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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 505 records · Page 28Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Survey of Arctic Alaskan wildlife for influenza A antibodies: Limited evidence for exposure of mammals

Influenza A viruses (IAVs) are maintained in wild waterbirds and have the potential to infect a broad range of species, including wild mammals. The Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska supports a diverse suite of species, including waterfowl that are common hosts of IAVs. Mammals co-occur with geese and other migratory waterbirds during the summer breeding season, providing a plausible mechanism for interclass transmission of IAVs. To estimate IAV seroprevalence and identify the subtypes to which geese, loons, Arctic foxes ( Vulpes lagopus ), caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), and polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) are potentially exposed, we used a blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (bELISA) and a hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay to screen for antibodies to IAVs in samples collected during spring and summer of 2012–16. Apparent IAV seroprevalence using the bELISA was 50.7% in geese (range by species: 46.1–52.8%), 9.2% in loons, (range by species: 3.4–20.0%), and 0.4% in Arctic foxes. We found no evidence for exposure to IAVs in polar bears or caribou by either assay. Among geese, we estimated detection probability from replicate bELISA analyses to be 0.92 and also found good concordance (>85%) between results from bELISA and HI assays, which identified antibodies reactive to H1, H6, and H9 subtype IAVs. In contrast, the HI assay detected antibodies in only one of seven loon samples that were positive by bELISA; that sample had low titers to both H4 and H5 IAV subtypes. Our results provide evidence that a relatively high proportion of waterbirds breeding on the Arctic Coastal Plain are exposed to IAVs, although it is unknown whether such exposure occurs locally or on staging or wintering grounds. In contrast, seroprevalence of IAVs in concomitant mammals is apparently low.

Alaska↗

USGS2022

A serological survey of Francisella tularensis exposure in wildlife on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska

Tularemia is an infectious zoonotic disease caused by one of several subspecies of Francisella tularensis bacteria. Infections by F. tularensis are common throughout the northern hemisphere and have been detected in more than 250 wildlife species. In Alaska, US, where the pathogen was first identified in 1938, studies have identified F. tularensis antibodies in a diverse suite of taxa, including insects, birds, and mammals. However, few such investigations have been conducted recently and knowledge about the current distribution and disease ecology of F. tularensis is limited, particularly in Arctic Alaska, an area undergoing rapid environmental changes from climate warming. To help address these information gaps and provide insights about patterns of exposure among wildlife, we assessed the seroprevalence of F. tularensis antibodies in mammals and tundra-nesting geese from the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska, 2014–17. With a commercially available slide agglutination test, we detected antibodies in 14.7% of all individuals sampled ( n =722), with titers ranging from 1:20 to 1:320. We detected significant differences in seroprevalence between family groups, with Canidae (foxes, Vulpes spp.) and Sciuridae (Arctic ground squirrel, Spermophilus parryii ) having the highest seroprevalence at 21.5% and 33.3%, respectively. Mean seroprevalence for Ursidae (polar bears, Ursus maritimus ) was 13.3%, whereas Cervidae (caribou, Rangifer tarandus ) had comparatively low seroprevalence at 6.5%. Antibodies were detected in all Anatidae species sampled, with Black Brant ( Branta bernicla nigricans ) having the highest seroprevalence at 13.6%. The detection of F. tularensis antibodies across multiple taxa from the Arctic Coastal Plain and its nearshore marine region provides evidence of exposure to this pathogen throughout the region and highlights the need for renewed surveillance in Alaska.

