How Climate Impacts the Composition of Wolf-Killed Elk in Northern Yellowstone National Park

While the functional response of predators is commonly measured, recent work has revealed that the age and sex composition of prey killed is often a better predictor of prey population dynamics because the reproductive value of adult females is usually higher than that of males or juveniles. Climate is often an important mediating factor in determining the composition of predator kills, but we currently lack a mechanistic understanding of how the multiple facets of climate interact with prey abundance and demography to influence the composition of predator kills. Over 20 winters, we monitored 17 wolf packs in Yellowstone National Park and recorded the sex, age and nutritional condition of kills of their dominant prey—elk—in both early and late winter periods when elk are in relatively good and relatively poor condition, respectively. Nutritional condition (as indicated by per cent marrow fat) of wolf‐killed elk varied markedly with summer plant productivity, snow water equivalent (SWE) and winter period. Moreover, marrow was poorer for wolf‐killed bulls and especially for calves than it was for cows. Wolf prey composition was influenced by a complex set of climatic and endogenous variables. In early winter, poor plant growth in either year t or t − 1, or relatively low elk abundance, increased the odds of wolves killing bulls relative to cows. Calves were most likely to get killed when elk abundance was high and when the forage productivity they experienced in utero was poor. In late winter, low SWE and a relatively large elk population increased the odds of wolves killing calves relative to cows, whereas low SWE and poor vegetation productivity 1 year prior together increased the likelihood of wolves killing a bull instead of a cow. Since climate has a strong influence on whether wolves prey on cows (who, depending on their age, are the key reproductive components of the population) or lower reproductive value of calves and bulls, our results suggest that climate can drive wolf predation to be more or less additive from year to year

Effect of Sociality and Season on Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Foraging Behavior: Implications for Estimating Summer Kill Rate

BACKGROUND: Understanding how kill rates vary among seasons is required to understand predation by vertebrate species living in temperate climates. Unfortunately, kill rates are only rarely estimated during summer. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For several wolf packs in Yellowstone National Park, we used pairs of collared wolves living in the same pack and the double-count method to estimate the probability of attendance (PA) for an individual wolf at a carcass. PA quantifies an important aspect of social foraging behavior (i.e., the cohesiveness of foraging). We used PA to estimate summer kill rates for packs containing GPS-collared wolves between 2004 and 2009. Estimated rates of daily prey acquisition (edible biomass per wolf) decreased from 8.4±0.9 kg (mean ± SE) in May to 4.1±0.4 kg in July. Failure to account for PA would have resulted in underestimating kill rate by 32%. PA was 0.72±0.05 for large ungulate prey and 0.46±0.04 for small ungulate prey. To assess seasonal differences in social foraging behavior, we also evaluated PA during winter for VHF-collared wolves between 1997 and 2009. During winter, PA was 0.95±0.01. PA was not influenced by prey size but was influenced by wolf age and pack size. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results demonstrate that seasonal patterns in the foraging behavior of social carnivores have important implications for understanding their social behavior and estimating kill rates. Synthesizing our findings with previous insights suggests that there is important seasonal variation in how and why social carnivores live in groups. Our findings are also important for applications of GPS collars to estimate kill rates. Specifically, because the factors affecting the PA of social carnivores likely differ between seasons, kill rates estimated through GPS collars should account for seasonal differences in social foraging behavior

Territoriality and Inter-Pack Aggression in Gray Wolves: Shaping a Social Carnivore\u27s Life History \u3ci\u3eRudyard Kipling\u27s Law of the Jungle Meets Yellowstone\u27s Law of the Mountains\u3c/i\u3e

