Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Biological Conservation Manuscript Draft Manuscript Number: BIOC-D-09-00365R2 Title: Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs Article Type: Full Length Article Keywords: human-caused mortality; kinship; social structure; protection; social behaviour; eastern wolves; social restoration Corresponding Author: Ms. Linda Y. Rutledge, Corresponding Author's Institution: Trent University First Author: Linda Y Rutledge Order of Authors: Linda Y Rutledge; Brent R Patterson; Kenneth J Mills; Karen M Loveless; Dennis L Murray; Bradley N White Abstract: Legal and illegal killing of animals near park borders can significantly increase the threat of extirpation for populations living within ecological reserves, especially for wide-ranging large carnivores that regularly travel into unprotected areas. While the consequences of human-caused mortality near protected areas generally focus on numerical responses, little attention has been given to impacts on social dynamics. For wolves, pack structure typically constitutes an unrelated breeding pair, their offspring, and close relatives, but intense harvest may increase adoption of unrelated individuals into packs. Concerns that high human-caused mortality outside Algonquin Park, Canada threatened the persistence of eastern wolves, led to implementation of a harvest ban in surrounding townships. We combined ecological and genetic data to show that reducing anthropogenic causes of mortality can restore the natural social structure of kin-based groups despite the absence of a marked change in density. Since implementation of the harvest ban, human-caused mortality has decreased (P = 0.000006) but been largely offset by natural mortality, such that wolf density has remained relatively constant at approximately 3 wolves/100 km2. However, the number of wolf packs with unrelated adopted animals has decreased from 80% to 6% (P = 0.00003). Despite the high kinship within packs, incestuous matings were rare. Our results indicate that even in a relatively large protected area, human harvesting outside park boundaries can affect evolutionarily important social patterns within protected areas. This research demonstrates the need for conservation policy to consider effects of harvesting beyond influences on population size.
Cover Letter
Dr. Richard B. Primack Editor-in-Chief Biological Conservation Biology Department Boston University 5 Cummington Street Boston, MA 02215, USA Phone: 1-617-353-2454 E-mail:
[email protected]
Linda Rutledge Corresponding Author Natural Resources DNA Profiling & Forensic Centre Trent University DNA Building 2140 East Bank Drive Peterborough, ON, Canada K9J 7B8 Phone: (705) 755-2258 Fax: (705) 748-1132 E-mail:
[email protected]
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Dear Dr. Primack, Thank you for the recent comments on the resubmission of our manuscript “Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs” (MS Ref No BIOC-D-09-00365R1). We have addressed the concern of reviewer #3 by changing the wording of lines 299-300 from: “we consider the social restoration of pack structure to be a positive response to the harvest ban because it indicates a naturally-functioning ecosystem; a primary goal of Ontario Parks, the agency responsible for management of provincial parks” to read “we consider the social restoration of pack structure to be a positive response to the harvest ban because it represents an important element of a naturally-functioning ecosystem, the maintenance of which is a primary goal for Ontario Parks, the agency responsible for management of provincial parks; this social component may stimulate natural regulation at other trophic levels”. We hope you find this revision suitable. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Linda Rutledge Corresponding Author
*Revision Notes
Revision notes for manuscript “Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs” (MS Ref No BIOC-D-09-00365R1). Reviewer #3: We have addressed the concern of reviewer #3 by changing lines 299-300 from: “we consider the social restoration of pack structure to be a positive response to the harvest ban because it indicates a naturally-functioning ecosystem; a primary goal of Ontario Parks, the agency responsible for management of provincial parks” to: “we consider the social restoration of pack structure to be a positive response to the harvest ban because it represents an important element of a naturallyfunctioning ecosystem, the maintenance of which is a primary goal for Ontario Parks, the agency responsible for management of provincial parks; this social component may stimulate natural regulation at other trophic levels”.
1
*Manuscript
1
Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern
2
wolf packs
3
Linda Y. Rutledge*a (
[email protected]), Brent R. Pattersonb (
[email protected]),
4
Kenneth J. Millsa,c (
[email protected]), Karen M. Lovelessa
5
(
[email protected]), Dennis L. Murrayd (
[email protected]) and Bradley N.
6
Whitee (
[email protected])
7
* Corresponding Author: Trent University, DNA Building, 2140 East Bank Drive,
8
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8, E-mail:
[email protected]; Phone: 001-705-755-
9
2258; Fax: 705-748-1132
10
a
11
Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8
12
b
13
University, DNA Building, 2140 East Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8
14
c
15
USA 82941
16
d
17
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8
18
e
19
2140 East Bank Drive , Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 7B8
20
Running Title: Protection restores kinship in wolf packs
21
Keywords: human-caused mortality, kinship, social structure, protection, social behaviour,
22
eastern wolves, social restoration
Environmental and Life Sciences Program, Trent University, DNA Building, 2140 East
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Research and Development Section, Trent
Present Address: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, PO Box 850, Pinedale, Wyoming,
Biology Department, Trent University, DNA Building, 2140 East Bank Drive,
Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, Trent University, DNA Building,
23
1
24
Abstract
25
Legal and illegal killing of animals near park borders can significantly increase the threat of
26
extirpation for populations living within ecological reserves, especially for wide-ranging
27
large carnivores that regularly travel into unprotected areas. While the consequences of
28
human-caused mortality near protected areas generally focus on numerical responses, little
29
attention has been given to impacts on social dynamics. For wolves, pack structure typically
30
constitutes an unrelated breeding pair, their offspring, and close relatives, but intense harvest
31
may increase adoption of unrelated individuals into packs. Concerns that high human-caused
32
mortality outside Algonquin Park, Canada threatened the persistence of eastern wolves, led to
33
implementation of a harvest ban in surrounding townships. We combined ecological and
34
genetic data to show that reducing anthropogenic causes of mortality can restore the natural
35
social structure of kin-based groups despite the absence of a marked change in density. Since
36
implementation of the harvest ban, human-caused mortality has decreased (P = 0.000006) but
37
been largely offset by natural mortality, such that wolf density has remained relatively
38
constant at approximately 3 wolves/100 km2. However, the number of wolf packs with
39
unrelated adopted animals has decreased from 80% to 6% (P = 0.00003). Despite the high
40
kinship within packs, incestuous matings were rare. Our results indicate that even in a
41
relatively large protected area, human harvesting outside park boundaries can affect
42
evolutionarily important social patterns within protected areas. This research demonstrates
43
the need for conservation policy to consider effects of harvesting beyond influences on
44
population size.
