Implications of the variable availability of seasonal foods on the home ranges of black bears, Ursus americanus, in the Sierra Nevada of California

Animal Biotelemetry

Rachel Mazur³  A P Klimley²  Karen Folger¹ 

[1] Division of Resource Management and Science, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, California 95616, USA

[2] Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, 1334 Academic Surge, Davis, California 95616, USA

[3] Current address: Natural Resources Staff, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431, USA

关键词: Ursus americanus;    Sugar pine;    Sudden oak death;    Preference;    Home range;    Blister rust;    Black bear;    Acorn production;   

Others  :  791014
DOI  :  10.1186/2050-3385-1-16

 received in 2013-06-05, accepted in 2013-08-16,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) seeds and oak (Quercus spp.) acorns are both important fall food sources for a variety of wildlife in the Sierra Nevada, but both have variable mast production and are in decline. Sugar pines are in decline due to white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) infection and oaks are in decline due to fire exclusion and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) predation. To examine how a change in availability of seed and acorn crops from these trees could have a cascading effect on associated wildlife, we studied their relationship to black bear (Ursus americanus) fall ranges in Sequoia National Park, California. The distribution of seed-bearing sugar pines overlaps with the bears’ summer range, whereas acorn-bearing oaks occur at lower elevations. We used GPS collars and field observations to collect location data on ten wild, adult, female bears during the summer and fall of both 2005 and 2006, and then compared these data on habitat use with the Park’s vegetation map of available habitat.

Results

Our results indicate that the inter-annual variability in the availability of these natural foods is closely related to the seasonal ranges of black bears. In the fall of 2005, when blue and black oak acorns were scarce but other acorns were abundant, bears remained within their summer ranges to feed on sugar pine seeds. In the fall of 2006, when blue oak acorns were abundant, bears shifted out of their summer ranges to feed on acorns and forego sugar pine seeds, even though the seeds were more abundant than in 2005. Incidents between humans and black bears were highest in 2006 while bears were moving between their summer ranges and the oak belt.

