Rehabilitation of injured or immature individuals has become an increasingly used conservation and management tool. However, scientific evaluation of rehabilitations is rare, raising concern about post-release welfare as well as the cost-effectiveness of spending scarce financial resources. Over the past 20 years, events of juvenile Eurasian lynx presumably orphaned have been observed in many European lynx populations. To guide the management of orphaned lynx, we documented survival, rehabilitation and fate after the release and evaluated the potential relevance of lynx orphan rehabilitation for population management and conservation implications. Data on 320 orphaned lynx was collected from 1975 to 2022 from 13 countries and nine populations. The majority of orphaned lynx (55%) were taken to rehabilitation centres or other enclosures. A total of 66 orphans were released back to nature. The portion of rehabilitated lynx who survived at least one year after release was 0.66. Release location was the best predictor for their survival. Of the 66 released lynx, ten have reproduced at least once (8 females and 2 males). Conservation implications of rehabilitation programmes include managing genetic diversity in small, isolated populations and reintroducing species to historical habitats. The lynx is a perfect model species as most reintroduced populations in Central Europe show significantly lower observed heterozygosity than most of the autochthonous populations, indicating that reintroduction bottlenecks, isolation and post-release management have long-term consequences on the genetic composition of populations. The release of translocated orphans could be a valuable contribution to Eurasian lynx conservation in Europe. It is recommended to release orphans at the distribution edge or in the frame of reintroduction projects instead of a release in the core area of a population where it is not necessary from a demographic and genetic point of view. Rehabilitation programmes can have conservation implications that extend far beyond individual welfare benefits.

Where reintroduced wildlife populations are considered as vulnerable this is generally due to limited founder size and isolation. While many of these populations show low levels of genetic diversity, little is known about the temporal patterns of genetic diversity loss and the role of initial founder effects vs. ongoing genetic drift. Here we analysed genotype data from 582 Eurasian lynx samples from the reintroduced Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian population (BBA) over a time span of 35 years, representing approximately 13 generations. Two-wave reintroduction of lynx from at least two distinct West-Carpathian areas resulted in relatively high start-up of genetic diversity. After the initial decline when the population lost about a quarter of its genetic diversity compared to the Carpathian source population, the genetic diversity and effective population size remained almost unchanged over the next 20 years. Despite confirmed isolation of BBA and thus absence of gene flow, we detected relatively low inbreeding during the two recent decades within the slightly increasing population size, which may have prevented ongoing loss of genetic diversity. Given the current status of BBA, we do not support genetic reinforcement to maintain its long-term viability; but urge the importance of facilitating gene flow with neighbouring lynx populations through an improvement of landscape connectivity and by strengthening law enforcement as well as the prevention of illegal killings. A sound genetic monitoring alongside regular camera trap-based monitoring of population size, health status and reproduction is pivotal to decide on future conservation interventions.

A population of Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx was established by reintroductions in the Bohemian Forest Ecosystem in the 1970s and 1980s. The most recent information on the population status indicates that the distribution has stagnated since the late 1990s, for unknown reasons. We assessed the availability of suitable habitat along the Austrian-German-Czech border, and hypothesized that the Bohemian-Bavarian lynx population is not in equilibrium with habitat suitability. Based on global positioning system data from 10 radio-collared lynx, we used a maximum entropy approach to model suitable habitat. Variables reflecting anthropogenic influence contributed most to the model and were negatively associated with the occurrence of lynx. We evaluated the model prediction using independent records of lynx from monitoring in Bavaria, Germany. Using our habitat approach we estimated the area of potential habitat, based on a mean annual home range of 445 km(2) for males and 122 km(2) for females. Our results indicated there were 12,415 km(2) of suitable habitat, distributed among 13 patches, for a potential population of c. 142 (93-160) resident lynx. We assessed connectivity via least-cost paths and found that all suitable patches could be reached by the lynx. A comparison with the current distribution of lynx, however, confirms that a significant proportion of suitable habitat is not occupied, which indicates that the distribution is limited by factors other than habitat, with illegal killing being the most likely cause. Our study provides crucial information for the development of a conservation strategy and regional planning for the Bohemian-Bavarian lynx population.

