Functional response of wolves to human development across boreal North America

Abstract

Aim The influence of humans on large carnivores, including wolves, is a worldwide conservation concern. In addition, human‐caused changes in carnivore density and distribution might have impacts on prey and, indirectly, on vegetation. We therefore tested wolf responses to infrastructure related to natural resource development (i.e., human footprint). Location Our study provides one of the most extensive assessments of how predators like wolves select habitat in response to various degrees of footprint across boreal ecosystems encompassing over a million square kilometers of Canada. Methods We deployed GPS‐collars on 172 wolves, monitored movements and used a generalized functional response (GFR) model of resource selection. A functional response in habitat selection occurs when selection varies as a function of the availability of that habitat. GFRs can clarify how human‐induced habitat changes are influencing wildlife across large, diverse landscapes. Results Wolves displayed a functional response to footprint. Wolves were more likely to select forest harvest cutblocks in regions with higher cutblock density (i.e., a positive functional response to high‐quality habitats for ungulate prey) and to select for higher road density in regions where road density was high (i.e., a positive functional response to human‐created travel routes). Wolves were more likely to use cutblocks in habitats with low road densities, and more likely to use roads in habitats with low cutblock densities, except in winter when wolves were more likely to use roads regardless of cutblock density. Main conclusions These interactions suggest that wolves trade‐off among human‐impacted habitats, and adaptively switch from using roads to facilitate movement (while also risking encounters with humans), to using cutblocks that may have higher ungulate densities. We recommend that conservation managers consider the contextual and interacting effects of footprints when assessing impacts on carnivores. These effects likely have indirect impacts on ecosystems too, including on prey species.

Seasonal and daily shifts in behavior and resource selection: how a carnivore navigates costly landscapes

“…Yet, Zeller et al ( 2019 ) found individual differences in resource choices in black bears even when accounting for behavioral state. Future studies might reveal that behaviorally explicit resource choices by coyotes are also individually variable, perhaps by a functional response to human presence or disturbance (as seen in wolves; Muhly et al 2019 ), spatial learning (Merkle et al 2019 ), or genotypic or phenotypic expressions (such as boldness; Wurth 2018 ).…”

When the protection of a threatened species depends on the economy of a foreign nation

“…Moreover, while wolves (Canis lupus) generally avoid hunting in closed coniferous forests [12,16], they take advantage of linear features such as roads (from forestry and other source) and other corridors (e.g., seismic exploration cut-lines from oil and gas exploration) [17] to venture into forests which diminishes the effectiveness of caribou habitat-selection strategies to avoid predation [18]. The response of predators like wolves to using logging-impacted habitat across boreal caribou range is also non-linear, increasing with prevalence of cutblocks on the landscape [19]. Consequently, caribou generally experience higher mortality and especially lower recruitment in areas characterized by a relatively large proportion of anthropogenic disturbance [9,20].…”

Multiscale consensus habitat modeling for landscape level conservation prioritization

“…Despite declining global populations and habitats, carnivores can be resilient and adapt to modified environments. Recent efforts to model future habitat and responses to development can provide managers with the tools to mitigate habitat loss or degradation and promote coexistence 116 – 119 . Conservation of carnivore populations globally will require clear and effective communication by scientists and the support of communities and governments.…”