Conclusion

In the fall, black bears make heavy use of both sugar pines and oaks. Although they prefer acorns to sugar pine seeds, the loss of either food source would lead to an increased dependence on the other. When both are unavailable due to continued decline or simultaneously low mast crops, an increase in human-bear incidents is likely.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Mazur et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Duriscoe DM, Duriscoe CS: Survey and monitoring of white pine blister rust in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, Three Rivers, California: National Park Service; 2002.
• [2]van-Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL, Keifer MB, Keeley JE: Effects of an introduced pathogen and fire exclusion on the demography of sugar pine. Ecol Appl 2004, 14:1590-1602.
• [3]Nixon KC: Quercus. In Flora of North America North of Mexico. New York and Oxford: Flora of North America Editorial Committee; 1997.
• [4]Ripple WJ, Beschta RL: Trophic cascades involving cougar, mule deer, and black oaks in Yosemite National Park. Biol Conserv 2008, 141:1249-1256.
• [5]McPherson BA, Mori SR, Wood DL, Storer AJ, Svihra P, Kelly NM, Standiford RB: Sudden oak death in California: disease progression in oaks and tanoaks. For Ecol Manage 2005, 213:71-89.
• [6]Monahan WB, Koenig WD: Estimating the potential effects of sudden oak death on oak-dependent birds. Biol Conserv 2006, 127:146-157.
• [7]Burt WH: Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 1943, 24:346-352.
• [8]Samuel MD, Pierce DJ, Garton EO: Identifying areas of concentrated use within the home range. J Anim Ecol 1985, 54:711-719.
• [9]Garshelis DL, Pelton MR: Movements of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J Wildl Manag 1981, 45:912-925.
• [10]Schooley RL, McLaughlin CR, Krohn WB, Matula GJ Jr: Spatiotemporal patterns of habitat use by female black bears during fall. Int Conf Bear Res Manag 1994, 8:143-154.
• [11]Garshelis DL, Pelton MR: Activity of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J Mammal 1980, 61:8-19.
• [12]MacArthur RH, Pianka ER: An optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 1996, 100:276-282.
• [13]Schoener TW: Simple models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 1983, 121:608-629.
• [14]Schoener TW: Theory of feeding strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1971, 2:369-390.
• [15]Amstrup SC, Beecham J: Activity patterns of radio-collared black bears in Idaho. J Wildl Manag 1976, 40:340-348.
• [16]Klenner W: Seasonal movements and home range utilization patterns of the black bear, Ursus americanus, in Western Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 1987, 101:558-568.
• [17]Samson C, Huot J: Reproductive biology of female black bears in relation to mass in early winter. J Mammal 1998, 76:68-77.
• [18]Graber DM, White M: Black bear food habits in Yosemite National Park. Int Conf Bear Res Manag 1980, 5:1-10.
• [19]Koenig WD, Knops JMH: The mystery of masting in trees. Am Sci 2005, 93:340-347.
• [20]Mazur R: Does aversive conditioning reduce human-black bear conflict? J Wildl Manag 2010, 74:48-54.
• [21]Peirce KN, Van-Daele LJ: Use of a garbage dump by brown bears in Dillingham, Alaska. Ursus 2006, 17:165-177.
• [22]Peine JD: Nuisance bears in communities: strategies to reduce conflict. Hum Dimens Wildl 2001, 6:223-237.
• [23]Walraven ME: A simulation model for management of black bear problems in Sequoia National Park. Cal-Neva Wildlife 1978, 1978:52-64.
• [24]Bargali AH, Akhtar N, Chauhan NPS: Feeding ecology of sloth bears in a disturbed area in central India. Ursus 2004, 15:212-217.
• [25]Fredriksson G: Human sun-bear conflicts in East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Ursus 2005, 16:130-137.
• [26]Jorgenson P, Sandoval-A S: Andean bear management needs and interactions with humans in Columbia. Ursus 2005, 16:108-116.
• [27]Barg JJ, Jones J, Bobertson RJ: Describing breeding territories of migratory passerines: suggestions for sampling, choice of estimator, and delineation of core areas. J Anim Ecol 2005, 74:139-149.
• [28]Heizer RF, Elsasser AB: The Natural World of the California Indians. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1980.
• [29]Brown G: The Great Bear Almanac. New York: The Lyons Press; 1993.
• [30]Elowe KD, Dodge WE: Factors effecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. J Wildl Manag 1989, 53:962-968.
• [31]Rogers LL: Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 1987, 97:1-72.
• [32]Mazur R, Seher V: Socially learned foraging behaviour in wild black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim Behav 2008, 75:1503-1508.
• [33]Mattson DJ, Blanchard BM, Knight RR: Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, human habituation, and whitebark pine seed crops. J Wildl Manag 1992, 56:432-442.
• [34]van-Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL, Keeley JE: Forest reproduction along a climatic gradient in the Sierra Nevada, California. For Ecol Manage 2006, 225:391-399.
• [35]Bolsinger CL: The hardwoods of California’s timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. Portland: USDA Forest Service, Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-148. Pacific Northwest Research Station; 1988.
• [36]Knapp EE, Goedde MA, Rice KJ: Pollen-limited reproduction in blue oak: implications for wind pollination in fragmented populations. Oecologia 2001, 128:48-55.
• [37]Stephenson NL: Climate control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water-balance with examples from North America and Sequoia National Park, California. Ithaca, USA: Cornell University; 1988. [PhD thesis]
• [38]Keay JA: Black bear reproductive rates in Yosemite National Park. California Fish and Game 1995, 81:122-131.
• [39]D’eon RG: Effects of a stationary GPS fix-rate bias on habitat-selection analysis. J Wildl Manag 2003, 2003:858-863.
• [40]de-Solla SR, Bonduriansky R, Brooks RJ: Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. J Anim Ecol 1999, 68:221-234.
• [41]McNay RS, Morgan JA, Bunnel FL: Characterizing independence in observations of movements of Columbian black-tailed deer. J Wildl Manag 1994, 58:422-429.
• [42]Koenig WD, Mumme RL, Carmen WJ, Stanback MT: Acorn production by oaks in central coastal California: variation within and among years. Ecology 1994, 75:99-109.
• [43]Rogers AR, Carr AP: HRE: the home range extension for ArcView. User’s Manual. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research. Canada: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; 1998.
• [44]Hemson G, Johnson P, South A, Kenward R, Ripley R, MacDonald D: Are kernels the mustard? Data from global positioning system (GPS) collars suggest problems for kernel home-range analyses with least-squares cross-validation. J Anim Ecol 2005, 74:455-463.
• [45]Horner MA, Powell RA: Internal structure of home ranges of black bears and analyses of home-range overlap. J Mammal 1990, 71:402-410.
• [46]Kernohan BJ, Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ: Analysis of animal space use and movements. In Radio Tracking and Animal Populations. Edited by Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001.
• [47]Powell RA: Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences. Edited by Boitani L, Fuller TK. New York: Columbia Univerity; 2000.
• [48]Bundell GM, Maier JAK, Debevec EM: Linear home ranges: effects of smoothing, sample size, and autocorrelation on kernel estimates. Ecol Monogr 2001, 71:469-489.
• [49]Horne JS, Garton EO: Likelihood cross-validation versus least squares cross-validation for choosing smoothing parameter in kernel home-range analysis. J Wildl Manag 2006, 70:641-648.
• [50]Silverman BW: Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London: Chapman and Hall; 1986.
• [51]Worton BJ: Using Monte-Carlo simulation to evaluate kernel-based home range estimators. J Wildl Manag 1995, 59:794-800.
• [52]Naef-Daenzer B: A new transmitter for small animals and enhanced methods of home-range analysis. J Wildl Manag 1993, 57:680-689.
• [53]Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raekeke KJ, Gitzen RA: Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. J Wildl Manag 1999, 63:739-747.
• [54]Seaman DE, Powell RA: An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 1996, 77:2075-2085.
• [55]Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE: Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 1993, 74:1313-1325.
• [56]Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ: Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd edition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.; 1995.
• [57]National Park Service: Vegetation of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Three Rivers, California: National Park Service; 2007.
• [58]Girard I, Ouellet JP, Courtois R, Dussault C, Breton L: Effects of sampling effort based on GPS telemetry on home range size estimations. J Wildl Manag 2002, 66:1290-1300.
• [59]Leban F: Resource selection analysis software. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho; 1999.
• [60]National Park Service: Bear Incident Management System for Sequoia and Kings. Canyon National Parks. Three Rivers, California: National Park Service; 2006.