Pack Size of Wolves, &lt;em&gt;Canis lupus&lt;/em&gt;, on Caribou, &lt;em&gt;Rangifer tarandus&lt;/em&gt;, Winter Ranges in Westcentral Alberta

Kuzyk, Gerald W.; Kneteman, Jeff; Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A.

doi:10.22621/cfn.v120i3.321

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our 2003 and 2008 estimates are similar to the previously published estimates of 8,000 (Hayes and Gunson ) and 8,100 wolves (Theberge ), which were both based on expert opinion. Our estimated regional densities are within the range of those estimated for wolves using radio telemetry and snow‐tracking within small study areas in British Columbia (Hatter , Seip , Bergerud and Elliot , Hatler et al ) and similar to those reported from neighboring jurisdictions (Bjorge and Gunson , Hayes and Harestad , Hayes et al , Kuzyk et al , Webb et al ). Our estimated regional densities are also within the lower range of wolf densities from the western North America studies reported by Fuller et al ().…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Using ungulate biomass to estimate abundance of wolves in British Columbia

Kuzyk

Hatter

2014

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of wolves (Canis lupus) in British Columbia, as with most other Canadian provinces, is conducted on a regional scale (38,776 km 2 ), yet there is no standardized, cost-effective methodology for providing reliable estimates of wolf abundance at this scale. Therefore, we used periodic estimates of ungulate abundance and incorporated them into an ungulate biomass regression model to estimate wolf abundance on a regional and provincial (900,402 km 2 ) scale over a 12-year period (2000-2011). In 2011, the provincial estimate was 8,688 (95% CI ¼ 5,898-11,760) wolves (7-13 wolves/1,000 km 2 ), while regional wolf abundance estimates ranged from 149 (95% CI ¼ 100-205) to 2,693 (95% CI ¼ 1,818-3,608) with differences related to regional scale (km 2 ) rather than wolf densities (4-15 wolves/1,000 km 2 ). We suggest the ungulate biomass regression model is useful to estimate the abundance of wolves for management purposes when precise estimates are not required and wolf populations are not heavily exploited or recovering.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Using ungulate biomass to estimate abundance of wolves in British Columbia

Kuzyk

Hatter

2014

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The wolf–caribou dynamics in the central Arctic are different than those documented in other study areas where alternative prey occur at relatively high densities and can sustain wolves in the absence of abundant caribou (Ballard et al , ; Kuzyk et al ; Serrouya et al ; Hervieux et al ). For example, the home ranges of central Arctic wolves are amongst the largest in North America (Walton et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Wolf-caribou dynamics within the central Canadian Arctic

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The severity of recent declines of barren‐ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) across the central Canadian Arctic has led to harvest restrictions and concerns about population recovery. Wolves (Canis lupus) are the main predator of barren‐ground caribou; however, the extent that wolves influence the decline and recovery of caribou herds is unknown. Such uncertainty confounds management responses (e.g., reducing harvest, predator control). We investigated wolf–caribou dynamics on the summer range of barren‐ground caribou in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, Canada (i.e., Bathurst caribou herd). Our primary objective was to test for a numerical response of wolves to changes in the abundance and spatial distribution of caribou. Caribou experienced a >90% decline in abundance over the study period (1996–2014). Using long‐term data sets (1996–2012), we developed regression models to investigate relationships between abundance indices of wolves and range‐use patterns of caribou. We monitored the movements of adult female wolves fitted with global positioning system (GPS) collars representing individual packs throughout the 2013 and 2014 denning periods. We also investigated pup recruitment, an index of population decline, at a time of low caribou abundance. Finally, we developed a series of stochastic population models to understand how pup recruitment influenced wolf densities on the Bathurst range over the period of caribou decline. As caribou abundance decreased, the late‐summer distribution of the Bathurst herd contracted toward the calving ground. These movements correlated with low rates of wolf pup recruitment and high den abandonment, suggesting a regulatory mechanism whereby wolf reproductive success was limited by the low availability of caribou within the denning areas. Furthermore, these data suggested a numerical response, where wolf densities decreased as caribou numbers declined. In 2014, wolf density was estimated at <4 wolves/1,000 km2. Our results suggest that these wolves exhibited a relatively strong numerical response to a single, declining prey base. Given the continued decline in the Bathurst caribou herd, the tundra wolf population on the Bathurst range has likely declined below our 2014 estimate. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…In more productive systems like the foothills and boreal plains of Alberta and low‐elevation slopes of the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, where evidence supporting DMAC has been reported, total ungulate biomass was much higher. Moose densities can be as high as 120–250 moose/1,000 km 2 (e.g., Little Smoky, Alberta, pre‐wolf removal [unpublished data cited in Kuzyk et al 2006]). But the alternate‐prey guild is also diverse, including populations of elk ( Cervus canadensis ), mule deer ( O. hemionus ), and white‐tailed deer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disturbance‐Mediated Apparent Competition Decouples in a Northern Boreal Caribou Range

