Article

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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
377 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Establishment of haematological and biochemical reference intervals is important to assess health of animals on individual and population level. Reference intervals for 13 haematological and 34 biochemical variables were established based on 88 apparently healthy free-ranging brown bears (39 males and 49 females) in Sweden. The animals were chemically immobilised by darting from a helicopter with a combination of medetomidine, tiletamine and zolazepam in April and May 2006¿2012 in the county of Dalarna, Sweden. Venous blood samples were collected during anaesthesia for radio collaring and marking for ecological studies. For each of the variables, the reference interval was described based on the 95% confidence interval, and differences due to host characteristics sex and age were included if detected. To our knowledge, this is the first report of reference intervals for free-ranging brown bears in Sweden.ResultsThe following variables were not affected by host characteristics: red blood cell, white blood cell, monocyte and platelet count, alanine transaminase, amylase, bilirubin, free fatty acids, glucose, calcium, chloride, potassium, and cortisol. Age differences were seen for the majority of the haematological variables, whereas sex influenced only mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration, aspartate aminotransferase, lipase, lactate dehydrogenase, ß-globulin, bile acids, triglycerides and sodium.Conclusions The biochemical and haematological reference intervals provided and the differences due to host factors age and gender can be useful for evaluation of health status in free-ranging European brown bears.
    BMC Veterinary Research 08/2014; 10(1):183. · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bears foraging near human developments are often presumed to be responding to food shortage, but this explanation ignores social factors, in particular despotism in bears. We analyzed the age distribution and body condition index (BCI) of shot brown bears in relation to densities of bears and people, and whether the shot bears were killed by managers (i.e., problem bears; n = 149), in self-defense (n = 51), or were hunter-killed nonproblem bears (n = 1,896) during 1990–2010. We compared patterns between areas with (Slovenia) and without supplemental feeding (Sweden) of bears relative to 2 hypotheses. The food-search/food-competition hypothesis predicts that problem bears should have a higher BCI (e.g., exploiting easily accessible and/or nutritious human-derived foods) or lower BCI (e.g., because of food shortage) than nonproblem bears, that BCI and human density should have a positive correlation, and problem bear occurrence and seasonal mean BCI of nonproblem bears should have a negative correlation (i.e., more problem bears during years of low food availability). Food competition among bears additionally predicts an inverse relationship between BCI and bear density. The safety-search/naivety hypothesis (i.e., avoiding other bears or lack of human experience) predicts no relationship between BCI and human density, provided no dietary differences due to spatiotemporal habitat use among bears, no relationship between problem bear occurrence and seasonal mean BCI of nonproblem bears, and does not necessarily predict a difference between BCI for problem/nonproblem bears. If food competition or predation avoidance explained bear occurrence near settlements, we predicted younger problem than nonproblem bears and a negative correlation between age and human density. However, if only food search explained bear occurrence near settlements, we predicted no relation between age and problem or nonproblem bear status, or between age and human density. We found no difference in BCI or its variability between problem and nonproblem bears, no relation between BCI and human density, and no correlation between numbers of problem bears shot and seasonal mean BCI for either country. The peak of shot problem bears occurred from April to June in Slovenia and in June in Sweden (i.e., during the mating period when most intraspecific predation occurs and before fall hyperphagia). Problem bears were younger than nonproblem bears, and both problem and nonproblem bears were younger in areas of higher human density. These age differences, in combination with similarities in BCI between problem and nonproblem bears and lack of correlation between BCI and human density, suggested safety-search and naïve dispersal to be the primary mechanisms responsible for bear occurrence near settlements. Younger bears are less competitive, more vulnerable to intraspecific predation, and lack human experience, compared to adults. Body condition was inversely related to the bear density index in Sweden, whereas we found no correlation in Slovenia, suggesting that supplemental feeding may have reduced food competition, in combination with high bear harvest rates. Bears shot in self-defense were older and their BCI did not differ from that of nonproblem bears. Reasons other than food shortage apparently explained why most bears were involved in encounters with people or viewed as problematic near settlements in our study. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.
    Journal of Wildlife Management 07/2014; 78(5). · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large carnivores were persecuted to near extinction during the last centuries, but have now recovered in some countries. It has been proposed earlier that the recovery of the Northern European brown bear is supported by migration from Russia. We tested this hypothesis by obtaining for the first time continuous sampling of the whole Finnish bear population, which is located centrally between the Russian and Scandinavian bear populations. The Finnish population is assumed to experience high gene flow from Russian Karelia. If so, no or a low degree of genetic differentiation between Finnish and Russian bears could be expected. We have genotyped bears extensively from all over Finland using 12 validated microsatellite markers and compared their genetic composition to bears from Russian Karelia, Sweden, and Norway. Our fine masked investigation identified two overlapping genetic clusters structured by isolation-by-distance in Finland (pairwise FST = 0.025). One cluster included Russian bears, and migration analyses showed a high number of migrants from Russia into Finland, providing evidence of eastern gene flow as an important driver during recovery. In comparison, both clusters excluded bears from Sweden and Norway, and we found no migrants from Finland in either country, indicating that eastern gene flow was probably not important for the population recovery in Scandinavia. Our analyses on different spatial scales suggest a continuous bear population in Finland and Russian Karelia, separated from Scandinavia.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(5):e97558. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
161 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014