BENGALURU: Researchers from Bengaluru’s National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) have shown that trace DNA left by large carnivores at livestock kill sites can be used to reliably identify individual predators. This approach offers a powerful tool to manage human-wildlife conflict and better understand predator behaviour and ecology, NCBS said on Thursday. The study, conducted by Prof Uma Ramakrishnan’s group, was recently published in the journal Biological Conservation. “In communities that live in proximity to large carnivores, livestock depredation can pose significant conservation challenges. A systematic understanding of the individuals involved in conflict is a critical first step toward a solution,” said Ramakrishnan, senior author of the study.Pointing out that managing human-wildlife conflict around the world often involves relocating or removing the suspected predator, NCBS said that forest departments typically rely on field signs like pugmarks, scat, or claw marks to identify the animal involved. “However, these signs can be ambiguous, and removing a non-target individual may disturb carnivore populations and, in some cases, further intensify conflict situations.More reliable and robust genetic identification of predators could be an effective strategy for conflict resolution,” it added. NCBS researchers, in collaboration with Panthera and the Madhya Pradesh forest department, investigated 198 kill sites across two of Central India’s key tiger habitats: the Kanha and Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserves. At each site, researchers collected non-invasive genetic samples — saliva, scat, and shed hair — as potential sources of predator DNA. Using genetic tools based on Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), the team identified individual tigers present at these kill sites. Shed hair samples were the most effective for individual identification, followed closely by saliva and scat. Overall, tigers were successfully identified at 85% of the kill sites, with species-level identification exceeding 95% across all sample types, NCBS said. To assess each tiger’s likely involvement in a kill, the team developed a classification framework based on the type and location of genetic evidence. Each case was categorised as a “true predator” (high confidence), “circumstantial predator” (medium confidence), or “predator uncertain” (low confidence). Of the 198 cases studied, 72 were classified with high confidence, 34 with medium confidence, and 49 with low confidence. “Genetic samples are often the only true evidence of a predation event and are therefore vital. While identification is possible, there remains some possibility of misidentification, especially when multiple individuals are present at the kill site,” said Himanshu Chhattani, lead author of the study. “That’s why it’s important to assign confidence levels in identification. We hope that such a classification scheme will help better represent the level of certainty provided by genetic tools and support evidence-based conflict management,” Chhattani added. For wildlife managers and conservationists, this method adds a reliable, evidence-based tool to address predator-livestock conflict while contributing to long-term predator monitoring — benefiting both local communities and wildlife conservation efforts.