Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos

Tree rubbing or marking by bears has been observed throughout the northern hemisphere. Even so, this behaviour has rarely been studied. We documented 93 sites where grizzly bears Ursus arctos horribilis rubbed on 116 trees during 1986–1992, in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. We used logistic regression a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Wildlife Biology
Main Authors: Green, Gerald I., Mattson, David J.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2003
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/wlb.2003.002
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.2981/wlb.2003.002
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2981/wlb.2003.002
id crwiley:10.2981/wlb.2003.002
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.2981/wlb.2003.002 2024-09-15T18:40:11+00:00 Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos Green, Gerald I. Mattson, David J. 2003 http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/wlb.2003.002 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.2981/wlb.2003.002 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2981/wlb.2003.002 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Wildlife Biology volume 9, issue 1, page 1-9 ISSN 1903-220X 1903-220X journal-article 2003 crwiley https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.2003.002 2024-08-27T04:31:16Z Tree rubbing or marking by bears has been observed throughout the northern hemisphere. Even so, this behaviour has rarely been studied. We documented 93 sites where grizzly bears Ursus arctos horribilis rubbed on 116 trees during 1986–1992, in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. We used logistic regression and information‐based estimation and selection criteria to specify models that explained selection of sites and individual trees for rubbing by bears in our study area. The probability of rubbing peaked during May and June, the period of mating and moult, and declined thereafter. At the landscape level, grizzly bears selected for gentle south‐facing slopes, forest/non‐forest ecotones with sparse deadfall, and forest stands dominated by lodgepole pine Pinus contorta or Douglas‐fir Pseudotsuga menziesii. Among the trees at sites where bears rubbed, we found strong selection for large diameters but no indication of selection for species. Rubbed trees were highly associated with travel routes likely used by bears, including game trails, recreation trails and forest edges. Rubbing was often oriented towards these likely travel routes. Short trails of entrenched pad‐shaped marks leading up to rubbed trees were recorded at 58% of the sites where rubbing occurred. Contrary to reports of black bears Ursus americanus clawing and biting trees, we found shredded or bitten bark at only 9% of sites with rubbed or otherwise marked trees. Circumstantial evidence suggests that bears used trees primarily for rubbing their back and shoulders. Our findings are consistent with previous arguments that rubbing serves as a means of chemical communication. Article in Journal/Newspaper Ursus arctos Wiley Online Library Wildlife Biology 9 1 1 9
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description Tree rubbing or marking by bears has been observed throughout the northern hemisphere. Even so, this behaviour has rarely been studied. We documented 93 sites where grizzly bears Ursus arctos horribilis rubbed on 116 trees during 1986–1992, in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. We used logistic regression and information‐based estimation and selection criteria to specify models that explained selection of sites and individual trees for rubbing by bears in our study area. The probability of rubbing peaked during May and June, the period of mating and moult, and declined thereafter. At the landscape level, grizzly bears selected for gentle south‐facing slopes, forest/non‐forest ecotones with sparse deadfall, and forest stands dominated by lodgepole pine Pinus contorta or Douglas‐fir Pseudotsuga menziesii. Among the trees at sites where bears rubbed, we found strong selection for large diameters but no indication of selection for species. Rubbed trees were highly associated with travel routes likely used by bears, including game trails, recreation trails and forest edges. Rubbing was often oriented towards these likely travel routes. Short trails of entrenched pad‐shaped marks leading up to rubbed trees were recorded at 58% of the sites where rubbing occurred. Contrary to reports of black bears Ursus americanus clawing and biting trees, we found shredded or bitten bark at only 9% of sites with rubbed or otherwise marked trees. Circumstantial evidence suggests that bears used trees primarily for rubbing their back and shoulders. Our findings are consistent with previous arguments that rubbing serves as a means of chemical communication.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Green, Gerald I.
Mattson, David J.
spellingShingle Green, Gerald I.
Mattson, David J.
Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos
author_facet Green, Gerald I.
Mattson, David J.
author_sort Green, Gerald I.
title Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos
title_short Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos
title_full Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos
title_fullStr Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos
title_full_unstemmed Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos
title_sort tree rubbing by yellowstone grizzly bears ursus arctos
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2003
url http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/wlb.2003.002
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.2981/wlb.2003.002
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2981/wlb.2003.002
genre Ursus arctos
genre_facet Ursus arctos
op_source Wildlife Biology
volume 9, issue 1, page 1-9
ISSN 1903-220X 1903-220X
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.2003.002
container_title Wildlife Biology
container_volume 9
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
op_container_end_page 9
_version_ 1810484493394378752