Seismic cutlines have been present on Alberta's Landscape for decades. The cutlines are an important factor in Alberta's oil and gas industry, being the only way to locate oil for drilling extraction or in-situ. Originally, the cutlines created were very wide, ran in a straight line, and spanned 300-500 meters (Martin, R., 2018). In recent years, seismic lines have changed to be smaller in width and no longer run in a straight line. Instead, they have small bends to break up line of site. This has been changed in an attempt to help reduce wolf predation on large ungulate species, specifically caribou. Wolves are known to use the cutlines to make predation easier, using the long line of site to spot prey. This is important because large ungulate species, especially Woodland Caribou, have seen a decrease in population with some herds facing extirpation. In Alberta, Woodland Caribou are listed as threatened by the ESCC (Endangered Species Conservation Committee) (Alberta Government, 2016). Caribou populations have naturally fluctuated, but there is now concern that their numbers will not rise again due to climate change, human presence, and continuing industrial development (Festa-Bianchet, M. et al, 2011).
In this study, our goal is to determine if there is a statistical difference in predation levels at each site type: low-impact, legacy and no cutlines. We also want to determine if different prey types will be impacted more than others. Prey types will be recorded and separated into three categories: large, medium and small animals. Control data will be collected in an area without the presence of seismic lines.
We expect that the low-impact cutline will have the lowest predation rate out of the two cutline treatments, but will still have a higher occurrence of predation then the control site. Understanding how cutline type affect predation will help determine a suitable management options, such as increasing reclamation efforts of legacy cutlines.
For the types of prey, we expect that small animals will be the most common prey type, while large animals will be the least common. This is because we expect that the wolves will not need to feed as often when a large prey is killed versus when a small prey is killed.
Alternatively, results may show that low-impact seismic lines have higher predation rates because they are more concentrated within an area compared to legacy seismic lines. If the alternative result arises, it will provide insight into appropriate wolf management, because a current appeal of low-impact seismic lines is their supposed decrease in wolf predation when compared to a legacy cutline.