g., Slovenia until 2004, Croatia), or recommended in others ( Craighead et al., 1995, Robbins et al., 2004 and Kavčič et al., 2013). We formulated three hypotheses to address our general objective. Hypothesis 1 postulates that diversionary feeding efficiently mitigates conflicts between bears and humans, and predicts that (a) selection
for supplementary feeding sites correlates negatively with selection for human facilities and (b) that the majority of bears select for supplementary feeding Protein Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor sites (Fig. 1.). Hypothesis 2 postulates that supplementary feeding stimulates potential nuisance behavior, and predicts that selection for supplementary feeding sites correlates positively with selection for human facilities (Fig. 1). Because individual behavioral differences are common among mammals (Wolf & Weissing 2012), hypothesis 3 postulates that individual variance in behavior dilutes population-wide selection patterns, and predicts that selection for supplementary feeding sites does not correlate with selection for human facilities (Fig. 1.). We tested our hypotheses in two brown bear populations (i.e., Sweden and Slovenia) with very different environments (density of bears,
humans, and supplementary feeding sites) to control for contingencies and to reveal generalities in behavioral correlates in relation to supplementary feeding. Because human-bear conflicts are often suggested to correlate with the annual variation in the availability of natural foods (low www.selleckchem.com/products/Fulvestrant.html availability ∼ high conflict rates) (Mattson, Blanchard, & Knight 1992), we also test the importance of annual variation in supplementary feeding site selection. Because more dominant sex and age classes can dominate supplementary feeding sites (Craighead et al. 1995), we also evaluated a potential effect of reproductive status (i.e., a combination of sex to and age classes, and presence or absence of young) on supplementary feeding site selection. The Swedish study area encompassed approximately 13,000 km2
of intensively managed boreal forest in south-central Sweden (61°N, 15°E). The human population density (4.1 – 7.1 inhabitants/km2) is one of the lowest within the European brown bear range, and the bear population density is approximately 30 bears/1000 km2 (Bellemain, Swenson, Tallmon, Brunberg, & Taberlet 2005). Supplementary feeding was extensively used to bait bears for hunting until 2001, when it was banned. We were granted permission to maintain two experimental supplementary feeding sites between 2008 and 2012, which were restocked weekly with 5 kg of game meat or fish, 5 kg of corn, 5 kg of sugar beet pulp, and 5 l of molasses (Zedrosser, Steyaert, Brunberg, Swenson, & Kindberg 2013). Approximately 1.5% of all harvested bears in Sweden are considered problem bears. Problem bears are generally younger than non-problem bears in Sweden, and the occurrence of problem bears is not related to body condition in bears (i.e.
Related posts:
- In addition, neuraminidase inhibitors were not recommended to pre
- 2004) Because this protein forms a latent complex with TGF-��, o
- Our success recommended that antiviral genes induced by IFN in al
- Dienogest highly recommended that the turnaround time from the histological diagnosis of gastric cancer
- Vincristine leurocristine authors meet the criteria for authorship as recommended