45
2
46 47
1. Introduction Conservation and management strategies, including decisions to remove species from
48
endangered lists, are largely based on estimates of population size and sustainable harvest
49
(Pyare and Berger 2003; Whitman et al. 2004; Isaac and Cowlishaw 2004; Patterson and
50
Murray 2008). There is, however, growing evidence that maintenance of family groups
51
within species that exhibit kin-based social structure can have fitness benefits associated with
52
the adaptive evolution of sociality (Pope 2000; Silk 2007; Gobush et al. 2008). Despite the
53
potential importance of kinship, the role of social groups in long-term population persistence
54
is routinely overlooked (Haber 1996). In protected areas, exploitation near park borders
55
further complicate conservation efforts because these edge effects can significantly increase
56
risk of extirpation, especially for carnivores that have large home ranges (Woodroffe and
57
Ginsberg 1998).
58
In the absence of strong harvest pressure, wolf packs (Canis lupus, C. lycaon and
59
their hybrids) are typically kin-based (Mech and Boitani 2003). Although some variability in
60
this model has been reported (Meier et al. 1995; Forbes and Boyd 1997), exceptions are rare
61
in naturally-regulated populations. High mortality from hunting and trapping may, however,
62
disrupt this natural social structure by prompting the adoption of unrelated animals into wolf
63
packs (Grewal et al. 2004; Jedrzejewski et al. 2005). Thus, anthropogenic influences may
64
play an important role in the social structure of kin-based species. In fact, due to the high
65
propensity for compensatory demographic responses in wolf populations subject to
66
exploitation (e.g. Fuller et al. 2003; Adams et al. 2008), marked changes in wolf population
67
social structure, including those related to kinship within packs and/or inbreeding, may occur
68
even in the absence of numerical changes. This compensatory paradigm provides an
69
important challenge for the restoration and maintenance of not only viable, but also naturally-
70
functioning, populations where fitness is likely to be optimized when evolutionary adaptation
3
71
is driven by natural rather than artificial (i.e. human-mediated) selection pressures (Darimont
72
et al. 2009).
73
The eastern wolf (C. lycaon) is designated as a species of special concern by the
74
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) under Canada’s
75
Species at Risk Act (SARA). One of the largest protected areas (7571 km2) for eastern
76
wolves is Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) in Ontario, where 200 – 300 resident wolves
77
have been influenced by hybridization with gray-eastern wolf hybrids (C. lupus x lycaon) that
78
occur north of the park, and with eastern coyotes (C. latrans var.) south and west of the park
79
(Grewal et al. 2004; Wilson et al. 2009). Between 1987 – 1999, eastern wolves in APP
80
suffered high mortality (56-66%) from hunting and trapping when they left the park to hunt
81
deer outside park boundaries (Forbes and Theberge 1996; Theberge et al. 2006). It was
82
speculated that this intense harvest was responsible for low kinship within packs (Grewal et
83
al. 2004) and that extirpation of wolves in APP was likely if human-caused mortality was not
84
curbed (Vucetich and Paquet 2000; Patterson and Murray 2008). In December 2001, due to
85
prevalent concern for the long-term viability of wolves in APP, the Government of Ontario,
86
amidst much public controversy, banned wolf harvest in townships adjacent to APP, thereby
87
increasing the protected area for park wolves by 6340 km2 (Fig. 1). The purpose of this study
88
was to determine whether wolf pack structure changed in APP following inception of the
89
harvest ban. Specifically, we used previously published data (Grewal et al. 2004) combined
90
with current field data and genetic profiles to test the hypothesis that the ban elicited
91
measurable effects on wolf pack structure. We predicted that extending protection for wolves
92
into areas previously experiencing high human-caused mortality would prompt the renewal
93
of kin-based wolf packs and initiate the restoration of a natural social structure for wolves in
94
APP.
95
2. Materials and Methods
4
96 97
2.1. Study area The 2700 km2 Continuous Study Area (CSA) surveyed consists of rolling hills on the
98
southern margins of the Canadian Shield. The area is forested with pines (Pinus strobus, P.
99
resinosa, P. banksiana), shade-intolerant hardwoods (Acer rubra, Populus tremuloides, P.
100
grandidentata, Betula papyrifera) and lowland conifers (Abies balsamea, Picea glauca, P.
101
mariana). On moister uplands, shade-tolerant hardwoods (Acer saccharum, Betula
102
alleghaniensis), along with Tsuga canadensis predominate. Lakes, rivers and ponds are
103
common. Although we monitored wolves across the entire park during 2002 – 2007, for
104
comparability we consider here population trend and cause of death data only for an area of
105
eastern Algonquin (881 – 2635 km2) that corresponded with the previously described CSA
106
(Theberge and Theberge 2004). It should be noted that packs used for pedigree analysis in
107
this study include wolves monitored outside the CSA and therefore the sample size for
108
animals included in the post-ban pedigree analysis (n=138) is higher than that used for the
109
post-ban density and proportional mortality data (n=112).
110
2.2. Wolf Population Density and Determination of Causes of Death.
111
Wolf population density within the CSA was estimated during eleven consecutive
112
years prior to the harvest ban (1989 – 1999) using territory mapping as described by
113
Theberge and Theberge (2004). Territories were defined based on 95% minimum convex
114
polygon (MCP; Mohr 1947) to exclude locations resulting from off-territory excursions
115
(Bekoff and Mech 1984; Potvin 1988). The effective sampling area varied annually but
116
averaged ~1250 km2. For each year’s population estimate, a census area was defined by a
117
concave polygon enclosing all adjacent territories within the study area. The total number of
118
wolves (including both territorial and non-territorial animals) was summed in the census area
119
(Messier 1985; Ballard et al. 1987; Fuller 1989) with density (Nt), given as wolves/100 km2,
120
estimated as the summed maximum pack sizes plus the estimated number of lone wolves in
5
121
the area, divided by the census area (Mech 1973; Fuller 1989). The number of lone wolves in
122
the area was estimated from the proportion of lone wolves among the radio-collared sample
123
in the study area each year. Confidence intervals are not included with density estimates
124
because they were unavailable for the pre-ban dataset (see Theberge and Theberge 2004).