Alaska↗

USGS2002

Evaluation of 2-soft-release techniques to reintroduce black bears

Black bear ( Ursus americanus ) were extirpated from most of their range by the early 1900s by habitat destruction and unregulated hunting. Since then, bear habitat has recovered in many areas, but isolation may prevent natural recolonization. Black bear translocations often have limited success because of high mortality rates and low site fidelity. We tested 2 reintroduction techniques designed to overcome those problems. The first technique used a winter release whereby pre- or post-parturient female bears were removed from their dens and placed in new dens at the release area. The second technique involved translocating female bears to the reintroduction area during summer and holding them in pens for a 2-week acclimation period before release. We translocated 8 female bears with cubs with the winter-release technique and 6 female with the summer-release technique. After release, total distance moved, net distance moved, mean daily distance moved, and circuity for winter-released bears (x̄=18.3 km, 7.1 km, 1.4 km, and 0.36, respectively) were less than summer-released bears (x̄=97.6, 63.4 km 5.1 km, and 0.74; P =0.010, 0.040, 0.019, and 0.038, respectively). Also, survival of winter-released bears (0.88) was greater than that for summer-released bears (0.2, P=0.001). Population modeling indicated that the least one additional stocking of 6 adult females with 12 cubs would greatly increase chances of population reestablishment. the winter-release technique has distinct advantages over the summer-release technique, limiting post-release movements and increasing survival of translocated bears.

Kentucky, Tennessee↗

USGS2002

Extirpations of grizzly bears in the contiguous United States of America, 1850-2000

We investigated factors associated with the distribution of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) in 1850 and their extirpation during 1850–1920 and 1920–1970 in the contiguous United States. We used autologistic regression to describe relations between grizzly bear range in 1850, 1920, and 1970 and potential explanatory factors specified for a comprehensive grid of cells, each 900 km 2 in size. We also related persistence, 1920–1970, to range size and shape. Grizzly bear range in 1850 was positively related to occurrence in mountainous ecoregions and the ranges of oaks ( Quercus spp.), piñon pines ( Pinus edulis and P. monophylla ), whitebark pine ( P. albicaulis ), and bison ( Bos bison ) and negatively related to occurrence in prairie and hot desert ecoregions. Relations with salmon ( Oncorynchus spp.) range and human factors were complex. Persistence of grizzly bear range, 1850–1970, was positively related to occurrence in the Rocky Mountains, whitebark pine range, and local size of grizzly bear range at the beginning of each period, and negatively related to number of humans and the ranges of bison, salmon, and piñon pines. We speculate that foods affected persistence primarily by influencing the frequency of contact between humans and bears. With respect to current conservation, grizzly bears survived from 1920 to 1970 most often where ranges at the beginning of this period were either larger than 20,000 km 2 or larger than 7,000 km 2 but with a ratio of perimeter to area of <2. Without reductions in human lethality after 1970, there would have been no chance that core grizzly bear range would be as extensive as it is now. Although grizzly bear range in the Yellowstone region is currently the most robust of any to potential future increases in human lethality, bears in this region are threatened by the loss of whitebark pine.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mont↗

USGS2001

Effects of exotic species on Yellowstone's grizzly bears

Humans have affected grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) by direct mortality, competition for space and resources, and introduction of exotic species. Exotic organisms that have affected grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area include common dandelion ( Taraxacum officinale ), nonnative clovers ( Trifolium spp.), domesticated livestock, bovine brucellosis ( Brucella abortus ), lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush ), and white pine blister rust ( Cronartium ribicola ). Some bears consume substantial amounts of dandelion and clover. However, these exotic foods provide little digested energy compared to higher-quality bear foods. Domestic livestock are of greater energetic value, but use of this food by bears often leads to conflicts with humans and subsequent increases in bear mortality. Lake trout, blister rust, and brucellosis diminish grizzly bears foods. Lake trout prey on native cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii ) in Yellowstone Lake; white pine blister rust has the potential to destroy native whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) stands; and management response to bovine brucellosis, a disease found in the Yellowstone bison (Bison bison) and elk ( Cervus elaphus ), could reduce populations of these 2 species. Exotic species will likely cause more harm than good for Yellowstone grizzly bears. Managers have few options to mitigate or contain the impacts of exotics on Yellowstone's grizzly bears. Moreover, their potential negative impacts have only begun to unfold. Exotic species may lead to the loss of substantial highquality grizzly bear foods, including much of the bison, trout, and pine seeds that Yellowstone grizzly bears currently depend upon.

