Bears among people

Bears living in a human-dominated landscape need to find a way to co-exist with people on a daily basis. People seriously alter their environment. Urbanization, agriculture, and road infrastructure actively change the natural environment of many wildlife species. Interestingly, especially omnivores and generalist species such as bears can even have a profit of habitat alternation mainly through adding of so-called “predictable anthropogenic food resources” (PAFS). These human-provided food resources are not only garbage or supplementary feeding stations, but also orchards or single fruit trees, agricultural crops, entrails left by hunters in the wood, and livestock animals. Bears can adapt to the availability of these foods and try to actively search for them. On the other hand in a human dominated landscape, animals are constantly disturbed by people. Many bears in cultural landscapes tend to be active during crepuscular or night-time hours in order to avoid people who are rather active during the day. Therefore, the relationship between Man and bear can be defined as ambivalent because the animals need to trade-off between feeding on PAFS and avoiding of human disturbance. Bears in Slovakia had never been extinct and increased their population numbers during the last decades. However, till I started this work, scientific research of bears was nearly absent. By the help of smaller project, it was possible to catch bears and mark them by GPS/GSM telemetry. For this study, I could use the data of 22 bears in three different mountain ranges. My main interests were 1) to find out how important human-provided food resources for bears in Slovakia are and if bears are really dependent on supplementary feeding stations during winter time. I found out that bears indeed feed year round on cereals, but that the majority of their energy budget is provided by natural food resources. However, maize fields are an important new and temporal habitat feature where some bears even stay for several consecutive day. Exceptional activity of bears during winter months was rather triggered by a combination of warmer temperatures, less snow and seed years of beech nuts than just the availability of high caloric food at supplementary feeding stations for ungulates. Second I wanted to know where bears can successfully retreat of human disturbance during the day and if the availability of PAFS can even influence the selection of a daybed. Most important driver for the selection of a daily resting site was the density of cover. Thus, bears selected for young regenerating forest, but also forest belts and thick shrubbery interspersed in agricultural land. This selection pattern was even more pronounced during late summer/autumn when bears need to fatten up for the upcoming winter and crops and fruits become available at the same time. Social structure (dispotic organization of the bear population) in bears as well as the reproductive status of females can significantly influence the choice of a daybed. Females with cubs of the year stay away from the other bear groups in order to minimize the risk of infanticide. These females and sub-dominant males can even approach human settlement in order to protect themselves or their offspring from dominant males. Further, habitat selection analysis showed that especially dominant males tend to monopolize attractive fields with maize. Sometimes, sub-dominant individuals even use people as a human shield. These results showed that non-protected areas could even need more protection because they are often very useful for wildlife including bears. Subsidies are paid for the reclamation of overgrown grazing areas which includes cutting of shrubs and small forest stands. Bears visible near villages are not necessary dangerous and often temporally restricted. Bear management should take this results more into account. However, people feel threatened if they have bears in close vicinity to their houses. Thus, education of people and working with public should be enhanced, too. Third, bears need to move among patches with attractive foods and quiet refuges during the day. In a human dominated landscape, roads intersect wildlife habitat and bears need to undertake risky road crossings. Analysis of road crossing activity of the bears in Slovakia showed that especially the amount of daily traffic can seriously limit or even inhibit bear movements. Even secondary roads with more than 5 000 vehicles/24hrs can act as a habitat barrier. Further, analysis if road mortality pointed out that majority of killed bears are young males which are the dispersing element of the population and enhance genetic exchange among sub-populations. A scientifically based analysis of bear movement routes can help to define places where mitigation measures would be really useful. Slovakia is still in process to enhance their road infrastructure. So far, Slovakia has still prospective possibilities to influence road planning processes in order to keep the landscape permeable for bears and other wildlife. Studies on movement routes should be intensified in order to avoid irreversible habitat fragmentation and disruption of bear subpopulations

Bears among people

Bears living in a human-dominated landscape need to find a way to co-exist with people on a daily basis. People seriously alter their environment. Urbanization, agriculture, and road infrastructure actively change the natural environment of many wildlife species. Interestingly, especially omnivores and generalist species such as bears can even have a profit of habitat alternation mainly through adding of so-called “predictable anthropogenic food resources” (PAFS). These human-provided food resources are not only garbage or supplementary feeding stations, but also orchards or single fruit trees, agricultural crops, entrails left by hunters in the wood, and livestock animals. Bears can adapt to the availability of these foods and try to actively search for them. On the other hand in a human dominated landscape, animals are constantly disturbed by people. Many bears in cultural landscapes tend to be active during crepuscular or night-time hours in order to avoid people who are rather active during the day. Therefore, the relationship between Man and bear can be defined as ambivalent because the animals need to trade-off between feeding on PAFS and avoiding of human disturbance. Bears in Slovakia had never been extinct and increased their population numbers during the last decades. However, till I started this work, scientific research of bears was nearly absent. By the help of smaller project, it was possible to catch bears and mark them by GPS/GSM telemetry. For this study, I could use the data of 22 bears in three different mountain ranges. My main interests were 1) to find out how important human-provided food resources for bears in Slovakia are and if bears are really dependent on supplementary feeding stations during winter time. I found out that bears indeed feed year round on cereals, but that the majority of their energy budget is provided by natural food resources. However, maize fields are an important new and temporal habitat feature where some bears even stay for several consecutive day. Exceptional activity of bears during winter months was rather triggered by a combination of warmer temperatures, less snow and seed years of beech nuts than just the availability of high caloric food at supplementary feeding stations for ungulates. Second I wanted to know where bears can successfully retreat of human disturbance during the day and if the availability of PAFS can even influence the selection of a daybed. Most important driver for the selection of a daily resting site was the density of cover. Thus, bears selected for young regenerating forest, but also forest belts and thick shrubbery interspersed in agricultural land. This selection pattern was even more pronounced during late summer/autumn when bears need to fatten up for the upcoming winter and crops and fruits become available at the same time. Social structure (dispotic organization of the bear population) in bears as well as the reproductive status of females can significantly influence the choice of a daybed. Females with cubs of the year stay away from the other bear groups in order to minimize the risk of infanticide. These females and sub-dominant males can even approach human settlement in order to protect themselves or their offspring from dominant males. Further, habitat selection analysis showed that especially dominant males tend to monopolize attractive fields with maize. Sometimes, sub-dominant individuals even use people as a human shield. These results showed that non-protected areas could even need more protection because they are often very useful for wildlife including bears. Subsidies are paid for the reclamation of overgrown grazing areas which includes cutting of shrubs and small forest stands. Bears visible near villages are not necessary dangerous and often temporally restricted. Bear management should take this results more into account. However, people feel threatened if they have bears in close vicinity to their houses. Thus, education of people and working with public should be enhanced, too. Third, bears need to move among patches with attractive foods and quiet refuges during the day. In a human dominated landscape, roads intersect wildlife habitat and bears need to undertake risky road crossings. Analysis of road crossing activity of the bears in Slovakia showed that especially the amount of daily traffic can seriously limit or even inhibit bear movements. Even secondary roads with more than 5 000 vehicles/24hrs can act as a habitat barrier. Further, analysis if road mortality pointed out that majority of killed bears are young males which are the dispersing element of the population and enhance genetic exchange among sub-populations. A scientifically based analysis of bear movement routes can help to define places where mitigation measures would be really useful. Slovakia is still in process to enhance their road infrastructure. So far, Slovakia has still prospective possibilities to influence road planning processes in order to keep the landscape permeable for bears and other wildlife. Studies on movement routes should be intensified in order to avoid irreversible habitat fragmentation and disruption of bear subpopulations

IDENTIFYING ATTRIBUTES ASSOCIATED WITH BROWN BEAR (URSUS ARCTOS) ROAD-CROSSING AND ROAD-KILL SITES

Habitat fragmentation caused by transportation infrastructure is an issue of growing concern worldwide. In this article, we show, how secondary roads may affect landscape permeability for brown bears (Ursus arctos L., 1758). We focused on identifying environmental variables that govern the selection of road crossing zones by bears (crossing model). We also investigated whether variables that characterize road–crossing zones differ from those that are typical for bear–vehicle collision sites (collision model). The study area was located in north–central Slovakia. To identify road–crossing sites, we used the GPS fixes of 27 bears and identified 35 bear–vehicle collision sites from a different dataset. We used mixed effects logistic regression to model resource selection at road–crossing sites and to compare bear–crossing sites with bear kill–sites. The crossing model showed that the traffic volume with distance to forest and grassland were the most influential factors in bear selection of road–crossing sites. Results of the collision model indicated that successful road crossings by bears were located at different road sections from vehicle collisions, which differed by a traffic volume of 4000 cars/24 hrs. The outcomes of this study can facilitate improved mitigation measures on secondary roads.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author

Phenology of brown bear breeding season and related geographical cues

Knowledge about breeding biology is often incomplete in species with complex reproductive strategies. The brown bear Ursus arctos is a polygamous seasonal breeder inhabiting a wide variety of habitats and environmental conditions. We compiled information about brown bear breeding season dates from 36 study areas across their distribution range in the Palearctic and Nearctic regions and investigated how their breeding phenology relates to geographical factors (latitude, photoperiod, altitude and region). Brown bear matings were observed for 8 months, from April to November, with a peak in May%July. We found a 59-day difference in the onset of bear breeding season among study areas, with an average 2.3 days delay for each degree of latitude northwards. The onset of the breeding season showed a strong relationship with photoperiod and latitude, but not with region (i.e. Palearctic vs Nearctic) and altitude. First observa- tions of bear mating occurred earlier in areas at lower latitudes. Photoperiod ranged between 14 and 18 hours at the beginning of the season for most of the study areas. The duration of the breeding season ranged from 25 to 138 days among study areas. None of the investigated factors was related to the length of the breeding season. Our results support the relevance of photoperiod to the onset of breeding, as found in other ursids, but not a shorter breeding season at higher latitudes, a pattern reported in other mammals. Our findings suggest a marked seasonality of bear reproductive behaviour, but also certain level of plasticity. Systematic field observations of breeding behaviour are needed to increase our knowledge on the factors determining mating behaviour in species with complex systems and how these species may adapt to climate change