High survival rates explain 20 years of rapid expansion of wolves in Germany

 

 

image: 

Wolf (Canis lupus) at the forest edge, photographed in the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany

view more 

Credit: Photo by Jan Zwilling/Leibniz-IZW

Since wolves returned to Germany 20 years ago, they have spread quickly in many parts of the country. The rapid increase in the number of wolves was due to high survival and reproduction rates in areas with favourable environmental conditions. This is the result of an analysis carried out by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (Leibniz-IZW) in collaboration with the LUPUS Institute, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), and the Senckenberg Center for Wildlife Genetics. The probability of survival for wolves during the period analysed was higher than anywhere else in the world. However, the expansion phase will end as soon as the carrying capacity of suitable German landscapes are reached ­– at which point survival rates can be expected to fall, according to the scientific team in a new paper in the scientific journal Wildlife Biology.

Young wolves in Germany had an annual survival probability of 75 percent during the first two decades since the beginning of the recolonisation of Germany; for adult wolves it was as high as 88 percent. For young wolves up to the age of two years, the variation in survival rate depended on the suitability of the habitat ­– the less suitable it was for wolves, the lower their survival; for adult wolves, such a relationship could not be established by the scientific team led by the Department of Ecological Dynamics at the Leibniz-IZW. “Using survival analysis, we were able to determine the median survival time of a wolf in Germany to be 146 weeks, which is around three years”, says Prof Dr Stephanie Kramer-Schadt, head of the Leibniz-IZW department and professor at the Technische Universität Berlin. The highest recorded longevity of a wolf in the study dataset was almost 13 years.

“The survival rates of the German wolf population were very high compared to other regions, in fact they were among the highest in the world”, Kramer-Schadt continued. “This indicates that the wolves settled in habitats that were very suitable for them during the 20 years which we analysed in this paper. Strict legal protection has also contributed to high survival rates.” Landscapes that qualify as suitable are those that offer sufficient cover – for example by forest cover – and areas that are as far away from roads as possible. These areas allow wolves to avoid humans and can serve as refuge for the animals. If wolves settle in less suitable habitats, this reduces their survival and reproduction. “While adult animals can still survive and establish territories in less suitable areas, the lower survival rate of young and sub-adult wolves and the lower number of young per litter slows down population growth and thus the expansion of the species.” As soon as the optimal areas are occupied, the growth of the population will slow down, according to the scientists.

The scientific investigation was based on a long-term dataset provided by the Federal Documentation and Consultation Centre on Wolves in Germany (DBBW) and included the surveys and findings of the comprehensive wolf monitoring in the German Federal States. It furthermore considered the results from tens of thousands of DNA analyses by the Senckenberg Center for Wildlife Genetics, which made this scientific investigation possible in the first place. The team also determined the reproductive performance of a total of 201 breeding females from 165 territories which were part of the analysed long-term dataset from 2000 to 2020. “We were able to analyse data from those female wolves over the years, that had offspring – at on average for 2.8 years”, says IZW scientist and first author of the paper Dr Aimara Planillo. “The analyses also show higher reproductive success of females with more experience and in more suitable habitats, with up to five reproductive years.” Summarising, the models show that a well-suited habitat and the reproduction experience of the female have a positive effect also on litter size, which in Germany averages at least four offspring.

Similar scientific analyses in other countries and regions illustrate how high the survival rate for adult wolves in Germany actually is. Other non-hunted populations also have high adult wolf survival rates of 78 per cent in the USA or 82 per cent in the Alpine regions in central Europe, although these do not come close to the 88 per cent in Germany. The reason for this is that the German population is still expanding.

The Department of Ecological Dynamics at the Leibniz-IZW investigates (among other things) the population development of large carnivores such as the wolf or Eurasian lynx using individual-based, spatial models, ranging from analysing past processes – such as the recolonisation of Germany by the wolf – to predicting future developments. For the paper recently published in “Wildlife Biology”, the scientists used demographic data on the wolf population (age, sex, year and place of birth, dates and places of resighting as well as cause of death) from the years 2000 to 2020 and related them to environmental variables such as habitat suitability (accounts for the different land use types and human disturbance effects, e.g. forested areas, distance to roads or human density), wolf population density (annual density of wolf territories around the focal territory) and the season of the year.

A significant proportion of the data comes from the ongoing molecular genetic analysis of samples collected in the field, which are sent to Senckenberg as part of the wolf monitoring programme of the German Federal States. Based on the genetic profiles created, numerous wolf individuals are collected several times over the years and can be assigned to wolf packs by analysing their relatedness. The Leibniz-IZW team then developed spatio-statistical models to determine the influence of environmental variables on the probability of survival of the population, the annual survival rates of different age classes, the probability of reproduction and reproductive performance. This revealed how well a variable – such as high habitat quality – can predict each population parameter and how substantial its influence is on the number and spatial distribution of wolves in Germany.

Previous scientific investigations by the Leibniz-IZW showed that

• the recolonisation of Germany by wolves is not a homogeneous, continuous process, but characterised by changing conditions. This means, for example, that wolves show different behaviours during different phases with regard to the suitability of habitats: In early phases, wolves liked “cherry-picking” when establishing new territories, while they were much less selective during later phases when the population was close to habitat saturation. The lower survival rate of young animals identified in the current paper and the lower number of offspring in less suitable areas provide an explanation for these preferences of wolves. Additional information: https://www.izw-berlin.de/en/press-release/wolves-like-cherry-picking-modelling-shows-how-they-recolonised-germany-and-where-they-could-live-in-the-future.html (Leibniz-IZW press release from November 16, 2023)
• the wolf population in Germany is essentially healthy and that human-caused deaths such as traffic accidents and illegal killings are responsible for the overwhelming majority of wolves found dead. Data from the 1,000 wolves dissected at the Leibniz-IZW in Germany show that around three quarters of dead wolves die in traffic collisions – mostly with cars on country roads or motorways. In 13.5 per cent of all wolves examined, evidence of a criminal offence such as illegal gun wounds was found, although the animals did not always die as a result. Additional information: https://www.izw-berlin.de/en/press-release/systematic-monitoring-leibniz-izw-carries-out-1000th-wolf-autopsy-since-the-species-comeback-to-germany.html (Leibniz-IZW press release from July 23, 2024)

The scientific investigation was funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funds from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) under grant number 3521 83 1300.

---

Journal

Wildlife Biology

DOI

10.1002/wlb3.01246 

Large herbivores have lived in Yellowstone National Park for more than 2,000 years

 

Chemicals from dung buried in lake sediments reveal their presence and ecological impacts

Peer-Reviewed Publication

PLOS

 

image: 

Bison cows and calves congregate in a meadow beside the Lamar River, Yellowstone National Park.

view more 

Credit: John Wendt, CC-BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Large herbivores like bison or elk have continuously lived in the Yellowstone National Park region for about 2,300 years according to a new analysis of chemicals preserved in lake sediments. John Wendt of Oklahoma State University, U.S., and colleagues present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on October 30, 2024.

The near-extinction of bison in North America in the 19th and 20th centuries was a major ecological catastrophe and little is known about where and how these animals lived before European colonization. In the new study, researchers attempted to determine the dominant large herbivores that lived in the northern Yellowstone National Park area by analyzing steroids from animal dung in lake sediments dating from about 238 B.C. to the present time.

To perform this analysis, researchers first determined which types of steroids occur in the dung of several large herbivores believed to have lived in the region, including bison, elk, moose, mule deer and pronghorn. They found they could identify moose, pronghorn and mule deer based on the steroids in their dung alone, but that bison and elk were harder to differentiate from each other. When the researchers analyzed steroids from different layers of lake sediments, they saw that either bison, elk or a combination of the two, were the primary large herbivore species in the watershed for the last 2,300 years.

