Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey
Abstract Previous tests of the automated acoustic device, referred to as a howlbox, effectively identified the presence of wolves (Canis lupus) during the summer, near rendezvous sites. Howlboxes are self‐contained devices that broadcast simulated wolf howls and record howls made in response, and ar...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2013-06-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.269 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846120353550565376 |
|---|---|
| author | Angela Brennan Paul C. Cross David E. Ausband Andrea Barbknecht Scott Creel |
| author_facet | Angela Brennan Paul C. Cross David E. Ausband Andrea Barbknecht Scott Creel |
| author_sort | Angela Brennan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Previous tests of the automated acoustic device, referred to as a howlbox, effectively identified the presence of wolves (Canis lupus) during the summer, near rendezvous sites. Howlboxes are self‐contained devices that broadcast simulated wolf howls and record howls made in response, and are of interest in remote locations to document the presence of dispersing wolves and new wolf packs. It is unclear whether the howlbox can also detect wolves during the winter when wolves are more mobile. We tested the howlbox's ability to detect wolves in an area with approximately 3 wolves/100 km2 and overlapping pack territories in western Wyoming, USA, during January–May 2011. Howlboxes detected wolves in only 1.1% (n = 185, 95% CI = 0.1–3.8%) of the surveys, but we recorded wolf tracks within 50 m of howlboxes 14.8% (n = 54, 95% CI = 6.6–27.1%) of the time. Though howlboxes seldom recorded wolf howls, our findings suggest the possibility that howlboxes may attract wolves in areas with overlapping pack territories during the winter. © 2013 The Wildlife Society. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4e4d9794cb704d3887bdd2e8b90abd21 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-4e4d9794cb704d3887bdd2e8b90abd212024-12-16T11:45:50ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402013-06-0137238939310.1002/wsb.269Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf surveyAngela Brennan0Paul C. Cross1David E. Ausband2Andrea Barbknecht3Scott Creel4Department of EcologyMontana State UniversityBozemanMT59717USAUnited States Geological SurveyNorthern Rocky Mountain Science Center2327 University Way, Suite 2BozemanMT59715USAMontana Cooperative Wildlife Research UnitUniversity of Montana205 Natural Sciences BuildingMissoulaMT59812USAUnited States Forest Service808 Meadowlane AvenueCodyWY82414USADepartment of EcologyMontana State UniversityBozemanMT59717USAAbstract Previous tests of the automated acoustic device, referred to as a howlbox, effectively identified the presence of wolves (Canis lupus) during the summer, near rendezvous sites. Howlboxes are self‐contained devices that broadcast simulated wolf howls and record howls made in response, and are of interest in remote locations to document the presence of dispersing wolves and new wolf packs. It is unclear whether the howlbox can also detect wolves during the winter when wolves are more mobile. We tested the howlbox's ability to detect wolves in an area with approximately 3 wolves/100 km2 and overlapping pack territories in western Wyoming, USA, during January–May 2011. Howlboxes detected wolves in only 1.1% (n = 185, 95% CI = 0.1–3.8%) of the surveys, but we recorded wolf tracks within 50 m of howlboxes 14.8% (n = 54, 95% CI = 6.6–27.1%) of the time. Though howlboxes seldom recorded wolf howls, our findings suggest the possibility that howlboxes may attract wolves in areas with overlapping pack territories during the winter. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.269abundanceCanis lupusdistributionGreater Yellowstone Ecosystemhowling surveynoninvasive survey |
| spellingShingle | Angela Brennan Paul C. Cross David E. Ausband Andrea Barbknecht Scott Creel Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey Wildlife Society Bulletin abundance Canis lupus distribution Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem howling survey noninvasive survey |
| title | Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey |
| title_full | Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey |
| title_fullStr | Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey |
| title_full_unstemmed | Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey |
| title_short | Testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey |
| title_sort | testing automated howling devices in a wintertime wolf survey |
| topic | abundance Canis lupus distribution Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem howling survey noninvasive survey |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.269 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT angelabrennan testingautomatedhowlingdevicesinawintertimewolfsurvey AT paulccross testingautomatedhowlingdevicesinawintertimewolfsurvey AT davideausband testingautomatedhowlingdevicesinawintertimewolfsurvey AT andreabarbknecht testingautomatedhowlingdevicesinawintertimewolfsurvey AT scottcreel testingautomatedhowlingdevicesinawintertimewolfsurvey |