Summary of discussion

Similar documents
MOUNTAIN CARIBOU INTERACTIONS WITH WOLVES AND MOOSE IN CENTRAL BRITISH COLUMBIA

Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Long history in ecology

Wildlife Introduction

Predator Prey Lab Exercise L3

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

THE WOLF WATCHERS. Endangered gray wolves return to the American West

Population Ecology Yellowstone Elk by C. John Graves

DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

2009 Update. Introduction

Deer Management Unit 127

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Life history Food Distribution Management... 98

Deer Management Unit 152

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula

Wolves in Yellowstone Park. A Story about Ecosystem Balance

Questionnaire for Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Interviews on Boreal Caribou LONG VERSION

IMPROVING POPULATION MANAGEMENT AND HARVEST QUOTAS OF MOOSE IN RUSSIA

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

Living World Review #2

Michigan Predator-Prey Project Phase 1 Preliminary Results and Management Recommendations. Study Background

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SUMMARY OF COUGAR POPULATION MODEL AND EFFECTS OF LETHAL CONTROL

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

Deer Management Unit 252

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES -- PART B

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

Predator Prey Lab Exercise L2

NATURAL CONTROLS OF POPULATIONS: 3 CASE STUDIES

LITTLE SALMON AND MAGUNDY RIVERS

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

Critical Aspects of Mountain Caribou Biology

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

2008 WMU 359 moose, mule deer, and white tailed deer

Ocean and Plume Science Management Uncertainties, Questions and Potential Actions (Work Group draft 11/27/13)

FISHERIES BLUE MOUNTAINS ADAPTATION PARTNERSHIP

Developments in managing small pelagic fisheries

Lab: Predator-Prey Simulation

Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan. Predator/Prey Component. Terms of Reference

021 Deer Management Unit

Paul Schullery. for beetles, flies, and many other small animals, the elk is a village waiting to happen.

Copyright 2018 by Jamie L. Sandberg

EEB 122b PRACTICE SECOND MIDTERM

A Review of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Population Dynamics

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

Stakeholder Activity

A pheasant researcher notebook:

Biology B / Sanderson!

April Nisga a Fisheries & Wildlife Department

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 510 moose

NEW HAMPSHIRE MOOSE UPDATE

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

Search for the missing sea otters

Lect 19 - Populations - Chapter 23. Different Levels of Ecological Organization. Populations

I'd like to thank the Board for the opportunity to present here today.

The Impact of Wolf Reintroduction on the Foraging Efficency of Elk and Bison

CHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased

Consideration for Moose Management in Ontario Northern Ontario First Nations Environmental Conference

Map Showing NAFO Management Units

oose Management Guidelines )uly 96

Wild Wapiti Wild Wapiti activities are directly tied to the third spread - pages 5 and 6 of Our Wetland Project.

Climate Change and Arctic Marine Mammals: Living on the Edge

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

Oh Deer! Objectives. Background. Method. Materials

5 th Grade Science Pre-assessment Organisms & Environments Unit 5 KEY

REVELSTOKE MOUNTAIN CARIBOU RECOVERY:

Early History, Prehistory

DMU 038 Jackson County

Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group 2012 Annual Report (October 1, 2012-September 30, 2012) Member Agencies

F E H M A R N B E L T B I R D S. Bird Investigations in Fehmarnbelt - Baseline

Blue crab ecology and exploitation in a changing climate.

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF NATURAL MORTALITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF YELLOWFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

Caribou herd dynamics: impact of climate change on traditional and sport harvesting

Regents Biology LAB. NATURAL CONTROLS OF POPULATIONS

COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report for Grizzly Bear Western population (Ursus arctos) in Canada SUMMARY

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 501 moose and deer

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

Chinook salmon (photo by Roger Tabor)

Evaluating the Influence of Development on Mule Deer Migrations

Evaluating the impact of fishing forage fish on predators. Ray Hilborn School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington

2012 Kootenay-Boundary Mule Deer Management Plan: Outline and Background Information

Fish Conservation and Management

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

The Basics of Population Dynamics Greg Yarrow, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, Extension Wildlife Specialist

Analyzing Human- Environment Interactions using GIS. Cape Breton Highlands Education Centre/Academy

Chapter 14. Wildlife, Fisheries and Endangered Species. What are we Saving? Traditional Single-Species Wildlife Management

22 Questions from WildEarth Guardians - September 19, 2016

WOLF POPULATION SURVEY. Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge Game Management Unit 12, eastern Alaska

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

Population Parameters and Their Estimation. Uses of Survey Results. Population Terms. Why Estimate Population Parameters? Population Estimation Terms

X X. The 50+ Year Genesis of the Woodland Caribou Knowledge and Management File

Deer Management Unit 255

Enclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that we have prepared for your review and records.

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Transcription:

Tweedsmuir Caribou Modelling Project: Caribou Population Ecology Meeting Notes held March 5, 2008 Participants: Mark Williams, Debbie Cichowski, Don Morgan, Doug Steventon, Dave Daust Purpose: The purpose of the workshop was to outline a general approach for modelling caribou population dynamics, identifying the main factors contributing to mortality. Summary of discussion Food Some caribou eat sedges as well as lichens, although sedges would only make up a small portion of their diet. Debbie has not seen much direct evidence of foraging on sedge, but some caribou (0-25%) often spend a portion of the winter (e.g., a month) in the sub-alpine and alpine. In general, the caribou are not food limited and can food switch as required by availability. In winter, caribou go where the snow is shallow and food is easy. Caribou studies indicate that there is a increase in protein reserves over winter. Predation on calving grounds Calving areas are likely more critical than winter range: Bergerud (ref?) wrote that there was no critical winter range and that caribou persistence on a landscape is driven by predator-prey dynamics. Calf mortality occurs mainly between May and July. Bears and wolves are the major predators (each responsible for approx. 50% mortality) on adults and it is assumed that they are also similarly responsible for calf mortality. Calving is more successful at higher elevations (alpine and subalpine areas) and on islands on Whitesail and Eutsuk Lakes, likely because calves are more spatially separated from moose and wolves that hunt moose. Note that wolves and bears can learn where to look for caribou and may make forays into alpine/subalpine. Note that islands on Whitesail Lake will not be logged. Moose density Two alternative hypotheses predict the influence of moose density on caribou predation risk. The first predicts that increased moose density will increase wolf density and the rate at which caribou encounter wolves, thus leading to higher mortality (Seip 1992?). This theory links the recent decline in caribou to the increase in the moose population since the 1920s.The second predicts that although wolf density and encounter rate will increase, wolves will preferentially hunt moose if moose exist in sufficient density, thus caribou kill rate actually goes down. Moose are larger and provide more food per kill (and thus support larger packs; e.g., 10-14 wolves/pack). A wolf pack can feed on a moose carcass for about a week, whereas a caribou carcass will last only a couple of days. Wolf packs feeding on caribou tend to be smaller. The corollary of the second hypothesis predicts that at low moose density, wolves will hunt both moose and caribou because moose alone will not support the packs. For the second, hypothesis to work, territorial competition between packs must limit wolf density so that they do not decrease the moose population and switch to caribou and so that wolf density and consequently caribou mortality does not increase a great deal. Evidence shows that wolf populations are relatively constant. Wolf density is not impacted till moose density is below 0.3 km2 (Check literature). Wolf-wolf mortality is quite high and may limit wolf density. If wolves had to switch from moose to caribou, intra- and inter-pack conflict would increase, leading to smaller packs and lower wolf density. 1

Linear corridors Wolf predation rates on ungulates go up near linear corridors, but this does not necessarily mean that the overall predation rate in a region increases (no evidence for or against). Thus, the use of roads and cutblocks as an indicator of predation in models should be treated as a hypothesis. Summer Habitat Caribou commonly occur at elevations above where moose occur during calving or on islands. During the rest of the summer, caribou can be found at all elevations, from low elevation forests to subalpine and alpine habitat. Climate change Under climate change (e.g., more IDF type climate), warmer temperatures and more grasslands will increase deer and elk populations. Could do GIS analysis to identify proportion of area that may become grassland and thereby estimate the magnitude of the deer/elk populations. Changes in moose density would also need to need to be considered. Predicting caribou mortality using disc equation (Holling 1959) Let a i = attack rate t i = efficiency/handling time (also preference for caribou) note that prey switching driven by a and t m i = shape of curve relates to density, if m>1 then sigmoidal, if m=1 then linear. Can be inferred from caribou-moose-wolf studies N i = caribou population = # of caribou eaten per unit time per individual predator N p = predator population Note that attack rate (a i ) is sensitive to spatial distribution of caribou and wolves. Note also that it assumes all encounters lead to kills. However, most encounters do not result in a kill and there is different rates of success for caribou or moose. Parameter needs to reflect the relationship between kill rate and encounter rate. Note that the shape parameter (m i ) describes predator response to caribou density, and can be inferred from caribou-moose-wolf studies. Fi = a i N i mi 1 + a i t i N i mi This equation is for a single prey; sum from i = 1 to n for multiple prey Caribou mortality from one predator = N p x Then sum mortality from all predators to find total. 2

Type II curve m i = 1 Type III curve m i > 1 slope = a i N i N i With a type II curve, caribou kill rate per wolf increases in direct proportion to caribou population size. With a type III curve, caribou kill rate per wolf is lower at lower caribou density and higher at higher caribou density. A type three curve implies that the probability of hunting success is not related purely to caribou density. Such a situation may occur if predators switch to alternate prey when caribou density drops (this could occur if the other prey is targeted or is spatially separated; presumably, the other prey would be at higher density in most cases). Note that disc equation can be used to predict depensatory and compensatory mortality. May be best to calculate predation rates ( ) seasonally, because high kill rate in summer leads to reduced caribou pop in winter. Check to see if minor or major influence. Caribou population estimates can be determined by estimating wolf (and other) predation under a range of assumptions about prey switching, alternative prey abundance, etc (Figure). Encounter rate Spatial overlap N p Consumption by other predators (e.g., bears) Consumption by wolves Caribou λ (births/deaths) Variation in λ Doug, PLEASE CHECK THIS Caribou Population Note that λ may not be the same for males and females. When predation risk is moderate to high, a higher proportion of males die (see Atlin caribou models). 3

Mortality in winter range: moose and caribou Concentrations of caribou lead to increased predation risk. Unlike moose who spread out across the landscape, caribou tend to be in small herds. Caribou distribution is determined primarily by available forage (lichens plus accessible snow), not by predator avoidance behaviour. Also, caribou use different portions of winter range in different years. It is possible that at certain times during winter or in particular years, that caribou overlap more with moose and wolf pack ranges causing an increase in caribou-wolf encounters. Moose browse shrubs - do not tend to occur in pine lichen sites preferred by caribou thus causing some level of spatial separation of moose and caribou. Moose and caribou habitat are greatly interspersed in winter range, thus identifying moose habitat with GIS may not be useful: at the scale used by wolves and caribou, moose are approximately evenly distributed. Moose use riparian for forage. Wolves also use larger riparian corridors to ease travel in deep spring snow conditions. Wolf density, however, remains fairly constant unless fundamental ecosystem shift occurs. Use SELES and disc equation to assess the effects of: different caribou habitat distributions (relates to probability of caribou concentrating spatially) annual differences in portion of winter range used (affects concentration of caribou) riparian habitat distribution (affects predator density). Lay down wolf density (or pack territories) based on riparian habitat (small wetlands may attract moose but not serve for wolf travel so should be weighted less) and overlay with caribou distributions. Summer range mortality Highest caribou mortality (mainly calves) occurs in summer. Of known mortalities, about 50% due to wolves and 50% due to bears. Eagles and wolverines also kill calves. In summer, wolves hunt in small groups (e.g., pairs). Wolves eat whatever they can birds, fish, calves, etc. Bear predation on caribou is not dependent on the overall size of the bear population, but on the number of bears with the learned caribou adult and calf killing behaviour. Winter range survival may affect wolf density in summer range. Wolves are not resident in summer range too much snow, no moose. Wolves emigrate into the summer range from the surrounding area, potentially even from the coast. Wolf mortality rate can increase on the winter range mainly through intra-pack strife, especially if there is limited food. Wolf territory size is approximately 5-15 packs per 200,000 ha (check literature). Wolf density remains fairly constant unless fundamental ecosystem shift occurs. MPB is a potentially large shift, however moose browse is not increasing substantially in caribou winter habitat (poor sites?). In other ungulate winter ranges, MPB disturbance should increase moose browse species (e.g., willow, red-osier dogwood) on richer sites for 30 to 40 years until canopy closes. In summary, if the wolf populations in areas adjacent to the caribou range are doing well then there is more predation pressure on the caribou. There is so much snow in summer range that it cannot be used in winter by ungulates. Thus wolves must move into somewhat unfamiliar territory from adjacent areas each year. If the climate changes so that ungulates can survive year round, wolf density and effectiveness in the summer range may increase. Summer predation rates are not likely to vary much with standard management practices (e.g., road, harvesting), however climate change may increase risk in the summer range (see Figure). Also over-winter wolf survival may be affected by moose density in ungulate winter ranges. Both climate change and MPB may affect moose density. 4

Caribou WR Other Ungulate WR Summer range conditions under climate change decreased alpine moose spread towards alpine moose density increases deep snow (west) limits access Wolf over-winter survival / density Bear density Caribou mortality 5