In temperate regions of the world, food resources are seasonally limited, which causes some wildlife species to seek out nutrient-rich resources to better meet their caloric needs. Animals that utilize highquality resources may reap fitness benefits as they prepare for mating, migration, or hibernation. American black bears (Ursus americanus) are omnivores that consume both plant and animal food resources to meet macronutrient needs. Black bears capitalize on high-quality food resources, such as soft mast in summer and hard mast during autumn, but we know less about the importance of resource quality during spring. Therefore, we sought to understand the relationship between the spatiotemporal variation in the availability of food and resource selection of black bears during spring. We also aimed to infer potential changes in foraging tactics, from opportunistic foraging to more active selection. Although black bears are described as opportunistic omnivores, we hypothesized they select areas with high-quality forage when available. We instrumented 7 black bears with GPS collars in 2017 and 2018 and estimated fine-scale resource selection with integrated stepselection functions. We found evidence that black bear movements were influenced by forage quality of vegetative food resources. However, we failed to find evidence that black bears actively alter their movements to take advantage of seasonal neonate elk. Although black bears represent a substantial cause of mortality for neonate elk, we found that black bears likely feed on neonates encountered opportunistically while traveling between patches of high-quality forage. Few studies have shown evidence of an omnivorous species capitalizing on spatiotemporal variation in forage quality, yet our data suggest this may be an important strategy for species with diverse diets, particularly where resources are seasonally limited.
Several of the world's bear species exhibit tree-rubbing behavior, which is thought to be a form of scent-marking communication. Many aspects of this behavior remain unexplored, including differences in rub tree selection between sympatric bear species. We compiled rub tree data collected on Yellowstone National Park's Northern Range (USA) and compared rub tree selection of sympatric American black bears (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bears (U. arctos) at local and landscape scales. During 2017 and 2018, we identified 217 rub trees and detected black bears at 117 rub trees and grizzly bears at 18 rub trees, based on genetic analysis of collected hair samples. Rub trees generally were located in areas with gentle slopes and close to existing animal trails. Trees selected by black bears were typically in forested areas, whereas trees selected by grizzly bears were in forested and more open areas. Use of rub trees varied seasonally and between sexes for black bears, but seasonal data were inconclusive for grizzly bears. Black bears showed preferences for certain tree species for rubbing, but we did not find evidence that rub tree selection by grizzly bears differed among tree species. Both bear species selected trees that lacked branches on the lower portions of tree trunks and the maximum rub height was consistent with the body length of the bear species that used the tree. Although the sample size for grizzly bears was small, identifying the species and sex of bears based on genetic analysis enhanced interpretation of rub tree use and selection by bears. Scent-marking by black bears and grizzly bears on similar rub objects in well-traversed areas likely serves to enhance communication within and between the 2 species.
Herbivorous animals tend to seek out plants at intermediate phenological states to improve energy intake while minimizing consumption of fibrous material. In some ecosystems, the timing of green‐up is heterogeneous and propagates across space in a wave‐like pattern, known as the green wave. Tracking the green wave allows individuals to prolong access to higher‐quality forage. While there is a plethora of empirical support for such behavior in herbivorous taxa, the green wave hypothesis (GWH) is nuanced based on factors such as body morphometrics and digestive capacity. Furthermore, little is known about whether other taxa, such as omnivores, track the green wave. Our objective was to assess whether the GWH can be extended to explain the movements of omnivores. Using GPS collar data from seven populations (n = 127 individuals) of brown bears Ursus arctos across their entire North American range, we first tested whether bears tracked the green wave. Using conditional resource selection functions (RSFs), we found that variation in proxies of vegetative forage quality better explained movement and habitat selection than proxies of forage biomass in over half of the bears in our study, providing evidence of green wave tracking. Second, we assess factors that explained variation in green wave tracking using linear mixed effects models. Green wave tracking in brown bears was explained by the variation in availability of green‐up within spring home ranges, and how green‐up transitioned across those home ranges. Our results demonstrate that the GWH can partially explain movement of a non‐migratory omnivorous species, extending the generality of the GWH as a broad predictor of animal space use. The green wave is another resource wave brown bears track, and our findings help predict brown bear space use, which can be used to guide conservation and habitat restoration efforts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.