Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Ursus”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources

Grizzly bear use of army cutworm moths in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

The ecology of alpine aggregations of army cutworm moths ( Euxoa auxiliaris ) and the feeding behavior of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) at these areas were studied in the Yellowstone ecosystem from 1988 to 1991. Army cutworm moths migrate to mountain regions each summer to feed at night on the nectar of alpine and subalpine flowers, and during the day they seek shelter under various rock formations. Grizzly bears were observed feeding almost exclusively on moths up to 3 months each summer at the 10 moth-aggregation areas we identified. Fifty-one different grizzly bears were observed feeding at 4 of these areas during a single day in August 1991. Army cutworm moths are a preferred source of nutrition for many grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem and represent a high quality food that is available during hyperphagia.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

Chromatographic (TLC) differentiation of grizzly bear and black bear scats

While past work concluded that thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was inadequate for the separation of grizzly ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) and black bear ( U. americanus ) scats, our study found differences adequate for species separation. A key was constructed using 19 of 40 data points recorded on each( N )=356 profiles of 178) know-species scat. Accuracy was best for late summer scats (94%). Methods for specimen preparation, analysis, and reading the TLC profiles are discussed. Factors involved in scat variation were tested.

Bears: Their Biology and Management↗

Using climate data to predict grizzly bear litter size

A 5-year double-bind test was conducted to test the predictive capability of a previously published (Picton 1978) regression (Y= 2.01 + 0.042 x ), which described the relationship between the littler size of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) and an index of climate plus carrion availability (climate-carrion index). This regression showed an efficient in excess of 99% in predicting the observed grizzly bear littler size. The predictions made using the climate-carrion index had a mean absolute error of less than 25% of forecasts using other methods. The updated climate-carrion index regression, which includes all of the 16 years for which data are available, is Y= 2.009 + 0.042 x ( r = 0.078; P < 0.01; N = 16). We concluded that the climate-carrion index can be a helpful tool in predicting grizzly bear littler size. The relation of this information to the effects of the closure of Yellowstone Park garbage dumps is discussed.

Bears: Their Biology and Management↗

Denning of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone National Park area

Radiotelemetry was used to locate 101 grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) dens from 1975 to 1980; 35 dens were examined on the ground. Pregnant females denned in late October, and most other bears denned by mid-November. Duration of denning average 113, 132, and 170 days for males, females, and females with new cubs, respectively. Males emerged from mid-February to late March, followed by single females and females with yearlings and 2-year-olds. Females with new cubs emerged from early mid-April. Den sites were associated with moderate tree cover (26%-75% canopy cover) on 30°-60° slopes. Dens occurred on all aspects, although northerly exposures were most common. Grizzly bears usually dug new dens but occasionally used natural cavities or a den from a previous year. Males usually dug larger dens than females with young. Eight excavated and 2 natural dens of the 35 examined dens were used for more than 1 year.

Idaho;Montana;Wyoming↗

Biological considerations in the delineation of critical habitat

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) require large areas to satisfy their needs for food, cover, and space. They thrive best where disturbance by man is minimal. It is not a coincidence that the two major grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states exist in large wilderness systems closely associated with two large national parks and a relatively large game preserve. If management objectives for these areas do not change, and man-bear interactions can be kept low, viable grizzly bear populations can be maintained. Outside of parks and wilderness areas, the picture is less clear. Grizzly bears adapt to some habitat modifications. the extent of their adaptability to habitat modification or human interaction is largely unknown. Answers to many pertinent questions will be slow in coming. In the meantime, management policies based on common sense rather than on adversary reactions among agencies are the best insurance of the grizzlies' survival.

Book chapter↗

Factors influencing human-grizzly bear interactions in a backcountry setting

Interactins between humans and 7 species of wildlife, including grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ), were investigated in backcountry areas of the Gallatin Range, Yellowstone National Park, during the summers of 1973 and 1974. Grizzly bear distribution, movements, and behavior and human behavior were examined. Because grizzlies utilized areas with elevations much in excess of the study area's average trail elevation, he likelihood of the off-trail party observing a grizzly bear was 3-4 times greater than that of a trail-traveling party. During the hiking season, grizzliess exhibited an elevational migration. The frequencies of on-trail and combined on- and off-trail observations and sign discoveries per party tended to peak during those periods that grizzlies were found at low elevations. Activitiy patterns of grizzlies at the point of first observation or after the bears had become aware of the human presence did not indicate behavioral traits likely to accentuate the possibilities of human-bear confrontations. Some backcountry travelers engaged in activites that could increase detrimental encounters with grizzly bears.