When Rudyard Kipling wrote The Jungle Book in 1894 and included the famous line For the strength of the Wolf is the Pack, and the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, he would have had no idea that over a century later, scientific research would back up his poetic phrase. Recent studies in Yellowstone have found that both the individual wolf and the collective pack rely on each other and play important roles in territoriality. At a time when most fairy tales and fables were portraying wolves as demonic killers or, at best, slapstick gluttons, Kipling seemed to have a respect or even reverence for the wolf. Wolves in The Jungle Book raise and mentor the main character Mowgli, with the pack\u27s leader eventually dying to save the man-cub from a pack of wolves. Kipling may have extended intra-pack benevolence to a human boy for literary sake, but he was clearly enthralled with how pack members treat each other. As wolf packs are almost always family units, most commonly comprised of a breeding pair and their offspring from several years, amiable behavior within the pack is unsurprising. By contrast, wolf packs are fiercely intolerant of their neighbors, their rivals. And this competition is proving to be an important facet in the life of a wolf and its pack

Infanticide in wolves: seasonality of mortalities and attacks at dens support evolution of territoriality

Evidence for territoriality is usually correlative or post hoc as we observe the results of past selection that are challenging to detect. Wolves (Canis lupus) are considered territorial because of competition for food (resource defense), yet they exhibit classic intrinsic behaviors of social regulation (protection against infanticide). This emphasis on prey and infrequent opportunity to observe wild wolf behavior has led to little investigation into the causes of or competitive underpinnings in the evolution of wolf territoriality. We report 6 cases of territorial wolf packs attacking neighboring packs at or near their den; 2 attacks were observed in detail. In all cases, except perhaps one, the attacking pack killed adult wolves either at the den or near it; in 4 cases, pups were probably lost. Loss of pups led to future loss of territory and in one case pack cessation. Intraspecific killing (measured in collared adults only) peaked in April, the month when pups were born and helpless in dens, even though aggressive interactions were at their seasonal low. Twelve of 13 (92%) of the wolves killed during the denning season (March, April, May) were reproductive (males and females), and 8 of 12 were dominant individuals (highest ranking wolf for that sex in the pack). Wolf–wolf killings were also high in October and December, the beginning and middle of the nomadic season, respectively. Aggressive interactions were more frequent during the nomadic season when wolves were roaming their territory as a group compared to the denning season when wolf activity was centered on the den and pack members less cohesive. We conclude that attacks on dens are a more effective form of interpack competition than interference during the breeding season, the current best-supported hypothesis, and that protected pup-rearing space is the primary cause of wolf territoriality

Of wolves and bears: Seasonal drivers of interference and exploitation competition between apex predators

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2022 The Authors. Ecological Monographs published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Ecological Society of America.Competition between apex predators can alter the strength of top-down forcing, yet we know little about the behavioral mechanisms that drive competition in multipredator ecosystems. Interactions between predators can be synergistic (facilitative) or antagonistic (inhibitive), both of which are widespread in nature, vary in strength between species and across space and time, and affect predation patterns and predator–prey dynamics. Recent research has suggested that gray wolf (Canis lupus) kill rates decrease where they are sympatric with brown bears (Ursus arctos), however, the mechanisms behind this pattern remain unknown. We used data from two long-term research projects in Scandinavia (Europe) and Yellowstone National Park (North America) to test the role of interference and exploitation competition from bears on wolf predatory behavior, where altered wolf handling and search time of prey in the presence of bears are indicative of interference and exploitation competition, respectively. Our results suggest the mechanisms driving competition between bears and wolves were dependent on the season and study system. During spring in Scandinavia, interference competition was the primary mechanism driving decreased kill rates for wolves sympatric with bears; handling time increased, but search time did not. In summer, however, when both bear and wolf predation focused on neonate moose, the behavioral mechanism switched to exploitation competition; search time increased, but handling time did not. Alternartively, interference competition did affect wolf predation dynamics in Yellowstone during summer, where wolves prey more evenly on neonate and adult ungulates. Here, bear presence at a carcass increased the amount of time wolves spent at carcasses of all sizes and wolf handling time for small prey, but decreased handling time for the largest prey. Wolves facilitate scavenging opportunities for bears, however, bears alter wolf predatory behavior via multiple pathways and are primarily antagonistic to wolves. Our study helps to clarify the behavioral mechanisms driving competition between apex predators, illustrating how interspecific interactions can manifest into population-level predation patterns.publishedVersio

