Advertisement

Proximity to humans is associated with longer maternal care in brown bears

  • Joanie Van de WalleEmail author
  • Martin Leclerc
  • Sam M. J. G. Steyaert
  • Andreas Zedrosser
  • Jon E. Swenson
  • Fanie Pelletier
Original Article

Abstract

In the sexual conflict over the duration of maternal care, male mammals may improve their reproductive success by forcing early mother–offspring separation in species where lactation supresses estrus. However, when individual females benefit from continuing to care for their current offspring, they should adopt counter-strategies to avoid separation from offspring. Here, we tested whether spatial segregation from adult males and proximity to humans during the mating season could be associated with longer maternal care in the Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus arctos). Using resource selection functions (RSFs), we contrasted habitat selection patterns of adult males and those of adult females with yearlings that either provided 1.5 years of maternal care (“short-care females”) or continued care for an additional year (“long-care females”) during the mating season, the period when family break-ups typically occur. Males and short-care females had similar habitat selection patterns during the mating season. In contrast, habitat selection patterns differed between males and long-care females, suggesting spatial segregation between the two groups. In particular, long-care females used areas closer to human habitations compared with random locations (defined here as selection), whereas males used areas further to human habitations compared with random locations (defined here as avoidance). Our results show a correlation between habitat selection behavior and the duration of maternal care. We suggest that proximity to humans during the mating season may represent a female tactic to avoid adverse interactions with males that may lead to early weaning of offspring.

Significance statement

In mammalian species where lactation supresses ovulation, males may gain a reproductive advantage by forcing early mother-offspring separation; however females can respond through behavioral tactics. We show that female brown bears with yearling cubs can spatially segregate from males during the mating season and that this behavior is associated with longer maternal care. Females selecting areas close to human habitations tend to keep their yearlings for an additional year, suggesting that human presence could have a shielding effect from males. Our study is among the few to explore sexual conflicts over the duration of maternal care close to weaning and shows that animals have the potential to adjust their behavioral tactics to make use of human-dominated landscapes.

Keywords

Sexual conflict Maternal care Spatial segregation Brown bear 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank A. B. Scarpitta for his advice on the multivariate analyses. We are grateful to M. Festa-Bianchet, the associate editor and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We are also grateful for the support of the Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science. This is scientific paper number 285 from the Scandinavian Brown Bear Research Project.

Funding information

JVdW and ML were financially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). FP was funded by NSERC discovery grant and by the Canada Research Chair in Evolutionary Demography and Conservation. The Scandinavian Brown Bear Research Project is funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, the Austrian Science Fund, and the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

Our use of animals followed all applicable national guidelines. Our handling of study animals was approved by the appropriate authorities and ethical committee: the Swedish Board of Agriculture (no. 35-846/03, 31-7885/07, 31-11102/12), the Uppsala Ethical Committee on Animal Experiments (no. C40/3, C47/9, C7/12), and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (no. 412-7327-09 Nv).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2019_2764_MOESM1_ESM.docx (222 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 221 kb)
265_2019_2764_MOESM2_ESM.docx (290 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 290 kb)

References

  1. Agrell J, Wolff JO, Ylönen H (1998) Counter-strategies to infanticide in mammals: costs and consequences. Oikos 83:507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allendorf FW, Hard JJ (2009) Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106:9987–9994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  4. Arnemo JM, Evans A, Fahlman Å (2011) Biomedical protocols for free-ranging brown bears, wolves, wolverines and lynx. Hedmark University College, EvenstadGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balme GA, Hunter LTB (2013) Why leopards commit infanticide. Anim Behav 86:791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balme GA, Robinson HS, Pitman RT, Hunter LTB (2017) Flexibility in the duration of parental care: female leopards prioritise cub survival over reproductive output. J Anim Ecol 86:1224–1234PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bellemain E, Swenson JE, Taberlet P (2006) Mating strategies in relation to sexually selected infanticide in a non-social carnivore: the brown bear. Ethology 112:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ben-David M, Titus K, Beier LR (2004) Consumption of salmon by Alaskan brown bears: a trade-off between nutritional requirements and the risk of infanticide? Oecologia 138:465–474PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bischof R, Swenson JE, Yoccoz NG, Mysterud A, Giminez O (2009) The magnitude and selectivity of natural and multiple anthropogenic mortality causes in hunted brown bears. J Anim Ecol 78:656–665PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Bischof R, Bonenfant C, Rivrud IM, Zedrosser A, Friebe A, Coulson T, Mysterud A, Swenson JE (2018) Regulated hunting re-shapes the life history of brown bears. Nat Ecol Evol 2:116–123PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyce MS (1981) Beaver life-history responses to exploitation. J Appl Ecol 18:749–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FK (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruce HM (1959) An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature 184:105PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ciuti S, Northrup JM, Muhly TB, Simi S, Musiani M, Pitt JA, Boyce MS (2012) Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS ONE 7:e50611PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Craighead JJ, Sumner JS, Mitchell JA (1995) The grizzly bears of Yellowstone. Their ecology in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Dahle B, Swenson JE (2003a) Factors influencing length of maternal care in brown bears (Ursus arctos) and its effect on offspring. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dahle B, Swenson JE (2003b) Family break-up in brown bears: are young forced to leave? J Mammal 84:536–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dahle B, Swenson JE (2003c) Seasonal range size in relation to reproductive strategies in brown bears Ursus arctos. J Anim Ecol 72:660–667PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Elfström M, Davey ML, Zedrosser A, Müller M, De Barba M, Støen O-G, Miquel C, Taberlet P, Hackländer K, Swenson JE (2014a) Do Scandinavian brown bears approach settlements to obtain high-quality food? Biol Conserv 178:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elfström M, Zedrosser A, Jerina K, Støen O-G, Kindberg J, Budic L, Jonozovič M, Swenson JE (2014b) Does despotic behavior or food search explain the occurrence of problem brown bears in Europe? J Wildlife Manage 78:881–893Google Scholar
  26. Elliot NB, Valeix M, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2014) Social relationships affect dispersal timing revealing a delayed infanticide in African lions. Oikos 123:1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fairbanks LA, McGuire MT (1987) Mother-infant relationships in vervet monkeys: response to new adult males. Int J Primatol 8:351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1969) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosselin J, Leclerc M, Zedrosser A, Steyaert SM, Swenson JE, Pelletier F (2017) Hunting promotes sexual conflict in brown bears. J Anim Ecol 86:35–42PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Grüebler MU, Naef-Daenzer B (2008) Fitness consequences of pre- and post-fledging timing decisions in a double-brooded passerine. Ecology 89:2736–2745PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Hertel AG, Leclerc M, Warren D, Pelletier F, Zedrosser A, Mueller T (2019) Don’t poke the bear: using tracking data to quantify behavioural syndromes in elusive wildlife. Anim Behav 147:91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hrdy SB (1979) Infanticide among animals: a review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethol Sociobiol 1:13–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, McDonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use – availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildlife Manage 70:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leclerc M, Vander Wal E, Zedrosser A, Swenson JE, Kindberg J, Pelletier F (2016) Quantifying consistent individual differences in habitat selection. Oecologia 180:697–705PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee PC, Majluf P, Gordon IJ (1991) Growth, weaning and maternal investment from a comparative perspective. J Zool 225:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lele SR, Merrill EH, Keim J, Boyce MS (2013) Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. J Anim Ecol 82:1183–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lessels CM (1999) Sexual conflict in animals. In: Keller L (ed) Levels of selection in evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 75–99Google Scholar
  39. Lessels CM (2012) Sexual conflict. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 150–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Garton EO, Vierling LA (2007) Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error. J Appl Ecol 44:663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Libal NS, Belant JL, Leopold BD, Wang G, Owen PA (2011) Despotism and risk of infanticide influence grizzly bear den-site selection. PLoS ONE 6:e24133PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loseto LL, Richard P, Stern GA, Orr J, Ferguson SH (2006) Segregation of Beaufort Sea beluga whales during the open-water season. Can J Zool 84:1743–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loveridge AJ, Searle AW, Murindagomo F, Macdonald DW (2007) The impact of sport-hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in a protected area. Biol Conserv 134:548–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lukas D, Huchard E (2014) The evolution of infanticide by males in mammalian societies. Science 346:841–844PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Main MB, Weckerly FW, Bleich VC (1996) Sexual segregation in ungulates: new directions for research. J Mammal 77:449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin P (1984) The meaning of weaning. Anim Behav 32:1257–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martin AR, da Silva VMF (2004) River dolphins and flooded forest: seasonal habitat use and sexual segregation of botos (Inia geoffrensis) in an extreme cetacean environment. J Zool 263:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matson G, Van Daele L, Goodwin E, Aumiller L, Reynolds H, Hristienko H (1993) A laboratory manual for cementum age determination of Alaska bear first premolar teeth. Matson’s Laboratory, MilltownGoogle Scholar
  49. McLellan (1994) Density-dependent population regulation in brown bears. In: Taylor M (ed) Density dependent population regulation of black, brown and polar bears. The ninth international conference on bear research and management. International Association for Bear Research and Management, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
  50. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morino L, Borries C (2017) Offspring loss after male change in wild siamangs: the importance of abrupt weaning and male care. Am J Phys Anthropol 162:180–185PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Oksanen J, Blanchet G, Friendly M et al (2017) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2:4–2 https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html Google Scholar
  53. Ordiz A, Støen O-G, Sæbø S, Kindberg J, Delibes M, Swenson JE (2012) Do bears know they are being hunted? Biol Conserv 152:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rode KD, Farley SD, Robbins CT (2006) Sexual dimorphism, reproductive strategy, and human activities determine resource use by brown bears. Ecology 87:2636–2646PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Sandell MI, Smith HG (1996) Already mated females constrain male mating success in the European starling. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:743–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princetown University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  57. Skuban M, Find’o S, Kajba M (2018) Bears napping nearby: daybed selection by brown bears (Ursus arctos) in a human-dominated landscape. Can J Zool 96:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smultea MA (1994) Segregation by humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) cows with a calf in coastal habitat near the island of Hawaii. Can J Zool 72:805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Solberg KH, Bellemain E, Drageset O-M, Taberlet P, Swenson JE (2006) An evaluation of field and non-invasive genetic methods to estimate brown bear (Ursus arctos) population size. Biol Conserv 128:158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spady TJ, Lindburg DG, Durrant BS (2007) Evolution of reproductive seasonality in bears. Mamm Rev 37:21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Steyaert SMJG, Endrestøl A, Hackländer K, Swenson JE, Zedrosser A (2012) The mating system of the brown bear Ursus arctos. Mamm Rev 42:12–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Steyaert SMJG, Kindberg J, Swenson JE, Zedrosser A (2013a) Male reproductive strategy explains spatiotemporal segregation in brown bears. J Anim Ecol 82:836–845PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Steyaert SMJG, Reusch C, Brunberg S, Hackländer K, Zedrosser A (2013b) Infanticide as a male reproductive strategy has a nutritive risk effect in brown bears. Biol Lett 9:20130624PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steyaert SMJG, Swenson JE, Zedrosser A (2014) Litter loss triggers estrus in a nonsocial seasonal breeder. Ecol Evol 4:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steyaert SMJG, Leclerc M, Pelletier F, Kindberg J, Brunberg S, Swenson JE, Zedrosser A (2016) Human shields mediate sexual conflict in a top predator. Proc R Soc B 283:20160906PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Støen O-G, Ordiz A, Evans AL, Laske TG, Kindberg J, Fröbert O, Swenson JE, Arnemo JM (2015) Physiological evidence for a human-induced landscape of fear in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Physiol Behav 152:244–248PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Suring LH, Farley SD, Hilderbrand GV, Goldstein MI, Howlin S, Erickson WP (2007) Patterns of landscape use by female brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J Wildlife Manage 70:1580–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Swenson JE, Dahle B, Sandegren F (2001) Intraspecific predation in Scandinavian brown bears older than cubs-of-the-year. Ursus 12:81–92Google Scholar
  70. Swenson JE, Adamič M, Huber D, Stokke S (2007) Brown bear body mass and growth in northern and southern Europe. Oecologia 153:37–47PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Tarwater CE, Brawn JD (2010) The post-fledging period in a tropical bird: patterns of parental care and survival. J Avian Biol 41:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine Publishing Company, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  73. Trivers RL (1974) Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool 14:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van de Walle J, Pigeon G, Zedrosser A, Swenson JE, Pelletier F (2018) Hunting regulation favors slow life histories in a large carnivore. Nat Commun 9:1100PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zedrosser A, Pelletier F, Bischof R, Festa-Bianchet M, Swenson JE (2013) Determinants of lifetime reproduction in female brown bears: early body mass, longevity, and hunting regulations. Ecology 94:231–240PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhao Q, Borries C, Pan W (2011) Male takeover, infanticide, and female countertactics in white-headed leaf monkeys (Trachypithecus leucocephalus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1535–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Biologie & Centre for Northern StudiesUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  3. 3.Department of Natural Sciences and Environmental HealthUniversity of Southeast NorwayNorway
  4. 4.Faculty of Biosciences and AquacultureNord UniversitySteinkjerNorway
  5. 5.Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game ManagementUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  6. 6.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations