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 

  • Metabarcoding insights into the diet and trophic diversity of six declining farmland birds

    Microclimate and the vertical stratification of potential bridge vectors of mosquito‑borne viruses captured by nets and ovitraps in a central Amazonian forest bordering Manaus, Brazil