Demographic performance of a large herbivore: effects of winter nutrition and weather

Jackson, Nathan J.; Stewart, Kelley M.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Clark, Darren A.; Rowland, Mary M.

doi:10.1002/ecs2.3328

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Snow data commonly incorporated into ecological applications are often ready‐made, publicly available products, such as remote sensing datasets, including NASA/United States Geological Survey (USGS) Landsat (Wulder et al, 2019) and NASA MODIS snow‐covered fraction (Hall et al, 2002), or point observations from operational snow observing stations, such as SWE measurements from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL; Serreze et al, 1999) sites (Jackson et al, 2021; John et al, 2020; Middleton et al, 2013). While these agency products have utility for many wildlife applications, they are often used by default, when more tailored, wildlife‐relevant snow information could provide a more nuanced understanding of wildlife–snow relationships.…”

Section: Snow Data For Wildlife Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative wildlife–snow science: Integrating wildlife and snow expertise to improve research and management

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For wildlife inhabiting snowy environments, snow properties such as onset date, depth, strength, and distribution can influence many aspects of ecology, including movement, community dynamics, energy expenditure, and forage accessibility. As a result, snow plays a considerable role in individual fitness and ultimately population dynamics, and its evaluation is, therefore, important for comprehensive understanding of ecosystem processes in regions experiencing snow. Such understanding, and particularly study of how wildlife–snow relationships may be changing, grows more urgent as winter processes become less predictable and often more extreme under global climate change. However, studying and monitoring wildlife–snow relationships continue to be challenging because characterizing snow, an inherently complex and constantly changing environmental feature, and identifying, accessing, and applying relevant snow information at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, often require a detailed understanding of physical snow science and technologies that typically lie outside the expertise of wildlife researchers and managers. We argue that thoroughly assessing the role of snow in wildlife ecology requires substantive collaboration between researchers with expertise in each of these two fields, leveraging the discipline‐specific knowledge brought by both wildlife and snow professionals. To facilitate this collaboration and encourage more effective exploration of wildlife–snow questions, we provide a five‐step protocol: (1) identify relevant snow property information; (2) specify spatial, temporal, and informational requirements; (3) build the necessary datasets; (4) implement quality control procedures; and (5) incorporate snow information into wildlife analyses. Additionally, we explore the types of snow information that can be used within this collaborative framework. We illustrate, in the context of two examples, field observations, remote‐sensing datasets, and four example modeling tools that simulate spatiotemporal snow property distributions and, in some cases, evolutions. For each type of snow data, we highlight the collaborative opportunities for wildlife and snow professionals when designing snow data collection efforts, processing snow remote sensing products, producing tailored snow datasets, and applying the resulting snow information in wildlife analyses. We seek to provide a clear path for wildlife professionals to address wildlife–snow questions and improve ecological inference by integrating the best available snow science through collaboration with snow professionals.

show abstract

Section: Snow Data For Wildlife Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative wildlife–snow science: Integrating wildlife and snow expertise to improve research and management

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fact that no carnivores encountered parturient mule deer more often than expected by chance was consistent with our predictions that the young of less abundant species would not be targeted (Figure 1b); mule deer are at least 5 times less abundant than elk in this ecosystem (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data). This result suggests that mule deer fawn mortalities in this study area (Jackson et al 2021) are likely the result of fortuitous encounters (from the perspective of the predator) and that risk to mule deer from incidental predation may thus depend on the amount of overlap between deer and elk parturition habitat for predators that are primarily searching for elk calves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…GPS positions were recorded every 2 or 3 hours for carnivores, every 30 minutes for elk, and every 60 or 90 minutes for deer. Details on capture and handling of carnivores, elk, and mule deer can be found in Ruprecht et al (2021a), Wisdom et al (1993) and Jackson et al (2021), respectively. All animal capture and handling adhered to protocols approved by the USDA Forest Service, Starkey Experimental Forest Institutional Animal Care and Use 7 Committee (IACUC No.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

A seasonal pulse of ungulate neonates influences space use by carnivores in a multi-predator, multi-prey system

