Interactions between cougars (Puma concolor) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Banff National Park, Alberta

Kortello, Andrea; Hurd, Thomas E.; Murray, Dennis L.

doi:10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[214:ibcpca]2.0.co;2

Cited by 68 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kortello et al also reported the intraspecific killing of one cougar by wolves as evidence of interference competition. Atwood et al (2007) reported that cougars increased predation on elk (Cervus elaphus) and reduced predation on mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) with the recolonization of wolves in southwest Montana; in contrast to Kortello et al (2007), they attributed the change to elk switching habitats from open grasslands that mitigate predation risk from cougars to more structured habitats that mitigate predation risk from wolves, suggesting facilitation rather than any form of competition between top predators. Ruth et al (2011Ruth et al ( , 2015 found that cougars increased their use of structurally complex habitats after the reintroduction of wolves in Northern Yellowstone National Park, implying a reduction in the spatial attributes of the cougar's realized niche.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…They did, however, report kleptoparasitism of cougar kills by wolves and interspecific killing of cougars by wolves as evidence of interference competition. Ruth (2004b) and Kortello et al (2007) reported increased cougar starvation as wolves increased in two different systems, and both studies attributed the change largely to interference competition with wolves and declining prey. Kortello et al (2007) also detected cougar prey switching from elk to deer as wolf numbers increased (and elk numbers decreased) in Banff National Park, Alberta, as well as spatial avoidance between the two species at fine scales; they attributed these changes to exploitation competition because they believed wolves were diminishing elk numbers to levels where cougars needed to prey switch to survive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is, however, logistically and perhaps ethically difficult to manipulate large carnivore abundances in natural systems. Instead, researchers must be quick to seize rare opportunities presented by species perturbations (e.g., reintroductions or removals) to test whether there is a change in the realized niche of the subordinate competitor (Kortello et al 2007;Seddon et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recolonizing wolves influence the realized niche of resident cougars

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study area, wolves are the main predators of elk (Hebblewhite et al 2002). However, elk might need to minimize the risk of being predated upon also by other predators, including cougars (Kortello et al 2007) and black and grizzly bears (Herrero 2005). Whereas little is Ecology and Society 16(3): 16 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss3/art16/ known for cougars and black bears, a large body of information demonstrates grizzly bear spatial avoidance of humans at higher levels of use in the study area (Gibeau et al 2002, Chruszcz et al 2003.…”

Section: Wolf and Elk Avoidance Of Human Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Activity Differentially Redistributes Large Mammals in the Canadian Rockies National Parks

Rogala¹,

Hebblewhite²,

Whittington³

et al. 2011

E&S

145

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. National parks are important for conservation of species such as wolves (Canis lupus) and elk (Cervus canadensis). However, topography, vegetation conditions, and anthropogenic infrastructure within parks may limit available habitat. Human activity on trails and roads may lead to indirect habitat loss, further limiting available habitat. Predators and prey may respond differentially to human activity, potentially disrupting ecological processes. However, research on such impacts to wildlife is incomplete, especially at fine spatial and temporal scales. Our research investigated the relationship between wolf and elk distribution and human activity using fine-scale Global Positioning System (GPS) wildlife telemetry locations and hourly human activity measures on trails and roads in Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho National Parks, Canada. We observed a complex interaction between the distance animals were located from trails and human activity level resulting in species adopting both mutual avoidance and differential response behaviors. In areas < 50 m from trails human activity led to a mutual avoidance response by both wolves and elk. In areas 50 -400 m from trails low levels of human activity led to differential responses; wolves avoided these areas, whereas elk appeared to use these areas as a predation refugia. These differential impacts on elk and wolves may have important implications for trophic dynamics. As human activity increased above two people/hour, areas 50 -400 m from trails were mutually avoided by both species, resulting in the indirect loss of important montane habitat. If park managers are concerned with human impacts on wolves and elk, or on these species' trophic interactions with other species, they can monitor locations near trails and roads and consider hourly changes of human activity levels in areas important to wildlife.

show abstract

“…These strategies can also occur as a prevalent form of foraging, as in magnificent frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens; Gilardi 1994, Vickery andDe L Brooke 1994) or via specialization by some individuals, such as that which occurs in house sparrows (Passer domesticus; Barnard and Sibly 1981). Pilfering species often have size, mobility, or numerical advantages relative to the individuals that provide the food, including when wolves (Canis lupus) steal carcasses from solitary cougars (Felis concolor; Kortello et al 2007). Host species often exhibit counter strategies to deter thieves, which include defence by red squirrels (Gerhardt 2005), scatter hoarding by western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica; Dally et al 2006) and use of hiding material by cougars (Beier et al 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%