Do large carnivores use riparian zones? Ecological implications for forest management

Phoebus, Isobel; Segelbacher, Gernot; Stenhouse, Gordon B.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.07.037

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, HCC was reduced in areas with increased CTI, which contrasts previous studies showing that low stress levels in male grizzly bears were associated with low soil wetness (Bourbonnais et al 2013). Areas with higher CTI are more likely to be a riparian zone or wetland, and grizzly bears have been shown to select for such areas (Phoebus et al 2017). Therefore, these areas are likely more productive and facilitate food resources (Nielsen et al 2004c).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CTI represents water flow accumulation (Beven and Kirkby 1979) and soil moisture based on slope and aspect, and upstream water sources (Gessler et al 1995). Thus, it can highlight riparian areas, which provide valuable habitat for grizzly bears, especially in multi‐use landscapes (Phoebus et al 2017). The TRI was used to quantitatively measure the complexity and variability of the terrain (Riley et al 1999, Wilson and Gallant 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Population‐level monitoring of stress in grizzly bears between 2004 and 2014

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in west‐central Alberta occupy an increasingly human‐dominated landscape. Natural resource extraction activities are hypothesized to increase stress in animals that reside in such changing landscapes by influencing habitat and resource availability. Our study aimed to determine whether stress, represented by hair cortisol concentration (HCC), was associated with variables related to landscape conditions in a population that increased by 7% annually from 2004 to 2014. Hair samples (n = 157) were collected using barbwire hair snags placed throughout the Yellowhead bear management area in Alberta, Canada. Candidate models were developed a priori representing hypotheses related to biologically and ecologically plausible relationships between HCC and landscape variables. Generalized linear model analysis with landscape attributes representing anthropogenic disturbance, food resource availability, and terrain conditions was used to determine potential drivers of HCC. We found support (ΔAICc ≤ 2.00) for three models that included variables from each hypothesis. Anthropogenic variables had the greatest impact on HCC; increasing oil and gas well‐site density resulted in reduced HCC, while increasing distance to coal mines resulted in elevated HCC. Hair cortisol concentration also increased as forest crown closure became more variable, while HCC decreased as the soil wetness (represented by compound topographic index) increased. Some forms of anthropogenic disturbance have been linked to increased food availability for this species. Therefore, we suggest that changes in landscape conditions from 2004 to 2014 may have indirectly increased food abundance and ultimately resulted in a reduction in HCC at a population level during this time period. Measuring HCC provides a non‐invasive and important monitoring strategy to assess the impact of environmental change on residing species and should be considered in landscape management decisions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population‐level monitoring of stress in grizzly bears between 2004 and 2014

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence that major transportation routes and the accompanying infrastructure are fragmenting populations (Proctor et al., ), and the effects of barriers to movement and habitat connectivity on the genetic structure of grizzlies requires further investigation. Furthermore, the responses of grizzlies to anthropogenic habitat alterations, such as oil and gas exploration (Sorenson, Stenhouse, Bourbonnais, & Nelson, ), mining (Cristescu, Stenhouse, Symbaluk, Nielsen, & Boyce, ), forestry (Phoebus, Segelbacher, & Stenhouse, ), agriculture (Northrup, Stenhouse, & Boyce, ), and human recreation (Ladle, Steenweg, Shepherd, & Boyce, ) need to be better understood. Given their large home ranges, wide provincial distribution, remote and hard to access habitats, and limited operational resources, monitoring the provincial grizzly bear population also presents significant logistical challenges.…”

Section: Towards Population Recovery In Alberta Canadamentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards grizzly bear population recovery in a modern landscape

Coogan

Coops

Janz

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Agricultural practices lead to losses of natural resources and biodiversity (Godfray & Garnett, ). One mechanism to minimize the impact of clearing for agriculture and other production activities on biodiversity is to maintain riparian forest strips (insects: Barlow et al, , Brito et al, , Gray, Lewis, Chung, & Fayle, , Gray, Slade, Mann, & Lewis, ; macroinvertebrates: McClain, ; fish: Giam et al, ; birds: Machtans, Villard, & Hannon, , Mitchell et al, , Whitaker & Montevecchi, ; bats: Lloyd, Law, & Goldingay, , Mullin, ; small mammals: Al‐Khudhairy Gutierrez, ; Chapman & Ribic, ; Cockle & Richardson, ; Darveau, Labbe, Beauchesne, Belanger, & Huot, ; large and medium‐sized mammals: Paolino et al, , Phoebus, Segelbacher, & Stenhouse, , Zimbres, Peres, & Machado, ). These strips may become prominent features in agricultural landscapes and may assume disproportionate roles in protecting biodiversity outside protected areas (Arriaga‐Flores, Castro‐Arellano, Moreno‐Valdez, & Correa‐Sandoval, ; Mendenhall, Karp, Meyer, Hadly, & Daily, ; Naiman, Decamps, & Pollock, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Al-Khudhairy Gutierrez, 2015;Chapman & Ribic, 2002;Cockle & Richardson, 2003;Darveau, Labbe, Beauchesne, Belanger, & Huot, 2001; large and medium-sized mammals: Paolino et al, 2018, Phoebus, Segelbacher, & Stenhouse, 2017, Zimbres, Peres, & Machado, 2017. These strips may become prominent features in agricultural landscapes and may assume disproportionate roles in protecting biodiversity outside protected areas (Arriaga-Flores, Castro-Arellano, Moreno-Valdez, & Correa-Sandoval, 2012;Mendenhall, Karp, Meyer, Hadly, & Daily, 2014;Naiman, Decamps, & Pollock, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do riparian forest strips in modified forest landscapes aid in conserving bat diversity?

Carrasco‐Rueda

Loiselle

2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural practices lead to losses of natural resources and biodiversity. Maintaining forests alongside streams (riparian forest strips) has been used as a mechanism to minimize the impact of clearing for agriculture on biodiversity. To test the contribution of riparian forest strips to conserve biodiversity in production landscapes, we selected bats as a biodiversity model system and examined two dimensions of diversity: taxonomic and functional. We compared bat diversity and composition in forest, with and without stream habitat, and in narrow forest riparian strips surrounded by areas cleared for agriculture. We tested the hypothesis that riparian forest strips provide potential conservation value by providing habitat and serving as movement corridors for forest bat species. Riparian forest strips maintained 75% of the bat species registered in forested habitats. We found assemblage in sites with riparian forest strips were dominated by a few species with high abundance and included several species with low abundance. Bat species assemblage was more similar between sites with streams than between those sites to forests without stream habitat. These results highlight the importance of stream habitat in predicting presence of bat species. We registered similar number of guilds between forest sites and riparian forest strips sites. Relative to matrix habitats, stream and edge habitats in riparian forest strips sites were functionally more diverse, supporting our hypothesis about the potential conservation value of riparian forest strips. Results from this study suggest that maintaining riparian forest strips within cleared areas for agricultural areas helps conserve the taxonomic and functional diversity of bats. Also, it provides basic data to evaluate the efficacy of maintaining these landscape features for mitigating impacts of agricultural development on biodiversity. However, we caution that riparian forest strips alone are not sufficient for biodiversity maintenance; their value depends on maintenance of larger forest areas in their vicinity.

show abstract

Do large carnivores use riparian zones? Ecological implications for forest management

Cited by 14 publications

References 38 publications

Population‐level monitoring of stress in grizzly bears between 2004 and 2014

Population‐level monitoring of stress in grizzly bears between 2004 and 2014

Towards grizzly bear population recovery in a modern landscape

Do riparian forest strips in modified forest landscapes aid in conserving bat diversity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About