Intrapopulation diversity in isotopic niche over landscapes: Spatial patterns inform conservation of bear–salmon systems

• Published in: Ecosphere
• Main Authors: Megan S. Adams, Christina N. Service, Andrew Bateman, Mathieu Bourbonnais, Kyle A. Artelle, Trisalyn Nelson, Paul C. Paquet, Taal Levi, Chris T. Darimont
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2017
• Subjects: bears; dietary niche; geographic information systems; isoscapes; kernel‐weighted regression; Oncorhynchus; Ecology; QH540-549.5; British Columbia; Canada; Ursus arctos
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1843; https://doaj.org/article/5ece9a232aa049b699d7cc5fd79d4602

Abstract Intrapopulation variability in resource acquisition (i.e., niche variation) influences population dynamics, with important implications for conservation planning. Spatial analyses of niche variation within and among populations can provide relevant information about ecological associations and their subsequent management. We used stable isotope analysis and kernel‐weighted regression to examine spatial patterns in a keystone consumer–resource interaction: salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) consumption by grizzly and black bears (Ursus arctos horribilis, n = 886; and Ursus americanus, n = 557) from 1995 to 2014 in British Columbia (BC), Canada. In a region on the central coast of BC (22,000 km2), grizzly bears consumed far more salmon than black bears (median proportion of salmon in assimilated diet of 0.62 and 0.06, respectively). Males of both species consumed more salmon than females (median proportions of 0.63 and 0.57 for grizzly bears and 0.06 and 0.03 for black bears, respectively). Black bears showed considerably more spatial variation in salmon consumption than grizzlies. Protected areas on the coast captured no more habitat for bears with high‐salmon diets (i.e., proportions >0.5 of total diet) than did unprotected areas. In a continental region (~692,000 km2), which included the entire contemporary range of grizzlies in BC, males had higher salmon diets than females (median proportions of 0.41 and 0.04, respectively). High‐salmon diets were concentrated in coastal areas for female grizzly bears, whereas males with high‐salmon diets in interior areas were restricted to areas near major salmon watersheds. To safeguard this predator–prey association that spans coastal and interior regions, conservation planners and practitioners can consider managing across ecological and jurisdictional boundaries. More broadly, our approach highlights the importance of visualizing spatial patterns of dietary niche variation within populations to characterize ecological associations and inform management.