4.3 Article

Disturbance-Mediated Apparent Competition Decouples in a Northern Boreal Caribou Range

Journal

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Volume 85, Issue 2, Pages 254-270

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21982

Keywords

boreal caribou; Canadian Shield; disturbance‐ mediated apparent competition (DMAC); moose; net primary productivity; Saskatchewan; ungulate biomass; white‐ tailed deer; wolves

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  2. Cameco Corporation
  3. Orano Canada
  4. Saskatchewan Mining Association
  5. Rio Tinto
  6. SaskPower
  7. Golder Associates
  8. Masuparia Gold Corporation
  9. Golden Band Resources
  10. Environment and Climate Change Canada
  11. Western Economic Diversification Canada
  12. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment
  13. University of Saskatchewan
  14. Alberta Biodiversity Conservation Chair
  15. Polar Knowledge Canada
  16. Northern Scientific Training Program
  17. Department of Biology at the University of Saskatchewan
  18. College of Arts and Science at the University of Saskatchewan
  19. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
  20. Wildlife Conservation Society Canada
  21. W. Garfield Weston Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study in Saskatchewan, Canada, focused on an 87,193 square kilometer area in the Western Boreal Shield, revealing that despite high levels of disturbance, moose density was relatively low while boreal caribou density was relatively high. The research showed that wolf and caribou populations in the area did not respond in accordance with the typical outcomes predicted by DMAC.
The most widely reported threat to boreal and mountain populations of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou; caribou) involves habitat- or disturbance-mediated apparent competition (DMAC). With DMAC, natural and anthropogenic disturbances that increase the abundance of deciduous-browsing cervids (e.g., moose [Alces alces], deer [Odocoileus spp.]) are thought to promote predator (especially wolf [Canis lupus]) numbers, which heightens predation risk to caribou. We know most about the effects of DMAC on caribou where the species is under threat by anthropogenic activities in relatively productive southern boreal and mountain systems. Yet, >60% of extant boreal caribou range in North America consists of northern shield and taiga ecoregions of low productivity where caribou may compete with only 1 ungulate species (moose) in the context of DMAC. In this environment, we know very little of how DMAC acts as a limiting factor to caribou. In Saskatchewan, Canada, from 2014-2018, using a combination of vegetation sampling, aerial surveys, and telemetry data (n = 38 wolves), we searched for evidence of DMAC (trends in data consistent with the hypothesis) in an 87,193-km(2) section of the Western Boreal Shield, a poorly productive but pristine region (0.18% of land cover classed as an anthropogenic feature) with a historically high fire-return interval (47% of stands aged <40 years). Despite the high levels of disturbance, moose density was relatively low (47 moose/1,000 km(2)), likely because of the scarcity of deciduous or mixed-wood stands and low abundance of deciduous browse in the young conifer stands that dominated the landscape. In contrast, boreal caribou density was relatively high for the species (37 caribou/1,000 km(2)). Wolf density (3.1 wolves/1,000 km(2)) and pack sizes (x over bar = 4.0 wolves/pack) were low and resident (established) territories were large (x over bar = 4,360 km(2); 100% minimum convex polygon). The low density of wolves mirrored the low (standardized) ungulate biomass index (UBI; moose + boreal caribou) of the study area (0.36 UBI/km(2)). We conclude that wolf and hence caribou populations were not responding in accordance with the outcomes generally predicted by DMAC in our study area because the requisite strong, positive response to fire of deciduous-browse and alternate-prey abundance was lacking. As a limiting factor to caribou, DMAC is likely modulated at a macroecological scale by factors such as net primary productivity, a corollary to the general hypothesis that we advance here (i.e., primary productivity hypothesis of DMAC). We caution against managing for caribou based on the presumption of DMAC where the mechanism does not apply, which may include much of boreal caribou range in the north. (c) 2020 The Wildlife Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available