in

Variable intraspecific space use supports optimality in an apex predator

  • 1.

    Mitchell, M. S. & Powell, R. A. A mechanistic home range model for optimal use of spatially distributed resources. Ecol. Model. 177, 209–232 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 2.

    Horne, J. S., Garton, E. O. & Rachlow, J. L. A synoptic model of animal space use: Simultaneous estimation of home range, habitat selection, and inter/intra–specific relationships. Ecol. Model. 214, 338–348 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Nathan, R. An emerging movement ecology paradigm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 19050–19051 (2008).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 4.

    Fretwell, S. D. & Lucas, H. L. J. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Part 1. Theoretical development. Acta. Biotheor. 19, 16–36 (1969).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Powell, R. A. Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. Res. Tech. Animal Ecol. Controversies Consequences. 1, 476 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • 6.

    Parker, G. A. & Smith, J. M. Optimality theory in evolutionary biology. Nature 348, 27 (1990).

    ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 7.

    Hiller, T. L., Belant, J. L. & Beringer, J. Sexual size dimorphism mediates effects of spatial resource variability on American black bear space use. J. Zool. 296, 200–207 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 8.

    Mitchell, M. S. & Powell, R. A. Optimal use of resources structures home ranges and spatial distribution of black bears. Anim. Behav. 74, 219–230 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 9.

    McLoughlin, P. D. & Ferguson, S. H. A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps explain variation in home range size. Ecoscience 7, 123–130 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Johnson, D. D., Kays, R., Blackwell, P. G. & Macdonald, D. W. Does the resource dispersion hypothesis explain group living?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 563–570 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Macdonald, D. W. The ecology of carnivore social behavior. Nature 301, 379–384 (1983).

    ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    Macdonald, D. W. & Johnson, D. D. P. Patchwork planet: The resource dispersion hypothesis, society, and the ecology of life. J. Zool. 295, 75–107 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Lukacs, P. M. et al. Factors influencing elk recruitment across ecotypes in the Western United States. J. Wildl. Manag. 82, 698–710 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Mangipane, L. S. et al. Influences of landscape heterogeneity on home-range sizes of brown bears. Mamm. Biol. 88, 1–7 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    McClintic, L. F., Taylor, J. D., Jones, J. C., Singleton, R. D. & Wang, G. Effects of spatiotemporal resource heterogeneity on home range size of American beaver. J. Zool. 293, 134–141 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Harestad, A. S. & Bunnel, F. L. Home range and body weight—A reevaluation. Ecology 60, 389–402 (1979).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 17.

    Knick, S. T. Ecology of bobcats relative to exploitation and a prey decline in southeastern Idaho. Wildl. Monogr. 108, 3–42 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • 18.

    Kelt, D. A. & Van Vuren, D. H. The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am. Nat. 157, 637–645 (2001).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 19.

    McNab, B. K. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am. Nat. 97, 133–140 (1963).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 20.

    Dahle, B., Støen, O. G. & Swenson, J. E. Factors influencing home-range size in subadult brown bears. J. Mammal. 87, 859–865 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 21.

    Dahle, B. & Swenson, J. E. Home ranges in adult Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos): Effect of mass, sex, reproductive category, population density and habitat type. J. Zool. 260, 329–335 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    Lafferty, D. J. R., Loman, Z. G., White, K. S., Morzillo, A. T. & Belant, J. L. Moose (Alces alces) hunters subsidize the scavenger community in Alaska. Polar Biol. 39, 639–647 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 23.

    Van Manen, F. T. et al. Primarily resident grizzly bears respond to late-season elk harvest. Ursus 2019, 1–15 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 24.

    Taylor, M.K. Density-dependent population regulation of black, brown and polar bears. in 9th International Conference on Bear Research and Management. International Bear Association, Missoula (1994).

  • 25.

    Swenson, J. E., Dahle, B. & Sandegren, F. Intraspecific predation in Scandinavian brown bears older than cubs-of-the-year. Ursus 12, 81–91 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    Hilderbrand, G. V. et al. Body size and lean mass of brown bears across and within four diverse ecosystems. J. Zool. 305, 53–62 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 27.

    Hilderbrand, G. V. et al. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Can. J. Zool. 77, 132–138 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 28.

    Belant, J. L., Kielland, K., Follmann, E. H. & Adams, L. G. Interspecific resource partitioning in sympatric ursids. Ecol. Appl. 16, 2333–2343 (2006).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 29.

    Belant, J. L., Griffith, B., Zhang, Y., Follmann, E. H. & Adams, L. G. Population-level resource selection by sympatric brown and American black bears in Alaska. Polar Biol. 33, 31–40 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 30.

    Munro, R. H. M., Nielsen, S. E., Price, M. H., Stenhouse, G. B. & Boyce, M. S. Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central Alberta. J. Mammal. 87, 1112–1121 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    US Fish and Wildlife Service. Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Land Exchange/Road Corridor, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 32.

