Mortality Rates of Moose in New Brunswick: A Life Table Analysis

Boer, Arnold H.

doi:10.2307/3801051

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, we assumed the hunters to be unable to discriminate among moose 4-7 years of age. Then, given that the population have a reasonably stable age structure and no age-dependent natural mortality, the relative survival rate of the prime age classes can be estimated by the slope of the linear regression of the logarithm of the proportion of each age group in the harvest (4-7 years old) on age (Boer 1988;Caughley 1977). However, because most populations were either increasing or decreasing during the study period, we first corrected the age frequencies for the population growth rate, by multiplying the age-specific frequencies by e rx , where r is the population growth rate (see above) and x is age (Caughley 1977;Krebs 1999 Hunter observations (moose seen/hunter day)…”

Section: Analyses Of Age-specific Harvest Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of hunting mortality in Norwegian moose (Alces alces) populations

Nilsen

Solberg

2006

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used a simple life table approach to examine the age-specific patterns of harvest mortality in eight Norwegian moose populations during the last 15 years and tried to determine if the observed patterns were caused by hunter selectivity. The general opinion among local managers is that hunters prefer to shoot female moose not in company with calves to keep a high number of reproductive females in the population (and because of the emotional stress involved in leaving the calf/calves without a mother), and relatively large males because of the higher return with respect to meat and trophy. In support of the former view, we found the harvest mortality of adult females to be higher among pre-prime (1-3 years old) than prime-aged age classes (4-7 years old). This is probably because prime-aged females are more fecund and, therefore, more likely to be in company with one or two calves during the hunting season. As the season progressed, however, the selection pressure on barren females decreased, probably due to more productive females becoming 'legal' prey as their calf/calves were harvested. In males, we did not find any evidence of strong age-specific hunter selectivity, despite strong age-dependent variation in body mass and antler size. We suggest that this was due to the current strongly female-biased sex ratio in most Norwegian moose populations, which leaves the hunters with few opportunities to be selective within a relatively short and intensive hunting season. The management implications of these findings and to what extent the results are likely to affect the future evolution of life histories in Norwegian moose populations are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Analyses Of Age-specific Harvest Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of hunting mortality in Norwegian moose (Alces alces) populations

Nilsen

Solberg

2006

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moose numbers were few in the area north of Lake Superior until the early twentieth century; due to the predominance of old growth coniferous forest, and have only recently become common in response to logging and other disturbance (Peterson, 1953(Peterson, , 1955DeVos, 1958;Karns, 1998). Since the middle of the twentieth century, moose populations have shown positive growth across the continent (Bergerud, 1981;Crete, 1987;Thompson & Euler, 1987;Karns, 1998), which is believed to be due to a reduction in predators, reduced deer populations in the north due to the reversion of farmland to forest, larger clearcuts, and increased legal protection (Aldous & Krefting, 1946;Karns et al, 1974;Peek et al, 1976;Hicks, 1986;Boer, 1992;Alexander, 1993;Bontaites & Guftason, 1993;Morris & Elowe, 1993;Karns, 1998;Peek, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resource partitioning facilitates the coexistence of sympatric ungulates and may take the form of spatial or temporal segregation, species-specific preferences for forage or plant parts, and different feeding heights (Stelfox & Taber, 1969;Hudson, 1976;Boer, 1992). Woodland caribou and moose inhabiting the Boreal Forest have limited competition (Davis & Franzmann, 1979;Fuller & Keith, 1981;Boer, 1992), as caribou prefer herbaceous forbs and deciduous foliage in summer and arboreal and ground lichens in the winter, while moose consume woody browse in winter and aquatic succulents, forbs, and deciduous foliage in summer (Dodds, 1960;Darby & Pruitt, 1984;Eastman & Ritcey, 1987;Servheen & Lyon, 1989;Boer, 1992;Proceviat, 2003;Proceviat et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Woodland caribou and moose populations may also remain segregated by habitat partitioning and seasonal altitudinal preferences (Boer, 1992). Caribou prefer mature coniferous forest much of the year, open fens during the rut, and frozen lakes and large rivers during the late winter (Bergerud, 1974;Fuller & Keith, 1981;Darby & Pruitt, 1984;Servheen & Lyon, 1989;Boer, 1992;Wilson, 2000;Metsaranta, 2002;Brown et al, 2003;Metsaranta et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Caribou prefer mature coniferous forest much of the year, open fens during the rut, and frozen lakes and large rivers during the late winter (Bergerud, 1974;Fuller & Keith, 1981;Darby & Pruitt, 1984;Servheen & Lyon, 1989;Boer, 1992;Wilson, 2000;Metsaranta, 2002;Brown et al, 2003;Metsaranta et al, 2003). Moose are associated with aquatic habitats in summer and prefer upland conifer areas with shrub layer in late winter (LeResche et al, 1974;Cairns & Telfer, 1980;Boer, 1992;Hillis & Mallory, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prey specialization and morphological conformation of wolves associated with woodland caribou and moose

Wiwchar

Mallory

2012

Ran

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological analysis of wolves associated with woodland caribou in late succession boreal coniferous forests north of the commercial cut line and those associated with moose in early succession boreal deciduous forests south of the commercial cut line were studied in Ontario. So-called "moose-wolves" could readily be distinguished from "caribouwolves" in both genders using a few morphological measurements. Wolves associated with woodland caribou were significantly smaller in most measurements, and increased in size within seven years post-harvest as moose totally replaced caribou in the ecosystem. Whether this change in wolf morphology is related to micro-evolutionary change, the migration of larger "moose-wolves" into the area, or both, remains unclear.

show abstract

Landscape of fear or landscape of food? Moose hunting triggers an antipredator response in brown bears

Brown

Zedrosser

Arnemo

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hunters can affect the behavior of wildlife by inducing a landscape of fear, selecting individuals with specific traits, or altering resource availability across the landscape. Most research investigating the influence of hunting on wildlife resource selection has focused on target species and less attention has been devoted to nontarget species, such as scavengers that can be both attracted or repelled by hunting activities. We used resource selection functions to identify areas where hunters were most likely to kill moose (Alces alces) in southcentral Sweden during the fall. Then, we used step-selection functions to determine whether female brown bears (Ursus arctos) selected or avoided these areas and specific resources during the moose hunting season. We found that, during both day and nighttime, female brown bears avoided areas where hunters were more likely to kill moose. We found evidence that resource selection by brown bears varied substantially during the fall and that some behavioral changes were consistent with disturbance associated with moose hunters.Brown bears were more likely to select concealed locations in young (i.e., regenerating) and coniferous forests and areas further away from roads during the moose hunting season. Our results suggest that brown bears react to both spatial and temporal variations in apparent risk during the fall: moose hunters create a landscape of fear and trigger an antipredator response in a large carnivore even if bears are not specifically targeted during the moose hunting season. Such antipredator responses might lead to indirect habitat loss and lower foraging efficiency and the resulting consequences should be considered when planning hunting seasons.

show abstract

Mortality Rates of Moose in New Brunswick: A Life Table Analysis

Cited by 27 publications

References 18 publications

Patterns of hunting mortality in Norwegian moose (Alces alces) populations

Patterns of hunting mortality in Norwegian moose (Alces alces) populations

Prey specialization and morphological conformation of wolves associated with woodland caribou and moose

Landscape of fear or landscape of food? Moose hunting triggers an antipredator response in brown bears

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About