Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hourly movement decisions indicate how a large carnivore inhabits developed landscapes

  • Highlighted Student Research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ecology of wildlife living in proximity to humans often differs from that in more natural places. Animals may perceive anthropogenic features and people as threats, exhibiting avoidance behavior, or may acclimate to human activities. As development expands globally, changes in the ecology of species in response to human phenomena may determine whether animals persist in these changing environments. We hypothesize that American black bears (Ursus americanus) persist within developed areas by effectively avoiding risky landscape features. We test this by quantifying changes in the movements of adult females from a population living within exurban and suburban development. We collected hourly GPS data from 23 individuals from 2012 to 2014 and used step-selection functions to estimate selection for anthropogenic features. Females were more avoidant of roads and highways when with cubs than without and were more responsive to increased traffic volume. As bears occupied greater housing densities, selection for housing increased, while avoidance of roads and responsiveness to traffic increased. Behavioral flexibility allowed bears in highly developed areas to alter selection and avoidance for anthropogenic features seasonally. These findings support the hypothesis that black bears perceive human activity as risky, and effectively avoid these risks while inhabiting developed areas. We document a high amount of individual variation in selection of anthropogenic features within the study population. Our findings suggest that initially, wildlife can successfully inhabit developed landscapes by effectively avoiding human activity. However, variation among individuals provides the capacity for population-level shifts in behavior over time.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Animal Care and Use Committee (1998) Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of mammals as approved by the American Society of Mammalogists. J Mammal 79:1416–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony LL, Blumstein DT (2000) Integrating behaviour into wildlife conservation: the multiple ways that behaviour can reduce Ne. Biol Conserv 95:303–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker PJ, Dowding CV, Molony SE, White PC, Harris S (2007) Activity patterns of urban red foxes (vulpes vulpes) reduce the risk of traffic-induced mortality. Behav Ecol 18:716–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch-Mordo S, Wilson KR, Lewis DL, Broderick J, Mao JS, Breck SW (2014) Stochasticity in natural forage production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human-bear conflicts. PLoS One 9:e85122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman P, Fleming P (2012) Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. J Zool 287:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann JP, Berger J (2003a) Using black bears to test ideal-free distribution models experimentally. J Mammal 84:594–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann JP, Berger J (2003b) Rapid ecological and behavioral changes in carnivores: the response of black bears to (Ursus americanus) to altered food. J Zool 261:207–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer HL (2014) Geospatial modeling environment. http://www.spatialecology.com/gme. Accessed May 2015

  • Chapron G, Lopez-Bao JV (2014) Conserving carnivores: politics in play. Science 343:1199–1200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark JD, Eastridge R (2006) Growth and sustainability of black bears at white river national wildlife refuge, Arkansas. J Wildl Manag 70:1094–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibault J, Hewison AJM (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer movements using a step selection function. Landsc Ecol 23:603–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahle B, Swenson JE (2003) Seasonal range size in relation to reproductive strategies in brown bears Ursus arctos. J Anim Ecol 72:660–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dall SR (2004) Behavioural biology: fortune favours bold and shy personalities. Curr Biol 14:470–472