The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.

The Bohemian Forest harbours one of the largest lynx populations in Central Europe, which arose from animals reintroduced in two adjacent national parks. Despite an increasing number of population modelling approaches, the differences between potential and realised lynx distributions urgently need to be explored. We used lynx monitoring data from 2005 to 2010 from 530 municipalities in eastern Bavaria and spatial estimates of roe deer densities to test the predictions that the probability of lynx occurrence (confirmed or unconfirmed) increases with (1) decreasing distance to the national park area, (2) increasing forest cover, (3) increasing proportion of state-owned forests, (4) increasing roe deer density and (5) decreasing human activity. Using a flexible additive boosting model, we identified the distance to the national parks as the dominant factor, with positive effects on lynx probability only up to 70km from the centre of the two national parks. Moreover, forest cover and roe deer density were correlated with increasing lynx occurrence. The probability of unconfirmed lynx occurrence increased with the proportion of state-owned forest within a municipality. The most probable mechanism behind the distance variable is illegal killing outside of the national parks. We concluded that despite the small size of protected areas in Central Europe, they still provide important source areas for this large predator. Moreover, the results supported conclusions of previous modelling approaches on the exchange among existing subpopulations in Central Europe, and indicated that lynx currently might not be able to colonise the next suitable areas.

The project Status and Conservation of the Alpine Lynx Population (SCALP) is an ongoing program aiming to co-ordinate the lynx monitoring and propose conservation activities in the Alps. The SCALP project was initiated from several active lynx researchers as an informal group in the early 1990s twenty - years after the reintroductions in Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia, and Austria. To propose adequate management measures, a sound monitoring of the Alpine lynx population needs to be in place. In the early 1990s the first efforts were made to put all available data on lynx presence together. The least common denominator of data collection in the Alps was - and still is - the compilation of direct and indirect signs of lynx presence. To standardise the interpretation of the data collected, SCALP experts agreed on a categorisation of occurrence records, where each record is evaluated retrospectively whether it can be verified for correct species identification and whether it has been verified for correct species identification. Therefore, for the monitoring of the lynx throughout the Alps in the frame of the SCALP surveys, the collected data are classified in three categories according to the following SCALP criteria: Category 1 (C1): "Hard facts", verified and unchallenged observations; Category 2 (C2): Observations controlled and confirmed by a lynx expert (e.g. trained member of the network); Category 3 (C3): Unconfirmed category 2 observations and all observations such as sightings and calls which, if not additionally documented, by their nature cannot be verified. The SCALP criteria allow to both combine and distinguish reliable and only partly reliable data for a better interpretation of the actual distribution.

