Literature DB >> 34293042

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

Collin J Peterson1, Michael S Mitchell2, Nicholas J DeCesare3, Chad J Bishop1, Sarah S Sells1.   

Abstract

In the Northern Rockies of the United States, predators like wolves (Canis lupus) and mountain lions (Puma concolor) have been implicated in fluctuations or declines in populations of game species like elk (Cervus canadensis) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). In particular, local distributions of these predators may affect ungulate behavior, use of space, and dynamics. Our goal was to develop generalizable predictions of habitat selection by wolves and mountain lions across western Montana. We hypothesized both predator species would select habitat that maximized their chances of encountering and killing ungulates and that minimized their chances of encountering humans. We assessed habitat selection by these predators during summer using within-home range (3rd order) resource selection functions (RSFs) in multiple study areas throughout western Montana, and tested how generalizable RSF predictions were by applying them to out-of-sample telemetry data from separate study areas. Selection for vegetation cover-types varied substantially among wolves in different study areas. Nonetheless, our predictions of 3rd order selection by wolves were highly generalizable across different study areas. Wolves consistently selected simple topography where ungulate prey may be more susceptible to their cursorial hunting mode. Topographic features may serve as better proxies of predation risk by wolves than vegetation cover-types. Predictions of mountain lion distribution were less generalizable. Use of rugged terrain by mountain lions varied across ecosystem-types, likely because mountain lions targeted the habitats of different prey species in each study area. Our findings suggest that features that facilitate the hunting mode of a predator (i.e. simple topography for cursorial predators and hiding cover for stalking predators) may be more generalizable predictors of their habitat selection than features associated with local prey densities.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34293042     DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  26 in total

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

Authors:  Andrew M Kittle; Morgan Anderson; Tal Avgar; James A Baker; Glen S Brown; Jevon Hagens; Ed Iwachewski; Scott Moffatt; Anna Mosser; Brent R Patterson; Douglas E B Reid; Arthur R Rodgers; Jen Shuter; Garrett M Street; Ian D Thompson; Lucas M Vander Vennen; John M Fryxell
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 5.091

2.  Integrating temporal refugia into landscapes of fear: prey exploit predator downtimes to forage in risky places.

Authors:  Justine A Smith; Emiliano Donadio; Jonathan N Pauli; Michael J Sheriff; Arthur D Middleton
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Multi-trophic resource selection function enlightens the behavioural game between wolves and their prey.

Authors:  Nicolas Courbin; Daniel Fortin; Christian Dussault; Viviane Fargeot; Réhaume Courtois
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 5.091

4.  Natural and experimental tests of trophic cascades: gray wolves and white-tailed deer in a Great Lakes forest.

Authors:  D G Flagel; G E Belovsky; D E Beyer
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  How linear features alter predator movement and the functional response.

Authors:  Hannah W McKenzie; Evelyn H Merrill; Raymond J Spiteri; Mark A Lewis
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 3.906

6.  Behavioral responses of wolves to roads: scale-dependent ambivalence.

Authors:  Barbara Zimmermann; Lindsey Nelson; Petter Wabakken; Håkan Sand; Olof Liberg
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 2.671

Review 7.  Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation.

Authors:  Henrik Thurfjell; Simone Ciuti; Mark S Boyce
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 3.600

8.  Animal movement tools (amt): R package for managing tracking data and conducting habitat selection analyses.

Authors:  Johannes Signer; John Fieberg; Tal Avgar
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 2.912

9.  Where to forage when afraid: Does perceived risk impair use of the foodscape?

Authors:  Samantha P H Dwinnell; Hall Sawyer; Jill E Randall; Jeffrey L Beck; Jennifer S Forbey; Gary L Fralick; Kevin L Monteith
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 4.657

10.  Nuisance ecology: do scavenging condors exact foraging costs on pumas in Patagonia?

Authors:  L Mark Elbroch; Heiko U Wittmer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.