1 Introduction

The study of the behavioral ecology and social structure of Canis lupus (wolves) is of paramount importance due to their role as apex predators and keystone species in various ecosystems. Wolves significantly influence prey populations and vegetation dynamics, thereby shaping the structure and function of ecosystems. Their predatory behavior and social interactions can lead to trophic cascades that enhance biodiversity and ecosystem stability (Cubaynes et al., 2014; LavallÃce et al., 2018; Ciucci et al., 2020). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective conservation and management strategies, especially in human-modified landscapes where wolves often come into conflict with human activities (Randi, 2011; Torretta et al., 2022).

Historically, wolves were widespread across Europe, North America, and Asia, but their populations have faced significant declines due to habitat loss, hunting, and persecution (Randi, 2011; Hindrikson et al., 2017). The extirpation of wolves from ecosystems such as Yellowstone National Park led to notable declines in biodiversity and habitat quality, which were only reversed upon their reintroduction. This historical context underscores the critical ecological role wolves play in maintaining the health and balance of ecosystems. Their presence regulates prey populations, which in turn affects vegetation and other wildlife species, demonstrating their importance as a keystone species (Cubaynes et al., 2014; LavallÃce et al., 2018; Barton et al., 2020).

This study aims to synthesize current knowledge on the behavioral ecology and social structure of wolves, with a focus on their ecological roles, social dynamics, and interactions with human activities. The objectives are to examine the impact of wolves on ecosystem dynamics and biodiversity, explore the social behaviors and pack dynamics that influence their survival and reproductive success, and assess the challenges and implications of wolf conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Additionally, it seeks to provide insights into the genetic diversity and population structure of wolves across different regions. By integrating findings from various studies, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted roles wolves play in ecosystems and the factors that influence their conservation and management.

2 Biology and Habitat of Canis lupus

2.1 Physical characteristics and adaptations of wolves

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) exhibits a range of physical characteristics and adaptations that enable it to thrive in diverse environments. Wolves possess a robust build, with males typically larger than females, and their fur varies in color from white to black, providing camouflage in different habitats. Their powerful jaws and sharp teeth are adapted for hunting and consuming prey, while their keen senses of smell, hearing, and sight aid in detecting prey and avoiding danger. Additionally, wolves have strong, muscular legs that allow them to travel long distances, which is crucial for hunting and territorial patrols (LavallÃce, 2018; Torretta et al., 2022).

2.2 Global distribution and habitat preferences

Wolves are highly adaptable and can be found in a variety of habitats across the Northern Hemisphere, including forests, tundras, mountains, and grasslands. Their global distribution spans North America, Europe, and Asia. In Europe, for instance, wolves have shown remarkable resilience and adaptability, recolonizing areas from which they were previously extirpated. This recolonization has been facilitated by their ability to navigate and survive in human-dominated landscapes, such as the Po Plain in Northern Italy, where they exhibit behaviors like nocturnal activity to avoid human encounters and use small-wooded patches as resting sites (Randi, 2011; Hindrikson et al., 2017; Torretta et al., 2022).

2.3 The role of wolves in various ecosystems as apex predators

As apex predators, wolves play a crucial role in maintaining the health and balance of ecosystems. Their presence can regulate prey populations, which in turn affects vegetation and the overall biodiversity of the area. For example, in Yellowstone National Park, the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 led to significant ecological changes, including increased biodiversity and improved habitat quality. Wolves' predation on herbivores like elk has allowed vegetation to recover, benefiting other species and restoring ecological balance (Figure 1) (LavallÃce, 2018; Ciucci et al., 2020). However, in human-modified landscapes, the ecological role of wolves can be altered by factors such as anthropogenic food subsidies, which can reduce their natural predatory behaviors and impact their top-down effects on ecosystems. By understanding the biology, habitat preferences, and ecological roles of wolves, we can better appreciate their importance in natural ecosystems and the need for their conservation (Janeiro-Otero et al., 2020; Pal et al., 2022).

3 Social Structure of Wolf Packs

3.1 Hierarchical organization within wolf packs

Wolf packs are typically structured around a hierarchical organization, with a dominant breeding pair, often referred to as the "alpha" pair, at the top. This alpha pair leads the pack and is primarily responsible for decision-making and guiding the group's activities. The hierarchy within the pack is not solely based on aggression or dominance but also on familial bonds and cooperative behaviors. Research indicates that the typical wolf pack functions as a family unit, with the adult parents (the alpha pair) guiding the activities of the group in a division-of-labor system. This hierarchical structure ensures the stability and efficiency of the pack, allowing for coordinated hunting, pup rearing, and territory defense (Fernández-Gil et al., 2020).

3.2 Role differentiation: alpha pair, beta wolves, and omega wolves

Within the hierarchical structure of a wolf pack, distinct roles are observed among its members. The alpha pair, consisting of the dominant male and female, holds the highest rank and is primarily responsible for breeding and leading the pack. The alpha male often takes the lead in foraging and food provisioning, while the alpha female predominates in pup care and defense. Below the alpha pair are the beta wolves, who act as second-in-command and may assist in various pack activities, including hunting and protecting the pack's territory. Beta wolves can sometimes challenge the alpha pair for dominance, leading to shifts in the pack's hierarchy (SunderRaj et al., 2021). At the bottom of the hierarchy are the omega wolves, who often serve as scapegoats and may be subjected to more aggression from other pack members. Despite their low rank, omega wolves play a crucial role in maintaining social harmony within the pack by diffusing tension and preventing conflicts from escalating (Stansbury et al., 2016; Mech and Janssens, 2021).

3.3 Social bonds, communication, and cooperative behaviors

Social bonds and communication are vital components of wolf pack dynamics. Wolves exhibit a range of cooperative behaviors that enhance the pack's cohesion and effectiveness. These behaviors include coordinated hunting, pup rearing, and territory defense. Communication within the pack is facilitated through vocalizations, body language, and scent marking, which help maintain social order and coordinate group activities. Reconciliation behaviors, such as post-conflict affiliative contacts, have been observed in wolves, indicating their capacity for maintaining social harmony and resolving conflicts (Cordoni and Palagi, 2008). These conciliatory behaviors are uniformly distributed across different sex-class combinations and are not significantly influenced by hierarchical relationships. The strong social bonds and cooperative behaviors within wolf packs are essential for their survival and reproductive success, allowing them to thrive in various environments, including those heavily influenced by human activities (Torretta et al., 2022).

4 Territoriality and Space Use

4.1 Territory establishment and defense mechanisms

Wolves (Canis lupus) establish and defend territories through a combination of scent marking, vocalizations, and physical confrontations. Territorial boundaries are often marked with urine and feces, which serve as olfactory signals to other wolves. These scent marks are regularly renewed to maintain territorial integrity and reduce the risk of intrusions by neighboring packs (Schlägel et al., 2017). Additionally, wolves patrol their territories to reinforce these boundaries and deter potential intruders. In some cases, territorial disputes can lead to aggressive encounters, which may result in injuries or fatalities (SunderRaj et al., 2021). The establishment of buffer zones between adjacent territories, where wolf presence is minimal, further reduces the likelihood of direct conflicts and provides a refuge for prey species.

4.2 Factors influencing territory size and location

The size and location of wolf territories are influenced by several factors, including habitat quality, prey availability, and human activity. Wolves tend to establish territories in areas with high prey density, such as regions with abundant ungulate populations. Habitat quality, characterized by factors such as forest cover and proximity to water sources, also plays a crucial role in determining territory size. For instance, territories in high-quality habitats with abundant prey tend to be smaller, as wolves can meet their nutritional needs within a more confined area (ędrzejewski et al., 2007; Kittle et al., 2015). Conversely, in regions with lower prey density or marginal habitats, wolves may need to establish larger territories to secure sufficient resources. Human activities, such as road density and land use, can also impact territory size and location, with wolves often avoiding areas with high human presence to reduce the risk of human-wolf conflicts (O’Neil et al., 2019; Simpson et al., 2023).

4.3 Impact of territory on pack dynamics and survival

Territoriality significantly impacts pack dynamics and survival. Stable territories provide a secure environment for raising pups and ensure consistent access to resources, which is critical for the pack's reproductive success and overall fitness (SunderRaj et al., 2021). The size and quality of a territory can influence pack size, with larger territories in resource-rich areas supporting larger packs. However, territory size does not always correlate with pack size, as other factors such as intraspecific competition and social structure also play a role (ędrzejewski et al., 2007; Kittle et al., 2015). The loss of territory or changes in territorial boundaries can lead to increased stress levels within the pack, potentially affecting their health and survival (Molnar et al., 2015). Additionally, territorial stability can influence the likelihood of hybridization with other Canis species, as seen in regions where wolves coexist with coyotes and hybrids (Benson and Patterson, 2013). Overall, maintaining a well-defined and resource-rich territory is essential for the long-term survival and stability of wolf packs.

5 Hunting Behavior and Prey Selection

5.1 Pack hunting strategies and coordination

Wolves (Canis lupus) exhibit highly coordinated pack hunting strategies that enhance their ability to capture prey. These strategies are influenced by the size and composition of the pack. Larger packs tend to have higher success rates in hunting, particularly when targeting larger prey such as bison (Bison bison) and moose (Alces alces) (Sand et al., 2016; Tallian et al., 2017). The hierarchical nature of predation is evident as wolves select hunting areas with higher prey densities and specific landscape features that increase prey vulnerability, such as open valleys and habitat edges (McPheeHeather et al., 2012). Additionally, the presence of scavengers like ravens (Corvus corax) can influence pack size, as larger packs can better defend their kills from scavengers, thereby maximizing their foraging returns.

5.2 Prey species selection and its ecological implications

Wolves are generalist predators and their prey selection is influenced by prey availability, vulnerability, and the risk of injury during the hunt. In areas with multiple prey species, wolves tend to select prey based on their relative abundance and vulnerability. For instance, in Scandinavia, wolves switch from moose to roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) as the density of roe deer increases (Sand et al., 2016). Similarly, in Poland, wolves primarily prey on wild ungulates such as roe deer, wild boar (Sus scrofa), and red deer (Cervus elaphus), reflecting the relative abundance of these species in the region (Nowak et al., 2011). The selection of prey species has significant ecological implications, as it can influence prey population dynamics and the structure of the ecosystem. For example, the preference for safer prey like elk (Cervus elaphus) over more dangerous prey like bison can affect the stability of multi-prey systems (Tallian et al., 2017).

5.3 Impact of prey availability on hunting behavior and pack success

Prey availability plays a crucial role in shaping wolf hunting behavior and pack success. Wolves tend to hunt more frequently in areas with higher prey densities, which increases their chances of a successful kill (McPheeHeather et al., 2012). However, the availability of prey can also lead to changes in prey selection patterns. For instance, in Yellowstone National Park, wolves showed a strong preference for elk even when bison were more abundant, due to the higher risk and lower success rate associated with hunting bison (Tallian et al., 2017). In regions where wild prey is abundant, wolves are less likely to prey on livestock, which can reduce human-wolf conflicts (Janeiro-Otero et al., 2020). Conversely, in areas with low wild prey density, wolves may resort to hunting livestock, leading to increased conflicts with humans. The functional response of wolves to changes in prey density highlights the importance of maintaining healthy populations of wild prey to support wolf conservation and reduce livestock depredation (Sand et al., 2016; Ståhlberg et al., 2017). By understanding the complex interplay between pack hunting strategies, prey selection, and prey availability, we can better manage wolf populations and their ecosystems, ensuring the coexistence of wolves, their prey, and human interests.

6 Reproductive Strategies and Pup Rearing

6.1 Mating systems and reproductive roles within the pack

Wolves (Canis lupus) typically exhibit a hierarchical social structure within their packs, with a dominant breeding pair, often referred to as the "alpha" pair, leading the group. The alpha male and female are primarily responsible for reproduction, while other pack members, including non-breeding adults and yearlings, play supportive roles. Breeding tenures are competitive and relatively short, often ending with the death of a breeder, which can lead to the displacement of the breeding position by unrelated immigrants or relatives of the previous breeder (Figure 2) (SunderRaj et al., 2021). This competitive nature of breeding positions underscores the importance of dominance and social stability within the pack for successful reproduction.

6.2 Pup development and the role of pack members in rearing

Pup rearing in wolf packs is a cooperative effort involving both the breeding pair and other pack members. Non-breeding individuals, particularly yearlings, often stay close to the pups and engage in alloparental care, which includes provisioning and guarding the young (Jacobs and Ausband, 2019). This kin-directed attendance behavior ensures that pups receive adequate care and protection, enhancing their chances of survival. The division of labor within the pack is evident, with the alpha female primarily involved in pup care and defense, while the alpha male focuses on foraging and food provisioning. This cooperative breeding system highlights the importance of social bonds and the collective effort in raising offspring.

6.3 Factors influencing reproductive success and pup survival

Several factors influence reproductive success and pup survival in wolf packs. Body mass of the breeding female is a primary determinant of litter size and pup survival, with larger females producing and raising more pups successfully (Stahler et al., 2013; Mech and Janssens, 2021). Pack size also plays a crucial role, with an optimal pack size of around eight wolves leading to the highest litter sizes, although survival rates increase more gradually with pack size beyond three wolves. Ecological conditions, such as prey availability, significantly affect the relationship between pack size and reproductive success. In areas with abundant prey, larger packs tend to have higher litter sizes, whereas in regions with scarce prey, smaller packs or pairs may produce more surviving pups. Additionally, the loss of breeding individuals can destabilize the pack's social structure, leading to lower denning and recruitment rates, although compensatory mechanisms such as rapid replacement of breeders can mitigate these effects (Borg et al., 2015).

In summary, the reproductive strategies and pup rearing practices of wolves are deeply intertwined with their social structure and ecological context. The cooperative nature of wolf packs, along with the influence of individual traits and environmental factors, plays a critical role in ensuring the reproductive success and survival of their offspring.

7 Human-Wolf Interactions and Their Effects on Behavior

7.1 Impact of human activities on wolf behavior and territory use

Human activities significantly influence wolf behavior and territory use. Wolves exhibit remarkable adaptability in human-dominated landscapes, often altering their movement patterns to avoid human encounters. For instance, in Northern Italy's Po Plain, rehabilitated wolves demonstrated increased nocturnal activity and utilized small-wooded patches as resting areas to evade human presence (Figure 3) (Torretta et al., 2022). Similarly, in the central Apennines, Italy, wolves established core areas at higher elevations and in more forested regions, away from human activities, indicating a habitat-mediated response to anthropogenic factors (Mancinelli et al., 2018). These adaptations highlight the wolves' ability to navigate and survive in environments heavily influenced by human activities.

7.2 Conflicts with livestock and the implications for wolf conservation

Conflicts between wolves and livestock are a major challenge for wolf conservation. Livestock depredation by wolves often leads to retaliatory killings by humans, which can hinder conservation efforts. A systematic study of grey wolf dietary preferences revealed that while wild prey constituted the majority of their diet, livestock predation still occurred, particularly in areas where livestock were left to graze freely in small numbers (Hindrikson et al., 2017; Janeiro-Otero et al., 2020). In Wisconsin, wolf-human conflicts increased over time, correlating with population growth, and were more prevalent in marginal habitats where wolves experienced higher human-caused mortalities (Simpson et al., 2023). Effective conservation strategies must address these conflicts by implementing measures such as attack prevention on pastures and increasing wild prey abundance to reduce livestock depredation.

7.3 Adaptations of wolf packs in areas with high human presence

Wolf packs exhibit various adaptations to thrive in areas with high human presence. In Yellowstone National Park, a notable case of breeding displacement occurred when three males from one pack usurped the breeding position in a neighboring pack, subsequently raising the previous male's pups. This event underscores the competitive and adaptive nature of wolf packs in response to environmental pressures (SunderRaj et al., 2021). Additionally, in the Himalayan regions of Nepal, wolf packs were observed to have smaller pack sizes and den sites located in high-altitude shrubland patches, overlapping with livestock herding areas. This overlap facilitated human-wolf conflict, leading to the killing of wolf litters by local people (Mech, 2017; Werhahn et al., 2017). These examples illustrate the wolves' ability to adapt their social structures and behaviors to mitigate the impacts of human activities and ensure their survival in diverse environments.

8 Conservation and Management of Wild Wolf Populations

8.1 Challenges in wolf conservation, including habitat loss and poaching

Wolf conservation faces numerous challenges, primarily driven by habitat loss and poaching. Habitat fragmentation due to urbanization, agriculture, and infrastructure development significantly reduces the available territory for wolves, leading to isolated populations and decreased genetic diversity (Hindrikson et al., 2017). Additionally, human-wolf conflicts, particularly livestock depredation, often result in retaliatory killings and poaching, further threatening wolf populations (Janeiro-Otero et al., 2020). The long-term persecution of wolves has historically led to a significant decrease in their numbers and genetic diversity, complicating conservation efforts.

