Lack of Impact of Den Interference on Neonatal Red Wolves

Beck, Karen B.; Lucash, Christopher; Stoskopf, Michael K.

doi:10.1656/058.008.0405

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This allowed them to identify territories and, during spring, locate dens and daybeds of radio‐collared females to count and process pups (Beck et al , Rabon et al ). From 2000 to 2013, after implementation of the RWAMP, biologists took blood samples of red wolf pups discovered during den checks to verify parentage and maintain a pedigree of the wild population (Miller et al , Brzeski et al , Gese et al ) and implanted passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in each pup subcutaneously to identify non‐collared red wolves captured during annual trapping (Beck et al , Hinton and Chamberlain ). Collectively, annual trapping and den work allowed the Recovery Program to estimate population size, survival, and reproduction through a known count approach (USFWS , Rabon et al ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each spring, the Recovery Program monitored radio‐collared red wolves associated with breeding territories (USFWS , Gese et al , Hinton et al ). During spring den checks, Recovery Program biologists located and PIT‐tagged red wolf pups in breeding territories by locating daybeds and dens of radio‐collared female breeders (Beck et al , Gese et al ). As a result, the USFWS estimated red wolf population during fall seasons comprised a count of known radio‐collared red wolves and known PIT‐tagged pups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recovery Program biologists conducted weekly radiotelemetry flights as their primary means of monitoring radio-collared wolves. This allowed them to identify territories and, during spring, locate dens and daybeds of radio-collared females to count and process pups (Beck et al 2009. From 2000 to 2013, after implementation of the RWAMP, biologists took blood samples of red wolf pups discovered during den checks to verify parentage and maintain a pedigree of the wild population (Miller et al 2003, Brzeski et al 2014 and implanted passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in each pup subcutaneously to identify non-collared red wolves captured during annual trapping (Beck et al 2009, Hinton and.…”

Section: Field Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Survival and population size estimates of the red wolf

Hinton

White

Rabon³

et al. 2016

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating anthropogenic mortality is important to develop conservation strategies for red wolf (Canis lupus) recovery. We used 26 years of population data in a generalized linear mixed model to examine trends in cause‐specific mortality and a known‐fate model in Program MARK to estimate survival rates for the reintroduced red wolf population in North Carolina, USA. We found the proportion of mortality attributable to anthropogenic causes, specifically mortality caused by gunshot during fall and winter hunting seasons (Oct–Dec), increased significantly since 2000 and became the leading cause of red wolf death. Mortality rates were greatest for red wolves <4 years of age, and we suspect inexperience with human activities (e.g., hunting) likely caused younger wolves to be more susceptible to opportunistic killing by hunters. Since 1987, the red wolf population steadily grew and peaked at an estimated 151 individuals during 2005 but declined to 45–60 by 2016. To reduce the negative effects of anthropogenic mortality and ensure long‐term persistence of red wolves, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will need to re‐implement previous long‐standing and proven management practices (e.g., Red Wolf Adaptive Management Plan) on public and private lands and cease issuing take permits. The USFWS will also need to establish an effective management response to mitigate gunshot mortality through stronger regulation of coyote (Canis latrans) hunting and provide adequate ecologically and biologically supported regulatory mechanisms to protect red wolves. Finally, the USFWS should enhance recovery by providing information and education about red wolves to hunters and the general public. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Field Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Survival and population size estimates of the red wolf

Hinton

White

Rabon³

et al. 2016

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adults (N9 months old) born in the wild were trapped with a padded, foot-hold trap, immobilized, and fitted with a VHF radiocollar, body measurements and weight recorded, and a blood sample drawn. Pups born in the wild were implanted with an integrated transponder (PIT) tag (Trovan®; Beck et al, 2009). Radio-collared adult red wolves were located 2-3 times/week from an airplane or ground based vehicle.…”