Of wolves and bears: Seasonal drivers of interference and exploitation competition between apex predators

Competition between apex predators can alter the strength of top-down forcing, yet we know little about the behavioral mechanisms that drive competition in multipredator ecosystems. Interactions between predators can be synergistic (facilitative) or antagonistic (inhibitive), both of which are widespread in nature, vary in strength between species and across space and time, and affect predation patterns and predator–prey dynamics. Recent research has suggested that gray wolf (Canis lupus) kill rates decrease where they are sympatric with brown bears (Ursus arctos), however, the mechanisms behind this pattern remain unknown. We used data from two long-term research projects in Scandinavia (Europe) and Yellowstone National Park (North America) to test the role of interference and exploitation competition from bears on wolf predatory behavior, where altered wolf handling and search time of prey in the presence of bears are indicative of interference and exploitation competition, respectively. Our results suggest the mechanisms driving competition between bears and wolves were dependent on the season and study system. During spring in Scandinavia, interference competition was the primary mechanism driving decreased kill rates for wolves sympatric with bears; handling time increased, but search time did not. In summer, however, when both bear and wolf predation focused on neonate moose, the behavioral mechanism switched to exploitation competition; search time increased, but handling time did not. Alternartively, interference competition did affect wolf predation dynamics in Yellowstone during summer, where wolves prey more evenly on neonate and adult ungulates. Here, bear presence at a carcass increased the amount of time wolves spent at carcasses of all sizes and wolf handling time for small prey, but decreased handling time for the largest prey. Wolves facilitate scavenging opportunities for bears, however, bears alter wolf predatory behavior via multiple pathways and are primarily antagonistic to wolves. Our study helps to clarify the behavioral mechanisms driving competition between apex predators, illustrating how interspecific interactions can manifest into population-level predation patterns.publishedVersio

Understanding the Patient Experience with Carcinoid Syndrome: Exit Interviews from a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Telotristat Ethyl

Purpose: Telotristat ethyl, an oral tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitor, is intended to treat carcinoid syndrome by reducing serotonin production. Telotristat ethyl was evaluated in TELESTAR, a Phase III study for patients who had carcinoid syndrome with at least 4 bowel movements (BMs) per day and who were receiving somatostatin analogue therapy. This interview substudy was conducted to provide insight into the patient experience in TELESTAR and to help understand whether reductions in BM frequency (the primary end point) and other symptoms were clinically meaningful. Methods: Participating sites were asked to invite (before randomization) all eligible patients to telephone interviews scheduled at the end of the double-blind treatment period. Patients and interviewers were blinded to treatment. Findings: All 35 interviewed participants reported diarrhea and/or excessive BMs at baseline. Patients reported that these symptoms negatively affected emotional, social, physical, and occupational well-being. Prespecified criteria for treatment response (achieving ≥ 30% reduction in BM frequency for at least 50% of the days) were met by 8 of 26 patients taking telotristat ethyl and 1 of 9 patients taking placebo. All 8 patients taking telotristat ethyl described clinically meaningful reductions in BM frequency and were very satisfied with the ability of the study drug to control their carcinoid syndrome symptoms. Overall, reports of being very satisfied were observed in 12 patients taking telotristat ethyl and 0 taking placebo. Implications: Patient interviews revealed that TELESTAR patients, at baseline, were significantly affected by their high BM frequency. Patient reports of their clinical trial experience supported the significance of the primary end point and clinical responder analysis in TELESTAR, helping identify and understand clinically meaningful change produced by telotristat ethyl

Competition between apex predators? Brown bears decrease wolf kill rate on two continents

Trophic interactions are a fundamental topic in ecology, but we know little about how competition between apex predators affects predation, the mechanism driving top-down forcing in ecosystems.We used long-term datasets from Scandinavia (Europe) and Yellowstone National Park (North America) to evaluate how grey wolf (Canis lupus) kill rate was affected by a sympatric apex predator, the brown bear (Ursus arctos). We used kill interval (i.e. the number of days between consecutive ungulate kills) as a proxy of kill rate. Although brown bears can monopolize wolf kills, we found no support in either study system for the common assumption that they cause wolves to killmore often.On the contrary, our results showed the opposite effect. In Scandinavia, wolf packs sympatric with brown bears killed less often than allopatric packs during both spring (after bear den emergence) and summer. Similarly, the presence of bears at wolf-killed ungulates was associated with wolves killing less often during summer in Yellowstone. The consistency in results between the two systems suggests that brown bear presence actually reduces wolf kill rate. Our results suggest that the influence of predation on lower trophic levels may depend on the composition of predator communities. Canis lupus, competition, predation, Scandinavia, Ursus arctos, Yellowston

Competition between apex predators? Brown bears decrease wolf kill rate on two continents

Trophic interactions are a fundamental topic in ecology, but we know little about how competition between apex predators affects predation, the mechanism driving top-down forcing in ecosystems.We used long-term datasets from Scandinavia (Europe) and Yellowstone National Park (North America) to evaluate how grey wolf (Canis lupus) kill rate was affected by a sympatric apex predator, the brown bear (Ursus arctos). We used kill interval (i.e. the number of days between consecutive ungulate kills) as a proxy of kill rate. Although brown bears can monopolize wolf kills, we found no support in either study system for the common assumption that they cause wolves to killmore often.On the contrary, our results showed the opposite effect. In Scandinavia, wolf packs sympatric with brown bears killed less often than allopatric packs during both spring (after bear den emergence) and summer. Similarly, the presence of bears at wolf-killed ungulates was associated with wolves killing less often during summer in Yellowstone. The consistency in results between the two systems suggests that brown bear presence actually reduces wolf kill rate. Our results suggest that the influence of predation on lower trophic levels may depend on the composition of predator communities. Canis lupus, competition, predation, Scandinavia, Ursus arctos, Yellowston

Impact of liver tumour burden, alkaline phosphatase elevation, and target lesion size on treatment outcomes with 177Lu-Dotatate: an analysis of the NETTER-1 study

Purpose: To assess the impact of baseline liver tumour burden, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) elevation, and target lesion size on treatment outcomes with 177Lu-Dotatate. Methods: In the phase 3 NETTER-1 trial, patients with advanced, progressive midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NET) were randomised to 177Lu-Dotatate (every 8 weeks, four cycles) plus octreotide long-acting release (LAR) or to octreotide LAR 60 mg. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses of PFS by baseline factors, including liver tumour burden, ALP elevation, and target lesion size, were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression. Results: Significantly prolonged median PFS occurred with 177Lu-Dotatate versus octreotide LAR 60 mg in patients with low ( 50%) liver tumour burden (HR 0.187, 0.216, 0.145), and normal or elevated ALP (HR 0.153, 0.177), and in the presence or absence of a large target lesion (diameter > 30 mm; HR, 0.213, 0.063). Within the 177Lu-Dotatate arm, no significant difference in PFS was observed amongst patients with low/moderate/high liver tumour burden (P = 0.7225) or with normal/elevated baseline ALP (P = 0.3532), but absence of a large target lesion was associated with improved PFS (P = 0.0222). Grade 3 and 4 liver function abnormalities were rare and did not appear to be associated with high baseline liver tumour burden. Conclusions: 177Lu-Dotatate demonstrated significant prolongation in PFS versus high-dose octreotide LAR in patients with advanced, progressive midgut NET, regardless of baseline liver tumour burden, elevated ALP, or the presence of a large target lesion. Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01578239, EudraCT: 2011-005049-11