Križanje vukova i pasa u Hrvatskoj

Wolf-dog hybridization is considered as one of the main threats for wolf conservation since the admixture and introgression of domestic genes may disrupt local adaptations and threaten the long term survival of wild wolf populations. We investigated the occurrence of wolf-dog hybridization in Croatia by analyzing a panel of 12 autosomal microsatellite markers using Bayesian admixture tests, and assessed its directionality by the use of maternally and paternally inherited markers in combination with morphometric data and morphological features. A systematic analysis of morphologic features and morphometric data was used to rank the studied individuals into either phenotypic wild-type wolves or suspected hybrids. By combining Bayesian assignment results with phenotypic features, we set three thresholds which differentiated wolves from hybrids with maximized hybrid detection and a minimized chance for false positive hybrid identification. On the basis of phenotype, out of 176 wild canids, 157 (89.2%) were categorized as wolves and 19 (10.8%) as suspected hybrids. On the basis of the Bayesian admixture tests and phenotype together, five (2.8 percent) animals were classified as wolf-dog hybrids, four of them as backcrosses with wolves, and one as a backcross with a dog. Mitochondrial DNA suggested that all hybrids originated from the mating of female wolves and male dogs. Two male hybrids had Y chromosome haplotypes common to both wolves and dogs, while the other two had wolf private Y chromosome haplotypes. One wolf had a dog Y-haplotype, indicating a past introgression of dog genes. All hybrids were found in Dalmatia, where wolves settled recently, and where they live close to humans, with a high rate of human-caused mortality. These conditions are considered as favorable for wolf-dog hybridization. However, we found a low hybridization prevalence in Croatia, which is nonetheless expected to persist as long as the conditions favoring its occurrence are met. The ecological, sociological, conservation and management implications of hybrid occurrence are yet to be determined.Križanje vukova i pasa jedna je od glavnih prijetnji očuvanju vukova jer se miješanjem i introgresijom gena domaćih životinja mogu narušiti lokalne prilagodbe te tako ugroziti dugoročni opstanak populacija vukova u prirodi. Istražili smo pojavu križanja vukova i pasa u Hrvatskoj analizom 12 autosomskih mikrosatelitskih markera Bayesian testom primjese te utvrdili smjer hibridizacije određivanjem markera nasljeđivanih i po majčinskoj i po očinskoj liniji, u kombinaciji s određivanjem morfometrijskih i morfoloških svojstava. Sustavna analiza morfoloških svojstava i morfometrijskih podataka korištena je za rangiranje istraživanih jedinki, bilo kao fenotipske divlje tipove vukova bilo kao sumnjive na križanost. Kombiniranjem rezultata Bayesian statistike s fenotipskim obilježjima postavili smo prag za razlikovanje vukova od križanaca, koji povećava vjerojatnost određivanja križanaca uz smanjivanje vjerojatnosti za pogrešno pozitivno određivanje. Temeljem fenotipa, od 176 divljih kanida 157 (89,2 %) bilo je kategorizirano kao vukovi, dok je 19 (10,8 %) bilo svrstano u sumnjive križance. Temeljem Bayesian testa primjese, pet (2,8 %) životinja bilo je svrstano u križance vuka i psa, četiri od njih određena su kao unatražno križani s vukovima, dok je jedan bio unatražno križan sa psom. Mitohondrijska DNK pokazala je da su svi križanci bili rezultat parenja vučice sa psom. Dva su muška križanca na Y-kromosomu imala haplotipove i od vukova i od pasa, dok su druga dva imala Y-kromosomske haplotipove dosad utvrđene samo kod vukova. Jedan je vuk imao pseći Y-kromosomski haplotip što je uputilo na introgresiju psećih gena. Svi su križanci pronađeni u Dalmaciji, gdje su se vukovi nedavno proširili te gdje žive blizu ljudi, s visokom stopom smrtnosti uzrokovane od ljudi. Te se okolnosti inače smatraju pogodujućima za nastanak križanaca vukova i pasa. Ipak, pronađena učestalost pojave križanaca bila je niska, ali i za očekivati je da će se zadržati sve dok postoje uvjeti koji pogoduju nastanku križanaca. Ekološke, sociološke te značajke hibridizacije za zaštitu i upravljanje populacijom vukova tek treba utvrditi

Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear damage on a continental scale

Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socio-economic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005-2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0·1 in Estonia to 8·5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high proportion of agricultural land. However, observed variation in compensated damage was not related to bear abundance. Synthesis and applications. Compensation schemes, management practices and human land use influence the number of claims for brown bear damage, while bear abundance does not. Policies that ignore this complexity and focus on a single factor, such as bear population size, may not be effective in reducing claims. To be effective, policies should be based on integrative schemes that prioritize damage prevention and make it a condition of payment of compensation that preventive measures are applied. Such integrative schemes should focus mitigation efforts in areas or populations where damage claims are more likely to occur. Similar studies using different species and continents might further improve our understanding of conflicts arising from wildlife damage

An Unparalleled Opportunity for an Important Ecological Study

Wolves (Canis lupus) and moose (Alces americanus) have been studied since 1958 on 540-squarekilometer Isle Royale National Park, in Lake Superior. Wolves arrived there across the ice around 1949, and the population once increased to about 50, averaging about 25 annually (Mech 1966, Jordan et al. 1967, Vucetich and Peterson 2009). However, for various reasons, wolf numbers there have now dwindled to 2 nonbreeders, and the US National Park Service has proposed reintroducing 20–30 wolves over 3 years (National Park Service 2016). This situation offers an unparalleled opportunity to promote science-based management of this unique national park. The park has long been in the public eye for its world-renowned wolf and moose populations. Visitors to this island wilderness are especially interested in the scientific studies it has yielded and in maintaining its ecosystem

Human–Bear Conflicts at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: Patterns, Determinants, and Mitigation Measures

Edited by Vincenzo Penteriani and Mario Melletti.-- Part III - Human–Bear Coexistence.-- This material has been published in "Bears of the World. Ecology, Conservation and Management" by / edited by Vincenzo Penteriani and Mario Melletti / Cambridge University Press. This version is free to view and download for personal use only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works.Conflicts between humans and bears have occurred since prehistory. Through time, the catalogue of human–bear conflicts (HBC) has been changing depending on the values and needs of human societies and their interactions with bears. Even today, conflict situations vary among the eight species of bears and geographically across these species’ ranges. This results in a broad range of interactions between bears and humans that may be considered as conflicts, including: (1) predation of domestic or semiwild animals, including bees, hunting dogs, and pet animals; (2) damage due to foraging on cultivated berries, fruits, agricultural products, and the tree bark in forest plantations; (3) economic loss due to destruction of beehives, fences, silos, houses, and other human property; (4) bear attacks on humans causing mild or fatal trauma; (5) bluff charges, bear intrusions into residential areas; and (6) vehicle collisions with bears and traffic accidents. In this chapter we aim to outline the principal types of HBC and geographical differences in the occurrence of conflicts and the coexistence between people and bears

The potential impacts of changes in bear hunting policy for hunting organisations in Croatia

The brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Croatia is currently being managed through trophy hunting, with quotas allocated to local hunting organisations. Human-bear conflict is present at a low level, but any losses are compensated by the hunting organisations that benefit from bear hunting. Attitudes towards bears are generally positive, and the bear population appears stable, or even increasing. Croatia's current bear hunting policy relies upon both the ecological sustainability of the quotas and the economic sustainability of the hunting organisations. To address the first of these pillars of current policy, we used a two-sex matrix model of the bear population to investigate the biological sustainability of current hunting levels. The model suggests that if the annual allocated quota were fully realised, the population would suffer a considerable decrease over 10 years. A likely explanation for the mismatch between this result and the observed stability of the population is that the bear population size is underestimated. To address the second pillar, we quantified the current structure, costs and benefits of bear hunting to hunting organisations through an interview survey with hunting managers. We found that bear hunting is a substantial component of hunting organisations' income, supporting the other activities of the organisation. Croatia's recent accession to the EU will require changes in their bear management system, potentially stopping bear trophy hunting. Therefore, we assessed the changes in hunting organisations' budgets in the absence of bear hunting. Our results demonstrate that a loss of bear trophy hunting would result in a substantial loss of income to the hunting organisations. Moving bear hunting and compensation mechanisms from local management and responsibility to a more centralised system without trophy hunting, as suggested by EU legislation, will lead to considerable uncertainties. These include how to make centralised decisions on population targets and offtake levels for population control, given the uncertainty around population estimates, and on compensation payments given the loss of the current system which relies heavily on local income from trophy hunting, local relationships and informal monetary and non-monetary compensation

Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe

Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awareness on this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements. We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. To mitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts' consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate

Framework for strategic wind farm site prioritisation based on modelled wolf reproduction habitat in Croatia

In order to meet carbon reduction targets, many nations are greatly expanding their wind power capacity. However, wind farm infrastructure potentially harms wildlife, and we must therefore find ways to balance clean energy demands with the need to protect wildlife. Wide-ranging carnivores live at low density and are particularly susceptible to disturbance from infrastructure development, so are a particular concern in this respect. We focused on Croatia, which holds an important population of wolves and is currently planning to construct many new wind farms. Specifically, we sought to identify an optimal subset of planned wind farms that would meet energy targets while minimising potential impact on wolves. A suitability model for wolf breeding habitat was carried out using Maxent, based on six environmental variables and 31 reproduction site locations collected between 1997 and 2015. Wind farms were prioritised using Marxan to find the optimal trade-off between energy capacity and overlap with critical wolf reproduction habitat. The habitat suitability model predictions were consistent with the current knowledge: probability of wolf breeding site presence increased with distance to settlements, distance to farmland and distance to roads and decreased with distance to forest. Spatial optimisation showed that it would be possible to meet current energy targets with only 31% of currently proposed wind farms, selected in a way that reduces the potential ecological cost (overall predicted wolf breeding site presence within wind farm sites) by 91%. This is a highly efficient outcome, demonstrating the value of this approach for prioritising infrastructure development based on its potential impact on wide-ranging wildlife species

Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns

DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY : The full dataset used in the final analyses (33) and associated code (34) are available at Dryad. A subset of the spatial coordinate datasets is available at Zenodo (35). Certain datasets of spatial coordinates will be available only through requests made to the authors due to conservation and Indigenous sovereignty concerns (see table S1 for more information on data use restrictions and contact information for data requests). These sensitive data will be made available upon request to qualified researchers for research purposes, provided that the data use will not threaten the study populations, such as by distribution or publication of the coordinates or detailed maps. Some datasets, such as those overseen by government agencies, have additional legal restrictions on data sharing, and researchers may need to formally apply for data access. Collaborations with data holders are generally encouraged, and in cases where data are held by Indigenous groups or institutions from regions that are under-represented in the global science community, collaboration may be required to ensure inclusion.COVID-19 lockdowns in early 2020 reduced human mobility, providing an opportunity to disentangle its effects on animals from those of landscape modifications. Using GPS data, we compared movements and road avoidance of 2300 terrestrial mammals (43 species) during the lockdowns to the same period in 2019. Individual responses were variable with no change in average movements or road avoidance behavior, likely due to variable lockdown conditions. However, under strict lockdowns 10-day 95th percentile displacements increased by 73%, suggesting increased landscape permeability. Animals’ 1-hour 95th percentile displacements declined by 12% and animals were 36% closer to roads in areas of high human footprint, indicating reduced avoidance during lockdowns. Overall, lockdowns rapidly altered some spatial behaviors, highlighting variable but substantial impacts of human mobility on wildlife worldwide.The Radboud Excellence Initiative, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the National Science Foundation, Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Dutch Research Council NWO program “Advanced Instrumentation for Wildlife Protection”, Fondation Segré, RZSS, IPE, Greensboro Science Center, Houston Zoo, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, Nashville Zoo, Naples Zoo, Reid Park Zoo, Miller Park, WWF, ZCOG, Zoo Miami, Zoo Miami Foundation, Beauval Nature, Greenville Zoo, Riverbanks zoo and garden, SAC Zoo, La Passarelle Conservation, Parc Animalier d’Auvergne, Disney Conservation Fund, Fresno Chaffee zoo, Play for nature, North Florida Wildlife Center, Abilene Zoo, a Liber Ero Fellowship, the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, Teck Coal, and the Grand Teton Association. The collection of Norwegian moose data was funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency, the German Ministry of Education and Research via the SPACES II project ORYCS, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Bureau of Land Management, Muley Fanatic Foundation (including Southwest, Kemmerer, Upper Green, and Blue Ridge Chapters), Boone and Crockett Club, Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust, Knobloch Family Foundation, Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board, Wyoming Governor’s Big Game License Coalition, Bowhunters of Wyoming, Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association, Pope and Young Club, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, Wyoming Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, the US National Science Foundation [IOS-1656642 and IOS-1656527, the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, and by a GRUPIN research grant from the Regional Government of Asturias, Sigrid Rausing Trust, Batubay Özkan, Barbara Watkins, NSERC Discovery Grant, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act under Pittman-Robertson project, the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Rufford Foundation, an American Society of Mammalogists African Graduate Student Research Fund, the German Science Foundation, the Israeli Science Foundation, the BSF-NSF, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and Slovenian Research Agency (CRP V1-1626), the Aage V. Jensen Naturfond (project: Kronvildt - viden, værdier og værktøjer), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy, National Centre for Research and Development in Poland, the Slovenian Research Agency, the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, Disney Conservation Fund, Whitley Fund for Nature, Acton Family Giving, Zoo Basel, Columbus, Bioparc de Doué-la-Fontaine, Zoo Dresden, Zoo Idaho, Kolmården Zoo, Korkeasaari Zoo, La Passarelle, Zoo New England, Tierpark Berlin, Tulsa Zoo, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of Mongolia, the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the National Science Foundation, Parks Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Alberta Environment and Parks, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International and Alberta Conservation Association, the Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnología (CONACYT) of Paraguay, the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, EU funded Interreg SI-HR 410 Carnivora Dinarica project, Paklenica and Plitvice Lakes National Parks, UK Wolf Conservation Trust, EURONATUR and Bernd Thies Foundation, the Messerli Foundation in Switzerland and WWF Germany, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, NASA Ecological Forecasting Program, the Ecotone Telemetry company, the French National Research Agency, LANDTHIRST, grant REPOS awarded by the i-Site MUSE thanks to the “Investissements d’avenir” program, the ANR Mov-It project, the USDA Hatch Act Formula Funding, the Fondation Segre and North American and European Zoos listed at http://www.giantanteater.org/, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Yellowstone Forever and the National Park Service, Missouri Department of Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant, and State University of New York, various donors to the Botswana Predator Conservation Program, data from collared caribou in the Northwest Territories were made available through funds from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories. The European Research Council Horizon2020, the British Ecological Society, the Paul Jones Family Trust, and the Lord Kelvin Adam Smith fund, the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute and Tanzania National Parks. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Fish and Game Department and the Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak Brown Bear Trust, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Koniag Native Corporation, Old Harbor Native Corporation, Afognak Native Corporation, Ouzinkie Native Corporation, Natives of Kodiak Native Corporation and the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and the Slovenia Hunters Association and Slovenia Forest Service. F.C. was partly supported by the Resident Visiting Researcher Fellowship, IMéRA/Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille. This work was partially funded by the Center of Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), which is financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Culture and Tourism (SMWK) with tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament. This article is a contribution of the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative, which is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF9881) and the National Geographic Society.https://www.science.org/journal/sciencehj2023Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog

Artificial feeding of wildlife: where do we go?

