Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 187, Issue 1, pp 99–111 | Cite as

Compensatory mortality in a recovering top carnivore: wolves in Wisconsin, USA (1979–2013)

  • Jennifer L. Stenglein
  • Adrian P. Wydeven
  • Timothy R. Van Deelen
Population ecology – original research

Abstract

Populations of large terrestrial carnivores are in various stages of recovery worldwide and the question of whether there is compensation in mortality sources is relevant to conservation. Here, we show variation in Wisconsin wolf survival from 1979 to 2013 by jointly estimating the hazard of wolves’ radio-telemetry ending (endpoint) and endpoint cause. In previous analyses, wolves lost to radio-telemetry follow-up (collar loss) were censored from analysis, thereby assuming collar loss was unconfounded with mortality. Our approach allowed us to explicitly estimate hazard due to collar loss and did not require censoring these records from analysis. We found mean annual survival was 76% and mean annual causes of mortality were illegal killing (9.4%), natural and unknown causes (9.5%), and other human-caused mortality such as hunting, vehicle collisions and lethal control (5.1%). Illegal killing and natural mortality were highest during winter, causing wolf survival to decrease relative to summer. Mortality was highest during early recovery and lowest during a period of sustained population growth. Wolves again experienced higher risk of human-caused mortality relative to natural mortality as wolves expanded into areas with more human activity. We detected partial compensation in human- and natural-caused mortality since 2004 as the population saturated more available habitat. Prior to 2004, we detected additivity in mortality sources. Assessments of wolf survival and cause of mortality rates and the finding of partial compensation in mortality sources will inform wolf conservation and management efforts by identifying sources and sinks, finding areas of conservation need, and assessing management zone delineation.

Keywords

Additive mortality Canis lupus Cause-specific mortality Censoring Survival 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Heisey, R. Jurewitz, D. MacFarland, N. Roberts, R. Schultz, D. Thiel and J. Weidenhoeft for their development of the wolf monitoring program in Wisconsin, on-going data collection, and feedback on this research. Thank you to other Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources staff and volunteers who contributed to wolf monitoring and to the Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, UW-Madison for their support. We thank G. Péron for a very helpful review of this manuscript. Thank you to our additional sources of funding and support.

Author contribution statement

All authors conceived ideas and designed methodology; AW collected and curated data; JS and TVD analyzed data; JS led writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Funding

This study was funded by National Science Foundation-IGERT (Grant Number DGE-1144752), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, and a USDA Hatch Act Grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4132_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)
442_2018_4132_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (750 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 749 kb)

