DOCSLIB.ORG

Wind Farm Prioritisation Based on Potential Impacts on Wolf (Canis Lupus) Habitat in Croatia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wind Farm Prioritisation Based on Potential Impacts on Wolf (Canis Lupus) Habitat in Croatia See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336305839 Wind farm prioritisation based on potential impacts on wolf (Canis lupus) habitat in Croatia Thesis · September 2015 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18399.00169 CITATIONS READS 0 184 1 author: Gioele Passoni University of Oxford 16 PUBLICATIONS 202 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: PhD: Multi-species animal movement and connectivity in the Alps View project Wolf spatial ecology and population dynamics in Croatia View project All content following this page was uploaded by Gioele Passoni on 07 October 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Wind farm prioritisation based on potential impacts on wolf (Canis lupus) habitat in Croatia Gioele Passoni September 2015 A thesis submitted for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Imperial College London Submitted for the MSc in Conservation Science DECLARATION OF OWN WORK I declare that this thesis, “Wind farm prioritisation based on potential impacts on wolf (Canis lupus) habitat in Croatia”, is entirely my own work and that where material could be construed as the work of others, it is fully cited and referenced, and/or with appropriate acknowledgement given. Signature …………………………………………………………………………………… Name of Student Gioele Passoni Name of Supervisors Dr. Marcus Rowcliffe; Prof. Josip Kusak i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3 2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 The Wolf as a Large Carnivore in Europe ............................................................................... 5 2.2 Wind Farms and Wolves ......................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Impact of Wind Farms on Wolves ................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts of Wind Farms on Wolves: an Example ................. 8 2.3 Wolf Homesites ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Habitat Suitability Modelling .................................................................................................. 9 2.4.1 MAXENT ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.2 Habitat Suitability Modelling for Wolf Conservation ................................................... 11 2.5 Spatial Planning and Wind Farm Prioritisation ..................................................................... 12 2.5.1 Marxan........................................................................................................................... 13 2.6 Study Site: an Ecological Overview of Croatia ..................................................................... 14 3 Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Methodological Framework .................................................................................................. 17 3.2 Data Collection and Preparation ............................................................................................ 17 3.2.1 Homesites ...................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Environmental and Anthropic Variables ....................................................................... 18 3.2.3 Wind Farms Data ........................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Habitat Suitability Modelling ................................................................................................ 19 3.4 Wind Farm Prioritisation ....................................................................................................... 20 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 Habitat Suitability Modelling ................................................................................................ 22 4.2 Wind Farms Prioritisation ..................................................................................................... 26 5 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1 Habitat Suitability Model ...................................................................................................... 30 5.2 Wind Farm Prioritisation ....................................................................................................... 33 5.3 Future Implications and Recommendations .......................................................................... 34 6 References ..................................................................................................................................... 37 7 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 45 7.1 Appendix I ............................................................................................................................. 45 ii List of Figures Figure 1.1 Wolf distribution in Europe ................................................................................................. 1 Figure 1.2 Distribution of wolves and proposed wind farms in Croatia ............................................... 2 Figure 2.1 Distribution of the main habitat types in Croatia ..............................................................15 Figure 2.2 Location of the main toponyms mentioned in this thesis ....................................................16 Figure 4.1 The 31 wolf homesite locations collected between 1997 and 2015 ......................................22 Figure 4.2 Response curves for the 6 model predictors. The curves show how the species probability of occurrence changes with each predictor, maintaining all other predictors at their average sample value. The red curves represent the mean trends, while the blue shades show the mean +/- the standard deviation. In each graph, the X axis shows the change in each environmental variable, while the Y axis shows the species' probability of presence.............................................................24 Figure 4.3 Habitat suitability map obtained with Maxent. Blue indicates low suitability, green indicates intermediate suitability and red indicates high suitability areas. .......................................25 Figure 4.4 Best solution for the Marxan analysis over 100 repetitions in the 2 km (A) and 4 km (B) buffer scenarios. The number of each wind farms corresponds to the numbers in table 4.4 ............27 Figure 4.5 Marxan analysis of the hexagonal grid over the area covered by proposed wind farms with a 4 km buffer. The irreplaceability score is the number of times in which each cell was selected in the optimal configuration over 100 Marxan repetitions. The figure shows the extent to which wolf breeding habitat in each cell would be affected by wind farms construction. .................29 List of Tables Table 4.1 Pearson's correlation coefficients (R) among environmental variables. The threshold to discriminate correlated variables was R>0.7....................................................................................23 Table 4.2 Main statistical values showing the relative contribution of environmental variables in Maxent ...........................................................................................................................................23 Table 4.3 Minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values for the 6 environmental variables. For “distance to” variables, nil values indicate that a homesite is located in the same cell (measuring 250x250 m) of an environmental feature and, thus, do not necessarily pinpoint a distance of 0 metres. .....................................................................................................................................25 Table 4.4 Marxan values for all wind farms in the 2 km and 4 km buffer scenarios. IS=Irreplaceability score over 100 Marxan repetitions; MW=Installed capacity in MW; %=percent of the analogous initial value; % decrease=percent reduction compared to the analogous initial value. “MW in Best Solution” and “Cost in Best Solution” only show the MW and the cost of selected wind farms in the best solutions. The numbers in this table correspond to wind farms shown in fi gure 4.4. Further information about these wind farms can be found in Appendix I ..................................28 iii List of Acronyms AUC = Area Under the Curve EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment AAPPIEN = Assessment of Acceptability of Plans, Programmes and Interventions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gray Wolf Populations in the Conterminous U.S
    Gray Wolf Populations in the Conterminous U.S. Wolves are apex predators on top of the food chain with no natural predators of their own. They play a critical role in maintaining the balance and structure of an ecological community. North American wolf numbers plummeted in the 1800’s and early 1900’s due to decreased availability of prey, habitat loss and in- creased extermination efforts to reduce predation on livestock and game animals. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were listed as endan- gered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1974. Although wolves today occupy only a fraction of their historic range, conser- vation efforts have helped some populations to meet recovery goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed Western Great Lakes gray wolves were delisted in removing protections for gray wolves throughout the U.S. and 2011 but will be monitored for five years to ensure Mexico in 2013 – a final decision is pending. recovery is sustained (Credit: USFWS). Western Great Lakes The FWS published a final rule at the Human-Wolf Conflict Population end of 2011 to delist wolves in Min- nesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Gray wolves of the Western Great Human-wolf conflicts continue Lakes region are mainly found portions of adjoining states. to occur as both populations throughout northern Minnesota and expand, particularly between Wisconsin, Michigan’s Upper Penin- sula, and Ontario.1 In the 1800s and wolves and livestock farmers. early 1900s, unregulated hunting, Social constraints must be government bounties, and diminished carefully considered when de- prey availability nearly eliminated the wolves in the Great Lakes veloping management plans for 2, 3, 4 any wolf population, including region.
    [Show full text]
  • Heart Rate During Hyperphagia Differs Between Two Bear Species
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Brage INN Physiology Heart rate during hyperphagia differs royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsbl between two bear species Boris Fuchs1,†, Koji Yamazaki2,†, Alina L. Evans1, Toshio Tsubota3, Shinsuke Koike4,5, Tomoko Naganuma5 and Jon M. Arnemo1,6 Research 1Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural Sciences, Cite this article: Fuchs B, Yamazaki K, Evans Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, 2418 Elverum, Norway 2Department of Forest Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, 1-1-1 Sakuragaoka, Setagaya-Ku, Tokyo, Japan AL, Tsubota T, Koike S, Naganuma T, Arnemo 3Department of Environmental Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita18, JM. 2019 Heart rate during hyperphagia differs Nishi9, Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan between two bear species. Biol. Lett. 15: 4Institute of Global Innovation Research, and 5United Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Tokyo University 20180681. of Agriculture and Technology, 3-5-8 Saiwai, Fuchu-city, Tokyo, Japan 6Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0681 Agricultural Sciences, 901 83, Umea˚, Sweden BF, 0000-0003-3412-3490; ALE, 0000-0003-0513-4887 Received: 28 September 2018 Hyperphagia is a critical part of the yearly cycle of bears when they gain fat reserves before entering hibernation. We used heart rate as a proxy to com- Accepted: 17 December 2018 pare the metabolic rate between the Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus)in Japan and the Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Sweden from summer into hibernation.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for the Monitoring of the Central European Wolf Population in Germany and Poland
    Ilka Reinhardt, Gesa Kluth, Sabina Nowak and Robert W. Mysłajek Standards for the monitoring of the Central European wolf population in Germany and Poland BfN-Skripten 398 2015 Standards for the monitoring of the Central European wolf population in Germany and Poland Ilka Reinhardt Gesa Kluth Sabina Nowak Robert W. Mysłajek Cover picture: S. Koerner Graphic: M. Markowski Authors’ addresses: Ilka Reinhardt LUPUS, German Institute for Wolf Monitoring and Research Gesa Kluth Dorfstr. 20, 02979 Spreewitz, Germany Sabina Nowak Association for Nature “Wolf” Twadorzerczka 229, 34-324 Lipowa, Poland Robert Myslajek Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw Project Management: Harald Martens Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Unit II 1.1 “Wildlife Conservation” The present paper is the final report under the contract „Development of joint monitoring standards for wolves in Germany and Poland“, financed by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety (BMUB). Client: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). Contract period: 01.03.2013 - 31.10.2013 This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online” (www.dnl-online.de). BfN-Skripten are not available in book trade. A pdf version can be downloaded from the internet at: http://www.bfn.de/0502_skripten.html. Publisher: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstrasse 110 53179 Bonn, Germany URL: http://www.bfn.de The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and views in this report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Red Wolf a Listable Unit Under the US Endangered Species Act?
    Journal of Heredity, 2018, 585–597 doi:10.1093/jhered/esy020 Original Article Advance Access publication 8 June 2018 Perspective Is the Red Wolf a Listable Unit Under the US Endangered Species Act? Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/109/5/585/5034846 by guest on 22 January 2019 Robin S. Waples, Roland Kays, Richard J. Fredrickson, Krishna Pacifici, and L. Scott Mills From the NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA (Waples); the Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (Kays and Pacifici); the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC (Kays); Missoula, MT (Fredrickson); and Wildlife Biology Program and the Office of Research and Creative Scholarship, University of Montana, Missoula, MT (Mills). Address correspondence to L. Scott Mills at the address above, or e-mail: [email protected]. Received October 25, 2017; First decision January 11, 2018; Accepted May 8, 2018. Corresponding Editor: Fred Allendorf Abstract Defining units that can be afforded legal protection is a crucial, albeit challenging, step in conservation planning. As we illustrate with a case study of the red wolf (Canis rufus) from the southeastern United States, this step is especially complex when the evolutionary history of the focal taxon is uncertain. The US Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of vertebrates. Red wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1973, and their status remains precarious. However, some recent genetic studies suggest that red wolves are part of a small wolf species (C. lycaon) specialized for heavily forested habitats of eastern North America, whereas other authors suggest that red wolves arose, perhaps within the last ~400 years, through hybridization between gray wolves (C.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining and Applying the Concept of Favourable Reference Values for Species and Habitats Under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives
    Defining and applying the concept of Favourable Reference Values for species and habitats under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives Examples of setting favourable reference values Service contract No. 07.0202/2015/715107/SER/ENV.B.3 financed by the European Commission – contractor: Alterra, institute within the legal entity Stichting DLO (now: Wageningen Environmental Research) R.J. Bijlsma1, E. Agrillo2, F. Attorre2, L. Boitani3, A. Brunner4, P. Evans5, R. Foppen6, S. Gubbay7, J.A.M. Janssen1, A. van Kleunen6, W. Langhout4, M. Pacifici3, I. Ramírez8, C. Rondinini3, M. van Roomen6, H. Siepel9, C.A.M. van Swaaij10 & H.V. Winter11 1 Wageningen Environmental Research 2 Comunità Ambiente 3 Istituto Ecologia Applicata 4 Stichting BirdLife Europe 5 Sea Watch Foundation 6 Sovon Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology 7 Susan Gubbay 8 BirdLife International 9 Radboud University Nijmegen 10 Dutch Butterfly Conservation 11 Wageningen Marine Research Wageningen Environmental Research Wageningen, July 2018 Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Contents Preface 5 1 Cetaceans 7 1.1 Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the European Atlantic 7 1.2 Short-beaked common dolphin
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Gray Wolf Monitoring and Management 2019 Annual Report
    WYOMING GRAY WOLF MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT 2019 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in cooperation with the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, and Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribal Fish and Game Department to fulfill the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requirement to report the status, distribution and management of the gray wolf population in Wyoming from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the end of 2019, the wolf population in Wyoming remained above minimum delisting criteria; making 2019 the 18th consecutive year Wyoming has exceeded the numerical, distributional, and temporal delisting criteria established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. At least 311 wolves in ≥43 packs (including ≥22 breeding pairs) inhabited Wyoming on December 31, 2019. Of the total, there were ≥94 wolves and ≥8 packs (≥7 breeding pairs) in Yellowstone National Park, ≥16 wolves and ≥3 packs (1 breeding pair) in the Wind River Reservation, and ≥201 wolves and ≥32 packs (≥14 breeding pairs) in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Reservation (WYO). In WYO, ≥175 wolves in ≥27 packs resided primarily in the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area where wolves are actively monitored and managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and ≥26 wolves in ≥5 packs in areas where wolves are designated primarily as predatory animals and are not actively monitored. A total of 96 wolf mortalities were documented statewide in Wyoming in 2019: 92 in WYO, 3 in Yellowstone National Park, and 1 in the Wind River Reservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 2Nd International Jackal Symposium, Marathon Bay, Attiki Province, Greece Hell
    Ελληνικό Ζωολογικό Αρχείο Hellenic Zoological Archives Number 9, November 2018 The book with the scientific papers of the second international symposium dedicated to the golden jackal and related species 2nd International Jackal Symposium Marathon Bay, Attiki Greece, 31 Oct-2 Nov 2018 With the endorsement of the IUCN Canid Specialist Group The book includes works on the golden jackal, wolf, coyote, Ethiopian wolf, African wolf, side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal species. ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΖΩΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑ HELLENIC ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY Proceedings of the 2nd International Jackal Symposium, Marathon Bay, Attiki Province, Greece Hell. Zool. Arch., No. 9 Nov 2018 ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟ ΖΩΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ ΑΡΧΕΙΟ HELLENIC ZOOLOGICAL ARCHIVES Το Ελληνικό Ζωολογικό Αρχείο είναι ένα διεθνές The Hellenic Zoological Archives is an περιοδικό που δημοσιεύει εργασίες που αφορούν την international journal that publishes articles related πανίδα της Ελλάδας και οι οποίες περιλαμβάνουν to the fauna of Greece, which contain background βασικά δεδομένα απαραίτητα για τη γνώση της. data necessary for its knowledge. Such articles can Τέτοιες εργασίες μπορεί να είναι βιβλιογραφίες, be bibliographies, lists of species, tables with data, κατάλογοι ειδών, πίνακες δεδομένων, μετρήσεων και observations etc. παρατηρήσεων κ.ά. The articles are published in English in separate Οι εργασίες δημοσιεύονται στα αγγλικά σε fascicules at irregular intervals. They include the ξεχωριστά τεύχη, σε μη τακτά διαστήματα. title, the author/s, their addresses, a summary (in Περιλαμβάνουν τίτλο, συγγραφέα/είς, διεύθυνση, Greek and English; the Editors can provide ελληνική και αγγλική περίληψη, εισαγωγή, κυρίως assistance with the translation if needed), an θέμα και βιβλιογραφία. Οι εργασίες γίνονται δεκτές introduction, the main text and the references.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I December 2016
    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California Part I December 2016 Charlton H. Bonham, Director Cover photograph by Gary Kramer This document should be cited as: Kovacs, K. E., K.E. Converse, M.C. Stopher, J.H. Hobbs, M.L. Sommer, P.J. Figura, D.A. Applebee, D.L. Clifford, and D.J. Michaels. Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California. 2016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA 329 pp. The preparers want to acknowledge Department of Fish and Wildlife staff who contributed to the preparation of this document. They include Steve Torres, Angela Donlan, and Kirsten Macintyre. Further, we appreciate the agencies and staff from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their generous support in our efforts to prepare this document. We are also indebted to our facilitation experts at Kearns and West, specifically Sam Magill. Table of Contents – PART I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Plan Development ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Plan Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Historical Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in California .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wolf in the Alps: Recommendations for an Internationally Coordinated Management
    KORA Bericht Nr. 72 März 2016 ISSN 1422-5123 Wolf in the Alps: Recommendations for an internationally coordinated management 2 KORA Bericht Nr. 72 KORA Bericht Nr. 72 Wolf in the Alps: Recommendations for an internationally coordinated management Arbeitsgruppe AT – Georg Rauer, Martin Janovsky Groupe de travail DE – Harald Martens, Manfred Wölfl Working group IT – Piero Genovesi, Paolo Molinari SL – Marko Jonozovic, Rok Černe CH – Reinhard Schnidrig, Caroline Nienhuis Bearbeitung Reinhard Schnidrig, Caroline Nienhuis, Adaptation Regula Imhof, Roland Bürki, Urs Editorial Breitenmoser Bezugsquelle Als PDF: http://www.kora.ch Source Source KORA Thunstr. 31 CH-3074 Muri +41 (0)31 951 70 40 [email protected] Titelbild Wolf pictured above Pfäfers, SG, Switzerland Page de titre on 8 March 2014 © ANJF, Amt für Natur, Front cover picture Jagd und Fischerei St. Gallen, and KORA Vorgeschlagene Zitierung/Citation proposée/Suggested citation: Schnidrig R., Nienhuis C., Imhof R., Bürki R. & Breitenmoser U. (Eds) 2016. Wolf in the Alps: Recommendations for an internationally coordinated management. RowAlps Report Objective 3. KORA Bericht Nr. 72. KORA, Muri bei Bern, Switzerland, and BAFU, Ittigen, Switzerland, 70 pp. Anzahl Seiten/Pages: 70 ISSN 1422-5123 © KORA März 2016 März 2016 3 Wolf in the Alps: Recommendations for an internationally coordinated management Report of the RowAlps Project (Recovery of Wildlife in the Alps) in the framework of the WISO (Wildlife and Society) Platform of the Alpine Convention Edited by Reinhard Schnidrig, Caroline Nienhuis, Regula Imhof, Roland Bürki & Urs Breitenmoser 4 KORA Bericht Nr. 72 Acknowledgments This report was financed by the MAVA Foundation, the Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland and the Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report 2004
    Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report 2004 Douglas W. Smith, Daniel R. Stahler, and Debra S. Guernsey National Park Service Yellowstone Center for Resources Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming YCR-2005-02 Suggested citation: Smith, D.W., D.R. Stahler, and D.S. Guernsey. 2005. Yellowstone Wolf Project: Annual Report, 2004. National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wy o ming, YCR-2005-02. Wolf logo on cover and title page: Original illustration of wolf pup #47, born to #27, of the Nez Perce pack in 1996, by Melissa Saunders. Treatment and design by Renée Evanoff. All photos not otherwise marked are NPS photos by Douglas Smith and Daniel R. Stahler. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Background .............................................................iv Gibbon Meadows Pack ........................................10 2004 Summary .........................................................v Bechler Pack ........................................................11 Territory Map ..........................................................vi Wolf Capture and Collaring ...................................11 The Yellowstone Wolf Pop u la tion .............................1 Wolf Predation ........................................................11 Population and Territory Status .............................1 Wolf –Prey Relationships ......................................11 Reproduction ........................................................3 Composition of Wolf Kills ...................................12 Mortalities .............................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in Minnesota, 2012-13
    MINNESOTA WOLF POPULATION UPDATE 2020 John Erb and Carolin Humpal, Forest Wildlife Populations and Research Group INTRODUCTION Since the late 1970’s, Minnesota has monitored its statewide wolf population using an approach that combines attributes of territory mapping with an ad hoc approach to determine the total area of the state occupied by wolf packs. The methods employed have changed only slightly during this time. Initially, surveys were conducted at approximately 10-year intervals (1978, 1988, 1997), thereafter at approximately 5-year intervals (2003, 2007, 2012). Results indicated a geographically and numerically expanding population through the 1997-98 survey, with little geographic expansion from 1998 to 2007 (Erb and DonCarlos 2009). These results were generally consistent with separate wolf population trend indicators (annual scent station survey, winter track survey, and number of verified depredations) in Minnesota. In 2012, wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment were removed as a listed species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The de-listing coincided with the normally scheduled (every 5th year) wolf survey as well as survey timeline specifications in the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (i.e., first and fifth year after delisting; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2001). The 2012-13 survey (Erb and Sampson 2013) concluded that overall wolf range had expanded along its south and west edge, but with only minor change in the total amount of land occupied by wolf packs; similar patterns were found 5 years later as part of the winter 2017-18 survey (Erb et al. 2018). After federal de-listing in 2012, wolf harvest seasons were established and population surveys have been conducted annually to better inform annual management decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Book of Abstracts
    Human-bear coexistence in human dominated and politically fragmented landscapes. BOOK OF ABSTRACTS Ljubljana, Slovenia 16 - 21 September 2018 Conference Venue: The Grand Hotel Union www.lifewithbears.eu #lifewithbears Book of Abstracts available #26thIBAconference @www.lifewithbears.eu 1 Published by: University of Ljubljana Cover design and layout: Anja Nič Editor: Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek Edition: e-book Ljubljana, 2018 Suggested citation: Majić Skrbinšek A. (Ed.), 2018, Human-bear coexistence in human dominated and politically fragmented landscapes. Abstract book of the 26th International conference on Bear Research and Management, 16- 21 September, Ljubljana, Slovenia. ISBN 978-961-6410-52-6 (pdf) COBISS.SI-ID: 296548096 2 SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM COMMITTEE 26TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BEAR RESEARCH MANAGEMENT “Human-bear coexistence in human dominated and politically fragmented landscapes.” Ljubljana, 16 - 21 September 2018 Conference Venue: The Grand Hotel Union Coordinator: Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Biology Department, Ljubljana, Slovenia Members: Alexandros A. Karamanlidis, ARCTUROS, Civil Society for the Protection and Management of Wildlife and the Natural Environment, Aetos, Greece & Rewilding Europe, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Anja Molinari Jobin, Italian Lynx Project, Tarvisio, Italy Claudio Groff, Servizio Foreste e Fauna – Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Italy Đuro Huber, Biology Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Croatia Frank T. van Manen, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Bozeman, Montana, USA Ivan Kos, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Biology Department, Ljubljana, Slovenia Georg Rauer, Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria Klemen Jerina, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Forestry Department, Ljubljana, Slovenia Marta De Barba, Univ.
    [Show full text]