The process of a wolf pack splitting in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland
- 75 Downloads
In 1998, the pack of 7 wolvesCanis lupus Linnaeus, 1758, radio-tracked in Białowieża Primeval Forest, East Poland, split into 2 packs (2 and 5 wolves), when an 8-year-old alpha female ceased breeding. The two sister-packs subdivided their original territory, but their ranges overlapped extensively (49%) for one year after the split, except for May-June, when both new packs reared pups. We propose that food related factors could have been the ultimate cause of splitting of a large pack. In European temperate forests, pack size of 5–6 wolves is optimal for the consumption of the red deerCervus elaphus.
Key-wordsCanis lupus home ranges pack size pack splitting prey size
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Jędrzejewska B. and Jędrzejewski W. 1998. Predation in vertebrate communities. The Białowieża Primeval Forest as a case study. Springer Verlag, Berlin: 1–450.Google Scholar
- Jędrzejewski W., Nowak S., Schmidt K. and Jędrzejewska B. 2002b. The wolf and the lynx in Poland—results of a census conducted in 2001. Kosmos 51: 491–499. [In Polish with English summary]Google Scholar
- Jędrzejewski W., Schmidt K., Theuerkauf J., Jędrzejewska B., Selva N., Zub K. and Szymura L. 2002a. Kill rates and predation by wolves on ungulate populations in Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland). Ecology 83: 1341–1356.Google Scholar
- Mech L. D. and Boitani L. 2003. Wolf social ecology. [In: Wolves. Behavior, ecology, and conservation. L. D. Mech and L. Boitani, eds]. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1–34.Google Scholar
- Meier T. J., Burch J. W., Mech L. D. and Adams L. G. 1995. Pack structure and genetic relatedness among wolf packs in a naturally-regulated population. [In: Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D. R. Seip, eds]. University of Alberta, Edmonton: 293–302.Google Scholar
- Okarma H. and Jędrzejewski W. 1997. Live-trapping wolves with nets. Wildllife Society Bulletin 25: 78–82.Google Scholar