Literature DB >> 25757794

Wolves adapt territory size, not pack size to local habitat quality.

Andrew M Kittle1, Morgan Anderson1, Tal Avgar1, James A Baker1, Glen S Brown2, Jevon Hagens3, Ed Iwachewski3, Scott Moffatt1, Anna Mosser1, Brent R Patterson4, Douglas E B Reid3, Arthur R Rodgers3, Jen Shuter3, Garrett M Street1, Ian D Thompson5, Lucas M Vander Vennen1, John M Fryxell1.   

Abstract

1. Although local variation in territorial predator density is often correlated with habitat quality, the causal mechanism underlying this frequently observed association is poorly understood and could stem from facultative adjustment in either group size or territory size. 2. To test between these alternative hypotheses, we used a novel statistical framework to construct a winter population-level utilization distribution for wolves (Canis lupus) in northern Ontario, which we then linked to a suite of environmental variables to determine factors influencing wolf space use. Next, we compared habitat quality metrics emerging from this analysis as well as an independent measure of prey abundance, with pack size and territory size to investigate which hypothesis was most supported by the data. 3. We show that wolf space use patterns were concentrated near deciduous, mixed deciduous/coniferous and disturbed forest stands favoured by moose (Alces alces), the predominant prey species in the diet of wolves in northern Ontario, and in proximity to linear corridors, including shorelines and road networks remaining from commercial forestry activities. 4. We then demonstrate that landscape metrics of wolf habitat quality - projected wolf use, probability of moose occupancy and proportion of preferred land cover classes - were inversely related to territory size but unrelated to pack size. 5. These results suggest that wolves in boreal ecosystems alter territory size, but not pack size, in response to local variation in habitat quality. This could be an adaptive strategy to balance trade-offs between territorial defence costs and energetic gains due to resource acquisition. That pack size was not responsive to habitat quality suggests that variation in group size is influenced by other factors such as intraspecific competition between wolf packs.
© 2015 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2015 British Ecological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brownian bridge; anthropogenic disturbance; boreal forest; generalized least squares; optimal group size; predator density; repeated measures; rubber disc hypothesis; spatial autocorrelation; territoriality

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25757794     DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12366

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Ecol        ISSN: 0021-8790            Impact factor:   5.091


  13 in total

1.  Spatial partitioning by a subordinate carnivore is mediated by conspecific overlap.

Authors:  C Marneweck; D G Marneweck; O L van Schalkwyk; G Beverley; H T Davies-Mostert; D M Parker
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Evidence of economical territory selection in a cooperative carnivore.

Authors:  Sarah N Sells; Michael S Mitchell; Kevin M Podruzny; Justin A Gude; Allison C Keever; Diane K Boyd; Ty D Smucker; Abigail A Nelson; Tyler W Parks; Nathan J Lance; Michael S Ross; Robert M Inman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Home range size and habitat quality affect breeding success but not parental investment in barn owl males.

Authors:  Robin Séchaud; Kim Schalcher; Bettina Almasi; Roman Bühler; Kamran Safi; Andrea Romano; Alexandre Roulin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Space Use and Movement of a Neotropical Top Predator: The Endangered Jaguar.

Authors:  Ronaldo G Morato; Jared A Stabach; Chris H Fleming; Justin M Calabrese; Rogério C De Paula; Kátia M P M Ferraz; Daniel L Z Kantek; Selma S Miyazaki; Thadeu D C Pereira; Gediendson R Araujo; Agustin Paviolo; Carlos De Angelo; Mario S Di Bitetti; Paula Cruz; Fernando Lima; Laury Cullen; Denis A Sana; Emiliano E Ramalho; Marina M Carvalho; Fábio H S Soares; Barbara Zimbres; Marina X Silva; Marcela D F Moraes; Alexandre Vogliotti; Joares A May; Mario Haberfeld; Lilian Rampim; Leonardo Sartorello; Milton C Ribeiro; Peter Leimgruber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Macroecological factors shape local-scale spatial patterns in agriculturalist settlements.

Authors:  Tingting Tao; Sebastián Abades; Shuqing Teng; Zheng Y X Huang; Luís Reino; Bin J W Chen; Yong Zhang; Chi Xu; Jens-Christian Svenning
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Fine-scale movements and behaviors of coyotes (Canis latrans) during their reproductive period.

Authors:  Michael J Chamberlain; Bradley S Cohen; Patrick H Wightman; Emily Rushton; Joseph W Hinton
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Habitat selection by wolves and mountain lions during summer in western Montana.

Authors:  Collin J Peterson; Michael S Mitchell; Nicholas J DeCesare; Chad J Bishop; Sarah S Sells
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Salmon subsidies predict territory size and habitat selection of an avian insectivore.

Authors:  Kirsten A Wilcox; Marlene A Wagner; John D Reynolds
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Landscape-level movement patterns by lions in western Serengeti: comparing the influence of inter-specific competitors, habitat attributes and prey availability.

Authors:  Andrew M Kittle; John K Bukombe; Anthony R E Sinclair; Simon A R Mduma; John M Fryxell
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 3.600

Review 10.  Predators and the public trust.

Authors:  Adrian Treves; Guillaume Chapron; Jose V López-Bao; Chase Shoemaker; Apollonia R Goeckner; Jeremy T Bruskotter
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2015-11-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.