CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

Where Wolves Kill Moose: The Influence of Prey Life History Dynamics on the Landscape Ecology of Predation

Open access
Montgomery, Robert A., Vucetich, John A., Roloff, Gary J., Bump, Joseph K., Peterson, Rolf O.·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0091414PMC PMC3951347
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The landscape ecology of predation is well studied and known to be influenced by habitat heterogeneity. Little attention has been given to how the influence of habitat heterogeneity on the landscape ecology of predation might be modulated by life history dynamics of prey in mammalian systems. We demonstrate how life history dynamics of moose (Alces alces) contribute to landscape patterns in predation by wolves (Canis lupus) in Isle Royale National Park, Lake Superior, USA. We use pattern analysis and kernel density estimates of moose kill sites to demonstrate that moose in senescent condition and moose in prime condition tend to be wolf-killed in different regions of Isle Royale in winter. Predation on senescent moose was clustered in one kill zone in the northeast portion of the island, whereas predation on prime moose was clustered in 13 separate kill zones distributed throughout the full extent of the island. Moreover, the probability of kill occurrence for senescent moose, in comparison to prime moose, increased in high elevation habitat with patches of dense coniferous trees. These differences can be attributed, at least in part, to senescent moose being more vulnerable to predation and making different risk-sensitive habitat decisions than prime moose. Landscape patterns emerging from prey life history dynamics and habitat heterogeneity have been observed in the predation ecology of fish and insects, but this is the first mammalian system for which such observations have been made.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0091414

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Moose density is typically three to six times greater where short fir are common than where fir is rare or absent.

    “Moose density is typically three to six times greater in IRNP regions where short fir are common, compared with regions where fir is rare or absent (Montgomery et al. 2014).”

    From Trophic Cascades in a Multicausal World: Isle Royale and Yellowstone (2014) · cites this paper as Montgomery et al. 2014

    The Results describe the distribution of wolf-killed moose and its relationship to conifer cover, not moose population density. The Materials and Methods discuss conifers as forage, but our copy does not compare density in regions with common short fir against regions where fir is rare or absent, or report a three- to sixfold difference. Searches for those terms found no supporting passage; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Wolf density is approximately twice as great where moose are more abundant.

    “Wolf density is also approximately two times greater in regions where moose are more abundant (Montgomery et al. 2012(Montgomery et al. , 2014)).”

    From Trophic Cascades in a Multicausal World: Isle Royale and Yellowstone (2014) · cites this paper as Montgomery et al. 2014

    The Results describe where wolf-killed moose carcasses were clustered, and the Discussion describes differences in kill-site habitat; neither compares wolf density between regions with different moose abundance. Searches for the twofold wolf-density comparison and for wolf density relative to moose abundance found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 93 · Cited by 25

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. [1]Stenseth NC, Falck W, Chan K-S, Bjørnstad ON, O'Donoghue M, et al (1998) From patterns to processes: Phase and density dependencies in the Canadian lynx cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 15430– 15435. PMC28059 9860985
  2. [2]Sundell J, Huitu O, Henttonen H, Kaikusalo A, Korpimäki E, et al (2004) Large-scale spatial dynamics of vole populations in Finland revealed by the breeding success of vole-eating avian predators. Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 167– 178.
  3. [3]Birkhofer K, Wolters V, Diekötter T (2011) Density-dependent and -independent effects on the joint use of space by predators and prey in terrestrial arthropod food-webs. Oikos 120: 1705– 1711.
  4. [4]Stenseth NC, Shabbar A, Chan K-S, Boutin S, Rueness EK, et al (2004) Snow conditions may create an invisible barrier for lynx. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 10632– 10634. 15249676 PMC489985
  5. [6]Rodewald AD (2002) Nest predation in forested regions: landscape and edge effects. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 634– 640.
  6. [7]Andruskiw M, Fryxell JM, Thompson ID, Baker JA (2008) Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American marten. Ecology 89: 2273– 2280. 18724737
  7. [8]Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2008) Spatial pattern and ecological process in the coffee agroforestry system. Ecology 89: 915– 920. 18481515
  8. [11]Knight TM, McCoy MW, Chase JM, McCoy KA, Holt RD (2005) Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nature 437: 880– 883. 16208370
  9. [15]McNaughton SJ (1976) Serengeti migratory wildebeest: facilitation of energy flow by grazing. Science 191: 92– 94. 17834943
  10. [16]Ritchie ME, Olff H (1999) Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400: 557– 560. 10448857
  11. [17]Ogada DL, Gadd ME, Ostfeld RS, Young TP, Keesing F (2008) Impacts of large herbivorous mammals on bird diversity and abundance in an African savanna. Oecologia 156: 387– 397. 18288493
  12. [18]De Roos AM, Galic N, Heesterbeek H (2009) How resource competition shapes individual life history for nonplastic growth: ungulates in seasonal food environments. Ecology 90: 945– 960. 19449690
  13. [20]Montgomery RA, Vucetich JA, Peterson RO, Roloff GJ, Millenbah KF (2013) The influence of winter severity, predation and senescence on moose habitat use. Journal of Animal Ecology 82: 301– 309. 23205630
  14. [21]Hopcraft JGC, Sinclair ARE, Packer C (2005) Planning for success: Serengeti lions seek prey accessibility rather than abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 559– 566.
  15. [22]Bergman EJ, Garrott RA, Creel S, Borkowski JJ, Jaffe R, et al (2006) Assessment of prey vulnerability through analysis of wolf movements and kill sites. Ecological Applications 16: 273– 284. 16705979
  16. [25]Gervasi V, Sand H, Zimmermann B, Mattisson J, Wabakken P, et al. (2013) Decomposing risk: landscape structure and wolf behavior generate different predation patterns in two sympatric ungulates. Ecological Applications. Early View Online. 24261051
  17. [27]Mech LD, Smith DW, Murphy KM, MacNulty DR (2001) Winter severity and wolf predation on a formerly wolf-free elk herd. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 998– 1003.
  18. [29]Wright GJ, Peterson RO, Smith DW, Lemke TO (2006) Selection of northern Yellowstone elk by gray wolves and hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1070– 1078.
  19. [30]Bergerud AT, Wyett W, Snider B (1983) The role of wolf predation in limiting a moose population. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 977– 988.
  20. [32]Hebblewhite M, Pletscher DH (2002) Effects of elk group size on predation by wolves. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 800.
  21. [34]Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH (2009) Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate. Ecology 90: 3445– 3454. 20120812
  22. [35]Peterson RO, Page RE (1988) The rise and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975–1986. Journal of Mammalogy 69: 89– 99.
  23. [36]Adams JR, Vucetich LM, Hedrick PW, Peterson RO, Vucetich JA (2011) Genomic sweep and potential genetic rescue during limiting environmental conditions in an isolated wolf population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 278: 3336– 3344. PMC3177630 21450731
  24. [38]Huber NK (1975) The geologic story of Isle Royale National Park. Geological Survey Bulletin, 1309, 66 p.
  25. [41]McLaren BE, Peterson RO (1994) Wolves, moose, and tree rings on Isle Royale. Science 266: 1555– 1558. 17841718
  26. [44]Vucetich JA, Hebblewhite M, Smith DW, Peterson RO (2011) Predicting prey population dynamics from kill rate, predation rate and predator–prey ratios in three wolf-ungulate systems. Journal of Animal Ecology 80: 1236– 1245. 21569029
  27. [45]Bubenik A (1997) Evolution, taxonomy and morphophysiology. In: Schwartz C, Franzmann A, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Books. pp. 77–124.
  28. [46]Peterson RO, Vucetich JA, Fenton G, Drummer TD, Larsen CS (2010) Ecology of arthritis. Ecology Letters 13: 1124– 1128. 20618843
  29. [47]Ripley BD (1981) Spatial statistics. Wiley, New York, NY, USA. 252 p.
  30. [48]Cressie NA (1993) Statistics for spatial data, revised edn. Wiley, New York, NY, USA. 928 p.
  31. [50]Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ (2003) Comparison of least-squares cross-validation bandwidth options for kernel home-range estimation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 823– 831.
  32. [51]Steury TD, McCarthy JE, Roth II TC, Lima SL, Murray DL (2010) Evaluation of root-n bandwidth selector for kernel density estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 539– 548.
  33. [52]Wilson RR, Hooten MB, Strobel BN, Shivik JA (2010) Accounting for individuals, uncertatinty, and multiscale clustering in core area estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1343– 1352.
  34. [54]Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New York, NY, USA. 495 p.
  35. [55]Baddeley A, Turner R (2005) Spatstat: An R package for analyzing spatial point patterns. Journal of Statistical Software 12: 1– 42.
  36. [56]Ripley BD (1976) The second-order analysis of stationary point processes. Journal of Applied Probability 13: 255– 266.
  37. [62]Carbyn LN (1983) Wolf predation on elk in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 963– 976.
  38. [63]Phillips RL, Berg WE, Siniff DB (1973) Moose movement patterns and range use in northwestern Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 37: 266– 278.
  39. [66]Ver Hoef JM, Cressie N, Fisher RN, Case TJ (2001) Uncertainty and spatial linear models for ecological data. Pages 214–237 in Hunsaker CT, Goodchild MF, Friedl MA, Case TJ, editor. Spatial uncertainty in ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. USA.
  40. [69]Mysterud A, Østbye E (1999) Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 385– 394.
  41. [71]Mitchell RJ (2001) Path analysis: pollination. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J, editors. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. pp. 217–234
  42. [72]Wilmers CC, Post E, Peterson RO, Vucetich JA (2006) Predator disease out-break modulates top-down, bottom-up and climatic effects on herbivore population dynamics. Ecology Letters 9: 383– 389. 16623723
  43. [73]Miller TEX, Rudolf VHW (2011) Thinking inside the box: community-level consequences of stage-structured populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 457– 466. 21680049
  44. [76]Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (2012) How species interact: altering the standard view on trophic ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 170 p.
  45. [77]Jost C, Devulder G, Vucetich JA, Peterson RO, Arditi R (2005) The wolves of Isle Royale display scale-invariant satiation and ratio-dependent predation on moose. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 809– 816.
  46. [79]Briggs CJ, Hoopes MF (2004) Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid-host and predator-prey models: a review. Theoretical Population Biology 65: 299– 315. 15139366
  47. [80]May RM (1978) Host-parasitoid systems in patchy environments: a phenomenological model. Journal of Animal Ecology 47: 833– 844.
  48. [84]McCann KS (2012) Food webs. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. 241 p.
  49. [85]Peterson RO, Thomas NJ, Thurber JM, Vucetich JA, Waite TA (1998) Population limitation and the wolves of Isle Royale. Journal of Mammalogy 79: 828– 841.
  50. [86]Delgiudice GD, Peterson RO, Seal US (1991) Differences in urinary chemistry profiles of moose on Isle-Royale during winter. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 27: 407– 416. 1920659
  51. [87]McLaren BE, Janke RA (1996) Seedbed and canopy cover effects on balsam fir seedling establishment in Isle Royale National Park. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 782– 793.

Authors
Montgomery, R. A., Vucetich, J. A., Roloff, G. J., Bump, J. K., & Peterson, R. O.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Michigan Technological University (US)
Corresponding author
Montgomery, Robert A.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-03-12
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
e91414
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0091414
PMC
PMC3951347
OpenAlex
W1969947937
Cited by
25
References
93
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0918247)
  • Michigan Technological University
  • National Park Service
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
wolf predation, moose, wolf, senescence, predation risk, habitat heterogeneity, Isle Royale National Park
MeSH terms
Animals, Predatory Behavior, Probability, Ecosystem, Wolves, Ecological and Environmental Phenomena

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