2006
DOI: 10.2192/1537-6176(2006)17[159:rtahif]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recent trends and harvest in Finland's brown bear population

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Current methods for monitoring brown bears range from field observations to intensive collection of material for identification of individual bears by DNA analysis (Linnell et al 1998). Observations are used both for estimation of population size and trends (Mattson 1997, Kojola et al 2006, Schwartz et al 2008, Kindberg et al 2009), and most observation‐based methods focus on females with cubs (Knight et al 1995, Eberhardt & Knight 1996, Harris et al 2007, Ordiz et al 2007, Schwartz et al 2008), because they are easier to recognise in the field and are the most important segment for populations stability. Observations can also be used in combination with other methods, e.g.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current methods for monitoring brown bears range from field observations to intensive collection of material for identification of individual bears by DNA analysis (Linnell et al 1998). Observations are used both for estimation of population size and trends (Mattson 1997, Kojola et al 2006, Schwartz et al 2008, Kindberg et al 2009), and most observation‐based methods focus on females with cubs (Knight et al 1995, Eberhardt & Knight 1996, Harris et al 2007, Ordiz et al 2007, Schwartz et al 2008), because they are easier to recognise in the field and are the most important segment for populations stability. Observations can also be used in combination with other methods, e.g.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%