35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Natural regeneration on seismic lines influences movement behaviour of wolves and grizzly bears

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Across the boreal forest of Canada, habitat disturbance is the ultimate cause of caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou) declines. Habitat restoration is a focus of caribou recovery efforts, with a goal to finding ways to reduce predator use of disturbances, and caribou-predator encounters. One of the most pervasive disturbances within caribou ranges in Alberta, Canada are seismic lines cleared for energy exploration. Seismic lines facilitate predator movement, and although vegetation on some seismic lines is regenerating, it remains unknown whether vegetation regrowth is sufficient to alter predator response. We used Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data, and GPS locations, to understand how vegetation and other attributes of seismic lines influence movements of two predators, wolves ( Canis lupus) and grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos). During winter, wolves moved towards seismic lines regardless of vegetation height, while during spring wolves moved towards seismic lines with higher vegetation. During summer, wolves moved towards seismic lines with lower vegetation and also moved faster near seismic lines with vegetation <0.7 m. Seismic lines with lower vegetation height were preferred by grizzly bears during spring and summer, but there was no relationship between vegetation height and grizzly bear movement rates. These results suggest that wolves use seismic lines for travel during summer, but during winter wolf movements relative to seismic lines could be influenced by factors additional to movement efficiency; potentially enhanced access to areas frequented by ungulate prey. Grizzly bears may be using seismic lines for movement, but could also be using seismic lines as a source of vegetative food or ungulate prey. To reduce wolf movement rate, restoration could focus on seismic lines with vegetation <1 m in height. However our results revealed that seismic lines continue to influence wolf movement behaviour decades after they were built, and even at later stages of regeneration. Therefore it remains unknown at what stage of natural regeneration, if any, wolves cease to respond to seismic lines. To reduce wolf response to seismic lines, active restoration tactics like blocking seismic lines and tree planting, along with management of alternate prey, could be evaluated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Akaike's information criterion in generalized estimating equations.

            W. Pan (2001)
            Correlated response data are common in biomedical studies. Regression analysis based on the generalized estimating equations (GEE) is an increasingly important method for such data. However, there seem to be few model-selection criteria available in GEE. The well-known Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) cannot be directly applied since AIC is based on maximum likelihood estimation while GEE is nonlikelihood based. We propose a modification to AIC, where the likelihood is replaced by the quasi-likelihood and a proper adjustment is made for the penalty term. Its performance is investigated through simulation studies. For illustration, the method is applied to a real data set.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: SoftwareRole: Visualization
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                16 April 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 4
                : e0195480
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Caribou Program, fRI Research, Hinton, Alberta, Canada
                [2 ] Arctos Ecological Consultants, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [3 ] Wildlife Biology Program, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Science, W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, United States of America
                [4 ] Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [5 ] Parks Canada, Jasper National Park, Jasper, Alberta, Canada
                [6 ] Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [7 ] GIS Program, fRI Research, Hinton, Alberta, Canada
                [8 ] Grizzly Bear Program, fRI Research, Hinton, Alberta, Canada
                Université de Sherbrooke, CANADA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-6284
                Article
                PONE-D-17-39600
                10.1371/journal.pone.0195480
                5901995
                29659615
                f5471aad-1a41-4697-937e-e4511e1639f4
                © 2018 Finnegan et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 7 November 2017
                : 24 March 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 2, Pages: 23
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008638, Environment and Climate Change Canada;
                Award ID: HSP6617
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008638, Environment and Climate Change Canada;
                Award ID: HSP6699
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008638, Environment and Climate Change Canada;
                Award ID: HSP7195
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Sustainable Forestry Initiative
                Award ID: 2013-003
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000104, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
                Award ID: NNX15AW71A
                Award Recipient :
                Part of the National Conservation Plan, this project was undertaken with the financial support of the Government of Canada/Dans le cadre du Plan de conservation national, ce projet a été réalisé avec l’appui financier du gouvernement du Canada (HSP6617, 6699, 7195) [ www.ec.gc.ca/hsp-pih/]. Additional support was provided by Alberta Environment and Parks [ http://aep.alberta.ca/], the Foothills Landscape Management Forum [ https://friresearch.ca/content/foothills-landscape-management-forum-flmf], the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (2013-003) [ http://www.sfiprogram.org/], partners of the fRI Research Caribou and Grizzly Bear Programs, and fRI Research [ www.friresearch.ca]. Animal GPS data were collected as part of research supported by the Government of Alberta (GoA), fRI Research Grizzly Bear Program partners, and funders of graduate research at the University of Alberta and University of Montana. MH was also funded by NASA’s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) grant # NNX15AW71A [ www.nasa.gov]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Vertebrates
                Amniotes
                Mammals
                Wolves
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Vertebrates
                Amniotes
                Mammals
                Bears
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Vertebrates
                Amniotes
                Mammals
                Ruminants
                Reindeer
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Terrestrial Environments
                Forests
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Animal Types
                Wildlife
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animal Types
                Wildlife
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Trees
                Conifers
                Engineering and Technology
                Remote Sensing
                Lidar
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Trophic Interactions
                Predation
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Trophic Interactions
                Predation
                Custom metadata
                All data files are available from Dryad doi: 10.5061/dryad.7687117.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article