125
We employed the same methods described above to post-ban data to estimate wolf
126
density in an area of eastern Algonquin (881 – 2635 km2) similar to the CSA during winters
127
2003 – 2007. We radio-tagged 112 wolves within this study area between August 2002 and
128
February 2007 as described by Patterson et al. (2004). Each wolf was fit either with a VHF
129
radiocollar (Holohil Systems Ltd., Woodlawn, Ontario, Canada and Lotek Engineering Inc.,
130
Newmarket, Ontario, Canada) weighing approximately 400 g, or Lotek model 4400S or M
131
GPS collars (weighing approximately 500 and 950 g, respectively, Lotek Engineering, Inc.,
132
Newmarket, Ontario) that were scheduled to obtain fixes at approximately 90 minute
133
intervals during November – April. Additionally, young pups were manually captured from
134
their natal dens and weighed, sexed, and implanted with a VHF radio-transmitter (2 x 8 cm,
135
Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN or Telonics, Inc., Mesa, AZ) in the peritoneal
136
cavity (Crawshaw et al. 2007). All radio transmitters contained mortality switches that
137
doubled the signal pulse rate if the transmitter remained motionless for >7 hours. Wolf
138
capture and handling procedures were approved by the Ontario Ministry of Natural
139
Resources’ animal care committee (permit nos. 02-75, 03-75, 04-75, 05-75, 06-75, 07-75).
140
We checked radio-tagged wolves for mortality signals from the ground or during
141
aerial tracking at <1-2 week intervals throughout the year, and when a mortality signal was
142
detected, we promptly visited the site on the ground. Cause of death for each wolf was
143
determined by assessing evidence at the mortality site and detailed necropsies conducted by
144
personnel from the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, University of Guelph.
145
2.3. DNA Extraction and Amplification.
6
146
Blood samples were collected during radio-collaring activities conducted from
147
August 2002 – January 4, 2007. DNA was extracted from 205 samples; 196 from blood on
148
FTA cards or blood clots and 9 from pulled hair, with a DNEasy Blood and Tissue Extraction
149
Kit (Qiagen, Mississauga, Canada). Of these, 138 were affiliated with packs and were
150
included in kinship analyses. Hair was cut into lengths of approximately 2 cm and placed
151
directly into 500 L 1X lysis buffer (4 M urea, 0.2 M NaCl, 0.5% n-lauroyl sarcosine, 10
152
mM CDTA (1,2-cyclohexanediamine), 0.1 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.0). Two 6 mm diameter hole
153
punches from the whole blood on FTA paper were placed in 500 L 1X lysis buffer and then
154
DNA was extracted according to manufacturer’s directions. For the blood clots, 350 – 400
155
mg was removed from the top portion of the clot to increase the chance of obtaining the
156
buffer coat layer where the majority of white blood cells remain after centrifugation. The clot
157
was fragmented with a scalpel blade, placed in 1 mL of 1X lysis buffer in a 15 mL tube, and
158
rotated at 37 °C overnight (12 – 18 hours). A 500 L subsample of lysate was removed and
159
placed in 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes. Proteinase K (2.4 Units) was added and samples were
160
incubated at 65°C for 1 hour with pulse vortexing after 30 minutes and at the end of 1 hour.
161
Samples were then transferred to a 65 °C water bath inside a 37 °C incubator for one hour to
162
allow slow cooling to 37 °C, at which time a second aliquot of proteinase K (2.4 Units) was
163
added to each sample followed by pulse vortexing and incubation at 37 °C overnight. A 250
164
L subsample was removed and placed in new 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes. DNA extraction
165
from the blood clots from this point on was according to manufacturers directions. All
166
samples were quantified with PicogreenTM (Molecular Probes) (Ahn et al. 1996) and
167
subsequently diluted to 2.5 ng/ L. For those samples below the threshold of 3 ng/ L, the
168
undiluted extract was used in PCR and quantified by gel fluorescence with ethidium bromide
169
(Ball et al. 2007) to ensure that all samples had between 0.5 – 5 ng of template DNA for each
170
PCR. We amplified a 343 – 347 bp fragment of the mitochondrial DNA control region 7
171
(Wilson et al. 2000) to assign maternal haplotypes, a 658 bp section of the Y-intron (Shami
172
2002) and 4 Y-microsatellites (Sundqvist et al. 2001) to track paternal inheritance, and 16
173
autosomal microsatellite loci (cxx377, cxx172, cxx123, cxx109, cxx225, cxx250, cxx200,
174
cxx204, cxx147, cxx253, cxx383, cxx410, cxx442, c2010, cph11, c2202) (Grewal et al.
175
2004) to determine individual genotypes and bi-parental inheritance. Amplified fragments
176
were size-separated and visualized on a MegaBace 1000 (GE Healthcare, Baie d’Urfé,
177
Quebec), sequences were edited in BioEdit 7.0.9 (Hall 2007) and genotypes were scored in
178
GeneMarker 7.1 (SoftGenetics, State College, PA).
179
2.4. Parentage and Kinship Analysis
180
All pre-ban data relating to kinship within packs was taken from Grewal et al. (2004).
181
A pack was defined as ≥3 individuals living concurrently within a group. Pack affiliations
182
were determined using multiple telemetry locations and ground tracking, as well as visual
183
observations made during telemetry tracking flights. Specifically, pack affiliations were
184
inferred when the animals in question were located together, within a common territory,
185
during >75% locations over a period extending > 30 days. In two cases (W113/C4361 in
186
McKaskill and W195/C4443 in Pretty; Supplementary Figures 1k, 1n), male individuals
187
unrelated to other pack members were not considered adopted because their presence was
188
confirmed only after contact was lost (due to dispersal, death, or collar failure) with the
189
breeder of the same sex; in such cases we could not rule out the possibility that the new
190
individual was replacing the “lost” animal as the breeder.