Yellowstone National Park↗

Seasonal movements of adult female polar bears in the Bering and Chukchi seas

Ten adult female polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) were fitted with satellite telemetry collars during March 1986 in the Kotzebue Sound area of the Chukchi Sea. During March-April 1987, 2 of these bears were refitted with satellite telemetry collars and an additional 10 adult females were collared in the northern Bering and eastern Chukchi seas. Data for 1,560 point locations recorded through May 1988 indicated that female polar bears in the Bering and Chukchi seas were resident in western Alaskan waters from November through March, then moved northward with the receding pack ice during April and May. They remained in the northern and northwestern Chukchi Sea during June through September, often adjacent to the Soviet coastline. Satellite telemetry data indicated that 4 females marked in Alaskan waters of the Chukchi Sea apparently denned in the vicinity of Wrangel Island during winter 1987/1988. Denning in American territory of bears marked in the Chukchi and Bering seas has not been documented using satellite telemetry data. Some polar bears moved from the Chukchi Sea into the western Beaufort Sea during summer and fall, then returned to the Chukchi and Bering seas the following winter. Movements of bears from the Chukchi Sea into the central or eastern Beaufort Sea were not documented through spring 1988. These data document that polar bears occuring in the Bering and Chukchi seas are shared internationally between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Alaska↗

Predatory behavior of grizzly bears feeding on elk calves in Yellowstone National Park

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) were observed preying on elk calves ( Cervus elaphus ) on 60 occasions in Yellowstone National Park, with 29 confirmed kills. Some bears were deliberate predators and effectively preyed on elk calves for short periods each spring, killing up to 1 calf daily. Primary hunting techniques were searching and chasing although some bears used a variety of techniques during a single hunt. They hunted both day and night and preyed on calves in the open and in the woods. Excess killing occurred when circumstances permitted. One bear caught 5 calves in a 15-minute interval. Elk used a variety of antipredator defenses and occasionally attacked predacious bears. The current level of this feeding behavior appears to be greater than previously reported. This is probably related to the increased availability of calves providing a greater opportunity for learning, and the adaptation of a more predatory behavior by some grizzly bears in Yellowstone.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

Bear use of cutthroat trout spawning streams in Yellowstone National Park

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) and black bears ( U. americanus ) prey on spawning cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki , formerly known as Salmo clarki ) in tributary streams of Yellowstone Lake. These tributary streams were surveyed from 1985 to 1987 to determine the presence and level of trout spawning activity and bear use. Indices were developed to enumerate spawner density and levels of bear use. Of 124 known tributaries of Yellowstone Lake, 48% had a spawning run. Of these spawning streams, 93% had associated bear activity, and 61% had associated evidence of bear fishing. Bears were apparently using more spawning streams and fish compared to 10 years earlier. Bear use of cutthroat trout spawning streams appeared to be largely a positive function of volumetric spawner density. We hypothesize that abundance and quality of stream-side vegetation relative to other foraging options influenced bear use. Intra- and interspecific avoidance among bears was suggested by patterns of spawning stream use. Less bear use of spawning streams than expected occurred within 1 km of park developments.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

Resource use by American black bear in suburbia: A landholder step selection approach

Range expansion of American black bear ( Ursus americanus ; bear) and residential development has resulted in a growing presence of bear in suburbia. Suburban landscapes exhibiting patchworks of variable-sized parcels and habitats and owned by landowners with diverse values, can create large areas of suitable habitats with limited public access. These landscapes thereby may limit the effectiveness of hunting as a traditional bear population management tool. Managers require better information regarding suburban landowner attitudes regarding hunting before implementing changes intended to increase bear harvest to management populations. To address this need, in 2013, we surveyed landowners to identify properties that allowed bear hunting in three suburban areas of Pennsylvania where bear sightings have increased. We then used location data obtained for 29 bears equipped with global positioning system (GPS) transmitters from 2010 to 2012 to model their resource selection in the study area. We assessed the influence of hunting access, housing density, land cover, and topographic variables on radio-marked black bear monitored 10 days before, during, and after the bear hunting season. We found that resource selection of radio-marked bear was similar for all three periods and bears selected for forested land in all three seasons and herbaceous cover in the pre- and hunting periods. Resource selection by bears was not influenced by whether land was open or closed to hunting in the pre-hunting and hunting periods, but in the post-hunting period lands not open to hunting had support as the second-best model. All radio-marked bears in our study were vulnerable to harvest. However, they did not change resource selection during the hunting season nor did they avoid areas open to hunting. Integrating human dimension data with bear habitat use studies, especially in suburban landscapes, has the potential to address bear space use and population management needs often overlooked in traditional research designs.

Pennsylvania↗

Sea-ice conditions predict polar bear land use around military installations in Alaska

Polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) are threatened by sea-ice loss due to climate change, which is concurrently opening the Arctic to natural resource extraction and a broader scope of national security responsibilities. Mitigating the risk of human–bear conflicts is an emerging challenge as many polar bears spend longer ice-free summers on land where they have limited access to food and come into more frequent contact with people. We investigated a suite of physical and ecological variables that influence the timing of polar bear arrival on, and departure from, land using remote-sensing data on sea-ice extent and satellite telemetry data from 72 radio-collared adult female polar bears from 1986 to 2015. Analyses encompassed the coastline of the Southern Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, USA, and focused on zones within a 35-km radius (mean daily travel distance of a polar bear) of 5 military installations. Sea ice in the Southern Beaufort Sea retreated approximately 1 month earlier in spring, and reformed 1 month later in fall, in 2015 compared to 1979. In generalized linear mixed models, the most important predictors of polar bear arrival and departure were the dates of sea-ice breakup and formation, respectively, in localized marine areas surrounding each military zone. Region-wide sea-ice conditions also influenced land use, although to a lesser extent. We found that polar bears spent longer periods on land in the military zones compared to outside the zones, which may reflect increased land use in areas with human activity and potential attractants (noting that some military installations were in proximity to other human settlements). Our results demonstrate that the timing of polar bear land use in northern Alaska is influenced by sea-ice conditions on multiple spatial scales. This information can be used to predict and manage the presence of polar bears around military installations and other places of interest.

Alaska↗

Demography and behavior of polar bears summering on land in Alaska

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the southern Beaufort Sea population (SB) are spending increased time on the coastal North Slope of Alaska between July and October (Gleason and Rode 2010). The duration spent on land by polar bears, satellite collared on the sea-ice in the spring, during the summer and fall has also increased (USGS, unpublished data; Figure 1). This change in polar bear ecology has relevance for human-bear interactions, subsistence harvest, prevalence of defense kills, and disturbance associated with existing land-based development [e.g., National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPRA), Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)], Native Alaskan communities, recreation (ANWR) and tourism (e.g., bear viewing in Kaktovik, AK). These activities have the potential to impact, in new ways, the status of the entire SB population. Concomitantly, the change in polar bear ecology will impact these human activities, and a base-line characterization of this phenomenon can better inform mitigation (e.g., industry permitting under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act). In this study we aim to characterize the demography, habitat-use, and aspects of foraging ecology and health of polar bears spending fall on land. The SB population is characterized by a divergent-sea ice ecology, where polar bears typically spend most of the year on the sea-ice, even as the pack ice retreats northward, away from the coast, to its minimal extent in September (Amstrup et al. 2008; Durner et al. 2009). From 2000 &ndash; 2005, using coastal aerial surveys, Schliebe et al. (2008) observed between 3.7 and 8% of polar bears from SB (~ 60 &ndash; 120 of 1526, Regher et al. 2006) on land during the autumn. Sighting probability was not estimated in these surveys, and therefore the numbers represent minimum numbers of bears on land. Our analysis of USGS data suggest an annual average of 15% (&plusmn; 3%, SE) of polar bears satellite-tagged on the spring-time sea ice (total n = 18 of 124 satellite tags, 2003 &ndash; 2009) come to land during July &ndash; October. Based on these data, and an assumption that bears satellite-tagged on the spring time sea ice are representative of the entire SB population of independent bears, there would be an average of 230 bears on land each fall. In contrast to the SB population, in five of the world&rsquo;s 19 polar bear populations (Obbard et al. 2010), polar bears spend significant periods of time on land (1 &ndash; 5 months) when ice completely melts. In these seasonal-ice populations (Amstrup et al. 2008), polar bears are largely in a hypophagic condition (e.g., Hobson et al. 2009), relying on fat stores from the spring hyperphagic season, when ringed seals (Phoca hispida) pup. In general, these seasonal-ice populations are demographically productive (Taylor et al. 2005), although recently an increase in the ice-free season has resulted in a population decline in western Hudson Bay (Stirling et al. 1999; Regehr et al. 2007). There have been measured declines in the body condition and productivity of polar bears in SB, and changes in these parameters have been linked to declining optimal ice habitat (e.g., Durner et al. 2009; Regehr et al. 2010). We do not understand the relationship between land-use and the overall status of the population. Individual polar bears that use land may have increased or decreased fitness, in comparison to polar bears that remain on ice in the autumn. This project, which focuses on the biology of animals that spend time on-shore, will help address this question. This project is funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) under Agreement No. M09PG00025 and the USGS Outer Continental Shelf Program (OCS) for FY 2009-2014. Parts of this study are also funded by US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Marine Mammals Management; the Bureau of Land Management; and the North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management. This report is comprehensive, describing results for achieving the overlap

Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea↗

Estimating Potential Effects of Hypothetical Oil Spills on Polar Bears

Much is known about the transport and fate of oil spilled into the sea and its toxicity to exposed wildlife. Previously, however, there has been no way to quantify the probability that wildlife dispersed over the seascape would be exposed to spilled oil. Polar bears, the apical predator of the arctic, are widely dispersed near the continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean, an area also undergoing considerable hydrocarbon exploration and development. We used 15,308 satellite locations from 194 radiocollared polar bears to estimate the probability that polar bears could be exposed to hypothetical oil spills. We used a true 2 dimensional Gausian kernel density estimator, to estimate the number of bears likely to occur in each 1.00 km2 cell of a grid superimposed over near shore areas surrounding 2 oil production facilities: the existing Northstar oil production facility, and the proposed offshore site for the Liberty production facility. We estimated the standard errors of bear numbers per cell with bootstrapping. Simulated oil spill footprints for September and October, the times during which we hypothesized effects of an oil-spill would be worst, were estimated using real wind and current data collected between 1980 and 1996. We used ARC/Info software to calculate overlap (numbers of bears oiled) between simulated oil-spill footprints and polar bear grid-cell values. Numbers of bears potentially oiled by a hypothetical 5912 barrel spill (the largest spill thought probable from a pipeline breach) ranged from 0 to 27 polar bears for September open water conditions, and from 0 to 74 polar bears in October mixed ice conditions. Median numbers oiled by the 5912 barrel hypothetical spill from the Liberty simulation in September and October were 1 and 3 bears, equivalent values for the Northstar simulation were 3 and 11 bears. In October, 75% of trajectories from the 5912 barrel simulated spill at Liberty oiled 9 or fewer bears while 75% of the trajectories affected 20 or fewer polar bears when we simulated an October spill at the Northstar site. Northstar Island is nearer the active ice flaw zone than Liberty. Simulations suggested that oil spilled at Northstar would spread more effectively and more consistently into surrounding areas. Also, polar bear densities are consistently higher near Northstar. Oil spills simulated for the Liberty site were more erratic in the areas they covered and the numbers of bears impacted, and numbers of bears hypothetically exposed were usually smaller. Methods described here are broadly applicable to other dispersed marine wildlife. Key words: Arctic, Beaufort Sea, clustering, kernel, management, oil spill, polar bears, population delineation, radiotelemetry, satellite, smoothing, Ursus maritimus

Report↗

Supplemental materials for the analysis of capture-recapture data for polar bears in Western Hudson Bay, Canada, 1984-2004

Regehr and others (2007, Survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to earlier sea ice breakup: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71, no. 8) evaluated survival in relation to climatic conditions and estimated population size for polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in western Hudson Bay, Canada. Here, we provide supplemental materials for the analyses in Regehr and others (2007). We demonstrate how tag-return data from harvested polar bears were used to adjust estimates of total survival for human-caused mortality. We describe the sex and age composition of the capture and harvest samples and provide results for goodness-of-fit tests applied to capture-recapture models. We also describe the capture-recapture model selection procedure and the structure of the most supported model, which was used to estimate survival and population size.

