Lawrence M Elbroch

Dr. Lawrence M Elbroch

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
6 October 2017 in Science Advances
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LELawrence M Elbroch
Lawrence M Elbroch
MLMichael Levy
Michael Levy
MLMark Lubell
Mark Lubell
HQHoward Quigley
Howard Quigley
ACAnthony Caragiulo
Anthony Caragiulo
Cost-benefit trade-offs for individuals participating in social behaviors are the basis for current theories on the evolution of social behaviors and societies. However, research on social strategies has largely ignored solitary animals, in which we assume that rare interactions are explained by courtship or territoriality or, in special circumstances, resource distributions or kinship. We used directed network analysis of conspecific tolerance at food sources to provide evidence that a solitary carnivore, the puma (Puma concolor), exhibited adaptive social strategies similar to more social animals. Every puma in our analysis participated in the network, which featured densely connected communities delineated by territorial males. Territorial males also structured social interactions among pumas. Contrary to expectations, conspecific tolerance was best characterized by direct reciprocity, establishing a fitness benefit to individuals that participated in social behaviors. However, reciprocity operated on a longer time scale than in gregarious species. Tolerance was also explained by hierarchical reciprocity, which we defined as network triangles in which one puma (generally male) received tolerance from two others (generally females) that also tolerated each other. Hierarchical reciprocity suggested that males might be cheating females; nevertheless, we suspect that males and females used different fitness currencies. For example, females may have benefited from tolerating males through the maintenance of social niches that support breeding opportunities. Our work contributes evidence of adaptive social strategies in a solitary carnivore and support for the applicability of theories of social behavior across taxa, including solitary species in which they are rarely tested.

12 December 2013 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LELawrence M Elbroch
Lawrence M Elbroch
PLPatrick E Lendrum
Patrick E Lendrum
JNJesse Newby
Jesse Newby
HQHoward Quigley
Howard Quigley
DCDerek Craighead
Derek Craighead
We tested for seasonal differences in cougar (Puma concolor) foraging behaviors in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem, a multi-prey system in which ungulate prey migrate, and cougars do not. We recorded 411 winter prey and 239 summer prey killed by 28 female and 10 male cougars, and an additional 37 prey items by unmarked cougars. Deer composed 42.4% of summer cougar diets but only 7.2% of winter diets. Males and females, however, selected different proportions of different prey; male cougars selected more elk (Cervus elaphus) and moose (Alces alces) than females, while females killed greater proportions of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and small prey than males. Kill rates did not vary by season or between males and females. In winter, cougars were more likely to kill prey on the landscape as: 1) elevation decreased, 2) distance to edge habitat decreased, 3) distance to large bodies of water decreased, and 4) steepness increased, whereas in summer, cougars were more likely to kill in areas as: 1) elevation decreased, 2) distance to edge habitat decreased, and 3) distance from large bodies of water increased. Our work highlighted that seasonal prey selection exhibited by stationary carnivores in systems with migratory prey is not only driven by changing prey vulnerability, but also by changing prey abundances. Elk and deer migrations may also be sustaining stationary cougar populations and creating apparent competition scenarios that result in higher predation rates on migratory bighorn sheep in winter and pronghorn in summer. Nevertheless, cougar predation on rare ungulates also appeared to be influenced by individual prey selection.

24 January 2018 in PeerJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LELawrence M Elbroch
Lawrence M Elbroch
AKAnna Kusler
Anna Kusler
Background: Interspecific competition affects species fitness, community assemblages and structure, and the geographic distributions of species. Established dominance hierarchies among species mitigate the need for fighting and contribute to the realized niche for subordinate species. This is especially important for apex predators, many of which simultaneous contend with the costs of competition with more dominant species and the costs associated with human hunting and lethal management.Methods: Pumas are a widespread solitary felid heavily regulated through hunting to reduce conflicts with livestock and people. Across their range, pumas overlap with six apex predators (gray wolf, grizzly bear, American black bear, jaguar, coyote, maned wolf), two of which (gray wolf, grizzly bear) are currently expanding in North America following recovery efforts. We conducted a literature search to assess whether pumas were subordinate or dominant with sympatric apex predators, as well as with three felid mesocarnivores with similar ecology (ocelot, bobcat, Canada lynx). We also conducted an analysis of the spatial distributions of pumas and their dominant sympatric competitors to estimate in what part of their range, pumas are dominant versus subordinate.Results: We used 64 sources to assess dominance among pumas and other apex predators, and 13 sources to assess their relationships with felid mesocarnivores. Evidence suggested that wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, and jaguars are dominant over pumas, but that pumas are dominant over coyotes and maned wolves. Evidence suggested that pumas are also dominant over all three felid mesocarnivores with which they share range. More broadly, pumas are subordinate to at least one other apex carnivore in 10,799,252 (47.5%) of their 22,735,268 km2range across North and South America.Discussion: Subordinate pumas change their habitat use, suffer displacement at food sources, likely experience increased energetic demands from harassment, exhibit increased starvation, and are sometimes directly killed in competitive interactions with dominant competitors. Nevertheless, we lack research clearly linking the costs of competition to puma fitness. Further, we lack research that assesses the influence of human effects simultaneous with the negative effects of competition with other sympatric carnivores. Until the time that we understand whether competitive effects are additive with human management, or even potentially synergistic, we encourage caution among managers responsible for determining harvest limits for pumas and other subordinate, apex carnivores in areas where they are sympatric with dominant species. This may be especially important information for managers working in regions where wolves and brown bears are recolonizing and recovering, and historic competition scenarios among multiple apex predators are being realized.

18 January 2022 in Mammal Review
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LLLaura R. LaBarge
Laura R. LaBarge
MEMichael Evans
Michael Evans
JMJennifer R. B. Miller
Jennifer R. B. Miller
GCGillian Cannataro
Gillian Cannataro
CHChristian Hunt
Christian Hunt
LELawrence M Elbroch
Lawrence M Elbroch
The puma Puma concolor is the fourth largest wild felid and the most widespread native terrestrial mammal of the Americas. We synthesised published literature documenting the biotic interactions of pumas, in order to: 1) advance our understanding of the ecological roles pumas play in natural systems, and 2) support strategic decision‐making about conservation investments, public education, and whole‐ecosystem conservation management. We divided puma biotic interactions into five categories: 1) diet and prey regulation, 2) fear effects on prey (including trophic cascades), 3) effects via carrion production, 4) effects on other carnivores, and 5) ecosystem services. We reviewed 162 studies that met our search criteria, which described 543 ecological interactions between pumas and 485 other species. Puma diet and prey regulation was the most common research topic. The geographic distribution of research was highly skewed towards the USA and Canada, and research in Tropical moist forests was underrepresented. We found a steep increase in the number of scientific publications exploring the biotic interactions associated with pumas over time, but publications that reported effect sizes or measured the strength of interactions did not increase as quickly. We noted numerous gaps in our knowledge of puma biotic interactions and found few well‐controlled studies of prey fear effects, trophic cascades, or ecosystem services. We conclude that pumas are influential ecological actors in natural systems and important brokers of energy and nutrients throughout ecosystems in the Western Hemisphere, linking disparate species from many trophic levels. Ultimately, we found evidence for investing in and prioritising the protection and restoration of puma populations to conserve biodiversity in the Americas.

16 October 2015 in Journal of Animal Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LELawrence M Elbroch
Lawrence M Elbroch
PLPatrick E Lendrum
Patrick E Lendrum
HQHoward Quigley
Howard Quigley
ACAnthony Caragiulo
Anthony Caragiulo

12 January 2017 in Journal of Zoology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LELawrence M Elbroch
Lawrence M Elbroch
JFJ. Feltner
J. Feltner
HQH. B. Quigley
H. B. Quigley