European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 583–590 | Cite as

Source populations and roads affect American black bear recolonization

  • Stephanie L. Simek
  • Jerrold L. Belant
  • Zhaofei Fan
  • Brad W. Young
  • Bruce D. Leopold
  • Jonathan Fleming
  • Brittany Waller
Original Paper

Abstract

Understanding species distributions and population responses to environmental parameters is important for addressing landscape-level species conservation. We assessed American black bear (Ursus americanus) resource selection based on spatial distribution of a recolonizing population in Mississippi, USA. Given the philopatric behavior of female bears and the risk-disturbance hypothesis, we predicted that bears recolonizing Mississippi would occupy areas close to their source population but avoid areas near roads and with greater human population density. Using location data from radio-collared black bears, landscape metrics, and spatial autoregressive modeling, we estimated annual population-level space use. Our results confirm that black bears recolonizing Mississippi occupy habitats proximate to source populations and avoid areas near roads as probability of bear use was greater in areas closer to source breeding populations and areas farther from roads. Land cover type, elevation, and human density did not influence black bear occurrence at the spatial resolution examined. The lack of avoidance to areas inhabited by humans was likely a consequence of overall low human density, legal protection afforded this species, and that proximity to source population likely has a greater effect on recolonization than avoidance of humans.

Keywords

American black bear Philopatry Mississippi Recolonization Risk-disturbance hypothesis Ursus americanus 

References

  1. Beckmann J, Berger J (2003) Using black bears to test ideal free distribution models experimentally. J Mammal 84:594–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson JF (2005) Ecology and conservation of Louisiana black bears in the Tensas River Basin and reintroduced populations. Thesis, Louisiana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson JF, Chamberlain MJ (2007) Space use and habitat selection by female Louisiana black bears in the Tensas River Basin of Louisiana. J Wildl Manag 71:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowman JL (1999) An assessment of habitat suitability and human attitudes for black bear restoration in Mississippi. Dissertation, Mississippi State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody AJ, Pelton MR (1989) Effects of road on black bear movements in western North Carolina. Wildl Soc Bull 17:5–10Google Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information theoretic approach. Springer Science + Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark JD, Huber D, Servheen C (2002) Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges. Ursus 13:335–345Google Scholar
  8. Costello CM, Creel SR, Kalinowski ST, Vu NV, Quigley HB (2008) Sex-biased natal dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in American black bears as revealed by spatial genetic analyses. Mol Ecol 17:4713–4723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crook AC, Chamberlain MJ (2010) A multiscale assessment of den selection by black bears in Louisiana. J Wildl Manag 74:1639–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, reference index version 2.15. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org. Accessed 14 Sept 2012
  11. Duke D, Hebblewhite M, Paquet PC, Callaghan C, Percy M (2001) Restoring a large-carnivore corridor in Banff National Park. In: Maehr DS, Noss RF, Larkin JL (eds) Large mammal restoration ecological and sociological challenges in the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, D.C, pp 261–275Google Scholar
  12. Eastridge R (2007) Arkansas black bear status report. In: Proceedings of the 19th eastern workshop on black bear research and management. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Charleston, West Virginia, p 11Google Scholar
  13. Elowe KD, Dodge WE (1989) Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. J Wildl Manag 53:962–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESRI (2011) ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Frary VJ, Duchamp J, Maehr DS, Larkin JL (2011) Density and distribution of a colonizing from of the American black bear Ursus americanus. Wildl Biol 17(4):404–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frid A, Dill L (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6:11Google Scholar
  17. Garshelis DL, McLaughlin CR (1998) Review and evaluation for breakaway devices for bear radiocollars. Ursus 10:459–465Google Scholar
  18. Hanski IA (1991) Single-species metapopulation dynamics: concepts, model and observations. Biol J Linn Soc 42:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson DH (1980) The comparision of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 6:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson KG, Pelton MR (1980) Prebaiting and snaring techniques for black bears. Wildl Soc Bull 8:46–54Google Scholar
  21. Kasworm WF, Manley TL (1990) Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana. Int Conf Bear Res Manag 8:79–84Google Scholar
  22. Kazar BM, Celik M (2012) Spatial autoregression (SAR) model parameter estimation techniques. Springer Science + Business Media, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kertson BN, Spencer RD, Marzluff JM, Hepinstall-Cymerman J, Grue CE (2011) Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of Washington. Ecol Appl 21:2866–2881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koeholer GM, Hornocker MG (1991) Seasonal resource use among mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. J Mammal 72:391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kojola I, Heikkinen S (2006) The structure of the expanded brown bear population at the edge of the Finnish range. Ann Zool Fenn 43:258–262Google Scholar
  26. Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ (2004) Range contractions of north American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience 54:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee S-I (2001) Developing a bivariate spatial association measure: an integration of Pearson’s r and Moran’s I. J Geogr Syst 3:369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Horne JS, Garton EO, Wakkinen WL, Hayden J, Zager P (2011) Identifying habitat characteristics to predict highway crossing areas for black bears within a human-modified landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 101:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Libal NS, Belant JL, Leoplod BD, Wang G, Owen PA (2011) Despotism and risk of infanticide influence grizzly bear den-site selection. PLoS One 6, e24133PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linnell JDD, Swenson JE, Anderson R (2001) Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Anim Conserv 4:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyons AJ (2005) Activity patterns of urban American black bears in the San Gabriel Mountains of Southern California. Ursus 16:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mace RD, Waller JS, Manley TL, Lyon LJ, Zuuring H (1996) Relationship among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. J Appl Ecol 33:1395–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mace RD, Waller JS, Manley TL, Ake K, Wittinger WT (1999) Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in Western Montana. Conserv Biol 13:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mississippi Automated Resource Information System [MARIS] (2002) Index of /30meterDEM. <ftp://www.maris.state.ms.us/30meterDEM>. Accessed 21 Sept 2010
  35. Mississippi Automated Resource Information Systems [MARIS] (2010) MARIS homepage. http://www.maris.state.ms.us. Accessed 21 Sept 2010
  36. Mississippi Forestry Commission [MFC] (2006) Land area and cover types. http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Info/FF/Other/Forest_Statistic_2006_MFC.pdf . Accessed 8 May 2010
  37. Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory [MIFI] (2010) MIFI homepage. http://www.mifi.ms.gov. Accessed 24 Apr 2010
  38. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2006) National Climatic Data Center. http://www.climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. Accessed 8 May 2010
  39. Northrup JM, Pitt J, Muhly TB, Stenhouse GB, Musiani M, Boyce M (2012) Vehicle traffic shapes grizzly bear behavior on a multiple-use landscape. J Appl Ecol 49:1159–1167Google Scholar
  40. Oli MK, Jacobson HA, Leopold BD (2002) Pattern of space use of female black bear in the White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, USA. J Nat Conserv 10:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Onorato D, Hellgren EC (2001) Black bear at the border: natural recolonization of the Trans-Pecos. In: Maehr DS, Noss RF, Larkin JL (eds) Large mammal restoration ecological and sociological challenges in the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, D.C, pp 261–275Google Scholar
  42. Orlando MA (2003) The ecology and behavior of an isolated black bear population in west central Florida. Thesis. University of KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  43. Paetkau D, Shields GF, Strobeck C (1998) Gene flow between insular, coastal, and interior populations of brown bears in Alaska. Mol Ecol 7:1283–1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pelton MR, Coley AB, Eason TH, Pederson DL, Martinez DL, Pederson JA, van Manen FT, Weaver KM (1999) American black bear conservation action plan. In: Servheen C, Herrero S, Peyton B (eds) Bears: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear specialist groups. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp 144–156Google Scholar
  45. Puckett EE, Kristensen TV, Wilton CM, Lyda SB, Noyce K, Holahan PM, Leslie DM Jr, Beringer J, Belant JL, White D Jr, Eggert LS (2014) The influence of a bottleneck followed by admixture on population structure of American black bears (Ursus americanus) in the central interior highlands, USA. Mol Ecol 23:2414–2427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds-Hogland M, Mitchell MS (2007) Effects of roads on habitat quality for bears in the Southern Appalachian: a long-term study. J Mammal 88:1050–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reynolds-Hogland M, Mitchell MS, Powell RA, Brown DC (2007) Selection of den sites by black bears in the Southern Appalachians. J Mammal 88:1062–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roy J, Yannic G, Côté D, Bernatchez L (2012) Negative density-dependent dispersal in American black bear (Ursus americanus) revealed by noninvasive sampling and genotyping. Ecol Evol 2:525–537. doi:10.1002/ece3.207 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sadeghpour MH, Ginnet TF (2011) Habitat selection by female American black bears in northern Wisconsin. Ursus 22:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwab A, Zandbergen PA (2011) Vehicle-related mortality and road crossing behavior of the Florida panther. Appl Geogr 31:859–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwartz CC, Franzmann AW (1991) Dispersal and survival of subadult black bears from the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J Wildl Manag 56:426–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seaman DE, Powell RA (1996) An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shropshire CC (1996) History, status, and habitat components of black bears in Mississippi. Dissertation, Mississippi State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  54. Simek SL, Belant JL, Young BW, Shropshire C, Leopold BD (2012) History and status of American black bear in Mississippi. Ursus 23:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Reid ML (2005) Search costs and habitat selection by dispersers. Ecology 86:510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sutherland WJ (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution. J Anim Ecol 52:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swenson JE, Sandergren F, Söderberg A (1998) Geographic expansion of an increasing brown bear population: evidence for presaturation dispersal. J Anim Ecol 67:819–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. U. S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] (2011) Natural Resources Conservation Service internet services team. Mississippi Wetlands Reserve Program. <http://www.ms.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/MSWetlandsReserveProgram.html>. Accessed 5 Sept 2011
  59. U. S. Geological Service [USGS] (2011) National hydrography dataset. <http://nhd.usgs.gov/>. Accessed 25 June 2011
  60. U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] (2011) Topographically integrated geographic encoding referencing (TIGER) system. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/. Accessed 6 June 2011
  61. U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] (2012) State and county facts. http://www.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2012
  62. U.S. Department of Commerce (2012) National climatic data center. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/ms.html. Accessed 5 Sept 2012
  63. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2012) National wildlife refuge system (NWRS) Boundary. http://www.fws.gov/gis/data/national/index.html#NWRS BOUNDARY.Accessed 24 Mar 2012
  64. Unger DE (2007) Population dynamics, resource selection, and landscape conservation of a recolonizing black bear population. Dissertation. University of KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  65. van Emden H (2008) Statistics for the terrified biologist. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  66. van Manen FT, Pelton MR (1997) A GIS model to predict black bear habitat use. South J Appl For 95:6–12Google Scholar
  67. Verberk W (2012) Explaining general patterns in species abundance and distributions. Nat Educ Knowl 3:38Google Scholar
  68. Waller BW, Belant JL, Young BW, Leopold BD, Simek SL (2012) Denning chronology and den characteristics of American black bears in Mississippi. Ursus 23:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waller BW, Belant JL, Leopold BD, Evans DL, Young BW, Simek SL (2013) Scale-dependent den-site selection by American black bears in Mississippi. Mammal Study 38:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waller BW, Belant JL, Leopold BD, Evans DL, Young BW, Simek SL (2014) Influence of landscape attributes on American black bear den-site selection in Mississippi. Mammal Study 39:115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wooding JB, Hardisky TS (1994) Home range, habitat use, and mortality of black bears in north-central Florida. Bears: Their Biology and Management 9:349–356Google Scholar
  72. Woodroffe R (2000) Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim Conserv 3:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wydeven AP, Fuller TK, Weber W, MacDonald K (1998) Potential for wolf recovery in the northeastern United States via dispersal from southeastern Canada. Wildl Soc Bull 26:776–784Google Scholar
  74. Wydeven AP, Mladenoff DJ, Sickley TA, Kohn BE, Thiel RP, Hansen JL (2001) Road density as a factor in habitat selection by wolves and other carnivores in the Great Lakes Region. Endanger Species Update 18:110–114Google Scholar
  75. Young DD, Beecham JJ (1986) Black bear habitat use at Priest Lake, Idaho. Bears: Their Biology and Management 6:73–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie L. Simek
    • 1
    • 5
  • Jerrold L. Belant
    • 1
  • Zhaofei Fan
    • 2
  • Brad W. Young
    • 3
  • Bruce D. Leopold
    • 4
  • Jonathan Fleming
    • 4
    • 6
  • Brittany Waller
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Carnivore Ecology Laboratory, Forest and Wildlife Research CenterMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.Department of ForestryMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  3. 3.Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and ParksJacksonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  5. 5.Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeOlympiaUSA
  6. 6.Department of GeographyUniversity of North Alabama, UNAFlorenceUSA
  7. 7.South Carolina Department of Natural ResourcesFlorenceUSA

Personalised recommendations