Next Article in Journal
The Extraordinary Importance of Coral-Associated Fauna
Next Article in Special Issue
Visual Adaptations in Predatory and Scavenging Diurnal Raptors
Previous Article in Journal
Class Conflict: Diffuse Competition between Mammalian and Reptilian Predators
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lack of Cascading Effects of Eurasian Lynx Predation on Roe Deer to Soil and Plant Nutrients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/d12090356
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Individual Variation in Predatory Behavior, Scavenging and Seasonal Prey Availability as Potential Drivers of Coexistence between Wolves and Bears

by
Andrés Ordiz
1,2,3,*,
Cyril Milleret
1,
Antonio Uzal
3,
Barbara Zimmermann
4,
Petter Wabakken
4,
Camilla Wikenros
2,
Håkan Sand
2,
Jon E Swenson
1 and
Jonas Kindberg
5,6
1
Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postbox 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
2
Grimsӧ Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden
3
School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Brackenhurst, Southwell, Nottinghamshire NG25 0FQ, UK
4
Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Evenstad, NO-2480 Koppang, Norway
5
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway
6
Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2020, 12(9), 356; https://doi.org/10.3390/d12090356
Submission received: 11 August 2020 / Revised: 11 September 2020 / Accepted: 12 September 2020 / Published: 15 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ecology of Predation and Scavenging and the Interface)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Several large carnivore populations are recovering former ranges, and it is important to understand interspecific interactions between overlapping species. In Scandinavia, recent research has reported that brown bear presence influences gray wolf habitat selection and kill rates. Here, we characterized the temporal use of a common prey resource by sympatric wolves and bears and described individual and seasonal variation in their direct and/or indirect interactions. Most bear–wolf interactions were indirect, via bear scavenging of wolf kills. Bears used >50% of wolf kills, whereas we did not record any wolf visit at bear kills. Adult and subadult bears visited wolf kills, but female bears with cubs of the year, the most vulnerable age class to conspecifics and other predators, did not. Wolf and bear kill rates peaked in early summer, when both targeted neonate moose calves, which coincided with a reduction in bear scavenging rate. Some bears were highly predatory and some did not kill any calf. Individual and age-class variation (in bear predation and scavenging patterns) and seasonality (in bear scavenging patterns and main prey availability of both wolves and bears) could mediate coexistence of these apex predators. Similar processes likely occur in other ecosystems with varying carnivore assemblages.

1. Introduction

During the last two centuries, large carnivores have suffered drastic population declines, range contractions, and habitat fragmentation [1]. Although carnivores have adapted to almost every habitat, barely ~5% of the Earth’s terrestrial land area contains five or more overlapping species of large carnivores [2]. Despite rarity and typically low population densities, large carnivores influence ecosystems in multiple ways through predator-prey interactions, i.e., carnivores are keystone species [3]. They affect prey and mesopredators in both demographic and behavioral terms, which can ultimately drive trophic cascades [4].
Although many large carnivore populations remain threatened [2], others are expanding nowadays in different continents [5,6], increasing the chances for different species to overlap. At the worldwide scale, northern Eurasia is the region with the greatest expansion range of a four-species guild (gray wolves Canis lupus, Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx, brown bear Ursus arctos, and wolverines Gulo gulo) [2,6]. Natural recolonization by large carnivores provides opportunities to study interspecific interactions among them, which is crucial to understanding how they can affect each other and lower trophic levels.
Several empirical studies on interspecific interactions among large carnivores have been conducted in northern Europe. Research has focused on habitat and resource use by different species in the large carnivore guild [7]; competition between species, such as wolf and lynx [8] and wolverine and lynx [9]; interference competition between trophic levels [10]; and on the demographic impact of coexisting predators on prey [11]. Interspecific interactions between the two largest carnivores (brown bears and wolves) that roam over large areas of the Northern Hemisphere have been studied in North-America (e.g., [12,13,14]) and in Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden) in recent years [15]. In Scandinavia, research has focused on wolf habitat selection at different spatial scales [16,17,18,19] and on the wolves’ kill rates in areas sympatric and allopatric with bears [20]. In moose Alces alces—bear—wolf systems, predation is a major driver of moose population dynamics [21], so research has also informed management to optimize ungulate harvest yield where wolves and bears coexist [22].
The body of literature on large carnivores in northern Europe has highlighted the existence of individual variation in habitat selection and kill rates. For instance, wolverines display high individual variation when selecting home ranges [23] and lynx show individual variation in home-range size [8]. Large individual variation has also been shown in wolf home range size [24], bear habitat selection [25], and bear kill rates [26]. The latter implies different levels of specialization reflecting individual foraging behavior [27]; in turn, individual differences in predator behavior may help explain the large individual variation in bear habitat selection [17].
Intraspecific variation in habitat selection may be an adaptation for wolves and bears to reduce intra- and interspecific competition, i.e., individual variation may promote coexistence between these large predators [17]. The role of individual variation in habitat selection, activity patterns [28], and foraging behavior [27] at higher levels of biological organization is indeed gaining increasing recognition [29,30]. Individual variation can have consequences for population and community ecology [31], favoring coexistence of sympatric species [32].
Besides individual variation, seasonality is another important factor that may have implications for coexistence between large carnivores [33]. Seasonal and daily spatio-temporal patterns may influence the intensity of interspecific interactions and the resulting distribution of sympatric species [34]. In a Scandinavian context, wolves prey on moose all year round, bears often scavenge wolf kills, and both predators largely rely on neonate moose during spring [20]. Thus, individual and seasonal variation in predation and scavenging rates may help understand the patterns of wolf habitat selection and kill rates in relation to brown bear presence reported earlier. Namely, bear density has had a negative effect on the probability of wolf territory establishment in Scandinavia during the wolf recolonization process [16,18], and wolf kill rates are lower in areas sympatric with bears, despite wolves losing food to bears via scavenging [20].
In this study, we characterized the temporal use of a common prey resource by sympatric wolves and bears in Sweden, describing individual and seasonal variation in wolf–bear interactions. The latter can be direct, if individual wolves and bears meet at the same time, or indirect, if they use the same place or resource, but not simultaneously, which can provide evidence of exploitation competition, e.g., via scavenging. Describing individual variation and seasonal trends in kill and scavenger rates of competing carnivores can reveal underlying mechanisms behind the observed effects of bears on wolf habitat selection and kill rates at higher spatial and temporal scales. Ecological theory is improving the forecast of changes in species interactions and coexistence in a scenario of global change, but more specific empirical data are needed to understand the mechanisms driving interactions and thus species coexistence (e.g., [29]). Our study contributes empirical data to document the role of individual variation and seasonality as drivers of interspecific interactions between apex predators via predation rates and scavenging, which in turn can also reflect on predator-prey interactions.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Study Species