Data Series↗

Polar bear and walrus response to the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice

The Arctic is warming faster than other regions of the world due to positive climate feedbacks associated with loss of snow and ice. One highly visible consequence has been a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice over the past 3 decades - a decline projected to continue and result in ice-free summers likely as soon as 2030. The polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) and the Pacific walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus divergens ) are dependent on sea ice over the continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean's marginal seas. The continental shelves are shallow regions with high biological productivity, supporting abundant marine life within the water column and on the sea floor. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform for hunting ice seals; walruses use sea ice as a resting platform between dives to forage for clams and other bottom-dwelling invertebrates. How have sea ice changes affected polar bears and walruses? How will anticipated changes affect them in the future?

Alaska↗

Changing Arctic Ecosystems: Updated forecast: Reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions required to improve polar bear outlook

The Arctic is warming faster than other regions of the world due to the loss of snow and ice, which increases the amount of solar energy absorbed by the region. The most visible consequence has been the rapid decline in sea ice over the last 3 decades-a decline projected to bring long ice-free summers if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not significantly reduced. The polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) depends on sea ice over the biologically productive continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean as a platform for hunting seals. In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to the threat posed by sea ice loss. The polar bear was the first species to be listed due to forecasted population declines from climate change.

Arctic↗

South Carolina and Landsat

South Carolina, the eighth State admitted to the union, transcends its size with its deep, rich history; striking beauty; vast natural resources; and extensive cultural diversity. Home to part of the Blue Ridge Mountains of the Central Appalachians, the Upstate is graced with more than 100 waterfalls, while the Lowcountry borders the Atlantic Ocean with 187 miles of coastline and 35 barrier islands. Forests cover two-thirds of the State, and forestry and agriculture together, as agribusiness, make up South Carolina’s leading industry. Two historic crops—cotton and tobacco—still rank in the top 10 commodities, though corn and soybeans now rank higher. Poultry, cattle, peanuts, and flowers also make the list. South Carolina’s population totals more than five million. Other residents include a variety of wildlife, bird, reptile, and fish species, including Ursus americanus (black bears), Alligator mississippiensis (American alligators), and Tursiops truncatus (bottlenose dolphins). More than 100 tree species also reside in South Carolina, which pays homage to one with its “The Palmetto State” nickname. South Carolina’s subtropical climate, long coastline, and lower elevations make it highly susceptible to tornado and hurricane activity and coastal flooding. Projected sea-level rise is a growing concern. A view from space can help monitor and manage natural resources on the land and in rivers, marshes, and the coast. Landsat reveals not just what an area looks like now, but also insights from decades ago.

South Carolina↗

Wyoming and Landsat

Wyoming has the smallest population of any State—fewer than 600,000 people—but an abun­dance of wildlife. The largest number of pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana ), often called antelope, and the biggest public bison ( Bison bison ) herd in the United States live in Wyoming, which also hosts elk ( Cervus elaphus ), moose ( Alces americanus ), bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ), black bears ( Ursus americanus ), and grizzly bears ( U. arctos ). The terrain of the Nation’s 10th largest State varies from the Black Hills to the Rocky Mountains, and from Great Plains grassland to Wyoming Basin desert sagebrush. Natural resources attract millions of visitors annually, especially to the country’s first national park, Yellowstone, and the ski slopes in Grand Teton National Park and elsewhere. Natural resources account for much of the employment in the Cowboy State, from tourism and ranching to coal, natural gas, and oil mining. To help monitor these natural resources, researchers and land managers have relied on USGS Landsat imagery and data. The scale of images from the first Landsat satellites helped geologists detect previously unknown uranium deposits in Wyoming, which is the leading State for uranium production. Today, land managers and researchers take advantage of Landsat and its 50-year archive to explore landscape change over time—and continue to make new discoveries.

Wyoming↗