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most widely reported threat to boreal and mountain populations of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou; caribou) involves habitat‐ or disturbance‐mediated apparent competition (DMAC). With DMAC, natural and anthropogenic disturbances that increase the abundance of deciduous‐browsing cervids (e.g., moose [Alces alces], deer [Odocoileus spp.]) are thought to promote predator (especially wolf [Canis lupus]) numbers, which heightens predation risk to caribou. We know most about the effects of DMAC on caribou where the species is under threat by anthropogenic activities in relatively productive southern boreal and mountain systems. Yet, >60% of extant boreal caribou range in North America consists of northern shield and taiga ecoregions of low productivity where caribou may compete with only 1 ungulate species (moose) in the context of DMAC. In this environment, we know very little of how DMAC acts as a limiting factor to caribou. In Saskatchewan, Canada, from 2014–2018, using a combination of vegetation sampling, aerial surveys, and telemetry data (n = 38 wolves), we searched for evidence of DMAC (trends in data consistent with the hypothesis) in an 87,193‐km2 section of the Western Boreal Shield, a poorly productive but pristine region (0.18% of land cover classed as an anthropogenic feature) with a historically high fire‐return interval (47% of stands aged <40 years). Despite the high levels of disturbance, moose density was relatively low (47 moose/1,000 km2), likely because of the scarcity of deciduous or mixed‐wood stands and low abundance of deciduous browse in the young conifer stands that dominated the landscape. In contrast, boreal caribou density was relatively high for the species (37 caribou/1,000 km2). Wolf density (3.1 wolves/1,000 km2) and pack sizes ( = 4.0 wolves/pack) were low and resident (established) territories were large ( = 4,360 km2; 100% minimum convex polygon). The low density of wolves mirrored the low (standardized) ungulate biomass index (UBI; moose + boreal caribou) of the study area (0.36 UBI/km2). We conclude that wolf and hence caribou populations were not responding in accordance with the outcomes generally predicted by DMAC in our study area because the requisite strong, positive response to fire of deciduous‐browse and alternate‐prey abundance was lacking. As a limiting factor to caribou, DMAC is likely modulated at a macroecological scale by factors such as net primary productivity, a corollary to the general hypothesis that we advance here (i.e., primary productivity hypothesis of DMAC). We caution against managing for caribou based on the presumption of DMAC where the mechanism does not apply, which may include much of boreal caribou range in the north. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Pack Size of Wolves, <em>Canis lupus</em>, on Caribou, <em>Rangifer tarandus</em>, Winter Ranges in Westcentral Alberta

Cited by 10 publications

References 28 publications

Using ungulate biomass to estimate abundance of wolves in British Columbia

Using ungulate biomass to estimate abundance of wolves in British Columbia

Wolf-caribou dynamics within the central Canadian Arctic

Disturbance‐Mediated Apparent Competition Decouples in a Northern Boreal Caribou Range

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About