References

  1. Adams L, Stephenson R, Dale B, Ahgook R, Demma D (2008) Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the Central Brooks Range. Alaska Wildl Monogr 170:1–25.  https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP (1976) Population ecology of the mallard: VI. The effect of exploitation on survival, vol. 128. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication, pp 1–66Google Scholar
  3. Crainiceanu CM, Ruppert D, Wand MP (2005) Bayesian analysis for penalized spline regression using WinBUGS. J Stat Softw 14:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creel S, Rotella J (2010) Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE 5:e12918.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012918 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cross PC et al (2015) Estimating the phenology of elk brucellosis transmission with hierarchical models of cause-specific and baseline hazards. J Wildl Manage 79:739–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cubaynes S, MacNulty DR, Stahler DR, Quimbym KA, Smith DW, Coulson T (2014) Density-dependent intraspecific aggression regulates survival in northern yellowstone wolves (Canis lupus). J Appl Ecol 83:1344–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuller T (1989) Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 105:1–41Google Scholar
  8. Fuller TK, Mech LD, Cochrane JF (2003) Wolf population dynamics. In: Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 161–191Google Scholar
  9. Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heisey DM, Patterson BR (2006) A review of methods to estimate cause-specific mortality in presence of competing risks. J Wildl Manage 70:1544–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML (2003) Survival analysis: statistical methods for censored and truncated data. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Liberg O, Chapron G, Wabakken P, Pedersen HC, Hobbs NT, Sand H (2012) Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore in Europe. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 279:910–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacFarland D, Wiedenhoeft JE (2013) Wisconsin gray wolf post-delisting monitoring: 27 January 2012 through 14 April 2013. Bureau of Wildlife Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  14. Marucco F, Pletscher DH, Boitani L, Schwartz MK, Pilgrim KL, Lebreton JD (2009) Wolf survival and population trend using non-invasive capture–recapture techniques in the Western Alps. J Appl Ecol 46:1003–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mech LD, Boitani L (2003) Wolf social ecology. In: Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mladenoff D, Sickley T, Haight R, Wydeven A (1995) A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the norther Great Lakes region. Conserv Biol 9:279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mladenoff DJ, Clayton MK, Pratt SD, Sickley TA, Wydeven AP (2009) Change in occupied wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes region. In: Wydeven AP, Van Deelen TR, Heske EJ (eds) Recovery of Gray wolves in the Great Lakes region of the United States: an endangered species success story. Springer, New York, pp 119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray D (2006) On improving telemetry-based survival estimation. J Wildl Manage 70:1530–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nychka D, Furrer R, Sain S (2015) Fields: Tools for spatial data., R package version 8.2-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fields edn
  20. Olson ER et al (2015) Pendulum swings in wolf management led to conflict, illegal kills, and a legislated wolf hunt. Conserv Lett 8:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Neil ST, Bump JK, Beyer DE (2017) Spatially varying density dependence drives a shifting mosaic of survival in a recovering apex predator (Canis lupus). Ecol Evol 00:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3463 Google Scholar
  22. Péron G (2013) Compensation and additivity of anthropogenic mortality: life-history effects and review of methods. J Anim Ecol 82:408–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Péron G, Ferrand Y, Gossmann F, Bastat C, Guenezan M, Gimenez O (2011) Nonparametric spatial regression of survival probability: visualization of population sinks in Eurasian Woodcock. Ecology 92:1672–1679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson RO, Page RE (1988) The rise and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975–1986. J Mammal 69:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peterson RO, Thomas NJ, Thurber JM, Vucetich JA, Waite TA (1998) Population limitation and the wolves of Isle Royale. J Mammal 79:828–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Hornik K, Leisch F, Zeileis A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing, vol. 124. Technische Universit at Wien, Vienna, Austria, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  27. Plummer M (2011) rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package version 3-5Google Scholar
  28. Prentice RL, Gloeckler LA (1978) Regression analysis of grouped survival data with application to breast cancer data. Biometrics:57-67Google Scholar
  29. R developement Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaub M, Lebreton JD (2004) Testing the additive versus the compensatory hypothesis of mortality from ring recovery data using a random effects model. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:73–85Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz CC, Haroldson MA, White GC (2010) Hazards affecting grizzly bear survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. J Wildl Manage 74:654–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Servanty S et al (2010) Assessing whether mortality is additive using marked animals: a Bayesian state-space modeling approach. Ecology 91:1916–1923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sinclair ARE, Pech RP (1996) Density dependence, stochasticity, compensation and predator regulation. Oikos:164–173Google Scholar
  34. Smith DW et al (2010) Survival of colonizing wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States, 1982–2004. J Wildl Manage 74:620–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stenglein JL, Van Deelen TR (2016) Demographic and component Allee effects in Southern Lake Superior gray wolves. PLoS ONE 11:e0150535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Stenglein JL, Gilbert JH, Wydeven AP, Van Deelen TR (2015a) An individual-based model for southern Lake Superior wolves: a tool to explore the effect of human-caused mortality on a landscape of risk. Ecol Model 302:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stenglein JL et al (2015b) Mortality patterns and detection bias from carcass data: an example from wolf recovery in Wisconsin. J Wildl Manage 79:1173–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stenglein JL, Zhu J, Clayton MK, Van Deelen TR (2015c) Are the numbers adding up? Exploiting discrepancies among complementary population models. Ecol Evol 5:368–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Treves A, Langenberg JA, López-Bao JV, Rabenhorst MF (2017) Gray wolf mortality patterns in Wisconsin from 1979 to 2012. J Mammal 98:17–32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Deelen TR (2009) Growth characteristics of a recovering wolf population in the Great Lakes region. In: Wydeven AP, Van Deelen TR, Heske EJ (eds) Recovery of gray wolves in the great lakes region of the United States: an endangered species success story. Springer, New York, pp 139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vucetich JA, Peterson RO (2004) The influence of top–down, bottom–up and abiotic factors on the moose (Alces alces) population of Isle Royale. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 271:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wydeven AP, Schultz RN, Thiel RP (1995) Monitoring of a recovering gray wolf population in Wisconsin, 1979-1991. In: Carbyn LN, Fritts SH, Seip DR (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, pp 147–156Google Scholar
  43. Wydeven AP et al (2009) History, population growth, and management of wolves in Wisconsin. In: Wydeven AP, Van Deelen TR, Heske EJ (eds) Recovery of gray wolves in the great lakes region of the United States: an endangered species success story. Springer, New York, pp 87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wydeven AP, Wiedenhoeft JE, Schultz RN, Bruner J, Boles S (2012) Wisconsin endangered resources report#143: Status of the timber wolf in Wisconsin. Performance report 1 July 2011 through 30 June 2012 (also progress reports for 15 April 2011 - 14 April 2012, and 2011 summaries). Bureau of Endangered Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Timber Wolf Alliance, Sigurd Olson Environmental InstituteNorthland CollegeAshlandUSA
  3. 3.Office of Applied Science, Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations