Assessing Potential Habitat and Carrying Capacity for Reintroduction of Plains Bison (Bison bison bison) in Banff National Park

Steenweg, Robin; Hebblewhite, Mark; Gummer, David L.; Low, B.; Hunt, Bill

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150065

Cited by 57 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The only exceptions include bison ( Bison bison ), which were recently (in 2017) reintroduced into Banff (Steenweg et al. ), and caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), which are still present in Jasper, but have been recently extirpated from Banff (Hebblewhite et al. ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species‐specific differences in detection and occupancy probabilities help drive ability to detect trends in occupancy

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupancy‐based surveys are increasingly used to monitor wildlife populations because they can be more cost‐effective than abundance surveys and because they may track multiple species, simultaneously. The design of these multi‐species occupancy surveys affects statistical power to detect trends in occupancy because individual species vary in resource selection, detection probability, and rarity. We tested for differences in the ability of a large‐scale monitoring program to detect changes in single‐species occupancy of 13 medium–large mammal species captured on n = 183 cameras systematically placed across five national parks in the Canadian Rockies (~21,000 km2). We focus the interpretation of our findings on three species at risk: grizzly bear, wolverine, and caribou. We found that statistical power to monitor trends in occupancy depends not only on the established elements associated with power (sampling size, effect size, and variation in estimates), but also on species‐specific detection and occupancy probabilities. These two probabilities, however, affected power differently. For most species in our study, power is insensitive to detection probability. Increasing replicate‐specific detection probability only improved power when the cumulative detection probability was below 0.80. Therefore, efficient species monitoring must consider that power no longer improves by increasing sample size or the replicate‐specific detection probability once this threshold is reached. On the other hand, species with occupancy probabilities close to 0.5 had lower statistical power than those with higher or lower occupancy, that is, power was higher for both rare and very common species. This pattern is due to the heretofore‐underappreciated effect of the binomial variation in occupancy. The implications of these findings are species‐specific. Grizzly bears, for example, had high detection and occupancy probabilities, resulting in high power to detect a population change. Conversely, wolverines had low detection probability and the power to detect change could be improved if detection probability was increased using lure or complimentary survey techniques. Caribou, however, with both low detection and occupancy probabilities, were likely too rare on the landscape to rely on camera‐based occupancy for monitoring. Practitioners should be aware of these species‐specific trade‐offs and may need to tailor monitoring programs to prioritize particular species of conservation concern.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species‐specific differences in detection and occupancy probabilities help drive ability to detect trends in occupancy

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elephants and rhinos are so large that cranes must be available to ensure tranquilized animals are resting in safe positions [76]. Moving the animals is only half of the challenge, however, as much consideration must be given to where the animals are being moved to, such as understanding the carrying capacity of the new habitat [77].…”

Section: Impacts On Population and Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Van Houtan et al also noted that when animals were translocated into areas with existing members of the same species (as opposed to colonizing a new area), the population growth rate of the existing population was actually enhanced. Translocations are also clearly more successful when habitat is demonstrably suitable for that species [77].…”

Section: Impacts On Population and Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Large Herbivores in Protected Areas

Found¹

2016

Glob J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By nature of their size, grouping behaviour, and central position within most trophic webs, large terrestrial herbivores --namely ungulates and elephants --tend to be both keystone and umbrella species. Their proportionately large impacts on ecosystems extend both top-down (i.e. regulation of vegetation), but also bottom up (regulated their predators). For these reasons, as well as their cultural and economic importance to humans around the world, large herbivores are among the most heavily managed species in any region. Large herbivores have historically been managed by the fact that hunting by humans -or an intentional or forced reduction in that hunting -effectively plays its own top-down role of regulating herbivores. Managing large herbivores in protected areas presents a different set of challenges, however, because where human can no longer hunt large herbivores, the role of humans in the ecosystem is changed dramatically. The necessity of regulating both over and underabundant large herbivore populations remains, however, but we are now challenged to affect this management from outside of our former predator-prey relationships. I reviewed the major approaches to managing large herbivores in protected areas, from a historical perspective, through the development of protected areas and conservation ethics, to more modern methods such as wildlife contraception and behavioural modification. I examine each of these methods from a broader perspective that give further consideration to the impacts on species other than the target species. I synthesize these approaches them from the perspective of holistic ecosystem management, where each method acts to replace a part of ecosystem function that has otherwise been lost by the very fact the herbivore population is in a protected area. As the amount of undisturbed habitat for large herbivores decreases worldwide, these iconic species are increasingly confined only to protected areas, making specific strategies for managing their populations even more important.the consequences of inadequate management. Ironically, because of past human interference, maintaining balanced and "natural" ecosystem function within protected areas often requires further human interference. The objective of this review was to examine the different methods humans have employed to manage large herbivore populations, but synthesize them as reactive approaches to replace natural ecosystem process that have been lost. Protected areas have changed our relationship with what essentially is our former prey, but I argue that sustainable management of large herbivores can only be achieved by restoring intactness to ecosystems in which humans are an active part. Historical large herbivore managementPre-industrial attitudes and actions: The goal of wildlife management is to decide how best to manipulate ecosystems towards specific ecological but also human goals within that protected area. Humans have managed large herbivores for thousands of years, namely as a continuous and important food s...

show abstract

“…Despite their critical contributions to land and wildlife health, bison have been nearly extirpated from North America. Popular and political interest in restoring this iconic species for cultural and ecological benefit is rapidly gaining momentum (Steenweg, Hebblewhite, Gummer, Low, & Hunt, 2016). Popular and political interest in restoring this iconic species for cultural and ecological benefit is rapidly gaining momentum (Steenweg, Hebblewhite, Gummer, Low, & Hunt, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological and social consequences of bison reintroduction in Colorado

Wilkins

Pejchar

Garvoille

2019

Conservation Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bison were instrumental in shaping North America's Great Plains. Interest in restoring this iconic species and their ecological role in grassland ecosystems is rapidly gaining momentum. To evaluate the potential for bison to enhance habitat quality for wildlife and catalyze public engagement in grassland conservation, we assessed both the ecological and social effects of a recent bison reintroduction (2015) to northern Colorado. Specifically, we explored the effect of bison reintroduction on: (a) bird density and habitat use, (b) mammal habitat use, (c) vegetation composition and structure, and (d) visitor connectedness, known as place attachment, to a shortgrass prairie. We predicted that bison reintroduction would reduce cover and height of some grasses and shrubs, which would increase density and habitat use for obligate shortgrass prairie birds, and increase habitat use for coyote and lagomorphs. In addition, we predicted that visitors would express stronger place attachment to this grassland once bison were reintroduced. To measure ecological and social responses, we surveyed birds, mammals, and plants; and conducted structured visitor surveys before and after bison reintroduction. We found few short-term effects of bison on grassland bird density and habitat use, mammal habitat use, and vegetation composition and structure. However, we measured a significant increase in visitor place attachment to the grassland site 1 year after bison reintroduction. Our results suggest that a new bison reintroduction may have immediate positive benefits for connecting people to conservation, and that the ecological and social effects may unfold over different time scales. We recommend that future bison reintroduction efforts monitor ecological and social outcomes to advance reintroduction biology.

show abstract

Assessing Potential Habitat and Carrying Capacity for Reintroduction of Plains Bison (Bison bison bison) in Banff National Park

Cited by 57 publications

References 39 publications

Species‐specific differences in detection and occupancy probabilities help drive ability to detect trends in occupancy

Species‐specific differences in detection and occupancy probabilities help drive ability to detect trends in occupancy

Managing Large Herbivores in Protected Areas

Ecological and social consequences of bison reintroduction in Colorado

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About