Search

The mechanisms determining habitat use in animal populations have important implications for population dynamics, conservation, and management. Here, we investigated how an increase in annual numbers of brown bear females with cubs of the year (FCOY) in a growing, yet threatened population, could explain differences in the habitat characteristics around reproductive dens. Habitat characteristics around FCOY dens were compared between a low bear density period (1995–2005) and a period when the population was increasing (2006–2016). We also compared the distance to the nearest breeding area and to all other breeding areas observed during the same year. The results suggested that during the second period, breeding areas were closer to rivers, fruit trees, and anthropogenic sources of disturbance (trails, highways) than in 1995–2005. There were also shorter distances to the closest neighboring breeding area, while the mean distance among FCOY breeding areas increased as the population grew and expanded at the landscape level. These changes may reflect that the best den locations were increasingly occupied (i.e., ideal-despotic distribution), and may be further explained by the avoidance of conspecifics by FCOY in a critical time of the year, when newborn cubs are most vulnerable. We suggest that both density-dependent factors and human-related features of the landscape are crucial to understanding long-term dynamics in the habitat use of a threatened species.

Scent-mediated communication is considered the principal communication channel in many mammal species. Compared with visual and vocal communication, odors persist for a longer time, enabling individuals to interact without being in the same place at the same time. The brown bear (Ursus arctos), like other mammals, carries out chemical communication, for example, by means of scents deposited on marking (or rub) trees. In this study, we assessed rub tree selectivity of the brown bear in the predominantly deciduous forests of the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain). We first compared the characteristics of 101 brown bear rub trees with 263 control trees. We then analyzed the potential factors affecting the density of rub trees along 35 survey routes along footpaths. We hypothesized that: (1) bears would select particular trees, or tree species, with characteristics that make them more conspicuous; and (2) that bears would select trees located in areas with the highest presence of conspecifics, depending on the population density or the position of the trees within the species’ range. We used linear models and generalized additive models to test these hypotheses. Our results showed that brown bears generally selected more conspicuous trees with a preference for birches (Betulaspp.). This choice may facilitate the marking and/or detection of chemical signals and, therefore, the effectiveness of intraspecific communication. Conversely, the abundance of rub trees along footpaths did not seem to depend on the density of bear observations or their relative position within the population center or its border. Our results suggest that Cantabrian brown bears select trees based on their individual characteristics and their location, with no influence of characteristics of the bear population itself. Our findings can be used to locate target trees that could help in population monitoring.

A central challenge in animal conservation is to understand how a population may respond to different habitat characteristics, which may affect their growth and viability. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Cantabrian brown bear Ursus arctospopulation (north-western Spain) was separated into western and eastern subpopulations. Today, brown bears in the Cantabrian Mountains are recovering and the two subpopulations are reconnected. However, the western portion of the population represents ca. 90% of the entire population, the number of females with cubs-of-the-year has also shown a more rapid increase in the western subpopulation than in the eastern one and mean litter size is significantly larger in the west. By comparing the characteristics of the landscape used by brown bears in the western vs. eastern sectors of the population, we intended highlighting focal elements of landscape composition and structure that may help explain the differences in numbers and fecundity of these two subpopulations. We suggest that habitat use alone might not have the expected role in potentially explaining differences between subpopulations. Both the current positive trend of the Cantabrian population and our results seem to show that the dynamics affecting these subpopulations might be more complex than previously believed and cannot be understood on the basis of habitat analyses only. Suspicions may arise around direct human influences (e.g. persistence of poaching and/or bad practices during hunting) on the different trends exhibited by the two sectors of this endangered bear population.

AbstractHere we present annual nearest-neighbour distances (as a proxy of density) between females with cubs-of-the-year (hereafter FCOY) and reproductive characteristics of brown bears Ursus arctosin the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain), from 1989 to 2017. FCOY nearest-neighbour distances and reproduction parameters of 19 focal females followed over several consecutive years (from 2004 to 2017) were obtained from bears inhabiting the western sector of the Cantabrian Mountains, where most of the bear population resides. In contrast, general reproductive characteristics were studied in the whole Cantabrian Mountains (western and eastern sectors together) on a sample of 362 litter sizes and 695 cubs. Mean nearest-neighbour distance between FCOY was 2559 ± 1222 m (range = 1305–4757 m). Mean litter size was significantly larger in the west (1.8 ± 0.2 cubs) than in the east (1.3 ± 0.6 cubs). Mean litter size for the whole of the Cantabrian Mountains was 1.6 ± 0.3 cubs. Litter sizes of one, two and three cubs represented 33.4, 56.1 and 10.5% of observed family groups, respectively. Interannual variations in litter size were not significant for both the western and the eastern areas. Mean cub mortality was 0.2 ± 0.5 cubs and did not vary among years. Cub mortality per litter size was 3.9% for one cub, 69.2% for two cubs and 26.9% for three cubs. Mean reproductive rate of the 19 focal females was 1.5 ± 0.6 cubs (n = 58 litters). Litter size of focal FCOY did not differ from the litter size obtained from systematic observations in the whole Cantabrian Mountains. During this period, cub mortality occurred in 24.1% of the 58 litters. Females usually bred every second year (average litter interval = 2.2 years). The estimated reproductive rate for the bear population was 0.7 young born/year/reproductive adult female.