Geology topics

L. David Mech

Publications and source records attributed to L. David Mech.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2018

An historical overview and update of wolf-moose interactions in northeastern Minnesota

Wolf (Canis lupus) and moose (Alces americanus) populations in northeastern Minnesota, USA, have fluctuated for decades and, based on helicopter counts, moose numbers declined to a new low from 2006 to about 2012. Other steep declines were found in 1991 and 1998 during periods when moose counts were done with ®xed-wing aircraft; these declines also appeared to be real. Winter wolf numbers, monitored in part of the moose range, had been increasing since about 2002 to the highest population in decades in 2009. However, from 2009 to 2016, wolves decreased precipitously, and the moose-population decline leveled off from 2012 to 2017. Calf:population ratios from 1985 to 1997 and from 2005 to 2016 were inversely related to wolf numbers in the wolf-study area the previous winter both as wolves increased and decreased in abundance. Similarly, log annual growth rates of moose numbers were negatively correlated with counts of wolves in the prior year. Other factors such as nutrition and parasites, and possibly climate change, likely have been involved in the recent moose decline. However, wolves, as in other areas, appear to have contributed to the decline in the northeastern Minnesota moose population at least in part through predation on calves, supporting earlier reports. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Minnesota↗

USGS2018

Factors affecting gray wolf (Canis lupus) encounter rate with elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park

Despite encounter rates being a key component of kill rate, few studies of large carnivore predation have quantified encounter rates with prey, the factors that influence them, and the relationship between encounter rate and kill rate. The study’s primary motivation was to determine the relationship between prey density and encounter rate in understanding the mechanism behind the functional response. Elk (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758) population decline and variable weather in northern Yellowstone National Park provided an opportunity to examine how these factors influenced wolf (Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758) encounter rates with elk. We explored how factors associated with wolf kill rate and encounter rate in other systems (season, elk density, elk group density, average elk group size, snow depth, wolf pack size, and territory size) influenced wolf–elk encounter rate in Yellowstone National Park. Elk density was the only factor significantly correlated with wolf–elk encounter rate, and we found a nonlinear density-dependent relationship that may be a mechanism for a functional response in this system. Encounter rate was correlated with number of elk killed during early winter but not late winter. Weak effects of snow depth and elk group size on encounter rate suggest that these factors influence kill rate via hunting success because kill rate is the product of hunting success and encounter rate.

Wyoming↗

USGS2017

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center—Celebrating 50 years of science

The Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) celebrated its 50-year anniversary in 2015. This report is written in support of that observance. We document why and how the NPWRC came to be and describe some of its many accomplishments and the influence the Center’s research program has had on natural resource management. The history is organized by major research themes, proceeds somewhat chronologically within each theme, and covers the Center’s first 50 years of research. During that period, Center scientists authored more than 1,700 publications and reports. More than 1,000 seasonal or temporary field personnel, and more than 100 graduate students, contributed to the Center’s success; many went on to have exemplary careers in natural resource management, conservation, and education. The mission of the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center today remains true to the original vision: to provide the knowledge needed to understand, conserve, and manage the Nation’s natural resources for current and future generations, with an emphasis on species and ecosystems of the northern Great Plains. The Center’s first 50 years of applied biological research provides a deep scientific foundation on which to address emerging issues for the natural resources in the northern Great Plains and beyond.

Circular↗

USGS2017

Seasonality of intraspecific mortality by gray wolves

Of 41 adult wolf-killed gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) and 10 probably or possibly killed by wolves from 1968 through 2014 in the Superior National Forest (SNF) in northeastern Minnesota, most were killed in months leading up to and immediately following the breeding season, which was primarily February. This finding is similar to a published sample from Denali National Park, and the seasonality of intraspecific mortality generally parallels the known seasonality of testosterone levels, scent-marking, howling frequency, and general interpack aggression. Males and females were killed in the same proportion as in the population of radiocollared wolves. The annual rate of wolf-killed wolves was not related to the annual wolf density. Our findings tend to support intraspecific mortality of adult wolves as a means to reduce breeding competition and to maintain territories.