Wyoming↗

USGS2002

Polar Bears

Polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) are hunted throughout most of their range. In addition to hunting polar bears of the Beaufort Sea region are exposed to mineral and petroleum extraction and related human activities such as shipping road-building, and seismic testing (Stirling 1990). Little was known at the start of this project about how polar bears move about in their environment, and although it was understood that many bears travel across political borders, the boundaries of populations had not been delineated (Amstrup 1986, Amstrup et al. 1986, Amstrup and DeMaster 1988, Garner et al. 1994, Amstrup 1995, Amstrup et al. 1995, Amstrup 2000). As human populations increase and demands for polar bears and other arctic resources escalate, managers must know the sizes and distributions of the polar bear populations. Resource managers also need reliable estimates of breeding rates, reproductive intervals, litter sizes, and survival of young and adults. Our objectives for this research were 1) to determine the seasonal and annual movements of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea, 2) to define the boundaries of the population(s) using this region, 3) to determine the size and status of the Beaufort Sea polar bear population, and 4) to establish reproduction and survival rates (Amstrup 2000).

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS1995

Wolves and caribou in Denali National Park, Alaska

Management of gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) and their prey in interior Alaska has been controversial for three decades (Harbo and Dean 1983). Recently, debate was rekindled with renewed interest in wolf control to bolster two populations of caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ). Our research in Denali National Park provides insights into the declines in caribou numbers over the last few years that are the basis of recent wolf control proposals. Our observations of fluctuating populations also illustrate the complexity of managing these predator-prey systems to meet a diverse array of public interests. Wolves and caribou are two components of the large mammal community of Denali National Park that also includes grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ), moose ( Alces alces ), and Dall sheep ( Ovis dalli ). With the 1980 park expansion to more than 18,800 km2 (7,300 mi2) of central Alaska, this large mammal system became the only one of its kind that is virtually unaffected by human harvest. Therefore, Denali provides a unique opportunity to understand the natural interactions of these species and serves as a baseline for comparison with areas where hunting or other active wildlife management occurs. We have studied Denali's wolves and caribou since 1986 to determine their numbers and status and understand their natural interactions in this protected subarctic ecosystem. Our studies began near the end of more than a decade of mostly light winter snowfalls of around 100 cm (39 in)/yr. Since winter 1988-89, we have experienced five consecutive winters with above-average snowfalls, including two record-setting years. During winters 1990-91 and 1992-93, more than 390 cm (154 in) of snow fell, four times as much as in the early years of our study. This change in snowfall had profound effects on the wildlife in central Alaska. The population trends of Denali's caribou and wolves are strong evidence of the natural fluctuations to be expected in species inhabiting such dynamic and variable environments.

Alaska↗

USGS2009

Hierarchical models for estimating density from DNA mark-recapture studies

Genetic sampling is increasingly used as a tool by wildlife biologists and managers to estimate abundance and density of species. Typically, DNA is used to identify individuals captured in an array of traps ( e. g., baited hair snares) from which individual encounter histories are derived. Standard methods for estimating the size of a closed population can be applied to such data. However, due to the movement of individuals on and off the trapping array during sampling, the area over which individuals are exposed to trapping is unknown, and so obtaining unbiased estimates of density has proved difficult. We propose a hierarchical spatial capture-recapture model which contains explicit models for the spatial point process governing the distribution of individuals and their exposure to (via movement) and detection by traps. Detection probability is modeled as a function of each individual's distance to the trap. We applied this model to a black bear (Ursus americanus) study conducted in 2006 using a hair-snare trap array in the Adirondack region of New York, USA. We estimated the density of bears to be 0.159 bears/km2, which is lower than the estimated density (0.410 bears/km2) based on standard closed population techniques. A Bayesian analysis of the model is fully implemented in the software program WinBUGS.

