Article

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

[ "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)
Wildlife Biology (Impact Factor: 0.88). 07/2011; 17(Jun 2011):114-123. 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Jon E Swenson
  • Source
    • "Wolves were functionally extinct in the 1960s, but wolf recovery accelerated during the 1990s (Wabakken et al. 2001), with ;11 packs in 2001 (Vilà et al. 2003), 31 packs in 2010 (Liberg et al. 2012), and 43 packs (;400 wolves) in 2014 (Svensson et al. 2014). Regarding brown bears, as few as ;130 were left in Sweden by 1930 (Swenson et al. 1995), but legislation changed and the population increased steadily, reaching ;1000 bears in the 1990s (Zedrosser et al. 2001) and ;3,300 by 2008 (Kindberg et al. 2011). Presently most wolves and bears are in Sweden; few inhabit Norway. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interspecific competition can influence the distribution and abundance of species and the structure of ecological communities and entire ecosystems. Interactions between apex predators can have cascading effects through the entire natural community, which supports broadening the scope of conservation from single species to a much wider ecosystem perspective. However, competition between wild large carnivores can hardly be measured experimentally. In this study, we analyzed the expansion of the Scandinavian Wolf (Canis lupus) population during its recovery from the early 1990s. We took into account Wolf-, habitat-, human-and brown bear (Ursus arctos)-related factors, because Wolf expansion occurred within an area partially sympatric with bears. Wolf pair establishment was positively related to previous Wolf presence and was negatively related to road density, distance to other Wolf territories, and bear density. These findings suggest that both human-related habitat modification and interspecific competition have been influential factors modulating the expansion of the Wolf population. Interactions between large carnivores have the potential to affect overall biodiversity. Therefore, conservation-oriented management of such species should consider interspecific interactions, rather than focusing only on target populations of single species. Long-term monitoring data across large areas should also help quantify and predict the influence of biotic interactions on species assemblages and distributions elsewhere. This is important because interactive processes can be essential in the regulation, stability, and resilience of ecological communities.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Ecosphere
    • "An informed management response to a reduction in population growth would be different if a change in trajectory was caused primarily by a decline in food resources versus a population experiencing densitydependent effects indicative of a population reaching carrying capacity. Concepts related to population limitation and regulation have garnered particular interest from brown bear (Ursus arctos) managers as bear densities have increased in several recovering populations in Europe and the continental United States over the past 3 decades (Schwartz et al. 2006d, Kindberg et al. 2011, Mace et al. 2012, Chapron et al. 2014). McLellan (1994) suggested that food availability is likely the ultimate factor limiting brown bear populations but argued that this is a function of social behavior influencing access to food resources and level of energy expenditure in most instances, rather than a limitation of food biomass itself. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding factors influencing changes in population trajectory is important for effective wildlife management, particularly for populations of conservation concern. Annual population growth of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA has slowed from 4.2–7.6% during 1983–2001 to 0.3–2.2% during 2002–2011. Substantial changes in availability of a key food source and bear population density have occurred. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), the seeds of which are a valuable but variable fall food for grizzly bears, has experienced substantial mortality primarily due to a mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak that started in the early 2000s. Positive growth rates of grizzly bears have resulted in populations reaching high densities in some areas and have contributed to continued range expansion. We tested research hypotheses to examine if changes in vital rates detected during the past decade were more associated with whitebark pine decline or, alternatively, increasing grizzly bear density. We focused our assessment on known-fate data to estimate survival of cubs-of-the-year (cubs), yearlings, and independent bears (≥2 yrs), and reproductive transition of females from having no offspring to having cubs. We used spatially and temporally explicit indices for grizzly bear density and whitebark pine mortality as individual covariates. Models indicated moderate support for an increase in survival of independent male bears over 1983–2012, whereas independent female survival did not change. Cub survival, yearling survival, and reproductive transition from no offspring to cubs all changed during the 30-year study period, with lower rates evident during the last 10–15 years. Cub survival and reproductive transition were negatively associated with an index of grizzly bear density, indicating greater declines where bear densities were higher. Our analyses did not support a similar relationship for the index of whitebark pine mortality. The results of our study support the interpretation that slowing of population growth during the last decade was associated more with increasing grizzly bear density than the decline in whitebark pine. Grizzly bear density and its potential effect on vital rates and population trajectory warrant consideration for management of the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2015 · Journal of Wildlife Management
  • Source
    • "Consequently, the growth rate of the subpopulation in central Austria, which probably was functionally isolated (i.e., no exchange of females) from the nuclei along the Austrian–Slovenian border, yielded some 7%. Kindberg et al. (2011) estimated that the Swedish brown bear population was composed by 3298 (2968–3667) individuals in 2008, thus reporting a yearly increase of 4.5% on the national level and from 0 to 10.2% on the county level for the period 1998–2007. This rate is comparable to that of other expanding populations in Europe (Rigg & Adamec 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large carnivores, such as brown bears (Ursus arctos), are flagship species for the conservation of biodiversity and their reintroduction represents a strong challenge. However, the results of reintroductions have only recently been documented in the literature. Given the global decline of large carnivores, documenting the results of such attempts is crucial for future conservation management. Here we examined the reintroduction of brown bears into the Italian Alps. The majority of bears released (10 individuals) adapted well to the release area and this resulted in the increase of the brown bear population. At the end of 2012, the area with a stable presence of females was around 1250 km2 (minimum density = 3 bear/100 km2). Between 2002 and 2012, 34 reproductive events occurred and a total of 74 cubs were born, thus reaching a minimum population size of 47 individuals. No less than 21 young males dispersed into adjacent Italian regions or into other countries, such as Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. However, despite a high mortality rate and at least two cases of illegal killing reported in the last 2 years (2013 and 2014), a remarkable population growth rate (current level of 15.6%) has been observed.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2015 · Journal for Nature Conservation
Show more