Use of satellite images for broad-scale modelling of conservation areas for wolves in the Carpathian Mountains, central Europe

This study analysed the spatial structure of the Carpathian Mountains, in Central Europe, considering it a unit that extends across national boundaries, and assessing the suitability of areas were wolves could be conserved. Physical characteristics of the area were extracted from NOAA-AVHRR NDVI. A set of 9 images from different periods of the year was used to parameterise the phenological variability of the area. Digital maps of road networks, human settlements and a DEM were integrated in a GIS. Locations of wolf presence were used to extract “optimal” environmental characteristics that served as reference for estimating the degree of suitability over the whole area. Results show that most of the Carpathian Mountains are highly suitable for the wolf and that highly suitable areas are actually inhabited by the present population of wolf. These are also the area most phenologically stable

Introduction

THE WOLF IS TRULY a special animal. As the most widely distributed of all land mammals, the wolf, formally the gray wolf (Canis lupus), is also one of the most adaptable. It inhabits all the vegetation types of the Northern Hemisphere and preys on all the large mammals living there. It also feeds on all the other animals in its environment, scavenges, and can even eat fruits and berries. Wolves frequent forests and prairies, tundra, barren ground, mountains, deserts, and swamps. Some wolves even visit large cities, and, of course, the wolf\u27s domesticated version, the dog, thrives in urban environments. Such a ubiquitous creature must, as a species, be able to tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, such as temperatures from -56° to +50°C (-70° to +120°F). To capture its food in the variety of habitats, topographies, and climates it frequents, the wolf must be able to run, climb, lope, and swim, and it performs all these functions well. It can travel more than 72 km (43 mi)/day, run at 56-64 km (34-38 mi)/hr, and swim as far as 13 km (8 mi) (P. C. Paquet, personal communication), no doubt aided by the webs between its toes

References

Abrams, P. A. 2000. The evolution of predator-prey interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31:79-105. Abuladze, K. I. 1964. Osnovy Tsestodologii. Vol. IV. Teniatylentochnye gel\u27 minty zhivotnykh i cheloveka i vyzyvaevaniia. Nauka, Moscow. 530 pp. Achuff, P. L., and R. Petocz. 1988. Preliminary resource inventory of the Arjin Mountains Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, People\u27s Republic of China. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland. 78 pp. Ackerman, B. B., F. A. Leban, M. D. Samuel, and E. 0. Garton. 1990. User\u27s manual for program Home Range. 2d ed. Technical Report no. 15. Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University ofldaho, Moscow. Acorn, R. C., and M. J. Dorrance. 1990. Methods of investigating predation of livestock. Alberta Agriculture, Edmonton. 36 pp

Wolf Social Ecology

THE FIRST REAL BEGINNING to our understanding of wolf social ecology came from wolf 2204 on 23 May 1972. State depredation control trapper Lawrence Waino, of Duluth, Minnesota, had caught this female wolf 112 km ( 67 mi) south of where L. D. Mech had radio-collared her in the Superior National Forest 2 years earlier. A young lone wolf, nomadic over 100 km2 (40 mi2) during the 9 months Mech had been able to keep track of her, she had then disappeared until Waino caught her. From her nipples it was apparent that she had just been nursing pups. This was the puzzle piece I needed, stated Mech. I had already radio-tracked lone wolves long distances, and I had observed pack members splitting off and dispersing. My hunch was that the next step was for loners to find a new area and a mate, settle down, produce pups, and start their own pack. Wolf 2204 had done just that

References

Abrams, P. A. 2000. The evolution of predator-prey interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31:79-105. Abuladze, K. I. 1964. Osnovy Tsestodologii. Vol. IV. Teniatylentochnye gel\u27 minty zhivotnykh i cheloveka i vyzyvaevaniia. Nauka, Moscow. 530 pp. Achuff, P. L., and R. Petocz. 1988. Preliminary resource inventory of the Arjin Mountains Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, People\u27s Republic of China. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland. 78 pp. Ackerman, B. B., F. A. Leban, M. D. Samuel, and E. 0. Garton. 1990. User\u27s manual for program Home Range. 2d ed. Technical Report no. 15. Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University ofldaho, Moscow. Acorn, R. C., and M. J. Dorrance. 1990. Methods of investigating predation of livestock. Alberta Agriculture, Edmonton. 36 pp