Food provisioning to wildlife is an issue of increasing conservation concern due to its consequences on species and ecosystems. Humans have increased the amount of food available to wildlife and its spatio-temporal predictability; about 30–40% of all food produced in the world is wasted (1). One of these practices, quite widespread, is the artificial feeding of game animals. Here, we take the brown bear Ursus arctos as a model species to review the magnitude of artificial feeding in Europe and the documented effects on the ecology and behavior of the species. In most of the European countries where brown bears are hunted, artificial feeding is applied, mostly to facilitate hunting. However, official justifications include keeping bears away from human settlements, preventing damages and other conflicts, monitoring the population status and trend, increasing the habitat capacity, allowing medical treatment and facilitating photographing. In countries where bears are not hunted, although they are not officially fed, they intensively use the artificial food provided for ungulates. Over decades, the amount of food served to bears both intentionally and unintentionally keeps increasing. Moreover, the number of feeding sites is also on the rise and artificial feeding is moving from feeding in certain emergency situations to an almost year-round feeding (2). In many European countries this practice is completely unregulated or the rules are often violated. Bear feeding for photographing is in most countries out of control. Corn, beetroots, grain, carrots and even leftovers from the markets are often found in the forest to feed bears and other wildlife. Recent scientific evidence shows that this practice causes profound changes in the ecology and behavior of bears (i.e. 3). Researchers have documented changes in bear diet, alteration of movements, disruption of winter denning, increases in bear body mass, earlier sexual maturity of females and facilitation of pathogen transmission at feeding sites. The provision of artificial food to bears is conducted at country or regional level, not at the population level. So, often bears are artificially fed on one side of the border, but not on the other. The rules for feeding, when exist, are different on neighboring countries. At least ten countries in Europe feed bears for hunting, three for viewing and photographing and at least 18 countries feed bears unintentionally with food provided for ungulates. We present the results of a comprehensive survey of all European countries and discuss the potential strategies to tackle this issue. 1. Oro, D. et al. 2013. Ecology Letters 16: 1501–1514. 2. Mysterud, A. 2010. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 920–925. 3. Selva N. et al. 2017. Basic and Applied Ecology 24: 68- 76.peerReviewe

New highways and maintenance of large carnivore habitat continuity – a Croatian experience

Brown bears (Ursus arctos), grey wolves (Canis lupus) and Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) inhabiting the Dinara Mountains of Croatia belong to the large and stable population of these large carnivores nearest to the Alps. Together with the neighboring Slovenian population segment, they comprise the source for recolonization of the Alps and much of Western Europe, either through natural migrations or transplanting of captured animals. The new highway has been constructed through the main portion of the large carnivore's core area in Gorski kotar during the period from 1996 to 2004. The current large carnivore range in Croatia was intersected with a fenced highway, possibly splitting the Dinaric mountain range into a northern (half of Gorski kotar and adjacent Slovenian part) and a larger southern part. The highway has a number of viaducts, tunnels and one specifically constructed (100 m wide) green bridge, named Dedin, for bears and other wild animals. We studied the impact of the highway on large and medium sized mammal movements, and estimated the highway permeability for those animals. The conclusions were: Large mammals of Gorski kotar (Croatia) preferred to use wide overpasses (100 m and wider) instead of narrow (10 to 50 m) underpasses. The ratio of large carnivores crossing the highway via wide overpasses can be three to six times higher compared to crossings through ten to 15 m wide underpasses. The highway in Gorski kotar, with 25% of the highway length in the crossing structures themselves, seemed not to be a barrier either for large carnivores (resident or dispersing) or for large ungulates. Based on experience gained with the Dedin green bridge, a new highway to the south of Croatia (to Split and Dubrovnik towns), has 200 objects (as potential crossing structures), included eleven dedicated overpasses (green bridges in widths of 120 m, 150 m and 200 m), one additional tunnel and five additional viaducts. The permeability of that highway is 13.1%, i.e. 50% less than the highway through Gorski kotar. We feel content that the 25% of highway permeability ensures habitat connectivity: We have determined that all large mammals used green bridges on regular basis, but the frequency and patterns of crossings vary during the day, as well as between large mammal species and groups. There was a strong negative correlation between human passage and passage of large carnivores as well as between passage of large carnivores and ungulate passage, and positive correlation between human and ungulates passage. Therefore, in order to increase usage of green bridges by large carnivores, human influence at green bridges should be eliminated or at least minimized.peerReviewe