Selection of rendezvous sites and reuse of pup raising areas among wolvesCanis lupus of north-eastern Apennines, Italy

Capitani, Claudia; Mattioli, Luca; Avanzinelli, Elisa; Gazzola, Andrea; Lamberti, Paolo; Mauri, Lorenza; Scandura, Massimo; Viviani, Alessia; Apollonio, Marco

doi:10.1007/bf03195186

Cited by 48 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We considered a recovered population that is central to the present wolf range in Italy and is likely to have been implied in the recolonization of the Western Alps (Scandura et al 2001). It is distributed on contiguous mountain areas, where suitable habitats appeared to be saturated by wolf packs, with a seemingly high spatial stability (Capitani 2005;Capitani et al 2006). Based on data obtained by Vonholdt et al (2008) in Yellowstone National Park, we had predicted that a population with such characteristics as those observed in our study area (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The Alpe di Catenaia (AC) pack ( Fig. 1) was intensively monitored during the study period and the location of its rendezvous site was found to be nearly the same in the years 2000-2003 (see Capitani et al 2006). Kinship was inferred from allelic compatibility and LOD scores using CERVUS v. 3 (Marshall et al 1998;Kalinowski et al 2007), among all individuals that were found in the corresponding SU during the same period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of two adjacent packs was ascertained in each area during this period. Rendezvous sites used by packs were localized on the basis of summer howling records (field techniques and methods are described in Capitani et al 2006). We then defined sampling units (SU) as circular areas centred in the detected rendezvous site of a pack and having a radius of 6 km (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wolves have rapidly recovered in the area during the last 20 years and by the early 2000s it appeared to have been settled by a number of close packs (Apollonio et al 2004;Capitani et al 2006). In the area, there is no significant barrier to wolf dispersal and human induced mortality is suspected to be high (Capitani 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fine-scale genetic structure suggests low levels of short-range gene flow in a wolf population of the Italian Apennines

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWe investigated local gene flow in a high-density wolf () population of the Italian Apennines, where no effective barrier to wolf dispersal was present. From 1998 to 2004 we examined wolf carcasses and non-invasively collected samples, focusing on three mountain districts, separated by two valleys, where wolf packs showed high spatial stability. Using nine autosomal microsatellites we successfully genotyped 177 samples, achieving the identification of 74 wolves. Genetic relatedness steeply decreased with increasing distance between sampling areas, thus suggesting that short-distance interpack migration is infrequent in this population. In addition, no individual from a central pack under intensive monitoring was sampled in the range of the surrounding packs over a 4-year period. The limited short-distance gene flow resulted in a cryptic genetic structure, which was revealed by Bayesian analysis. A different genetic cluster was found in each of the three mountain areas, and a small proportion of first-generation immigrants was detected. Overall, the present study suggests that local genetic differentiation in Italian wolves might arise from high spatial stability of packs and can be favoured by a combination of long-range dispersal, the attitude to mate between unrelated individuals and a high young mortality rate

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fine-scale genetic structure suggests low levels of short-range gene flow in a wolf population of the Italian Apennines

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The spatial distribution and reproductive success of wolf packs were monitored from 1998 by means of wolf howling, snow tracking, and molecular analysis in the whole province of Arezzo (Scandura et al 2001;Gazzola et al 2002;Apollonio et al 2004b;Scandura 2005;Capitani et al 2006;Scandura et al 2006). During the field study period (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008), the number of wolf packs ranged from 7 to 11, while the pack size ranged from 2 to 8 individuals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acoustic Structure of Wolf Howls in Some Eastern Tuscany (Central Italy) Free Ranging Packs

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Italian wolf howls are described for the first time from observations between 2003-2008 of a population living in eastern Tuscany, central Italy. A sample of 37 howls selected among single responses and 128 howls included in the choruses of 7 free ranging packs was recorded and analysed. The mean fundamental frequency of the howls ranged between 274-908 Hz. Two main structures recognised by means of multivariate explorative analysis, in particular Principal Component and Cluster Analysis, were ascribed to breaking and flat howls. Discriminant Function Analysis was applied to the recognised groups with the aim to find a general rule for classification. Howls with different features were correctly assigned to the groups obtained by explorative analysis in 95.8% of cases. The analysis of the variables characterising the structure of the howls suggests that maximum frequency and range of fundamental frequency are the most important parameters for classification, while duration does not appear to play any significant role.

show abstract

Pup‐rearing habitat use in a harvested carnivore

Jacobs

Ausband

2018

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Selection of rendezvous sites and reuse of pup raising areas among wolvesCanis lupus of north-eastern Apennines, Italy

Cited by 48 publications

References 28 publications

Fine-scale genetic structure suggests low levels of short-range gene flow in a wolf population of the Italian Apennines

Fine-scale genetic structure suggests low levels of short-range gene flow in a wolf population of the Italian Apennines

The Acoustic Structure of Wolf Howls in Some Eastern Tuscany (Central Italy) Free Ranging Packs

Pup‐rearing habitat use in a harvested carnivore

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About