ECOLOGY OP TllE ALDIQD AJtCBIP&LAGO lfOLP UD USPOllRS TO HABITAT CBUOB Pr09ress Report ao. 3 Bulaittect br David It. Person ad lloira &. l119le­ The topography of southeastem Alaska was 1mlded by the interacticm. of tectcnic forces with glacial activity (Klein 1965), resulting in a IllUltainous, glaciated strip of mainland and an arcbipelaqo of m;;ed islllllds (Fig. 1). Although ice-free refu;ia probably existed (Baichtal .R!Cl:. ~), current plant and animal cann.mities occurrin; in the region evolved during the 10,000-year period since the la.st najor glaciaticn. B\Jnerous plant and aninal species oolcmized southeutem Alaska fran the south via the coast of British COluri)ia (Klein 1965). cne potential southern imni.grant is the gray wolf (~ lupus), which may have followed Sitka black-tailed deer (Oioc:oileus hanianu;s sitkensis) north franWashingt.ai and southern British Colurbia (Klein 1965, Priis 1985}. Morphological evidence fran skulls strongly suggests a southern cannecticm for wolves in southeastern Alaska (Nowak 1983, Friis 1985, Nowak 1994) (Pig. 2). Separated fran interior mainland areas by the glaciated Coast Mountains, wolves in southeastern Alaska are distinct frm other Alaskan and British COlmbian wolf populations (Pedersen 1982, Nowak 1983, Prlis 1985, Nowak 1994) • Similar in appearance to the original Vancouver Island wolf ( c. L_ crassodqi), southeastern Alaskan wolves ·tend to be darker and shorter- haired than wolves in other portions of Alaska, with a black color phase rmld.ng up 20 to 5°' of the anntal wolf harvest. '1b!y tend to be sraller than other Alaskan wolves, with adult males averaging 39.5 kg and fmales aver.19ing about 7 kq less (Wood 1990). Adult male wolves captured en Prince of Wales Island as part of this study, however, averaqed only 34.5 kg and females .5' averaged 33.6 kg, and cnly 14.. of the wolves harvested over the last three years in the sane area were black. Based an sku11 ·100rphol0gy, Goldnan (1944) deemed wolves in southeastem Alaska to be sufficiently distinct to warrant their own subspecific classificaticm. He gave the name Om+s lYmm. liqcni to the population, which later became known as the Alexander Archipelaqo wolf·. The ranqe of the Archipelago wolf incltdes the islands south of Frederick Sound and the narrow strip of l~ west of the Coast Mountains that extends f ran Dixon En.trance northward to Yakutat Bay (Ball 1981} (Fig. 3). Pedersen's (1982) roorpbological analysis of wolves in Alaska cmcluded that ~ L.. liqa>.i was a distinct populatie11 within Alaska and supported Golcmm's subspecific classificaticn. Ncwak {1983) and Friis (1985) also provided mrphological data indicatinq that Archipelago wolves represented a distinct populaticm.; however, both authors suggested that .ci. L.. liqoni nay be a renmant population of a larger subspecific group that once occupied the 48 ccntiquous United States. Recently, Nowak (1994) conchded a roorpbological smvey of wolves in 1 t .- t ~ ... \ .· ' N \ t 0 le m 80 PACIFIC r OCEAN I Figure 1. Alexander Archipelago in southeast Alaska Bm: indicates location of study area to be used during the intensive phase of this research. Northern Group . ____ __________________ __________ ..._ ._ _._ __. 2SO l40 290 2eO 270 2IO Greatest Length of Skull (mm) A Cal,l,2;fl1CIOI M C. L,".",",°.,".'. .,., 8 C.1 N c C. LcoilntblMlu 0 Cc... L' ocdd,,,,.,,, D C.l~ p c. l.,.,,.,,,_, F Cl.f"la"a"u° """" R c l. """"" G c. l """'°'*"' 8 C.L,,_,..,, H C. L T C.I. ............ I c. ' w wt'.°-"C".' LLfclll1ll lnMIOllU K y c. C.L~ L C. Ltpnl Figure 2 Bivariate analysis of measurement.I of the skulls of males of 19 subspecies of.wolves, showing relationship ofskull length to upper camassial length. .Adapted from Nowak (1983). ­ .- 1. C. l alma 7. C. LCIUIOdoa 13. c. l ligoni 19. c. l Jl1lbi1ua 2 C. l ardOI S. C.. Lfulcm 14. C L Jyc:aon 20. C. L oa:fclentalil c. 3. C. l bdeyi 9. C.. l peoalbus 1.S. l macbm.ii 21. C. l pmmuile'UI 4. C. L beotlmc:m 10. C. Lhudlonicm 16. C L m•mriingj 22. C. L hmdruum 5. c. l bemadi lL C. Lirmmotua 17. CL moscJlcmemil 23. C. l youngi c. 6. C. l colmnbia:aua 12. 