Refuge as major habitat driver for wolf presence in human‐modified landscapes

Abstract

Despite severe population declines and an overall range contraction, some populations of large carnivores have managed to survive in human-modified landscapes. From a conservation perspective, it is important to identify the factors allowing for this coexistence, including the relevant habitat characteristics associated with the presence of large carnivores. We evaluated the role of several environmental factors describing habitat quality for wolves Canis lupus in the humanised Iberian Peninsula, which currently holds an important wolf population at European level. We used maximum entropy and generalized linear model approaches in a nestedscale design to identify the environmental factors that are related to wolf presence at three spatial scales and resolutions: (1) distribution range: wolf presence on a 10 9 10 km grid resolution, (2) wolf habitat use: wolf occurrence on a 2 9 2 km grid and (3) dens/rendezvous sites: breeding locations on a 1 9 1 km grid. Refuge availability, as defined by topography, seemed to be the key factor determining wolf presence at the multiple scales analysed. As a result, wolf populations may coexist with humans in modified landscapes when the topography is complex. We found that a significant amount of favourable habitat is not currently occupied, suggesting that the availability of suitable habitat is not the limiting factor for wolves in the Iberian Peninsula. Habitat suitability outside the current range indicates that other factors, such as direct persecution and other sources of anthropogenic mortality, may be hampering its expansion. We suggest that priorities for conservation should follow two general lines: (1) protect good quality habitat within the current range; and (2) allow dispersal to unoccupied areas of good quality habitat by reducing human-induced mortality rates. Finally, we still need to improve our understanding of how wolves coexist with humans in modified landscapes at fine spatiotemporal scales, including its relationship with infrastructures, land uses and direct human presence.

Steep topography buffers threatened gymnosperm species against anthropogenic pressures in China

“…One study found that topographic indices better explained Rhododendron richness at coarse scale (grain size >1°), while another study similarly found that bird species richness was better explained at coarse grain sizes (40 and 80 km resolution) owing to climate, topography and human land use operating on these scales (Yamaura, Amano, Kusumoto, Nagata, & Okabe, ; Yu et al, ). Likewise, a recent study found that topography acted as a refuge for wolves ( Canis lupus ) at several spatial scales (Grilo et al, ). As the choice of grain size depends on both the available species and environmental data and the modeling objectives, we argue that using a county‐level resolution in this study matches the study question since we expect to see the effects of topography at this landscape level.…”

Lethal management may hinder population recovery in Iberian wolves

“…The Iberian Peninsula contains extensive areas outside the present wolf range where human appropriation of primary production (Haberl et al 2007) is presently comparable to that of areas used by wolves. Habitat suitability analyses recently reported that substantial habitat exists outside the present wolf range, both at a fine spatial scale that would reflect suitability as breeding habitat, and at coarser spatial scales that would indicate presence and traversing suitability (Grilo et al 2018). In addition to overall habitat availability, an important fraction of wolves' former range in Iberia includes areas listed as candidates to the Natura 2000 network of protected areas (European Environment Agency 2018), especially south of the Douro River and in the central part of the Iberian Peninsula.…”

Identifying habitat use ofUrsus arctos,Lynx lynx martinoiandCanis lupus lupusin Albanian forests using occupancy modelling

“…For example, elevated forested areas tended to be occupied by both brown bears and grey wolves. Elevated forests (of 1 km 2 ) and complex topography areas may be selected by (Canis lupus) wolf pairs for refuge and breeding (Grilo et al 2019) far from other grey wolf pairs (source populations) (Ražen et al 2016). It can be inferred that brown bears could use the same forested areas for food by displacing grey wolf (pairs) from their kills.…”