Functional response of wolves to human development across boreal North America.

boreal forest ecosystem conservation forestry functional response habitat selection roads trade‐offs wolves

Journal

Ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2045-7758
Titre abrégé: Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101566408

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Historique:
received: 11 12 2018
revised: 29 07 2019
accepted: 30 07 2019
entrez: 19 10 2019
pubmed: 19 10 2019
medline: 19 10 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The influence of humans on large carnivores, including wolves, is a worldwide conservation concern. In addition, human-caused changes in carnivore density and distribution might have impacts on prey and, indirectly, on vegetation. We therefore tested wolf responses to infrastructure related to natural resource development (i.e., human footprint). Our study provides one of the most extensive assessments of how predators like wolves select habitat in response to various degrees of footprint across boreal ecosystems encompassing over a million square kilometers of Canada. We deployed GPS-collars on 172 wolves, monitored movements and used a generalized functional response (GFR) model of resource selection. A functional response in habitat selection occurs when selection varies as a function of the availability of that habitat. GFRs can clarify how human-induced habitat changes are influencing wildlife across large, diverse landscapes. Wolves displayed a functional response to footprint. Wolves were more likely to select forest harvest cutblocks in regions with higher cutblock density (i.e., a positive functional response to high-quality habitats for ungulate prey) and to select for higher road density in regions where road density was high (i.e., a positive functional response to human-created travel routes). Wolves were more likely to use cutblocks in habitats with low road densities, and more likely to use roads in habitats with low cutblock densities, except in winter when wolves were more likely to use roads regardless of cutblock density. These interactions suggest that wolves trade-off among human-impacted habitats, and adaptively switch from using roads to facilitate movement (while also risking encounters with humans), to using cutblocks that may have higher ungulate densities. We recommend that conservation managers consider the contextual and interacting effects of footprints when assessing impacts on carnivores. These effects likely have indirect impacts on ecosystems too, including on prey species.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31624583
doi: 10.1002/ece3.5600
pii: ECE35600
pmc: PMC6787805
doi:

Banques de données

Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.q9j281m']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

10801-10815

Informations de copyright

© 2019 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None declared.

Références

PeerJ. 2017 Aug 29;5:e3736
pubmed: 28875080
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 8;12(11):e0186525
pubmed: 29117234
J Anim Ecol. 2015 Jan;84(1):102-12
pubmed: 25109601
Theor Popul Biol. 1977 Oct;12(2):197-29
pubmed: 929457
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 25;7(1):6370
pubmed: 28744023
Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Jul;14(7):268-272
pubmed: 10370262
Science. 2014 Jan 10;343(6167):1241484
pubmed: 24408439
J Anim Ecol. 2018 Jan;87(1):274-284
pubmed: 28940254
Oecologia. 2005 Jun;144(2):257-67
pubmed: 15891849
J Anim Ecol. 2013 Jul;82(4):770-80
pubmed: 23414218
Ecology. 2011 Mar;92(3):583-9
pubmed: 21608467
Ecol Evol. 2019 Aug 30;9(18):10801-10815
pubmed: 31624583
J Environ Manage. 2001 Dec;63(4):387-405
pubmed: 11826722
J Anim Ecol. 2006 Jul;75(4):887-98
pubmed: 17009752

Auteurs

Tyler B Muhly (TB)

Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Government of British Columbia Victoria BC Canada.

Cheryl A Johnson (CA)

Science and Technology Branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada Ottawa ON Canada.

Mark Hebblewhite (M)

Wildlife Biology Program Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation University of Montana Missoula MT USA.

Eric W Neilson (EW)

Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta Edmonton AB Canada.

Daniel Fortin (D)

Department of Biology Centre d'étude de la forêt Université Laval Québec QC Canada.

John M Fryxell (JM)

Department of Integrated Biology University of Guelph Guelph ON Canada.

Andrew David M Latham (ADM)

Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research Lincoln New Zealand.

Maria C Latham (MC)

Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research Lincoln New Zealand.

Philip D McLoughlin (PD)

Department of Biology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon SK Canada.

Evelyn Merrill (E)

Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta Edmonton AB Canada.

Paul C Paquet (PC)

Department of Geography University of Victoria Victoria BC Canada.

Brent R Patterson (BR)

Wildlife Research and Monitoring Section Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Trent University Peterborough ON Canada.

Fiona Schmiegelow (F)

Department of Renewable Resources University of Alberta c/o Yukon Research Centre Whitehorse YT Canada.

Fiona Scurrah (F)

Transmission Line and Civil Construction Manitoba Hydro Winnipeg MB Canada.

Marco Musiani (M)

Department of Biological Sciences Faculty of Science University of Calgary Calgary AB Canada.

Classifications MeSH