Jump to content

Island Biogeography


Guest scineceproposal

Recommended Posts

Guest scineceproposal

Hello, I'm currently conducting research on the Gray Wolf reintroduction and how this will effect the animal population in Yellowstone, based on the Island Biogeography theory. I'm wonderinf if anyone has any experiance with the theory, or if anyone can point me in a good direction for viable sources on the subject, thank you for your help.

Science Poposal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anything about it. But... you might want to try various national parks for information on reintroducing species. They sometimes have really good papers.

 

Look at some journal search engines if you have access. Here's a few abstracts from Blackwell-Synergy, which is pretty good for ecology type stuff.

 

Restoration Ecology

Volume 5 Issue 1 Page 7 - March 1997

doi:10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.09702.x

 

Planning and Implementing a Reintroduction of Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho

Steven H. Fritts, Edward E. Bangs, Joseph A. Fontaine, Mark R. Johnson, Michael K. Phillips, Edward D. Koch & John R. Gunson

Abstract

 

The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery plan proposed reintroduction of Canis lupus (gray wolf) to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho as part of a wolf restoration plan for the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Strong opposition from some factions within the region forestalled the action for two decades. An environmental impact statement, conducted in 1992-1994 with extensive public input, culminated in a proposal to reintroduce wolves designated as "non-essentialexperimental" under Section 10 (j) of the federal Endangered Species Act. This approach, approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1994, provided for wolf restoration while allowing management flexibility to deal with concerns of the local public. A reintroduction plan was developed in the summer and fall of 1994. Acquiring, holding, transporting, and releasing suitable wolves for reintroduction presented a myriad of technical and logistical challenges that required effective planning and coordination by all participants. In January 1995, 29 wolves were captured in Alberta and transported to Yellowstone National Park (14) and central Idaho (15). Idaho wolves were freed immediately upon arrival; Yellowstone wolves (three family groups) were held in acclimation pens in the park until late March. Most Idaho wolves traveled extensively within the area intended for them, averaging 82 km net distance away from release sites after 5 months (range = 30-220 km), and three male-female pairs formed by July. After 5 months in the wild, at least 13 of 15 Idaho-released wolves were alive within the intended area, as were 13 of 14 Yellowstone wolves; one wolf was known to have been illegally killed in each area. No livestock were killed. Wolves released into Yellowstone Park continued to live as packs, stayed closer to their release sites (x¯ = 22 km at end of June), and settled into home ranges; two packs produced a total of nine pups. The progress of the reintroduction program in its first year far exceeded expectations. Reintroductions of about 15 wolves to each area for 2-4 more years are scheduled, but the project may be shortened because of early successes. Future reintroduction planners can expect sociocultural issues to pervade the effort, but they can be optimistic that, from a biological standpoint, reintroduction of wolves has strong potential as a restoration technique

 

Conservation Biology

Volume 6, Issue 4, Page 559-569, Dec 1992

 

Mitochondrial DNA Variability of the Gray Wolf: Genetic Consequences of Population Decline and Habitat Fragmentation

Robert K. Wayne Niles Lehman*Marc W. AllardRodney L. Honeycutt

The gray wolf is a large, highly mobile predator whose original geographic range included most of the Northern Hemisphere. High rates of genetic exchange probably characterized even distantly-separated populations in the past, but recent population declines and habitat fragmentation have isolated previously contiguous populations, especially in the Old World. We examine mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variability among twenty-six populations of wolves from throughout their geographic range. We find eighteen mtDNA genotypes in gray wolves, seven of these are derived from hybridization with coyotes, four are confined to the New World, six are confined to the Old World and one is shared by both areas. Genetic differentiation among wolf populations is significant but small in magnitude. In the Old World, most localities have a single unique genotype, whereas in the New World several genotypes occur at most localities and three of the five genotypes are nearly ubiquitous. The pattern of genetic differentiation in the gray wolf contrasts with that of another large, highly vagile canid, the coyote, in which genetic differentiation among populations is not significant even among widely separated localities. We suggest that the difference between these two species reflects the rapid, recent increase in coyote numbers and expansion of their geographic range, and the coincident decline in gray wolf populations. Apparent genetic differences among extant wolf populations may be a recent phenomenon reflecting population declines and habitat fragmentation rather than a long history of genetic isolation.

 

Conservation Biology

Volume 12 Issue 4 Page 879 - August 1998

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.97103.x

 

Modeling Disjunct Gray Wolf Populations in Semi-Wild Landscapes

Robert G. Haight*, David J. Mladenoff & Adrian P. Wydeven

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in parts of the United States and Europe live in networks of disjunct populations, many of which are close to human settlement. Because wolf management goals include sustaining disjunct populations, it is important to ask what types of areas and protections are needed for population survival. To predict the effects of different levels of human-caused mortality, we created a simulation model for a disjunct wolf population living in a semi-wild landscape with abundant, well distributed prey. The landscape included a maximum of 16 territories divided into core and peripheral range. The mortality rate in the core range was 20%, whereas the mortality rate in peripheral range (40%) was higher because of human-caused deaths. We examined the relationship between the proportions of core and peripheral range and the 50-year occupancy of that range by wolf packs, given different assumptions about pup and dispersal mortality and immigration. Simulations showed that occupancy increased as the number of core sites increased, but curve location depended on parameter assumptions. With pup and dispersal mortality rates consistent with those for disease-free and legally protected populations, wolves saturated a 16-territory cluster with as few as two core sites, regardless of immigration rate. When populations had high pup or dispersal mortality, as few as two immigrants per year helped maintain high (>80%) site occupancy in clusters with four or more core sites. Small numbers of immigrants were also important for sustaining colonizing populations and buffering the negative effects of increased environmental variation. The simulations supported the claim that wolves can survive in disjunct populations provided that wolves can move between populations, human persecution is not excessive, and prey is abundant.

 

Conservation Biology

Volume 17, Issue 2, Page 536-548, Apr 2003

 

Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Restoration Success: Planning a Reintroduction Program Based on Static and Dynamic Spatial Models

Carlos Carroll*, Michael K. Phillips, Nathan H. Schumaker and Douglas W. Smith§

Abstract:

Mammalian carnivores are increasingly the focus of reintroduction attempts in areas from which they have been extirpated by historic persecution. We used static and dynamic spatial models to evaluate whether a proposed wolf reintroduction to the southern Rocky Mountain region ( U.S.A ) would advance recovery by increasing species distribution beyond what might be expected through natural range expansion. We used multiple logistic regression to develop a resource-selection function relating wolf distribution in the Greater Yellowstone region with regional-scale habitat variables. We also used a spatially explicit population model to predict wolf distribution and viability at several potential reintroduction sites within the region under current conditions and under two contrasting predictions of future landscape change. Areas of the southern Rocky Mountains with resource-selection-function values similar to those of currently inhabited areas in Yellowstone could potentially support>1000 wolves, 40% within protected areas and 47% on unprotected public lands. The dynamic model predicted similar distribution under current conditions but suggested that development trends over 25 years may result in the loss of one of four potential regional subpopulations and increased isolation of the remaining areas. The reduction in carrying capacity due to landscape change ranged from 49% to 66%, depending on assumptions about road development on public lands. Although much of the wolf population occurs outside core protected areas, these areas remain the key to the persistence of subpopulations. Although the dynamic model's sensitivity to dispersal parameters made it difficult to predict the probability of natural recolonization from distant sources, it suggested that an active reintroduction to two sites within the region may be necessary to ensure low extinction probability. Social carnivores such as the wolf, which often require larger territories than solitary species of similar size, may be more vulnerable to environmental stochasticity and landscape fragmentation than their vagility and fecundity would suggest.

 

Conservation Biology

Volume 9 Issue 2 Page 270 - April 1995

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.9020270.x

 

 

The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations

L. David Mech

The gray wolf once inhabited a wide variety of habitats throughout most of the northern hemisphere north of 20°N latitude. Because the animal preyed on livestock and competed with humans for wild prey, it was extirpated from much of its range outside of wilderness areas. Environmental awareness in the late 1960s brought for the wolf legal protection, increased research, and favorable media coverage. The species has increased in both Europe and North America, is beginning to reoccupy semiwilderness and agricultural land, and is causing increased damage to livestock. Because of the wolf's high reproductive rate and long dispersal tendencies, the animal can recolonize many more areas. In most such areas control will be necessary, but the same public sentiments that promoted wolf recovery reject control. If wolf advocates could accept control by the public rather than by the government, wolves could live in far more places. Insistence on government control discourages some officials and government agencies from promoting recovery. The use of large- or small-scale zoning for wolf management may help resolve the issue. Public education is probably the most effective way to minimize the problem and maximize wolf recovery, but the effort must begin immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.