8.2 Management strategies to support sustainable wolf populations

Effective management strategies are essential to support sustainable wolf populations. One approach is to enhance the availability of wild prey, which can reduce livestock predation and human-wolf conflicts. Implementing livestock management practices, such as using guard animals and secure enclosures, can also mitigate depredation incidents (Janeiro-Otero et al., 2020). Genetic studies suggest that maintaining gene flow between wolf populations is crucial for their long-term viability, necessitating the creation of wildlife corridors and protected areas to facilitate movement and genetic exchange (Hindrikson et al., 2017). Additionally, standardized longitudinal surveys to monitor public attitudes and the development of advanced explanatory models can inform adaptive management strategies (Dressel et al., 2015).

8.3 The role of public perception and education in wolf conservation efforts

Public perception and education play a pivotal role in wolf conservation efforts. Attitudes toward wolves vary widely, with younger and more educated individuals generally holding more positive views (Dressel et al., 2015). Public education campaigns that highlight the ecological benefits of wolves and address common misconceptions can foster more favorable attitudes and support for conservation initiatives. Moreover, incorporating social science data into conservation decisions can help align management actions with public values, as demonstrated by the supportive context for wolf reintroduction in Colorado. Engaging local communities and stakeholders through participatory approaches can also enhance the effectiveness of conservation measures and reduce conflicts (Manfredo et al., 2021). By addressing these challenges and implementing comprehensive management strategies, it is possible to support the sustainable conservation of wild wolf populations while fostering coexistence with human communities.

9 Concluding Remarks

The behavioral ecology and social structure of wolves (Canis lupus) have been extensively studied, revealing several critical insights. Wolves exhibit remarkable plasticity in their movement patterns, particularly in human-dominated landscapes. For instance, rehabilitated wolves in Northern Italy's Po Plain demonstrated the ability to spatio-temporally segregate from human activities, showing more nocturnal behavior to avoid human encounters and utilizing small-wooded patches as resting areas during long-distance movements. Additionally, wolves' home range sizes and space use patterns are influenced by human presence, with larger home ranges observed in areas with higher road density and during nighttime. Wolves' dietary preferences also play a significant role in their interactions with humans. Despite the availability of livestock, wolves predominantly select wild prey, although livestock predation still occurs, particularly in areas where livestock management practices are inadequate. The genetic diversity and population structure of wolves across Europe indicate significant spatial trends, with higher genetic diversity in northeastern populations compared to southwestern ones, highlighting the importance of gene flow and population connectivity for conservation.

The findings on wolves' behavioral ecology and social structure have several implications for future research and conservation strategies. Understanding the movement patterns and habitat preferences of wolves in human-dominated landscapes can inform management actions aimed at facilitating wolf dispersal and reducing human-wolf encounters. Additionally, the genetic diversity and population structure of wolves should be monitored continuously to ensure the long-term viability of wolf populations and to mitigate the risks of inbreeding depression. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of various livestock protection measures to reduce human-wolf conflicts. Studies have shown that deterrents such as fladry and electric fences are effective in reducing livestock predation, suggesting that these measures should be prioritized in conflict-prone areas. Moreover, interdisciplinary research is needed to understand the social dynamics and attitudes of different stakeholder groups towards wolves, as these factors significantly influence the success of coexistence strategies.

