The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America
Abstract
Abstract: In Alberta, Canada (1982–2001), and in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, United States (1987–2001), wolves ( Canis lupus ) killed various domestic animals, among which the major prey were sheep in the United States (68%, n = 494 ) and cattle in Canada (95%; n = 1633 ). Under recovery programs, the wolf population increased in the United States, and depredation events increased proportionately. In both countries, the number of domestic animals killed each year was correlated with the number of wolves killed by government authorities for depredation management. We tested the ability of antiwolf barriers made of flags hanging from ropes to impede wolf access to food and livestock. In 18 experiments, barriers prevented captive wolves ( n = 9) from accessing food for up to 28 hours and allowed daily separation of wolves to administer contraceptive pills to a female wolf. Barriers prevented access by wild wolves to 100‐m 2 baited sites during two 60‐day tests. We also set barriers around three cattle pastures. In Alberta during two 60‐day trials on 25‐ha pastures, wolves approached barriers on 23 occasions but did not cross them, and no cattle were killed. Wolves killed cattle on neighboring ranches during the trials and before and after the trials on the tested ranches. In Idaho four radiocollared wolves crossed barriers and killed cattle in a 400‐ha ranch after 61 days of barrier exposure. Our results suggest that antiwolf barriers are effective in deterring captive and wild wolves for >1 and ≥60 days, respectively, and that wild wolves switch to alternative livestock when excluded from one herd of livestock. Our depredation data indicate that protecting livestock from wolves reduces the necessity for killing wolves. Barriers could play a role among the limited set of preventive measures available and offer a cost‐effective mitigation tool for the problem of livestock depredation on a local scale.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem
Charnov, E. L. (1976) · Theoretical Population Biology · doi:10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x · Cited by 5,374
Trophic cascades among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park’s northern range
Ripple, W. J., Larsen, E. J., Renkin, R. A., & Smith, D. W. (2001) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00107-0 · Cited by 452
KILL RATES AND PREDATION BY WOLVES ON UNGULATE POPULATIONS IN BIAŁOWIEŻA PRIMEVAL FOREST (POLAND)
Jędrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Theuerkauf, J., Jędrzejewska, B., Selva, N., Zub, K., & Szymura, L. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1341:krapbw]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 221
Cited by
Big City Life: Carnivores in Urban Environments
Bateman, P. W., & Fleming, P. A. (2012) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x · Cited by 832
Freese, C. H., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Kunkel, K. (2014) · Ecological Restoration · doi:10.3368/er.32.4.358 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- MUSIANI, M., MAMO, C., BOITANI, L., CALLAGHAN, C., GATES, C. C., MATTEI, L., VISALBERGHI, E., BRECK, S., & VOLPI, G.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1538-1547
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2104293414
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00063.x
- The paper
- MUSIANI, M., MAMO, C., BOITANI, L., CALLAGHAN, C., GATES, C. C., MATTEI, L., VISALBERGHI, E., BRECK, S., & VOLPI, G. (2003). Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00063.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.