How artificial feeding for tourism‐watching modifies black bear space use and habitat selection
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Artificial feeding stations often are established to attract and habituate wildlife species to facilitate their observation, but this activity is controversial because of its potential negative impact on wildlife and, in some cases, threat to human safety. Bear managers have few empirical data to establish guidelines for bear‐watching sites. The objective of our study was to compare behaviors of black bear ( Ursus americanus ) with access to a highly‐predictable artificial food source established for tourist‐watching purposes ( n = 11) and control bears ( n = 16) in the boreal forest of Quebec, Canada. We hypothesized that fed bears would have lesser movement rates and smaller home‐range sizes than control bears, and that they would exhibit lower selection of habitat types providing abundant natural food resources (agricultural lands, regenerating, and disturbed stands) because they visit fewer food patches to meet their energy requirements. We also predicted that behavioral differences between fed and control bears would be most obvious during the period of hyperphagia (late summer and fall) when bears increase their food intake. Between 2008 and 2011, we located fed bears <1 km away from the feeding station 22.3 ± 3.7%, 48.5 ± 6.2%, and 55.9 ± 5.0% of the time in spring, summer, and fall seasons. Annual and seasonal ranges of control bears were 2.1 to 7.1 times larger than fed bears, except during the spring when bears often increased travel to access females for reproduction. Moreover, fed bears modified their movement pattern and selected vegetation types with abundant natural food resources to a lower degree, especially in the fall. Our results show that a well‐supplied feeding station can attract and sustain many bears, even in relatively poor bear habitat, leading to a local increase in bear density that might exceed the social carrying capacity. Considering the use of space by fed bears, we recommend avoiding establishing feeding stations <11.5 km from locations where human‐bear interactions should be limited (i.e., recreation sites, cabins, etc.). Behaviors adopted by fed bears were energetically profitable as evidenced by their approximately 40% greater body masses compared to control bears, suggesting the potentially positive influence of a feeding station on local population dynamics. We hope our results will increase awareness of wildlife managers about the impacts of feeding bear for tourism purposes. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».