191
Samples genotyped at fewer than 8 loci were not included in the analysis (n = 4, all
192
from hair) to ensure high probability of identity, and an additional 5 samples were excluded
193
because they represented previously sampled animals. A total of 196 animals were included
194
in the parentage analysis; overall, missing data accounted for 1.4% of the dataset. The
195
autosomal microsatellite dataset was assessed for genotyping errors with MicroChecker
8
196
(VanOosterhout et al. 2004). To test the power of our dataset for individual identification, we
197
calculated the probability of identity (PID) and probability of identity for siblings (PIDsibs)
198
(Taberlet and Luikart 1999) in GenAlEx 6.1 (Peakall and Smouse 2006). In the parentage
199
analysis, females were excluded as the mother if the mitochondrial haplotype was
200
inconsistent with the putative offspring, and males were excluded as the candidate father of
201
male pups if either the Y-intron haplotype or Y-microsatellites were inconsistent with those
202
of the putative offspring. We then utilized two different methods to assign parents: 1) the
203
exclusion method, considered the “paragon” of parentage analysis (Jones and Ardren 2003)
204
but can result in false exclusions (Pompanon et al. 2005), and 2) a maximum likelihood
205
approach (95% confidence) implemented in CERVUS 3.0.3 (Kalinowski et al. 2007).
206
CERVUS is a robust parentage analysis software package that accounts for rare alleles,
207
genotyping errors, and null alleles by using simulations to statistically assign the most likely
208
parent among all non-excluded parents. Paternity simulations generated 100,000 offspring
209
with 100 candidate males (assuming a park population estimate of 200 animals and a 1:1 sex
210
ratio) and assuming 57% of the population was sampled (based on 57 males ≥1 year sampled
211
over a 5-year period and an average 5-year lifespan) and allowed a standard error rate of
212
0.010. We used KINSHIP 1.3.1 (Goodnight and Queller 1999) to test the hypothesis that
213
individuals within packs were more likely to be related at the half-sibling and full-sibling
214
level than unrelated based on a simulation series of 10,000 pairs generated from allele
215
frequency calculations of 124 adults (pups excluded). KINSHIP uses relatedness (r) values,
216
allele frequencies, and comparative genotypes to calculate the likelihood of the relationship
217
hypothesis being tested. Pairs that were assigned as not significant (based on a critical P-
218
value of 0.05) in the test of half-siblings were considered unrelated. Where relatedness was
219
indicated but specific kinship was unclear, we used ML-Relate (Kalinowski et al. 2006), a
220
program that accommodates null alleles and uses simulations and a maximum likelihood
9
221
approach, to test hypotheses between putative and alternative relationships, to assign the most
222
probable relationships based on 10,000 simulations.
223
When comparing mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes (Fig. 3), for
224
pre-ban data (1995 – 2001) all animals sampled in 2 – 5 of 6 consecutive years were included
225
(pups were not sampled from the den); for post-ban data (2002 – 2007) (Figs. 3 and 4) pups
226
sampled from the den were excluded unless they were confirmed in the pack 1 year later.
227
3. Results
228
3.1 Wolf Population Density and Causes of Death
229
In winter 2003, approximately 14 months after initiation of the harvest ban, we estimated
230
wolf density in eastern APP at approximately 3 wolves/100 km2 (Fig. 2), suggesting an
231
average rate of increase (rt) = 0.20 between 1999 and 2003. However, no further increases in
232
density were observed between 2003 – 2007 despite a marked reduction in mortality from
233
hunting and trapping within the ban area and park during this period (Table 1; P = 0.000006).
234
This was due in part to natural causes largely replacing anthropogenic causes as the leading
235
mortality agents for wolves following inception of the harvest ban (B.R. Patterson et al.
236
unpublished data; Table 1).
237
3.2. Parentage and Kinship
238
The mean level of observed heterozygosity for APP wolves sampled post-ban was high (HO =
239
0.687) and similar to the levels of 0.694 – 0.725 reported by VonHoldt et al. (2008) for non-
240
inbred wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Grewal et al. (2004) also reported high levels of
241
heterozygosity during the pre-ban time period, although no estimates were given. No loci
242
showed a significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium after Bonferroni
243
correction. Probability of identity among siblings was low (PIDsibs = 1.06 x 10-6) indicating
244
that full-siblings in this group were unlikely to have the same genotype. We created
245
pedigrees for 138 individuals living in 17 packs over a 5-year period (Supplementary Figure
10
246
1a-1q). Parent-offspring relationships were identified in all 17 packs, nine of which had both
247
breeders identified. Only one pack (Cauliflower; Supplementary Figure 1e) had an animal
248
that was unrelated to the breeder. This female yearling was the only unrelated adult of the 59
249
non-breeding adults identified within all of the 17 packs over the 5-year period. Further, this
250
female dispersed in March 2003, the first winter of our study, and subsequently became a
251
breeding female in another territory along the southern edge of our study area. The overall
252
proportion of packs that had adopted unrelated animals (here defined as unrelated at the half
253
sibling level) decreased significantly post-ban (Table 1; P = 0.00003) demonstrating that
254
post-ban packs are less likely to adopt unrelated animals.
255
We found that incestuous matings were generally avoided despite high kinship within
256
packs. Only two of the 17 post-ban packs had related breeding pairs: one had a half-sibling
257
breeding pair (Beechnut; Supplementary Figure 1b) and another had a full-sibling breeding
258
pair (Louisa; Supplementary Figure 1j). There were three packs in which daughters became
259
subsequent breeders: two while the mother was still in the pack (Cauliflower and Leaf;
260
Supplementary Figures 1e, 1i) and one after the mother dispersed (LaFleur; Supplementary
261
Figure 1h). In one case the full sibling of the breeding male (both unrelated to the breeding
262
female) replaced his brother as breeder while the brother was still in the pack (Jocko;
263
Supplementary Figure 1g). In two cases (W113/C4361 in McKaskill, W195/C4443 in Pretty;
264
Supplementary Figures 1k, 1n) a male unrelated to all others in the pack was identified within
265
the pack after the death of the breeding male, and in one instance (W131/C4379 in Achray,
266
Supplementary Figure 1a) a male unrelated to the breeders was caught in the pack after
267
contact was lost with the breeding male, and in this case the new male became the breeder.
