Understanding how environmental factors interact to determine the abundance and distribution of animals is a primary goal of ecology, and fundamental to the conservation of wildlife populations. Studies of these relationships, however, often assume static environmental conditions, and rarely consider effects of competition with ecologically similar species. In many parts of their shared ranges, grizzly bears Ursus arctos and American black bears U. americanus have nearly complete dietary overlap and share similar life history traits. We therefore tested the hypothesis that density patterns of both bear species would reflect seasonal variation in available resources, with areas of higher primary productivity supporting higher densities of both species. We also hypothesized that interspecific competition would influence seasonal density patterns. Specifically, we predicted that grizzly bear density would be locally reduced due to the ability of black bears to more efficiently exploit patchy food resources such as seasonally abundant fruits. To test our hypotheses, we used detections of 309 grizzly and 597 black bears from two independent genetic sampling methods in spatially‐explicit capture–recapture (SECR) models. Our results suggest grizzly bear density was lower in areas of high black bear density during spring and summer, although intraspecific densities were also important, particularly during the breeding season. Black bears had lower densities in areas of high grizzly bear density in spring; however, density of black bears in early and late summer was best explained by primary productivity. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that smaller‐bodied, more abundant black bears may influence the density patterns of behaviorally‐dominant grizzly bears through exploitative competition. We also suggest that seasonal variation in resource availability be considered in efforts to relate environmental conditions to animal density.
Additional publication details
|Publication Subtype||Journal Article|
|Title||Using spatially‐explicit capture–recapture models to explain variation in seasonal density patterns of sympatric ursids|
|Contributing office(s)||Coop Res Unit Seattle|
|Other Geospatial||Glacier National Park|