Cited by 9Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

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

Martin, H.W., Mech, L.D., Fieberg, J., Metz, M.C., MacNulty, D.R., Stahler, D.R., Smith, D.W.·2018·Canadian Journal of Zoology

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/cjz-2017-0220

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Variation in detection probability likely had minimal influence on the results because annual estimates were standardized using a method to estimate rates of biomass acquisition only on days when ground packs were actually observed.

    “However, variation in detection probability likely had minimal influence on our results because we standardized our annual estimates, using a method to estimate rates of biomass acquisition only on days when ground packs were actually observed (Martin et al., 2018).”

    From Population responses of common ravens to reintroduced gray wolves (2018) · cites this paper as Martin et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin, H. W., Mech, L. D., Fieberg, J., Metz, M. C., MacNulty, D. R., Stahler, D. R., & Smith, D. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • University of Montana (US)
  • Utah State University (US)
  • Yellowstone National Park (US)
Corresponding author
Martin, H.W.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Published
2018-09
Volume
96
Issue
9
Pages
1032-1042
ISSN
  • 0008-4301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1480-3283
OpenAlex
W2801631946
Cited by
9
References
2
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Canadian Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
gray wolf, wolf, elk, red deer, kill rate, functional response, prey density, density dependence, snow depth, territory size, hunting success, Yellowstone National Park

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