268
Within 5 packs known to occupy the same territory both prior to, and following, the
269
harvest ban, single mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in females were more common post-ban
270
(Fig. 3). Single Y haplotypes were common during both time periods but where a second Y
11
271
haplotype was documented in post-ban packs (Pretty and McKaskill) it was found in an
272
unrelated animal caught after the death of the breeding male (Fig. 3). This pattern was similar
273
in the other post-ban packs studied (Fig. 4). In Big Crow, the BB Y-haplotype was found in
274
animals caught after the death of the male with the CG Y-haplotype, and in Sunday the Y-
275
haplotypes represent two pairs of full siblings of which brothers with the BB Y-haplotype
276
were documented in the territory after the brothers with the AA Y-haplotype had dispersed or
277
died (Fig. 4). The C9 mtDNA haplotype in Cauliflower (Fig. 4) represents the one non-
278
breeding adult found that was unrelated to the female breeder in the pack.
279 280
4. Discussion
281
Our results suggest that high levels of hunting and trapping of wolves outside the borders of
282
Algonquin Provinical Park prior to the harvest ban were responsible for the low kinship
283
observed within packs. Extending protection for APP wolves has, therefore, helped restore a
284
more naturally structured population consisting of family-based wolf packs, despite stable
285
wolf densities since implementation of the ban. More specifically, adoption of unrelated
286
animals into packs is almost non-existent in the current population.
287
The restoration of a family-based social structure in APP, including the pattern of
288
female recruitment from within the pack but acceptance of unrelated immigrant males,
289
presumably as potential breeders after breeder loss, is congruent with naturally-regulated
290
gray wolf populations in park preserves where wolves have legal protection such as
291
Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming (VonHoldt et al. 2008) and the Białowieża Primeval
292
Forest in Poland (Jedrzejewski et al. 2005). Also in concordance with wolf studies in Denali
293
National Park in Alaska, Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota, and
294
Yellowstone National Park (Smith et al. 1997; VonHoldt et al. 2008), incestuous matings in
12
295
APP were generally avoided despite high kinship within packs. Together, these results
296
indicate that the natural social fabric has been restored for wolves in Algonquin.
297
Although the long-term viability of APP wolves has been the subject of some debate
298
(see Theberge et al. 2006; Patterson and Murray 2008), we consider the social restoration of
299
pack structure to be a positive response to the harvest ban because it represents an important
300
element of a naturally-functioning ecosystem, the maintenance of which is a primary goal for
301
Ontario Parks, the agency responsible for management of provincial parks; this social
302
component may stimulate natural regulation at other trophic levels. In general, assessments of
303
population viability typically focus on numerical responses and estimates of sustainable
304
harvest (Pyare and Berger 2003; Whitman et al. 2004; Theberge et al. 2006; Isaac and
305
Cowlishaw 2004; Patterson and Murray 2008), with the impacts of human exploitation on
306
social dynamics being largely ignored, even in highly social large mammals such as lions
307
(Whitman et al. 2004) and wolves (Haber 1996). There is, however, growing evidence
308
suggesting that maintaining kin relationships in socially structured populations is
309
evolutionarily important and can have positive effects on fitness (Silk 2007). For example,
310
female red howler monkeys (Alouatta sericulus) living in kin-based groups have higher
311
reproductive success than those living in unrelated groups (Pope 2000), and female elephants
312
(Loxodonta africana) in well established family groups with old matriarchs have lower levels
313
of stress hormones and higher reproductive output than those in groups that have been
314
socially disrupted by poaching (Gobush et al. 2008). Therefore, focussing solely on
315
abundance when assessing population status may ignore other potentially important factors
316
that can contribute to long-term fitness, and hence persistence, of populations.
317
Wolves are highly intelligent animals that have evolved under a family-based social
318
framework. Although the influence of this structure on fitness is not well understood, recent
319
work suggests that maintaining the social organization of wolf packs is important for
13
320
effective resource use (i.e. knowledge of prey distribution and ability to detect, pursue and
321
subdue prey) (Sand et al. 2006; Stahler et al. 2006), pup survival (Brainerd et al. 2008;
322
Schmidt et al. 2008), and may be effective, at least in part, at precluding hybridization with
323
coyotes (C. latrans) due to the lower turnover of individuals within packs and the tendency
324
during hybridization events for genes to flow from the more common into the rarer species
325
(Grant et al. 2005). Breeder loss is particularly influential and can result in abandonment of
326
territories, dissolution of social groups, and smaller pack size (Brainerd et al. 2008). Mate
327
loss can also result in unusual behavioural responses of the surviving breeder (Smith and
328
Ferguson 2005) or incestuous pairings if mate loss occurs close to breeding season
329
(VonHoldt et al. 2008).
330
Minimizing the anthropogenic impact on social structure in populations that form
331
highly related groups is likely to improve overall fitness by allowing evolutionary processes
332
to occur in response to natural selection, not human-mediated mortality (Darimont et al.
333
2009). In this way, conservation strategies can bolster the adaptive evolutionary potential of
334
populations facing environmental fluctuations, including climate change. When compared to
335
other conservation and management approaches such as translocations and habitat
336
restoration, reducing levels of exploitation by expanding no-harvest zones to include areas
337
outside park boundaries is a relatively simple, long-term solution to promote persistence of
338
top predators that are integral to healthy ecosystems (Terborgh et al. 2001, Soulé et al. 2003,
339
Chapron et al. 2008).
340
We conclude that the harvest ban around Algonquin has restored the natural social
341
structure of wolf packs in the park. Given the fitness benefits of kin-based groups in animals
342
that have evolved complex social patterns, these results are likely relevant to other socially
343
structured animal populations that experience high human-caused mortality near park
344
borders. Our results demonstrate the need for conservation policies that look beyond numbers
14
345
to include the subtler, but potentially important, impacts on social dynamics of wildlife.
346
Future work addressing the fitness elements associated with harvesting and the adaptive
347
evolution of family groups will add significantly to our understanding of how centuries of
348
harvesting have shaped the genetic evolutionary potential of Canis and other family-based
349
species.
350
Acknowledgements
351
Thank you to all the field crew and laboratory technicians who helped collect and process
352
samples. We are grateful to K. Middel for creating the map and to T. Frasier for his
353
comments on an early version of the manuscript. This research was funded by the Ontario
354
Ministry of Natural Resources, a Natural Sciences Engineering and Research Council of
355
Canada (NSERC) operating grant awarded to B. N. W. and an NSERC doctoral scholarship
356
awarded to L.Y.R.
357
References
358
Adams, L.G., Stephenson, R.O., Dale, B.W., Ahgook, R.T., Demma, D.J., 2008.
359
Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the Central Brooks
360
Range, Alaska. Wildlife Monogr. 170, 1-25.
361 362 363
Ahn, S.J., Costa, J., Emanuel, J.R., 1996. PicoGreen quantification of DNA: Effective evaluation of samples pre- or post- PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 2623-2325. Ball, M.C., Pither, R., Manseau, M., Clark, J., Petersen, S.D., Kingston, S., Morrill, N.,
364
Wilson, P., 2007. Characterization of target nuclear DNA from faeces reduces
365
technical issues associated with the assumptions of low-quality and quantity template.
366
Conserv. Genet. 8, 577-586.
367 368 369
Ballard, W.B., Whitman, J.S., Gardner, C.L., 1987. Ecology of an exploited wolf population in south-central Alaska. Wildlife Monogr. 98, 1-2. Bekoff, M., Mech, L.D., 1984. Simulation analyses of space use: home range estimates,
15
370 371
variability, and sample size. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 16, 32-37. Brainerd, S. M., Andrén, H., Bangs, E.E., Bradley, E.H., Fontaine, J.A., Hall, W.,
372
Iliopoulos, Y., Jimenez, M.D., Jozwiak, E.A., Liberg, O., 2008. The effects of
373
breeder loss on wolves. J. Wildl. Manage. 72, 89-98.
374 375 376
Chapron, G., Andrén, H., Liberg, O., 2008. Conserving top predators in ecosystems. Science 320, 47. Crawshaw, G.J., Mills, K.J., Mosley, C., Patterson, B.R., 2007. Field implantation of
377
intraperitoneal radiotransmitters in eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) pups using inhalation
378
anesthesia with sevoflurane. J. Wildl. Dis. 43, 711-718.
379
Darimont, C.T., Carlson, S.M., Kinnison, M.T., Paquet, P.C., Reimchen, T.E., Wilmers,
380
C.C., 2009. Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild. Proc.
381
Natl. Acad.Sci. U.S.A. 106, 952-954.
382 383 384 385 386
Forbes, G.J., Theberge, J.B., 1996. Cross-boundary management of Algonquin Park wolves. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1091-1097. Forbes, S.H., Boyd, D.K., 1997. Genetic structure and migration in native and reintroduced Rocky Mountain wolf populations. Conserv. Biol. 11, 1226-1234. Fuller, T.K., Mech, D.L., Cochrane, J.F., 2003. Wolf population dynamics, in: Mech, D.L.,
387
Boitaini, L. (Eds.), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of
388
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 161-191.
389 390 391
Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monogr. 105, 1-41. Gobush, K.S., Mutayoba, B.M., Wasser, S.K., 2008. Long-term impacts of poaching on
392
relatedness, stress physiology, and reproductive output of adult female African
393
elephants. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1590-1599.
16
394 395 396 397 398
Goodnight, K.F., Queller, D.C., 1999. Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Mol. Ecol. 8, 1231-1234. Grant, P.R., Grant, B.R., Petren, K. 2005. Hybridization in the recent past. Amer. Nat. 166, 56-67. Grewal, S.K., Wilson, P.J., Kung, T.K., Shami, K., Theberge, M.T., Theberge, J.B., White,
399
B.N., 2004. A genetic assessment of the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) in Algonquin
400
Provincial Park. J. Mammal. 85, 625-632.
401 402
Haber, G.C. 1996. Biological, conservation, and ethical implications of exploiting and controlling wolves. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1068-1081.
403
Hall, T. 2007. BioEdit v7. http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/BioEdit/BioEdit.html
404
Isaac, N.J.B., Cowlishaw, G., 2004. How species respond to multiple extinction threats.
405 406
Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 271, 1135-1141. Jędrzejewski, W., Branicki, W., Veit, C., Međugorac, I., Pilot, M., Bunevich, A.N.,
407
Jędrzejewska, B., Schmidt, K., Theuerkauf, J., Oyarma, H., Gula, R., Szymura, L.,
408
Förster, M., 2005. Genetic diversity and relatedness within packs in an intensely
409
hunted population of wolves Canis lupus. Acta Theriol. 50, 3-22.
410 411 412
Jones, A.G., Ardren, W.R., 2003. Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 12, 2511-2523. Kalinowski, S.T., Wagner, A.P., Taper, M.L., 2006. ML-Relate: a computer program for
413
maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6,
414
576-579.
415
Kalinowski, S.T., Taper, M.L., Marshall, T.C., 2007. Revising how the computer
416
program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity
417
assignment. Mol. Ecol. 16, 1099-1106.
418
Mech, L.D., Boitani, L., 2003. Wolf Social Ecology, in: Mech, D.L., Boitaini, L. (Eds.),
17
419
Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
420
pp. 1-34.
421
Mech, L.D. 1973. Wolf Numbers in the Superior National Forest of Minnesota. Research
422
Paper NC-97. St. Paul, MN: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
423
Forest Experiment Station.
424
Meier, R.J., Burch, J.W., Mech, D.L., Adams, L.G., 1995. Pack structure and genetic
425
relatedness among wolf packs in a naturally regulated population, in: Carbyn, L.N.,
426
Fritts, S.H., Seip, D.R. (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing
427
World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 293-302.
428 429 430 431
Messier, F. 1985. Social organization, spatial distribution, and population density of wolves in relation to moose density. Can. J. Zool. 65, 1068-1077. Mohr, C.O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am. Midl. Nat. 37, 223-249.
432
Patterson, B.R., Murray, D.L., 2008. Flawed population viability analysis can result in
433
misleading population assessment: A case study for wolves in Algonquin park,
434
Canada. Biol. Conserv. 141, 669-680.
435
Patterson, B.R., Quinn, N.W.S., Becker, E.F., Meier, D.B., 2004. Estimating wolf
436
densities in forested areas using network sampling of tracks in snow. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
437
32, 938-947.
438
Peakall, R., Smouse, P.E., 2006. GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population
439
genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 288-295.
440
Pompanon, F., Bonin, A., Bellemain, E., Taberlet, P., 2005. Genotyping errors: causes,
441 442
consequences and solutions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 847-859. Pope, T.R. 2000. Reproductive success increases with degree of kinship in cooperative
18
443
coalitions of female red howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus). Behav. Ecol.
444
Sociobiol. 48, 253-267.