To enhance the coexistence of wolves and humans, several recommendations can be made based on current research. One key strategy is to implement effective livestock protection measures. This includes utilizing deterrents such as electric fences and fladry, and employing well-trained livestock guarding dogs during critical periods like calving and lambing seasons. Another recommendation is to promote habitat connectivity by ensuring the availability of suitable habitats and corridors to facilitate wolf dispersal and reduce the likelihood of human-wolf encounters. This involves protecting small-wooded patches and other natural habitats that wolves use for resting and movement. Engaging stakeholders in conservation efforts is also crucial. Positive attitudes towards wolves can be fostered by involving local communities, particularly farmers and hunters, in conservation planning and decision-making processes. Education and communication strategies should be tailored to different stakeholder groups to address their specific concerns and promote coexistence. Additionally, it is important to monitor the genetic diversity and population structure of wolves continuously. This helps in detecting and mitigating potential risks such as inbreeding depression, which can be achieved through non-invasive genetic methods and coordinated efforts across different regions. By implementing these recommendations, it is possible to create a more harmonious relationship between wolves and humans, ensuring the long-term conservation of this iconic species while minimizing conflicts.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors affirm that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Barton B., Hill J., Wolff C., Newsome T., Ripple W., and Lashley M., 2020, Grasshopper consumption by grey wolves and implications for ecosystems, Ecology, 101(2): 1-4.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2892

Benson J., and Patterson B., 2013, Inter-specific territoriality in a Canis hybrid zone: spatial segregation between wolves, coyotes, and hybrids, Oecologia, 173: 1539-1550.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2730-

Borg B., Brainerd S., Meier T., and Prugh L., 2015, Impacts of breeder loss on social structure, reproduction and population growth in a social canid, Journal of Animal Ecology, 84(1): 177-187

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12256

Ciucci P., Mancinelli S., Boitani L., Gallo O., and Grottoli L., 2020, Anthropogenic food subsidies hinder the ecological role of wolves: insights for conservation of apex predators in human-modified landscapes, Global Ecology and Conservation, 21: e00841.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00841

Cordoni G., and Palagi E., 2008, Reconciliation in wolves (Canis lupus): new evidence for a comparative perspective, Ethology, 114: 298-308.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01474.x

Cubaynes S., MacNulty D., Stahler D., Quimby K., Smith D., and Coulson T., 2014, Density-dependent intraspecific aggression regulates survival in northern Yellowstone wolves (Canis lupus), Journal of Animal Ecology, 83(6): 1344-1356.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12238

Dressel S., Sandström C., and Ericsson G., 2015, A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976-2012, Conservation Biology, 29(2): 565-574.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12420

Jędrzejewski W., Schmidt K., Theuerkauf J., Jędrzejewska B., and Kowalczyk R., 2007, Territory size of wolves Canis lupus: linking local (Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland) and Holarctic-scale patterns, Ecography, 30: 66-76

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2007.04826.x

Fernández-Gil A., Quevedo M., Barrientos L., Nuño A., Naves J., Gabriel M., Ordiz A., and Revilla E., 2020, Pack size in humanized landscapes: the Iberian wolf population, Wildlife Biology, 2020(2): 1-9.

https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00594

Hindrikson M., Remm J., Pilot M., Godinho R., Stronen A., Baltrūnaitė L., Czarnomska S., Leonard J., Randi E., Nowak C., Åkesson M., López-Bao J., Álvares F., Llaneza L., Echegaray J., Vilà C., Ozoliņš J., Ruņģis D., Aspi J., Paule L., Skrbinšek T., and Saarma U., 2017, Wolf population genetics in Europe: a systematic review, meta-analysis and suggestions for conservation and management, Biological Reviews, 92(3): 1601-1629.

https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12298

Jacobs C., and Ausband D., 2019, Wolves in space: locations of individuals and their effect on pup survival in groups of a cooperatively breeding canid, Animal Behaviour, 155: 189-197.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.05.028

Janeiro-Otero A., Newsome T., van Eeden L., Ripple W., and Dormann C., 2020, Grey wolf (Canis lupus) predation on livestock in relation to prey availability, Biological Conservation, 243: 108433.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.10843

Kittle A., Anderson M., Avgar T., Baker J., Brown G., Hagens J., Iwachewski E., Moffatt S., Mosser A., Patterson B., Reid D., Rodgers A., Shuter J., Street G., Thompson I., Vennen L., and Fryxell J., 2015, Wolves adapt territory size, not pack size, to local habitat quality, Journal of Animal Ecology, 84(5): 1177-1186.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12366

Lavallée C., 2018, Social behaviour and trophic interactions of gray wolves (Canis lupus), the keystone species in Yellowstone National Park, Proceedings of Manitoba's Undergraduate Science and Engineering Research, 4: 1.

https://doi.org/10.5203/pmuser.201841659

Mancinelli S., Boitani L., and Ciucci P., 2018, Determinants of home range size and space use patterns in a protected wolf (Canis lupus) population in the central Apennines, Italy, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 96(8): 828-838.

