Novel range overlap of three ursids in the Canadian subarctic

Abstract

We describe for the first time in the peer-reviewed literature observations of American black bear (Ursus americanus Pallas, 1780), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758), and polar bear (Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774) at the same locations. Using remote cameras we documented 401 bear-visits of all three species at three camps in Wapusk National Park, Canada, from 2011–2017. These observations add to a growing body of evidence that grizzlies are undergoing a substantial range increase in northern Canada and the timing of our observations suggests denning locally. Polar and grizzly bears are of conservation concern regionally and internationally, so from the literature we assessed the potential effects on conservation efforts from interactions between these three species. In aggregate, those effects are likely to be positive for grizzlies and weakly negative for black and polar bears; further research is needed. Range overlap of these three species in this dynamic ecotonal region should not be viewed as a threat to any of them, but rather as an ecological response to environmental change that needs to be better understood.

Long‐term increases in pathogen seroprevalence in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) influenced by climate change

“…However, while Canada lynx range includes the Hudson Bay lowlands (Vashon, 2016 ), the current status of lynx in the WH study area is unknown. Observations by trappers have been rare (L. Fishback, personal communication, August 11, 2020), and lynx are the only endemic carnivore not detected by trail cameras that have been operating along the coast of Wapusk National Park since 2011 (D. Clark, personal communication, August 11, 2020; Clark et al, 2019 ).…”

A real-time PCR assay to accurately quantify polar bear DNA in fecal extracts

“…Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8884/fig-2 (Clark et al, 2019;Miller, Wilder & Wilson, 2015), and thus their feces are not likely to be mistaken for that of polar bears. Even if samples were to be accidentally collected from a non-target species, these would be detected in the downstream NGS genotyping step.…”

Principles for the socially responsible use of conservation monitoring technology and data

“…Moreover, when repurposing CSTs the same proportionality and necessity assessments should be undertaken as for initial deployment. Understandably, many conservationists will weigh against this consideration the potential for unanticipated but biologically significant findings as a study progresses: for example, documenting unexpected species (Clark et al, 2018). Circumstances matter for making such decisions, as does local engagement (below).…”

“…This paper identifies a preliminary set of principles for the socially responsible use of conservation surveillance technology and data (Figure 1). These principles are based on the authors' collective experience using CSTs for research (Clark et al, 2018), facilitating CST development, studying the ethical issues around CSTs (Adams, 2019; Sandbrook, 2015; Sandbrook et al, 2018) and using user‐generated content to study human‐nature interactions (Di Minin, Tenkanen, & Toivonen, 2015; Hausmann et al, 2018; Toivonen et al, 2019). In contrast to previous studies that have made recommendations for the appropriate use of single technologies (Duffy et al, 2018; Sharma et al, 2020), we aim to provide a “full spectrum” view which can be applied to all existing and new conservation surveillance technologies, from social media posts (Toivonen et al, 2019) to satellites (Lynch, Maslin, Balzter, & Sweeting, 2017).…”