No description available.

Given current rates of anthropogenic environmental change, combined with the increasing lethal and non-lethal mortality threat that human activities pose, there is a vital need to understand wildlife movement and behaviour in human-dominated landscapes to help inform conservation efforts and wildlife management. As long-term monitoring of wildlife populations using Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry increases, there are new opportunities to quantify change in wildlife movement and behaviour. The objective of this PhD research is to develop novel methodological approaches for quantifying change in spatial-temporal patterns of wildlife movement and habitat by leveraging long time series of GPS telemetry and remotely sensed data. Analyses were focused on the habitat and movement of individuals in the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population of Alberta, Canada, which occupies a human-dominated and heterogeneous landscape. Using methods in functional data analysis, a multivariate regionalization approach was developed that effectively summarizes complex spatial-temporal patterns associated with landscape disturbance, as well as recovery, which is often left unaccounted in studies quantifying patterns associated with disturbance. Next, the quasi-experimental framework afforded by a hunting moratorium was used to compare the influence of lethal (i.e., hunting) and non-lethal (i.e., anthropogenic disturbance) human-induced risk on antipredator behaviour of an apex predator, the grizzly bear. In support of the predation risk allocation hypothesis, male bears significantly decrease risky daytime behaviours by 122% during periods of high lethal human-induced risk. Rapid behavioural restoration occurred following the end of the hunt, characterized by diel bimodal movement patterns which may promote coexistence of large predators in human-dominated landscapes. A multi-scale approach using hierarchical Bayesian models, combined with post hoc trend tests and change point detection, was developed to test the influence of landscape disturbance and conditions on grizzly bear home range and movement selection over time. The results, representing the first longitudinal empirical analysis of grizzly bear habitat selection, revealed selection for habitat security at broad scales and for resource availability and habitat permeability at finer spatial scales, which has influenced potential landscape connectivity over time. Finally, combining approaches in movement ecology and conservation physiology, a body condition index was used to characterize how the physiological condition (i.e., internal state) of grizzly bears influences behavioral patterns due to costs and benefits associated with risk avoidance and resource acquisition. The results demonstrated individuals in poorer condition were more likely to engage in risky behaviour associated with anthropogenic disturbance, which highlights complex challenges for carnivore conservation and management of human-carnivore conflict. In summary, this dissertation contributes 1) a multivariate regionalization approach for quantifying spatial-temporal patterns of landscape disturbance and recovery applicable across diverse natural systems, 2) support for the growing theory that apex predators modify behavioural patterns to account for temporal overlap with lethal and non-lethal human-induced risk associated with humans, 3) an integrated approach for considering multi-scale spatial-temporal change in patterns of wildlife habitat selection and landscape connectivity associated with landscape change, 4) a cross-disciplinary framework for considering the impacts of the internal state on behavioural patterns and risk tolerance. / Graduate

Human-bear (Ursus spp.) conflict (HBC) is an important issue facing wildlife managers across North America. It is essential that we understand the factors associated with HBCs in North America so that wildlife managers can make appropriate, science-based recommendations about how to avoid, and if necessary, survive such incidents. To that end, we present this comprehensive analysis of > 2,100 HBCs in the United States and Canada, ranging from 1880 to the present. This analysis includes the three native North American bear species: black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (U. arctos), and polar bears (U. maritimus) and assesses the role that twelve key variables played in human-bear conflict. We collected data from various sources, including newspapers, official government reports, and verified personal accounts. In the first chapter, we summarized data, looked for patterns and conducted statistical analysis (AIC weighted linear regression modeling and chi square analysis) to determine significance of variables in relation to human injury during HBC encounters. Our results found that human-bear conflict incidents in North America are rare but are increasing at a steady rate. HBCs involving grizzly bears were far more numerous and more likely to result in an injury, but black and polar bear HBCs were more likely to be fatal. Most incidents were classified as surprise encounters followed by bears being curious. The most common activity people were engaged in when an incident began was hiking or walking, followed by hunting and camping. Single bears were involved more than all other cohorts combined. There was a clear negative correlation between the use of a bear deterrent (firearms and/or bear spray) and the occurrence of human injury. Similarly, as group size increased, odds of human injury steeply decreased. In the second chapter, we present an analysis of human actions and associated bear reactions that occurred during each encounter. Each action-reaction pair was analyzed at four levels, increasing from the least detailed (e.g., "aggressive" or "defensive" actions) to the most detailed (e.g., person used a firearm, or person played dead). These summaries provide insights regarding the outcomes (i.e., how bears responded) of specific actions people have taken towards bears. For both black and grizzly bears, "aggressive" actions by humans resulted in the lowest rates of bear attack responses, while "neutral" human actions produced the highest attack rates. Third level analysis provided a more specific insight into these results, indicating that the success of "aggressive" actions is generally driven by the use of a deterrent, while the high attack rates of "neutral" actions are most often a result of people being taken by surprise with "no time to react".

No description available.