Geology topics
Publications and source records attributed to Christopher Servheen.
This chapter comprises the following sections: names, taxonomy, subspecies and distribution, descriptive notes, habitat, movements and home range, activity patterns, feeding ecology, reproduction and growth, behavior, parasites and diseases, status in the wild, and status in captivity.
Use of naturally occurring stable isotopes to estimate assimilated diet of bears is one of the single greatest breakthroughs in nutritional ecology during the past 20 years. Previous research in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), USA, established a positive relationship between the stable isotope of sulfur (δ 34 S) and consumption of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) seeds. That work combined a limited sample of hair, blood clots, and serum. Here we use a much larger sample to reassess those findings. We contrasted δ 34 S values in spring hair and serum with abundance of seeds of whitebark pine in samples collected from grizzly (Ursus arctos) and American black bears (U. americanus) in the GYE during 2000–2010. Although we found a positive relationship between δ 34 S values in spring hair and pine seed abundance for grizzly bears, the coefficients of determination were small ( R 2  ≤ 0.097); we failed to find a similar relationship with black bears. Values of δ 34 S in spring hair were larger in black bears and δ 34 S values in serum of grizzly bears were lowest in September and October, a time when we expect δ 34 S to peak if whitebark pine seeds were the sole source of high δ 34 S. The relationship between δ 34 S in bear tissue and the consumption of whitebark pine seeds, as originally reported, may not be as clean a method as proposed. Data we present here suggest other foods have high values of δ 34 S, and there is spatial heterogeneity affecting the δ 34 S values in whitebark pine, which must be addressed.
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) has experienced changes in the distribution and availability of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) food resources in recent decades. The decline of ungulates, fish, and whitebark pine seeds (Pinus albicaulis) has prompted questions regarding their ability to adapt. We examined body composition and diet of grizzly bears using bioelectrical impedance and stable isotopes to determine if 1) we can detect a change in diet quality associated with the decline in either ungulates or whitebark pine, and 2) the combined decline in ungulates, fish, and pine seeds resulted in a change in grizzly bear carrying capacity in the GYE. We contrasted body fat and mass in grizzly bears with a potential competitor, the American black bear (Ursus americanus), to address these questions. Grizzly bears assimilated more meat into their diet and were in better body condition than black bears throughout the study period, indicating the decline in ungulate resources did not affect grizzly bears more than black bears. We also found no difference in autumn fat levels in grizzly bears in years of good or poor pine seed production, and stable isotope analyses revealed this was primarily a function of switching to meat resources during poor seed-producing years. This dietary plasticity was consistent over the course of our study. We did not detect an overall downward trend in either body mass or the fraction of meat assimilated into the diet by grizzly bears over the past decade, but we did detect a downward trend in percent body fat in adult female grizzly bears after 2006. Whether this decline is an artifact of small sample size or due to the population reaching the ecological carrying capacity of the Yellowstone ecosystem warrants further investigation.
During the past 2 decades, the grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) has increased in numbers and expanded in range. Understanding temporal, environmental, and spatial variables responsible for this change is useful in evaluating what likely influenced grizzly bear demographics in the GYE and where future management efforts might benefit conservation and management. We used recent data from radio-marked bears to estimate reproduction (1983–2002) and survival (1983–2001); these we combined into models to evaluate demographic vigor (lambda [λ]). We explored the influence of an array of individual, temporal, and spatial covariates on demographic vigor.
T HE CHANCE TO SEE a wild grizzly bear is often the first or second reason people give for visiting Yellow - stone National Park. Public interest in bears is closely coupled with a desire to perpetuate this wild symbol of the American West. Grizzly bears have long been described as a wilderness species requiring large tracts of undisturbed habitat. However, in today’s world, most grizzly bears live in close proximity to humans (Schwartz et al. 2003). Even in Yellowstone National Park, the impacts of humans can affect the long-term survival of bears (Gunther et al. 2002). As a consequence, the park has long supported grizzly bear research in an effort to understand these impacts. Most people are familiar with what happened when the park and the State of Montana closed open-pit garbage dumps in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when at least 229 bears died as a direct result of conflict with humans. However, many may not be as familiar with the ongoing changes in the park’s plant and animal communities that have the potential to further alter the park’s ability to support grizzly bears.
One of the early tenets of conservation biology is that population viability is enhanced by maintaining multiple populations of a species. The strength of this tenet is justified by principles of bet-hedging. Management strategies that reduce variance in population size will also reduce risk of extinction. Asynchrony in population fluctuations in independent populations reduces variance in the aggregate of populations whereas environmental correlation among areas increases the risk that all populations will go extinct. We review the theoretical rationale of bet-hedging and suggest applications for conservation management of least terns in Nebraska and grizzly bears in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. The risk of extinction for least terns will be reduced if we can sustain the small central Platte River population in addition to the larger population on the lower Platte. Similarly, by restoring grizzly bears to the Bitterroot wilderness of Idaho and Montana can reduce the probability of extinction for grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains of the United States by as much as 69-93%.
Reintroduction is defined as an attempt to establish a species in an area that was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or become extinct. Historically, one of the most successful programs was the reintroduction of 254 American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) from Minnesota to the Interior Highlands of Arkansas in the 1960s; that population has grown to >2,500 today. More recent efforts have involved fewer but better monitored animals and have sometimes employed techniques to improve site fidelity and survival. In Pennsylvania, for example, pregnant female American black bears were successfully translocated from winter dens, the premise being that the adult females would be less likely to return because of the presence of young cubs. That winter-release technique was compared to summer trapping and release in Tennessee; winter releases resulted in greater survival and reduced post-release movements. Homing has not been a problem for small numbers of brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) reintroduced to the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem in Montana and Idaho and to the mountains of Austria and France. Reintroduction success appears to be correlated with translocation distance and is greater for subadults and females. As with any small population, reintroduced bear populations are susceptible to environmental variation and stochastic demographic and genetic processes. Although managers have focused on these biological barriers, sociopolitical impediments to bear reintroduction are more difficult to overcome. Poor public acceptance and understanding of bears are the main reasons some reintroduction programs have been derailed. Consequently, the public should be involved in the reintroduction process from the outset; overcoming negative public perceptions about bear reintroduction will be our greatest challenge.