The analysis also showed high steroid levels in the 20th century, a time when hunting was banned, bison and elk were discouraged from migrating in winter, and their natural predators were eliminated. Based on the levels of plant pollen, microalgae or plankton detected in these sediments, the researchers concluded that the expanded animal populations likely ate up local forage plants, like willow and Idaho fescue, and that their dung may have fertilized the growth of diatoms in the lake, changing the local ecosystem. Provisions of winter hay in nearby meadows, provided by park managers, also kept animals in the area for longer, resulting in impacts to the watershed.

The new research demonstrates that the analysis of steroids from lake sediments is a promising tool that can help wildlife managers and conservationists understand how communities of hoofed animals and their impacts have shifted over time. While the results shed light on historical changes within a single watershed, researchers expect that extending this approach to a network of sites could provide much-needed information on past grazing animal communities at Yellowstone National Park and beyond.

The authors add: “We developed a 2,300-year record of wild herbivore activity in northern Yellowstone National Park with fossil biomarkers found in lake sediments. This information is critical for understanding long-term dynamics of ecologically and culturally important herbivores such as bison and elk.”

The freely available article in PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311950

Citation: Wendt JAF, Argiriadis E, Whitlock C, Bortolini M, Battistel D, McWethy DB (2024) A 2000-year record of fecal biomarkers reveals past herbivore presence and impacts in a catchment in northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. PLoS ONE 19(10): e0311950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311950

Journal

PLOS ONE

DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0311950 

How do coexisting animals find enough to eat?

  

 

image: 

Bison are seen grazing in a meadow in early winter at Yellowstone National Park. 

view more 

Credit: Photo courtesy of Bethan Littleford-Colquhoun

PROVID Ecologists have long sought clarity on the dietary habits of different animal species. For scientists at Brown University and the National Park Service, it wasn’t obvious how herbivores in Yellowstone National Park, who subsist on grasses, wildflowers and trees, could compete for enough of those foods to survive the winter.

Over two years, with the aid of cutting-edge molecular biology tools and GPS tracking data, the researchers were able to determine not only what herbivores in Yellowstone eat, but also what strategies the animals use to find food throughout the year. The team published its findings in Royal Society Open Science.

“In Yellowstone, we know vegetation changes across seasons, but until now, we didn’t know how these seasonal changes influenced what animals eat or how they sustained themselves when options were limited,” said lead study author Bethan Littleford-Colquhoun, a postdoctoral research associate at Brown. “It turns out that while species eat similar categories of food, their diets differ from one another in cryptic and nuanced ways. And an animal’s body size plays an important role in how this is achieved.”

For decades, ecologists have debated how wildlife should confront challenges with their food supplies, said co-author Tyler Kartzinel, an associate professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology at Brown.

Some experts argue that animals should diversify their diets to satisfy their taste preferences when they have the most freedom to select their favorite foods in summer, Kartzinel said. Others have posited that animals should diversify what they eat when they’re forced to accept whatever happens to be available — such as in a hard winter when they may have to compete for even undesirable foods to survive.

“These opposing predictions couldn’t both be true, so it wasn’t at all clear how Yellowstone's assemblage of herbivore species — with such a diversity of foraging behaviors — could succeed in finding enough food throughout the year,” Kartzinel said.

Seasonal specialization

For the study, the researchers used two years of GPS tracking and dietary DNA data to elucidate dietary variation across times of resource limitation and resource abundance for five of Yellowstone’s best-known species: bison, elk, deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn antelope.

Scientists and staff at Yellowstone tracked the animals. Researchers at Brown, many of them undergraduate students overseen by Littleford-Colquhoun, analyzed fecal samples using a sophisticated molecular technique called metabarcoding, which helped to identify what foods the animals had consumed.

They found that all species capitalized on the seasonal abundance of wildflowers in summer, and that each species consolidated its foraging efforts around the subset of plant types that it was best prepared to compete for in winter. But the researchers discovered that feeding behaviors depended on the animal’s body size.

