Evaluation of landscape models for wolverines in the interior Northwest, United States of America

Journal of Mammalogy

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 92-105

  Rowland, Mary M ^a   Wisdom, Michael J ^b   Johnson, Douglas H ^c   Wales, Barbara C ^b   Copeland, Jeffrey P ^d   Edelmann, Frank B ^e  

^a Pacific Northwest Research Station   (United States)

^b PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^c U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^d USDA Forest Service Forestry Science Lab   (United States)

^e IDAHO POWER COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian models; Carnivores; Conservation planning; Gulo gulo; Habitat evaluation; Interior Columbia Basin; Models; Northwest; Roads; Wolverine

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; CARNIVORE; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; HABITAT QUALITY; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; ROAD;

UNITED STATES;

ANIMALIA; GULO GULO; MUSTELINAE;

EID: 0037331073     PISSN: 00222372     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1644/1545-1542(2003)084<0092:EOLMFW>2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. ANDERSON, D. R., W. A. LINK, D. H. JOHNSON, AND K. P. BURNHAM. 2001. Suggestions for presenting the results of data analyses. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:373-378.
2. AUSTIN, M. A. 1998. Wolverine winter travel routes and response to transportation corridors in Kicking Horse Pass between Yoho and Banff National Parks. M.E.Des. thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
3. BANCI, V. 1987. Ecology and behavior of the wolverine in the Yukon. M.Sc. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
4. BANCI, V. 1994. Wolverine. Pp. 99-127 in The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States (L. F. Ruggiero, K. A. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, eds.). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-254:1-184.
5. BURNHAM, K. P., AND D. R. ANDERSON. 1998. Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York.
6. CARROLL, C., R. F. NOSS, AND P. C. PAQUET. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain Region. Ecological Applications 11:961-980.
7. COPELAND, J. P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.
8. CRONE, L. K., AND R. W. HAYNES. 2001. Socioeconomic evaluation of broad-scale land management strategies. Forest Ecology and Management 153:147-150.
9. DAVIS, W. B. 1939. The recent mammals of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.
10. EDELMANN, F., AND J. COPELAND. 1999. Wolverine distribution in the northwestern United States and a survey in the Seven Devils Mountains of Idaho. Northwest Science 73:295-300.
11. FELLER, W. 1957. An introduction to probability theory and its applications. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1:1-528.
12. GROVES, C. R., M. L. KLEIN, AND T. F. BREDEN. 1995. Natural Heritage Program: public-private partnerships for biodiversity conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:784-790.
13. HANN, W. J., ET AL. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. Pp. 337-1055 in An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (T. M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, eds.). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, 2:337-1055. (T. M. Quigley, tech. ed. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment.)
14. HORNOCKER, M. G., AND H. S. HASH. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.
15. JOHNSON, D. H. 2001. Validating and evaluating models. Pp. 105-119 in Modeling in natural resource management: development, interpretation and application (T. M. Shenk and A. B. Franklin, eds.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.
16. KARL, J. W., P. J. HEGLUND, E. O. GARTON, J. M. SCOTT, N. M. WRIGHT, AND R. L. HUTTO. 2000. Sensitivity of species habitat-relationship model performance to factors of scale. Ecological Applications 10:1690-1705.
17. KUCERA, T. E., AND R. H. BARRETT. 1993. The California cooperative wolverine survey: a progress report. 1993 Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 29:49-53.
18. KYLE, C. J., AND C. STROBECK. 2001. Genetic structure of North American wolverine (Gulo gulo) populations. Molecular Ecology 10:337-347.
19. LEE, D. C. 2000. Assessing land-use impacts on bull trout using Bayesian belief networks. Pp. 127-147 in Quantitative methods for conservation biology (S. Ferson and M. Burgman, eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York.
20. MAGOUN, A. J. 1985. Population characteristics, ecology and management of wolverines in northwestern Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
21. MAJ, M., AND E. O. GARTON. 1994. Fisher, lynx, and wolverine: summary of distribution information. Pp. 169-175 in The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States (L. F. Ruggiero, K. A. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, eds.). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-254:1-184.
22. MARCOT, B. G., ET AL. 1997. Terrestrial ecology assessment. Pp. 1497-1713 in An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (T. M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, eds.). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, 3:1057-1713. (T. M. Quigley, tech. ed. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment.)
23. MARCOT, B. G., R. S. HOLTHAUSEN, M. G. RAPHAEL, M. M. ROWLAND, AND M. J. WISDOM. 2001. Using Bayesian belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. Forest Ecology and Management 153:29-42.
24. MCCULLAGH, P., AND J. A. NELDER. 1989. Generalized linear models. 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom.
25. NEAD, D. M., J. C. HALFPENNY, AND S. BISSELL. 1985. The status of wolverines in Colorado. Northwest Science 8:286-289.
26. NEWBY, F. E., AND J. J. MCDOUGAL. 1964. Range extension of the wolverine in Montana. Journal of Mammalogy 45:485-487.
27. NOSS, R. F., AND P. BEIER. 2000. Arguing over little things: response to Haddad et al. Conservation Biology 14:1546-1548.
28. PULLIAM, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661.
29. PULLIAM, H. R., AND B. J. DANIELSON. 1991. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. American Naturalist 137:55-66.
30. QUIGLEY, T. Q., R. W. HAYNES, AND R. T. GRAHAM (EDS.). 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382:1-303.
31. RAPHAEL, M. G., ET AL. 2001. Status and trends of habitats of terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in the interior Columbia river basin. Forest Ecology and Management 153:63-88.
32. ROLOFF, G. J., AND B. J. KERNOHAN. 1999. Evaluating reliability of habitat suitability index models. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:973-985.
33. RUEDIGER, B. 1998. Rare carnivores and highways - moving into the 21st century, Pp. 10-16 in Proceedings of the international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation (G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, eds.). Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
34. RUGGIERO, L. F., K. B. AUBRY, R. S. HOLTHAUSEN, J. W. THOMAS, B. G. MARCOT, AND E. C. MESLOW. 1988. Ecological dependency: the concept and its implications for research and management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 53:115-126.
35. RUGGIERO, L. F., S. W. BUSKIRK, K. B. AUBRY, L. J. LYON, AND W. J. ZIELINSKI. 1994. Information needs and a research strategy for conserving forest carnivores. Pp. 138-152 in The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. (L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, eds.). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-254:1-184.
36. SAS INSTITUTE INC. 1997. SAS/STAT software: changes and enhancements through release 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
37. WEAVER, J. L., P. C. PAQUET, AND L. F. RUGGIERO. 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:964-976.
38. WHITMAN, J. S., W. B. BALLARD, AND C. L. GARDNER. 1986. Home range and habitat use by wolverines in southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:460-463.
39. WILSON, D. E. 1982. Wolverine (Gulo gulo). Pp. 644-652 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics (J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
40. WILSON, G. M., R. A. VAN DEN BUSSCHE, P. K. KENNEDY, A. GUNN, AND K. POOLE. 2000. Genetic variability of wolverines (Gulo gulo) from the Northwest Territories, Canada: conservation implications. Journal of Mammalogy 81:186-196.
41. WISDOM, M. J., ET AL. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485:1-529. (T. M. Quigley, tech. ed. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment.)
42. WITMER, G. W., S. K. MARTIN, AND R. D. SAYLER. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-420:1-51.