Human‐induced risk drives behavioural decisions in a recovering brown bear population

• Published in: Animal Conservation
• Main Authors: Corradini, Andrea, Falcinelli, Daniele, Pedrotti, Luca, Tattoni, Clara, Ranc, Nathan, Bragalanti, Natalia, Groff, Claudio, Ciolli, Marco, Cagnacci, Francesca
• Other Authors: Fondazione Edmund Mach - Edmund Mach Foundation Italie (FEM), Università degli Studi di Trento = University of Trento (UNITN), National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), stelvio national park (SNP), Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza" = Sapienza University Rome (UNIROMA), Universitá degli Studi dell’Insubria = University of Insubria Varese (Uninsubria), Unité de recherche Comportement et Ecologie de la Faune Sauvage (CEFS), Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Wildlife Service, This work was financially supported by a Ph.D. grant from the Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering of the University of Trento, the Research and Innovation Centre of the Fondazione Edmund Mach and Stelvio National Park. FC contributed to this work partly under an IRD Fellowship 2021-2022 at Fondation IMeRA, Institute for Advanced Studies at Aix-Marseille Universite. AC and FC partially contributed to this work under the support of NBFC to Fondazione Edmund Mach, funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, PNRR, Missione 4 Componente 2, "Dalla ricerca all'Impresa", Investimento 1.4, D.D. 1034 17/06/2022, Project CN00000033
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: HAL CCSD 2024
• Subjects: risk perception; behavioural response; anthropogenic disturbance; Ursus arctos; Strava; Cumulated Outdoor activity Index; human-wildlife conflict; risk perception behavioural response anthropogenic disturbance Ursus arctos Strava Cumulated Outdoor activity Index human-wildlife conflict; [SDE]Environmental Sciences; [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology; [SDV.BA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Animal biology; [SDV.BA.ZV]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Animal biology/Vertebrate Zoology; [SDV.SA.STA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences/Sciences and technics of agriculture
• Online Access: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04664347; https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04664347/document; https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04664347/file/Animal%20Conservation%20-%202024%20-%20Corradini%20-%20Human%E2%80%90induced%20risk%20drives%20behavioural%20decisions%20in%20a%20recovering%20brown%20bear.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12965

International audience Abstract In human‐dominated landscapes, rebounding bear populations share space with people, which may lead to bear–human conflicts and, consequently, a decrease in acceptance and an increase in bear mortality linked to human causes. Previous analyses of brown bear ( Ursus arctos ) movement data have shown that bears adopt a security‐food trade‐off strategy in response to variable human‐related risk. However, brown bear flexibility to cope with these risky situations may be reduced when resting, mating or stocking fat in preparation for hibernation. In this study, we measured the multi‐scale spatial response of brown bears to human‐related risk and food resource distribution in a highly heterogeneous human‐dominated landscape. We examined habitat selection both within the population range (‘second‐order’ selection) and at bedding site locations (‘third‐order’) for GPS‐tagged brown bears of a recently reintroduced population in the Italian Alps. We identified resting locations by field‐validated spatio‐temporal cluster analysis of telemetry locations. We mapped food availability and distribution using dynamic geographic layers of fruiting wild berries, and human‐related risk using human mobility data (Strava‐based Cumulated Outdoor activity Index). Brown bears appeared to compromise their need for food resources for avoidance of anthropogenic disturbance when selecting home ranges, as they utilized areas richer in wild berries less when human use of outdoor tracks was higher. Furthermore, selection of resting site locations strongly depended on the avoidance of human‐related risk only, with less frequented, more concealed and inaccessible sites being selected. We conclude that humans compete for space with bears beyond their infrastructural impact, that is, by actively occupying key areas for bear survival, thereby potentially restricting the bears' realized niche. We propose mitigating actions to promote bear–human coexistence by selectively restricting human access to key areas during ...