Section: Capture Sterilization and Monitoring Of Study Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During spring, personnel from the USFWS monitored radio-collared red wolves and located breeding females at active dens to determine the composition of the litter (Bohling and Waits, 2015;Gese et al, 2015). Pups born in the wild were implanted with an integrated transponder (PIT) tag (Trovan®; Beck et al, 2009) for future identification during subsequent capture operations in the fall when pups were large enough to be radio-collared. If the genetic origin of the litter was questionable, blood samples were obtained and examined using 18 nuclear DNA microsatellite loci to determine their ancestry and red wolf pedigree (Miller et al, 2003;Adams, 2006;Bohling et al, 2013).…”

Section: Composition Of Littersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the “placeholder” concept to reduce genetic introgression of an endangered carnivore

Gese

Terletzky

2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most endangered species is the red wolf, Canis rufus. Reintroduction of the red wolf began in 1987, but in 1993 hybridization between coyotes (Canis latrans) and wolves was documented. To reduce genetic introgression, coyotes and coyote-wolf hybrids were captured, sterilized, and released as "placeholders". Placeholders held territories until either displaced or killed by a wolf, or management personnel removed them before releasing a wolf. We evaluated the placeholder concept by examining the number of animals sterilized and released, likelihood of displacement by a wolf, factors influencing displacements, territory fidelity of placeholders, and survival rates and causes of mortality of placeholders and wolves. Of the 182 placeholders, 125 were coyotes and 57 were hybrids. From 1999 to 2013, 51 placeholders were displaced or killed by wolves, and 16 were removed by management personnel. Thus, 37% of the placeholders were displaced leading to occupancy by a wolf. Most displacements occurred in winter (43%) and were always by the same sex. Males were more likely to be displaced than females. Home range characteristics influencing the probability of displacement included home-range size (i.e., more placeholders displaced from larger home ranges) and road density (i.e., more placeholders displaced from home ranges with lower road density). Annual survival of placeholders was higher than wolves in 12 of 14 years, with cause-specific mortality similar among wolves and placeholders. Placeholders provided territories for wolves to colonize, yet reduced the production of hybrid litters, thereby limiting genetic introgression to b4% coyote ancestry in the wolf population.Published by Elsevier Ltd.

show abstract

Size‐assortative choice and mate availability influences hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)

Hinton

Gittleman

Manen

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic hybridization of historically isolated taxa has become a primary conservation challenge for many imperiled species. Indeed, hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) poses a significant challenge to red wolf recovery. We considered seven hypotheses to assess factors influencing hybridization between red wolves and coyotes via pair‐bonding between the two species. Because long‐term monogamy and defense of all‐purpose territories are core characteristics of both species, mate choice has long‐term consequences. Therefore, red wolves may choose similar‐sized mates to acquire partners that behave similarly to themselves in the use of space and diet. We observed multiple factors influencing breeding pair formation by red wolves and found that most wolves paired with similar‐sized conspecifics and wolves that formed congeneric pairs with nonwolves (coyotes and hybrids) were mostly female wolves, the smaller of the two sexes. Additionally, we observed that lower red wolf abundance relative to nonwolves and the absence of helpers increased the probability that wolves consorted with nonwolves. However, successful pairings between red wolves and nonwolves were associated with wolves that maintained small home ranges. Behaviors associated with territoriality are energetically demanding and behaviors (e.g., aggressive interactions, foraging, and space use) involved in maintaining territories are influenced by body size. Consequently, we propose the hypothesis that size disparities between consorting red wolves and coyotes influence positive assortative mating and may represent a reproductive barrier between the two species. We offer that it may be possible to maintain wild populations of red wolves in the presence of coyotes if management strategies increase red wolf abundance on the landscape by mitigating key threats, such as human‐caused mortality and hybridization with coyotes. Increasing red wolf abundance would likely restore selection pressures that increase mean body and home‐range sizes of red wolves and decrease hybridization rates via reduced occurrence of congeneric pairs.

show abstract

Lack of Impact of Den Interference on Neonatal Red Wolves

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

Survival and population size estimates of the red wolf

Survival and population size estimates of the red wolf

Using the “placeholder” concept to reduce genetic introgression of an endangered carnivore

Size‐assortative choice and mate availability influences hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About