Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves: implications for habitat connectivity. van den Bosch, M., Kellner, K. F., Gantchoff, M. G., Patterson, B. R., Barber-Meyer, S. M., Beyer, D. E., Erb, J. D., Isaac, E. J., MacFarland, D. M., Moore, S. A., Norton, D. C., Petroelje, T. R., Price Tack, J. L., Roell, B. J., Schrage, M., & Belant, J. L. Scientific Reports, 13(1):20415, November, 2023. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group![Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves: implications for habitat connectivity [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Habitat selection studies facilitate assessing and predicting species distributions and habitat connectivity, but habitat selection can vary temporally and among individuals, which is often ignored. We used GPS telemetry data from 96 Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes region of the USA to assess differences in habitat selection while wolves exhibited resident (territorial) or non-resident (dispersing or floating) movements and discuss implications for habitat connectivity. We used a step-selection function (SSF) to assess habitat selection by wolves exhibiting resident or non-resident movements, and modeled circuit connectivity throughout the western Great Lakes region. Wolves selected for natural land cover and against areas with high road densities, with no differences in selection among wolves when resident, dispersing, or floating. Similar habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolves may be due to similarity in environmental conditions, when non-resident movements occur largely within established wolf range rather than near the periphery or beyond the species range. Alternatively, non-resident wolves may travel through occupied territories because higher food availability or lower human disturbance outweighs risks posed by conspecifics. Finally, an absence of differences in habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolf movements may be due to other unknown reasons. We recommend considering context-dependency when evaluating differences in movements and habitat use between resident and non-resident individuals. Our results also provide independent validation of a previous species distribution model and connectivity analysis suggesting most potential wolf habitat in the western Great Lakes region is occupied, with limited connectivity to unoccupied habitat.
@article{van_den_bosch_habitat_2023,
title = {Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves: implications for habitat connectivity},
volume = {13},
copyright = {2023 The Author(s)},
issn = {2045-2322},
shorttitle = {Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves},
url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47815-0},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-023-47815-0},
abstract = {Habitat selection studies facilitate assessing and predicting species distributions and habitat connectivity, but habitat selection can vary temporally and among individuals, which is often ignored. We used GPS telemetry data from 96 Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes region of the USA to assess differences in habitat selection while wolves exhibited resident (territorial) or non-resident (dispersing or floating) movements and discuss implications for habitat connectivity. We used a step-selection function (SSF) to assess habitat selection by wolves exhibiting resident or non-resident movements, and modeled circuit connectivity throughout the western Great Lakes region. Wolves selected for natural land cover and against areas with high road densities, with no differences in selection among wolves when resident, dispersing, or floating. Similar habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolves may be due to similarity in environmental conditions, when non-resident movements occur largely within established wolf range rather than near the periphery or beyond the species range. Alternatively, non-resident wolves may travel through occupied territories because higher food availability or lower human disturbance outweighs risks posed by conspecifics. Finally, an absence of differences in habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolf movements may be due to other unknown reasons. We recommend considering context-dependency when evaluating differences in movements and habitat use between resident and non-resident individuals. Our results also provide independent validation of a previous species distribution model and connectivity analysis suggesting most potential wolf habitat in the western Great Lakes region is occupied, with limited connectivity to unoccupied habitat.},
language = {en},
number = {1},
urldate = {2024-01-10},
journal = {Scientific Reports},
author = {van den Bosch, M. and Kellner, K. F. and Gantchoff, M. G. and Patterson, B. R. and Barber-Meyer, S. M. and Beyer, D. E. and Erb, J. D. and Isaac, E. J. and MacFarland, D. M. and Moore, S. A. and Norton, D. C. and Petroelje, T. R. and Price Tack, J. L. and Roell, B. J. and Schrage, M. and Belant, J. L.},
month = nov,
year = {2023},
note = {Number: 1
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group},
keywords = {NALCMS},
pages = {20415},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"ChC7r495GyZ6G37HH","bibbaseid":"vandenbosch-kellner-gantchoff-patterson-barbermeyer-beyer-erb-isaac-etal-habitatselectionofresidentandnonresidentgraywolvesimplicationsforhabitatconnectivity-2023","author_short":["van den Bosch, M.","Kellner, K. F.","Gantchoff, M. G.","Patterson, B. R.","Barber-Meyer, S. M.","Beyer, D. E.","Erb, J. D.","Isaac, E. J.","MacFarland, D. M.","Moore, S. A.","Norton, D. C.","Petroelje, T. R.","Price Tack, J. L.","Roell, B. J.","Schrage, M.","Belant, J. L."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves: implications for habitat connectivity","volume":"13","copyright":"2023 The Author(s)","issn":"2045-2322","shorttitle":"Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47815-0","doi":"10.1038/s41598-023-47815-0","abstract":"Habitat selection studies facilitate assessing and predicting species distributions and habitat connectivity, but habitat selection can vary temporally and among individuals, which is often ignored. We used GPS telemetry data from 96 Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes region of the USA to assess differences in habitat selection while wolves exhibited resident (territorial) or non-resident (dispersing or floating) movements and discuss implications for habitat connectivity. We used a step-selection function (SSF) to assess habitat selection by wolves exhibiting resident or non-resident movements, and modeled circuit connectivity throughout the western Great Lakes region. Wolves selected for natural land cover and against areas with high road densities, with no differences in selection among wolves when resident, dispersing, or floating. Similar habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolves may be due to similarity in environmental conditions, when non-resident movements occur largely within established wolf range rather than near the periphery or beyond the species range. Alternatively, non-resident wolves may travel through occupied territories because higher food availability or lower human disturbance outweighs risks posed by conspecifics. Finally, an absence of differences in habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolf movements may be due to other unknown reasons. We recommend considering context-dependency when evaluating differences in movements and habitat use between resident and non-resident individuals. Our results also provide independent validation of a previous species distribution model and connectivity analysis suggesting most potential wolf habitat in the western Great Lakes region is occupied, with limited connectivity to unoccupied habitat.","language":"en","number":"1","urldate":"2024-01-10","journal":"Scientific Reports","author":[{"propositions":["van","den"],"lastnames":["Bosch"],"firstnames":["M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kellner"],"firstnames":["K.","F."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gantchoff"],"firstnames":["M.","G."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Patterson"],"firstnames":["B.","R."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Barber-Meyer"],"firstnames":["S.","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Beyer"],"firstnames":["D.","E."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Erb"],"firstnames":["J.","D."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Isaac"],"firstnames":["E.","J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["MacFarland"],"firstnames":["D.","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Moore"],"firstnames":["S.","A."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Norton"],"firstnames":["D.","C."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Petroelje"],"firstnames":["T.","R."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Price","Tack"],"firstnames":["J.","L."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Roell"],"firstnames":["B.","J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Schrage"],"firstnames":["M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Belant"],"firstnames":["J.","L."],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"November","year":"2023","note":"Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group","keywords":"NALCMS","pages":"20415","bibtex":"@article{van_den_bosch_habitat_2023,\n\ttitle = {Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves: implications for habitat connectivity},\n\tvolume = {13},\n\tcopyright = {2023 The Author(s)},\n\tissn = {2045-2322},\n\tshorttitle = {Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves},\n\turl = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47815-0},\n\tdoi = {10.1038/s41598-023-47815-0},\n\tabstract = {Habitat selection studies facilitate assessing and predicting species distributions and habitat connectivity, but habitat selection can vary temporally and among individuals, which is often ignored. We used GPS telemetry data from 96 Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes region of the USA to assess differences in habitat selection while wolves exhibited resident (territorial) or non-resident (dispersing or floating) movements and discuss implications for habitat connectivity. We used a step-selection function (SSF) to assess habitat selection by wolves exhibiting resident or non-resident movements, and modeled circuit connectivity throughout the western Great Lakes region. Wolves selected for natural land cover and against areas with high road densities, with no differences in selection among wolves when resident, dispersing, or floating. Similar habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolves may be due to similarity in environmental conditions, when non-resident movements occur largely within established wolf range rather than near the periphery or beyond the species range. Alternatively, non-resident wolves may travel through occupied territories because higher food availability or lower human disturbance outweighs risks posed by conspecifics. Finally, an absence of differences in habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolf movements may be due to other unknown reasons. We recommend considering context-dependency when evaluating differences in movements and habitat use between resident and non-resident individuals. Our results also provide independent validation of a previous species distribution model and connectivity analysis suggesting most potential wolf habitat in the western Great Lakes region is occupied, with limited connectivity to unoccupied habitat.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2024-01-10},\n\tjournal = {Scientific Reports},\n\tauthor = {van den Bosch, M. and Kellner, K. F. and Gantchoff, M. G. and Patterson, B. R. and Barber-Meyer, S. M. and Beyer, D. E. and Erb, J. D. and Isaac, E. J. and MacFarland, D. M. and Moore, S. A. and Norton, D. C. and Petroelje, T. R. and Price Tack, J. L. and Roell, B. J. and Schrage, M. and Belant, J. L.},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tnote = {Number: 1\nPublisher: Nature Publishing Group},\n\tkeywords = {NALCMS},\n\tpages = {20415},\n}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","author_short":["van den Bosch, M.","Kellner, K. F.","Gantchoff, M. G.","Patterson, B. R.","Barber-Meyer, S. M.","Beyer, D. E.","Erb, J. D.","Isaac, E. J.","MacFarland, D. M.","Moore, S. A.","Norton, D. C.","Petroelje, T. R.","Price Tack, J. L.","Roell, B. J.","Schrage, M.","Belant, J. L."],"key":"van_den_bosch_habitat_2023","id":"van_den_bosch_habitat_2023","bibbaseid":"vandenbosch-kellner-gantchoff-patterson-barbermeyer-beyer-erb-isaac-etal-habitatselectionofresidentandnonresidentgraywolvesimplicationsforhabitatconnectivity-2023","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47815-0"},"keyword":["NALCMS"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/NAAtlas2024","dataSources":["qLjf8q88GSLZ5dAmC"],"keywords":["nalcms"],"search_terms":["habitat","selection","resident","non","resident","gray","wolves","implications","habitat","connectivity","van den bosch","kellner","gantchoff","patterson","barber-meyer","beyer","erb","isaac","macfarland","moore","norton","petroelje","price tack","roell","schrage","belant"],"title":"Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves: implications for habitat connectivity","year":2023}