Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape

Fisher, Jason T.; Burton, A. Cole

doi:10.1002/fee.1807

Cited by 110 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 3 carnivore species use or respond positively to linear features (Toews et al. ; Fisher & Burton ); hence, we predicted intermediate densities for predators. We predicted the highest densities for alternative prey because linear features and forest cutblocks can benefit these species (Toews et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…). Caribou occur at extremely low densities, depredated by multiple higher density species, and in a linearized landscape that facilitates predators’ access to prey (Fisher & Burton ). A single‐species predator control strategy may temporarily stabilize caribou populations (Hervieux et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We predicted the highest densities for alternative prey because linear features and forest cutblocks can benefit these species (Toews et al. ; Fisher & Burton ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The importance of considering multiple interacting species for conservation of species at risk

Burgar

Burton

Fisher

2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation of species at risk of extinction is complex and multifaceted. However, mitigation strategies are typically narrow in scope, an artifact of conservation research that is often limited to a single species or stressor. Knowledge of an entire community of strongly interacting species would greatly enhance the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of conservation decisions. We investigated how camera trapping and spatial count models, an extension of spatial‐recapture models for unmarked populations, can accomplish this through a case study of threatened boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Population declines in caribou are precipitous and well documented, but recovery strategies focus heavily on control of wolves (Canis lupus) and pay less attention to other known predators and apparent competitors. Obtaining necessary data on multispecies densities has been difficult. We used spatial count models to concurrently estimate densities of caribou, their predators (wolf, black bear [Ursus americanus], and coyote [Canis latrans]), and alternative prey (moose [Alces alces] and white‐tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus]) from a camera‐trap array in a highly disturbed landscape within northern Alberta's Oil Sands Region. Median densities were 0.22 caribous (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] = 0.08–0.65), 0.77 wolves (95% BCI = 0.26–2.67), 2.39 moose (95% BCI = 0.56–7.00), 2.64 coyotes (95% BCI = 0.45–6.68), and 3.63 black bears (95% BCI = 1.25–8.52) per 100 km2. (The white‐tailed deer model did not converge.) Although wolf densities were higher than densities recommended for caribou conservation, we suggest the markedly higher black bear and coyote densities may be of greater concern, especially if government wolf control further releases these species. Caribou conservation with a singular focus on wolf control may leave caribou vulnerable to other predators. We recommend a broader focus on the interacting species within a community when conserving species.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The importance of considering multiple interacting species for conservation of species at risk

Burgar

Burton

Fisher

2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ungulate species in the area include moose, woodland caribou and white‐tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus . Predators of those ungulates include grey wolves, coyote Canis latrans , black bears and lynx Lynx canadensis (relative abundances presented in Fisher & Burton, ). Other important prey include beaver Castor canadensis and snowshoe hare Lepus americanus .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corridors or risk? Movement along, and use of, linear features varies predictably among large mammal predator and prey species

Dickie

McNay²,

Sutherland³

et al. 2019

Journal of Animal Ecology

131

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Space‐use behaviour reflects trade‐offs in meeting ecological needs and can have consequences for individual survival and population demographics. The mechanisms underlying space use can be understood by simultaneously evaluating habitat selection and movement patterns, and fine‐resolution locational data are increasing our ability to do so. We use high‐resolution location data and an integrated step‐selection analysis to evaluate caribou, moose, bear, and wolf habitat selection and movement behaviour in response to anthropogenic habitat modification, though caribou data were limited. Space‐use response to anthropogenic linear features (LFs) by predators and prey is hypothesized to increase predator hunting efficiency and is thus believed to be a leading factor in woodland caribou declines in western Canada. We found that all species moved faster while on LFs. Wolves and bears were also attracted towards LFs, whereas prey species avoided them. Predators and prey responded less strongly and consistently to natural features such as streams, rivers and lakeshores. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that LFs facilitate predator movement and increase hunting efficiency, while prey perceive such features as risky. Understanding the behavioural mechanisms underlying space‐use patterns is important in understanding how future land‐use may impact predator–prey interactions. Explicitly linking behaviour to fitness and demography will be important to fully understand the implications of management strategies.

show abstract

“…Logging alone has an area footprint of approximately 15 million hectares, while energy development has created over half a million kilometers of linear features across the region (Pasher, Seed, & Duffe, ). The cumulative effects of these extensive industrial footprints impact the distribution and abundance of a number of boreal mammals, though the strength and nature of influence vary by species (Fisher & Burton, ; Toews, Juanes, & Burton, ). Behavioral and population changes in individual species can in turn affect interactions among species (Ritchie & Johnson, ), leading to broader indirect effects of industrial development in boreal ecosystems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boreal predator co‐occurrences reveal shared use of seismic lines in a working landscape

Tattersall

Burgar

Fisher

et al. 2020

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interspecific interactions are an integral aspect of ecosystem functioning that may be disrupted in an increasingly anthropocentric world. Industrial landscape change creates a novel playing field on which these interactions take place, and a key question for wildlife managers is whether and how species are able to coexist in such working landscapes. Using camera traps deployed in northern Alberta, we surveyed boreal predators to determine whether interspecific interactions affected occurrences of black bears (Ursus americanus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and lynx (Lynx canadensis) within a landscape disturbed by networks of seismic lines (corridors cut for seismic exploration of oil and gas reserves). We tested hypotheses of species interactions across one spatial‐only and two spatiotemporal (daily and weekly) scales. Specifically, we hypothesized that (1) predators avoid competition with the apex predator, gray wolf (Canis lupus), (2) they avoid competition with each other as intraguild competitors, and (3) they overlap with their prey. All three predators overlapped with wolves on at least one scale, although models at the daily and weekly scale had substantial unexplained variance. None of the predators showed avoidance of intraguild competitors or overlap with prey. These results show patterns in predator space use that are consistent with both facilitative interactions or shared responses to unmeasured ecological cues. Our study provides insight into how predator species use the working boreal landscape in relation to each other, and highlights that predator management may indirectly influence multiple species through their interactions.

show abstract

Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape

Cited by 110 publications

References 28 publications

The importance of considering multiple interacting species for conservation of species at risk

The importance of considering multiple interacting species for conservation of species at risk

Corridors or risk? Movement along, and use of, linear features varies predictably among large mammal predator and prey species

Boreal predator co‐occurrences reveal shared use of seismic lines in a working landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About