    Svoboda, N. J. & Crye, J. R. Roosevelt Elk Management Report and Plan, Game Management Unit 8: Report Period 1 July 2013–30 June 2018, and Plan Period 1 July 2018–30 June 2023 (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Van Daele, M. B. et al. Salmon consumption by Kodiak brown bears (Ursus arctos middendorffi) with ecosystem management implications. Can. J. Zool. 91, 164–174 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Barnes, V. The influence of salmon availability on movements and range of brown bears on Southwest Kodiak Island. Bears Biol. Manag. 8, 305–313 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    Deacy, W., Leacock, W., Armstrong, J. B. & Stanford, J. A. Kodiak brown bears surf the salmon red wave: Direct evidence from GPS collared individuals. Ecology 97, 1091–1098 (2016).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Van Daele, L. J., Barnes, V. G. & Belant, J. L. Ecological flexibility of brown bears on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ursus 23, 21–29 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 37.

    Stirling, I., Spencer, C. & Andriashek, D. Immobilization of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) with Telazol® in the Canadian Arctic. J. Wildl. Dis. 25, 159–168 (1989).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 38.

    Woolf, A., Hays, H. R., Allen, W. B. & Swart, J. Immobilization of wild ungulates with etorphine HC1. J. Zoo Animal Med. 4, 16–19 (1973).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 39.

    Meuleman, T., Port, J. D., Stanley, T. H., Williard, K. F. & Kimball, J. Immobilization of elk and moose with carfentanil. J. Wildl. Manag. 48, 258–262 (1984).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 40.

    Lance, W.R. & Kenny, D.E. Thiafentanil oxalate (A3080) in nondomestic ungulate species. in Fowler’s Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine (ed. Miller and Fowler) 589–595 (W.B. Saunders, 2012).

  • 41.

    Garshelis, D. L. & McLaughlin, C. R. Review and evaluation of breakaway devices for bear radiocollars. Ursus 10, 459–465 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Calvert, W. & Ramsay, M. A. Evaluation of age determination of polar bears by counts of cementum growth layer groups. Ursus 10, 449–453 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Thiemann, G. W. et al. Effects of chemical immobilization on the movement rates of free-ranging polar bears. J. Mammal. 94, 386–397 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 44.

    Noonan, M. J. et al. A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01344 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 45.

    Bishop, A., Brown, C., Rehberg, M., Torres, L. & Horning, M. Juvenile Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) utilization distributions in the Gulf of Alaska. Mov. Ecol. 6, 1–15 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 46.

    Long, R. A., Muir, J. D., Rachlow, J. L. & Kie, J. G. A comparison of two modeling approaches for evaluating wildlife-habitat relationships. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 294–302 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 47.

    Fleming, M. D. & Spencer, P. A vegetative cover map for the Kodiak Archipelago Alaska (USGS, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • 48.

    Brodeur, V., Ouellet, J. P., Courtois, R. & Fortin, D. Habitat selection by black bears in an intensively logged boreal forest. Can. J. Zool. 86, 1307–1316 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 49.

    Hesselbarth, M. H., Sciaini, M., With, K. A., Wiegand, K. & Nowosad, J. landscapemetrics: An open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography 42, 1648–1657 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 50.

    Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois Press, 1963).

    MATH 

    Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Smith, T. S. & Partridge, S. T. Dynamics of intertidal foraging by coastal brown bears in southwestern Alaska. J. Wildl. Manag. 68, 233–240 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Zager, P. & Beecham, J. The role of American black bears and brown bears as predators on ungulates in North America. Ursus 17, 95–108 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 53.

    Boyce, M. S., Vernier, P. R., Nielsen, S. E. & Schmiegelow, F. K. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol. Model. 157, 281–300 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 54.

    Calabrese, J. M., Fleming, C. H. & Gurarie, E. ctmm: An R package for analyzing animal relocation data as a continuous-time stochastic process. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1124–1132 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 55.

    Morris, L. R., Proffitt, K. M., Asher, V. & Blackburn, J. K. Elk resource selection and implications for anthrax management in Montana. J. Wildl. Manag. 80, 235–244 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 56.

    Pontius, R. G. & Parmentier, B. Recommendations for using the relative operating characteristic (ROC). Landsc. Ecol. 29, 367–382 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 57.

    Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 58.

    Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information–Theoretic Approach 2nd edn. (Springer, 2002).

    MATH 

    Google Scholar 

  • 59.

    R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

  • 60.

    Lewis, T. M. & Lafferty, D. J. Brown bears and wolves scavenge humpback whale carcass in Alaska. Ursus 25, 8–13 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 61.

    Paralikidis, N. P., Papageorgiou, N. K., Kontsiotis, V. J. & Tsiompanoudis, A. C. The dietary habits of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in western Greece. Mamm. Biol. 75, 29–35 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 62.

    Sandell, M. The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution (ed. Gittleman J.L.) 164–182 (Springer, 1989).

  • 63.

