Black bear resource selection in the northeast Cascades, Washington

Lyons, Andrea L.; Gaines, William L.; Servheen, Christopher

doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00349-x

Cited by 55 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Forest-edge selection has been reported in several studies on Grizzly bears [24]–[25], Scandinavian brown bears [26] and American black bears [27]. To our knowledge, this is the first report of forest-edge selection by Asiatic black bears.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Habitat Selection of a Large Carnivore along Human-Wildlife Boundaries in a Highly Modified Landscape

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When large carnivores occupy peripheral human lands conflict with humans becomes inevitable, and the reduction of human-carnivore interactions must be the first consideration for those concerned with conflict mitigation. Studies designed to identify areas of high human-bear interaction are crucial for prioritizing management actions. Due to a surge in conflicts, against a background of social intolerance to wildlife and the prevalent use of lethal control throughout Japan, Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) are now threatened by high rates of mortality. There is an urgent need to reduce the frequency of human-bear encounters if bear populations are to be conserved. To this end, we estimated the habitats that relate to human-bear interactions by sex and season using resource selection functions (RSF). Significant seasonal differences in selection for and avoidance of areas by bears were estimated by distance-effect models with interaction terms of land cover and sex. Human-bear boundaries were delineated on the basis of defined bear-habitat edges in order to identify areas that are in most need of proactive management strategies. Asiatic black bears selected habitats in close proximity to forest edges, forest roads, rivers, and red pine and riparian forests during the peak conflict season and this was correctly predicted in our human-bear boundary maps. Our findings demonstrated that bears selected abandoned forests and agricultural lands, indicating that it should be possible to reduce animal use near human lands by restoring season-specific habitat in relatively remote areas. Habitat-based conflict mitigation may therefore provide a practical means of creating adequate separation between humans and these large carnivores.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Habitat Selection of a Large Carnivore along Human-Wildlife Boundaries in a Highly Modified Landscape

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even at fine spatial scales, anthropogenic foraging was more likely near riparian areas. Similarly in Missoula, Montana, bear conflicts occurred at a disproportionately high rate near riparian areas (Merkle et al 2011) and in many non-urban studies, bears often select for riparian habitat at a landscape scale (Elowe 1984, Clark et al 1993, Fecske et al 2002, Lyons et al 2003, Obbard et al 2010. Managers can prioritize these areas for conflict mitigation, e.g., targeted education, and use our understanding of urban wildlife ecology to help further develop solutions to conflict.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Urban environments offer wildlife novel anthropogenic resources that vary spatiotemporally at fine scales. Property damage, economic losses, human injury, or other human-wildlife conflicts can occur when wildlife use these resources; however, few studies have examined urban wildlife resource selection at fine scales to guide conflict mitigation. We studied black bears (Ursus americanus) in the urban area of Aspen, Colorado, USA from 2007 to 2010 to quantify bear foraging on natural and anthropogenic resources and to model factors associated with anthropogenic feeding events. We collected fine-scale spatiotemporal data by tracking GPS-collared bears at 30-min intervals and backtracked to bear locations within 24 hours of use. We used discrete choice models to assess bears' resource selection, modeling anthropogenic feeding (use) and five associated random (availability) locations as a function of attributes related to temporally changing natural (e.g., ripe mast) and human (e.g., garbage) food resources, urban characteristics (e.g., housing density), and land cover characteristics (e.g., distance to riparian area). We backtracked to 2,675 locations used by 24 bears and classified 20% as foraging locations. We found that bears foraged on both natural and anthropogenic food sources in the urban environment, with 77% of feeding events being anthropogenic. We documented inter-and intra-annual foraging patterns in which bears foraged extensively in urban areas when natural food production was poor, then switched to natural food sources when available. These patterns suggest that bears balance energy budgets and individual safety when making foraging decisions. Overwhelmingly, garbage was the main anthropogenic food source that bears used. Selection of foraging sites was not only influenced by presence of garbage but also by proximity to riparian habitat and presence of ripe anthropogenic fruit trees. We found that while 76% of the garbage containers at random locations were bear-resistant, 57% of these bear-resistant containers were not properly secured. We recommend conflict mitigation focus on reducing available garbage and anthropogenic fruit trees, particularly near riparian areas, to make urban environments less energetically beneficial for foraging. Additionally, deploying bear-resistant containers is inadequate without education and proactive enforcement to change human behavior to properly secure garbage and ultimately reduce human-bear conflict.

show abstract

“…Indeed, bears use forest edges more than other large carnivores in Scandinavia (May et al 2008), and Moe et al (2007) found bear beds in dense habitats with more open surroundings. Likewise, Lyons et al (2003) often located black bears near edges of closed canopy classes in North America. This Table 1 List of candidate and selected models for bed/random site, horizontal cover at beds (sighting distance as response variable) and canopy cover at beds (canopy openness as response variable), respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cover is a key habitat factor that may lower the risk of mortality by reducing the chance of detection and hindering attacks (Mysterud and Østbye 1999), and it is important for many animal groups, including carnivores. For instance, American black bears (Ursus americanus) select for a mosaic of habitat types that provide cover near food resources (Lyons et al 2003); European badgers (Meles meles) need cover for the selection of diurnal resting dens, even in a highly protected national park where disturbance by people is expected to be low (Revilla et al 2001); spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) are able to persist in areas with increasing livestock pressure by relying on dense cover (Boydston et al 2003); and the availability of cover for resting during daytime is probably the limiting habitat requirement for European lynx (Lynx lynx) in human-dominated areas (Sunde et al 1998). Also, the availability of cover is important in determining how human activities inXuence brown bear habitat use (e.g., Suring et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predators or prey? Spatio-temporal discrimination of human-derived risk by brown bears

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prey usually adjust anti-predator behavior to subtle variations in perceived risk. However, it is not clear whether adult large carnivores that are virtually free of natural predation adjust their behavior to subtle variations in human-derived risk, even when living in human-dominated landscapes. As a model, we studied resting-site selection by a large carnivore, the brown bear (Ursus arctos), under different spatial and temporal levels of human activity. We quantified horizontal and canopy cover at 440 bear beds and 439 random sites at different distances from human settlements, seasons, and times of the day. We hypothesized that beds would be more concealed than random sites and that beds would be more concealed in relation to human-derived risk. Although human densities in Scandinavia are the lowest within bear ranges in Western Europe, we found an effect of human activity; bears chose beds with higher horizontal and canopy cover during the day (0700-1900 hours), especially when resting closer to human settlements, than at night (2200-0600 hours). In summer/fall (the berry season), with more intensive and dispersed human activity, including hunting, bears rested further from human settlements during the day than in spring (pre-berry season). Additionally, day beds in the summer/fall were the most concealed. Large carnivores often avoid humans at a landscape scale, but total avoidance in human-dominated areas is not possible. Apparently, bears adjust their behavior to avoid human encounters, which resembles the way prey avoid their predators. Bears responded to fine-scale variations in human-derived risk, both on a seasonal and a daily basis.

show abstract

Black bear resource selection in the northeast Cascades, Washington

Cited by 55 publications

References 16 publications

Habitat Selection of a Large Carnivore along Human-Wildlife Boundaries in a Highly Modified Landscape

Habitat Selection of a Large Carnivore along Human-Wildlife Boundaries in a Highly Modified Landscape

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

Predators or prey? Spatio-temporal discrimination of human-derived risk by brown bears

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About