Environmental Management

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 821–832 | Cite as

Toward the Restoration of Caribou Habitat: Understanding Factors Associated with Human Motorized Use of Legacy Seismic Lines

  • Karine E. PigeonEmail author
  • Meghan Anderson
  • Doug MacNearney
  • Jerome Cranston
  • Gordon Stenhouse
  • Laura Finnegan


Populations of boreal and southern mountain caribou in Alberta, Canada, are declining, and the ultimate cause of their decline is believed to be anthropogenic disturbance. Linear features are pervasive across the landscape, and of particular importance, seismic lines established in the 1900s (legacy seismic lines) are slow to regenerate. Off-highway vehicles are widely used on these seismic lines and can hamper vegetative re-growth because of ongoing physical damage, compaction, and active clearing. Restoration of seismic lines within caribou range is therefore a priority for the recovery of threatened populations in Alberta, but a triage-type approach is necessary to prioritize restoration and ensure conservation resources are wisely spent. To target restoration efforts, our objective was to determine factors that best explained levels of off-highway vehicles use on seismic lines intersecting roads. We investigated the relative importance of local topography, vegetation attributes of seismic lines, and broad-scale human factors such as the density of infrastructures and the proximity to recreation campsites and towns to explain the observed levels of off-highway vehicles use. We found that off-highway vehicles use was mainly associated with local topography and vegetation attributes of seismic lines that facilitated ease-of-travel. Broad-scale landscape attributes associated with industrial, recreation access, or hunting activities did not explain levels of off-highway vehicles use. Management actions aimed at promoting natural regeneration and reduce ease-of-travel on legacy seismic lines within caribou ranges can be beneficial to caribou recovery in Alberta, Canada, and we therefore recommend restrictions of off-highway vehicles use on low vegetation, dry seismic lines in caribou ranges.


Off-highway vehicles High-impact conventional seismic lines Linear features Rangifer tarandus Habitat restoration 



This project was funded by Environment Canada under the Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP 6617; 6699), Alberta Environment and Parks, and the Foothills Landscape Management Forum (FLMF). Additional support was provided by Weyerhaueser Co. Ltd, West Fraser Mills Ltd, Alberta Parks, the Hinton Training Centre and the numerous project partners of the fRI Caribou and Grizzly Bear Programs. We thank Julie Duval, Kevin Myles, and Joshua Crough for GIS and database assistance, Terry Larsen for help with study design and in the field, and Flurina Deagle, Lindsey Dewart, Kelsey Greenley, Amanda MacDonald, and Tyler VanderMolen for collecting field data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2016_763_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (524 kb)
Supplementary Information


  1. Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team (2005) Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan 2004/05–2013/14. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton DC, Holmes AL (2007) Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in northeastern California. J Wildl Manag 71:1617–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergerud AT, Butler HE, Miller DR (1984) Antipredator tactics of calving caribou: dispersion in mountains. Can J Zool 62:1566–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (2008) Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends Ecol Evolut 23:649–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boutin S, Boyce MS, Hebblewhite M, Hervieux D, Knopff KH, Latham MC, Latham ADM, Nagy J, Seip D, Serrouya R (2012) Why are caribou declining in the oil sands?. Front Ecol Environ 10:65–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw CJA, Boutin S, Hebert DM (1998) Energetic implications of distrubance caused by petroleum exploration to woodland caribou. Can J Zool 76:1319–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breslow NE, Clayton DG (1993) Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc 88:9–25Google Scholar
  8. Brooks JJ, Champ PA (2006) Understanding the wicked nature of “unmanaged recreation” in Colorado’s Front Range. Environ Manage 38:784–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron R, Reed D, Dau J, Smith W (1992) Redistribution of calving caribou in response to oil field development on the Arctic Slope of Alaska. Arctic 45:338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen HYH, Wang JR (2006) Post-harvest regeneration of lowland black spruce forests in northeastern Ontario. New Forests 31:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen, RHB (2013) Ordinal-regression models for ordinal data R package version 2013. 9–30
  13. COSEWIC (2011) Designatable units for Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  14. COSEWIC (2014) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
  15. DeCesare NJ, Hebblewhite M, Robinson HS, Musiani M (2010) Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation. Animal Conservation 13:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeCesare NJ (2012) Separating spatial search and efficiency rates as components of predation risk. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279:4626–4633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeCesare NJ, Hebblewhite M, Schmiegelow F, Hervieux D, McDermid GJ, Neufeld L, Bradley M, Whittington J, Smith KG, Morgantini LE, Wheatley M, Musiani M (2012) Transcending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecol Appl 22:1068–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyer SJ, O’Neill JP, Wasel SM, Boutin S (2001) Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. J Wildl Manag 65:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dyer SJ, O’Neill JP, Wasel SM, Boutin S (2002) Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Can J Zool 80:839–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Environment Canada (2011) Scientific assessment to inform the identification of critical habitat for woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in Canada: 2011 update. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Environment Canada (2012) Recovery strategy for the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Environment Canada (2014) Recovery strategy for the woodland caribou, southern mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2014) ArcGIS desktop: release 10.2.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Festa-Bianchet M, Ray JC, Boutin S, Côté S, Gunn A (2011) Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain future. Can J Zool 89:419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finnegan L, Pigeon K, Cranston J, and Stenhouse GB (2013) Analysis and restoration of seismic cutlines in southern mountain and boreal caribou range in West-Central Alberta. Hinton, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Flood JP (2005) Just don’t tell me no: managing OHV recreational use on national forests. In: Peden, JG, R Schuster, and RM (eds). Proceedings of the 2005 northeastern recreation research symposium 2005, Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-341. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2008) Making sense of odds and odds ratios. Obstet Gynecol 111:423–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groom JD, McKinney LB, Ball LC, Winchell CS (2007) Quantifying off-highway vehicle impacts on density and survival of a threatened dune-endemic plant. Biol Cons 135:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. James ARC, Boutin S, Hebert DM, Rippin AB, White J (2004) Spatial separation of caribou from moose and its relation to predation by wolves. J Wildl Manag 68:799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. James ARC, Stuart-Smith AK (2000) Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. J Wildl Manag 64:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson CJ, Ehlers LPW, Seip DR (2015) Witnessing extinction—cumulative impacts across landscapes and the future loss of an evolutionary significant unit of woodland caribou in Canada. Biol Cons 186:176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kinley TA, Apps CD (2001) Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou. Wildl Soc Bull 29:158–164Google Scholar
  33. Komers PE, Stanojevic Z (2013) Rates of disturbance vary by data resolution: implications for conservation schedules using the Alberta Boreal Forest as a case study. Global Change Biol 19:2916–2928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuehn DM, D’Luhosch PD, Luzadis VA, Malmsheimer RW, Schuster RM (2011) Attitudes and intentions of off-highway vehicle riders toward trail use: implications for forest managers. J For 109:281–287Google Scholar
  35. Latham ADM, Latham MCM, Boyce MS, Boutin S (2011) Movement responses by wolves to industrial linear features and their effect on woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Ecol Appl 21:2854–2865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Le H, Marcus J (2012) The overall odds ratio as an intuitive effect size index for multiple logistic regression: examination of further refinements. Educ Psychol Meas 72:1001–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee P, Boutin S (2006) Persistence and developmental transition of wide seismic lines in the western Boreal Plains of Canada. J Environ Manage 78:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCullagh P (1980) Regression models for ordinal data. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 42:109–142Google Scholar
  39. McFadden (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. McLoughlin PD, Dzus E, Wynes B, Boutin S (2003) Declines in populations of woodland caribou. J Wildl Manag 67:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy SM, Curatolot JA (1987) Activity budgets and movement rates of caribou encountering pipelines, roads, and traffic in northern Alaska. Can J Zool 65:2483–2490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nellemann C, Cameron R (1996) Effects of petroleum development on terrain preferences of calving caribou. Arctic 49:23–28Google Scholar
  43. Nellemann C, Vistnes I, Jordhoy P, Stoen O-G, Kaltenborn BP, Hanssen F, Helgesen R (2010) Effects of recreational cabins, trails, and their removal for restoration of reindeer winter ranges. Restoration Ecol 18:873–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oberg PR (2001) Responses of mountain caribou to linear features in a west-central Alberta landscape. MSc Thesis. Wildlife Ecology and Management. University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  45. Pierskalla CD, Schuett MA, Thompson KA (2011) Management perceptions of off-highway vehicle use on national forest system lands in Appalachia. Northern J Appl Forestry 28:208–213Google Scholar
  46. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  47. Saher D, Schmiegelow F (2005) Movement pathways and habitat selection by woodland caribou during spring migration. Rangifer 16:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneider RR, Hauer G, Adamowicz WL, Boutin S (2010) Triage for conserving populations of threatened species: the case of woodland caribou in Alberta. Biol Cons 143:1603–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seip DR (1991) Predation and caribou populations. Rangifer 7:46–52. Special IssueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Serrouya R, McLellan BN, Boutin S, Seip DR, Nielsen SE (2011) Developing a population target for an overabundant ungulate for ecoystem restoration. J Appl Ecol 48:935–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shanley CS, Kofinas GP, Pyare S (2013) Balancing the conservation of wildlife habitat with subsistence hunting access: a geospatial-scenario planning framework. Landsc Urban Plan 115:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith TJ, McKenna CM (2012) An examination of ordinal regression goodness-of-fit indices under varied sample conditions and link functions. Mult Linear Regression Viewpoints 38:1–7Google Scholar
  53. Sonderegger D (2012) SiZer: SiZer: significant zero crossings. R package version 0.1-4.
  54. Sorensen T, McLoughlin PD, Hervieux D, Dzus E, Nolan J, Wynes B, Boutin S (2008) Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for Boreal caribou. J Wildl Manag 72:900–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steenhof K, Brown JL, Kochert MN (2014) Temporal and spatial changes in golden eagle reproduction in relation to increased off highway vehicle activity. Wildl Soc Bull 38:682–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Rensen CK, Nielsen SE, White B, Vinge T, Lieffers VJ (2015) Natural regeneration of forest vegetation on legacy seismic lines in boreal habitats in Alberta’s oil sands region. Biol Cons 184:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White JC, Wulder MA, Gómez C, Stenhouse G (2011) A history of habitat dynamics: characterizing 35 years of stand replacing disturbance. Can J Remote Sens 37:234–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whittington J, Hebblewhite M, DeCesare NJ, Neufeld L, Bradley M, Wilmshurst J, Musiani M (2011) Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time-to-event approach. J Appl Ecol 48:1535–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolfe SA, Griffith B, Wolfe CAG (2000) Response of reindeer and caribou to human activities. Polar Res 19:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoir common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karine E. Pigeon
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Meghan Anderson
    • 1
  • Doug MacNearney
    • 1
  • Jerome Cranston
    • 3
  • Gordon Stenhouse
    • 2
  • Laura Finnegan
    • 1
  1. 1.Caribou ProgramfRI ResearchHintonCanada
  2. 2.Grizzly Bear ProgramfRI ResearchHintonCanada
  3. 3.Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Western College of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations