Dynamics of early wolf and cougar eradication efforts in Montana: implications for conservation

Riley, Shawn J.; Nesslage, Geneviève M.; Maurer, Bill

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.01.019

Cited by 33 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pumas exhibit extreme behavioral plasticity and inhabit every forest type across their range, as well as montane deserts, lowland deserts with broken terrain, and Mediterranean systems (Beier, 2010;MacDonald and Loveridge, 2010). Research in North America suggests that pumas conform to the general characteristics of solitary felids, in that they avoid open grasslands with aggregating prey like pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and/or bison (Bison bison) (Ernest et al, 2003;Riley et al, 2004;McRae et al, 2005). However, researchers hypothesize that it was the historic presence of large, terrestrial competitors (gray wolves, Canis lupus, and bears, Ursus spp.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…However, researchers hypothesize that it was the historic presence of large, terrestrial competitors (gray wolves, Canis lupus, and bears, Ursus spp.) that limited pumas to more complex habitats rather than an inherent avoidance of these habitats per se (Riley et al, 2004;Ruth and Murphy, 2010). Recent research in Yellowstone National Park supports this hypothesis, for resident pumas began "concentrating their activities" in more structurally complex habitats with the reintroduction and spread of wolves in the system (Ruth et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Puma spatial ecology in open habitats with aggregate prey

Elbroch¹,

Wittmer²

2012

Mammalian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSolitary felids are commonly associated with structurally complex habitats, where their foraging success is attributed to stealth and remaining undetected by competitive scavengers. Research in North America suggests that pumas (Puma concolor), a wide-ranging species found throughout the Americas, conform to the general characteristics of solitary felids and avoid open grasslands with aggregating prey. Researchers hypothesize that pumas are limited to structurally complex habitats in North America because of pressures from other large, terrestrial competitors. We explored the spatial ecology of pumas in open habitat with aggregating prey in Chilean Patagonia, where pumas lack large, terrestrial competitors. We tracked 11 pumas over 30 months (intensive location data for 9 pumas with GPS collars for 9.33 ± 5.66 months each) in an area where mixed steppe grasslands composed 53% of the study area and carried 98% of available prey biomass, to track resource use relative to availability, assess daily movements, quantify home ranges and calculate their density. As determined by location data and kill sites, Patagonia pumas were primarily associated with open habitats with high prey biomass, but at finer scales, preferentially selected for habitat with complex structure. On average, pumas traveled 13.42 ± 2.50 km per day. Estimated 95% fixed kernel home ranges averaged 98 ± 31.8 km 2 for females and 211 ± 138.8 km 2 for males, with high spatial overlap within and between the sexes. In a multivariate analysis, available prey biomass was the strongest predictor of variation in the size of an individual puma's home range. Finally, we determined a total puma density of 3.44 pumas/100 km 2 , a significantly smaller estimate than previously reported for Patagonia, but similar to densities reported for North America.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Puma spatial ecology in open habitats with aggregate prey

Elbroch¹,

Wittmer²

2012

Mammalian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cougars are solitary stalk-and-pounce predators that select prey opportunistically (i.e., of any health) in areas where structural complexity (e.g., slope, trees, boulders) provide them an advantage (Husseman et al 2003;Atwood et al 2007;Ruth and Murphy 2010b). Thus, we expect wolves and cougars to inhabit and utilize different ecological niches, allowing them to spatially and temporally coexist (Husseman et al 2003;Atwood et al 2007); however, in the absence of wolves, cougars utilize areas traditionally assumed to be the dominion of coursing predators (Riley et al 2004;Elbroch and Wittmer 2012). This suggests that where wolves are sympatric with cougars, wolves may impact the realized niche of cougars and that ongoing competition between the two species plays a role in structuring ecological systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recolonizing wolves influence the realized niche of resident cougars

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Niche differentiation may betray current, ongoing competition between two sympatric species or reflect evolutionary responses to historic competition that drove species apart. The best opportunity to test whether ongoing competition contributes to niche differentiation is to test for behavioral shifts by the subordinate competitor in controlled experiments in which the abundance of the dominant competitor is manipulated. Because these circumstances are difficult to coordinate in natural settings for wide-ranging species, researchers seize opportunities presented by species reintroductions. We tested for new competition between reintroduced wolves and resident cougars in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem to assess whether wolves might be impacting the realized niche of sympatric cougars. Results: Between 2002 and 2012, a period during which wolves increased from 15 to as high as 91 in the study area, cougars significantly increased the percentage of deer and decreased the percentage of elk in their diet in summer. Our top models explaining these changes identified elk availability, defined as the number of elk per wolf each year, as the strongest predictor of changing cougar prey selection. Both elk and deer were simultaneously declining in the system, though deer more quickly than elk, and wolf numbers increased exponentially during the same time frame. Therefore, we concluded that prey availability did not explain prey switching and that competition with wolves at least partially explained cougar prey switching from elk to deer. We also recorded 5 marked cougar kittens killed by wolves and 2 more that were killed by an undetermined predator. In addition, between 2005 and 2012, 9 adult cougars and 10 cougar kittens died of starvation, which may also be in part explained by competition with wolves. Conclusions: Direct interspecific predation and shifting cougar prey selection as wolves increased in the system provided evidence for competition between recolonizing wolves and resident cougars. Through competition, recolonizing wolves have impacted the realized niche of resident cougars in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem (SYE), and current resident cougars may now exhibit a realized niche more reflective of an era when these species were previously sympatric in the Yellowstone Ecosystem.

show abstract

“…Degree of consistency of data sources As in every piece of archive research, the eventual partiality of records can obscure the detection of spatial and temporal patterns in mortality (Riley et al 2004). Other demographic studies that have used archive data were forced to complete and normalize their series by means of regression (Jedrzejewska et al 1996;Alcántara and Cantos 1992;Torrente 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The analyses of declines in historic and regional contexts may prove to be helpful (Fuller et al 2003;Boitani et al 2004) because such data can be extracted from records of official bounties paid for wolf kills, a surrogate for wolf occurrence and abundance (Beaufort 1987;Orsini 1996;Elgmork 1996;Grau et al 1990;Rico and Torrente 2000;Riley et al 2004). These bounties were a common mechanism in Europe and North America in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, in an attempt to stimulate eradication and solve the long-lasting conflict with pests and dangerous animals (Sillero-Zubiri and Schwitzer 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical dynamics of a declining wolf population: persecution vs. prey reduction

Fernández¹,

Azua²

2009

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using records from archives detailing bounties for wolves killed in northern Spain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we investigated demographic and spatial distribution parameters of the population to determine whether direct persecution or prey availability was responsible for the observed population decline. Captures of adult, subadult, and young individuals, including those of litters, showed a downward trend. Progressive decreases in age ratio and litter size, and the increase in the proportion of males, were compatible with a population under food stress, driven by the extinction of wild ungulates, the sharp reduction in livestock numbers, and the lack of alternative prey. The immigration and dispersal process does not seem to have functioned under such conditions. In the study area, where strychnine was not used until the end of the nineteenth century, the broadly accepted idea of human persecution having an exclusive or primary role in wolf decline does not necessarily apply.

show abstract

Dynamics of early wolf and cougar eradication efforts in Montana: implications for conservation

Cited by 33 publications

References 5 publications

Puma spatial ecology in open habitats with aggregate prey

Puma spatial ecology in open habitats with aggregate prey

Recolonizing wolves influence the realized niche of resident cougars

Historical dynamics of a declining wolf population: persecution vs. prey reduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About