, SW Spain, using capture-recapture
analysis of camera-trapping data. European Journal of Wildlife Research 57:355–362.
Gil-Sánchez, J. M., and E. B. McCain. 2011. Former range and decline
of the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) reconstructed using verified
records. Journal of Mammalogy 92:1081–1090.
Gil-Sánchez, J. M., et al. 2011. The use of camera trapping for estimating
Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) home ranges. European Journal of
Wildlife Research 57:1203–1211.
LIFE Nature. 2012. Online project database. Environment Directorate,
General European Commission (DG ENV.E.3), Brussels, Belgium. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/
Projects/index.cfm (accessed March 2012).
López-Bao, J. V., A. Rodrı́guez, and F. Palomares. 2008. Behavioural
response of a trophic specialist, the Iberian lynx, to supplementary food: patterns of food use and implications for conservation.
Biological Conservation 141:1857–1867.
López-Bao, J. V., A. Rodrı́guez, and F. Palomares. 2009. Competitive
asymmetries in the use of supplementary food by the endangered
Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Public Library of Science ONE 4
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0007610.
López-Bao, J. V., F. Palomares, A. Rodrı́guez, and M. Delibes. 2010. Effects of food supplementation on home range size, reproductive success, productivity and recruitment in a small population of Iberian
lynx. Animal Conservation 13:35–42.
López-Bao, J. V., F. Palomares, A. Rodrı́guez, and P. Ferreras. 2011.
Intraspecific interference influences the use of prey hotspots. Oikos
120:1489–1496.
McCarthy, M. A., C. J. Thompson, and H. P. Possingham. 2005. Theory for designing nature reserves for single species. The American
Naturalist 165:250–257.
Palomares, F., A. Rodrı́guez, E. Revilla, J. V. López-Bao, and J. Calzada.
2011. Assessment of the conservation efforts to prevent extinction
of the Iberian lynx. Conservation Biology 25:4–8.
Rodrı́guez, A., and M. Delibes. 1992. Current range and status of the
Iberian lynx Felis pardina Temminck, 1824 in Spain. Biological
Conservation 61:189–196.
Rodrı́guez, A., and M. Delibes. 2002. Internal structure and patterns of
contraction in the geographic range of the Iberian lynx. Ecography
25:314–328.
Rodrı́guez, A., P. Ferreras, and M. Delibes. 2000. On recent actions
undertaken for the conservation of the Iberian lynx. Pages 85–87
in Report of the group of experts on conservation of large carnivores. Document T-PVS (2000) 33. Council of Europe, Strasbourg,
France.
Simón M. A., et al. 2012. Reverse of the decline of the endangered
Iberian lynx. Conservation Biology 26:731–736.
Conservation Biology
Volume 26, No. 4, 2012