1 / 15

Article by: Thomas M. Gehring Bradly A. Potter Presentation By: Ashley E. Wood

Wolf Habitat Analysis in Michigan: An Example of the Need for Proactive Land Management for Carnivore Species. Article by: Thomas M. Gehring Bradly A. Potter Presentation By: Ashley E. Wood. Background. Gray wolves are native to Michigan and once occurred in all 83 counties.

briana
Download Presentation

Article by: Thomas M. Gehring Bradly A. Potter Presentation By: Ashley E. Wood

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wolf Habitat Analysis in Michigan: An Example of the Need for Proactive Land Management for Carnivore Species Article by: Thomas M. Gehring Bradly A. Potter Presentation By: Ashley E. Wood

  2. Background • Gray wolves are native to Michigan and once occurred in all 83 counties. • 1911: Locally extinct in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. • 1960: Nearly extirpated from the Upper Peninsula. • 1965: Granted full legal protection by state Legislature. • 1973: Listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with an estimated 6 wolves remaining. • 2012: Delisted from the ESA. References to the book: “A species is locally extinct when it is no longer found in an area it once inhabited but is still found elsewhere in the wild” (Primack 2010:134). “In the United States, the principal conservation law protecting species is the [ESA], passed in 1973” (Primack 2010:471).

  3. Background Wolf population increases in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The population from 1989 to 2011. Credit MDNR

  4. Background References to the book: “Flagship and indicator species, whose protection automatically extends protection to other species and the community, are known as umbrella species” (Primack 2010:353). • Gray wolves can disperse great distances and can also cross long stretches of ice. • Only 6.5 km separate the Upper Peninsula from the Northern Lower Peninsula at the narrowest part of the Straits of Mackinac, providing a potential route of wolf dispersal. • Conserving large carnivore habitat in the NLP for wolves can be enable managers to conserve greater amounts of biodiversity. • Wolves may act as an umbrella species.

  5. Objectives • To determine the distribution and quantity of potential habitat available for gray wolves in the Northern Lower Peninsula. • To estimate the potential population size of gray wolves this available habitat could support. • To present and discuss management challenges and suggested strategies.

  6. Methods Reference to book: “Habitat fragmentation is the process whereby a large, continuous area of habitat is both reduced in area and divided into two or more fragments” (Primack 2010:189). • Step 1 – Acquired a Geographic Information System (GIS) map of road coverage for the NLP • Step 2 – Divided the GIS coverage into 1-km2 cells using an ArcMAP density tool and assigned each cell a road-density value • Step 3 – Averaged cells within a 10-km radius from the center of each focal cell by combining neighborhood statistics with a moving-window analysis • Step 4 – Mladenoff et al. (1995) Calculated the probability of wolf presence using averaged cell values as follows: logit(p) = -6.5988+ 14.6189R • P = probability of wolf presence • R = road density

  7. Methods • Step 5 – Fuller et al. (1992) and Mladenoff et al. (1997) Calculated the number of wolves using the predicted area of potential wolf habitat as follows: N = {AW / [M(l+i)]) / (I-D) • N = estimated number of wolves • A = area of favorable habitat • W = mean midwinter pack size (4.1) • i = proportion of saturated habitat in interstitial areas (0.37) • D = proportion of dispersers (0.15) • Definition of favorable habitat varied. • <50 km2 and >50 km2 vs. only >50 km2

  8. Results • Approximately 40,000 km2 with a 0.00 % probability of wolf presence • 14 patches of potential habitat >50 km2 (p>0.5) • At least 1 livestock farm on all 14 habitat patches Top: Distribution of potential habitat for gray wolves in the NLP. Right: Amount of potential habitat for gray wolves in probability classes 0-1.

  9. Results • 4,231 km2 of favorable wolf habitat (p>0.50) • 2,198 km2 of favorable wolf habitat excluding patches <50 km2 • Majority of favorable habitat to the northeast • 61% of favorable habitat publicly owned Top: Distribution of potential favorable habitat for gray wolves in the NLP. Left: Amount of potential habitat for gray wolves in probability classes 0-1.

  10. Results • An estimated 89 wolves for 4,231 km2 of favorable wolf habitat • 90% CI • 78 – 105 wolves • An estimated 46 wolves for 2,198 km2 of favorable wolf habitat • 90% CI • 40 – 54 wolves

  11. Discussion • A wolf population in the NLP would possibly provide a second wolf population in the northern Great Lakes Region • But, the amount of potential favorable wolf habitat is considerably less than Wisconsin and the UP. Consequences: • Smaller population size • Increased risk of extinction • Increased risk of hybridization References to the book: “Small populations are more likely to go locally extinct than large populations because of their greater vulnerability to loss of genetic variability” (Primack 2010:159). “When a species is rare or its habitat is damaged, outbreeding– mating between individuals of different populations or species – may occur” (Primack2010:255).

  12. Discussion Suggested Management Strategies • Increase state-level protection of gray wolves in NLP • Increase favorable habitat in NLP by decreasing road density • Road closures on public and private land • Change management scale for addressing wolf-livestock conflicts on agricultural lands • Current scale of management = individually affected farms • Proposed scale before recolonization = neighborhoods of farms • Proposed scale after recolonization = wolf pack territories

  13. Discussion • Removal of wolves from individually affected farms is a short-lived solution • Farms are not independent • Ex: A livestock carcass dump on one farm can increase wolf conflicts for farming neighborhood • Removal of whole wolf packs could create sink habitats. Results: • Declining wolf numbers • Local extinction

  14. Discussion Suggested Management Strategies • Increase social tolerance for wolves • Communicate and cooperate with stakeholders to increase their understanding and involvement in gray wolf conservation • Institute Carnivore Habitat Incentive Program (CHIP) to increase gray wolf conservation on private farm lands • Ex: Financial incentive for proactive, nonlethal control tools • Include incentives for nonfarm landowners • Ex: Financial incentive for reducing vehicular traffic on property

  15. Resources Gehring, T. M., and B. A. Potter. 2005. Wolf habitat analysis in Michigan: An example of the need for carnivore species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:1237-1244. Fuller, T. K., W. E. Berg, G. L. Radde, M. S. Lenarz, and G. B. Joselyn. 1992. A history and current estimate of wolf distribution and numbers in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:42-55. Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, R. G. Haight, and A. P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes Region. Conservation Biology 9:279-294. Mladenoff, D. J., R. G. Haight, T. A. Sickley and A. P. Wydeven. 1997. Causes and implications of species restoration in altered ecosystems: a spatial landscape projection of wolf population recovery. BioScience 47:21-31. Primack, R. B. 2010. Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.

More Related