Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 51–62 | Cite as

Natural regulation of cervidae along a 1000 km latitudinal gradient: Change in trophic dominance

  • Michel Crête
  • Micheline Manseau


The biomass of forage, herbivores (caribou and moose) and predators (wolf) were estimated for four assemblages of large mammals along a latitudinal gradient in the Québec-Labrador peninsula and related to predictions made by two types of multitrophic level models. Wolves were present in three study areas, but they had been extirpated in the last one. Annual production of preferred forage exhibited a clear north-south increase for moose, but not for caribou. Neither the herbivore nor predator biomass increased along the latitudinal gradient: the highest herbivore biomass occurred in the wolf-free area and in the northernmost site, while the greatest predator density was observed in the southernmost site. Consequently, the ratio of the herbivore to forage biomass was the highest in the area devoid of wolves and in the northernmost site occupied by migratory caribou. Availability of forage per herbivore was the greatest in the moose-wolf and the caribou-moose-wolf assemblages. The observed data supported the multitrophic level model incorporating classical predator-prey relationships and producing stepwise accrual of trophic level biomass with increasing food chain length. In the northernmost site, the system was limited to two functional trophic levels and caribou were regulated by summer forage. Three functional trophic levels appeared to exist in the central study area where caribou and moose were preyed upon by wolves. Both herbivores were at very low density, the first one due probably to its poor adaptation to predation and the second because of an unproductive range. In the southernmost site, moose were clearly regulated by predation and kept much below the carrying capacity. With the extirpation of wolves in the last study area, moose were regulated by forage and the density exceeded that in the moose-wolf system by seven times even in a less productive range. Caribou, having primarily evolved under resource limitation, is replaced by a cervid better adapted to predation, the moose, in more productive ‘three-link’ ecosystems.


caribou, herbivory moose predation trophic interactions wolf 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams, P.A. (1994) The fallacies of ‘ratio-dependent’ predation.Ecology 75 1842–50.Google Scholar
  2. Arditi, R. and Ginzburg, R.L. (1989) Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio-dependence.J. Theor. Biol. 139 311–26.Google Scholar
  3. Arditi, R., Perrin, N. and Saiah, H. (1990) Functional responses and heterogeneities: an experimental test with cladocerans.Oikos 60 69–75.Google Scholar
  4. Boileau, F., Crête, M. and Huot, J. 1994. Food habits of black bear,Ursus americanus, and habitat use in Gaspésie Park, Eastern Québec.Can. Field-Nat. 108 162–9.Google Scholar
  5. Courtois, R., Crête, M. and Barnard, F. (1993)Productivité de l'habitat et dynamique d'une population d'orignaux du sud de la taïga québécoise. Québec, Ministère. Loisir, Chasse et Pe(81)che, rep. SP 2144.Google Scholar
  6. Couturier, S., Courtois, R., Crépeau, H., Rivest, L.-P. and Luttich, S.N. (1994) The June 1993 photocensus of the Rivière George Caribou Herd: method improvement and comparison with a second independent census. Rangifer, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Crête, M. (1987) The impact of sport hunting on North American moose.Swed. Wildl. Res. (Suppl. 1), 553–63.Google Scholar
  8. Crête, M. (1989) Approximation ofK carrying capacity for moose in eastern Québec.Can. J. Zool. 67 373–80.Google Scholar
  9. Crête, M. and Desrosiers, A. (1993)L'invasion du coyote (Canis latrans) menace la survie de la population relique de caribous (Rangifer tarandus)du parc de la Gaspésie. Québec., Ministère. Loisir, Chasse et Pêche, rep. SP 2148.Google Scholar
  10. Crête, M. and Huot, J. (1993) Regulation of a large herd of migratory caribou: summer nutrition affects calf growth and body reserves of dams.Can. J. Zool. 71 2291–6.Google Scholar
  11. Crête, M. and Jordan, P.A. (1981) Régime alimentaire des orignaux du sud-ouest québécois pour les mois d'avril à octobre.Can. Field-Nat. 95 50–6.Google Scholar
  12. Crête, M. and Jordan, P.A. (1982a) Production and quality of forage available to moose in southwestern Québec.Can. J. Forest. Res. 12 151–9.Google Scholar
  13. Crête, M. and Jordan, P.A. (1982b) Population consequences of winter forage resources for moose,Alces alces, in southwestern Québec.Can. Field-Nat. 96 467–75.Google Scholar
  14. Crête, M., Taylor, R.J. and Jordan, P.A. (1981a) Optimization of moose harvest in southwestern Québec.J. Wildl. Manage. 45 598–611.Google Scholar
  15. Crête, M., Taylor, R.J. and Jordan, P.A. (1981b) Simulating conditions for the regulation of a moose population by wolves.Ecol. Model. 12 245–52.Google Scholar
  16. Crête, M., Rivest, L.-P., Jolicoeur, H., Brassard, J.-M. and Messier, F. (1986) Predicting and correcting helicopter counts of moose with observations made from fixed-wing aircraft in southern Québec.J. Appl. Ecol. 23 751–61.Google Scholar
  17. Crête, M., Morneau, C. and Nault, R. (1990a) Biomasse et espèces de lichens terrestres disponibles pour le caribou dans le nord du Québec.Can. J. Bot. 68 2047–53.Google Scholar
  18. Crête, M., Huot, J. and Gauthier, L. (1990b) Food selection during early lactation by caribou calving on the tundra in Québec.Arctic 43 60–5.Google Scholar
  19. Crête, M., Rivest, L.-P., Le Hénaff, D. and Luttich, S.N. (1991) Adapting sampling plans to caribou distribution on calving grounds.Rangifer,7 137–50.Google Scholar
  20. Crête, M., Couturier, S., Hearn, B.J. and Chubbs, T.E. (1994) Relative contribution of decreased productivity and survival to recent changes in the demographic trend of the Rivière George Caribou Herd.Rangifer, in press.Google Scholar
  21. Cumming, H.G., Beange, D.B. and Lavoie, G. (1994) Habitat partitioning between woodland caribou and moose in Ontario: the potential role of shared predation.Rangifer, subm.Google Scholar
  22. Currie, D.J. (1991) Energy and large-scale patterns of animal- and plant-species richness.Am. Nat. 137 27–49.Google Scholar
  23. Eriksson, O. and Raunistola, T. (1993) Impact of forest fertilizers on winter pastures of semi-domesticated reindeer.Rangifer 13 203–14.Google Scholar
  24. Fryxell, J.M., Greever, J. and Sinclair, A.R.E. (1988) Why are migratory ungulates so abundant?Am. Nat. 131 781–98.Google Scholar
  25. Gasaway, W.C., Boertje, R.D., Grangaard, D.V., Kelleyhouse, D.G., Stephenson, R.O. and Larsen, D.G. (1992) The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation.Wildl. Monogr. 120, 1–59.Google Scholar
  26. Gauthier, L., Nault, R. and Crête, M. (1989) Variations saisonnières du régime alimentaire des caribous de la rivière George, Québec nordique.Nat. Can. (Qué.) 116 101–12.Google Scholar
  27. Getz, W.M. (1984) Population dynamics: a per capita resource approach.J. Theor. Biol. 108 623–43.Google Scholar
  28. Gingras, A. and Malouin, S. (1993)Inventaire aérien du caribou dans la zone de chasse 19 sud (partie ouest) en mars 1991. Québec, Ministère. Loisir, Chasse et Pêche, rep. SP 2201.Google Scholar
  29. Hearn, B.J., Luttich, S.N., Crete, M. and Berger, M.B. (1990) Survival of radio-collared caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) from the George River herd, Nouveau-Québec — Labrador.Can. J. Zool. 68 276–91.Google Scholar
  30. Hydro-Québec (1993)Rapport d'avant-projet, Complexe Grande-Baleine. Partie 2, Complexe hydro-électrique, tome 2, description du milieu, volume 1, milieu naturel continental. Hydro-Québec, Montréal.Google Scholar
  31. Le Hénaff, D. and Crête, M. (1989) Introduction of muskoxen in northern Québec: the demographic explosion of a colonizing herbivore.Can. J. Zool. 67 1102–5.Google Scholar
  32. Macnab, J. (1985) Carrying capacity and related slippery shibboleths.Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13 403–10.Google Scholar
  33. Manseau, M., Hurst, J. and Crête, M. (1995) Changes induced by summer grazing of caribou on sub-Arctic tundra: community and landscape level.J. Ecol., submitted.Google Scholar
  34. Mech, L.D. and Nelson, M.E. (1990) Evidence of prey-caused mortality in three wolves.Am. Midl. Nat. 123 207–8.Google Scholar
  35. Messier, F. (1991) The significance of limiting and regulating factors on the demography of moose and white-tailed deer.J. Animal Ecol. 60 377–93.Google Scholar
  36. Messier, F. (1994) Ungulate population models with predation: a case study with the North American moose.Ecology 75 478–88.Google Scholar
  37. Messier, F. (1995) Trophic interactions in two northern wolf-ungulate systems.Wildl. Res.,22, 131–46.Google Scholar
  38. Messier, F. and Crête, M. (1985) Moose-wolf dynamics and the natural regulation of moose populations.Oecologia (Berlin) 65 503–12.Google Scholar
  39. Nelson, M.E. and Mech, L.D. (1985) Observation of a wolf killed by a deer.J. Mammal. 66 187–8.Google Scholar
  40. Nelson, M.E. and Mech, L.D. (1994) A single deer stands-off three wolves.Am. Midl. Nat. 121 207–8.Google Scholar
  41. Oksanen, L. (1988) Ecosystem organization: mutualism and cybernetics or plain Darwinian struggle for existence.Am. Nat. 131 424–44.Google Scholar
  42. Oksanen, L. (1992) Evolution of exploitation ecosystems I. Predation, foraging ecology and population dynamics in herbivores.Evol. Ecol. 6 15–33.Google Scholar
  43. Oksanen, L., Fretwell, S.D., Arruda, J. and Niemela, P. (1981) Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity.Am. Nat. 118 240–61.Google Scholar
  44. Peterson, R.O. (1977) Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle Royale.US Nat. Park Serv., Fauna Series,11 1–210.Google Scholar
  45. Power, M.E. (1992) Top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs: do plants have primacy?Ecology 73 733–46.Google Scholar
  46. Rausch, R.A. (1967) Some aspects of the population ecology of wolves, Alaska.Am. Zool. 7 253–65.Google Scholar
  47. Richard, P.J.H. (1987)Le couvert végétal au Québec-Labrador et son histoire postglaciaire. Département géographie, Université. Montréal, report. 87-01.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenzweig, M.L. (1968) Net primary productivity of terrestrial communities: prediction from climatological data.Am. Nat. 102 67–74.Google Scholar
  49. Rosenzweig, M.L. (1971) The paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time.Science 171 385–7.Google Scholar
  50. Rosenzweig, M.L. (1973) Exploitation in three trophic levels.Am. Nat. 107 275–94.Google Scholar
  51. Schwartz, C.C. and Franzmann, A.W. (1989) Bears, wolves, moose, and forest succession, some management considerations on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.Alces 25 1–10.Google Scholar
  52. Seip, D.R. (1991) Predation and caribou populations.Rangifer 7 46–52.Google Scholar
  53. Skogland, T. (1986) Density dependent food limitation and maximal production in wild reindeer herds.J. Wildl. Manage. 50 314–19.Google Scholar
  54. Weaver, J.L., Arvidson, C. and Wood, P. (1992) Two wolves,Canis lupus, killed by a moose,Alces alces, in Jasper National Park, Alberta.Can. Field-Nat. 106 126–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Crête
    • 1
    • 2
  • Micheline Manseau
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Ministère de l'Environnement et de la FauneService de la Faune TerrestreQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Centre d'Études NordiquesUniversité LavalSainte-FoyCanada
  3. 3.Département de BiologieUniversité LavalSainte-FoyCanada

Personalised recommendations