https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2017-0210

Manfredo M., Berl R., Teel T., and Bruskotter J., 2021, Bringing social values to wildlife conservation decisions, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19(6): 355-362.

https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2356

McPhee H., Webb N., and Merrill E., 2012, Hierarchical predation: wolf (Canis lupus) selection along hunt paths and at kill sites, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 90: 555-563.

https://doi.org/10.1139/z2012-021

Mech L., 2017, Where can wolves live and how can we live with them, Biological Conservation, 210: 310-317.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.029

Mech L., and Janssens L., 2021, An assessment of current wolf Canis lupus domestication hypotheses based on wolf ecology and behaviour, Mammal Review, 52(2): 304-314.

https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12273

Molnar B., Fattebert J., Palme R., Ciucci P., Betschart B., Smith D., and Diehl P., 2015, Environmental and intrinsic correlates of stress in free-ranging wolves, PLoS ONE, 10(9): e0137378.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137378

Nowak S., Mysłajek R., Kłosińska A., and Gabryś G., 2011, Diet and prey selection of wolves (Canis lupus) recolonising western and central Poland, Mammalian Biology, 76: 709-715.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2011.06.007

O’Neil S., Beyer D., and Bump J., 2019, Territorial landscapes: incorporating density-dependence into wolf habitat selection studies, Royal Society Open Science, 6(11): 190282.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190282

Pal R., Panwar A., Goyal S., and Sathyakumar S., 2022, Space use by woolly wolf Canis lupus chanco in Gangotri National Park, western Himalaya, India, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 782339.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.782339

Randi E., 2011, Genetics and conservation of wolves Canis lupus in Europe, Mammal Review, 41: 99-111.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00176.x

Sand H., Eklund A., Zimmermann B., Wikenros C., and Wabakken P., 2016, Prey selection of Scandinavian wolves: single large or several small?, PLoS ONE, 11(12): e0168062.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168062

Schlägel U., Merrill E., and Lewis M., 2017, Territory surveillance and prey management: wolves keep track of space and time, Ecology and Evolution, 7: 8388-8405.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3176

Simpson T., Thiel R., Sailer D., Reineke D., and Thomsen M., 2023, Demographics of gray wolf (Canis lupus) packs recolonizing variable habitats in central Wisconsin, Northeastern Naturalist, 30: 75-98.

https://doi.org/10.1656/045.030.0108

Ståhlberg S., Bassi E., Viviani V., and Apollonio M., 2017, Quantifying prey selection of northern and southern European wolves (Canis lupus), Mammalian Biology, 83: 34-43.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2016.11.001

Stahler D., MacNulty D., Wayne R., von Holdt B., and Smith D., 2013, The adaptive value of morphological, behavioural and life-history traits in reproductive female wolves, Journal of Animal Ecology, 82(1): 222-234.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.02039.x

Stansbury C., Ausband D., Zager P., Mack C., and Waits L., 2016, Identifying gray wolf packs and dispersers using noninvasive genetic samples, Journal of Wildlife Management, 80: 1408-1419.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21136

Sunder Raj J., Rabe J., Cassidy K., McIntyre R., Stahler D., and Smith D., 2021, Breeding displacement in gray wolves (Canis lupus): three males usurp breeding position and pup rearing from a neighbouring pack in Yellowstone National Park, PLoS ONE, 17(11): e0256618.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256618

Tallian A., Smith D., Stahler D., Metz M., Wallen R., Geremia C., Ruprecht J., Wyman C., and MacNulty D., 2017, Predator foraging response to a resurgent dangerous prey, Functional Ecology, 31: 1418-1429.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12866

Torretta E., Corradini A., Pedrotti L., Bani L., Bisi F., and Dondina O., 2022, Hide-and-seek in a highly human-dominated landscape: insights into movement patterns and selection of resting sites of rehabilitated wolves (Canis lupus) in northern Italy, Animals, 13(1): 46.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010046

Werhahn G., Kusi N., Sillero-Zubiri C., and Macdonald D., 2017, Conservation implications for the Himalayan wolf Canis (lupus) himalayensis based on observations of packs and home sites in Nepal, Oryx, 53: 663-669.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001077