Literature DB >> 17708219

Grizzly bear habitat selection is scale dependent.

Lana M Ciarniello1, Mark S Boyce, Dale R Seip, Douglas C Heard.   

Abstract

The purpose of our study is to show how ecologists' interpretation of habitat selection by grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) is altered by the scale of observation and also how management questions would be best addressed using predetermined scales of analysis. Using resource selection functions (RSF) we examined how variation in the spatial extent of availability affected our interpretation of habitat selection by grizzly bears inhabiting mountain and plateau landscapes. We estimated separate models for females and males using three spatial extents: within the study area, within the home range, and within predetermined movement buffers. We employed two methods for evaluating the effects of scale on our RSF designs. First, we chose a priori six candidate models, estimated at each scale, and ranked them using Akaike Information Criteria. Using this method, results changed among scales for males but not for females. For female bears, models that included the full suite of covariates predicted habitat use best at each scale. For male bears that resided in the mountains, models based on forest successional stages ranked highest at the study-wide and home range extents, whereas models containing covariates based on terrain features ranked highest at the buffer extent. For male bears on the plateau, each scale estimated a different highest-ranked model. Second, we examined differences among model coefficients across the three scales for one candidate model. We found that both the magnitude and direction of coefficients were dependent upon the scale examined; results varied between landscapes, scales, and sexes. Greenness, reflecting lush green vegetation, was a strong predictor of the presence of female bears in both landscapes and males that resided in the mountains. Male bears on the plateau were the only animals to select areas that exposed them to a high risk of mortality by humans. Our results show that grizzly bear habitat selection is scale dependent. Further, the selection of resources can be dependent upon the availability of a particular vegetation type on the landscape. From a management perspective, decisions should be based on a hierarchical process of habitat selection, recognizing that selection patterns vary across scales.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17708219     DOI: 10.1890/06-1100.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  17 in total

1.  Decline and recovery of a large carnivore: environmental change and long-term trends in an endangered brown bear population.

Authors:  Isabel Martínez Cano; Fernando González Taboada; Javier Naves; Alberto Fernández-Gil; Thorsten Wiegand
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Staying cool in a changing landscape: the influence of maximum daily ambient temperature on grizzly bear habitat selection.

Authors:  Karine E Pigeon; Etienne Cardinal; Gordon B Stenhouse; Steeve D Côté
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 3.  Conceptual and methodological advances in habitat-selection modeling: guidelines for ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Joseph M Northrup; Eric Vander Wal; Maegwin Bonar; John Fieberg; Michel P Laforge; Martin Leclerc; Christina M Prokopenko; Brian D Gerber
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 6.105

4.  Females roam while males patrol: divergence in breeding season movements of pack-ice polar bears (Ursus maritimus).

Authors:  Kristin L Laidre; Erik W Born; Eliezer Gurarie; Øystein Wiig; Rune Dietz; Harry Stern
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Modeling the spatial distribution and fruiting pattern of a key tree species in a neotropical forest: methodology and potential applications.

Authors:  Damien Caillaud; Margaret C Crofoot; Samuel V Scarpino; Patrick A Jansen; Carol X Garzon-Lopez; Annemarie J S Winkelhagen; Stephanie A Bohlman; Peter D Walsh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A "clearcut" case? Brown bear selection of coarse woody debris and carpenter ants on clearcuts.

Authors:  Shane C Frank; Sam M J G Steyaert; Jon E Swenson; Ilse Storch; Jonas Kindberg; Hanna Barck; Andreas Zedrosser
Journal:  For Ecol Manage       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 3.558

7.  Scale Dependence of Female Ungulate Reproductive Success in Relation to Nutritional Condition, Resource Selection and Multi-Predator Avoidance.

Authors:  Jared F Duquette; Jerrold L Belant; Nathan J Svoboda; Dean E Beyer; Patrick E Lederle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  To kill, stay or flee: the effects of lions and landscape factors on habitat and kill site selection of cheetahs in South Africa.

Authors:  Susana Rostro-García; Jan F Kamler; Luke T B Hunter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Predicting grizzly bear density in western North America.

Authors:  Garth Mowat; Douglas C Heard; Carl J Schwarz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Trophic scaling and occupancy analysis reveals a lion population limited by top-down anthropogenic pressure in the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique.

Authors:  Kristoffer T Everatt; Leah Andresen; Michael J Somers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.