Contrasting Activity Patterns of Sympatric and Allopatric Black and Grizzly Bears
ABSTRACT The distribution of grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) and American black bears ( U. americanus ) overlaps in western North America. Few studies have detailed activity patterns where the species are sympatric and no studies contrasted patterns where populations are both sympatric and allopatric. We c...
Published in: | The Journal of Wildlife Management |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2010
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2009-571 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2193%2F2009-571 |
Summary: | ABSTRACT The distribution of grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) and American black bears ( U. americanus ) overlaps in western North America. Few studies have detailed activity patterns where the species are sympatric and no studies contrasted patterns where populations are both sympatric and allopatric. We contrasted activity patterns for sympatric black and grizzly bears and for black bears allopatric to grizzly bears, how human influences altered patterns, and rates of grizzly‐black bear predation. Activity patterns differed between black bear populations, with those sympatric to grizzly bears more day‐active. Activity patterns of black bears allopatric with grizzly bears were similar to those of female grizzly bears; both were crepuscular and day‐active. Male grizzly bears were crepuscular and night‐active. Both species were more night‐active and less day‐active when ≤1 km from roads or developments. In our sympatric study area, 2 of 4 black bear mortalities were due to grizzly bear predation. Our results suggested patterns of activity that allowed for intra‐ and inter‐species avoidance. National park management often results in convergence of locally high human densities in quality bear habitat. Our data provide additional understanding into how bears alter their activity patterns in response to other bears and humans and should help park managers minimize undesirable bear‐human encounters when considering needs for temporal and spatial management of humans and human developments in bear habitats. |
---|