Ecology↗

USGS2009

Rebuttal of "Polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy forecasting audit"

Observed declines in the Arctic sea ice have resulted in a variety of negative effects on polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ). Projections for additional future declines in sea ice resulted in a proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act. To provide information for the Department of the Interior's listing-decision process, the US Geological Survey (USGS) produced a series of nine research reports evaluating the present and future status of polar bears throughout their range. In response, Armstrong et al. [Armstrong, J. S., K. C. Green, W. Soon. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces 38 (5) 382–405], which we will refer to as AGS, performed an audit of two of these nine reports. AGS claimed that the general circulation models upon which the USGS reports relied were not valid forecasting tools, that USGS researchers were not objective or lacked independence from policy decisions, that they did not utilize all available information in constructing their forecasts, and that they violated numerous principles of forecasting espoused by AGS. AGS (p. 382) concluded that the two USGS reports were "unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers." We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim. We provide evidence that general circulation models are useful in forecasting future climate conditions and that corporate and government leaders are relying on these models to do so. We clarify the strict independence of the USGS from the listing decision. We show that the allegations of failure to follow the principles of forecasting espoused by AGS are either incorrect or are based on misconceptions about the Arctic environment, polar bear biology, or statistical and mathematical methods. We conclude by showing that the AGS principles of forecasting are too ambiguous and subjective to be used as a reliable basis for auditing scientific investigations. In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.

Interfaces↗

USGS2006

Grizzly bear management in Yellowstone National Park: The heart of recovery in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in the past quarter century has resulted in more than doubling of the population from around 200 to more than 500, expansion of range back into habitats where the bear has extirpated more than a century ago, and a move toward removal from the U.S. Endangered Species list. At the center of this success story are the management programs in Yellowstone National Park (YNP). Regulations that restrict human activity, camping, and food storage, elimination of human food and garbage as attractants, and ranger attendance of roadside bears have all resulted in the population of grizzlies in YNP approaching carrying capacity. Recent studies suggest, however, that YNP alone is too small to support the current population, making management beyond the park boundary important and necessary to the demographics of the population as a whole. Demographic analyses suggest a source-sink dynamic exists within the GYE, with YNP and lands outside the park within the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (RZ) representing source habitats, whereas lands beyond the RZ constitute sinks. The source-sink demography in the GYE is indicative of carnivore conservation issues worldwide where many national parks or preserves designed to protect out natural resources are inadequate in size or shape to provide all necessary life history requirements for these wide-ranging species. Additionally, wide-ranging behavior and long-distance dispersal seem inherent to large carnivores, so mortality around the edges is virtually inevitable, and conservation in the GYE is inextricably linked to management regimes not only within YNP, but within the GYE as a whole. We discuss those needs here.

Wyoming↗

USGS2001

Whitebark pine, grizzly bears, and red squirrels

Appropriately enough, much of this book is devoted to discussing management challenges and techniques. However, the impetus for action—the desire to save whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) - necessarily arises from the extent to which we cherish it for its beauty and its connections with other things that we value. Whitebark pine is at the hub of a fascinating web of relationships. It is the stuff of great stories (cf. Quammen 1994). One of the more interesting of these stories pertains to the dependence of certain grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) populations on its seeds, and the role that red squirrels ( Tamiasciurus hudsonicus ) play as an agent of transfer between tree and bear.

Book chapter↗

USGS1998

Black bear depredation on agricultural commodities in Massachusetts

We used response to a mail survey (n = 848) to evaluate the extent and severity of depredation by black bears (Ursus americanus) on agricultural commodities in Massachusetts and to assess producers' attitudes toward and tolerance of bear depredation. Damage abatement techniques were ranked for effectiveness by producers of corn, bees and honey, and livestock and dairy products. Results showed differences in perception of effects of bear depredation among commodity groups. Producers of corn and livestock and dairy products considered bear damage to be low to moderate in severity whereas beekeepers thought their losses were substantial or severe. Most estimates of economic loss were <$1,000 per year. Respondents considered bears to be an inconvenience, but thought they should remain a part of our natural heritage. There was no significant relationship between producers' experience with or economic dependence on their product and their attitude toward bears or their tolerance of bear damage. We conclude that there is need for effective education programs for agricultural producers, strengthened working relationships between producers and state fish and wildlife agencies, incorporation of producers' suggestions into management decisions, and investment in effective, economical, and long-term solutions to bear depredations for each affected commodity group.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS1998

Attraction of brown bears to red pepper spray deterrent: Caveats for use

Humans in brown bear ( Ursus arctos ) country may unexpectedly encounter hears with sometimes harmful consequences. Firearms may be an effective defense, but they destroy bears, their use is illegal in most national parks, and many people prefer not to carry them, Consequently, nonlethal bear deterrents have long been sought as a means of self-defense against bear attacks. In the 1970s a liquid spray containing oleoresin capsicum (the chief irritant in red peppers) was developed. This mixture could be defensively discharged at aggressive bears (Herrero and Higgins 1995), and today, several commercially manufactured products, generically called "red pepper spray," are sold for the purpose of deterring aggressive bear attacks. Many hikers, campers, and outdoor enthusiasts carry this spray for self-defense in bear country Additionally, some states (eg, Wyoming) and many national parks (e.g., Glacier National Park) highly recommend that back-country users carry red pepper spray for use in an aggressive beat encounter. Herrero and Higgins (1998) found that red pepper spray was effective in halting aggressive brown bear behavior in 88% (1 of 16) of incidents studied. However, red pepper spray is not claimed to be a bear repellent when applied to objects. Nonetheless, instances have been reported of people applying red pepper spray to objects and around campsites in order to repel curious bears. The impetus for this study came from an observation I made of a bear rolling vigorously on beach gravels that had been accidentally sprayed with red pepper spray. To further investigate brown bear reaction to red pepper spray residues, I conducted systematic observations of bear responses to spray discharged at selected sites. I discuss those findings and their implications in this report.

Alaska↗

USGS1999

Potential energetic effects of mountain climbers on foraging grizzly bears

Most studies of the effects of human disturbance on grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) have not quantified the energetic effects of such interactions. In this study, we characterized activity budgets of adult grizzly bears as they foraged on aggregations of adult army cutworm moths (Euxoa auxiliaris) in the alpine of Glacier National Park, Montana, during 1992, 1994, and 1995. We compared the activity budgets of climber-disturbed bears to those of undisturbed bears to estimate the energetic impact of climber disturbance. When bears detected climbers, they subsequently spent 53% less time foraging on moths, 52% more time moving within the foraging area, and 23% more time behaving aggressively, compared to when they were not disturbed. We estimated that grizzly bears could consume approximately 40,000 moths/day or 1,700 moths/hour. At 0.44 kcal/moth, disruption of moth feeding cost bears approximately 12 kcal/minute in addition to the energy expended in evasive maneuvers and defensive behaviors. To reduce both climber interruption of bear foraging and the potential for aggressive bear-human encounters, we recommend routing climbers around moth sites used by bears or limiting access to these sites during bear-use periods.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2002

Test of a habitat suitability index for black bears in the southern Appalachians

We present a habitat suitability index (HSI) model for black bears (Ursus americanus) living in the southern Appalachians that was developed a priori from the literature, then tested using location and home range data collected in the Pisgah Bear Sanctuary, North Carolina, over a 12-year period. The HSI was developed and initially tested using habitat and bear data collected over 2 years in the sanctuary. We increased number of habitat sampling sites, included data collected in areas affected by timber harvest, used more recent Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to create a more accurate depiction of the HSI for the sanctuary, evaluated effects of input variability on HSI values, and duplicated the original tests using more data. We found that the HSI predicted habitat selection by bears on population and individual levels and the distribution of collared bears were positively correlated with HSI values. We found a stronger relationship between habitat selection by bears and a second-generation HSI. We evaluated our model with criteria suggested by Roloff and Kernohan (1999) for evaluating HSI model reliability and concluded that our model was reliable and robust. The model's strength is that it was developed as an a priori hypothesis directly modeling the relationship between critical resources and fitness of bears and tested with independent data. We present the HSI spatially as a continuous fitness surface where potential contribution of habitat to the fitness of a bear is depicted at each point in space.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2003

Estimating black bear population density and genetic diversity at Tensas River, Louisiana using microsatellite DNA markers

The Recovery Plan for the federally threatened Louisiana black bear ( Ursus americanus luteolus ) mandates that remnant populations be estimated and monitored. In 1999 we obtained genetic material with barbed-wire hair traps to estimate bear population size and genetic diversity at the 329-km 2 Tensas River Tract, Louisiana. We constructed and monitored 122 hair traps, which produced 1,939 hair samples. Of those, we randomly selected 116 subsamples for genetic analysis and used up to 12 microsatellite DNA markers to obtain multilocus genotypes for 58 individuals. We used Program CAPTURE to compute estimates of population size using multiple mark-recapture models. The area of study was almost entirely circumscribed by agricultural land, thus the population was geographically closed. Also, study-area boundaries were biologically discreet, enabling us to accurately estimate population density. Using model Chao M h to account for possible effects of individual heterogeneity in capture probabilities, we estimated the population size to be 119 (SE=29.4) bears, or 0.36 bears/km 2 . We were forced to examine a substantial number of loci to differentiate between some individuals because of low genetic variation. Despite the probable introduction of genes from Minnesota bears in the 1960s, the isolated population at Tensas exhibited characteristics consistent with inbreeding and genetic drift. Consequently, the effective population size at Tensas may be as few as 32, which warrants continued monitoring or possibly genetic augmentation.

Louisiana↗

USGS2003

Serum markers of bone metabolism show bone loss in hibernating bears

Disuse osteopenia was studied in hibernating black bears (Ursus americanus) using serum markers of bone metabolism. Blood samples were collected from male and female, wild black bears during winter denning and active summer periods. Radioimmunoassays were done to determine serum concentrations of cortisol, the carboxy-terminal cross-linked telopeptide, and the carboxy-terminal propeptide of Type I procollagen, which are markers of hone resorption and formation, respectively. The bone resorption marker was significantly higher during winter hibernation than it was in the active summer months, but the bone formation marker was unchanged, suggesting an imbalance in bone remodeling and a net bone loss during disuse. Serum cortisol was significantly correlated with the bone resorption marker, but not with the bone formation marker. The bone formation marker was four- to fivefold higher in an adolescent and a 17-year-old bear early in the remobilization period compared with the later summer months. These findings raise the possibility that hibernating black bears may minimize bone loss during disuse by maintaining osteoblastic function and have a more efficient compensatory mechanism for recovering immobilization-induced bone loss than that of humans or other animals.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research↗

USGS2005

Ecology of Florida black bears in the Okefenokee-Osceola ecosystem

The population status of the Florida black bear ( Ursus americanus floridanus ) is problematic within many portions of its range and its potential listing as a federally threatened species has been the subject of legal debate. We studied Florida black bears in 2 areas in the Okefenokee-Osceola ecosystem in southeast Georgia (i.e.,Okefenokee) and north Florida (i.e., Osceola) from 1995 to 1999 to evaluate relationships between population characteristics, habitat conditions, and human activities. Bears in Okefenokee were hunted and those in Osceola were not. We captured 205 different black bears (124M:81F) 345 times from June 1995 to September 1998. We obtained 13,573 radiolocations from 87 (16M:71F) individual bears during the study. In Okefenokee, black gum ( Nyssa sylvatica ) and saw palmetto ( Serenoa repens ) fruits were the most important foods for bears based on scat analysis. In Osceola, corn from white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) feeders was the most stable food source but saw palmetto was heavily used when available. Corn from deer feeders was not available in Okefenokee. Adult bears in Osceola were 29% heavier than those in Okefenokee ( t 82 = 3.55, P <0.001). The mean annual home-range size for Osceola females ( x̄ =30.3 km 2 ± 4.0 [SE], n =53) varied little seasonally or annually and was almost half that of Okefenokee females (55.9 km 2 ± 6.9, n = 69; Z = –2.47, P = 0.014). In contrast, radiocollared females in Okefenokee expanded their home ranges during years of poor black gum production. That expansion was most apparent between autumn 1998 and 1999, when mean home-range size for Okefenokee females increased from 14.5 km 2 to 78.4 km 2 , respectively, and included a larger proportion of upland areas open to sport hunting. As a result, 5 females were harvested in the Okefenokee study area during the 1999 bear hunting season compared with only 7 harvested from 1996 to 1998. Home ranges of adult female bears were located in areas with disproportionately high loblolly bay ( Gordonia lasianthus ) and gum-bay-cypress ( Taxodium spp.) vegetation associations in Okefenokee and gum-bay-cypress associations in Osceola. The pine vegetation association ranked lower than most other associations within the home ranges of bears in both study areas even though much of the summer and autumn diets of bears included food items found almost exclusively in pine. Sixteen mortalities of radiocollared bears were documented in Okefenokee; hunting accounted for 11 (68.8%) of these deaths. The annual survival rate of radiocollared males in Okefenokee was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.53–0.88) whereas survival of females in Okefenokee was higher ( Z =18.87, P <0.001) at 0.89 (95% CI = 0.83–0.95). The survival rate for females in Osceola was 0.97 (95% CI = 0.92–1.00). Overall, 67 bears (51M:16F) were killed by hunters in the Okefenokee study area from 1995 to 1999. Based on all radiocollared bears in Okefenokee, many of which resided within areas closed to hunting, we estimated an annual harvest rate of 0.22 (95% CI = 0.03–0.37) for males and 0.07 (95% CI = 0.01–0.12) for females. When we excluded those bears that were not in areas open to hunting, however, the annual harvest rate rose to 0.37 (95% CI = 0.07–0.58) for males and 0.39 (95% CI = 0.09–0.58) for females. Following a black gum shortage in autumn 1995, only 1 of 15 radiocollared females in Okefenokee produced cubs in winter 1996. That low reproductive rate was in contrast to winter 1997, which followed heavy black gum production, when 21 of 22 radiocollared females produced cubs. Reproductive output was more consistent in the Osceola study area, with 46 cubs being produced from 8, 5, and 9 litters in 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively. To estimate population size, we maintained 88 and 94 barbed-wire hair traps during 1999 in the Okefenokee and Osceola study areas, respectively. Using DNA collected at the hair traps, mark–recapture models produced estimates of 71 bears (95% CI = 59–91) in Okefenokee and 44 bears (95% CI = 40–57) in the Osceola study area during 1999. The estimated densities in the Okefenokee and Osceola study areas were 0.12 and 0.14 bears/km 2 , respectively. Alternative density estimates based on the amount of time bears spent within study area boundaries were similar (0.11 and 0.14 bears/km 2 on Okefenokee and Osceola, respectively). We used a population model to estimate the effect of harvest in the Okefenokee bear population. Excluding harvest, bears at Osceola experienced higher average annual population growth (λ = 1.184 ± 0.002) than those at Okefenokee (1.064 ± 0.002; t 18 = 3.93, P = 0.001), most likely due to protection from hunting and higher recruitment. Including the effects of emigration and immigration, we estimated an average annual sustainable harvest at Okefenokee of approximately 9 bears (12.6%), which was slightly less than the average 1995–1999 annual harvest of 9.4. That level of hunting in Okefenokee is sustainable but likely represents the highest exploitation rate in the region. Our mark–recapture data from Osceola suggest a high dispersal rate by subadult bears, and our population modeling data support this hypothesis; we documented bears in Okefenokee that originated from Osceola but not the reverse. We speculate that bears from the interior of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR), and to some extent northern Florida, served as a source to the population sink caused by hunting mortality in Okefenokee and in the surrounding Georgia counties. Corn from deer feeders was the most probable reason for smaller home-range sizes and greater body masses and reproductive output at Osceola. Changes in management to eliminate or reduce baiting for deer with corn would negatively affect the Osceola bear population. On Okefenokee, sporadic black gum and palmetto production influenced harvest rates and cub production and, thus, governed bear population dynamics. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded in 1998 that listing the Florida black bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was not warranted. That decision was largely based on the stability and protection afforded to a few subpopulations within the range of the subspecies, which includes the Okefenokee-Osceola subpopulation; our results support that conclusion. However, we suggest that metapopulation processes among the various subpopulations be given greater consideration, with the ultimate goal of managing the sub-species as a unit rather than as an assemblage of independent components. Our study illustrates the importance of travel corridors for maintaining metapopulation processes.

Florida, Georgia↗