Wolves at the door? Factors influencing the individual behavior of wolves in relation to anthropogenic features

Carricondo‐Sanchez, David; Zimmermann, Barbara; Wabakken, Petter; Eriksen, Ane; Milleret, Cyril; Ordiz, Andrés; Sanz‐Pérez, Ana; Wikenros, Camilla

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108514

Cited by 50 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Altitudinal moose migration has also been documented where bears and wolves are sympatric in Scandinavia 62 . Thus, the general occurrence of moose at lower elevations in winter is likely the mechanism explaining our result of wolf avoidance of high elevations in winter 63 . In our study area, altitude reaches ~1000 m.a.s.l.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Wolf habitat selection when sympatric or allopatric with brown bears in Scandinavia

Ordiz

Uzal

Milleret

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat selection of animals depends on factors such as food availability, landscape features, and intraand interspecific interactions. Individuals can show several behavioral responses to reduce competition for habitat, yet the mechanisms that drive them are poorly understood. This is particularly true for large carnivores, whose fine-scale monitoring is logistically complex and expensive. In Scandinavia, the home-range establishment and kill rates of gray wolves (Canis lupus) are affected by the coexistence with brown bears (Ursus arctos). Here, we applied resource selection functions and a multivariate approach to compare wolf habitat selection within home ranges of wolves that were either sympatric or allopatric with bears. Wolves selected for lower altitudes in winter, particularly in the area where bears and wolves are sympatric, where altitude is generally higher than where they are allopatric. Wolves may follow the winter migration of their staple prey, moose (Alces alces), to lower altitudes. Otherwise, we did not find any effect of bear presence on wolf habitat selection, in contrast with our previous studies. Our new results indicate that the manifestation of a specific driver of habitat selection, namely interspecific competition, can vary at different spatial-temporal scales. This is important to understand the structure of ecological communities and the varying mechanisms underlying interspecific interactions. Habitat selection takes place at several spatial scales, typically described as four orders of selection 1. Populations have a distribution range (1 st order); individuals establish home ranges (2 nd), select habitats inside them (3 rd), and use specific patches for specific activities, e.g., feeding and resting (4 th). Habitat selection within home ranges depends on factors such as prey availability, landscape features, and intra-and interspecific interactions, which can reduce the selection of otherwise preferred habitats 2-4. Thus, individual space use is influenced by interactions with other animals and the environment, highlighting the need to jointly investigate the population-level and spatial selection processes underlying such interactions 5,6. Interspecific competition influences the population dynamics and community structure of large carnivores 7. Competition triggers different behavioral responses, including varying degrees of spatio-temporal overlap and avoidance among competitors, yet the behavioral mechanisms that drive carnivore responses to competition are poorly understood 8. This topic is currently receiving increasing attention for different carnivore guilds in different continents 8-13. However, the spatio-temporal dynamics of apex predator interactions still requires a better understanding 14. In northern Europe, the gray wolf (Canis lupus), brown bear (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) constitute the large carnivore guild. Previous research on interspecific competition focused

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Wolf habitat selection when sympatric or allopatric with brown bears in Scandinavia

Ordiz

Uzal

Milleret

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both were offspring of local wolf packs. Although wolves usually keep their distance from human settlements (Kaartinen et al 2005;Bassi et al 2015;Carricondo-Sanchez et al 2020), young or dispersing individuals are more likely to approach houses than territorial adults. Despite this, wild-living wolves usually do not show bold behaviour towards people and do not seek food among buildings during daylight (Karlsson et al 2007;Kojola et al 2016;Mancinelli et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and environmental factors influencing contemporary cases of wolf aggression towards people in Poland

Nowak¹,

Szewczyk

Tomczak

et al. 2021

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding factors and mechanisms causing large carnivore aggression towards people is crucial for their conservation in modern human-dominated landscapes. We present detailed descriptions of wolf attacks on people in early summer 2018 in two areas of Poland, analysis of behaviour, fitness and origin of individuals responsible for the attacks and management actions undertaken by local communities as well as governmental bodies and non-governmental organisations. We show that attacks were caused by yearling wolves (13-month-old male and 14-month-old female) originating from local packs, which appeared near households several months prior to incidents. Both individuals were positively food-conditioned and showed increasing habituation caused by irresponsible behaviour of people such as long-lasting intentional feeding or illegal keeping. Post mortem necropsy revealed obesity and serious abnormality of spleen (polysplenia) in the problem female wolf that negatively impacted her fitness and was the most likely reason for her presence near households and feeding on leftovers. Despite prolonged observations of these wolves very close to human settlements (less than 30 m), no mitigation actions were undertaken until the attacks, after which both individuals were killed. We provide several recommendations to avoid aggressive human-carnivore encounters.

show abstract

“…Though wolves possess the capacity for dynamic habitat selection patterns within the same pack [46,79], their reliance on ungulate prey and the limitations of cursorial hunting resulted in predictable selection of simple topography across an array of ecosystem-types. Deer and elk compose the majority of wolf diets in western Montana [37,38], and during summer, these ungulates often seek refuge and forage in steep, high-elevation terrain [51,58,80], which could effectively reduce prey availability for wolves within simpler topography.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat selection by wolves and mountain lions during summer in western Montana

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Northern Rockies of the United States, predators like wolves (Canis lupus) and mountain lions (Puma concolor) have been implicated in fluctuations or declines in populations of game species like elk (Cervus canadensis) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). In particular, local distributions of these predators may affect ungulate behavior, use of space, and dynamics. Our goal was to develop generalizable predictions of habitat selection by wolves and mountain lions across western Montana. We hypothesized both predator species would select habitat that maximized their chances of encountering and killing ungulates and that minimized their chances of encountering humans. We assessed habitat selection by these predators during summer using within-home range (3rd order) resource selection functions (RSFs) in multiple study areas throughout western Montana, and tested how generalizable RSF predictions were by applying them to out-of-sample telemetry data from separate study areas. Selection for vegetation cover-types varied substantially among wolves in different study areas. Nonetheless, our predictions of 3rd order selection by wolves were highly generalizable across different study areas. Wolves consistently selected simple topography where ungulate prey may be more susceptible to their cursorial hunting mode. Topographic features may serve as better proxies of predation risk by wolves than vegetation cover-types. Predictions of mountain lion distribution were less generalizable. Use of rugged terrain by mountain lions varied across ecosystem-types, likely because mountain lions targeted the habitats of different prey species in each study area. Our findings suggest that features that facilitate the hunting mode of a predator (i.e. simple topography for cursorial predators and hiding cover for stalking predators) may be more generalizable predictors of their habitat selection than features associated with local prey densities.

show abstract

Wolves at the door? Factors influencing the individual behavior of wolves in relation to anthropogenic features

Cited by 50 publications

References 57 publications

Wolf habitat selection when sympatric or allopatric with brown bears in Scandinavia

Wolf habitat selection when sympatric or allopatric with brown bears in Scandinavia

Social and environmental factors influencing contemporary cases of wolf aggression towards people in Poland

Habitat selection by wolves and mountain lions during summer in western Montana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About