1. labradoriua 18. C. l mcmstrabilis Figure 3. Locations of grey wolf (Canis ~) subspecies in North America. Adapted from Hall (1981). North !merica and s~ested that ~ L. liqoni nay be a ramant population of ~ .L.. pµbilus, wbieh mee occupied central and southwestem canada as well as the westem CX11tiguous United States {Pig. 4), and whose ranve bas been reduced to central canada, Minnesota, and perhaps southeastern Alaska (Fig. S). Nowak questioned whether the Alexander Archipelago wolf deserves a unique subspecific status; however, regard.lass of its status, ~ L.. liqoni nay be a unique genetic population whose closest relatives are in Minnesota, over 2,000 miles away. Wolves probably gained access to the nainland strip and nmt of the islands in the southern portion of the Aleunder Archipelac.;o because sea level was lower during the first few thousand years of the current post-qlacial pericxi (Klein 1965). Fossil remains of Sitka black-tailed deer fran Prince of Wales Island indicate that they were present at least 8,300 years ago (Baichtal ~ ~). It is reasonable to assune that wolves arrived shortly thereafter, and nay have colonized southeaste.m Alaska .between 7 ,000 and 8,000 years before present. As sea level rose, land bridges disappeared and open water distances between islands increased, potentially isolating najor island clusters such as Prince of Wales and the adjacent islands. Ccnsequently, the wolf population in southeastern Alaska nay be fragmented independent into several subpopulatians between which migraticn is restricted.. The current wolf population estimate far southeastern Alaska is 900 to 11000 individuals (Kirchhoff l!laL ~) and is based. on data collected by Alaska Department of Fish and Gane {.AD!'&G) persamel fran field observaticms, trappers, and other sources of anecdotal infomatioii~ --~ ancfliarVest-da.ta suggest that both wolf and deer populations peaked in the mid-1960s, declined during the 1970s, and began increasing again in the mid-1980s (ADF&G, \DlPUblished data). Ncmetheless, if the Archipelago wolf populaticn is fra91B1ted, it is unlikely that population trends would be consistent mrong as subpopulations unless synchrcnized by factors such weather that would affect prey popu.laticns regicnwide. FurtheJMJre, total population estinates would be largely irrelevant as a guide for mmagement and would need to be replaced by estinates for each indepecdmt subpopulatiai. Nolf population levels are generally dependent on prey abundance {Packard and Mech 1980, Keith 1983, Messier 1985, Fuller 1989). Therefore, the distribution, abundance, and stability of Archipelaqo wolf populaticms are probably a dynamic function of geography and deer populations. Deer are the wolves' principal prey, althouqh spawning salm:m (Qlcorhmchus spp.) and beaver (Castor canadensis) appear to be seasonally inl>ortant in their diets (Sni.th et AL. 1987, Person 1993) . 5 ..­ ("­ Red Wolf Miles 0 600 Figure 4. Revision of wolf taxonomy proposed by Nowak (in press). Current subspecies are lumped into 5groups: 1) Canis lupus arctos, 2) Cl. baileyi, 3) C 1. lycaon, 4) Cl. nubilus, and 5) C. I. occidentalis. Figure 5. Current range of subspecies proposed by Nowak (in press). Wolf populaticm dynamics will probably be cqlicated by :i.np!llding habitat ohanges (Van Ballenber;be and Hanley 1984). Approximately 80 to 90' of the range of the Archipelago wolf lies within the Tan;us ffaticmal Forest, where 800,000 hectares of caunercially valuable forest are scheduled to be clearcut under the current forest mma;ement plan cusrs 1991). 'ftds represents 35-37\ of the total oannercially valuable t:lnber en Tmgass Natiaial !'crest lands (USFS 1993). It !5, however, a misleading statistic became several ecological provinces or major ialand groups are being harvested at a nuch higher nte. Por uarrple, under the current forest plan, over 60' of the carmercially valuable tinbar will be cut oo Prince of Wales Island (O&?S 1993), inchxlin; m:mt ·of the low elevation, high-volme stands that are inp>rtant deer winterinq habitat. Forage available to deer is extremely lindted in second-growth ~tands greater than 20 to 30 years old (wallm and SChoen 1980, Schoen and Kirchhoff 1985). Consequently, carrying capacity for deer is expected to decline as nuch as 60\ fran historical levels in sane ecolo;ical provinces (OSFS 1993) and deer nmim's will ·decline (Walllll'.) and Schoen 1980, Hanley 1984, usrs 1991). It is therefore reucmable to speculate that tini>er harvesting will also play a mjor role in determining wolf distributim and abundance. In addition, if the wolf population · functicm as a collection of snaller, local subpopulatians associated with the najor island clusters and mlinland sections, any subpopulation reduced as a consequence of habitat change nay have a low prQbahility of benefiting fran a "rescue effect" by migrants fran neighboring subpopulations. '1'he Archipelago wolf presents a difficult challenge to wildlife nan.agers: the conservation of a large predator in a highly fragmented envircnnent that is undergoing rapid and long-term habitat change. The task is nade more difficult because little is Jm.cwn about the basic ecology of the wolf in southeastern Alaska, although nuch is known about wolves elsewhere. To predict future trends in Archipelago wolf populations, we need to know how wolves respcmd spatially, behaviorally, and nunerically to changes in habitat Call>OSition. To address this questicn, we are ccnducting a two-part carmnes. stt.dy that an extensive inventory of wolf distribution and abundance with an intensive investigaticn of the spatial organization, ltlM!!l'nellts, habitat use, and feeding ecology of wolves. The Alexander Archipelago is located in southeastern Alaska between Yakutat Bay and Dixon Entrance. The study area carprises Prince of Wales and e the adjacent islands. I:sland sizes range fran over 5900 Jcm• to less than 30 Jan•, and distances betwem islands _vary fran ·12 km to less than 1 km. Winters are generally ad.Id with highly variable f!IDCWfa,11: snow ac:emulatians are intemd.ttent. Tinbar harvestin; bu occurred in ,the area since ~ early 1900s; to date, approx:i:rrately 400,000 acres of old-growth forest have been cut and over 3000 miles of road have been built on Prince of Wales Island (USFS GIS database, 1993). Dense coniferous rain forests of Westem hemlock (~ beterophylla), Sitka spruce (~ sitchen.sis), yellCM cedar (Chanaecyparis n00tkatensis), and red cedar (~ plicata) cover large portions of the area. Understory vegetatiai varies depending en light, soils, and logging history (Alaback 1982). Vacciniun spp., Menzigia fernxrlnea, Comus cana.deosis, ~ pedatus, COptis asplenifolia, and Oplopanax ·hgrridus are carmxi species of forbs and shrubs found in the region. Generally, very little vegetaticn is found under sec:and-growth forest greater than 20 to 30 years old. Muskeg bogs cover large portions of sare islands. Wolf, deer, and beaver populations appear to be at high levels throughout the study area (I.arsen ~ ~). In additian, the region supports black bears {ilil.YI, americanus), river otters C.t.Ytn canadensis), mink (Mustela visan), and nunerous mal1 namals. Qbiective l.1 Distribution and Abundance .2f. Wolves Historical records should enable us to identify islands and other land areas that have naintained ~rsistent wolf populations and will be used to gain a historical perspective about wolves in southeastem Alaska. In addition, an extensive survey of the current distribution. and abundance of wolves in a porticm of the Ketchikan area that includes Prince of Wales and adjacent islands is being dme using aerial observations, track surveys, harvest records, and infrared-triggered cameras. Results to Date: We have caitacted wolf trappers, hunters, fishermen, native Alaskans, biologists, and foresters who have supplied valuable information about the presence and absence of wolves throughout the region. We also have cQ'll?iled historical bounty, trapping, and sealing records into a spreadsheet database. These data show that wolves are distributed throughout Game Management On.it (QIJ} 2, which includes Prince of Wales and the adjacent islands (Table 1). Data fran the last 40 years suggest, however, that only Prince of Wales, Kosciusko, and possibly Dall Islands are sufficiently large to maintain persistent wolf 9