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darrow PA, Shivik JA (2009) Bold, shy, and persistent: variable coyote response to light and sound stimuli. Appl Anim Behav Sci 116:82–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delibes M, Gaona P, Ferreras P (2001) Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am Nat 158:277–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeStefano S, DeGraaf RM (2003) Exploring the ecology of suburban wildlife. Front Ecol Environ 1:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditchkoff SS, Saalfeld ST, Gibson CJ (2006) Animal behavior in urban ecosystems: modifications due to human-induced stress. Urban Ecosyst 9:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiler JH, Wathen WG, Pelton MR (1989) Reproduction in black bears in the southern Appalachian Mountains. J Wildl Manag 53:353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfstrom M, Zedrosser A, Stoen O-G, Swenson JE (2012) Ultimate and proximate mechanisms underlying the occurrence of bears close to human settlements: review and management implications. Mamm Rev 44:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans MJ, Hawley JE, Rego PW, Rittenhouse TAG (2017) Black bear recolonization patterns on human-dominated landscapes vary based on housing: new insights from spatially explicit density models. Landsc Urban Plan 162:13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin D, Boyce MS, Merrill EH, Fryxell JM (2004) Foraging costs of vigilance in large mammalian herbivores. Oikos 107:172–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86:1320–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis CD, Barber JR (2013) A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent conservation priority. Front Ecol Environ 11:305–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frid A, Dill LM (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry JA, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz JA, Homer CG, Yang L, Barnes CA, Herold ND, Wickham JD (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous united states. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(9):858–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Garshelis DL, Noyce KV, Ditmer MA (2012) Ecology and population dynamics of black bears in Minnesota. In: Cornicelli L, Carstensen M, Grund MD, Larson MA, Lawrence JS (eds) Summaries of wildlife research findings 2012. Minnesota DNR, St. Paul, pp 13–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrt SD, Brown JL, Anchor C (2011) Is the urban coyote a misanthropic synanthrope? The case from Chicago. Cities Environ 4:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gunderson LH, Levinson BM, Palmer MA, Paerl HW, Peterson GD (2006) Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins JB (2013) Use of genetics to investigate socially learned foraging behavior in free-ranging black bears. J Mammal 94:1214–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Leeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley Inc., New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hristienko H, McDonald JE Jr (2007) Going into the 21st century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the management of the American black bear. Ursus 18:72–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulbert IA, French J (2001) The accuracy of GPS for wildlife telemetry and habitat mapping. J Appl Ecol 38:869–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson HE, Breck SW, Baruch-Mordo S, Lewis DL, Lackey CW, Wilson KR, Broderick J, Mao JS, Beckmann JP (2015) Shifting perceptions of risk and reward: dynamic selection for human development by black bears in the western United States. Biol Conserv 187:164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kertson BN, Spencer RD, Marzluff JM, Hepinstall-Cymerman J, Grue CE (2011) Cougar space use and movements in the wildland–urban landscape of western Washington. Ecol Appl 21:2866–2881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knopff AA, Knopff KH, Boyce MA, St Clair CC (2014) Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biol Conserv 178:136–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohl MT, Stahler DR, Metz MC, Forester JD, Kauffman MJ, Varley N, White PJ, Smith DW, MacNulty DR (2018) Diel predator activity drives a dynamic landscape of fear. Ecol Monogr 88(4):638–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koops MA, Abrahams MV (1998) Life history and the fitness consequences of imperfect information. Evol Ecol 12:601–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lele SR, Merrill EH, Keim J, Boyce MS (2013) Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. J Anim Ecol 82:1183–1191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D, Breck S, Wilson K, Webb C (2014) Modeling black bear population dynamics in a human-dominated stochastic environment. Ecol Model 294:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linnell JD, 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 4:345–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry H, Lill A, Wong B (2013) Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biol Rev 88:537–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lukacs PM, Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2009) Model selection bias and Freedman’s paradox. Ann Inst Stat Math 62:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin JG, Réale D (2008) Temperament, risk assessment and habituation to novelty in eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus. Anim Behav 75:309–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthiopoulos J, Hebblewhite M, Aarts G, Fieberg J (2011) Generalized functional responses for species distributions. Ecology 92:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur R, Seher V (2008) Socially learned foraging behavior in wild black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim Behav 75:1503–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkle JA, Robinson HS, Krausman PR, Alaback P (2013) Food availability and foraging near human developments by black bears. J Mammal 94:378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messmer TA (2009) Human–wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges and opportunities. Hum Wildl Confl 3:10–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Naves J, Wiegand T, Revilla E, Delibes M (2003) Endangered species constrained by natural and human factors: the case of brown bears in northern Spain. Conserv Biol 17:1276–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nellemann C, Støen O, Kindberg J, Swenson JE, Vistnes I, Ericsson G, Katajisto J, Kaltenborn BP, Martin J, Ordiz A (2007) Terrain use by an expanding brown bear population in relation to age, recreational resorts and human settlements. Biol Conserv 138:157–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordiz A, Støen O, Delibes M, Swenson JE (2011) Predators or prey? Spatio-temporal discrimination of human-derived risk by brown bears. Oecologia 166:59–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Powell RA, Zimmerman JW, Seaman DE, Gilliam JF (1996) Demographic analyses of a hunted black bear population with access to a refuge. Conserv Biol 10:224–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell RA, Zimmerman JW, Seaman DE (1997) Ecology and behaviour of North American black bears: home ranges, habitat, and social organization. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed Sept 2016

