Recruitment in cooperative breeders can be negatively affected by changes in group size and composition. The majority of cooperative breeding studies have not evaluated human harvest; therefore, the effects of recurring annual harvest and group characteristics on survival of young are poorly understood. We evaluated how harvest and groups affect pup survival using genetic sampling and pedigrees for grey wolves in North America. We hypothesized that harvest reduces pup survival because of (i) reduced group size, (ii) increased breeder turnover and/or (iii) reduced number of female helpers. Alternatively, harvest may increase pup survival possibly due to increased per capita food availability or it could be compensatory with other forms of mortality. Harvest appeared to be additive because it reduced both pup survival and group size. In addition to harvest, turnover of breeding males and the presence of older, non-breeding males also reduced pup survival. Large groups and breeder stability increased pup survival when there was harvest, however. Inferences about the effect of harvest on recruitment require knowledge of harvest rate of young as well as the indirect effects associated with changes in group size and composition, as we show. The number of young harvested is a poor measure of the effect of harvest on recruitment in cooperative breeders.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,231,402
of 32,125,052 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#5,033
of 12,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,175
of 348,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#81
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,125,052 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
