Mammal Research

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 203–212 | Cite as

Associations between sympatric apex predators across a diverse landscape

  • Jessica M. KrohnerEmail author
  • David E. Ausband


Coexistence between sympatric predators is achieved through a variety of behaviors that reduce competitive interactions. We examined fine-scale co-occurrence between sympatric apex predators across a large and highly variable landscape characterized by anthropogenic presence and related mortality in Idaho, USA. We analyzed data from 201 camera traps across 130,000 km2 to examine spatiotemporal associations between four apex predators: humans (Homo sapiens), wolves (Canis lupus), black bears (Ursus americanus), and cougars (Puma concolor). We hypothesized that the dominant competitors in our system would be associated with reduced detections of subordinate competitors (i.e., humans > wolves > black bears > cougars). Such a hierarchy proved true only when examining spatial associations between humans and wolves. We found a positive spatial association between black bear and cougars, suggesting that cougar kills may provide scavenging opportunities for bears. Although we found a slight positive spatial association between black bears and wolves, we found strong differences in temporal activity patterns between them. Mesic forest yielded higher detections of all predators (except humans) compared to xeric habitat. Cougars in particular appeared to be better predicted by habitat than presence of sympatric predators with more detections in mesic compared to mountain and xeric habitats. Understanding the co-occurrence of apex predators in a system is not a simple measure of their relative dominance cascading from one level to the next.


Black bear Carnivore Competition Idaho Puma concolor Wolf 



We would like to thank the Idaho Department of Fish and Game personnel who helped to install our camera traps throughout the state. We thank M. Hurley and S. Roberts for project support, C. Jacobs for determining camera trap locations and Fig. 1, and B. Moore for assisting in grizzly bear identification. Funding was provided by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.


  1. Ancrenaz M, Hearn AJ, Ross J, Sollman R, Wilting A (2012) Handbook for wildlife monitoring using camera-traps. BBEC II Secretariat, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ausband DE, Mitchell MS, Doherty K, Zager P, Mack CM, Holyan J (2010) Surveying predicted rendezvous sites to monitor gray wolf populations. J Wildl Manag 74:1043–1049. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausband DE, Rich LN, Glenn EM, Mitchell MS, Zager P, Mack CM (2014) Monitoring gray wolf populations using multiple survey methods. J Wildl Manag 78:335–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ausband DE, Stansbury CR, Stenglein JL, Struthers JL, Waits LP (2015) Recruitment in a social carnivore before and after harvest. Anim Conserv 18:415–423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballard WB, Carbyn LN, Smith DW (2003) Wolf interactions with non-prey. In: Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 259–271Google Scholar
  6. Bartnick TD, Van Deelen TR, Quigley HB, Craighead D (2013) Variation in cougar (Puma concolor) predation habits during wolf (Canis lupus) recovery in the southern greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Can J Zool 91:82–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL (2006) Interspecific competition. In: Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems, 4th edn. Blackwell, Malden, pp 227–265Google Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Creel S, Rotella JJ (2010) Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS One 5:e12918. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cusack JJ, Dickman AJ, Kalyahe M, Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C, MacDonald DW, Coulson T (2016) Revealing kleptoparasitic and predatory tendencies in an African mammal community using camera traps: a comparison of spatiotemporal approaches. Oikos 126:812–822. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elbroch LM, Lendrum PE, Allen ML, Wittmer HU (2015a) Nowhere to hide: pumas, black bears, and competition refuges. Behav Ecol 26:247–254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elbroch LM, Lendrum PE, Newby J, Quigley H, Thompson DJ (2015b) Recolonizing wolves influence the realized niche of resident cougars. Zool Stud 54:41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fremmerlid M, Latham ADM (2009) Lone wolf, Canis lupus, displaced from a kill by an adult black bear, Ursus americanus in northeastern Alberta. Can Field-Nat 123:266–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hebblewhite M, Merrill E (2008) Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. J Appl Ecol 45:834–844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hebblewhite M, Smith D (2010) Wolf community ecology: ecosystem effects of recovering wolves in Banff and Yellowstone national parks. In: Musiani MPC, Paquet PC (eds) The world of the wolves; new perspectives on ecology, behavior, and management. University of Calgary, Calgary, pp 69–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) (2017) Idaho Department of Fish and Game annual wolf statewide report. Boise, IDGoogle Scholar
  17. Ives AR, Cardinale BJ, Snyder WE (2005) A synthesis of subdisciplines: predator-prey interactions, and biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8:102–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jimenez MD, Asher VJ, Bergman C, Bangs EE, Woodruff SP (2008) Gray wolves, Canis lupus, killed by cougars, Puma concolor, and a grizzly bear, Ursos arctos, in Montana, Alberta, and Wyoming. Can Field-Nat 122:76–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kortello AD, Hurd TE, Murray DL (2007) Interactions between cougars (Puma concolor) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Banff National Park, Alberta. Ecosci 14:214–222.[214:IBCPCA]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  20. Lendrum PE, Crooks KR, Wittemyer G (2017) Changes in circadian activity patterns of a wildlife community post high-intensity energy development. J Mammal 98:1265–1271. Google Scholar
  21. Mattson DJ (1990) Human impacts on bear habitat use. In: Darling LM, Archibald WR (eds) Bears: their biology and management. Papers from the 8th international conference on bear research and management, Victoria, British Columbia, February 1989 (pp 33–56).
  22. McGrath CL, Woods AJ, Omernik JM, Bryce SA, Edmondson M, Nesser JA, Shelden J, Crawford RC, Comstock JA, Plocher MS (2002) Ecoregions of Idaho. (2 sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Mech LD, Boitani L (2003) Wolf social ecology. In: Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves: behavior, ecology and conservation. University of Chicago, Illinois, pp 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muhly TB, Semeniuk C, Massolo A, Hickman L, Musiani M (2011) Human activity helps prey win the predator-prey space race. PLoS One 6:e17050. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy KM, Felzien GS, Hornocker MG, Ruth TK (1998) Encounter competition between bears and cougars: some ecological implications. Ursus 10:55–60Google Scholar
  26. Noss RF, Quigley HB, Hornocker MG, Merrill T, Paquet PC (1996) Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Cons Biol 10:949–963. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oriol-Cotterill AH, Valeix M, Frank LG, Riginos C, Macdonald DW (2015) Landscapes of coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: the ecological consequences of being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans. Oikos 0:1–11. Google Scholar
  28. Rayan DM, Linkie M (2016) Managing conservation flagship species in competition: tiger, leopard and dhole in Malaysia. Biol Conserv 204:360–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing. Available online at Accessed 30 May 2018
  30. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, Schmitz OJ, Smith DW, Wallach AD, Wirsing AJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484—1–1241484-11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robinson QH, Bustos D, Roemer GW (2014) The application of occupancy modeling to evaluate intraguild predation in a model carnivore system. Ecology 95:3112–3123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers LL, Mech LD (1981) Interactions of wolves and black bears in northeastern Minnesota. J Mammal 62:434–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruth TK, Murphy K (2010) Competition with other carnivores for prey. In: Hornocker M, Negri S (eds) Cougar: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 163–172Google Scholar
  34. Van Dyke FG, Brocke RH, Shaw HG, Ackerman BB, Hemker TP, Lindzey FG (1986) Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. J Wildl Manag 50:95–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whittington J, St. Clair CC, Mercer G (2005) Spatial responses of wolves to roads and trails in mountain valleys. Ecol Appl 15:543–553. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Idaho Department of Fish and GameCoeur d’AleneUSA
  2. 2.Idaho Cooperative Wildlife Research UnitUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations