No abstract

Estimating cause‐specific mortality is often of central importance for understanding the dynamics of wildlife populations. Despite such importance, methodology for estimating and analyzing cause‐specific mortality has received little attention in wildlife ecology during the past 20 years. The issue of analyzing cause‐specific, mutually exclusive events in time is not unique to wildlife. In fact, this general problem has received substantial attention in human biomedical applications within the context of biostatistical survival analysis. Here, we consider cause‐specific mortality from a modern biostatistical perspective. This requires carefully defining what we mean by cause‐specific mortality and then providing an appropriate hazard‐based representation as a competing risks problem. This leads to the general solution of cause‐specific mortality as the cumulative incidence function (CIF). We describe the appropriate generalization of the fully nonparametric staggered‐entry Kaplan–Meier survival estimator to cause‐specific mortality via the nonparametric CIF estimator (NPCIFE), which in many situations offers an attractive alternative to the Heisey–Fuller estimator. An advantage of the NPCIFE is that it lends itself readily to risk factors analysis with standard software for Cox proportional hazards model. The competing risks‐based approach also clarifies issues regarding another intuitive but erroneous “cause‐specific mortality” estimator based on the Kaplan–Meier survival estimator and commonly seen in the life sciences literature.

The decline of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) has been attributed to anthropogenic landscape disturbances, but critical distance thresholds and time lags between disturbance and extirpation are unknown. Using a database of caribou presence and extirpation for northern Ontario, Canada, geo‐coded to 10 times 10‐km cells, we constructed logistic regression models to predict caribou extirpation based on distance to the nearest of each of 9 disturbance types: forest cutovers, fires, roads, utility corridors, mines, pits and quarries, lakes, trails, and rail lines. We used Akaike's Information Criterion to select parsimonious models and Receiver‐Operating Characteristic curves to derive optimal thresholds. To deal with the effects of spatial autocorrelation on estimates of model significance, we used subsampling and restricted randomizations. Forest cutovers were the best predictor of caribou occupancy, with a tolerance threshold of 13 km to nearest cutover and a time lag of 2 decades between disturbance by cutting and caribou extirpation. Management of woodland caribou should incorporate buffers around habitat and requires long‐term monitoring of range occupancy.

Eastern wolves have hybridized extensively with coyotes and gray wolves and are listed as a 'species of special concern' in Canada. However, a distinct population of eastern wolves has been identified in Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) in Ontario. Previous studies of the diverse Canis hybrid zone adjacent to APP have not linked genetic analysis with field data to investigate genotype-specific morphology or determine how resident animals of different ancestry are distributed across the landscape in relation to heterogeneous environmental conditions. Accordingly, we studied resident wolves and coyotes in and adjacent to APP to identify distinct Canis types, clarify the extent of the APP eastern wolf population beyond the park boundaries and investigate fine-scale spatial genetic structure and landscape-genotype associations in the hybrid zone. We documented three genetically distinct Canis types within the APP region that also differed morphologically, corresponding to putative gray wolves, eastern wolves and coyotes. We also documented a substantial number of hybrid individuals (36%) that were admixed between 2 or 3 of the Canis types. Breeding eastern wolves were less common outside of APP, but occurred in some unprotected areas where they were sympatric with a diverse combination of coyotes, gray wolves and hybrids. We found significant spatial genetic structure and identified a steep cline extending west from APP where the dominant genotype shifted abruptly from eastern wolves to coyotes and hybrids. The genotypic pattern to the south and northwest was a more complex mosaic of alternating genotypes. We modelled genetic ancestry in response to prey availability and human disturbance and found that individuals with greater wolf ancestry occupied areas of higher moose density and fewer roads. Our results clarify the structure of the Canis hybrid zone adjacent to APP and provide unique insight into environmental conditions influencing hybridization dynamics between wolves and coyotes.

Movement patterns offer a rich source of information on animal behaviour and the ecological significance of landscape attributes. This is especially useful for species occupying remote landscapes where direct behavioural observations are limited. In this study, we fit a mechanistic model of animal cognition and movement to GPS positional data of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou; Gmelin 1788) collected over a wide range of ecological conditions. The model explicitly tracks individual animal informational state over space and time, with resulting parameter estimates that have direct cognitive and ecological meaning. Three biotic landscape attributes were hypothesized to motivate caribou movement: forage abundance (dietary digestible biomass), wolf (Canis lupus; Linnaeus, 1758) density and moose (Alces alces; Linnaeus, 1758) habitat. Wolves are the main predator of caribou in this system and moose are their primary prey. Resulting parameter estimates clearly indicated that forage abundance is an important driver of caribou movement patterns, with predator and moose avoidance often having a strong effect, but not for all individuals. From the cognitive perspective, our results support the notion that caribou rely on limited sensory inputs from their surroundings, as well as on long-term spatial memory, to make informed movement decisions. Our study demonstrates how sensory, memory and motion capacities may interact with ecological fitness covariates to influence movement decisions by free-ranging animals.

No abstract

Eastern North American wolves have long been recognized as morphologically distinct from both coyotes and gray wolves. This has led to questions regarding their origins and taxonomic status. Eastern wolves are mainly viewed as: (1) a smaller subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus lycaon), potentially the result of historical hybridization between gray wolves (C. lupus) and red wolves (C. rufus), (2) a hybrid, the result of gray wolf (C. lupus) and coyote (C. latrans) interbreeding, or (3) a distinct species, C. lycaon, closely related to the red wolf (C. rufus). Although debate persists, recent molecular studies suggest that the eastern wolf is not a gray wolf subspecies, nor the result of gray wolf/coyote hybridization. Eastern wolves were more likely a distinct species, C. lycaon, prior to the eastward spread of coyotes in the late 1800s. However, contemporary interbreeding exits between C. lycaon to both C. lupus and C. latrans over much of its present range complicating its present taxonomic characterization. While hybridization may be reducing the taxonomic distinctiveness of C. lycaon, it should not necessarily be viewed as negative influence. Hybridization may be enhancing the adaptive potential of eastern wolves, allowing them to more effectively exploit available resources in rapidly changing environments.

Interpretation of the genetic composition and taxonomic history of wolves in the western Great Lakes region (WGLR) of the United States has long been debated and has become more important to their conservation given the recent changes in their status under the Endangered Species Act. Currently, the two competing hypotheses on WGLR wolves are that they resulted from hybridization between (i) grey wolves (Canis lupus) and western coyotes (C. latrans) or (ii) between grey wolves and eastern wolves (C. lycaon). We performed a genetic analysis of sympatric wolves and coyotes from the region to assess the degree of reproductive isolation between them and to clarify the taxonomic status of WGLR wolves. Based on data from maternal, paternal and bi-parental genetic markers, we demonstrate a clear genetic distinction between sympatric wolves and coyotes and conclude that they are reproductively isolated and that wolf-coyote hybridization in the WGLR is uncommon. The data reject the hypothesis that wolves in the WGLR derive from hybridization between grey wolves and western coyotes, and we conclude that the extant WGLR wolf population is derived from hybridization between grey wolves and eastern wolves. Grey-eastern wolf hybrids (C. lupus × lycaon) comprise a substantial population that extends across Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and western Ontario. These findings have important implications for the conservation and management of wolves in North America, specifically concerning the overestimation of grey wolf numbers in the United States and the need to address policies for hybrids.