4.1 Article

Determining Kill Rates of Ungulate Calves by Brown Bears Using Neck-Mounted Cameras

期刊

WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 88-97

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/wsb.733

关键词

Alaska; brown bear; camera collar; caribou; Global Positioning System (GPS); moose; Nelchina Basin; predation; Ursus arctos

资金

  1. Alaska Department of Fish Game

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predation of moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandas) calves by brown bears (Ursus arctos) has been extensively studied, because predation has population implications for both predator and prey species. Existing methods have provided estimates of population-level predation rates, but they have not been able to estimate kill rates by individual bears until recently and the accuracy of these estimates was unknown. Our objectives were to evaluate whether collars equipped with video cameras would be able to record predation events by brown bears and provide useful estimates of ungulate kill rates. We fitted 17 brown bears in the Nelchina Basin of Alaska, USA, with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars equipped with cameras in the spring of 2011, 2012, and 2013. We retrieved the collars in late June of each year to download the video data and associated GPS locations. To compensate for incomplete sampling, we constructed a calf risk model from previous calf mortality studies and used it to predict total calf kills for each bear through the end of June. The camera collars documented kill rates considerably greater than previous estimates. Median handling times by bears were 40 min for caribou calves and 60 min for moose calves. These short handling times should be considered by future researchers when trying to evaluate kill detectability and when factoring calf mortality into population models. We demonstrate that this technology can be successfully applied in the field and provide recommendations on the video sampling intervals necessary to detect predation rates. (C) 2017 The Wildlife Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据