Using habitat suitability and landscape connectivity in the spatial prioritization of public outreach and management during carnivore recolonization

Abstract

Despite continued global declines in large carnivore abundance and distribution, some species are recovering. In North America, these recoveries can occur in large areas of suitable habitat in or near areas of human development, increasing the likelihood of human–carnivore conflicts. Understanding the intersection among habitat suitability, connectivity and human–carnivore conflicts can aid in conflict prevention and mitigation. We used GPS collar data from 97 bears and conflict reports collected from 1991 to 2020 to examine black bear Ursus americanus habitat suitability and landscape connectivity in relation to community‐level human–bear conflict occurrences and conflict rates in Missouri, USA. We used conflict–landscape relationships to predict potential community‐level human–bear conflicts given black bear recolonization. Suitable habitat for black bears comprised about 29% of Missouri and was predominantly forest and shrub cover with low habitat fragmentation and human density, and greater spring vegetation productivity. Landscape connectivity was greatest in south‐central Missouri with limited connectivity in northern and eastern portions of the state. Conflict rates were low (61 of 94 communities had 1–2 reported conflicts over 30 years), increased 6.5‐fold from 2000 to 2020, and 75% involved black bear use of anthropogenic food. The presence and rate of conflicts increased with greater amounts of suitable habitat, landscape connectivity and community size, with conflict rate also positively associated with patch density and aggregation and negatively associated with patch area. Of 1,010 communities in Missouri, we identified 99 communities with increased risk of human–bear conflicts based on surrounding landscape characteristics. Synthesis and applications. Our framework integrating landscape attributes and conflict reports can successfully identify communities at greater potential of human–carnivore conflict. In our Missouri case study, we identified 99 out of 1,010 communities which have increased risk of human–bear conflicts, knowledge which will increase the efficiency of education and mitigation rollouts as black bears re‐establish. This framework allows managers to identify communities at greater risk of conflict for many conflict‐prone species and helps prioritize communities for education and conflict mitigation actions, facilitating long‐term coexistence.

Assessing the spatial-temporal patterns of conflicts between humans and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) around the Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve, China

“…Aside from the composition of landscape, the configuration, i.e., the spatial organization of the landscape elements, can also determine the bears' behavior, and hence HBC (Linke et al, 2005;Boudreau et al, 2022). We found that HBC are more likely to occur in fragmented forests, as found elsewhere (Bombieri et al, 2018;Khosravi et al, 2022).…”

“…Furthermore, landscape composition and configuration can determine the availability and access to resources, affecting bears' behaviors and humanbear interactions (Tee et al, 2021;Khosravi et al, 2022). As found previously, HBC is more likely to occur in landscapes characterized by a complex mosaic of forest habitat patches (Boudreau et al, 2022;Khosravi et al, 2022). Therefore, conflict mitigation efforts should consider the effects of these factors on HBC.…”

“…Additionally, the increased edge density from forest fragmentation can prompt bears to enter these unfavorable habitats (Klees et al, 2020). These frequent foresthuman movements of bears increase the risk of HBC, making fragmented forest landscapes human-wildlife conflict hotspots (Bombieri et al, 2018;Boudreau et al, 2022). However, cropland fragmentation has a contrary impact on HBC.…”

Factors influencing frequency and severity of human-American black bear conflicts in New York, USA

“…Our findings demonstrate that variations in environmental factors including drought, and conflicts within parks early in the year could be a warning of increased frequency of high or moderate severity conflicts later in the year. As unsecured human foods and edible garbage are primary causes of human-black bear conflicts [28][29][30][31]66], it is important to secure attractants (i.e., removing food sources or establishing physical barriers [62,65,67]) to facilitate coexistence of humans and black bears, which can mitigate the frequency and severity of conflicts.…”

“…Proximity of wildlands and residential food sources for bears present a risk of conflict with people [25][26][27]. Consequently, human food conditioning by black bears, and unsecured foods and edible garbage are root causes of human-bear conflicts, and are also the primary factors that can be managed to facilitate coexistence [28][29][30][31].…”