Den shifting by wolves in semi‐wild landscapes in the Deccan Plateau, Maharashtra, India

Abstract

Reproductive success is crucial for the survival and persistence of any species. The Deccan Biogeographic Zone of India is the stronghold of a population of the Indian wolf Canis lupus pallipes. Gaining a better understanding of the den-use pattern of wolves in different areas in this zone is thus vital for their conservation and management. The wolves excavated multiple dens in our study sites and kept shifting their litters among them. Major disturbance factors around denning sites were active stone quarries, traffic, crop harvesting and livestock movement. One wolf pack used 14 dens in four breeding seasons. Discriminant function analysis indicated that den shifting by wolves was not entirely governed by disturbance levels at den sites. Increasing age of pups was one of the main factors associated with den shifting rather than the magnitude of disturbance (w 2 = 34.26, d.f. = 12, Po0.001). Tolerance to disturbance around dens during the early stages of pup development was negatively correlated (r =À0.519, Po0.05) with availability of water and age of pups (r =À0.613, Po0.01). Excavation of multiple dens by wolves was apparently related to den shifting, which seemingly is a survival strategy of wolves in these semi-wild human-dominated landscapes in the Deccan Biogeographic Zone. Principal components analysis indicated that during the initial stages of pup development, nature of the land, den orientation and distance of the den from roads were important cues in addition to age category of pups for den shifting. The analysis also suggested that factors such as distance of the new den where pups are to be transferred, distance from water source and availability of fox Vulpes bengalensis holes for den use were also important.

Behavioural response of eastern wolves (Canis lycaon) to disturbance at homesites and its effects on pup survival

“…We did not detect a significant effect of pup age on the tendency of packs to relocate pups following low-level disturbance, but given the data (i.e., 4 of 5 vs. 1 of 4 litters moved for pups >4 and 4 weeks of age, respectively) this likely reflects small sample sizes rather than a true lack of effect. Qualitatively, these results support the findings of Frame et al (2007) and Habib and Kumar (2007), who found age of pups at the time of disturbance to be important in influencing abandonment of disturbed homesites. Adult pack members may resist moving young pups because it is more risky owing to their small size, low mobility, and lack of independence (Packard 2003;Frame et al 2007).…”

“…Pup age can also affect the response of a pack to human disturbance at the homesite (Chapman 1977;Frame et al 2007;Habib and Kumar 2007). We therefore tested for differences in response according to pup age, categorized as 4 and >4 weeks (below and above weaning age, respectively; Frame et al 2007) for homesites exposed to both levels of human disturbance using Fisher's exact test (Zar 1999).…”

“…Such disturbances may cause permanent movement away from a natal site, territory, or other resource (Ellison and Cleary 1977;Walker et al 2005), abandonment of young by parents (Thomson 1992), or decreased survival of offspring or reproductive success (Frederick and Collopy 1989;Giese 1996;Smith 1998;Walker et al 2005;Mills et al 2008). Few studies have focused specifically on the effects of research activities on free-ranging mammals, although such activities may also impact behaviour or survival (Chapman 1977, Laurenson andCaro 1994;Wolski et al 2004;Frame et al 2007;Habib and Kumar 2007). These studies, and anecdotal evidence from other studies (e.g., Harrison and Gilbert 1985;Mowat et al 1996;Way et al 2001), suggest that mammals typically react adversely to disturbance at homesites on a short temporal scale that does generally not affect subsequent survival or reproduction.…”

“…These studies, and anecdotal evidence from other studies (e.g., Harrison and Gilbert 1985;Mowat et al 1996;Way et al 2001), suggest that mammals typically react adversely to disturbance at homesites on a short temporal scale that does generally not affect subsequent survival or reproduction. Yet few have quantified behavioural responses and longer term effects of disturbance (but see Chapman 1977;Laurenson and Caro 1994;Frame et al 2007;Habib and Kumar 2007).…”

Three decades of wildlife radio telemetry in India: a review

“…In India, most of the studies have centred on the abovementioned primary questions (53.7%, 47.6% and 28.1% of studies, respectively). Only a few recent studies have looked further at hibernation [36], den shifting [37], social organization [38] and monitoring translocated and rehabilitated individuals [39]; however, the number of such studies remains low (Table 4). A poorly planned study often brings to the unnecessary use of telemetry where obvious results are presented as a final outcome.…”