Large carnivores (bears Ursus arctos, wolves Canis lupus, lynx Lynx lynx and wolverines Gulo gulo) are among the most challenging group of species to maintain as large and continuous populations or to reintegrate back into the European landscape. Political, socioeconomic and society changes challenge past management approaches in some of the large populations. At the same time local improvements in habitat quality, the return of their prey species, public support and favourable legislation allow for the recovery of some small populations. Several of Europe’s large carnivore populations are large and robust, others are expanding, some small populations remain critically endangered and a few are declining. [\n] Large carnivores need very large areas and their conservation needs to be planned on very wide spatial scales that will often span many intra‐ and inter‐ national borders. Within these large scales conservation and management actions need to be coordinated. To facilitate coordination, a common understanding of the present day conservation status of large carnivores at national and population level is an important basis. [\n] The aim of this summary report is to provide an expert based update of the conservation status of all populations identified by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), available in the document “Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores” (Linnell et al. 2008) and/or in the various Species Online Information Systems (http://www.kora.ch/sp‐ois/ ; also see Appendix 1). [\n] However, methods used to monitor large carnivores vary and a direct comparison over time or among populations will never be possible at a continental scale. It is more realistic to have an insight into the general order of magnitude of the population, its trend and permanent range as the “currencies” for comparisons and assessments (see point 2). This summary also does not aim to replace the habitat directive reporting, but rather complement it. Discrepancies will likely occur due to different time periods covered and different agreements reached on common reporting criteria on a national level which has to deal with many more species. Furthermore, for several countries the most recent data or distribution map were not always available, yet. [\n] Changes in monitoring methods likely result in changing population estimates, even in stable populations. Improved and more costly methods may suddenly discover that previous estimates were too high, or may detect more individuals than previously assumed. Examples of both occur. Being aware of the change in methodology the expert assessment may still be “stable” for the population even if numbers listed in tables have changed. On the other hand, large scale “official” (government) estimates may be based on questionable or non‐transparent extrapolations that run contrary to data from reference areas within the country or similar regions from other countries. If the discrepancy is apparent, expert assessment needs to question official numbers. [\n] This summary does not aim at reviewing monitoring techniques. Examples of parameters and principles for monitoring large carnivores and some “good practice” examples have been previously compiled by the LCIE (http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/LCIE_PSS_m onitoring.pdf). Furthermore, references at the end of many country reports do provide ample examples of well documented and state of the art monitoring of large carnivores in Europe under a wide variety of different contexts.

We give a short overview of the monitoring results of lynx in the 5-year period 1995–2009. There is no confirmed evidence that there are lynx in the German Alps. Single individuals might have visited the area but signs occur only sporadically. In 2008 Large Carnivore Network has been established to identify and document signs of lynx, wolf and bear. It is the first step to systemize the lynx monitoring. A natural recolonization of the German Alps is not expected in the near future.

Abstract We use the case of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in the Alps to discuss how to implement existing directives and recommendations, as well as how to integrate biological concepts, into practical conservation and wildlife management. Since 1995 the occurrence of lynx in the Alpine countries has been monitored and reported by the Status and Conservation of the Alpine Lynx Population expert group. Both the area of occupancy and the estimated number of individuals increased from 1995–1999 to 2000–2004. The estimated number of lynx is 120–150 across the Alps and the area of occupancy 27,800 km2, in six distinct sub-areas. In the highly fragmented Alpine habitat lynx populations expand slowly, even in situations of high local density and when suitable habitat is available. Thus, almost 40 years after the first reintroduction, < 20% of the Alps have been recolonized by lynx. In addition to biological and ecological factors, the persistent disagreements about the return of the lynx between conservationists and other land-users, including livestock breeders and hunters, and the political fragmentation of the Alps (with different regional priorities and large carnivore policies), has prevented the creation of a consensus regarding pan-Alpine conservation goals for the lynx and the implementation of conservation measures such as translocations and reintroductions. We discuss possible approaches in the light of new guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores recently developed on behalf of the European Commission.

.........................................................................................................................................................6 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................7 Concepts and definitions................................................................................................................................7 Metapopulation......................................................................................................................................7 Population spread/colonization..............................................................................................................8 Land tenure system................................................................................................................................9 Dispersal..............................................................................................................................................10 Methods........................................................................................................................................................10 Present status and trend.......................................................................................................................10 Dispersal..............................................................................................................................................10 Survival...............................................................................................................................................11 Results..........................................................................................................................................................11 Present status and trend.......................................................................................................................11 Dispersal..............................................................................................................................................12 Survival...............................................................................................................................................13 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................13 Next steps.................................................................................................................................................... 15 References....................................................................................................................................................15 6 KORA Bericht Nr 50

During a study of Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Jura Mountains of Switzerland, we observed a fight between a radio-collared adult female and an unmarked lynx. The resident female attacked the other lynx and finally drove it away.