Advertisement

European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 49–57 | Cite as

Space use and territoriality of wolverines (Gulo gulo) in northern Scandinavia

  • Jens Persson
  • Per Wedholm
  • Peter Segerström
Original Paper

Abstract

Space use and territoriality influence population structure and dynamics and is therefore an important aspect in understanding the ecology of animals. We investigated spatial and temporal space use of wolverines (Gulo gulo) in northern Scandinavia. We estimated home ranges of 24 radio-marked individuals (17 females and seven males). Male home ranges (mean 669 km2; SE = 211) were significantly larger than female home ranges (mean 170 km2; Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney; P = 0.001) and encompassed or included parts of up to five different females. Home range sizes of reproducing (170 km2; SE = 51) and barren (171 km2; SE = 63) adult females did not differ. Wolverines in Scandinavia exhibit intrasexual territoriality, with male home ranges totally exclusive and female home ranges either exclusive or with little home range overlap. Overlap between wolverine territories is most likely explained by intrasexual tolerance and kinship.

Keywords

Carnivore Home range Mustelid Overlap Social organisation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, World Wildlife Fund Sweden, and the Kempe Foundation. The study was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee for northern Sweden, Umeå. We thank an anonymous reviewer for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Ackerman BB, Leban FA, Samuel MD, Garton EO (1990) User’s manual for program HOME RANGE. Technical Report 15, Forestry, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. University of Idaho, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams EA (2001) Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 32:277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnemo JM, Fahlman Å (2007) Biomedical protocol for free-ranging brown bears, gray wolves, wolverines and lynx. Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Tromsø, Norway. http://www4.nina.no/skandlo/pdf/Biomedical%20protocols%20carnivores%20210807.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  4. Banci V (1987) Ecology and behaviour of wolverine in Yukon. M.Sc. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. Banci V (1994) Wolverine. In: Ruggiero LF, Aubry KB, Buskirk SW, Lyon LJ, Zielinski WJ (eds) The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, USA, pp 99–127Google Scholar
  6. Bjärvall A (1982) A study of the wolverine female during the denning period. Transactions of the International Congress of Game Biologists 14:315–322Google Scholar
  7. Brown JL, Orians GH (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 1:239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cairns SJ, Schwager SJ (1987) A comparison of association indices. Anim Behav 35:454–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Copeland JP (1996) Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.Sc. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl F, Willebrand T (2005) Natal dispersal, adult home ranges and site fidelity of mountain hares Lepus timidus in the boreal forest of Sweden. Wildlife Biol 11:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erlinge S (1977) Spacing strategy in stout Mustela erminea. Oikos 28:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flagstad Ø, Hedmark E, Landa A, Brøseth H, Persson J, Andersen R, Segerström P, Ellegren H (2004) Colonization history and non-invasive monitoring of a re-established wolverine population. Conserv Biol 18:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gärdenfors U (2000) How are species redlisted? Manual and guidelines. Artdatabanken, SLU, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. Genovesi P, Sinibaldi I, Boitani L (1997) Spacing patterns and territoriality of the stone marten. Can J Zool 75:1966–1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ginsberg JR, Young T (1992) Measuring association between individuals or groups in behavioural studies. Anim Behav 44:377–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grundsten C (1997) The Laponian area: a world heritage site. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Fälths Tryckeri AB, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  18. Harestad AS, Bunnell FL (1979) Home range and body weight—a re-evaluation. Ecology 60:389–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris S, Creswell WJ, Forde PG, Trewhella T, Woollard T, Wray S (1990) Home-range analysis using radio-tracking data—a review of the problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mamm Rev 20:97–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedmark E, Persson J, Segerström P, Landa A, Ellegren H (2007) Paternity and mating system in wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biol 13(Suppl 2):13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (1997) Animal Movement Extension to arcview, Ver. 1.1. Alaska Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, Anchorage, AKGoogle Scholar
  22. Hornocker MG, Hash HS (1981) Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can J Zool 59:1286–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SAS Institute (2000) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 6. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  24. Kenward R (2001) Wildlife radio tagging: equipment, field techniques and data analysis. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Kernohan BJ, Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ (2001) Analysis of animal space use and movements. In: Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM (eds) Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic, San Diego, pp 125–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koehler GM, Hornocker MG, Hash HS (1980) Wolverine marking behaviour. Can Field-Nat 94:339–341Google Scholar
  27. Krebs J, Lofroth E, Copeland J, Banci V, Cooley D, Golden H, Magoun A, Mulders R, Shults B (2004) Synthesis of survival rates and causes of mortality in North American wolverines. J Wildl Manage 68:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landa A, Strand O, Linell JDC, Skogland T (1998) Home-range sizes and altitude selection for arctic foxes and wolverines in an alpine environment. Can J Zool 76:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landa A, Linell JDC, Lindén M, Swenson JE, Røskaft E, Moksnes A (2000) Conservation of Scandinavian wolverines in ecological and political landscapes. In: Griffiths HI (ed) Mustelids in a modern world. Management and conservation aspects of small carnivore: human interactions. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  30. Lofroth EC (2001) Northern wolverine project: 2000/01 year end report. Forest renewal activity no. 712260, BCGoogle Scholar
  31. Magoun AJ (1985) Population characteristics, ecology and management of wolverines in nortwestern Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Maher CR, Lott DF (1995) Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems. Anim Behav 49:1581–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minta SC (1992) Tests of spatial and temporal interaction among animals. Ecol Appl 2:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mustelid Specialist Group (1996) Gulo gulo. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN red list of threatened species. www.iucnredlist.org
  36. Noble GK (1939) The role of dominance in the social life of birds. Auk 56:263–273Google Scholar
  37. Persson J (2005) Female wolverine reproduction: reproductive costs and winter food availability. Can J Zool 83:1453–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Persson J (2007) Status and ecology of the wolverine in Sweden. Report to the Carnivore Commission 2007. www.sou.gov.se/storarovdjur/PDF/Artbeskrivning%20j%C3%A4rv%20v5.pdf
  39. Persson J, Willebrand T, Landa A, Andersen R, Segerström P (2003) The role of intraspecific predation in the survival of juveniles wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biol 9:21–28Google Scholar
  40. Persson J, Landa A, Andersen R, Segerström P (2006) Reproductive characteristics of female wolverines (Gulo gulo) in Scandinavia. J Mammal 87:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Persson J, Ericsson G, Segerström P (2009) Human caused mortality in the endangered Scandinavian wolverine population. Biol Conserv 142:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell RA (1979) Mustelid spacing patterns: variations on a theme by Mustela. Z Tierpsychol 50:153–165Google Scholar
  43. Powell RA (2000) Animal home ranges and home range estimators. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 65–110Google Scholar
  44. Rausch RA, Pearson AM (1972) Notes on wolverine in Alaska and the Yukon territory. J Wildl Manage 36:249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodgers AR, Carr AP (1998) HRE: The Home Range Extension for ArcView. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, ONGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandell M (1989) The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore, behaviour, ecology and evolution. Cornell University Press, New York, pp 164–182Google Scholar
  47. Schoener TW (1968) Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49:123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schoener TW (1981) An empirically based estimate of home range. Theor Popul Biol 20:281–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raedke KJ, Gitzen RA (1999) Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. J Wildl Manage 63:739–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siegel S, Castellan JN (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill Inc, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Slough B (2007) Status of the wolverine Gulo gulo in Canada. Wildlife Biol 13(Suppl 2):76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swenson JE, Andrén H (2005) A tale of two countries: large carnivore depredations and compensation schemes in Sweden and Norway. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) People and wildlife: conflict or co-existence?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 323–339Google Scholar
  53. Swihart RK, Slade NA (1985) Testing for independence of in animal movements. Ecology 66:1176–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vangen MK, Persson J, Landa A, Andersen R, Segerström P (2001) Characteristics of dispersal in wolverines. Can J Zool 79:1641–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wedholm P (2006) Territoriallity and social organization in Scandinavian wolverines Gulo gulo. M.Sc. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  56. White GC, Garrott RA (1990) Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitman JS, Ballard WB, Gardner CL (1986) Home range and habitat use by wolverines in south central Alaska. J Wildl Manage 50:460–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang M, Liu Q, Piao R, Jiang G (2007) The wolverine Gulo gulo population in the Great Kinghan Mountains, northeastern China. Wildlife Biol 13(Suppl 2):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesRiddarhyttanSweden
  2. 2.Örebro County Administrative BoardÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations