Estimating population size and trends of the Swedish brown bear Ursus arctos population

[ "*Present address: National Centre for Biosystematics, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1172 Blindern, NO-0318 Oslo, Norway"]; [ "Corresponding author: Jonas Kindberg"]; [ "Associate Editor: Olivier Gimenez"]; [ "Jonas Kindberg & Göran Ericsson, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-90183 Umeå, Sweden - e-mail addresses: (Jonas Kindberg); (Göran Ericsson)"]; [ "Jon E. Swenson, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway, and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway - e-mail: "]; [ "Eva Bellemain*, Christian Miquel & Pierre Taberlet, Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France - e-mail addresses; (Eva Bellemain); (Christian Miquel); (Pierre Taberlet)"]
Wildlife Biology (Impact Factor: 1.1). 07/2011; DOI: 10.2981/10-100

ABSTRACT Estimating population size and trends are key issues in the conservation and management of large carnivores. The rebounding brown bear Ursus arctos population in Sweden is monitored by two different systems, both relying on voluntary resources. Population estimates have been calculated using Capture-Mark-Recapture methods, based on DNA-based scat surveys in five of the six Swedish counties with established bear populations. A total of 1,358 genotypes were identified using DNA extracted from collected scats. An independent ongoing programme, the Large Carnivore Observation Index (LCOI), was initiated in 1998. The LCOI uses effort-corrected observations of bears by moose Alces alces hunters during the moose hunt (> 2 million observation hours/year) and has shown a good correlation with relative population density of bears using the DNA-based method. From this, we have calculated population trends during the period 1998-2007. Using an exponential model, we estimated the yearly increase in the bear population to be 4.5% at the national level, varying between 0 and 10.2% in different counties. We used the regional population estimates and the trends from the LCOI, taking the variation from both systems into account using parametric bootstrapping, to calculate the regional as well as the national population size in Sweden in fall 2008. In one case (the northernmost county; Norrbotten) a DNA-scat survey was lacking, so we used assumptions based on data from the neighbouring county to estimate population size. We estimated the Swedish brown bear population to be 3,298 individuals (2,968-3,667; 95% confidence intervals) in 2008. Our results suggest that reliable information, necessary for the management of the brown bear population can be obtained from volunteers using standardised methods.

  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: Brown bear populations in Scandinavia show a strong mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) phylogeographic structure and low diversity relative to other parts of Europe. Identifying the timing and origins of this mtDNA structure is important for conservation programs aimed at restoring populations to a natural state. Therefore, it is essential to identify whether contemporary genetic structure is linked to post-glacial recolonisation from divergent source populations or an artefact of demographic impacts during recent population bottlenecks. We employed ancient DNA techniques to investigate the timing and potential causes of these patterns. Location: Scandinavia and Europe. Methods: Ancient mtDNA sequences from 20 post-glacial Scandinavian bears were used to investigate phylogeographic structure and genetic diversity over the last 6000 years. MtDNA from 19 Holocene Norwegian bears was compared with 499 sequences from proximate extant populations in Sweden, Finland, Estonia and western Russia. A single mtDNA sequence from a Holocene Denmark sample was compared with 149 ancient and modern bears from Western Europe. Results: All nineteen Holocene Norwegian samples are identical to or closely related to the most common mtDNA haplotype found in northern Europe today. MtDNA diversity was low and not significantly different from extant populations in northern Europe. In Denmark, we identified a single mtDNA haplotype that is previously unrecorded from Scandinavia. Main conclusions: The current discrete phylogeographic structure and lack of mtDNA diversity in Scandinavia is attributed to serial founder effects during post-glacial recolonisation from divergent source populations rather than an artefact of recent anthropogenic impacts. In contrast to previous interpretations, the recolonisation of southern Scandinavia may not have been limited to bears from a single glacial refugium. Results highlight the importance of conserving the long-term evolutionary separation between northern and southern populations and identify southern Scandinavia as an important reservoir of mtDNA diversity that is under threat in other parts of Europe.
    Diversity and Distributions 01/2012; · 6.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large terrestrial carnivores, e.g. wolves or bears, often play a key ecological role from their position at the apex of trophic systems. Changes to their populations reverberate through ecological communities; consequently their widespread decline in numbers and shrinking distribution due to human persecution has brought about a loss and reconfiguration of biological diversity in many systems. Although many large carnivore populations are now under conservation-minded management, political and economic constraints make compromises necessary. A common compromise is to permit limited harvests, with the premise of sustainability and the objective to increase tolerance and funding for carnivore recovery and conservation. Here we question whether a large carnivore that has to “look over its shoulder” for human hunters can still fully perform its ecological role at the apex of a trophic system. We use information about carnivore behavior, ecology, trophic interactions, and the effects of human exploitation to argue that exploitation of large carnivores, even if sustainable numerically, undermines the commonly expressed rationale for their conservation, namely the restoration and preservation of ecosystem functionality. Our argument centers around (i) the necessity of behavioral adjustments in large carnivores to anthropomorphic risk, which may limit their contribution to the “landscape of fear”, and (ii) the observation that many of the same features that put large carnivores at the apex of trophic systems also make them vulnerable to human exploitation and persecution, with implicit consequences for their ecological functionality and evolution. Although hunting large carnivores can improve public acceptance, managers must be aware of the trade-offs.
    Biological Conservation 01/2013; 168:128–133. · 3.79 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014