  • Remeš V (2000) How can maladaptive habitat choice generate source-sink population dynamics? Oikos 91:579–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley SPD, Sauvajot RM, Fuller TK, York EC, Kamradt DA, Bromley C, Wayne RK (2003) Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conserv Biol 17:566–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson BA, Rehage JS, Sih A (2013) Ecological novelty and the emergence of evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 28:552–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rode KD, Farley SD, Robbins CT (2006) Sexual dimorphism, reproductive strategy, and human activities determine resource use by brown bears. Ecology 87:2636–2646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Prieto I, Fernández-Juricic E, Martín J, Regis Y (2009) Antipredator behavior in blackbirds: habituation complements risk allocation. Behav Ecol 20:371–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roever CL, Boyce MS, Stenhouse GB (2010) Grizzly bear movements relative to roads: application of step selection functions. Ecography 33:1113–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers LL, Allen W (1987) Habitat suitability index models: black bear upper great lakes region. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biology Report 82(10.144)

  • Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slater P (1981) Individual differences in animal behavior. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology. Springer, New York, pp 35–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer RD, Beausoleil RA, Martorello DA (2007) How agencies respond to human-black bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus 18:217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert SMJG, Zedrosser A, Elfstrom M, Ordiz A, Leclerc M, Frank SC, Kindberg J, Stoen O-G, Brunberg S, Swenson JE (2016) Ecological implications from spatial patterns in human-caused brown bear mortality. Wildl Biol 22(4):144–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therneau T (2015) A package for survival analysis in S v 2.38

  • Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Boyce M (2014) Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Mov Ecol 2:4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomainen U, Candolin U (2011) Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biol Rev 86:640–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Horne B (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildl Manag 47:893–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. S. Eggert for help with manuscript preparation. Funding provided by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act under Project W-49-R “Wildlife Investigations” administered by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Connecticut, Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation Center, Unit 4087, 1376 Storrs Rd., Storrs, CT, 06269, USA

    Michael J. Evans & Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse

  2. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Wildlife Division, 341 Milford St., Burlington, CT, 06013, USA

    Jason E. Hawley & Paul W. Rego

Authors
  1. Michael J. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason E. Hawley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul W. Rego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MJE conceived the study; JEH and PWR designed data collection and conducted fieldwork; and MJE designed and conducted analyses and led the writing of the manuscript, with contributions and supervision from TAGR.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Evans.

Additional information

Communicated by Andreas Zedrosser.

This work quantifies habitat selection during movements of a large carnivore through human development, including neighborhoods with different housing densities. The movement strategies we identify indicate how wildlife live within and may adapt to human development.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

442_2018_4307_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Changes in model-averaged selection parameter estimates (βω) and standard errors (SEω) of the relationship between anthropogenic variables and log odds of black bear steps estimated by step selection functions using increasing numbers of simulated steps. Different symbols correspond to different individual bears, selected at random from the study population. (PDF 235 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evans, M.J., Hawley, J.E., Rego, P.W. et al. Hourly movement decisions indicate how a large carnivore inhabits developed landscapes. Oecologia 190, 11–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4307-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4307-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation