Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Free food for everyone: artificial feeding of brown bears provides food for many non-target species

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Artificial feeding of wildlife is a widely used tool for a range of conservation and management goals. While the effects of artificial feeding on target species have been studied rather extensively, little is known about its effects on non-target species. We used automatic video surveillance to monitor the vertebrate species using artificial feeding sites (n = 20) established primarily for brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Dinaric Mountains, Slovenia. We also studied how type of artificial food (only plant-based food vs. mixed food including carrion) affects the species diversity and assemblage at the feeding sites. In total, we analyzed 117,566 recordings and identified 23 vertebrate taxa, including the brown bear, using the feeding sites. Brown bear, European badger (Meles meles), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) were the most frequently recorded species. Birds represented a substantial part (46%) of vertebrate community using the feeding sites, including species of a high conservation importance. Feeding sites were regularly used also by species for which intentional artificial feeding is forbidden in study area (e.g., roe deer Capreolus capreolus). Species diversity at the feeding sites was highest in spring while species composition varied both seasonally and according to the type of artificial food (with or without carrion). Our study indicates that artificial feeding affects numerous non-target species, which could have several ecological and management-relevant effects, including potentially undesired consequences. Artificial feeding of wildlife should be carefully planned and we provide recommendations on how to mitigate the side effects on non-target species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Adamič M, Jerina K (2010) Ungulates and their management in Slovenia. In: Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman RJ (eds) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 507–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Agencija Republike Slovenije za okolje (2018) Arhiv - opazovani in merjeni meteorološki podatki po Sloveniji. http://meteo.arso.gov.si/met/sl/archive/. Accessed 31 July 2018 (in Slovenian)

  • Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen HP, Gundersen H, Storaas T (2005) The effect of scent-marking, forest clearing , and supplemental feeding on moose-train collisions. J Wildl Manag 69:1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[1125:TEOSFC]2.0.CO;2

  • Angerbjörn A, Tannerfeldt M, Elmhagen B (2002) Presentation Av SEFALO-Projektet: Vilka Chanser Har Fjällräven Att Överleva I Sverige? In: Rofstad G, Frafjord K (eds) Fjellrev på Nordkalotten II. Report no. 63. Nordkalottrådets Publikasjonsserie (in Swedish)

  • Arnold TW (2010) Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s Information Criterion. J Wildl Manag 74:1175–1178. https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas ptic (2018) Ornithological atlas of breeding birds of Slovenia. http://atlas.ptice.si/atlas. Accessed 31 July 2018

  • Bartoń K (2018) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.40.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn

  • Baselga A (2013) Separating the two components of abundance-based dissimilarity: balanced changes in abundance vs. abundance gradients. Methods Ecol Evol 4:552–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A, Orme D, Villeger S, De Bortoli J and Leprieur F (2018) betapart: Partitioning beta diversity into turnover and nestedness components. R package version 15.0.

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieber C, Ruf T (2005) Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa : ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers. J Appl Ecol 42:1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01094.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BirdLife International (2018) IUCN Red List for birds. http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed 31 July 2018

  • Bordjan D (2017) Occurrence of the red kite Milvus milvus in Slovenia. Acrocephalus 37(172/173):55–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutin S (1990) Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: patterns, problems, and the future. Can J Zool 68:203–220. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman B, Belant JL, Beyer DE, Martel D (2015) Characterizing nontarget species use at bait sites for white-tailed deer. Human-Wildlife Interactions 9:110–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell TA, Long DB, Shriner SA (2013) Wildlife contact rates at artificial feeding sites in Texas. Environ Manag 51:1187–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0046-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper SM, Ginnett TF (2000) Potential effects of supplemental feeding of deer on nest predation. Wildl Soc Bull 28:660–666. https://doi.org/10.2307/3783617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortés-Avizanda A, Carrete M, Serrano D, Donázar JA (2009) Carcasses increase the probability of predation of ground-nesting birds: a caveat regarding the conservation value of vulture restaurants. Anim Conserv 12:85–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00231.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Caceres M, Legendre P (2009) Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90:3566–3574. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1823.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0345:SAAIST]2.0.CO;2

  • Dunkley L, Cattet MRL (2003) A comprehensive review of the ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of wildlife. Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Newsletters & Publications 21. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmccwhcnews/21 Accessed 30 August 2017

  • Dunn EH, Ralph CJ (2004) Use of mist nets as a tool for bird population monitoring. Studies in Avian Biology 29. Cooper Ornithological Society, Pennsylvania

  • Ewen JG, Walker L, Canessa S, Groombridge JJ (2015) Improving supplementary feeding in species conservation. Conserv Biol 29:341–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Felton AM, Felton A, Cromsigt JPGM, Edenius L, Malmsten J, Wam HK (2017) Interactions between ungulates, forests, and supplementary feeding: the role of nutritional balancing in determining outcomes. Mammal Res 62:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-016-0301-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garshelis DL, Baruch-Mordo S, Bryant A, Gunther KA, Jerina K (2017) Is diversionary feeding an effective tool for reducing human – bear conflicts? Case studies from North America and Europe. Ursus 28:1–25. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-16-00019.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves A, Biro D (2018) Comparative thanatology, an integrative approach: exploring sensory/cognitive aspects of death recognition in vertebrates and invertebrates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 373:20170263. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera CM (1989) Frugivory and seed dispersal by carnivorous mammals, and associated fruit characteristics, in undisturbed Mediterranean habitats. Oikos 55:250–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerina K (2012) Roads and supplemental feeding affect home-range size of Slovenian red deer more than natural factors. J Mammal 93:1139–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerina K, Jonozovič M, Krofel M, Skrbinšek T (2013) Range and local population densities of brown bear Ursus arctos in Slovenia. Eur J Wildl Res 59:459–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0690-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavčič I, Adamič M, Kaczensky P, Krofel M, Jerina K (2013) Supplemental feeding with carrion is not reducing brown bear depredations on sheep in Slovenia. Ursus 24:111–119. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-12-00031R1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavčič I, Adamič M, Kaczensky P, Krofel M, Kobal M, Jerina K (2015) Fast food bears: brown bear diet in a human-dominated landscape with intensive supplemental feeding. Wildl Biol 21:1–8. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby R, Macfarland DM, Pauli JN (2017) Consumption of intentional food subsidies by a hunted carnivore. J Wildl Manag 81:1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krofel M (2011) Monitoring of facultative avian scavengers on large mammal carcasses in Dinaric Forest of Slovenia. Acrocephalus 32:45–51. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10100-011-0003-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krofel M, Jerina K (2016) Mind the cat: conservation management of a protected dominant scavenger indirectly affects an endangered apex predator. Biol Conserv 197:40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krofel M, Jonozovič M, Jerina K (2012) Demography and mortality patterns of removed brown bears in a heavily exploited population. Ursus 23:91–103. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-10-00013.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krofel M, Špacapan M, Jerina K (2017) Winter sleep with room service: denning behaviour of brown bears with access to anthropogenic food. J Zool 302:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kryštufek (1991) Sesalci Slovenije. Prirodoslovni muzej Slovenije, Ljubljana. (in Slovenian)

  • Lambert BC, Demarais S (2001) Use of supplemental feed for ungulates by non-target species. Southwest Nat 46:118–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/367238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (2009) Predators and the breeding bird: behavioural and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev 84:485–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00085.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • López-Bao JV, Rodríguez A, Palomares F (2008) Behavioural response of a trophic specialist, the Iberian lynx, to supplementary food: patterns of food use and implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 141:1857–1867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loretto MC, Reimann S, Schuster R, Graulich DM, Bugnyar T (2016) Shared space, individually used: spatial behaviour of non-breeding ravens (Corvus corax) close to a permanent anthropogenic food source. J Ornithol 157:439–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-015-1289-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massei G, Genov PV (2004) The environmental impact of wild boar. Galemsy 16:135–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner JM, Van Beest FM, Schmidt KT, Brook RK, Storaas T (2014) To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J Wildl Manag 78:1322–1334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minchin PR (1987) An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Plant Ecol 69:89–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00038690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohorović M, Krofel M, Jonozovič M, Stergar M, Hafner M, Pokorny B, Jerina K (2015) Spatial and temporal availability of carrion from wild ungulates as food source for bears in Slovenia. Report of Action A5 of Dinalp Bear Project. University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana

  • Morehouse AT, Boyce MS (2017) Evaluation of intercept feeding to reduce livestock depredation by grizzly bears. Ursus 28:66–80. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSU-D-16-00026.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Szoecs E and Wagner H (2018) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5–2

  • Orams MB (2002) Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tour Manag 23:281–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00080-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patteson IJ, Cavallini P, Rolando A (1991) Density, range size and diet of the European jay Garrulus glandarius in the Maremma Natural Park, Tuscany, Italy in summer and autumn. Ornis Scand 22:79–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/3676537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penteriani V, López-Bao JV, Bettega C, Dalerum F, del Mar Delgado M, Jerina K, Kojola I, Krofel M, Ordiz A (2017) Consequences of Brown bear viewing tourism: a review. Biol Conserv 206:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penteriani V, Del Mar Delgado M, Krofel M, Jerina K, Ordiz A, Dalerum F, Zarzo-Arias A, Bombieri G (2018) Evolutionary and ecological traps for brown bears in human-modified landscapes. Mammal Rev 48:180–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petan J (2016) Vzroki poginov srn (Capreolus capreolus) v Sloveniji. Dissertation, University of Ljubljana

  • Pons J, Pausas JG (2007) Not only size matters: acorn selection by the European jay (Garrulus elandarius). Acta Oecol 31:353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2007.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popova E, Zlatanova D (2017) Diversity and temporal relationships between mammals at feeding stations in Western Rhodope Mountains , Bulgaria.

  • Putman RJ, Staines BW (2004) Supplementary winter feeding of wild red deer (Cervus elaphus) in Europe and North America: justifications, feeding practice and effectiveness. Mammal Rev 34:285–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2004.00044.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putman RJ, Apollonio M, Reidar A (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices, I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://wwwr-projectorg Accessed October 2018

  • Reding, R (2015) Effects of diversionary feeding on life history traits of brown bears. Master thesis. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.

  • Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, Schmitz OJ, Smith DW, Wallach AD, Wirsing AJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz J, Hofer K, Hofer E, Hackländer K, Immekus D, Codron D, Clauss M (2013) Forestomach pH in hunted roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in relation to forestomach region, time of measurement and supplemental feeding and comparison among wild ruminant species. Eur J Wildl Res 59:505–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0698-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robb GN, McDonald RA, Chamberlain DE, Bearhop S (2008) Food for thought: supplementary feeding as a driver of ecological change in avian populations. Front Ecol Environ 6:476–484. https://doi.org/10.1890/060152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer GW, Gompper ME, Van Valkenburgh B (2009) The ecological role of the mammalian mesocarnivore. Bioscience 59:165–173. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.2.9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • San-Blas E, Gowen SR (2008) Facultative scavenging as a survival strategy of entomopathogenic nematodes. Int J Parasitol 38:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2007.06.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schley L, Dufrêne M, Krier A, Frantz AC (2008) Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur J Wildl Res 54:589–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Hambäck PA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1086/303311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Selva N, Berezowska-Cnota T, Elguero-Claramunt I (2014) Unforeseen effects of supplementary feeding: ungulate baiting sites as hotspots for ground-nest predation. PLoS One 9(3):e90740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Selva N, Teitelbaum CS, Sergiel A, Zwijacz-Kozica T, Zięba F, Bojarska K, Mueller T (2017) Supplementary ungulate feeding affects movement behavior of brown bears Basic Appl Ecol doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.007

  • Slovenia Forest Service (2010) Navodila za usmerjanje razvoja populacij divjadi v Sloveniji: Verzija 3. Zavod za gozdove Slovenije, Ljubljana.