    Hilderbrand, G. V., Jenkins, S. G., Schwartz, C. C., Hanley, T. A. & Robbins, C. T. Effect of seasonal differences in dietary meat intake on changes in body mass and composition in wild and captive brown bears. Can. J. Zool. 77, 1623–1630 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 64.

    Milakovic, B. & Parker, K. L. Quantifying carnivory by grizzly bears in a multi-ungulate system. J. Wildl. Manag. 77, 39–47 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 65.

    Nieminen, M. The impact of large carnivores on the mortality of semi-domesticated reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus L.) calves in Kainuu, southeastern reindeer herding region of Finland. Rangifer. 30, 79–88 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 66.

    Mumma, M. A. et al. Intrinsic traits of woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou calves depredated by black bears Ursus americanus and coyotes Canis latrans. Wildl. Biol. 2019, 1–9 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 67.

    Svoboda, N. J., Belant, J. L., Beyer, D. E., Duquette, J. F. & Lederle, P. E. Carnivore space use shifts in response to seasonal resource availability. Ecosphere. 10, e02817 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 68.

    Ruth, T. K. et al. Large-carnivore response to recreational big-game hunting along the Yellowstone National Park and Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness boundary. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31, 1150–1161 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • 69.

    Haroldson, M. A., Schwartz, C. C., Cherry, S. & Moody, D. S. Possible effects of elk harvest on fall distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. J. Wildl. Manag. 68, 129–137 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 70.

    Bastille-Rousseau, G., Fortin, D., Dussault, C., Courtois, R. & Ouellet, J. P. Foraging strategies by omnivores: are black bears actively searching for ungulate neonates or are they simply opportunistic predators?. Ecography 34, 588–596 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 71.

    Gehr, B. et al. Evidence for nonconsumptive effects from a large predator in an ungulate prey?. Behav. Ecol. 29, 724–735 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 72.

    Hebblewhite, M., Merrill, E. H. & McDonald, T. L. Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: An example in a wolf–elk predator–prey system. Oikos 111, 101–111 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 73.

    Nielsen, S. E., Boyce, M. S. & Stenhouse, G. B. Grizzly bears and forestry: I. Selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta, Canada. For. Ecol. Manag. 199, 51–65 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 74.

    McLellan, B. N. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. Bears Biol. Manag. 8, 57–64 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • 75.

    Sigman, M. Impacts of Clearcut Logging on the Fish and Wildlife Resources of Southeast Alaska Vol. 85 (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • 76.

    Linnell, J. D., Swenson, J. E., Andersen, R. & Barnes, B. How vulnerable are denning bears to disturbance?. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28, 400–413 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • 77.

    McLellan, B. N. & Shackleton, D. M. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: Effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. J. Appl. Ecol. 25, 451–460 (1988).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 78.

    Nielsen, S. E., Munro, R. H. M., Bainbridge, E. L., Stenhouse, G. B. & Boyce, M. S. Grizzly bears and forestry: II. Distribution of grizzly bear foods in clearcuts of west-central Alberta, Canada. For. Ecol. Manag. 199, 67–82 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 79.

    Nielsen, S. E., Stenhouse, G. B., Beyer, H. L., Huettmann, F. & Boyce, M. S. Can natural disturbance-based forestry rescue a declining population of grizzly bears?. Biol. Cons. 141, 2193–2207 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 80.

    Frank, S. C. et al. A “clearcut” case? Brown bear selection of coarse woody debris and carpenter ants on clearcuts. For. Ecol. Manage. 348, 164–173 (2015).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 81.

    Hertel, A. G. et al. Bears and berries: Species-specific selective foraging on a patchily distributed food resource in a human-altered landscape. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70, 831–842 (2016).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 82.

    Valeix, M., Loveridge, A. J. & Macdonald, D. W. Influence of prey dispersion on territory and group size of African lions: A test of the resource dispersion hypothesis. Ecology 93, 2490–2496 (2012).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 83.

    Robbins, C. T. et al. Optimizing protein intake as a foraging strategy to maximize mass gain in an omnivore. Oikos 116, 1675–1682 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 84.

    Ben-David, M., Titus, K. & Beier, L. R. Consumption of salmon by Alaskan brown bears: A trade-off between nutritional requirements and the risk of infanticide?. Oecologia 138, 465–474 (2004).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 85.

    Smith, T. R. & Pelton, M. R. Home ranges and movements of black bears in bottomland hardwood forest in Arkansas. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manag. 8, 213–218 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • 86.

    Welch, C. A., Keay, J., Kendall, K. C. & Robbins, C. T. Constraints on frugivory by bears. Ecology 78, 1105–1119 (1997).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 87.

    Gantchoff, M., Wang, G., Beyer, D. & Belant, J. Scale-dependent home range optimality for a solitary omnivore. Ecol. Evol. 8, 12271–12282 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 88.

    Tao, Y., Börger, L. & Hastings, A. Dynamic range size analysis of territorial animals: An optimality approach. Am. Nat. 188, 460–474 (2016).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Eat me, or don’t eat me?

    MIT Energy Initiative awards seven Seed Fund grants for early-stage energy research