Dog days of summer: influences on decision of wolves to move pups

Ausband, David E.; Mitchell, Michael S.; Bassing, Sarah B.; Nordhagen, Matthew; Smith, Douglas W.; Stahler, Daniel R.

doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyw114

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In many bird species, the chicks spend a proportionally long time in the nest before they are ready to leave it, and soon thereafter, they reach independence. In most carnivore species, pups are kept in the den for a short period of time, followed by a period in which they start following the adults for short trips, but are not completely independent for a long time after den emergence (see, e.g., Ausband et al 2016). Therefore, third-order adult habitat selection, that is, the habitat visited by the adult caring for the young, has a different value for each of those groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting habitat to what purpose? The advantage of exploring the habitat–fitness relationship

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Measures of reproductive success have been recognized in many fields as essential tools to assess the status of populations, species, and communities. However, difficulties in gathering data on reproductive success often prevent researchers from taking advantage of the information offered by those measures. For example, most of habitat selection studies do not include reproductive success in their analysis even though doing so would highly improve our understanding of the habitat selection process. In our study, we aimed to assess to what extent habitat selection choices made by adult individuals are directed to increase their annual reproductive success. We tested this idea by first developing habitat selection models and then relating the results of those models to two measures of reproductive success. Using wolves, Canis lupus, as the study species, we determined that not all habitat selection choices performed by adult wolves were related to their annual reproductive success. The results varied also in relation to the measure of reproductive success used in the analysis and other individual-, group-, and population-level factors. Likely, adult female wolves select habitat characteristics to increase not only their annual reproductive success but also their lifetime reproductive success, for example, by ensuring their own survival and reproductive abilities in subsequent years. Our study suggests that a variety of motivations may govern habitat choices performed by adult individuals and including different measures of fitness in habitat selection studies can improve our understanding of these complex processes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting habitat to what purpose? The advantage of exploring the habitat–fitness relationship

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At finer scales, however, use of specific habitats is typically associated with certain wolf behaviors (e.g., killing prey, traveling, resting; James and Stuart‐Smith ; Kunkel and Pletscher ; Ciucci et al ; Whittington et al , ) and critical life‐history stages (e.g., raising pups at homesites; McLoughlin et al , Ausband et al , Houle et al , Sazatornil et al ). Wolf homesites include pre‐weaning (i.e., dens) and post‐weaning (i.e., rendezvous) sites (Joslin ), the latter being aboveground locations intensively used by the whole pack where breeding and non‐breeding wolves systematically return to provision and protect pups (Demma and Mech , Ruprecht et al , Ausband et al ). Rendezvous sites are generally used up to September−October (Packard , Mills et al , Ruprecht et al , Ausband et al ) and, compared to dens, expose pups to greater risks of interference or predation because they are visible aboveground, the pups are more mobile, and attendance rates of the other pack members decline throughout the season (Ruprecht et al , Ausband et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wolf homesites include pre‐weaning (i.e., dens) and post‐weaning (i.e., rendezvous) sites (Joslin ), the latter being aboveground locations intensively used by the whole pack where breeding and non‐breeding wolves systematically return to provision and protect pups (Demma and Mech , Ruprecht et al , Ausband et al ). Rendezvous sites are generally used up to September−October (Packard , Mills et al , Ruprecht et al , Ausband et al ) and, compared to dens, expose pups to greater risks of interference or predation because they are visible aboveground, the pups are more mobile, and attendance rates of the other pack members decline throughout the season (Ruprecht et al , Ausband et al ). More than 4 rendezvous sites may be used in each season (Ausband et al ), but Ciucci et al () recorded a pack using a single homesite in a landscape encroached by human activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchical, multi‐grain rendezvous site selection by wolves in southern Italy

