Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 2493–2507 | Cite as

Carnivore community response to anthropogenic landscape change: species-specificity foils generalizations

  • Nicole HeimEmail author
  • Jason T. Fisher
  • John Volpe
  • Anthony P. Clevenger
  • John Paczkowski
Research Article



Human exploitation of landscapes result in widespread species range loss and spatial community redistribution. Reduced species occupancy for large ranging terrestrial carnivore communities in disturbed or fragmented landscapes is a common outcome but the underlying mechanisms are ambiguous and the complexity of interacting mechanisms often under-appreciated.


To examine for similarity in spatial responses of carnivores to human-mediated landscape disturbance, we hypothesize common mechanism(s) to manifest at the community-level. To then incorporate a competitive surface, we evaluate the relative role interspecific interactions may play, where some species are benefited by altered habitat conditions.


We deployed camera-trap arrays across a systematic grid-based study design to quantify carnivore occurrence. We tested hypotheses to understand spatial patterns of carnivore occurrence, in relation to biophysical and anthropogenic landscape factors, using multivariate analysis and species distribution models under an information-theoretic approach.


Differential response was found within the carnivore community, with some species occurring more frequently in disturbed landscapes while others displayed landscape scale avoidance of more highly disturbed areas. Interspecific interactions played an additive role to human-mediated response by some carnivores—suggesting generalist, human-adapted species, exaggerate interference interactions for other more sensitive species.


Generalizable patterns are highly sought as clues to consistent mechanisms effecting changes to spatial distributions, but evidence weighs heavily in favour of species-specificity in responses implicating mechanisms that likewise vary for each species. Our findings underscore the value of a trait-based and community-level approach to understanding and managing the effects of anthropogenic land-use change on vertebrate biodiversity.


Anthropogenic disturbance Carnivore Community composition Occupancy Spatial distribution Generalist Conservation 



Thanks to Kent Richardson (AITF) and Scott Jevons (Alberta Parks) for GIS expertise and support. This project was achieved through many contributions by those behind the scenes and on the ground, including: Melanie Percy, Jon Jorgenson, Sandra Code, Jay Honeyman, Tom Partello, Alex MacIvor, Stephen Holly, Anne Hubbs, Carrie Nugent, Joyce Gould, Matthew Wheatley, Michelle Hiltz, Brenda Dziwenka, Susan Allen, Luke Nolan, Daivuan Pan, and Connie Jackson.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_882_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)
10980_2019_882_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) (2010) Alberta human footprint maps. Accessed Jan 2013
  2. Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis: spatial coexistence mechanisms. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122Google Scholar
  3. Anderson DR (2008) Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Arjo WM, Pletscher DH (1999) Behavioral responses of coyotes to wolf recolonization in northwestern Montana. Can J Zool 77:1919–1927Google Scholar
  5. Banks-Leite C, Pardini R, Boscolo D, Cassano CR, Püttker T, Barros CS, Barlow J (2014) Assessing the utility of statistical adjustments for imperfect detection in tropical conservation science. J Appl Ecol 51:849–859PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger KM, Gese EM (2007) Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? J Anim Ecol 76:1075–1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2009) Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western United States. Biol Conserv 142:2401–2414Google Scholar
  8. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011) Numerical ecology with R. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landscape Ecol 19:1–20Google Scholar
  10. Brodie JF, Post E (2010) Nonlinear responses of wolverine populations to declining winter snowpack. Popul Ecol 52:279–287Google Scholar
  11. Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GA, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues AS (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313:58–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton AC, Sam MK, Kpelle DG, Balangtaa C, Buedi EB, Brashares JS (2011) Evaluating persistence and its predictors in a West African carnivore community. Biol Conserv 144:2344–2353Google Scholar
  13. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Caro TM, Stoner CJ (2003) The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biol Conserv 110:67–75Google Scholar
  15. Copeland RE, Yates I Kojola, May R (2010) The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Can J Zool 88:233–246Google Scholar
  16. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book chichester. Wiley, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of Mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16:488–502Google Scholar
  18. Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566Google Scholar
  19. Díaz S, Fargione J, Iii FSC, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol 4:e277PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickie M, Serrouya R, McNay RS, Boutin S (2017) Faster and farther: wolf movement on linear features and implications for hunting behaviour. J Appl Ecol 54:253–263Google Scholar
  21. Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, Carpenter SR, Essington TE, Holt RD, Jackson JBC, Marquis RJ, Oksanen L, Oksanen T, Paine RT, Pikitch EK, Ripple WJ, Sandin SA, Scheffer M, Schoener TW, Shurin JB, Sinclair ARE, Soulé ME, Virtanen R, Wardle DA (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301–306Google Scholar
  22. Ewers RM, Didham RK, Pearse WD, Lefebvre V, Rosa IMD, Carreiras JMB, Lucas RM, Reuman DC (2013) Using landscape history to predict biodiversity patterns in fragmented landscapes. Ecol Lett 16:1221–1233PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Farr MT, Green DS, Holekamp KE, Roloff GJ, Zipkin EF (2019) Multispecies hierarchical modeling reveals variable responses of African carnivores to management alternatives. Ecol Appl 29:e01845PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher JT, Anholt B, Bradbury S, Wheatley M, Volpe JP (2013a) Spatial segregation of sympatric marten and fishers: the influence of landscapes and species-scapes. Ecography 36:240–248Google Scholar
  25. Fisher JT, Anholt B, Volpe JP (2011) Body mass explains characteristic scales of habitat selection in terrestrial mammals. Ecol Evol 1:517–528PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher JT, Bradbury S (2014) A multi-method hierarchical modeling approach to quantifying bias in occupancy from noninvasive genetic tagging studies. J Wildl Manag 78:1087–1095Google Scholar
  27. Fisher JT, Bradbury S, Anholt B, Nolan L, Roy L, Volpe JP, Wheatley M (2013b) Wolverines (Gulo gulo luscus) on the rocky mountain slopes: natural heterogeneity and landscape alteration as predictors of distribution. Can J Zool 91:406–716Google Scholar
  28. Fisher JT, Burton AC (2018) Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape. Front Ecol Environ 16(6):323–328Google Scholar
  29. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence Elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86:1320–1330Google Scholar
  30. Gehrt SD, Clark WR (2003) Raccoons, coyotes, and reflections on the mesopredator release hypothesis. Wildl Soc Bull 31:836–842Google Scholar
