Wolverine behavior varies spatially with anthropogenic footprint: implications for conservation and inferences about declines
| dc.contributor.author | Stewart, Frances E.C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Heim, Nicole A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Clevenger, Anthony P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Paczkowski, John | |
| dc.contributor.author | Volpe, John P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fisher, Jason T. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-19T20:54:47Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-08-19T20:54:47Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2016 | en_US |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Understanding a species’ behavioral response to rapid environmental change is an ongoing challenge in modern conservation. Anthropogenic landscape modification, or “human footprint,” is well documented as a central cause of large mammal decline and range contractions where the proximal mechanisms of decline are often contentious. Direct mortality is an obvious cause; alternatively, human‐modified landscapes perceived as unsuitable by some species may contribute to shifts in space use through preferential habitat selection. A useful approach to tease these effects apart is to determine whether behaviors potentially associated with risk vary with human footprint. We hypothesized wolverine (Gulo gulo) behaviors vary with different degrees of human footprint. We quantified metrics of behavior, which we assumed to indicate risk perception, from photographic images from a large existing camera‐trapping dataset collected to understand wolverine distribution in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada. We systematically deployed 164 camera sites across three study areas covering approximately 24,000 km2, sampled monthly between December and April (2007–2013). Wolverine behavior varied markedly across the study areas. Variation in behavior decreased with increasing human footprint. Increasing human footprint may constrain potential variation in behavior, through either restricting behavioral plasticity or individual variation in areas of high human impact. We hypothesize that behavioral constraints may indicate an increase in perceived risk in human‐modified landscapes. Although survival is obviously a key contributor to species population decline and range loss, behavior may also make a significant contribution. | en_US |
| dc.description.reviewstatus | Reviewed | en_US |
| dc.description.scholarlevel | Faculty | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Funding for wolverine research was provided by Alberta Innovates‐Technology Futures, Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Conservation Association, Parks Canada, the Western Transportation Institute–Montana State University, the Woodcock and Wilburforce Foundations, National Geographic Society, Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund, Mountain Equipment Cooperative, McLean Foundation, Patagonia, Alberta Sport Parks Recreation and Wildlife Foundation, and the Bow Valley Naturalists. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and the University of Victoria provided grants to FECS, NAH, and JTF. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Stewart, F.E.C., Heim, N.A., Clevenger, A.P., Paczkowski, J., Volpe, J.P. & Fisher, J.T. (2016). Wolverine behavior varies spatially with anthropogenic footprint: implications for conservation and inferences about declines. Ecology and Evolution, 6(5), 1493-1503. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1921 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1921 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1828/11041 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Ecology and Evolution | en_US |
| dc.subject | Camera trapping | |
| dc.subject | Gulo gulo | |
| dc.subject | human footprint | |
| dc.subject | landscape of fear | |
| dc.subject | Mustelidae | |
| dc.subject | neophobia | |
| dc.subject.department | School of Environmental Studies | |
| dc.title | Wolverine behavior varies spatially with anthropogenic footprint: implications for conservation and inferences about declines | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |