Integrated Carnivore-Ungulate Management: A Case Study in West-Central Montana Gestion Intégrée des Carnivores et des Cervidés: Une Étude de Cas dans le Centre-Ouest du Montana

IF 4.3 1区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY Wildlife Monographs Pub Date : 2020-10-21 DOI:10.1002/wmon.1056
Kelly M. Proffitt, Robert Garrott, Justin A. Gude, Mark Hebblewhite, Benjamin Jimenez, J. Terrill Paterson, Jay Rotella
{"title":"Integrated Carnivore-Ungulate Management: A Case Study in West-Central Montana\n Gestion Intégrée des Carnivores et des Cervidés: Une Étude de Cas dans le Centre-Ouest du Montana","authors":"Kelly M. Proffitt,&nbsp;Robert Garrott,&nbsp;Justin A. Gude,&nbsp;Mark Hebblewhite,&nbsp;Benjamin Jimenez,&nbsp;J. Terrill Paterson,&nbsp;Jay Rotella","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Understanding the effectiveness of harvest regulations to manipulate population abundances is a priority for wildlife managers, and reliable methods are needed to monitor populations. This is particularly true in controversial situations such as integrated carnivore-ungulate management. We used an observational before-after-control-treatment approach to evaluate a case study in west-central Montana, USA, that applied conservative ungulate harvest together with liberalized carnivore harvest to achieve short-term decreases in carnivore abundance and increases in ungulate recruitment. Our study areas included the Bitterroot treatment area and the Clark Fork control area, where mountain lion populations (<i>Felis concolor</i>) were managed for a 30% reduction and for stability, respectively. The goals of the mountain lion harvest were to provide a short-term reduction of mountain lion predation on elk (<i>Cervus canadensis</i>) calves and an increase in elk recruitment, elk population growth rate, and ultimately elk abundance. We estimated mountain lion population abundance in the Bitterroot treatment and Clark Fork control areas before and 4 years after implementation of the 2012 harvest treatment. We developed a multi-strata spatial capture-recapture model that integrated recapture and telemetry data to evaluate mountain lion population responses to harvest changes. Mountain lion abundance declined with increasing harvest in the Bitterroot treatment area from 161 (90% credible interval [CrI] = 104, 233) to 115 (CrI = 69, 173). The proportion of males changed from 0.50 (CrI = 0.33, 0.67) to 0.28 (CrI = 0.17, 0.40), which translated into a decline in the abundance of males, and similar abundances of females (before: males = 80 [CrI = 52, 116], females = 81 [CrI = 52, 117]; after: males = 33 [CrI = 20, 49], females = 82 [CrI = 49, 124]). In the Clark Fork control area, an area twice as large as the Bitterroot treatment area, we found no evidence of changes in overall abundance or proportion of males in the population. The proportion of males changed from 0.42 (CrI = 0.26, 0.58) to 0.39 (CrI = 0.25, 0.54), which translated into similar abundances of males and females (before: males = 24 [CrI = 16, 36], females = 33 [CrI = 21, 39]; after: males = 28 [CrI = 18, 41], females = 44 [CrI = 29, 64]). To evaluate if elk recruitment and population growth rate increased following treatment, we developed an integrated elk population model. We compared recruitment and population growth rate during the 5 years prior to and 5 years following implementation of the mountain lion harvest treatment for 2 elk populations within the Bitterroot treatment area and 2 elk populations within the Clark Fork control area. We found strong evidence that temporal trends differed between the 2 areas. In the Bitterroot treatment area, <i>per capita</i> elk recruitment was stable around an estimated median value of 0.23 (CrI = 0.17, 