Influence of Predator Harvest, Biological Factors, and Landscape on Elk Calf Survival in Idaho

White, Craig; Zager, Peter; Gratson, Michael W.

doi:10.2193/2007-506

Cited by 58 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, we detected a strong relationship between calf recruitment and the number of bears relocated annually, which would be unaffected by such biases. Our findings are consistent with other manipulative studies on elk calf predation by black bears in the western United States (Schlegel 1986, White et al 2010), though our study lacked randomization and a control necessary to demonstrate a strict causal relationship.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Raithel et al (2007) used life‐stage simulation analysis to show that annual variation in calf survival may be the dominant influence on short‐term variation in elk population growth. Bears are efficient predators of neonatal ungulates, particularly when hiding cover is limited (Gunther and Renkin 1990, Mattson 1997, Vreeland et al 2004, Onorato et al 2006, White et al 2010). The elk releases and most known birth sites (24 of 32 births) from 2001 to 2005 occurred in Cataloochee Valley, North Carolina, USA, in the southeastern section of GSMNP (Murrow 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, temporary predator relocation has been suggested as a means of increasing populations of reintroduced species (McKinney et al 2006) and bear relocations have proven successful in reducing predation rates on livestock (Armistead et al 1994, Linnell et al 1997). White et al (2010) found that bear population reductions through sport hunting were effective at increasing elk calf survival, especially the first 14 days postpartum when calves were most vulnerable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research from 2001 to 2006 on an experimentally released elk (Cervus elaphus) population at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP or Park) indicated that calf recruitment (i.e., calves reaching 1 yr of age per adult female elk) was low (0.306, total SE = 0.090) resulting in low or negative population growth (λ = 0.996, 95% CI = 0.945–1.047). Black bear (Ursus americanus) predation was the primary calf mortality factor. From 2006 to 2008, we trapped and relocated 49 bears (30 of which were radiocollared) from the primary calving areas in the Park and radiomonitored 67 (28 M:39 F) adult elk and 42 calves to compare vital rates and population growth with the earlier study. A model with annual calf recruitment rate correlating with the number of bears relocated each year was supported (ΔAICc = 0.000; β = 0.070, 95% CI = 0.028–0.112) and a model with annual calf recruitment differing from before to during bear relocation revealed an increase to 0.544 (total SE = 0.098; β = −1.092, 95% CI = −1.180 to −0.375). Using vital rates and estimates of process standard errors observed during our study, 25‐yr simulations maintained a mean positive growth rate in 100% of the stochastic trials with λ averaging 1.118 (95% CI = 1.096–1.140), an increase compared with rates before bear relocation. A life table response experiment revealed that increases in population growth were mostly (67.1%) due to changes in calf recruitment. We speculate that behavioral adaptation of the elk since release also contributed to the observed increases in recruitment and population growth. Our results suggest that managers interested in elk reintroduction within bear range should consider bear relocation as a temporary means of increasing calf recruitment. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have also found evidence that black bears may negatively affect recruitment of calves in a reintroduced population of elk in the eastern U.S. (Yarkovich et al 2011), but research has also suggested that predation appears to have a larger affect at lower ungulate densities (Zagar and Beechum 2006). In Idaho, elk calf survival seemed to be influenced by birth weight, habitat structure, and black bear and cougar harvest (presumably in relation to their respective densities); calf mortality through predation by black bears was described as additive (i.e., in addition to, rather than replacing, other sources), and the authors suggested that a spring bear season may be effective for improving calf survival (White et al 2010). The actual significance of predation of ungulates by black bears is likely dependent on a complex relationship involving bear densities, ungulate densities, presence and densities of other predators, weather conditions, and alternate food availability (e.g., Beechum 2006, Griffin et al 2011).…”

Section: Foraging and Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The late-denning activities of the American black bear in Utah