445 446 447 448 449
Potvin, F. 1988. Wolf movements and population dynamics in Papineau-Labelle Reserve, Quebec. Can. J. Zool. 66, 1266-1273. Pyare, S., Berger, J., 2003. Beyond demography and delisting: ecological recovery for Yellowstone’s grizzly bears and wolves. Biol. Conserv. 113, 63-73. Sand, H., Wikenros, C., Wabakken, P., Liberg, O., 2006. Effects of hunting group size,
450
snow depth and age on the success of wolves hunting moose. Anim. Behav. 72, 781-
451
789.
452
Schmidt, K., Jędrzejewski, W., Theuerkauf, J., Kowalczyk, R., Okarma, H., Jędrzejewska,
453
B., 2008. Reproductive behaviour of wild-living wolves in Bialowieza Primeval
454
Forest (Poland). J. Ethol. 26, 69-78.
455
Shami, K. 2002. Evaluation of the change in distribution of the eastern timber wolf (Canis
456
lycaon) using the Y chromosome. MSc Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough,
457
Ontario Canada.
458 459 460 461 462 463
Silk, J.B., 2007. The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 362, 539-559. Smith, D.W., Ferguson, G., 2005. Decade of the Wolf: Returning the Wild to Yellowstone. The Lyons Press, Guilford, CT. Smith, D., Meier, T.J., Geffen, E., Mech, L.D., Burch, J.W., Adams, L.G., Wayne, R.K., 1997. Is incest common in gray wolf packs? Behav. Ecol. 8, 384-391.
464
Soulé, M.E., Estes, J.A., Berger, J., Martinez del Rio, C., 2003. Ecological effectiveness:
465
conservation goals for interactive species. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1238-1250.
466
Stahler, D.R., Smith, D.W., Guernsey, D.S., 2006. Foraging and Feeding Ecology of the
19
467
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): Lessons from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA.
468
J. Nutr. 36, 1923S.
469
Sundqvist, A.K., Ellegren, H., Olivier, M., Vilà, C., 2001. Y chromosome haplotyping in
470
Scandinavian wolves (Canis lupus) based on microsatellite markers. Mol. Ecol. 10,
471
1959-1966.
472 473
Taberlet, P., Luikart, G., 1999. Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 68, 41-55.
474
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nuñez V, P., Rao, J., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., Riveros, M.,
475
Ascanio, R., Adler, G.H., Lambert, T.D., Balbas, L., 2001. Ecological meltdown in
476
predator-free forest fragments. Science 294, 1923-1926.
477
Theberge, J.B., Theberge, M.T., 2004. The Wolves of Algonquin Park: A 12 year
478
Ecological Study. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
479
Ontario, Canada.
480
Theberge, J.B., Theberge, M.T., Vucetich, J.A., Paquet, P.C., 2006. Pitfalls of applying
481
adaptive management to a wolf population in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario.
482
Environ. Manage. 37, 451-460.
483
VanOosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W.F., Wills, D.P.M., Shipley, P., 2004. MICRO-
484
CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in
485
microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535-538.
486
VonHoldt, B.M., Stahler, D.R., Smith, D.W., Earl, D.A., Pollinger, J.P., Wayne, R.K.,
487
2008. The genealogy and genetic viability of reintroduced Yellowstone grey wolves.
488
Mol. Ecol. 17, 252-274.
489
Vucetich, J., Paquet, P., 2000. The demographic populations viability of Algonquin wolves.
490
Unpublished report prepared for the Algonquin Wolf Advisory Committee, [online]
491
URL: www.cpaws-ov.org/algonquinwolves/docs/vucetichpaquet.pdf (accessed 12
20
492 493 494 495 496 497
October 2007). Whitman, K., Starfield, A.M., Quadling, H.S., Packer, C., 2004. Sustainable trophy hunting of African lions. Nature 428, 175-178. Wilson, P.J., Grewal, S.K., Mallory, F.F., White, B.N., 2009. Genetic characterization of hybrid wolves across Ontario. J. Hered. 100, S80-S89. Wilson, P.J., Grewal, S., Lawford, I.D., Heal, J.N.M., Granacki, A.G., Pennock, D.,
498
Theberge, J.B., Theberge, M.T., Voigt, D.R., Waddell, W., Chambers, R.E., Paquet,
499
P.C., Goulet, G., Cluff, D., White, B.N., 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian
500
wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history
501
independent of the gray wolf. Can. J. Zool. 78, 2156-2166.
502 503
Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R., 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126.
504 505
21
506 Table 1. Impact of harvest ban on cause of deatha and adoption of unrelated wolves into packsb in Algonquin Park, Ontario. Number (%) of packs Number (%) of humanNumber (%) of Number of Time period that had unrelated caused deaths* natural deaths packs with ≥ 3 animals** Pre-Ban
42 (67)
21 (33)
15
12 (80)
Post-Ban
5 (16)
26 (84)
17
1 (5.9)
a
Data are from radio-collared animals. Pre-ban mortality data are based on an 11-year sampling period (1989 – 1999) (Theberge and Theberge 2004); post-ban mortality data are based on a 5-year sampling period (2002 – 2007). b Pre-ban pack data are based on sampling between 1987 – 2001 (Grewal et al. 2004); post-ban pack data are based on sampling between 2002 – 2007. * and ** indicate significance based on a two-tailed Fisher’s exact test (P = 0.000006 and P = 0.00003, respectively).
507 508
22
509
Figure Legends
510
Figure 1. Map of study area. Pack territories are fixed kernel home ranges and those outlined
511
in black represent packs compared in Figure 3. Deer wintering areas are occupied by deer in
512
early winter or when snow cover is light and less than 30 cm in depth; deer yards are the core
513
of the deer wintering areas and is used when movement of deer is restricted due to severe
514
weather conditions when snow depth is greater than 46 cm.
515 516
Figure 2. Wolf density in Algonquin Park, Canada. Pre-ban (1989 – 1999) data are from
517
Theberge and Theberge (2004). Post-ban data was collected after a hunting and trapping ban
518
was implemented in townships surrounding the park.
519 520
Figure 3. Comparison of pre- and post-ban haplotypes. Mitochondrial DNA control region
521
and Y-chromosome microsatellite haplotypes found in packs occupying the same territory
522
during pre- and post-ban time periods. Maternal haplotypes are based on the mitochondrial
523
DNA control region and paternal haplotypes are based on Y-microsatellites. Where different,
524
the pre-ban pack name is included in parentheses.
525 526
Figure 4. Maternal and paternal haplotypes in post-ban packs. These packs are in addition to
527
those shown in Fig. 3. * indicates inferred haplotype based on paternity analysis. As in Fig. 3,
528
pups sampled from the den were excluded unless they were confirmed in the pack 1 year
529
later. Two packs (Flat Iron and LaFleur) are not shown because there was only 1 female and
530
1 male adult representative in the pack.
531 532
Supplementary Figures 1a-1q. Pedigrees for 17 post-ban eastern wolf packs in Algonquin
533
Provincial Park, Ontario. Pack names are shown at the top of each pedigree. Pink circles are
23
534
females, blue squares are males, individuals have a unique identifier made up of the field
535
sample tag (Wxxx) plus a database number (Cxxxx), dashed lines identify additional
536
relationships between individuals, HS = half-siblings, FS = full-siblings, UR = unrelated, ? =
537
unknown individual, check mark indicates those animals that were identified at some point
538
over the 5 year period as a non-breeding adult, triple lines around circle or square indicate an
539
individual that is, for clarity, duplicated in the pedigree, red outline identifies the one
540
individual that was an adopted adult animal that was unrelated to any other animal in the
541
pack, a dashed box outline indicates male animals that were captured after the death of the
542
breeding male or loss of contact with the breeding male. W58 is represented twice in these
543
figures because she dispersed from the Achray territory and subsequently became the breeder
544
in Flat Iron. Sample sizes (n) are indicated for each pack. However, it should be noted that all
545
animals represented in the pedigree were not necessarily alive or located together at the same
546
time because the pedigrees represent up to 5 years of monitoring.
547
24
Figure 1 Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 2 Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 3 Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 4 Click here to download high resolution image
Supplementary Figure 1a-q
n=14
Achray W89 C4337
HS
✔
?
UR
UR W131 C4379
UR
W14 C4262
W44 C4292
W58 C4306
W101 C4349
W146 C4394
W147 C4395
W148 C4396
W149 C4397
W150 C4398
W8 C4256
✔
W9 C4257
W151 C4399
Supplementary Fig. 1a
n=5
Beechnut
HS
W130 C4378
W119 C4367
✔ W143 C4391
✔ W144 C4392
W145 C4393
Supplementary Fig. 1b
n=4
Bena W21 C4269
UR
W42 C4290
✔ W22 C4270
W23 C4271
✔
Supplementary Fig. 1c
n=6
Big Crow ?
?
W75 C4323
?
W76 C4324
✔
W88 C4336
UR
UR
W191 C4439
W72 C4320
✔
W207 C4455
✔
✔
Supplementary Fig. 1d
n=12
Cauliflower ?
?
W49 C4297
✔
?
W16 C4264
W122 CPup2 C4370
CPup1 C4535
✔
✔
?
W176 C4424
W109 C4357 W15 C4263
W110 C4358
✔
W111 C4359
✔
W112 C4360
✔ W135 C4383
W136 C4384
Supplementary Fig. 1e
n=4
Flat Iron
?
W58b C4306
✔ W185 C4433
W173 C4421
W174 C4422
Supplementary Fig. 1f
Jocko
FS UR
W46 C4294
✔ W28 C4276
W43 C4291
n=14 UR
W200 C4448
W2 C4250
✔ ✔ W118 C4366 W53 C4301
W201 is same animal as W106
✔ W102 C4350
✔ W201 C4449
✔ W103 C4351
W104 C4352
✔ W105 C4353
W106 C4354
W107 C4355
W108 C4356
Supplementary Fig. 1g
LaFleur
n=4
?
W1 C4249
W3 C4251
?
W4 C4252
W116 C4364
Supplementary Fig. 1h
n=14
Leaf ?
W13 C4261
HS
UR
?
W13 C4261
✔
UR W68 C4316
W37 C4285
✔ W63 C4311
W68 C4316 W60 C4308
W93 C4341
W162 C4410 W198 C4446
✔ W163 C4411
✔
W164 C4412
W94 C4342
W69 C4317
✔
✔ W165 C4413
W166 C4414
Supplementary Fig. 1i
Louisa
n=6
FS
W7 C4255
W12 C4260
?
W35 C4283
W10 C4258
✔
W11 C4259
✔ W128 C4376
Supplementary Fig. 1j
McKaskill
n=16
W50 C4298
?
✔ W26 C4274
W40 C4288
✔ W54 (W193) C4302
✔ W95 C4343
✔ W96 C4344
W97 C4345
✔ W98 C4346
✔ W99 C4347
W100 C4348
✔ W113 C4361
W137 C4385
✔
W138 C4386
✔ W139 C4387
W140 C4388
W141 C4389
W142 C4390
Supplementary Fig. 1k
Pine UR
n=3
W45 C4293
W91 C4339
✔
W45/C4293 was previously collared and tracked by John Theberge as a Zig Zag pack member during the pre-ban time period. She was recaptured and recollared during the post-ban study.
W29 C4277
Supplementary Fig. 1l
Potter ?
n=5
?
✔ W41 C4289
W90 C4338
?
✔ W38 C4286
W190 C4438
?
✔ W205 C4453
Supplementary Fig. 1m
Pretty
n=11
?
✔
UR
W66 C4314
W65 C4313
W152 C4400
W195 C4443
✔ W153 C4401
W154 C4402
✔
?
W155 C4403
W156 C4404
W78 C4326
✔
✔ W70 C4318
W157 C4405
W64 C4312
✔
Supplementary Fig. 1n
Radiant
n=5
UR
W84 C4332
W62 C4310
✔ W81 C4329
✔ W82 C4330
W83 C4331
Supplementary Fig. 1o
Spoor
n=9
UR
W125 C4373
W124 C4372
✔ W133 C4381
✔ W126 C4374
W182 C4430
✔ W158 C4406
W159 C4407
W160 C4408
W161 C4409
Supplementary Fig. 1p
Sunday
n=7
?
?
✔
W47 C4295
W24 C4272
✔
W80 C4328
✔
FS
W180 C4428
UR
W25 C4273
UR
W113 C4361
SunPup C4534
Supplementary Fig. 1q