Ruprecht

Forrester

Jackson

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behavioral mechanisms by which predators encounter prey are poorly resolved. In particular, the extent to which predators engage in active search for prey versus incidentally encountering them is unknown. The distinction between search and incidental encounter influences prey population dynamics with active search exerting a stabilizing force on prey populations by alleviating predation pressure on low-density prey and increasing it for high-density prey.Parturition of many large herbivores occurs during a short and predictable temporal window in which young are highly vulnerable to predation. Our study aims to determine how a suite of carnivores responds to the seasonal pulse of newborn ungulates using contemporaneous GPS locations of four species of predators and two species of prey.We used step-selection functions to assess whether coyotes, cougars, black bears, and bobcats actively searched for parturient females in a low-density population of mule deer and a high-density population of elk. We then assessed whether searching carnivores shifted their habitat use toward areas exhibiting a high probability of encountering neonates.None of the four carnivore species encountered parturient mule deer more often than expected by chance suggesting that predation of young resulted from incidental encounters. By contrast, we determined that cougar and male bear movements positioned them in proximity of parturient elk more often than expected by chance which is evidence of searching behavior. Although both male bears and cougars searched for neonates, only male bears used elk parturition habitat in a way that dynamically tracked the phenology of the elk birth pulse suggesting that maximizing encounters with juvenile elk was a motivation when selecting resources.Our results support the existence of a stabilizing mechanism to prey populations through active search behavior by predators because carnivores in our study searched for the high-density prey species (elk) but ignored the low-density species (mule deer). We conclude that prey density must be high enough to warrant active search, and that there is high interspecific and intersexual variability in foraging strategies among large mammalian predators and their prey.

show abstract

“…GPS positions were recorded every 2 or 3 h for carnivores, every 30 min for elk, and every 60 or 90 min for deer. Details on capture and handling of carnivores, elk, and mule deer can be found in Ruprecht et al ( 2021a ), Wisdom et al ( 1993 ), and Jackson et al ( 2021 ), respectively. All animal capture and handling adhered to protocols approved by the USDA Forest Service, Starkey Experimental Forest Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC No.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A seasonal pulse of ungulate neonates influences space use by carnivores in a multi‐predator, multi‐prey system

Ruprecht

Forrester

Jackson

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behavioral mechanisms by which predators encounter prey are poorly resolved. In particular, the extent to which predators engage in active search for prey versus incidentally encountering them has not been well studied in many systems and particularly not for neonate prey during the birth pulse. Parturition of many large herbivores occurs during a short and predictable temporal window in which young are highly vulnerable to predation. Our study aims to determine how a suite of carnivores responds to the seasonal pulse of newborn ungulates using contemporaneous global positioning system (GPS) locations of four species of predators and two species of prey. We used step‐selection functions to assess whether coyotes, cougars, black bears, and bobcats encountered parturient adult female ungulates more often than expected by chance in a low‐density population of mule deer and a high‐density population of elk. We then assessed whether the carnivore species that encountered parturient prey more often than expected by chance did so by shifting their habitat use toward areas with a high probability of encountering neonates. None of the four carnivore species encountered GPS‐collared parturient mule deer more often than expected by chance. By contrast, we determined that cougar and male bear movements positioned them in the proximity of GPS‐collared parturient elk more often than expected by chance which may provide evidence of searching behavior. Although both male bears and cougars exhibited behavior consistent with active search for neonates, only male bears used elk parturition habitat in a way that dynamically tracked the phenology of the elk birth pulse suggesting that maximizing encounters with juvenile elk was a motivation when selecting resources. Our results suggest that there is high interspecific and intersexual variability in foraging strategies among large mammalian predators and their prey.

show abstract

Demographic performance of a large herbivore: effects of winter nutrition and weather

Cited by 14 publications

References 54 publications

Collaborative wildlife–snow science: Integrating wildlife and snow expertise to improve research and management

Collaborative wildlife–snow science: Integrating wildlife and snow expertise to improve research and management

A seasonal pulse of ungulate neonates influences space use by carnivores in a multi-predator, multi-prey system

A seasonal pulse of ungulate neonates influences space use by carnivores in a multi‐predator, multi‐prey system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About