Monitoring Wolf Populations Using Howling Points Combined With Sign Survey Transects

Llaneza, Luís; Ordiz, Andrés; Palacios, Vicente; Uzal, Antonio Orihuela

doi:10.2461/wbp.2005.1.13

Cited by 24 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, several studies suggest that wolves use linear infrastructures to place a significant proportion of their territorial marks [31], [32], [34], [42], [43], but how landscape configuration influences this marking behaviour is unknown. Another important concern in the use of this method would be the feasibility in the identification of wolf marks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intensity of Territorial Marking Predicts Wolf Reproduction: Implications for Wolf Monitoring

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe implementation of intensive and complex approaches to monitor large carnivores is resource demanding, restricted to endangered species, small populations, or small distribution ranges. Wolf monitoring over large spatial scales is difficult, but the management of such contentious species requires regular estimations of abundance to guide decision-makers. The integration of wolf marking behaviour with simple sign counts may offer a cost-effective alternative to monitor the status of wolf populations over large spatial scales.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe used a multi-sampling approach, based on the collection of visual and scent wolf marks (faeces and ground scratching) and the assessment of wolf reproduction using howling and observation points, to test whether the intensity of marking behaviour around the pup-rearing period (summer-autumn) could reflect wolf reproduction. Between 1994 and 2007 we collected 1,964 wolf marks in a total of 1,877 km surveyed and we searched for the pups' presence (1,497 howling and 307 observations points) in 42 sampling sites with a regular presence of wolves (120 sampling sites/year). The number of wolf marks was ca. 3 times higher in sites with a confirmed presence of pups (20.3 vs. 7.2 marks). We found a significant relationship between the number of wolf marks (mean and maximum relative abundance index) and the probability of wolf reproduction.Conclusions/SignificanceThis research establishes a real-time relationship between the intensity of wolf marking behaviour and wolf reproduction. We suggest a conservative cutting point of 0.60 for the probability of wolf reproduction to monitor wolves on a regional scale combined with the use of the mean relative abundance index of wolf marks in a given area. We show how the integration of wolf behaviour with simple sampling procedures permit rapid, real-time, and cost-effective assessments of the breeding status of wolf packs with substantial implications to monitor wolves at large spatial scales.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1b) [34], [42], [43] where the probability of the detection of wolf marks by other intra and inter-pack individuals is maximized. Mountain passes may favour wolf movements between valleys in mountainous areas turning these places into important landmarks on a landscape level.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intensity of Territorial Marking Predicts Wolf Reproduction: Implications for Wolf Monitoring

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As random sampling is not effective to locate wolf signs (e.g. Llaneza et al. , 2005b), surveys were focused on landscape features often used by wolves as marking places.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We therefore searched for wolf signs along transects, on foot or using a vehicle (< 10 km h −1 ) following paths, dirt roads, forest trails, firebreaks and crossroads, because wolves locate most of their faecal marking sites (territorial marking sites) in these places (Mech & Boitani, 2003; Barja et al. , 2004; Llaneza et al. , 2005b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Llaneza et al, 2005b), surveys were focused on landscape features often used by wolves as marking places. We therefore searched for wolf signs along transects, on foot or using a vehicle (< 10 km h )1 ) following paths, dirt roads, forest trails, firebreaks and crossroads, because wolves locate most of their faecal marking sites (territorial marking sites) in these places (Mech & Boitani, 2003;Barja et al, 2004;Llaneza et al, 2005b). Further details about the monitoring procedure are given in Llaneza et al (2005b).…”

Section: Wolf Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Insights into wolf presence in human‐dominated landscapes: the relative role of food availability, humans and landscape attributes

Llaneza

López‐Bao

Sazatornil³

2011

Diversity and Distributions

105

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Understanding which human or environmental factors interact to enable or to limit the occurrence and persistence of large carnivores in human‐dominated landscapes is an important issue for their effective conservation, especially under the current scenario of global change where most of their former habitat is being transformed by humans. Location NW Iberian Peninsula. Methods We combine data on the distribution of Iberian wolves (Canis lupus signatus) living in a human‐dominated landscape in NW Spain and variation and partitioning methods to investigate the relative importance of three groups of predictors: food availability, humans and landscape attributes – each group expected to have unequal effects on wolf reproduction and survival – and their interactions on the occurrence of this species. Results We found that the group of predictors related with landscape attributes (altitude, roughness and refuge) strongly determined wolf occurrence, followed by humans and food availability. Variance partitioning analysis revealed that the three most important components determining wolf occurrence were related with landscape attributes: (1) the joint effects of the three predictor groups, (2) the joint effect of humans and landscape attributes and (3) the pure effect of landscape attributes. Altitude had the main independent contribution to explain the probability of wolf occurrence. Main conclusions In human‐dominated landscapes, the occurrence of wolves is the result of a complex interaction among several environmental and human factors. Our results suggest that the characteristics of the landscape (spatial context) – factors associated with the security of wolves facilitating that animals go unnoticed by humans, wolf movements, dispersal events and short‐time colonization – become more important in human‐dominated landscapes and may have played a key role in the occurrence and persistence of this species throughout decades modulating the relationship between humans and wolf distribution.

show abstract

Reliability of human estimates of the presence of pups and the number of wolves vocalizing in chorus howls: implications for decision-making processes

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring Wolf Populations Using Howling Points Combined With Sign Survey Transects

Cited by 24 publications

References 7 publications

Intensity of Territorial Marking Predicts Wolf Reproduction: Implications for Wolf Monitoring

Intensity of Territorial Marking Predicts Wolf Reproduction: Implications for Wolf Monitoring

Insights into wolf presence in human‐dominated landscapes: the relative role of food availability, humans and landscape attributes

Reliability of human estimates of the presence of pups and the number of wolves vocalizing in chorus howls: implications for decision-making processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About