We conducted a 3-year study (May 2003-Apr 2006 of mortality of northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus elaphus) calves to determine the cause for the recruitment decline (i.e., 33 calves to 13 calves/100 adult F) following the restoration of wolves (Canis lupus). We captured, fit with radiotransmitters, and evaluated blood characteristics and disease antibody seroprevalence in 151 calves 6 days old (68M:83F). Concentrations (x, SE) of potential condition indicators were as follows: thyroxine (T4; 13.8 lg/dL, 0.43), serum urea nitrogen (SUN; 17.4 mg/dL, 0.57), c-glutamyltransferase (GGT; 66.4 IU/L, 4.36), gamma globulins (GG; 1.5 g/dL, 0.07), and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1; 253.6 ng/mL, 9.59). Seroprevalences were as follows: brucellosis (Brucella abortus; 3%), bovine-respiratory syncytial virus (3%), bovine-viral-diarrhea virus type 1 (25%), infectious-bovine rhinotracheitis (58%), and bovine parainfluenza-3 (32%). Serum urea nitrogen, GGT, GG, and IGF-1 varied with year; T4, SUN, and GG varied with age (P 0.01); and SUN varied by capture area (P ¼ 0.02). Annual survival was 0.22 (SE¼0.035, n¼149) and varied by calving area but not year. Neonates captured in the Stephens Creek/Mammoth area of Yellowstone National Park, USA, had annual survival rates .33 higher (0.54) than those captured in the Lamar Valley area (0.17), likely due to the higher predator density in Lamar Valley. Summer survival (20 weeks after radiotagging) was 0.29 (SE ¼ 0.05, n ¼ 116), and calving area, absolute deviation from median birth date, and GG were important predictors of summer survival. Survival during winter (Nov-Apr) was 0.90 (SE ¼ 0.05, n ¼ 42), and it did not vary by calving area or year. Sixty-nine percent (n ¼ 104) of calves died within the first year of life, 24% (n ¼ 36) survived their first year, and 7% (n ¼ 11) had unknown fates. Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus) accounted for 58-60% (n ¼ 60-62) of deaths, and wolves accounted for 14-17% (n ¼ 15-18). Summer predation (95% of summer deaths) increased, and winter malnutrition (0% of winter deaths) decreased, compared with a similar study during 1987-1990 (72% and 58%, respectively). Physiological factors (e.g., low levels of GG) may predispose calves to predation. Also, the increase in bear numbers since wolf restoration and spatial components finer than the northern range should be considered when trying to determine the causes of the northern Yellowstone elk decline. This is the first study to document the predation impacts from reintroduced wolves on elk calf mortality in an ecosystem already containing established populations of 4 other major predators (i. para determinar las causas del descenso del reclutamiento (de 33 a 13 crías /100 hembras adultas) tras la restauración del lobo (Canis lupus). Hemos capturado, marcado con radiotransmisores y evaluado las características de la sangre y la seroprevalencia de los anticuerpos a enfermedades de 151 crías 6 días (68M:83H). Las concentraciones (x, SE) de los indicadores del estado pote...
Summary 1. Understanding the interaction among predators and between predation and climate is critical to understanding the mechanisms for compensatory mortality. We used data from 1999 radio‐marked neonatal elk (Cervus elaphus) calves from 12 populations in the north‐western United States to test for effects of predation on neonatal survival, and whether predation interacted with climate to render mortality compensatory. 2. Weibull survival models with a random effect for each population were fit as a function of the number of predator species in a community (3–5), seven indices of climatic variability, sex, birth date, birth weight, and all interactions between climate and predators. Cumulative incidence functions (CIF) were used to test whether the effects of individual species of predators were additive or compensatory. 3. Neonatal elk survival to 3 months declined following hotter previous summers and increased with higher May precipitation, especially in areas with wolves and/or grizzly bears. Mortality hazards were significantly lower in systems with only coyotes (Canis latrans), cougars (Puma concolor) and black bears (Ursus americanus) compared to higher mortality hazards experienced with gray wolves (Canis lupus) and grizzly bears (Ursus horribilis). 4. In systems with wolves and grizzly bears, mortality by cougars decreased, and predation by bears was the dominant cause of neonatal mortality. Only bear predation appeared additive and occurred earlier than other predators, which may render later mortality by other predators compensatory as calves age. Wolf predation was low and most likely a compensatory source of mortality for neonatal elk calves. 5. Functional redundancy and interspecific competition among predators may combine with the effects of climate on vulnerability to predation to drive compensatory mortality of neonatal elk calves. The exception was the evidence for additive bear predation. These results suggest that effects of predation by recovering wolves on neonatal elk survival, a contentious issue for management of elk populations, may be less important than the composition of the predator community. Future studies would benefit by synthesizing overwinter calf and adult‐survival data sets, ideally from experimental studies, to test the roles of predation in annual compensatory and additive mortality of elk.
Human-driven global change is causing ongoing declines in biodiversity worldwide. In order to address these declines, decision-makers need accurate assessments of the status of and pressures on biodiversity. However, these are heavily constrained by incomplete and uneven spatial, temporal and taxonomic coverage. For instance, data from regions such as Europe and North America are currently used overwhelmingly for large-scale biodiversity assessments due to lesser availability of suitable data from other, more biodiversity-rich, regions. These data-poor regions are often those experiencing the strongest threats to biodiversity, however. There is therefore an urgent need to fill the existing gaps in global biodiversity monitoring. Here, we review current knowledge on best practice in capacity building for biodiversity monitoring and provide an overview of existing means to improve biodiversity data collection considering the different types of biodiversity monitoring data. Our review comprises insights from work in Africa, South America, Polar Regions and Europe; in governmentfunded, volunteer and citizen-based monitoring in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. The key steps to effectively building capacity in biodiversity monitoring are: identifying monitoring questions and aims; identifying the key components, functions, and processes to monitor; identifying the most suitable monitoring methods for these elements, carrying out monitoring activities; managing the resultant data; and interpreting monitoring data. Additionally, biodiversity monitoring should use multiple approaches including extensive and intensive monitoring through volunteers and professional scientists but also harnessing new technologies. Finally, we call on the scientific community to share biodiversity monitoring data, knowledge and tools to ensure the accessibility, interoperability, and reporting of biodiversity data at a global scale.4
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.