Aerial surveys cause large but ephemeral decreases in bear presence at salmon streams in Kodiak, Alaska

English version

Autoři: William W. Deacy ^aff001; William B. Leacock ^aff002; Eric J. Ward ^aff003; Jonathan B. Armstrong ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America ^aff001; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak, AK, United States of America ^aff002; Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, United States of America ^aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222085

Souhrn

Aerial surveys are often used to monitor wildlife and fish populations, but rarely are the effects on animal behavior documented. For over 30 years, the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge has conducted low-altitude aerial surveys to assess Kodiak brown bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi) space use and demographic composition when bears are seasonally congregated near salmon spawning streams in southwestern Kodiak Island, Alaska. Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) are an important bear food and salmon runs are brief, so decreases in time spent fishing for salmon may reduce salmon consumption by bears. The goal of this study was to apply different and complementary field methods to evaluate the response of bears to these aerial surveys. Ground-based counts at one stream indicated 62% of bears departed the 200m-wide survey zone in response to aerial surveys, but bear counts returned to pre-survey abundance after only three hours. Although this effect was brief, survey flights occurred during the hours of peak daily bear activity (morning and evening), so the three-hour disruption appeared to result in a 25% decline in cumulative daily detections by 38 time-lapse cameras deployed along 10 salmon streams. Bear responses varied by sex—male bears were much more likely than female bears (with or without cubs) to depart streams and female bears with GPS collars did not move from streams following surveys. Although bears displaced by aerial surveys may consume fewer salmon, the actual effect on their fitness depends on whether they compensate by foraging at other times or by switching to other nutritious resources. Data from complementary sources allows managers to more robustly understand the impacts of surveys and whether their benefits are justified. Similar assessments should be made on alternative techniques such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and non-invasive sampling to determine whether they supply equivalent data while limiting bear disturbance.

Klíčová slova:

Biology and life sciences – Organisms – Eukaryota – Engineering and technology – Research and analysis methods – Psychology – Animals – Social sciences – Developmental biology – Animal types – Vertebrates – Amniotes – Mammals – Zoology – Research design – Behavior – Transportation – Survey research – Surveys – Animal behavior – Fish – Bears – Osteichthyes – Salmon – Wildlife – Modes of reproduction – Sexual reproduction – Spawning – Aerospace engineering – Flight testing – Aircraft

Zdroje

1. Hodgson JC, Baylis SM, Mott R, Herrod A, Clarke RH. Precision wildlife monitoring using unmanned aerial vehicles. Sci Rep. Nature Publishing Group; 2016;6: 1–7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-016-0001-8

2. Anderson K, Gaston KJ. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11: 138–146. doi: 10.1890/120150

3. Goldstein MI, Poe AJ, Cooper E, Youkey D, Brown BA, McDonald TL. Mountain goat response to helicopter overflights in Alaska. Wildl Soc Bull. 2005;33: 810–813. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33

4. Calef GW, DeBock EA, Lortie GM. The Reaction of Barren-Ground Caribou to Aircraft. Arctic. 1976;29: 201–212. doi: 10.14430/arctic2805

5. Delaney D, Grubb T, Beier P, Pater L, Reiser MH. Effects of helicopter noise on mexican spotted owls. J Wildl Manage. 1999;63: 1202–1202. doi: 10.1121/1.425661

6. Linklater WL, Cameron EZ. Escape behaviour of feral horses during a helicopter count. Wildl Res. 2002;29: 221–224. doi: 10.1071/WR01063

7. Wilker GA, Barnes VG. Responses of Brown Bears to Human Activities at O’Malley River, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ursus. 1998;10: 557–561.

8. Frid A, Dill L. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol. 2002;6: 1–25. ARTN 11

9. Tracey JP, Fleming PJS. Behavioural responses of feral goats (Capra hircus) to helicopters. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;108: 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.10.009

10. Ward DH, Stehn RA, Erickson WP, Derksen D V. Response of Fall-Staging Brant and Canada Geese to Aircraft Overflights in Southwestern Alaska. J Wildl Manage. 1999;63: 373–381. doi: 10.2307/3802522

11. Frid A. Dall’s sheep responses to overflights by helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft. Biol Conserv. 2003;110: 387–399. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00236-7

12. Weisenberger ME, Krausman PR, Wallace MC, Young DW De, Maughan OE. Effects of Simulated Jet Aircraft Noise on Heart Rate and Behavior of Desert Ungulates. J Wildl Manage. 1996;60: 52–61. doi: 10.2307/3802039

13. Ditmer MA, Vincent JB, Werden LK, Tanner JC, Laske TG, Iaizzo PA, et al. Bears Show a Physiological but Limited Behavioral Response to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Curr Biol. Elsevier Ltd; 2015;25: 2278–2283. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.07.024 26279232

14. Cobb M, Pyle B. Inventory and Monitoring Plan for Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. US Fish Wildl Serv. 2014; 1–73.

15. Van Daele M, Robbins CT, Semmens BX, Ward EJ, Van Daele LJ, Leacock WB. Salmon consumption by Kodiak brown bears (Ursus arctos middendorffi) with ecosystem management implications. Can J Zool. 2013;174: 164–174.

16. Eberhardt L. A paradigm for population analysis of long-lived vertebrates. Ecology. 2002;83: 2841–2854.

17. Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Garton EO, Vierling LA. Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error. J Appl Ecol. 2007;44: 663–671. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01286.x

18. Barnes VGJ, Smith RB. Estimates of Brown Bear Abundance on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ursus. 1998;10: 1–9.

19. Deacy WW, Leacock WB, Armstrong JB, Stanford JA. Kodiak brown bears surf the salmon red wave: direct evidence from GPS collared individuals. Ecology. 2016;97: 1091–1098. doi: 10.1890/15-1060.1 27349087

20. Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 2017;9: 378–400. doi: 10.3929/ETHZ-B-000240890

21. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. 2014;

22. Barnes VGJ, Wilker GA. Brown bear use, distribution, and composition under different public use management regimes at O’Malley River, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Job ompletion Report, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Challenge Cost Share Project. 2006.

23. O’Brien SLLFG. Aerial Sightability And Classification Of Grizzly Bears At Moth Aggregation Sites In The Absaroka Mountains, Wyoming. Ursus. 1995;10: 427–435.

24. Barton K. MuMin: multi-model inference. R package version 1.43.6. 2019.

25. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19: 716–723.

26. Olson T, Gilbert B, Squibb R. The effects of increasing human activity on brown bear use of an Alaskan river. Biol Conserv. 1997;82: 95–99.

27. Rode KD, Farley SD, Robbins CT. Sexual dimorphism, reproductive strategy, and human activities determine resource use by brown bears. Ecology. 2006;87: 2636–46. 17089671

28. Deacy WW, Armstrong JB, Leacock WB, Robbins CT, Gustine DD, Ward EJEJ, et al. Phenological synchronization disrupts trophic interactions between Kodiak brown bears and salmon. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114: 201705248. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1705248114 28827339

29. Ordiz A, Støen OG, Sæbø S, Kindberg J, Delibes M, Swenson JE. Do bears know they are being hunted? Biol Conserv. 2012;152: 21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.006

30. Moe TF, Kindberg J, Jansson I, Swenson JE. Importance of diel behaviour when studying habitat selection: examples from female Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos). Can J Zool. 2007;85: 518–525. doi: 10.1139/Z07-034

31. Kaczensky P, Huber D, Knauer F, Roth H, Wagner A, Kusak J. Activity patterns of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia and Croatia. J Zool. 2006;269: 474–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00114.x

32. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.

33. Cleveland RB, Cleveland WS, McRae JE, Terpenning I. STL: A seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on loess. J Off Stat. 1990;6: 3–73. citeulike-article-id:1435502

34. Blarquez O, Carcaillet C. Fire, fuel composition and resilience threshold in subalpine ecosystem. PLoS One. 2010;5: e12480. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012480 20814580

35. Deacy WW, Erlenbach JA, Leacock WB, Stanford JA, Robbins CT, Armstrong JB. Phenological tracking associated with increased salmon consumption by brown bears. Sci Rep. Springer US; 2018;8: 11008. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29425-3 30030526

36. Hilderbrand G V, Schwartz CC, Robbins CT, Jacoby ME, Hanley TA, Arthur SM, et al. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Can J Zool. 1999;77: 132–138. doi: 10.1139/z98-195

37. Jeschke JM. When carnivores are “full and lazy”. Oecologia. 2007;152: 357–364. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0654-2 17294218

38. Hilderbrand G V, Jenkins SG, Schwartz CC, Hanley TA, Robbins CT. Effect of seasonal differences in dietary meat intake on changes in body mass and composition in wild and captive brown bears. Can J Zool. NRC Research Press Ottawa, Canada; 1999;77: 1623–1630.

39. Ordiz A, Støen O-G, Saebø S, Sahlén V, Pedersen BE, Kindberg J, et al. Lasting behavioural responses of brown bears to experimental encounters with humans. Rhodes J, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2013;50: 306–314. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12047

40. Steyaert SMJG, Leclerc M, Pelletier F, Kindberg J, Brunberg, Swenson JE, et al. Human shields mediate sexual conflict in a top predator. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;283: 1–7. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.0906 27335423

41. Van De Walle J, Pigeon G, Zedrosser A, Swenson JE, Pelletier F. Hunting regulation favors slow life histories in a large carnivore. Nat Commun. Springer US; 2018;9: 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02088-w

42. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Species Management Report- Chapter 7- Brown Bear Management Report for Game Management Unit 8. 2014.

43. Wikelski M, Cooke SJ. Conservation physiology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21: 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.018 16701468

44. Kucera TE, Barrett RH. The Trailmaster camera system for detecting wildlife. Wildl Soc Bull. 1993;21: 505–508.

45. Cutler TL, Don ES. Using Remote Photography in Wildlife Ecology: A Review. Wildl Soc Bull. 1999;27: 571–581. doi: 10.2307/3784076

46. Naugle D, Jenks J, Krenohan B. Use of thermal infrared sensing to estimate density of white-tailed deer. Wildl Soc Bull. 1996;24: 37–43. doi: 10.2307/3782830

47. Gillette GL, Coates PS, Petersen S, Romero JP. Can Reliable Sage-Grouse Lek Counts Be Obtained Using Aerial Infrared Technology? J Fish Wildl Manag. 2013;4: 386–394. doi: 10.3996/032013-JFWM-025

Aerial surveys cause large but ephemeral decreases in bear presence at salmon streams in Kodiak, Alaska

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Aktuální možnosti diagnostiky a léčby litiáz