0.36) in the pre-treatment period (2007–2011), increased immediately after treatment (2013) to 0.42 (CrI = 0.29, 0.56), and then declined to 0.21 (CrI = 0.11, 0.32) in 2017. In contrast, <i>per capita</i> elk recruitment estimates in the Clark Fork control area had similar median values during the pre- (2007–2011: 0.30, CrI = 0.2, 0.35) and post-treatment periods (2013–2017: 0.31, CrI = 0.26, 0.36). These changes in recruitment corresponded to similar changes in elk population growth rate, although population growth rates were also subject to variation due to changing elk harvest. In the Bitterroot treatment area, population growth rates in the pre-treatment period were stable to slightly declining, with an estimated median value of 0.92 (CrI = 0.88, 1.07) in the pre-treatment period (2007–2011). Population growth rate during the post-treatment period increased immediately after treatment (2012: 1.17, CrI = 1.14, 1.20) prior to declining to 1.06 (CrI = 1.04, 1.09) in 2016. In contrast, the median population growth rates were roughly equal in the Clark Fork control area during the pre-treatment period (1.01, CrI = 0.86, 1.09) from 2007 to 2011 and post-treatment period (1.00, CrI = 0.83, 1.15) from 2013 to 2017. Together, these results indicate that the harvest treatment achieved a moderate (i.e., 29%) reduction in mountain lion population abundance within the treatment area that corresponded with short-term increases in elk recruitment and population growth. Elk population demographic responses suggest that the harvest treatment effect was strongest immediately after the mountain lion harvest treatment was implemented and lessened over time as the harvest treatment was reduced. This suggests that the short-term harvest treatment resulted in short-term demographic responses in elk populations, and more sustained harvest treatments would be necessary to achieve longer-term elk population demographic responses. We recommend that wildlife managers seeking to balance carnivore and ungulate population objectives design rigorous carnivore and ungulate population monitoring programs to assess the effects of harvest management programs. Assessing and understanding effects of carnivore harvest management programs will help to set realistic expectations regarding the effects of management programs on carnivore and ungulate populations and allow managers to better design programs to meet desired carnivore and ungulate population objectives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/wmon.1056","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1056","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Understanding the effectiveness of harvest regulations to manipulate population abundances is a priority for wildlife managers, and reliable methods are needed to monitor populations. This is particularly true in controversial situations such as integrated carnivore-ungulate management. We used an observational before-after-control-treatment approach to evaluate a case study in west-central Montana, USA, that applied conservative ungulate harvest together with liberalized carnivore harvest to achieve short-term decreases in carnivore abundance and increases in ungulate recruitment. Our study areas included the Bitterroot treatment area and the Clark Fork control area, where mountain lion populations (Felis concolor) were managed for a 30% reduction and for stability, respectively. The goals of the mountain lion harvest were to provide a short-term reduction of mountain lion predation on elk (Cervus canadensis) calves and an increase in elk recruitment, elk population growth rate, and ultimately elk abundance. We estimated mountain lion population abundance in the Bitterroot treatment and Clark Fork control areas before and 4 years after implementation of the 2012 harvest treatment. We developed a multi-strata spatial capture-recapture model that integrated recapture and telemetry data to evaluate mountain lion population responses to harvest changes. Mountain lion abundance declined with increasing harvest in the Bitterroot treatment area from 161 (90% credible interval [CrI] = 104, 233) to 115 (CrI = 69, 173). The proportion of males changed from 0.50 (CrI = 0.33, 0.67) to 0.28 (CrI = 0.17, 0.40), which translated into a decline in the abundance of males, and similar abundances of females (before: males = 80 [CrI = 52, 116], females = 81 [CrI = 52, 117]; after: males = 33 [CrI = 20, 49], females = 82 [CrI = 49, 124]). In the Clark Fork control area, an area twice as large as the Bitterroot treatment area, we found no evidence of changes in overall abundance or proportion of males in the population. The proportion of males changed from 0.42 (CrI = 0.26, 0.58) to 0.39 (CrI = 0.25, 0.54), which translated into similar abundances of males and females (before: males = 24 [CrI = 16, 36], females = 33 [CrI = 21, 39]; after: males = 28 [CrI = 18, 41], females = 44 [CrI = 29, 64]). To evaluate if elk recruitment and population growth rate increased following treatment, we developed an integrated elk population model. We compared recruitment and population growth rate during the 5 years prior to and 5 years following implementation of the mountain lion harvest treatment for 2 elk populations within the Bitterroot treatment area and 2 elk populations within the Clark Fork control area. We found strong evidence that temporal trends differed between the 2 areas. In the Bitterroot treatment area, per capita elk recruitment was stable around an estimated median value of 0.23 (CrI = 0.17, 0.36) in the pre-treatment period (2007–2011), increased immediately after treatment (2013) to 0.42 (CrI = 0.29, 0.56), and then declined to 0.21 (CrI = 0.11, 0.32) in 2017. In contrast, per capita elk recruitment estimates in the Clark Fork control area had similar median values during the pre- (2007–2011: 0.30, CrI = 0.2, 0.35) and post-treatment periods (2013–2017: 0.31, CrI = 0.26, 0.36). These changes in recruitment corresponded to similar changes in elk population growth rate, although population growth rates were also subject to variation due to changing elk harvest. In the Bitterroot treatment area, population growth rates in the pre-treatment period were stable to slightly declining, with an estimated median value of 0.92 (CrI = 0.88, 1.07) in the pre-treatment period (2007–2011). Population growth rate during the post-treatment period increased immediately after treatment (2012: 1.17, CrI = 1.14, 1.20) prior to declining to 1.06 (CrI = 1.04, 1.09) in 2016. In contrast, the median population growth rates were roughly equal in the Clark Fork control area during the pre-treatment period (1.01, CrI = 0.86, 1.09) from 2007 to 2011 and post-treatment period (1.00, CrI = 0.83, 1.15) from 2013 to 2017. Together, these results indicate that the harvest treatment achieved a moderate (i.e., 29%) reduction in mountain lion population abundance within the treatment area that corresponded with short-term increases in elk recruitment and population growth. Elk population demographic responses suggest that the harvest treatment effect was strongest immediately after the mountain lion harvest treatment was implemented and lessened over time as the harvest treatment was reduced. This suggests that the short-term harvest treatment resulted in short-term demographic responses in elk populations, and more sustained harvest treatments would be necessary to achieve longer-term elk population demographic responses. We recommend that wildlife managers seeking to balance carnivore and ungulate population objectives design rigorous carnivore and ungulate population monitoring programs to assess the effects of harvest management programs. Assessing and understanding effects of carnivore harvest management programs will help to set realistic expectations regarding the effects of management programs on carnivore and ungulate populations and allow managers to better design programs to meet desired carnivore and ungulate population objectives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
综合食肉动物-有蹄动物管理:蒙大拿州中西部的案例研究食肉动物和鹿的综合管理:蒙大拿州中西部的案例研究
野生动物管理者的首要任务是了解收获法规对操纵种群丰度的有效性,并需要可靠的方法来监测种群。这在有争议的情况下尤其如此,例如食肉动物和有蹄类动物的综合管理。在美国蒙大拿州中西部的一个案例研究中,我们采用了控制前-控制后的观察方法,将保守的有蹄类动物收获与开放的食肉动物收获结合起来,实现了食肉动物丰度的短期下降和有蹄类动物招募的增加。我们的研究区域包括比特根处理区和克拉克福克控制区,在那里,美洲狮的数量(Felis concolor)分别减少了30%和稳定。美洲狮收获的目标是短期内减少美洲狮对麋鹿(Cervus canada)幼鹿的捕食,增加麋鹿的招募,增加麋鹿的种群增长率,最终增加麋鹿的丰度。我们估计了2012年采收处理前后和4年后,比特根处理区和克拉克福克控制区的美洲狮种群丰度。我们开发了一个多层空间捕获-再捕获模型,该模型综合了再捕获和遥测数据,以评估美洲狮种群对收获变化的响应。随着采收的增加,苦根处理区的美洲狮丰度从161(90%可信区间[CrI] = 104、233)下降到115 (CrI = 69、173)。雄性的比例从0.50 (CrI = 0.33, 0.67)变化到0.28 (CrI = 0.17, 0.40),这意味着雄性丰度下降,雌性丰度相似(之前:雄性= 80 [CrI = 52,116],雌性= 81 [CrI = 52,117];后:男性= 33 (CrI = 20, 49),雌性= 82 (CrI = 49岁,124))。在克拉克福克控制区,面积是苦根处理区的两倍,我们发现种群中雄性的总体丰度或比例没有变化的证据。雄性的比例从0.42 (CrI = 0.26, 0.58)变化到0.39 (CrI = 0.25, 0.54),这意味着雄性和雌性的丰度相似(之前:雄性= 24 [CrI = 16, 36],雌性= 33 [CrI = 21, 39];后:男性= 28 (CrI = 18, 41),雌性= 44 [CrI = 29, 64])。为了评估治疗后麋鹿的招募和种群增长率是否增加,我们开发了一个麋鹿种群综合模型。我们比较了在实施美洲狮收获处理前和实施后的5年里,苦根处理区内的2个麋鹿种群和克拉克福克控制区内的2个麋鹿种群的招募和种群增长率。我们发现了强有力的证据,表明这两个地区的时间趋势不同。在苦根处理区,处理前(2007-2011年)的人均麋鹿数量稳定在0.23 (CrI = 0.17, 0.36)左右,处理后(2013年)立即增加到0.42 (CrI = 0.29, 0.56),然后在2017年下降到0.21 (CrI = 0.11, 0.32)。相比之下,克拉克福克控制区的人均麋鹿招募估计值在治疗前(2007-2011年:0.30,CrI = 0.2, 0.35)和治疗后(2013-2017年:0.31,CrI = 0.26, 0.36)具有相似的中位数。这些增收的变化与麋鹿种群增长率的类似变化相对应,尽管种群增长率也受到麋鹿收获变化的影响。在苦参处理区,2007-2011年处理前种群增长率稳定至略有下降,估计中位数为0.92 (CrI = 0.88, 1.07)。处理后种群增长率在处理后立即上升(2012年:1.17,CrI = 1.14, 1.20), 2016年下降至1.06 (CrI = 1.04, 1.09)。2007 - 2011年处理前(1.01,CrI = 0.86, 1.09)和2013 - 2017年处理后(1.00,CrI = 0.83, 1.15)克拉克福克对照区种群增长率中位数基本相等。总之,这些结果表明,收获处理实现了处理区域内美洲狮种群丰度的适度减少(即29%),与麋鹿招募和种群增长的短期增加相对应。麋鹿种群的人口统计数据表明,在美洲狮收获处理后,收获处理的效果立即最强,随着收获处理的减少而减弱。这表明,短期收获处理导致了麋鹿种群的短期人口统计学响应,而更持续的收获处理将需要实现长期的麋鹿种群人口统计学响应。 我们建议野生动物管理者寻求平衡食肉动物和有蹄类动物的种群目标,设计严格的食肉动物和有蹄类动物种群监测计划,以评估收获管理计划的效果。评估和理解食肉动物收获管理计划的影响将有助于对管理计划对食肉动物和有蹄类动物种群的影响设定现实的期望,并允许管理者更好地设计计划,以满足期望的食肉动物和有蹄类动物种群目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Monographs
Wildlife Monographs 生物-动物学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wildlife Monographs supplements The Journal of Wildlife Management with focused investigations in the area of the management and conservation of wildlife. Abstracting and Indexing Information Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing) Agricultural & Environmental Science Database (ProQuest) Biological Science Database (ProQuest) CAB Abstracts® (CABI) Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database (ProQuest) Global Health (CABI) Grasslands & Forage Abstracts (CABI) Helminthological Abstracts (CABI) Natural Science Collection (ProQuest) Poultry Abstracts (CABI) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) ProQuest Central K-543 Research Library (ProQuest) Research Library Prep (ProQuest) SciTech Premium Collection (ProQuest) Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts (CABI) Veterinary Bulletin (CABI)
期刊最新文献
Issue Information - Cover Associations between a feral equid and the Sonoran Desert ecosystem Asociaciones Entre un Equino Salvaje y el Ecosistema del Desierto Sonorense Issue Information - Cover Less is more: vegetation changes coincide with white-tailed deer suppression over thirty years Issue Information - Cover
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1