Pup‐rearing habitat use in a harvested carnivore

Abstract

Changes in behavior and habitat use are often influenced by the risk of predation, including harvest, and carnivores alter their habitat use and movements to minimize predation risk. Large carnivores are subject to harvest around the world; however, few studies examine whether habitat use is different between harvested and unharvested carnivore populations. We examined the effects of harvest on gray wolf (Canis lupus) use of pup-rearing habitat. We predicted that in comparison to an unharvested population of wolves, wolves subject to harvest would use less suitable pup-rearing habitat (i.e., sites with no standing water source and dense vegetation with no open areas) and locate pup-rearing sites in areas with lower human activity. We also predicted that wolves would use less suitable pup-rearing habitat following breeder turnover. Finally, we predicted that field surveys using a method for monitoring an unharvested wolf population would detect fewer active pup-rearing sites and document fewer detections of scat, tracks, and howls of a harvested wolf population. We tested whether a habitat model for predicting pup-rearing sites used by an unharvested wolf population accurately predicted sites used by a harvested wolf population. To examine the effect of human activity, we calculated the road density within a 500-m buffer around sites used by an unharvested and harvested population of wolves. We also evaluated the habitat suitability of pup-rearing sites following the death of a breeder. Finally, we conducted field surveys of a harvested wolf population with a monitoring technique used for unharvested wolf populations, and compared detections of pup-rearing sites, scats, tracks, and howls between the unharvested and harvested wolf populations. Harvest did not affect wolf use of puprearing habitat. Wolves subject to harvest used highly suitable habitat (i.e., areas with standing, ephemeral water) to raise pups, road density near pup-rearing sites did not differ between harvested and unharvested wolf populations, and breeder turnover did not result in packs choosing less suitable pup-rearing habitat. Finally, field surveys successfully detected pup-rearing sites of wolves subject to harvest but documented fewer detections of scats and tracks, likely because of a decrease in wolf density. Wolves subject to harvest chose highly suitable habitat to raise pups, indicating that such habitat provides optimal resources in a landscape where harvest is a dominant source of mortality. In areas where such habitat is limited, it is important to consider how environmental changes affect the availability of suitable habitat. Ó 2018 The Wildlife Society.

Denning Ecology of Wolves in East-Central Alaska, 1993–2017

“…Our results suggest that wolves select lower-elevation river corridors that melt out earlier in the season, but also areas well away from the edges of their annual home ranges to reduce the risk of conspecific competition and conflict. This information is novel and informative for this region because den site selection can influence survival of adults and young (Laurenson, 1994;Fernández and Palomares, 2000;Benson et al, 2008Benson et al, , 2015 Ross et al, 2010;Jacobs and Ausband, 2018). We expect our results will broadly inform management and conservation by documenting where and when wolves den, which could allow for data-driven decisions on appropriate hunting and trapping seasons and area closures.…”

“…Since movements away from the den site are limited by the pups' motility for the first six weeks after birth (Fritts and Mech, 1981;Mills et al, 2008;Lake et al, 2013), locating the den close to an abundant food base is crucial (Ciucci and Mech, 1992;Klaczek et al, 2015). Second, dens are typically situated near fresh water (Ballard and Dau, 1983;Person and Russell, 2009;Benson et al, 2015;Jacobs and Ausband, 2018) so that the breeding female can drink while attending the pups (Mech, 1970). Third, the location of dens influences the vulnerability to predation of pups and adults alike (Benson et al, 2015;Jacobs and Ausband, 2018).…”

“…Second, dens are typically situated near fresh water (Ballard and Dau, 1983;Person and Russell, 2009;Benson et al, 2015;Jacobs and Ausband, 2018) so that the breeding female can drink while attending the pups (Mech, 1970). Third, the location of dens influences the vulnerability to predation of pups and adults alike (Benson et al, 2015;Jacobs and Ausband, 2018). For adult wolves, inter-pack strife accounts for a substantial number of mortalities (Murie, 1944;Mech et al, 1998;Smith et al, 2015;Schmidt et al, 2017).…”

Environmental and social factors influencing wolf (Canis lupus) howling behavior

“…Despite this low response rate, we were able to gather 155 responses due to the large number of surveys conducted. Howl surveys, and subsequent additional data collected during such surveys, can be useful for locating wolves in both harvested and unharvested populations (Jacobs & Ausband, 2018). Although three series of five howls each were previously recommended for howling surveys (Harrington & Mech, 1982), we suggest adding a 4th series to this protocol.…”

Biologging Physiological and Ecological Responses to Climatic Variation: New Tools for the Climate Change Era

“…Transmitters permit data collection without animal recapture/device recovery. Access to transmitted animal location data allows visitation of clusters to assess/confirm behaviors, such as predation events (Knopff et al, 2009) and pup-rearing (Jacobs and Ausband, 2018), or to collect measurements from ephemeral habitat (e.g., sea ice or snow pack conditions).…”