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fine‐scale knowledge of how anthropogenic effects may alter habitat selection by wolves (Canis lupus) is important to inform conservation management, especially where wolf populations are expanding into more populated areas or where human activity and development are increasingly encroaching on formerly pristine environments. From 1999 to 2003, we documented rendezvous sites (n = 31) used by wolves (n = 6 packs) in a previously unstudied wolf population in the southern Apennines, Italy (Pollino National Park [PNP]), where conditions are ideal to unveil behavioral adaptations of wolves living in human‐dominated landscapes. We adopted a hierarchical, multi‐scale habitat selection approach by using a set of environmental, topographic, and anthropogenic factors within multi‐grain resource selection functions (MRSFs) at the landscape and the territory extent. Habitat selection by wolves was scale‐dependent and different habitat components affected wolves at different grains. When establishing a territory at the landscape scale, wolves avoided areas featuring high densities of humans, paved roads, and trails, and they preferentially located territories where higher forest cover and rough terrain enhanced concealment and ensured reduced accessibility by humans. Concurrently, wolves also selected open areas and, at coarse grain, areas of high density of dirt roads and trails to enhance hunting and traveling efficiency. When selecting rendezvous sites within territories, wolves still selected for forest cover and lessened avoidance of anthropogenic features apparent at the lower order of selection. When choosing rendezvous sites, wolves also avoided low‐use anthropogenic linear features and rough terrain, unveiling trade‐offs in selection decisions across different spatial and temporal scales. Our results reinforce the notion that occurrence of wolves in human‐modified landscapes is shaped by avoidance of anthropogenic pressure, but they also indicate that rendezvous site selection by wolves conform to a hierarchical decision‐making process that is extent‐ and grain‐dependent. Spatially explicit models of rendezvous site selection such as the one we developed for PNP enhance management effectiveness for strategies such as regulating human access and activity during the pup rearing seasons, preventing human persecution, mitigating livestock depredations, and designing cost‐effective monitoring programs. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…GPS‐collared wolves generally spent much more time clustered at a site than our minimum definition averaging 33.2 d at pup‐rearing sites (SE = 2.3; Ausband et al. ). Using this definition of a pup‐rearing site, we found that 87% (n = 15) of clusters defined as rendezvous sites from 2011 GPS collar data were within 150 m of highly suitable rendezvous site habitat in Idaho (Ausband et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Group size can affect how much time an individual devotes to guarding young (Courchamp & Macdonald 2001;Ruprecht et al 2012). Distributing the workload of rearing young among members of a group (i.e., load-lightening; Crick 1992) has positive effects that have been documented across a broad range of taxa including birds (Crick 1992), mongooses , and monkeys (Sanchez et al 1999;Bales et al 2001). Load-lightening can lead to increased survival and growth of young and in improved condition and survival of female breeders (Sanchez et al 1999;Bales et al 2001;Russell et al 2003;Sparkman et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual, Group, and Environmental Influences on Helping Behavior in a Social Carnivore

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation in group composition and environment can affect helping behavior in cooperative breeders. Understanding of how group size, traits of individuals within groups, food abundance, and predation risk simultaneously influence helping behavior is limited. We evaluated pup‐guarding behavior in gray wolves (Canis lupus) to assess how differences in individuals, groups, and environment affect helping behavior. We used data from 92 GPS‐collared wolves in North America (2001–2012) to estimate individual pup‐guarding rates. Individuals in groups with low helper‐to‐pup ratios spent more time guarding young than those in groups with more helpers, an indication of load‐lightening. Female helpers guarded more than male helpers, but this relationship weakened as pups grew. Subset analyses including data on helper age and wolf and prey density showed such factors did not significantly influence pup‐guarding rates. We show that characteristics of individuals and groups have strong influences on pup‐guarding behavior in gray wolves, but environmental factors such as food abundance and predation risk from conspecifics were not influential.

show abstract

Dog days of summer: influences on decision of wolves to move pups

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Selecting habitat to what purpose? The advantage of exploring the habitat–fitness relationship

Selecting habitat to what purpose? The advantage of exploring the habitat–fitness relationship

Hierarchical, multi‐grain rendezvous site selection by wolves in southern Italy

Individual, Group, and Environmental Influences on Helping Behavior in a Social Carnivore

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About