Miller¹,

Smith²,

Auger

et al. 2017

Ursus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDuring the early part of the 20 th Century, predators were subjected to high levels of take because of real or perceived threats to human health or safety and conflicts with agriculture/livestock. Many of our native predators have reestablished and are now very common in Oregon. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW or department) recognizes the high value of our native wildlife, including predators, and manages for a balance between sustainable populations and acceptable levels of conflicts, which is challenging at times. Public attitude toward black bears (and other wildlife species) has changed during the past several decades, and increasing black bear populations have increased the complexity of certain management issues. State wildlife agencies have been, "…caught in the middle and try to maintain a balance with their management strategies," (Pelton 2000:390) as they shift from goals related to population recovery to goals related to regulation of abundance. The mission of the department is to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife populations and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. This plan is the strategy of the department to meet its mission for management of black bears in Oregon.The 2012 Oregon Black Bear Management Plan updates the 1993-1998 Oregon Black Bear Management Plan. During the planning and revision process, stakeholder groups were invited and provided input for the plan. A public comment period also was utilized during the revision process to inform the public of the intent of the plan, how black bears are managed in Oregon, and for the department to consider public input on bear management.The plan includes information on biology and ecology of bears, with a focus on Oregon; historical and current management approaches; and biological data collection. The plan also establishes a set of four objectives designed to balance ecological, social, and economic considerations for informed decision making when managing populations of black bears. These objectives are not considered mutually exclusive; therefore, some level of trade-off is to be expected under certain situations. As with the previous bear management plans, the department continues to develop efficient and effective bear management strategies to meet objectives within its personnel and fiscal resource limitations.Objective 1 is to maintain healthy and optimum bear populations while providing optimum recreational opportunities, and considering objectives related to other wildlife species and the level of human-bear conflicts. Management of individual species should include considerations related to an ecosystem-based management approach. Management of other wildlife species, such as deer and elk, may affect management of bears, including those related to population abundance. Decisions related to management of harvested species include providing recreational opportunities for hunters. Therefore, objectives should be balanced and trade-offs should be acknowledged. ...

show abstract

“…Neonatal mortality in ungulates is sensitive to variation in numerous biological and environmental factors [6], but especially body condition at birth [2], [3], [7], limiting resources (e.g., hiding vegetation; [8], [9]), and predation [10]. These factors are often interrelated and affect survival directly through predation or indirectly through resource use and maternal nutritional effects, which can influence neonate body growth and consequently survival [11], [12], [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Maternal Nutrition, Resource Use and Multi-Predator Risk on Neonatal White-Tailed Deer Survival

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth of ungulate populations is typically most sensitive to survival of neonates, which in turn is influenced by maternal nutritional condition and trade-offs in resource selection and avoidance of predators. We assessed whether resource use, multi-predator risk, maternal nutritional effects, hiding cover, or interactions among these variables best explained variation in daily survival of free-ranging neonatal white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) during their post-partum period (14 May–31 Aug) in Michigan, USA. We used Cox proportional hazards mixed-effects models to assess survival related to covariates of resource use, composite predation risk of 4 mammalian predators, fawn body mass at birth, winter weather, and vegetation growth phenology. Predation, particularly from coyotes (Canis latrans), was the leading cause of mortality; however, an additive model of non-ideal resource use and maternal nutritional effects explained 71% of the variation in survival. This relationship suggested that dams selected areas where fawns had poor resources, while greater predation in these areas led to additive mortalities beyond those related to resource use alone. Also, maternal nutritional effects suggested that severe winters resulted in dams producing smaller fawns, which decreased their likelihood of survival. Fawn resource use appeared to reflect dam avoidance of lowland forests with poor forage and greater use by wolves (C. lupus), their primary predator. While this strategy led to greater fawn mortality, particularly by coyotes, it likely promoted the life-long reproductive success of dams because many reached late-age (>10 years old) and could have produced multiple generations of fawns. Studies often link resource selection and survival of ungulates, but our results suggested that multiple factors can mediate that relationship, including multi-predator risk. We emphasize the importance of identifying interactions among biological and environmental factors when assessing survival of ungulates.

show abstract

Influence of Predator Harvest, Biological Factors, and Landscape on Elk Calf Survival in Idaho

Cited by 58 publications

References 37 publications

Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park

The late-denning activities of the American black bear in Utah

Effects of Maternal Nutrition, Resource Use and Multi-Predator Risk on Neonatal White-Tailed Deer Survival

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About