  • Sorensen A, Van Beest FM, Brook RK (2013) Impacts of wildlife baiting and supplemental feeding on infectious disease transmission risk: a synthesis of knowledge. Prev Vet Med 113:356–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stergar M, Jerina K (2017) Wildlife and forest management measures significantly impact red deer population density. Šumarski List 141:139–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert SMJG, Kindberg J, Jerina K, Krofel M, Stergar M, Swensona JE, Zedrosser A (2014) Behavioral correlates of supplementary feeding of wildlife: can general conclusions be drawn? Basic Appl Ecol 15:669–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Štrumbelj C (2006) Ali res delamo vse v korist medveda? Mrhovišča in medvedji problemi na Kočevskem. Lovec 89:12–14 (in Slovenian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmons GR, Hewitt DG, DeYoung CA, Fulbright TE, Draeger DA (2010) Does supplemental feed increase selective foraging in a browsing ungulate? J Wildl Manag 74:995–1002. https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tome D, Krofel M, Mihelič T (2009) The diet of the raven Corvus corax in south-west Slovenia. – Annales, Ser. Hist Nat 19(/2):161–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrezec A, Bordjan D, Perušek M, Hudoklin A (2009) Population and ecology of the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and its conservation status in Slovenia. Denisia 27:103–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehncke EJ, Di Bitetti MS (2013) Cebus nigritus impact the seedling assemblage below their main sleeping sites. Stud Neotropical Fauna Environ 48:142–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650521.2013.854031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weihong J, Veitch CR, Craig JL (1999) An evaluation of the efficiency of rodent trapping methods: the effect of trap arrangement, cover type and bait. N Z J Ecol 23:45–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson CJ (2004) Rooting damage to farmland in Dorset, southern England, caused by feral wild boar Sus scrofa. Mammal Rev 34:331–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2004.00050.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zager P, Beecham J (2006) The role of American black bears and brown bears as predators on ungulates in North America. Ursus 17:95–108. https://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176(2006)17[95:TROABB]2.0.CO;2

  • Ziegltrum GJ (2009) Efficacy of black bear supplemental feeding to reduce conifer damage in western Washington. J Wildl Manag 68:470–474. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0470:EOBBSF]2.0.CO;2

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank hunters from the Slovenia Forest Service and the Slovenian Hunting Association for their substantial help with the field work. Special thanks to M. Mohorović for her help in establishing the monitoring program and coordinating the activities of camera trapping. Many thanks to all the students that have helped process the photos from camera traps: R. Ule, M. Gagliardi, A. Jerina, L. Gal, F. Feurstein, G. Marolt, L. Stopar, L. Hočevar, and M. Predalič. We are grateful to A. Žagar for database maintenance, R. Luštrik for many useful tips on data organization, M. de Groot for his generous help with the data analysis, and E. Ferreira for useful comments on the early draft.

Funding

Funding for the study was provided by the European LIFE mechanism within the LIFE DINALP BEAR project (LIFE13 NAT/SI/000550). B.C. was supported by Unidade de Vida Selvagem. K.J. and M.K. were additionally supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (J4-7362, P4-0059).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Večna pot 83, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Urša Fležar, Beatriz Costa, Dejan Bordjan, Klemen Jerina & Miha Krofel

  2. Department of Biology, Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    Beatriz Costa

Authors
  1. Urša Fležar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beatriz Costa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dejan Bordjan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Klemen Jerina
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miha Krofel
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Urša Fležar.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 List of resident large and mid-sized mammals (> 1 kg in body mass) and nesting birds (> 30 cm in length) present in the Dinaric forest ecosystem in the study area, their relative abundance (abundant, common, uncommon, rare) and distribution (widespread, scattered, local), and number of bear feeding sites (n = 20) at which they were recorded in this study. Vagrant species are not included in the list, except for the one (red kite), which was recorded during the study. Number of visited feeding sites is presented separately for feeding sites without and with carrion. Data sources: Atlas ptic 2018; Kryštufek 1991, authors’ pers. obs
Full size table
Table 4 Indicator species for site groups, i.e., feeding sites with or without carrion and different seasons (spring, summer, fall). “A” is the positive predicting value of the species abundance as indicator of the site group (specificity). “B” is the probability of finding the species in sites belonging to the site group (fidelity). Significant indicator values (alpha < 0.05) are italicized
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fležar, U., Costa, B., Bordjan, D. et al. Free food for everyone: artificial feeding of brown bears provides food for many non-target species. Eur J Wildl Res 65, 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1237-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1237-3

Keywords