Movements of yellowstone grizzly bears

Blanchard, Bonnie M.; Knight, Richard R.

doi:10.1016/0006-3207(91)90044-a

Cited by 189 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…McLoughlin et al (2003) concluded that biologically significant differences among ranges of female grizzly bears of differing family status likely do exist, but differences may be only of short duration and hence difficult to test. In southern Yukon (Pearson 1975), northern Yukon (MacHutchon 1996, Yellowstone (Blanchard and Knight 1991), Northwest Territories (Nagy et al 1983a), and my study, however, sizes of home ranges increased as cubs aged and after cubs dispersed.…”

Section: Grizzly Bearsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Differences in annual-range size among study areas have been attributed to differences in habitat quality (McCloughlin and Ferguson 2000;McLoughlin et al 2003). By season, spring and early summer ranges of females with cubs are often the smallest, attributed to lack of mobility of young cubs and/or security requirements (Aune and Kasworm 1989;Blanchard and Knight 1991;Dahle and Swenson 2003a,b). Late-summer and fall ranges are typically more variable.…”

Section: Goals and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Pinus albicaulis) (Blanchard and Knight 1991;Felicetti et al 2003a). My research addressed the following questions: 1) as a recognized habitat generalist, can patterns of habitat use and selection that are driven by specific habitat types be identified for wolves?…”

Section: Goals and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defining the predator landscape of northeastern British Columbia.

Milakovic¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Grizzly Bearsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Goals and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining the predator landscape of northeastern British Columbia.

Milakovic¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Grizzly bears are far moving species and may travel several kilometers in a single day according to studies in North America (Blanchard and Knight 1991, Mace et al 1999, Mamo et al 1999, Gibeau 2000 such that habitat used may not be adequately represented by a single pixel (Aebischer 1993). Male grizzly bears in central British Columbia tend to travel further than females, and movements differ in both mountain and plateau habitats as well as occupy larger home ranges (Appendix C) (Ciarniello 2006).…”

Section: Selection Of An Appropriate Image Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The buffer size corresponds to 500 m, the average daily movement of an adult female grizzly bear in the mountains, while males exhibited larger home ranges (Appendix C), which corresponds to other studies (Blanchard and Knight 1991, Mace et al 1999, Gibeau 2000. When employing greenness, one should attempt to use a buffer that reflects average daily movements of the study animal and appropriate scale data.…”

Section: Management Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of greenness estimates from the tassled cap transformation and normalized difference vegetation index as a component in habitat selection models for grizzly bears.

Paczkowski¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrient intake and its possible drivers in free‐ranging European brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos)

De Cuyper,

Strubbe,

Clauss

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dietary nutrient profile has metabolic significance and possibly contributes to species' foraging behavior. The brown bear (Ursus arctos) was used as a model species for which dietary ingredient and nutrient concentrations as well as nutrient ratios were determined annually, seasonally and per reproductive class. Brown bears had a vertebrate‐ and ant‐dominated diet in spring and early summer and a berry‐dominated diet in fall, which translated into protein‐rich and carbohydrate‐rich diets, respectively. Fiber concentrations appeared constant over time and averaged at 25% of dry matter intake. Dietary ingredient proportions differed between reproductive classes; however, these differences did not translate into a difference in dietary nutrient concentrations, suggesting that bears manage to maintain similar nutrient profiles with selection of different ingredients. In terms of nutrient ratios, the dietary protein to non‐protein ratio, considered optimal at around 0.2 (on metabolizable energy basis), averaged around 0.2 in this study in fall and around 0.8 in spring and summer. We introduced the minimal non‐fat to fat ratio necessary for efficient maintenance metabolism. This ratio varied across seasons but never fell beneath the theoretically estimated minimum to ensure metabolic efficiency. This population thus managed to ingest diets that never exerted a lack of glucogenic substrate, suggesting that metabolic efficiency may either be a driver of active diet selection or that natural resources available to bears did not constitute a constraint in this respect. Given the considerable proportion of fiber in the diet of brown bears, the relevance of this nutrient and its role in foraging behavior might be underestimated.

show abstract

Movements of yellowstone grizzly bears

Cited by 189 publications

References 12 publications

Defining the predator landscape of northeastern British Columbia.

Defining the predator landscape of northeastern British Columbia.

A comparison of greenness estimates from the tassled cap transformation and normalized difference vegetation index as a component in habitat selection models for grizzly bears.

Nutrient intake and its possible drivers in free‐ranging European brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About