Wolf Social Ecology

THE FIRST REAL BEGINNING to our understanding of wolf social ecology came from wolf 2204 on 23 May 1972. State depredation control trapper Lawrence Waino, of Duluth, Minnesota, had caught this female wolf 112 km ( 67 mi) south of where L. D. Mech had radio-collared her in the Superior National Forest 2 years earlier. A young lone wolf, nomadic over 100 km2 (40 mi2) during the 9 months Mech had been able to keep track of her, she had then disappeared until Waino caught her. From her nipples it was apparent that she had just been nursing pups. This was the puzzle piece I needed, stated Mech. I had already radio-tracked lone wolves long distances, and I had observed pack members splitting off and dispersing. My hunch was that the next step was for loners to find a new area and a mate, settle down, produce pups, and start their own pack. Wolf 2204 had done just that

Conclusion

WOLVES CAN LIVE almost anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere, and almost everywhere they do, they are an issue. In the vast emptiness of the northern tundra or the Arabian desert, on the outskirts of a European town or in the safety of an American national park, in meager agricultural lands in India or mountains in rich Norway or Switzerland, wolves always attract people\u27s attention. Wolves form a key part of many ecosystems, and they are considered charismatic creatures by most human cultures. Thus they polarize public opinion and make headlines year after year. If we look back 6o years to the first landmark monograph by Young and Goldman (1944), or just 30 years to Mech\u27s (1970) volume, we can see that both scientific knowledge of wolf biology and human attitudes toward the wolf have improved tremendously. The wolf has benefited from, and has often been a protagonist and a symbol of, the remarkable changes in the way Western societies regard conservation. However, much of this improvement paralleled the increasing distance between urban and rural cultures, and most of the changes occurred in urban populations

Challenging the scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is currently discussing the development of a Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) that would mirror the categories and criteria used to assess the conservation status of species. The suggested scientific foundations for the RLE are being considered by IUCN for adoption as the backbone of the RLE. We identify conceptual and operational weaknesses in the draft RLE approach, the categories, and criteria. While species are relatively well-described units, there is no consistent means to classify ecosystems for assessing conservation status. The proposed RLE is framed mostly around certain features of ecosystems such as broad vegetation or habitat types, and do not consider major global change drivers such as climate change. We discuss technical difficulties with the proposed concept of ecosystem collapse and suggest it is not analogous to species extinction. We highlight the lack of scientific basis for the criteria and thresholds proposed by the RLE, and question the need to adopt the structure of the Red List of Species for an RLE. We suggest that the proposed RLE is open to ambiguous interpretations and uncertain outcomes, and that its practicality and benefit for conservation should be carefully evaluated before final approval

Ecologists need robust survey designs, sampling and analytical methods

1. Research that yields conflicting results rightly causes controversy. Where methodological weaknesses are apparent, there is ready opportunity for discord within the scientific community, which may undermine the entire study. 2. We use the debate about the role of dingoes Canis dingo in conservation in Australia as a case study for a phenomenon that is relevant to all applied ecologists, where conflicting results have been published in high quality journals and yet the problems with the methods used in these studies have led to significant controversy. 3. To alleviate such controversies, scientists need to use robust methods to ensure that their results are repeatable and defendable. To date, this has not occurred in Australia’s dingo debate due to the use of unvalidated indices that rely on unsupported assumptions. 4. We highlight the problems that poor methods have caused in this debate. We also reiterate our recommendations for practitioners, statisticians and researchers to work together to develop long-term, multi-site experimental research programmes using robust methods to understand the impacts of dingoes on mesopredators. 5. Synthesis & applications. Incorporating robust methods and appropriate experimental designs are needed to ensure that conservation actions are appropriately focused and are supported with robust results. Such actions will go a long way towards resolving the debate about the role of dingoes in conservation in Australia, and other, ecological debates

Local attitudes toward Apennine brown bears: Insights for conservation issues

Human-carnivore coexistence is a multi-faceted issue that requires an understanding of the diverse attitudes and perspectives of the communities living with large carnivores. To inform initiatives that encourage behaviors in line with conservation goals, we focused on assessing the two components of attitudes (i.e., feelings and beliefs), as well as norms of local communities coexisting with Apennine brown bears (Ursus arctos marsicanus) for a long time. This bear population is under serious extinction risks due to its persistently small population size, which is currently confined to the long-established protected area of Abruzzo, Lazio and Molise National Park (PNALM) and its surrounding region in central Italy. We interviewed 1,611 residents in the PNALM to determine attitudes and values toward bears. We found that support for the bear's legal protection was widespread throughout the area, though beliefs about the benefits of conserving bears varied across geographic administrative districts. Our results showed that residents across our study areas liked bears. At the same time, areas that received more benefits from tourism were more strongly associated with positive feelings toward bears. Such findings provide useful information to improve communication efforts of conservation authorities with local communities