Minnesota↗

USGS2017

Studies of wolf x coyote hybridization via artificial insemination

Following the production of western gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) x western coyote ( Canis latrans ) hybrids via artificial insemination (AI), the present article documents that the hybrids survived in captivity for at least 4 years and successfully bred with each other. It further reports that backcrossing one of the hybrids to a male gray wolf by AI also resulted in the birth of live pups that have survived for at least 10 months. All male hybrids (F 1 and F 2 ) produced sperm by about 10 months of age, and sperm quality of the F 1 males fell within the fertile range for domestic dogs, but sperm motility and morphology, in particular, were low in F 2 males at 10 months but improved in samples taken at 22 months of age. These studies are relevant to a long-standing controversy about the identity of the red wolf ( Canis rufus ), the existence of a proposed new species ( Canis lycaon ) of gray wolf, and to the role of hybridization in mammalian evolution.

PLoS ONE↗

USGS2017

An unparalleled opportunity for an important ecological study

Wolves ( Canis lupus ) and moose ( Alces americanus ) have been studied since 1958 on 540-square-kilometer Isle Royale National Park, in Lake Superior. Wolves arrived there across the ice around 1949, and the population once increased to about 50, averaging about 25 annually (Mech 1966 , Jordan et al. 1967 , Vucetich and Peterson 2009 ). However, for various reasons, wolf numbers there have now dwindled to 2 nonbreeders, and the US National Park Service has proposed reintroducing 20–30 wolves over 3 years (National Park Service 2016 ). This situation offers an unparalleled opportunity to promote science-based management of this unique national park. The park has long been in the public eye for its world-renowned wolf and moose populations. Visitors to this island wilderness are especially interested in the scientific studies it has yielded and in maintaining its ecosystem.

Michigan↗

USGS2017

Extinguishing a learned response in a free-ranging gray wolf (Canis lupus)

A free-ranging Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), habituated to human presence (the author) on Ellesmere Island, Canada, learned to anticipate experimental feeding by a human, became impatient, persistent, and bold and exhibited stalking behaviour toward the food source. Only after the author offered the wolf about 90 clumps of dry soil over a period of 45 minutes in three bouts, did the wolf give up this behaviour. To my knowledge, this is the first example of extinguishing a learned response in a free-ranging wolf and provides new insight into the learning behaviour of such animals.

Ellesmere Island↗

USGS2017

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) death by stick impalement

Although Canis lupus L. (Gray Wolf) individuals are sometimes impaled by sticks, we could find no documentation of natural impalement by sticks as a cause of death for wild Wolves. Here we report on a wild Gray Wolf from northeastern Minnesota that died due to stick puncture of its thorax and abdomen.

Minnesota↗

USGS2017

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) subsidize gray wolves (Canis lupus) during a moose (Alces americanus) decline: A case of apparent competition?

Moose ( Alces americanus ) in northeastern Minnesota have declined by 55% since 2006. Although the cause is unresolved, some studies have suggested that Gray Wolves ( Canis lupus ) contributed to the decline. After the Moose decline, wolves could either decline or switch prey. To determine which occurred in our study area, we compared winter wolf counts and summer diet before and after the Moose decline. While wolf numbers in our study area nearly doubled from 23 in winter 2002 to an average of 41 during winters 2011–2013, calf:cow ratios (the number of calves per cow observed during winter surveys) in the wider Moose range more than halved from 0.93 in 2002 to an average of 0.31 during 2011–2013. Compared to summer 2002, wolves in summers 2011–2013 consumed fewer Moose and more White-tailed Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ). While deer densities were similar during each period, average vulnerability, as reflected by winter severity, was greater during 2011–2013 than 2002, probably explaining the wolf increase. During the wolf increase Moose calves remained a summer food item. These findings suggest that in part of the Moose range, deer subsidized wolf numbers while wolves also preyed on Moose calves. This contributed to a Moose decline and is a possible case of apparent competition and inverse-density-dependent predation.

Canadian Field-Naturalist↗

USGS2017

Sexually dimorphic aggression indicates male gray wolves specialize in pack defense against conspecific groups

Aggression directed at conspecific groups is common among gregarious, territorial species, and for some species such as gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) intraspecific strife is the leading cause of natural mortality. Each individual in a group likely has different measures of the costs and benefits associated with a group task, such as an aggressive attack on another group, which can alter motivation and behavior. We observed 292 inter-pack aggressive interactions in Yellowstone National Park between 1 April 1995 and 1 April 2011 (>5300 days of observation) in order to determine the role of both sexes, and the influence of pack, age, and other traits on aggression. We recorded the behaviors and characteristics of all individuals present during the interactions (n = 534 individuals) and which individuals participated in each step (i.e. chase, attack, kill, flight) of the interaction. Overall, all wolves were more likely to chase rivals if they outnumbered their opponent, suggesting packs accurately assess their opponent’s size during encounters and individuals adjust their behavior based on relative pack size. Males were more likely than females to chase rival packs and gray-colored wolves were more aggressive than black-colored wolves. Male wolves and gray-colored wolves also recorded higher cortisol levels than females and black-colored wolves, indicating hormonal support for more intense aggressive behavior. Further, we found a positive correlation between male age and probability of chasing, while age-specific participation for females remained constant. Chasing behavior was influenced by the sex of lone intruders, with males more likely to chase male intruders. This difference in behavior suggests male and female wolves may have different strategies and motivations during inter-pack aggressive interactions related to gray wolf mating systems. A division of labor between pack members concerning resource and territory defense suggests selection for specific traits related to aggression is an adaptive response to intense competition between groups of conspecifics.

Behavioural Processes↗

USGS2017

Where can wolves live and how can we live with them?

In the contiguous 48 United States, southern Canada, and in Europe, wolves ( Canis lupus ) have greatly increased and expanded their range during the past few decades.They are prolific, disperse long distances, readily recolonize new areas where humans allow them, and are difficult to control when populations become established.Because wolves originally lived nearly everywhere throughout North America and Eurasia, and food in the form of wild and domestic prey is abundant there, many conservation-minded people favor wolves inhabiting even more areas.On the other hand, wolves conflict in several ways with rural residents who prefer fewer wolves. This article discusses the recovery of wolves, their benefits and values, the ways in which they conflict with humans, and the potential for their expansion into new areas.It concludes that wolf conservation will best be accomplished by each responsible political entity adaptively prescribing different management strategies for different zones within its purview.Some zones for some periods can support total protection, whereas in others, wolf numbers will have to be reduced to various degrees or removed.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2017

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves ( Canis lupus ) and dingoes ( Canis lupus dingo ) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science.

Food Webs↗

USGS2017

Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

We recently described the following six interrelated issues that justify questioning some of the discourse about the reliability of the literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores (Allen et al. In press): 1. The overall paucity of available data, 2. The reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, 3. The general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, 4. The lack of applied science studies, 5. The frequent use of logical fallacies, 6. The generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans.

Food Webs↗

USGS2017

A serosurvey of diseases of free-ranging gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Minnesota

We tested serum samples from 387 free-ranging wolves ( Canis lupus ) from 2007 to 2013 for exposure to eight canid pathogens to establish baseline data on disease prevalence and spatial distribution in Minnesota's wolf population. We found high exposure to canine adenoviruses 1 and 2 (88% adults, 45% pups), canine parvovirus (82% adults, 24% pups), and Lyme disease (76% adults, 39% pups). Sixty-six percent of adults and 36% of pups exhibited exposure to the protozoan parasite Neospora caninum . Exposure to arboviruses was confirmed, including West Nile virus (37% adults, 18% pups) and eastern equine encephalitis (3% adults). Exposure rates were lower for canine distemper (19% adults, 5% pups) and heartworm (7% adults, 3% pups). Significant spatial trends were observed in wolves exposed to canine parvovirus and Lyme disease. Serologic data do not confirm clinical disease, but better understanding of disease ecology of wolves can provide valuable insight into wildlife population dynamics and improve management of these species.

Minnesota↗

USGS2017

Use of erroneous wolf generation time in assessments of domestic dog and human evolution

Scientific interest in dog domestication and parallel evolution of dogs and humans (Wang et al. 2013) has increased recently (Freedman et al. 2014, Larson and Bradley 2014, Franz et al. 2016,), and various important conclusions have been drawn based on how long ago the calculations show dogs were domesticated from ancestral wolves (Canis lupus). Calculation of this duration is based on “the most commonly assumed mutation rate of 1 x 10-8 per generation and a 3-year gray wolf generation time . . .” (Skoglund et al. 2015:3). It is unclear on what information the assumed generation time is based, but Ersmark et al. (2016) seemed to have based their assumption on a single wolf (Mech and Seal 1987). The importance of assuring that such assumptions are valid is obvious. Recently, two independent studies employing three large data sets and three methods from two widely separated areas have found that wolf generation time is 4.2-4.7 years. The first study, based on 200 wolves in Yellowstone National Park used age-specific birth and death rates to calculate a generation time of 4.16 years (vonHoldt et al. 2008). The second, using estimated first-breeding times of 86 female wolves in northeastern Minnesota found a generation time of 4.3 years and using uterine examination of 159 female wolves from throughout Minnesota yielded a generation time of 4.7 years (Mech et al. 2016). We suggest that previous studies using a 3-year generation time recalculate their figures and adjust their conclusions based on these generation times and publish revised results.

Science↗

USGS2016

Wolf ( Canis lupus ) generation time and proportion of current breeding females by age

Information is sparse about aspects of female wolf ( Canis lupus ) breeding in the wild, including age of first reproduction, mean age of primiparity, generation time, and proportion of each age that breeds in any given year. We studied these subjects in 86 wolves (113 captures) in the Superior National Forest (SNF), Minnesota (MN), during 1972–2013 where wolves were legally protected for most of the period, and in 159 harvested wolves from throughout MN wolf range during 2012–2014. Breeding status of SNF wolves were assessed via nipple measurements, and wolves from throughout MN wolf range, by placental scars. In the SNF, proportions of currently breeding females (those breeding in the year sampled) ranged from 19% at age 2 to 80% at age 5, and from throughout wolf range, from 33% at age 2 to 100% at age 7. Excluding pups and yearlings, only 33% to 36% of SNF females and 58% of females from throughout MN wolf range bred in any given year. Generation time for SNF wolves was 4.3 years and for MN wolf range, 4.7 years. These findings will be useful in modeling wolf population dynamics and in wolf genetic and dog-domestication studies.

Minnesota↗

USGS2016

White-tailed Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) fawn risk from Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ) predation during summer

Little is known about how often various prey animals are at risk of predation by Gray Wolves ( Canis lupus ). We used a system to monitor the presence during the day of two radio-collared Gray Wolves within 2 km of a radio-collared White-tailed Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) with a fawn or fawns in August 2013 in the Superior National Forest of northeastern Minnesota. We concluded that the fawn or fawns were at risk of predation by at least one wolf at least daily.

Minnesota↗

USGS2016

Differential wolf-pack-size persistence and the role of risk when hunting dangerous prey

Risk to predators hunting dangerous prey is an emerging area of research and could account for possible persistent differences in gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) pack sizes. We documented significant differences in long-term wolf-pack-size averages and variation in the Superior National Forest (SNF), Denali National Park and Preserve, Yellowstone National Park, and Yukon, Canada (p<0.01). The SNF differences could be related to the wolves’ risk when hunting primary prey, for those packs (N=3) hunting moose ( Alces americanus ) were significantly larger than those (N=10) hunting white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) (F1,8=16.50, p=0.004). Our data support the hypothesis that differential pack-size persistence may be perpetuated by differences in primary prey riskiness to wolves, and we highlight two important extensions of this idea: (1) the potential for wolves to provision and defend injured packmates from other wolves and (2) the importance of less-risky, buffer prey to pack-size persistence and year-to-year variation. Risk to predators hunting dangerous prey is an emerging area of research and could account for possible persistent differences in gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) pack sizes. We documented significant differences in long-term wolf-pack-size averages and variation in the Superior National Forest (SNF), Denali National Park and Preserve, Yellowstone National Park, and Yukon, Canada (p<0.01). The SNF differences could be related to the wolves’ risk when hunting primary prey, for those packs (N=3) hunting moose ( Alces americanus ) were significantly larger than those (N=10) hunting white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) (F1,8=16.50, p=0.004). Our data support the hypothesis that differential pack-size persistence may be perpetuated by differences in primary prey riskiness to wolves, and we highlight two important extensions of this idea: (1) the potential for wolves to provision and defend injured packmates from other wolves and (2) the importance of less-risky, buffer prey to pack-size persistence and year-to-year variation.

Behaviour↗