  31. Gittleman JL (2001) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, IrvintonGoogle Scholar
  32. Glen AS, Dickman CR (2005) Complex interactions among mammalian carnivores in Australia, and their implications for wildlife management. Biol Rev 80:387–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Global Forest Watch Canada (2014) State of Alberta’s forests with a focus on the Eastern slopes. Presentation and maps. Accessed Jan 2013
  34. Godsoe W, Harmon LJ (2012) How do species interactions affect species distribution models? Ecography 35:811–820Google Scholar
  35. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009Google Scholar
  36. Hall DK, Riggs GA (2007) Accuracy assessment of the MODIS snow products. Hydrol Process 21:1534–1547Google Scholar
  37. Hebblewhite M, White CA, Nietvelt CG, McKenzie JA, Hurd TE, Fryxell JM, Bayley SE, Paquet PC (2005) Human activity mediates a trophic cascade caused by wolves. Ecology 86:2135–2144Google Scholar
  38. Heim N, Fisher JT, Clevenger A, Paczkowski J, Volpe J (2017) Cumulative effects of climate and landscape change drive spatial distribution of Rocky Mountain wolverine (Gulo gulo L.). Ecol Evol 7:8903–8914PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hody JW, Kays R (2018) Mapping the expansion of coyotes (Canis latrans) across North and Central America. ZooKeys 759:81–97Google Scholar
  40. Holt RD (2009) Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:19659–19665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Hooper DU, Adair EC, Cardinale BJ, Byrnes JEK, Hungate BA, Matulich KL, Gonzalez A, Duffy JE, Gamfeldt L, O’Connor MI (2012) A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Koen EL (2008) Surveying and monitoring wolverines in Ontario and other lowland, boreal forest habitats: recommendations and protocols. Northwest Science and Information Section, Ministry of Natural Resources, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  43. Konstant P, Flick J, Pilgrim S, Oldfield G, Magin C, Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, Bayne E, Boutin S (2015) Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol 52:675–685Google Scholar
  44. Krebs J, Lofroth EC, Parfitt I (2007) Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. J Wildl Manag 71:2180–2192Google Scholar
  45. Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Roda F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24:564–571PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192Google Scholar
  47. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Leu M (2008) The human footprint in the west: a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecol Appl 18:1119–1139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Levins R, Culver D (1971) Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 68:1246–1248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindenmayer DB, Welsh A, Blanchard W, Tennant P, Donnelly C (2014) Exploring co-occurrence of closely-related guild members in a fragmented landscape subject to rapid transformation. Ecography 38:251–260Google Scholar
  51. Linnell JDC, Strand O (2000) Interference interactions, co-existence and conservation of mammalian carnivores. Divers Distrib 6:169–176Google Scholar
  52. Litvaitis JA, Villafuerte R (1996) Intraguild predation, mesopredator release, and prey stability. Conserv Biol 10:676–677Google Scholar
  53. Lotka AJ (1925) Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  54. Long RA, MacKay P, Ray J, Zielinski W (2008) Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island PressGoogle Scholar
  55. MacKenzie DI (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Markovchick-Nicholls L, Regan HM, Deutschman DH, Widyanata A, Martin B, Noreke L, Ann Hunt T (2008) Relationships between human disturbance and wildlife land use in urban habitat fragments. Conserv Biol 22:99–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Matthiopoulos J (2011) How to be a quantitative ecologist: the “A to R” of green mathematics and statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. May R, Landa A, van Dijk J, Linnell JDC, Andersen R (2006) Impact of infrastructure on habitat selection of wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildl Biol 12:285–295Google Scholar
  59. McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  60. McDermid GJ, Hall RJ, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Franklin SE, Stenhouse GB, Kobliuk T, LeDrew EF (2009) Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment. For Ecol Manag 257:2262–2269Google Scholar
  61. McKenzie HW, Merrill EH, Spiteri RJ, Lewis MA (2012) How linear features alter predator movement and the functional response. Interface Focus 2:205–216PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Mittlebach Gary G (2012) Community ecology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  63. Muray DL, Larivière S (2002) The relationship between foot size of wild canids and regional snow conditions: evidence for selection against a high footload? J Zool 256:289–299Google Scholar
  64. Murrell DJ, Law R (2003) Heteromyopia and the spatial coexistence of similar competitors. Ecol Lett 6:48–59Google Scholar
  65. Newsome TM, Ripple WJ (2014) A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes. J Anim Ecol 84:49–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. O’Connell AF, Nichols JD, Karanth KU (2011) Camera traps in animal ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Ordeñana MA, Crooks KR, Boydston EE, Fisher RN, Lyren LM, Siudyla S, Haas CD, Harris S, Hathaway SA, Turschak GM, Miles AK, Van Vuren DH (2010) Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness. J Mammal 91:1322–1331Google Scholar
  68. Palomares F, Caro TM (1999) Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. Am Nat 153:492–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Prugh LR, Stoner CJ, Epps CW, Bean WT, Ripple WJ, Laliberte AS, Brashares JS (2009) The rise of the mesopredator. Bioscience 59:779–791Google Scholar
  70. Putman R (1994) Community ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL: Accessed 2012–2015.
  72. Rauset GR, Mattisson J, Andrén H, Chapron G, Persson J (2012) When species’ ranges meet: assessing differences in habitat selection between sympatric large carnivores. Oecologia 172:701–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Reed SE, Merenlender AM (2008) Quiet, nonconsumptive recreation reduces protected area effectiveness. Conserv Lett 1:146–154Google Scholar
  74. Riley SJ, DeGloria SD, Elliot R (1999) A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Int J Sci 5:23–27Google Scholar
  75. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Wirsing AJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Ritchie EG, Johnson CN (2009) Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecol Lett 12:982–998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Rota CT, Fletcher RJ Jr, Dorazio RM, Betts MG (2009) Occupancy estimation and the closure assumption. J Appl Ecol 46:1173–1181Google Scholar
  78. Royle JA (2006) Site occupancy models with heterogeneous detection probabilities. Biometrics 62:97–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Šálek M, Drahníková L, Tkadlec E (2014) Changes in home range sizes and population densities of carnivore species along the natural to urban habitat gradient. Mammal Rev 45:1–14Google Scholar
  80. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52:891–904Google Scholar
  81. Seip DR (1992) Factors limiting woodland caribou populations and their interrelationships with wolves and moose in southeastern British Columbia. Can J Zool 70:1494–1503Google Scholar
  82. Sergio F, Schmitz OJ, Krebs CJ, Holt RD, Heithaus MR, Wirsing AJ, Ripple WJ, Ritchie E, Ainley D, Oro D, Jhala Y, Hiraldo F, Korpimaki E (2014) Towards a cohesive, holistic view of top predation: a definition, synthesis and perspective. Oikos 123:1234–1243Google Scholar
  83. Smith RL, Smith TM (2001) Ecology and field biology: hands-on field package. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  84. Soberón J (2007) Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol Lett 10:1115–1123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Soulé ME, Estes JA, Berger J, Del Rio CM (2003) Ecological effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species. Conserv Biol 17:1238–1250Google Scholar
  86. Stewart FEC, Fisher JT, Burton AC, Volpe JP (2018) Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use. Ecosphere 9:e02112Google Scholar
  87. Thompson W (2004) Sampling rare or elusive species: concepts, designs, and techniques for estimating population parameters. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  88. Tigas LA, Van Vuren DH, Sauvajot RM (2002) Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biol Conserv 108:299–306Google Scholar
  89. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66Google Scholar
  90. Toews M, Juanes F, Burton AC (2017) Mammal responses to human footprint vary with spatial extent but not with spatial grain. Ecosphere 8:e01735Google Scholar
  91. Toews M, Juanes F, Burton AC (2018) Mammal responses to the human footprint vary across species and stressors. J Environ Manag 217:690–699Google Scholar
  92. Turchin P (2001) Does population ecology have general laws? Oikos 94:17–26Google Scholar
  93. Virgós E (2002) Are habitat generalists affected by forest fragmentation? A test with Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) in coarse-grained fragmented landscapes of central Spain. J Zool 258:313–318Google Scholar
  94. Watts K, Handley P (2010) Developing a functional connectivity indicator to detect change in fragmented landscapes. Ecol Ind 10:552–557Google Scholar
  95. Wiens JA, Moss MR (2005) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  96. Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, Dill LM (2007) Fear factor: do Dugongs (Dugong dugon) trade food for safety from Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier)? Oecologia 153:1031–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Zuur AF, Hilbe J, Ieno EN (2013) A beginner’s guide to GLM and GLMM with R: a frequentist and Bayesian perspective for ecologists. Highland Statistics, NewburghGoogle Scholar
  98. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Heim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jason T. Fisher
    • 2
  • John Volpe
    • 3
  • Anthony P. Clevenger
    • 4
  • John Paczkowski
    • 5
  1. 1.Alberta Environment and ParksCanmore, ABCanada
  2. 2.Innotech AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  4. 4.Montana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  5. 5.Alberta Environment and ParksCanmoreCanada

Personalised recommendations