Display options
Share it on

Conserv Physiol. 2014 Oct 03;2(1):cou043. doi: 10.1093/conphys/cou043. eCollection 2014.

Environmental factors and habitat use influence body condition of individuals in a species at risk, the grizzly bear.

Conservation physiology

Mathieu L Bourbonnais, Trisalyn A Nelson, Marc R L Cattet, Chris T Darimont, Gordon B Stenhouse, David M Janz

Affiliations

  1. Spatial Pattern Analysis and Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3R4.
  2. Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5B4.
  3. Applied Conservation Science Laboratory, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3R4.
  4. Foothills Research Institute, Hinton, Alberta, Canada T7V 1X6.
  5. Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5B4.

PMID: 27293664 PMCID: PMC4732474 DOI: 10.1093/conphys/cou043

Abstract

Metrics used to quantify the condition or physiological states of individuals provide proactive mechanisms for understanding population dynamics in the context of environmental factors. Our study examined how anthropogenic disturbance, habitat characteristics and hair cortisol concentrations interpreted as a sex-specific indicator of potential habitat net-energy demand affect the body condition of grizzly bears (nā€…=ā€…163) in a threatened population in Alberta, Canada. We quantified environmental variables by modelling spatial patterns of individual habitat use based on global positioning system telemetry data. After controlling for gender, age and capture effects, we assessed the influence of biological and environmental variables on body condition using linear mixed-effects models in an information theoretical approach. Our strongest model suggested that body condition was improved when patterns of habitat use included greater vegetation productivity, increased influence of forest harvest blocks and oil and gas well sites, and a higher percentage of regenerating and coniferous forest. However, body condition was negatively affected by habitat use in close proximity to roads and in areas where potential energetic demands were high. Poor body condition was also associated with increased selection of parks and protected areas and greater seasonal vegetation productivity. Adult females, females with cubs-of-year, juvenile females and juvenile males were in poorer body condition compared with adult males, suggesting that intra-specific competition and differences in habitat use based on gender and age may influence body condition dynamics. Habitat net-energy demand also tended to be higher in areas used by females which, combined with observed trends in body condition, could affect reproductive success in this threatened population. Our results highlight the importance of considering spatiotemporal variability in environmental factors and habitat use when assessing the body condition of individuals. Long-term and large-scale monitoring of the physiological state of individuals provides a more comprehensive approach to support management and conservation of species at risk.

Keywords: Body condition; disturbance; grizzly bear; habitat; habitat net-energy demand; hair cortisol concentration

References

  1. Horm Behav. 2003 Jan;43(1):2-15 - PubMed
  2. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 May 7;270(1518):963-9 - PubMed
  3. J Neuroendocrinol. 2003 Aug;15(8):711-24 - PubMed
  4. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005 Feb;29(1):3-38 - PubMed
  5. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 May;19(5):249-55 - PubMed
  6. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Jan;21(1):38-46 - PubMed
  7. Ecology. 2006 Oct;87(10):2636-46 - PubMed
  8. Ecology. 2007 Feb;88(2):381-90 - PubMed
  9. Biol Lett. 2007 Dec 22;3(6):620-3 - PubMed
  10. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2008 Jan-Feb;81(1):63-73 - PubMed
  11. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2009 Sep 1;163(1-2):208-13 - PubMed
  12. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2009 Sep 1;163(1-2):70-6 - PubMed
  13. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Nov;24(11):634-42 - PubMed
  14. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Nov 27;364(1534):3429-38 - PubMed
  15. Oecologia. 2011 Aug;166(4):869-87 - PubMed
  16. Integr Comp Biol. 2006 Dec;46(6):1169-90 - PubMed
  17. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53721 - PubMed
  18. J Anim Ecol. 2013 Jul;82(4):836-45 - PubMed
  19. BMC Ecol. 2013 Sep 08;13:31 - PubMed
  20. Conserv Biol. 2014 Feb;28(1):283-7 - PubMed
  21. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 27;8(11):e80537 - PubMed
  22. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 27;8(12):e83768 - PubMed
  23. Conserv Physiol. 2013 Jun 12;1(1):cot012 - PubMed
  24. Conserv Physiol. 2014 May 02;2(1):cou010 - PubMed
  25. Conserv Physiol. 2014 Jul 16;2(1):cou026 - PubMed
  26. Oecologia. 2001 Jun;128(1):62-71 - PubMed

Publication Types