Wolf habitat selection at the territory level : seasonal and interannual variation and influence on reproductive success

Habitat selection has been one of the main research topics in ecology for decades. Nevertheless, many aspects of habitat selection still need to be explored. In particular, previous studies have overlooked the importance of temporal variation in habitat selection and the value of including data on reproductive success in order to describe the best quality habitat for a species. We used data collected from radiocollared wolves in Yellowstone National Park (USA), between 1996 and 2008, to describe wolf habitat selection. In particular, we aimed to identify i) seasonal differences in wolf habitat selection, ii) factors influencing interannual variation in habitat selection, and iii) the effect of habitat selection on wolf reproductive success. We used probability density functions to describe wolf habitat use and habitat coverages to represent the habitat available to wolves. We used regression analysis to connect habitat use with habitat characteristics and habitat selection with reproductive success. Our most relevant result was discovering strong interannual variability in wolf habitat selection. This variability was in part explained by pack identity and differences in litter size and leadership of a pack between two years (summer) and in pack size and precipitation (winter). We also detected some seasonal differences. Wolves selected open habitats, intermediate elevations, intermediate distances from roads, and avoided steep slopes in late winter. They selected areas close to roads and avoided steep slopes in summer. In early winter, wolves selected wetlands, herbaceous and shrub vegetation types, and areas at intermediate elevation and distance from roads. Surprisingly, the habitat characteristics selected by wolves were not useful in predicting reproductive success. We hypothesize that interannual variability in wolf habitat selection may be too strong to detect effects on reproductive success. Moreover, prey availability and competitor pressure may also have an influence on wolf reproductive success, which we did not assess. This project demonstrated how important temporal variation is in shaping patterns of habitat selection. We still believe in the value of running long-term studies, but the effect of temporal variation should always be taken into account.

ANALYSIS OF POPULUS TREMULOIDES CLONAL VARIATION AND DELINEATION IN THE OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST

The technique of delineating Populus tremuloides (Michx.) clonal colonies based on morphology and phenology has been utilized in many studies and forestry applications since the 1950s. Recently, the availability and robustness of molecular markers has challenged the validity of such approaches for accurate clonal identification. However, genetically sampling an entire stand is largely impractical or impossible. For that reason, it is often necessary to delineate putative genet boundaries for a more selective approach when genetically analyzing a clonal population. Here I re-evaluated the usefulness of phenotypic delineation by: (1) genetically identifying clonal colonies using nuclear microsatellite markers, (2) assessing phenotypic inter- and intraclonal agreement, and (3) determining the accuracy of visible characters to correctly assign ramets to their respective genets. The long-term soil productivity study plot 28 was chosen for analysis and is located in the Ottawa National Forest, MI (46° 37'60.0" N, 89° 12'42.7" W). In total, 32 genets were identified from 181 stems using seven microsatellite markers. The average genet size was 5.5 ramets and six of the largest were selected for phenotypic analyses. Phenotypic analyses included budbreak timing, DBH, bark thickness, bark color or brightness, leaf senescence, leaf serrations, and leaf length ratio. All phenotypic characters, except for DBH, were useful for the analysis of inter- and intraclonal variation and phenotypic delineation. Generally, phenotypic expression was related to genotype with multiple response permutation procedure (MRPP) intraclonal distance values ranging from 0.148 and 0.427 and an observed MRPP delta value=0.221 when the expected delta=0.5. The phenotypic traits, though, overlapped significantly among some clones. When stems were assigned into phenotypic groups, six phenotypic groups were identified with each group containing a dominant genotype or clonal colony. All phenotypic groups contained stems from at least two clonal colonies and no clonal colony was entirely contained within one phenotypic group. These results demonstrate that phenotype varies with genotype and stand clonality can be determined using phenotypic characters, but phenotypic delineation is less precise. I therefore recommend that some genetic identification follow any phenotypic delineation. The amount of genetic identification required for clonal confirmation is likely to vary based on stand and environmental conditions. Further analysis, however, is needed to test these findings in other forest stands and populations.