Members of the smallest species, such as deer and sheep, tended to fan out across summer meadows and dramatically expanded their diets before gathering in protected valleys where they survived the winter on leftover plants, according to the study. Larger animals like bison tended to do the opposite: In the winter, they were large enough to avoid competing for dwindling resources, so they instead ventured out into deep snow to find unique food reserves inaccessible to smaller deer and sheep.

“The study showed that these species can feed far more adaptably than anyone had previously assumed,” Littleford-Colquhoun said. “All species switch the ways they search for food, but the opportunities an individual bison has to fuel its migration or survive a hard winter might only work for it because it’s big. Meanwhile, other species might need to group together for protection in winter because they’re small.”

So when should animals search for unique foods to diversify their diets — summer or winter? Kartzinel said it depends on the kind of animal.

“Because of the variety of ways animals behaved in our study, we learned that both hypotheses about how animals fuel their migrations were right, but in different ways and at different times,” Kartzinel said. “So the question that biologists should have been bickering about for the past generation shouldn't have been, ‘Which foraging strategy is right?’ but rather, ‘When does each strategy work best for a given group of animals?’”

Kartzinel hopes the more nuanced insights about foraging behavior will help scientists take a more customized approach to wildlife conservation.

“If we want to help wildlife populations thrive,” Kartzinel said, “we should be maintaining a diversity of habitats and plant resources across their migratory corridors so that many animals, each with their own preferences, personalities and needs, can find what's best to fuel their journey.”

Wildlife tracking technology delivers promising results on polar bears

 

 Studying polar bears just became a lot easier with new “burr on fur” trackers which confirmed scientists’ belief that subadult and adult males spend most of their time on land lazing around, conserving energy until the ice returns.

A multi-institutional research team led by York University and including the University of Alberta, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Manitoba Sustainable Development, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and Polar Bears International, used three different “burr on fur” prototypes to study their effectiveness.

The paper, “Telemetry without collars: performance of fur- and ear-mounted satellite tags for evaluating the movement and behavior of polar bears,” published in the journal Animal Biotelemetry, details the first peer-reviewed examination of these new tracking devices that adhere to the fur of polar bears.

Studying polar bears is a difficult feat with current radio collars only suitable to be used on female bears leaving out a swath of the population, but new technology is providing researchers with a new tool which has confirmed the behaviour of adult male polar bears while on land waiting for the ice to form again.

Efforts to develop less-invasive tracking options and tools that could work on polar bears of both sexes and nearly all ages have been ongoing for years with varying success. Collars have been and remain the primary means of studying polar bear movements. More recently, ear tag transmitters have been used as a lighter-weight alternative. While both technologies serve an important role in helping study and conserve polar bears, researchers continually strive to develop methods that are both minimally invasive and provide quality data.

This led to a new tracking initiative known as “Burr on Fur,” which began as a challenge from Polar Bears International to 3M scientists, the global science and manufacturing company behind Post-It notes, to create a temporary, simple method for affixing small tracking units to polar bear fur. Three “Burr on Fur” prototypes were recently tested on wild polar bears along the coast of Hudson Bay, Canada, alongside traditional ear tag transmitters.   

The shortcomings with traditional tracking methods: The ear tag and “Burr on Fur” devices fill an important niche for scientists and wildlife managers. The new tags allow researchers to follow the movements of adult male and subadult polar bears, two groups that can’t be studied using traditional satellite collars. Adult males can’t wear collars because they slip off their cone-shaped necks and heads, and subadult bears grow too rapidly for safe collar use. Traditional ear tags are an alternative to collars. However, they currently require recapture to remove and, although rare, can pose a risk of injury to the ear. The new Burr on Fur tags are designed to be temporary, minimally invasive, and can be applied to both sexes and nearly all ages of polar bears.

“Successfully attaching telemetry tags to polar bear fur has never been done before, and we’re excited to share the results of this innovative work,” said Tyler Ross, lead author of the paper and researcher at York University, “The fur tags showed great promise, and give researchers the ability to study the behaviors and movements of polar bears that we have very little data on, like subadult and adult male bears.”

The study: 58 wild bears were tagged using ear tags and three distinct fur tag designs to compare both the duration of time the tags remained active while attached to the bears and the accuracy of the trackers. Applied alongside a traditional ear tag, which relied on an Argos Transmitter, the three fur tags were:

• The Pentagon Tag: this five-sided device included five holes punched into its corners, allowing tufts of fur to be pulled through. It utilized an Argos Eartag Satellite Transmitter.
• The SeaTrkr Tag: an oval-shaped tag that had 10 holes punched to allow 10 fur-tuft attachments. This design used an Iridium-linked Telonics GPS SeaTrkr-4370 transmitter.
• The Tribrush Tag: a triangle tag outfitted with tubes along its borders, through which pipe brushes ensnared the fur, twisting it inside the tubes. This tag used the same Argos transmitter as the Pentagon tags.

The research took place from autumn 2016 to 2021 with bears handled near Churchill, Canada, by the Polar Bear Alert Program and researchers at the University of Alberta, supplemented with operations by researchers at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, York University, and Manitoba Sustainable Development in 2021-22 near the Manitoba-Ontario border.

“Our results are an important step in better understanding the movements and behavior of polar bears, especially adult male bears, which are difficult to track because they can’t be fitted with satellite collars. Temporary, fur-mounted tags could also help track the movements of bears relocated after potentially coming into conflict with people, making these tags an important tool for conserving polar bears and keeping northern communities safe,” says York University Associate Professor and Sustainable Environmental Management Coordinator Gregory Thiemann, the report’s co-author.

Results: The top-performing fur tag was the SeaTrkr Tag, which remained attached to the bears for an average of 58 days and had superior accuracy due to its use of GPS/Iridium technology. In second place, the Trishbrush Tags remained attached for an average of 47 days. However, for the Tribrush Tag, the times varied widely, with one falling off after only two days while another lasted 114 days – the longest of all the tags.

Because they are permanently attached to the bears’ ears, the traditional ear tags remained in place for 137 days on average, while the shorter-term fur-based trackers proved to be reliable for shorter periods. The fur tags proved useful for monitoring bear behavior, and show great promise for future use in tracking polar bears, especially those that must be relocated after approaching too close to communities. Further testing and refinement are also being conducted on bears in zoos and aquariums through Polar Bears International’s Arctic Ambassador Center zoo and aquarium partners, allowing researchers to further refine the designs and see how they perform throughout different seasons. In the most recent round of zoo testing, a refined tag stayed on a bear for 75 days.

Important Data about Male and Subadult Polar Bears: The new data adds to our growing understanding of subadult and adult male polar bear movements and behaviors, which have been historically understudied because they cannot be safely collared for long periods. Findings confirm that adult and subadult male bears reduce their activity while on land, consistent with prior studies that showed bears spent approximately 70 to 90 per cent of their time resting during the ice-free period in Hudson Bay.     

Implications: While the ear tags remained attached to the bears longer, the temporary and easily affixed fur tags give scientists a new tool for enhanced tracking of bears for purposes of both applied research and managing human-bear interactions. The tracking tech could be applied to other types of bears, supporting efforts to reduce human-bear conflict, and future applications could include testing on other species with fur. While traditional tracking methods, such as collars, will remain critical for longer-term studies, the fur tags will prove a valuable tool, particularly for understanding and managing increasing wildlife-human interactions as the climate warms. 

“The collaboration between Polar Bears International, 3M, academic institutions, and governmental partners is a testament to our commitment to improving Arctic wildlife research and conservation technology,” says Geoff York, Senior Director of Research and Policy at Polar Bears International, adding, “These advancements will have tangible implications for wildlife management, aiding in tracking polar bears and promoting improved human-bear coexistence. We’re eager to further refine and deploy this pivotal technology.” 

About Arctic Sea Ice Day: These findings publish on July 15, which is Arctic Sea Ice Day, an annual event created by Polar Bears International to spark actions and conversations about the rapidly melting Arctic ecosystem, including its global significance and how people can help slow this warming trend. The Arctic is now warming nearly four times faster than the rest of the planet, causing the sea ice to melt, which causes polar bears to spend longer periods fasting on land.

Polar Bears International invites people to access the full report and urges the scientific community to consider the implications of these findings for further research and application in conservation and coexistence efforts.

Wolves’ return has had only small impact on deer populations in NE Washington

 

Peer-Reviewed Publication

 

IMAGE: 

THE NEW STUDY FOCUSED ON THE WASHINGTON PREDATOR-PREY PROJECT’S STUDY AREA IN NORTHEAST WASHINGTON, SHOWN IN GREEN.

view more 

CREDIT: TAYLOR GANZ

FROM: James Urton

(Note: researcher contact information at the end)

Humans drove wolves to extinction in Washington state around the 1930s. Thanks to conservation efforts, by about 80 years later, wolves had returned — crossing first from the Canadian border into Washington around 2008 and later entering the state from Idaho. Since then, wolf numbers in Washington have been steadily growing, raising questions about what the return of this large predator species means for ecosystems and people alike.

In northeast Washington, where wolves have recovered most successfully, researchers from the University of Washington and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife tracked one of their primary prey — white-tailed deer — in part to see what impact wolf packs are having on deer populations. The answer? So far, wolves aren’t having as much of an impact on deer as other factors.

In a paper published June 18 in Ecological Applications, the team reports that the biggest factors shaping white-tailed deer populations in northeast Washington are the quality of habitat available and a different, long-established large predator in the state: the cougar, also known as the mountain lion or puma. Wolves were a distant third in their impact.

“A big take-away from this study is that wolves are not returning to empty landscapes. These are places with humans and other carnivore species, like cougars, which will affect the impact that wolves can have,” said lead author Taylor Ganz, who conducted this research for her UW doctoral degree as part of the Washington Predator-Prey Project. “This area has a relatively high human footprint compared to other areas where wolves have been studied. These are not national parks or dense, old-growth forests. They are areas with active logging, farming, ranching and towns. Our findings show that these factors are likely limiting the impact of wolves on one of their primary food sources.”

It's not that wolves aren’t preying on white-tailed deer. According to the study, they are, just not enough to take a large bite out of the population as a whole.

White-tailed deer are widespread east of the Cascades. The state’s highest-density population of this species lies within the study area, which includes farmland and timber forests in parts of Stevens and Pend Oreille counties in northeast Washington. For the study, researchers radio-collared 280 white-tailed deer, 14 wolves, 50 cougars, 28 coyotes and 33 bobcats from 2016 to 2021. At the time of collaring, the researchers also noted vital statistics, including body condition, age and whether females were pregnant. When collared animals died, the team conducted a mortality investigation, if possible, and attempted to determine the cause of death.

The team, which also includes researchers with Washington State University and the Spokane Tribe of Indians, used the resulting dataset to estimate the growth rate of the white-tailed deer population over the four-year study, and to identify the major factors shaping it. The analysis determined that the white-tail population in the study area was likely stable, or slightly declining, but that wolves were not largely responsible.

The biggest factor impacting the deer population was habitat quality, including the amount of forage available for deer. For white-tailed deer, which are highly adaptable to human activity, foraging sites can range from forests and shrublands to agricultural fields. The study area includes both agricultural land and forests recently harvested for timber, both of which could provide deer with high-caloric density foraging sites, according to Ganz.

After habitat quality, the study found that predation by cougars had a smaller effect on the white-tailed population. Wolf predation had a still smaller impact. Bobcats and coyotes — both medium-sized predators — had a negligible impact on deer numbers.

“Studies like this provide valuable insights about the complexity of these systems and how managing predator and prey populations is challenging and dynamic,” said co-author Melia DeVivo, a research scientist with the WDFW. “It’s important to continue evaluating these systems to understand the impacts of management decisions. Prior to this study, one might have expected that relying solely on wolf management strategies would result in a booming deer population, when it is clearly more complex than that.” 

Since their return, the number of wolves in Washington has risen steadily, reaching a minimum of 260 in 2023, according to state researchers. Four wolf packs reside in the northeast Washington Predator-Prey Project study area. The total number of wolves in the study area — about 23 — remained steady overall during the research period.

The team’s findings contrast with studies of long-established wolf populations in protected areas, like Yellowstone National Park, which show a higher impact of wolves on the population dynamics of their prey species. To the authors of this new study, those differences highlight the importance of studying wolves in a variety of habitats.

“This study reminds us that the population dynamics of predator and prey species can vary quite a bit,” said senior author Laura Prugh, a UW associate professor of environmental and forest sciences. “Habitat quality, the species that are present and the degree of human activity all affect the impact that large predators like wolves will have. It’s critical to compare different types of sites.”

The paper is part of the Washington Predator-Prey Project, a partnership between the UW and the WDFW to investigate the impact of the wolves’ return on state ecosystems. Additional co-authors are Sarah Bassing , a UW doctoral alum in environmental and forest sciences; Lauren Satterfield, a UW doctoral student in environmental and forest sciences; biologists Brian Kertson and Benjamin Turnock with the WDFW; Lisa Shipley, a professor at WSU; Savannah Walker and Derek Abrahamson, both biologists with the Spokane Tribe of Indians; Beth Gardner, a UW associate professor of environmental and forest sciences; and Aaron Wirsing, a UW professor of environmental and forest sciences. The research was funded by WDFW, the National Science Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the UW College of the Environment.

HYENAS VS. LEOPARDS

 

Peer-Reviewed Publication

 

IMAGE: 

IMAGES FROM CAMERA TRAPS IN UDZUNGWA. FROM THE LEFT: FEMALE LEOPARD, HYENA, MALE LEOPARD

view more 

CREDIT: RASMUS W. HAVMØLLER

Who’s stronger? A solitary leopard or cackle of hyenas? And which is best at getting along with humans?

University of Copenhagen researchers closely studied this in a large East African natural area surrounded by rural settlements. The study demonstrates that the presence of humans has a direct impact on the competitive relationship between the two large predator species: leopards (Panthera pardus) – the iconic spotted feline and the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) – a kleptoparasite and pack hunter known for its comical appearance and characteristic 'laugh'.

"We humans continue eating our way into the little bit of wilderness left in the world. As we do, we impact wildlife. This study demonstrates that human disturbance upsets the balance between competing species and that this advantages hyenas," says Rasmus W. Havmøller, the study’s first author and a postdoc at the University of Copenhagen’s Natural History Museum of Denmark.

For months, Havmøller have been using camera traps to observe the dynamics between hyenas and leopards living in Tanzania’s Udzungwa Mountains – an approximately 2,000 km2 national park that is completely surrounded by agricultural and populated areas. The study is the first to combine camera observations of large predators over both time and space in a single analysis.

While the hyena as a species seems to be increasing in numbers, the population of leopards has been in significant decline for decades, both in Africa and worldwide. Since hyenas are the leopards' only competitor in this particular natural area, the ability of the two species to coexist is important for their survival. And here, the local population is an important factor:

"As the local people definitely don’t' like leopards, the leopards retreat as far away from humans as possible. Hyenas, on the other hand, benefit from the fact that humans don’t feel threatened by or pursue them. Consequently, hyenas live in close to human populations and may even exploit humans as shields against the leopards," says Havmøller.

"But the areas nearest to humans are also the areas with the most prey. And as hyenas assert dominance over these areas, it increases their ability to outcompete leopards and potentially threaten the leopard's adaptability," adds Havmøller.

Size matters

The researchers' observations confirm that size matters. While male leopards, which are larger, retain their dominance over hyenas, the situation is different for female leopards, which are smaller.

"Even though the male leopards are the ones in charge, the hyenas aren’t exactly scared off by them. They simply hang out in the background – probably to follow the leopards and steal their prey. But the physical inferiority of the hyenas seems to be compensated for in the areas closest to humans, because male leopards pull out," says Rasmus W. Havmøller, who continues:

"Female leopards, on the other hand, completely change their behavior when hyenas are in the area. They become diurnal, whereas hyenas are primarily nocturnal. This is probably because female leopards are smaller than hyenas, and that they will likely lose in any fight over prey."

Overall, the study shows that the hyenas benefit from living near humans.

"This suggests that the hyena's ability to adapt to areas of human activity may strengthen their overall success as a species and their competitive advantage over other large predators as we humans disturb more and more nature," says Havmøller.

When leopards are pressured, cascade effects may follow

According to the researcher, the shift in female leopard hunting patterns may have negative consequences:

"If you open up for more tourism and build more roads in the national park, the female leopards will be pressured immediately. They aren’t able to differentiate between safari tourists – who are most active during the day – and poachers. In time, they will probably learn that safari guests aren’t dangerous. But if there is a large and rapid influx into the area, you will probably see a decline in their population," says Rasmus W. Havmøller.

If leopards are seriously pressured out of the food chain, one should expect the emergence of what are known as cascade effects in the ecosystem:

"Plucking a large predator like leopards out of a food chain, which can be the ultimate consequence of human disturbances, may have very violent effects. Populations of other species, such as certain monkeys, whose populations are kept in check by leopards, will suddenly become too large and change the balance of the entire ecosystem," says the researcher.

As such, Havmøller hopes that the study will serve to encourage restraint when it comes to managing wilderness areas.

"Our results clearly indicate that human disturbances can change the competitive relationship between important predators. So, I hope that considerations will be made when expanding activities in wilderness areas, so as to roll them out slowly and give animals a chance to adapt. Furthermore, it would be good if the effects of human disturbances were monitored in more places using camera traps," concludes Rasmus W. Havmøller.

 

 

HYENAS VS. LEOPARDS 

• Leopards are unpopular among local people in many places because they may hunt livestock and attack humans. Hyenas, on the other hand, "clean up" by eating sick or dead livestock and don’t pose a problem for humans.
• Female leopards (approx. 20-43 kg.) are about half the size of male leopards (approx. 51-72 kg). Hyenas are in the middle in terms of weight (approx. 48-56 kg).
• Leopards are solitary hunters, whereas hyenas hunt in large cackles (clans), which can be an advantage for hyenas in confrontations with leopards.
• Hyenas are kleptoparasites that regularly steal the prey of other carnivores – including leopards.
• Leopards on the other hand, are masterful tree-climbers, which allows them to protect their prey from hyenas.

 

Idaho just voted to spend tens of thousands of tax dollars to kill even more wolves.

 

Under this new plan, ranchers are being reimbursed for hiring private hunting companies, which will be paid for killing wolves.   Wolves should be protected -- not gunned down for profit. Join our pack and help us defend wolves with a donation today.

Idaho has already been slaughtering as many as 500 wolves a year, but apparently they don't think that's enough.1   After years of radically expanded hunting and trapping, wolf numbers are already on the decline. Now, for the second month in a row, the Idaho Wolf Depredation Control Board has voted to spend vast sums of money to pay hunters for each and every wolf they kill.2   This is just a small part of the more than $1,000,000 that the state has set aside to finance the slaughter of gray wolves.3

1. Julie Luchetta, "Idaho Fish and Game approves plan to reduce wolf population from 1,300 to 500," Boise State Public Radio, May 12, 2023.   2. Rachel Cohen, "Idaho's wolf killings decline as board advances private contracts," Boise State Public Radio, May 10, 2024.   3. Keith Ridler, "Idaho wolf control board will have $1 million to kill wolves," Associated Press, January 19, 2022.