The study area in central Sweden (in Dalarna, Jämtland, and Gävleborg counties) is a rolling landscape mainly covered by boreal, coniferous forests dominated by Scots pine Pinus sylvestris and Norway spruce Picea abies. Altitudes range between 100–830 m. Human density is low, 1–7 inhabitants/km2, but the landscape is crisscrossed by many gravel roads (1 ± 0.5 km/km2), because logging is a major activity [35]. Snow typically covers the ground from December to March. Wolves became functionally extinct in Scandinavia in the 1960s, but wolf recolonization and recovery started by the late 1970s [36] and continued until 2015, when the general increasing population trend stabilized [16,37]. The first wolf territories reestablished in our bear-wolf sympatric study area in 2000/2001, and afterwards between one and eight wolf territories have been detected annually [17], with a pack size of 4 ± 2 wolves (mean 4 ± sd) for the packs included in our study. For brown bears, as few as about 130 were left in Sweden about a century ago [38], but human attitudes and legislation changed, the population recovered, and currently bear density reaches ~30 bears/1000 km2 in our study area [39]. As of winter 2019–2020, there were ~450 wolves in Scandinavia, ~365 of them in Sweden [37]. The Scandinavian brown bear population consists of ~3000 bears, most of them (~2800) in Sweden [40]. Lynx and wolverines are also present, yet in low densities, in the study area. Moose is the most abundant ungulate (0.7–1.6/km2) and very low densities of roe deer Capreolus capreolus (0.05–0.08/km2) also occur [41].

2.2. GPS and Predation Data from Bears and Wolves

Studies of predation by wolves and bears on moose in the study area were conducted during two time periods; late winter and early spring (hereafter, “late winter”; from mid-February to the end of April) and early summer (hereafter, “early summer”; from the beginning of May to early July). For this study, we conducted predation studies of wolves in 2010–2015, and of bears overlapping with wolf territories in 2014 and 2015. Both wolves and bears were darted and immobilized from helicopters, according to accepted veterinary and ethical procedures [42], as determined by an ethical committee (Djurförsöksetisk nämnd) and the wildlife management authorities (Naturvårdsverket). The breeding pair in each wolf pack (6 wolves in total) was equipped with a GPS collar (Vectronic Aerospace, Berlin, Germany) and was monitored during each study period. In 2014, we monitored the predatory behavior of two wolf packs and 11 radio-collared bears with overlapping territories, and in 2015 we monitored one of the packs and nine collared bears (Table 1 and Table 2; see also Figure 2 in [17]). There are more bears in the study area, but up to 80% of the adult female bears and 50% of the adult males have been radio-collared [43].
We searched for carcasses of killed prey at clusters of GPS locations [20,26] and recorded cause of death and age of the dead animal. We built clusters independently for bears and wolves, and we used the time of first bear or wolf location within each cluster of GPS locations as the time of death of each killed prey. We downloaded and plotted the GPS locations in ArcView GIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA, USA). We created a buffer around each location with a radius of 100 m and overlapping buffers generated clusters of ≥2 locations [44]. We uploaded them into handheld GPS receivers (Garmin, Olathe, KS, USA) and we visited all the generated clusters of GPS locations of wolves and bears within the study periods in the field. As in previous studies [20,26,45], we generally visited the clusters of locations after 3 days, trading off carcass detection and avoidance of disturbance of study animals. Kills were relatively easy to find; even the predation of a neonate moose removed the understory vegetation, as previously reported [26] and typically the jaws and other small pieces of bones and skin were present. As additional sign, within each cluster of GPS locations we also recorded if there were tracks, scats, and hair of wolves or bears in the ground and lying vegetation, at the sites where prey were consumed and/or at surrounding daybeds within the clusters.

2.3. Monitoring of Scavenging with Camera Traps

To record visits of wolves and bears at kills made by any of the predators, in 2014–2015 we placed camera traps (Reconyx, Holmen, WI, USA and Scoutguard, Santa Clara, CA, USA) targeting the carcasses and immediate surroundings. We placed cameras at all kill sites with some remaining biomass. Cameras were triggered by movement sensors from passing animals and were programed to record three pictures at a time, with a 1-min time lapse until the next three-picture set. We left the cameras in the field for at least 2 weeks or until the kill had been completely consumed (typically, no leftovers at all or only the jaws and/or some skin and hair of the moose were left).

2.4. Data Analyses

2.4.1. Kill Rates

We calculated average daily kill rates of moose by wolves (at the pack level) and bears during the study period. We estimated the variation in wolf and bear kill rates over time by calculating the average number of moose killed/day within a 7-day moving window. We then used bootstrapping to derive 95% confidence intervals. Wolves are obligate carnivores and mostly prey on moose in the study area [41], whereas bears are omnivores that use multiple food items, including moose calves in early summer [46]. Thus, we also checked for individual variation in the predation pattern of bears. In the early summer study period, i.e., the peak of the moose calving season, we summed the number of moose calves killed by each bear and calculated the average number of moose calves killed by the different sex and age categories of bears (<4 years old were considered as subadults [17]), to test for sex- and/or age-related differences in kill rates by using nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests. The moose calving season overlaps the bear mating season (see Figure 3 in [17] for a graphical description of the seasonal phenology of bears, wolves, and moose). At that time, female bears with cubs of the year have small home ranges and limited movements to avoid conspecifics [47]. Therefore, we did not visit GPS clusters of females with cubs of the year in this study to prevent their displacement. However, we visited the clusters of one female with yearling cubs in 2015 (it was included as an “adult female” in the tests, i.e., we did not have a specific “female with yearlings” category because it was only one family group).

2.4.2. Scavenging Events

We defined a scavenging event as ≥1 picture of one of the large carnivores per day at a kill. We calculated the average number of scavenging events per day across all active cameras within a 7-day moving window and used bootstrapping to derive 95% confidence intervals.

3. Results

We visited a total of 1051 clusters of GPS locations of bears (530 clusters in 2014 and 521 in 2015) and 891 clusters of wolf GPS locations (97 in 2010, 169 in 2011, 179 in 2012, 76 in 2013, 218 in two territories in 2014, and 152 in 2015).

3.1. Direct Interactions Derived from GPS-Data and Field Visits

The only direct interaction (i.e., recorded GPS locations of both wolf and bear meeting simultaneously at the same place) that we could confirm occurred in 2012 at a yearling moose carcass killed by wolves in late March. The male wolf of the pair approached the carcass (25 days later) and stayed nearby for a day, but did not access it, likely due to the presence of a 9-year old male bear that was feeding at the carcass. There was likely another direct interaction in late June 2014, but the incomplete success of wolf GPS locations that day prevented confirmation. In the latter case, both bear and wolf locations overlapped on the remains of a neonate moose, which had presumably been killed by the bear, based on sign (a bear daybed and hair) found at the spot. Therefore, direct interactions with bears and wolves meeting simultaneously at the same place seem to be very rare in our study area.

3.2. Temporal Patterns in Bear and Wolf Kill Rates

In total, we found 85 moose neonate calves killed by 14 different bears during a total of 19 different bear-years (for 1 bear, we did not find any killed moose) (Table 1 and Table A1), and 95 moose killed by wolves, including 35 neonate calves, 48 juvenile moose (<12 months old), 10 ≥ 1-year old, and 2 moose for which it could not be determined if they were yearlings or older individuals, in 7 different wolf territory-years, some of them with two predation studies (spring and summer) per year (Table 2). During the annual study periods between late February and early July, wolf pack kill rate averaged ~0.21 moose killed per day, yet it showed much variation and peaked at 0.65 moose killed per day in late May (Figure 1). Bears, with a shorter predation season, started to kill neonate moose calves around mid-May and stopped around the end of June, i.e., bear predation was limited to the moose calving season. Bear kill rates also peaked in late May, reaching a maximum of 0.4 moose killed per day and an average of 0.08 moose killed per day during the predatory period (Figure 1).
On average, a bear killed 4.25 moose calves per season (sd = 3), but there was large individual variation. Whereas some bears killed up to 10 calves during an early-summer period, one did not kill any (Table 1). On average, an adult female bear killed 5.5 calves (sd = 3.46, n = 8), a subadult female killed 1.25 calves (sd = 1.9, n = 4), an adult male killed 4.71 calves (sd = 2.81, n = 7), and one subadult male killed three calves during the early-summer period overlapping the moose calving season. Adult bears killed significantly more moose calves than subadults (Mann-Whitney U = 63.5, p = 0.02), with no significant differences in kills rates between male and female bears (Mann-Whitney U = 43.5, p = 0.75) or when combining sex and age classes (Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared = 5.74, p = 0.12; Figure 2). The bear predatory period in early summer, i.e., the time span between the first and last kill of neonate calves by bears in a given year, showed much individual variation; e.g., the average predatory period for bears that killed at least two calves in a season was 25 days (sd = 11, range 6–41; Table 1).
Bear predation focused exclusively on moose neonate calves, and wolves also preyed mostly upon neonate moose in the early-summer period. From mid-May onwards, 81% of the wolf kills were neonate calves and 16% were juvenile (~12 month old) moose, whereas earlier in the year, from late February until the moose calving period started in May, 81% of the wolf kills were juvenile moose <12 months and the rest, older individuals. Therefore, the moose calving period was the time when bears and wolves shared the same resource, with both species relying on neonate moose calves as main prey.

3.3. Scavenging Events

We placed cameras at 62 different kill sites in 2014–2015 (40 at wolf-killed carcasses, most of them yearling and adult moose, and 22 at bear-killed carcasses of neonate moose). Bears were seen on 58% of all cameras, which resulted in 3572 pictures and 122 different events. Wolves were detected on 27% of all cameras, which resulted in 366 pictures of wolves in 31 different events. Bear pictures (of both collared and uncollared bears) were taken at 50% (in 2014) and 60% (in 2015) of the wolf kills, but no wolf picture was taken at bear kills. Occurrence of bears at a carcass varied over time, with a lower average number of bear visits from mid-May to early June, the period when bear kill rates were highest (Figure 1). Adult and subadult bears visited wolf kills, as confirmed by photos of our collared bears, but we did not record any visit of a female bear with cubs of the year at wolf kills, and only two wolf kills were visited by uncollared bear females with 2-year-old cubs. Bears were photo-trapped at kill sites throughout the 24 h, with a peak in the number of bear pictures taken during the evening, whereas wolves were most often photographed at kills during late evening and, especially, at nighttime (Figure A1).

4. Discussion

Our study shows that indirect, nonsimultaneous interactions between wolves and bears at wolf kill sites are the norm, with direct interactions being rare. Bears used wolf kills very often, whereas wolves did not visit, potentially with one exception, bear kills. All neonate moose calves that bears killed were completely consumed shortly after the kill. However, two thirds of the moose killed by wolves (60 of 95) were ≥9–10 months old; thus, the large carcasses provided feeding opportunities to scavengers. Some individual bears were efficient predators, but preyed exclusively on neonate moose, as described earlier in our study system [26,48] and elsewhere [15]. Bears are also efficient scavengers of other predators’ kills [49], as confirmed in our study, with ≥50% of the wolf kills visited and thus presumably scavenged by brown bears each study year.
The start of the moose calving period, around mid-May, triggered a clear change in the behavior of some individual bears, which became predatory, but not all did. The average number of neonate moose calves killed by bears during the early-summer study period (4.25) seemed lower than estimated in earlier studies in the same area (6.8 calves for bears ≥4 year old in Swenson et al. 2007 [48], and 7.6 calves for 3–13 year old female bears in Rauset et al. 2012 [26]). However, moose densities have declined there (and elsewhere in Sweden) from the 1990s, possibly resulting in a functional response by bears, and in any case preventing direct comparisons [26]. Furthermore, the number of wolf territories in the study area increased substantially after the earlier studies on bear predation were carried out [16], likely causing further changes in the moose population and increasing the number of wolf-killed prey to be eventually scavenged by bears. Most importantly, earlier studies on bears also reported large individual variation in per capita kill rates, 2 to 15 calves per season, which was attributed to a large individual variation in hunting skills and maybe effort [26]. In our study, several single female and male adult bears were the most predatory, preying upon calves in a period up to 4–5 weeks, whereas younger bears killed fewer or even no calves (Table 1). Thus, it seems that some bears actively searched for moose neonates during the calving season, whereas others killed fewer or none moose calves, denoting a more opportunistic predatory behavior and/or different levels of hunting experience and ability. Individual- and age-class differences may reduce intraspecific competition among bears and, most important in the context of this study, may promote interspecific coexistence between wolves and bears [17]. Individual foraging specialization, i.e., different predatory levels among individual bears and bear age classes, could be one of the mechanisms involved reducing competition with the (obligate carnivorous) wolves.
Besides the fact that direct wolf–bear interactions were very rare, no wolves were photographed at bear kills, no females bears with cubs of the year were photographed at wolf kills, and only two females with 2-year-old cubs were photographed at two wolf kills. However, visits of single bears (adults and subadults) at wolf kills were common. Photo-trapped bears at kills were typically smelling and/or biting and moving the carcasses, either standing or lying on top of them, thus reflecting that they were scavenging on them. Wolf absence at bear kills (neonate moose) is likely explained by the fact that little or no biomass is left by the bear. We could not quantify the relative frequency of bear use of wolf kills by bear age and sex class, because assigning bear sex and age class to uncollared bears, which often visited kills based on photos taken by camera traps, is not reliable. However, an interesting result was that females with cubs of the year did not use wolf kills, despite a minimum of 19 collared females with offspring partially overlapped the wolf territories included in our study in 2014 and 2015 (Scandinavian Brown Bear Research Project monitoring data). Bear females with cubs avoid conspecifics spatially and temporally [47,50] and both bears and wolves can kill the offspring of each other [12]. Single bears were photographed at kills throughout the day (Figure A1), likely explaining why we did not record any visit of females with cubs at wolf-killed carcasses. Altogether, different levels of trophic specialization and fine-scale spatial avoidance, with virtually no bear-wolf direct interactions and no use of wolf kills by the most vulnerable bear classes, are mechanisms reducing predation risk and favoring coexistence between sympatric large carnivores.
Fine-scale spatial segregation among large carnivores can be achieved via fine-scale movement patterns, with neighboring individuals avoiding each other when they use shared resources at kill sites [51]. In turn, fine-scale spatial segregation may be a mechanism reflecting on individual habitat selection at larger scales. We have earlier shown that bear density has had a negative effect on the probability of wolf territory establishment during the wolf recolonization of central Scandinavia [16,18] and that overlapping wolves and bears use different habitat types to a larger extent than expected [17]. Wolves seem to avoid bears at different spatial scales, yet wolf habitat selection within home ranges is not different in areas sympatric and allopatric with bears [19]. The results of our present study show that bears, except females with offspring, take advantage of wolf predation; i.e., indirect interactions at wolf kills sites where bears feed, are hotspots mediating coexistence between these species.
We visited carcasses typically 3 days after a prey was killed to avoid disturbance; human scent may influence the frequency and timing of subsequent visits by the predators, and individual bears and wolves may display different levels of reaction to such disturbance. Most often, >80–90% of the wolf kills (and ~100% of the bear kills) had been already consumed at our first visit. If the wolves returned to a previous kill to resume feeding and it had been partially depleted by bears and/or other scavengers, kleptoparasitism is the ongoing process. If, however, bears and other scavengers use already-abandoned wolf kills, facilitation would be the dominant mechanism. We recorded 31 visits of wolves at ~ one third (27%) of their kills, i.e., wolves returned to their kills presumably to resume feeding. The level of consumption of wolf kills, as visually determined at our first visit, is a rough proxy of available biomass at the carcass and it is very similar in bear and non-bear areas (authors’ unpublished data). Thus, bear consumption of wolf kills may not necessarily impact wolves in terms of food loss, because wolf kill rates are not higher in bear areas than in non-bear areas [20]. Both kleptoparasitism by bears, which are able to remove substantial amounts of the carcass, and facilitation seem to occur in our system, and these mechanisms likely occur elsewhere, over the vast range where these species overlap.
Direct interactions between wolves and bears might occur at sites other than carcasses, such as breeding dens, where consequences could be most dramatic, e.g., in terms of offspring survival. Nevertheless, all clusters of GPS-locations we have identified and visited in the field (n = 1942 clusters), were either daily resting sites (daybeds) and places with no observable sign (90% of the clusters) or sites with predated moose (10%). Even though our predation studies in spring overlapped the breeding season of wolves (and the monitored wolf packs reproduced during the study period) and the season when female bears are coming out of winter dens with their newly born cubs, we did not record any wolf or bear predatory attempt on offspring of the other species. These results reinforce that the vast majority of interactions between wolves and bears occur at kill sites [12], and help discuss mechanisms regulating coexistence of these apex predators.
In Scandinavia, as in other boreal ecosystems, bears rely mainly on berries during summer and autumn, before winter denning [46], and they are also efficient scavengers [49]. Our study documents that during early summer, bears reduce scavenging and actively start to prey on the very same resource that wolves exploit. This defines a seasonal gradient of interspecific competition that peaks in early summer, when wolves also switched from predation on juvenile moose (~80% of wolf kills in late winter) to neonate moose (~80% of wolf kills in early summer). These seasonal prey age preferences by Scandinavian wolves reinforce previous findings [45], and our study documents the importance of both individual variation (in bear predation) and seasonality (in bear diet, predation and scavenging patterns, and in wolf predation on varying prey age classes) for understanding interspecific interactions [33,34].
The role of individual variation, sometimes referred to as personality, at the population level is increasingly recognized in ecology [31,52,53]. Some bears use specific food items, e.g., of anthropogenic origin, that other bears do not use and that reflects on individual differences in movements patterns and habitat selection [54]. The variation in bear predatory behavior at individual and age-class levels documented in our study builds upon this topic. The predatory behavior of a bear may depend on social learning during the ≥1.5 year spent with its mother, as suggested for sea otters (Enhydra lutris). Consistent individual variation in sea otters’ diet could be related to the matrilineal transmission of foraging preferences and/or skills [55]. Matrilines have been documented in Scandinavian brown bears [56], which makes this species suitable for further studies on the topic of individual variation, cultural transmission across generations, and the implications it can have in different grounds. For instance, removal of bears and other large carnivores is a management tool to reduce depredation on livestock, in Scandinavia [15] and elsewhere [4], thus the individual identification and eventual removal of most predatory individuals, rather than indiscriminate removals, could increase management efficiency. Individual variation in large carnivore behavior is indeed gaining recognition in conservation-oriented research [57]. We suggest that individual variation is also important to understand the outcome of interspecific interactions at higher levels of biological organization, i.e., at the population level of involved species.
Interspecific interactions between species of different size (e.g., larger predators controlling mesopredators and prey numbers [4,58]) and interactions in carnivore assemblages that have been coexisting for a long time, such of those in some African ecosystems (e.g., [59,60]), are better documented than interspecific interactions between top predators, especially in recolonizing scenarios in the northern hemisphere. The recent recovery of some large carnivore populations in North America and Europe allow for overlapping distribution of competing species, and for studies on interspecific interactions and their effects on predation and scavenging patterns [20,61]. Long-term monitoring of bears and wolves combined with intensive fieldwork help understand the mechanisms involved in the coexistence of these apex predators. Therefore, we suggest that this approach can shed light to similar processes elsewhere, in ecosystems holding the same and/or alternative species assemblages.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M. and A.O.; Methodology, C.M., A.O., and A.U.; Formal Analysis, C.M., A.O., and A.U.; Investigation and Data Curation, A.O. and C.M.; Resources, B.Z., P.W., C.W., H.S., J.E.S., and J.K.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, A.O. and C.M.; Writing—Review & Editing, all authors; Visualization, C.M. and A.O.; Supervision and Project Administration, B.Z., P.W., C.W., H.S., J.E.S., and J.K.; Funding Acquisition, A.U., B.Z, P.W., C.W., H.S., J.E.S., and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the submission of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Scandinavian wolf and bear research projects (SKANDULV and SBBRP, respectively) have been funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Norwegian Research Council, Swedish Research Council Formas, Austrian Science Fund, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Office of Environmental Affairs in Hedmark County, Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management, WWF (Sweden), Swedish Carnivore Association, Olle and Signhild Engkvists Foundations, Carl Tryggers Foundation, and Marie-Claire Cronstedts Foundation. A.O. and C.M. received QR funding from Nottingham Trent University.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to everyone monitoring wolves and bears in Scandinavia, including the teams that captured and handled the animals. E.R. Dahl, F. Holen, K. Nordli, J. Romairone, M. Rostad, D. Roviani, and A. Tallian helped us in the field in 2014–2015. GPS data was collected into the Wireless Remote Animal Monitoring database system for data validation and management [62]. We acknowledge the editor and reviewers for constructive comments during the review process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Brown bears for which GPS-clusters were visited. Start date and end date columns denote the time during which clusters were checked, i.e., when bears were inside the study area overlapping wolf territories. The study period overlapped the bear mating season, so some males occasionally left the study area and returned. We visited their clusters when they were inside the study area.
Table A1. Brown bears for which GPS-clusters were visited. Start date and end date columns denote the time during which clusters were checked, i.e., when bears were inside the study area overlapping wolf territories. The study period overlapped the bear mating season, so some males occasionally left the study area and returned. We visited their clusters when they were inside the study area.
Bear and Year of StudyStart DateEnd Date
Lafmamack 20145/14/20145/14/2014
Lafmamack 20145/22/20145/27/2014
Lafmamack 20146/3/20146/9/2014
Lafmamack 20146/12/20146/27/2014
Galju 20144/28/20147/1/2014
Klummy 20144/30/20145/9/2014
Klummy 20145/21/20145/26/2014
Klummy 20146/12/20146/19/2014
Klummy 20146/23/20146/27/2014
Klumpa 20144/30/20145/9/2014
Klumpa 20145/21/20146/27/2014
Risslo 20144/22/20146/23/2014
Ruta 20144/29/20146/27/2014
Jarpa 20145/6/20146/23/2014
Kil-kalle 20144/30/20146/27/2014
Spjuta 20145/11/20147/1/2014
Strandas 20145/11/20146/27/2014
Tappele 20145/11/20147/1/2014
Abborrgina 20155/3/20157/1/2015
Gymasa 20155/13/20157/3/2015
Jarpa 20156/12/20157/3/2015
Kil-kalle 20154/27/20155/3/2015
Kil-kalle 20155/13/20155/16/2015
Kil-kalle 20155/27/20155/30/2015
Kil-kalle 20156/6/20156/15/2015
Kil-kalle 20156/24/20157/3/2015
Klummy 20154/27/20157/3/2015
Klumpa 20154/27/20155/25/2015
Klumpa 20156/6/20156/9/2015
Klumpa 20156/21/20156/24/2015
Lutane 20154/27/20155/31/2015
Lutane 20156/6/20157/3/2015
Risslo 20154/27/20155/22/2015
Risslo 20156/9/20156/15/2015
Risslo 20156/21/20157/3/2015
Tappele 20154/27/20156/24/2015
Diversity 12 00356 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Proportion of bear and wolf pictures photo-trapped per time of day at kill sites (mostly, at wolf kill sites) in central Sweden.
Figure A1. Proportion of bear and wolf pictures photo-trapped per time of day at kill sites (mostly, at wolf kill sites) in central Sweden.
Diversity 12 00356 g0a1

References

  1. Terborgh, J.; Estes, J.A. Trophic Cascades; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ripple, W.J.; Smith, D.W.; Estes, J.A.; Beschta, R.L.; Wilmers, C.C.; Ritchie, E.G.; Hebblewhite, M.; Berger, J.; Elmhagen, B.; Letnic, M.; et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 2014, 343, 1241484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Hebblewhite, M.; Hurd, T.E.; White, C.A.; Fryxell, J.M.; Nietvelt, C.G.; McKenzie, J.A.; Bayley, S.E.; Paquet, P.C. Human Activity Mediates a Trophic Cascade Caused By Wolves. Ecology 2005, 86, 2135–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ordiz, A.; Bischof, R.; Swenson, J.E. Saving large carnivores, but losing the apex predator? Biol. Conserv. 2013, 168, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bruskotter, J.T.; Shelby, L.B. Human Dimensions of Large Carnivore Conservation and Management. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2010, 15, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chapron, G.; Kaczensky, P.; Linnell, J.D.C.; von Arx, M.; Huber, H.; Andrén, H. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 2014, 346, 1517–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. May, R.; Van Dijk, J.; Wabakken, P.; Swenson, J.E.; Linnell, J.D.C.; Odden, J.; Pedersen, H.C.; Andersen, R.; Landa, A. Habitat differentiation within the large-carnivore community of Norway’s multiple-use landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 1382–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Wikenros, C.; Liberg, O.; Sand, H.; Andrén, H. Competition between recolonizing wolves and resident lynx in Sweden. Can. J. Zool. 2010, 88, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mattisson, J.; Andrén, H.; Persson, J.; Segerström, P. Influence of intraguild interactions on resource use by wolverines and Eurasian lynx. J. Mammal. 2011, 92, 1321–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Elmhagen, B.; Ludwig, G.; Rushton, S.P.; Helle, P.; Lindén, H. Top predators, mesopredators and their prey: Interference ecosystems along bioclimatic productivity gradients. J. Anim. Ecol. 2010, 79, 785–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gervasi, V.; Nilsen, E.B.; Sand, H.; Panzacchi, M.; Rauset, G.R.; Pedersen, H.C.; Kindberg, J.; Wabakken, P.; Zimmermann, B.; Odden, J.; et al. Predicting the potential demographic impact of predators on their prey: A comparative analysis of two carnivore-ungulate systems in Scandinavia. J. Anim. Ecol. 2012, 81, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ballard, W.; Carbyn, L.N.; Smith, D.W. Wolf interactions with non-prey. In Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation; Mech, L.D., Boitani, L., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003; pp. 259–271. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gunther, K.A.; Smith, D.W. Interactions between wolves and female grizzly bears with cubs in Yellowstone National Park. Ursus 2004, 15, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lewis, T.M.; Lafferty, D.J.R. Brown bears and wolves scavenge humpback whale carcass in Alaska. Ursus 2014, 25, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ordiz, A.; Krofel, M.; Milleret, C.; Seryodkin, I.V.; Tallian, A.; Støen, O.-G.; Sivertsen, T.R.; Kindberg, J.; Wabakken, P.; Sand, H.; et al. Interspecific interactions between brown bears, ungulates, and other large carnivores. In Bears of the World; Penteriani, V., Melletti, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; in press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ordiz, A.; Milleret, C.; Kindberg, J.; Mansson, J.; Wabakken, P.; Swenson, J.E.; Sand, H. Wolves, people, and brown bears influence the expansion of the recolonizing Wolf population in Scandinavia. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Milleret, C.; Ordiz, A.; Chapron, G.; Andreassen, H.P.; Kindberg, J.; Månsson, J.; Tallian, A.; Wabakken, P.; Wikenros, C.; Zimmermann, B.; et al. Habitat segregation between brown bears and gray wolves in a human-dominated landscape. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sanz-Pérez, A.; Ordiz, A.; Sand, H.; Swenson, J.E.; Wabakken, P.; Wikenros, C.; Zimmermann, B.; Akesson, M.; Milleret, C. No place like home? A test of the natal habitat-biased dispersal hypothesis in Scandinavian wolves. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 181379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Ordiz, A.; Uzal, A.; Milleret, C.; Sanz-pérez, A.; Zimmermann, B.; Wikenros, C.; Wabakken, P.; Kindberg, J.; Swenson, J.E.; Sand, H. Wolf habitat selection when sympatric or allopatric with brown bears in Scandinavia. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tallian, A.; Ordiz, A.; Metz, M.C.; Milleret, C.; Wikenros, C.; Smith, D.W.; Stahler, D.R.; Kindberg, J.; Macnulty, D.R.; Wabakken, P.; et al. Competition between apex predators? Brown bears decrease wolf kill rate on two continents. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 284, 20162368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boertje, R.D.; Keech, M.A.; Paragi, T.F. Science and Values Influencing Predator Control for Alaska Moose Management. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 74, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jonzén, N.; Sand, H.; Wabakken, P.; Swenson, J.E.; Kindberg, J.; Liberg, O.; Chapron, G. Sharing the bounty—Adjusting harvest to predator return in the Scandinavian human–wolf–bear–moose system. Ecol. Model. 2013, 265, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rauset, G.R.; Mattisson, J.; Andrén, H.; Chapron, G.; Persson, J. When species’ ranges meet: Assessing differences in habitat selection between sympatric large carnivores. Oecologia 2013, 172, 701–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mattisson, J.; Sand, H.; Wabakken, P.; Gervasi, V.; Liberg, O.; Linnell, J.D.C.; Rauset, G.R.; Pedersen, H.C. Home range size variation in a recovering wolf population: Evaluating the effect of environmental, demographic, and social factors. Oecologia 2013, 173, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Leclerc, M.; Vander, E.; Zedrosser, A.; Swenson, J.E.; Kindberg, J.; Pelletier, F. Quantifying consistent individual differences in habitat selection. Oecologia 2016, 180, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Rauset, G.R.; Kindberg, J.; Swenson, J.E. Modeling female brown bear kill rates on moose calves using global positioning satellite data. J. Wildl. Manag. 2012, 76, 1597–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Toscano, B.J.; Gownaris, N.J.; Heerhartz, S.M. Personality, foraging behavior and specialization: Integrating behavioral and food web ecology at the individual level. Oecologia 2016, 182, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hertel, A.G.; Swenson, J.E.; Bischof, R. A case for considering individual variation in diel activity patterns. Behav. Ecol. 2017, 28, 1524–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Di Rienzo, N.; Montiglio, P. Four ways in which data-free papers on animal personality fail to be impactful. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Davis, G.H.; Payne, E.; Sih, A. Commentary: Four ways in which data-free papers on animal personality fail to be impactful. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 3, 102–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bolnick, D.I.; Amarasekare, P.; Araújo, M.S.; Bürger, R.; Levine, J.M.; Novak, M.; Rudolf, V.H.W.; Schreiber, S.J.; Mark, C. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Valladares, F.; Bastias, C.; Godoy, O.; Granda, E.; Escudero, A. Species coexistence in a changing world. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Basille, M.; Fortin, D.; Dussault, C.; Ouellet, J.P.; Courtois, R. Ecologically based definition of seasons clarifies predator-prey interactions. Ecography 2013, 36, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Araújo, M.B.; Rozenfeld, A. The geographic scaling of biotic interactions. Ecography 2014, 37, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Ordiz, A.; Kindberg, J.; Sæbø, S.; Swenson, J.E.; Støen, O.G. Brown bear circadian behavior reveals human environmental encroachment. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 173, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wabakken, P.; Sand, H.; Liberg, O.; Bjärvall, A. The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978–1998. Can. J. Zool. 2001, 725, 710–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wabakken, P.; Svensson, L.; Maartmann, E.; Nordli, K.; Flagstad, Ø.; Åkesson, M. Bestandsovervåking av ulv vinteren 2019-2020 (In Norwegian); Rovdata and Viltskadecenter; SLU: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  38. Swenson, J.E.; Wabakken, P.; Sandegren, F.; Bjärvall, A.; Franzén, R.; Söderberg, A. The near extinction and recovery of brown bears in Scandinavia in relation to the bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. Wildl. Biol. 1995, 1, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Solberg, K.H.; Bellemain, E.; Drageset, O.M.; Taberlet, P.; Swenson, J.E. An evaluation of field and non-invasive genetic methods to estimate brown bear (Ursus arctos) population size. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 128, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Swenson, J.E.; Schneider, M.; Zedrosser, A.; Söderberg, A.; Franzén, R.; Kindberg, J. Challenges of managing a European brown bear population; lessons from Sweden, 1943–2013. Wildl. Biol. 2017, 1, wlb.00251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sand, H.; Eklund, A.; Zimmermann, B.; Wikenros, C.; Wabakken, P. Prey selection of Scandinavian wolves: Single large or several small? PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Arnemo, J.; Fahlman, Å.; Ahlqvist, P.; Andersen, R.; Andrén, H.; Brunberg, S.; Landa, A.; Liberg, O.; Odden, J.; Persson, J.; et al. Biomedical Protocols for Free-Ranging Brown Bears, Gray Wolves, Wolverines and Lynx; Arnemo, J., Fahlman, A., Eds.; Norwegian School of Veterinary Science: Tromsø, Norway, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ordiz, A.; Støen, O.-G.; Swenson, J.E.; Kojola, I.; Bischof, R. Distance-dependent effect of the nearest neighbor: Spatiotemporal patterns in brown bear reproduction. Ecology 2008, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sand, H.; Zimmermann, B.; Wabakken, P.; Andrèn, H.; Pedersen, H.C. Using GPS technology and GIS cluster analyses to estimate kill rates in wolf—ungulate ecosystems. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2005, 33, 914–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sand, H.; Wabakken, P.; Zimmermann, B.; Johansson, Ö.; Pedersen, H.C.; Liberg, O. Summer kill rates and predation pattern in a wolf-moose system: Can we rely on winter estimates? Oecologia 2008, 156, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stenset, N.E.; Lutnæs, P.N.; Bjarnadóttir, V.; Dahle, B.; Fossum, K.H.; Jigsved, P.; Johansen, T.; Neumann, W.; Opseth, O.; Rønning, O.; et al. Seasonal and annual variation in the diet of brown bears Ursus arctos in the boreal forest of southcentral Sweden. Wildl. Biol. 2016, 22, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ordiz, A.; Rodríguez, C.; Naves, J.; Fernández, A.; Huber, D.; Kaczensky, P.; Mertens, A.; Mertzanis, Y.; Mustoni, A.; Palazón, S.; et al. Distance-based criteria to identify minimum number of brown bear females with cubs in Europe. Ursus 2007, 18, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Swenson, J.; Dahle, B.; Busk, H.; Opseth, O.; Johansen, T.; Soderberg, A.; Wallin, K.; Cederlund, G. Predation on Moose Calves by European Brown Bears. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007, 71, 1993–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Krofel, M.; Kos, I.; Jerina, K. The noble cats and the big bad scavengers: Effects of dominant scavengers on solitary predators. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2012, 66, 1297–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Steyaert, S.M.J.G.; Kindberg, J.; Swenson, J.E.; Zedrosser, A. Male reproductive strategy explains spatiotemporal segregation in brown bears. J. Anim. Ecol. 2013, 82, 836–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. López-Bao, J.V.; Mattisson, J.; Persson, J.; Aronsson, M.; Andrén, H. Tracking neighbours promotes the coexistence of large carnivores. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Réale, D.; Reader, S.; Sol, D.; McDougall, P.; Dingemanse, N. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2007, 82, 291–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Bergman, J.N.; Bennett, J.R.; Binley, A.D.; Cooke, S.J.; Fyson, V.; Hlina, B.L.; Reid, C.H.; Vala, M.A.; Madliger, C.L. Scaling from individual physiological measures to population-level demographic change: Case studies and future directions for conservation management. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 238, 108242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cozzi, G.; Chynoweth, M.; Kusak, J.; Coban, E.; Coban, A.; Ozgul, A.; Sekerciouglu, C.H. Anthropogenic food resources foster the coexistence of distinct life history strategies: Year-round sedentary and migratory brown bears. J. Zool. 2016, 300, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Estes, J.; Riedman, M.; Staedler, M.; Tinker, M.; Lyon, B. Individual variation in prey selection by sea otters: Patterns, causes and implications. J. Anim. Ecol. 2003, 72, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Støen, O.-G.; Bellemain, E.; Solve, S.; Swenson, J. Kin-related spatial structure in brown bears Ursus arctos. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 59, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Suraci, J.P.; Nickel, B.A.; Wilmers, C.C. Fine-scale movement decisions by a large carnivore inform conservation planning in human-dominated landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 1635–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Palomares, F.; Caro, T.M. Interspecific Killing among Mammalian Carnivores. Am. Nat. 1999, 153, 492–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Caro, T.M.; Stoner, C.J. The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 110, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Périquet, S.; Fritz, H.; Revilla, E. The lion king and the hyaena queen: Large carnivore interactions and coexistence. Biol. Rev. 2015, 90, 1197–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wilmers, C.; Post, E. Predicting the influence of wolf-provided carrion on scavenger community dynamics under climate change scenarios. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2006, 12, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dettki, H.; Ericsson, G.; Giles, T.; Norrsken-Ericsson, M. Wireless Remote Animal Monitoring (WRAM)—A new international database e-infrastructure for telemetry sensor data from fish and wildlife. In Proceedings Etc 2012: Convention for Telemetry, Test Instrumentation and Telecontrol; European Society of Telemetry; Books on Demand: Manila, Philippines, 2013; pp. 247–256. ISBN 978-3-7322-5646-4. [Google Scholar]
Diversity 12 00356 g001 550
Figure 1. Average brown bear (red dots) and gray wolf (black dots) kill rates and 95% confidence intervals (gray and red shades) in 2014–2015 in central Sweden, calculated with a 7-day moving window (top panel). Daily average bear visits to wolf-killed moose carcasses and 95% confidence intervals in 2014–2015 in central Sweden, calculated with a 7-day moving window (bottom panel). In both panels, the x-axis displays the date.
Figure 1. Average brown bear (red dots) and gray wolf (black dots) kill rates and 95% confidence intervals (gray and red shades) in 2014–2015 in central Sweden, calculated with a 7-day moving window (top panel). Daily average bear visits to wolf-killed moose carcasses and 95% confidence intervals in 2014–2015 in central Sweden, calculated with a 7-day moving window (bottom panel). In both panels, the x-axis displays the date.
Diversity 12 00356 g001
Diversity 12 00356 g002 550
Figure 2. Adult brown bears killed significantly more moose calves in central Sweden than subadult bears, but there were no significant differences in kill rates between male and female bears or when combining sex and age classes, during the early summer period overlapping the moose calving season.
Figure 2. Adult brown bears killed significantly more moose calves in central Sweden than subadult bears, but there were no significant differences in kill rates between male and female bears or when combining sex and age classes, during the early summer period overlapping the moose calving season.
Diversity 12 00356 g002
Table
Table 1. Individual variation in the number of neonate moose calves killed by brown bears in central Sweden in early summer, during the moose calving season, according to bear sex and age categories, including the specific period in which each bear killed moose calves.
Table 1. Individual variation in the number of neonate moose calves killed by brown bears in central Sweden in early summer, during the moose calving season, according to bear sex and age categories, including the specific period in which each bear killed moose calves.
BearYearPredation PeriodPredation Period
(# Days)		# Killed CalvesBear Sex and Age Class
Galju201416.05.201417.06.20143210Single adult female
Ruta201418.05.201418.06.2014315Single adult female
Spjuta201421.05.201412.06.20142210Single adult female
Strandas201403.06.201409.06.201462Single adult female
Klummy201415.06.201415.06.201411Subadult female
201508.05.201518.06.2015414Single adult female
Klumpa201410.06.201425.06.2014154Subadult female
201506.05.201519.05.2015131Single adult female
Jarpa2014__00Subadult female
2015__00Subadult female
Lafmamack201423.05.201424.06.2014323Adult male
Risslo201413.05.201406.06.2014247Adult male
201520.05.201521.06.2015324Adult male
Tappele201422.05.201401.06.20141010Adult male
201511.05.201517.06.2015374Adult male
Kil-kalle201428.05.201409.06.2014123Subadult male
201528.05.201510.06.2015133Adult male
Lutane201518.05.201521.06.2015342Adult male
Abborrgina201523.05.201519.06.2015278Adult female + 2 year-old cubs
Gymasa201518.05.201520.06.2015334Single adult female
Table
Table 2. Wolf territories for which GPS clusters were visited in 2010-2015. Start date and end date columns denote the time during which clusters were checked. Fieldwork in 2014 and 2015 was extended during the moose calving season, thus two fieldwork seasons are differentiated (a and b) for the wolf territories tracked during those years. Number and age class of killed moose per wolf territory and study period is also reported.
Table 2. Wolf territories for which GPS clusters were visited in 2010-2015. Start date and end date columns denote the time during which clusters were checked. Fieldwork in 2014 and 2015 was extended during the moose calving season, thus two fieldwork seasons are differentiated (a and b) for the wolf territories tracked during those years. Number and age class of killed moose per wolf territory and study period is also reported.
Wolf TerritoryYearStart DateEnd DateKilled prey (# per Moose Age Class)
Tenskog20102/13/20104/11/20105 juveniles
20113/14/20115/16/20118 juveniles
Tandsjön20122/20/20125/14/20121 neonate calf, 5 juveniles, 7 adults, 1 unknown (juvenile or adult)
2014a3/19/20144/28/20143 juveniles
2014b5/21/20146/21/201411 neonate calves, 3 juveniles
Kukumäki20132/25/20134/28/20132 juveniles, 2 adults
2014a3/3/20144/27/20143 juveniles
2014b5/19/20146/22/20147 neonate calves, 6 juveniles
2015a3/4/20154/24/201511 juveniles, 1 unknown (juvenile or adult)
2015b5/18/20156/29/201516 neonate calves, 2 juveniles, 1 adult

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ordiz, A.; Milleret, C.; Uzal, A.; Zimmermann, B.; Wabakken, P.; Wikenros, C.; Sand, H.; Swenson, J.E.; Kindberg, J. Individual Variation in Predatory Behavior, Scavenging and Seasonal Prey Availability as Potential Drivers of Coexistence between Wolves and Bears. Diversity 2020, 12, 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12090356

AMA Style

Ordiz A, Milleret C, Uzal A, Zimmermann B, Wabakken P, Wikenros C, Sand H, Swenson JE, Kindberg J. Individual Variation in Predatory Behavior, Scavenging and Seasonal Prey Availability as Potential Drivers of Coexistence between Wolves and Bears. Diversity. 2020; 12(9):356. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12090356

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ordiz, Andrés, Cyril Milleret, Antonio Uzal, Barbara Zimmermann, Petter Wabakken, Camilla Wikenros, Håkan Sand, Jon E Swenson, and Jonas Kindberg. 2020. "Individual Variation in Predatory Behavior, Scavenging and Seasonal Prey Availability as Potential Drivers of Coexistence between Wolves and Bears" Diversity 12, no. 9: 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12090356

APA Style

Ordiz, A., Milleret, C., Uzal, A., Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P., Wikenros, C., Sand, H., Swenson, J. E., & Kindberg, J. (2020). Individual Variation in Predatory Behavior, Scavenging and Seasonal Prey Availability as Potential Drivers of Coexistence between Wolves and Bears. Diversity, 12(9), 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12090356

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop