USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70159571

Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ) dyad monthly association rates by demographic group.

Shannon M. Barber-Meyer·L. David Mech
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Preliminary data from GPS-collared wolves (Canis lupus) in the Superior National Forest of northeastern Minnesota indicated wolves had low association rates with packmates during summer. However, aerial-telemetry locations of very high frequency (VHF)-radioed wolves in this same area showed high associations among packmates during winter. We analyzed aerial-telemetry-location data from VHF-collared wolves in several packs (n=18 dyads) in this same area from 1994-2012 by month, and found lowest association rates occurred during June. While other studies have found low association among wolf packmates during summer, information on differences in association patterns depending on the wolf associates’ demographics is sparse. During May-July, association rates were greatest for breeding pairs, followed by sibling dyads, and lowest for parent– offspring dyads. Our findings improve our understanding of how individual wolf relationships affect monthly association rates. We highlight some important remaining questions regarding wolf packmate associations.

Explore related subjects

Canadian Wildlife Biology and ManagementArticle
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 47.89148526708789° to 47.954064687296885° latitude; -91.845703125° to -91.73652648925781° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shannon M. Barber-Meyer, L. David Mech. 2015. Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ) dyad monthly association rates by demographic group.. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70159571

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2020

Testing environmental DNA from wolf snow tracks for species, sex, and individual identification

Monitoring elusive, relatively low-density, large predators, such as the grey wolf (Canis lupus), has often been accomplished by live-capture and radiocollaring. Increasingly, non-invasive methods are considered best practice whenever it is possible to use them. Recently, environmental DNA (eDNA) deposited in snow tracks was demonstrated as useful for identifying lynx (Lynx canadensis), fisher (Pekania pennanti), wolverine (Gulo gulo), sika deer (Cervus nippon), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and the Japanese marten (Martes melampus) to species level using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers. We tested whether eDNA from fresh wolf snow tracks collected in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota, USA during winter 2019 could be used to identify species, sex, and individual. Seven of the 8 snow track samples were successfully identified to “wolf-dog” species using mtDNA, with alleles amplifying in 5 of the samples at 1 or both of loci u250 and FH2096 in the allele range for wolves for this population. None yielded enough high-quality DNA to obtain genotypes to determine individual or sex. We recommend additional field trials to determine the minimum number of tracks required per individual to obtain sufficient, high-quality eDNA, as well as collecting associated urine or blood (from estrus) when possible. If individual wolves could be identified and sexed by the eDNA in their snow tracks, researchers should be able to determine population and family or group metrics with greater precision and less effort than typically required when conducting winter scat or hair-based genetic field studies of low density, elusive carnivores. Furthermore, this method would have applications to other areas of research and management, such as hunting quota determinations, validation of field methods and, in particular regards to wolves and other predators, livestock depredation issues. Overall, this technique holds significant future promise as field and laboratory methods are further refined for greater precision and optimized regarding the varying collection, filtration, and extraction protocols for different species in various environments.

Minnesota↗
USGS2019

Comparison of beaver density estimates from aerial surveys of waterways versus transects

Historic beaver-sign (Castor canadensis) survey flights were often conducted over waterways to maximize beaver detections. However, densities determined from strip transect surveys are more useful to compare across and within study areas than waterway indices based on observations per distance flown because transects are more representative of the wider landscape. Yet, it is unknown if, and to what extent, aerial waterway surveys are reflective of transect densities. I conducted aerial surveys for active beaver sign each fall during 2015–2018 over two waterway routes and two corresponding strip-transect routes. The simple linear regression of transect densities on waterway densities (n=8) yielded a reasonable (R2=0.79) preliminary equation for converting historic waterway data to transect densities. Additionally, visual inspection indicated that converted waterway densities reasonably reflected the trend in transect densities in an area where the wider habitat was similar in terms of beaver harvest, land use, and proportion of water features. Although trend was well-reflected, individual waterway densities in this area were only 57-75% of transect densities. In other areas, where water features were limited, visual inspection suggested the trend of waterway densities was less reflective of transect density trend and individual waterway densities overestimated transect densities (up to 309%). Nevertheless, while transect densities are better for comparisons within and across study areas, waterway surveys are still important for timely and specific within-study area insights. This research provides useful benchmark examples of reliability regarding waterway observation indices converted to densities for conservation, research, and management of beaver and their ecosystems. Because these conclusions are based on a small sample, additional research is recommended to better define this relationship especially in areas with differing habitat, beaver harvest, land use patterns, etc.

Minnesota↗