Abstract
Humans are important agents of wildlife mortality, and understanding such mortality is paramount for effective population management and conservation. However, the spatial mechanisms behind wildlife mortality are often assumed rather than tested, which can result in unsubstantiated caveats in ecological research (e.g. fear ecology assumptions) and wildlife conservation and/or management (e.g. ignoring ecological traps). We investigated spatial patterns in human‐caused mortality based on 30 years of brown bear Ursus arctos mortality data from a Swedish population. We contrasted mortality data with random locations and global positioning system relocations of live bears, as well as between sex, age and management classes (‘problem’ versus ‘no problem’ bear, before and after changing hunting regulations), and we used resource selection functions to identify potential ecological sinks (i.e. avoided habitat with high mortality risk) and traps (i.e. selected habitat with high mortality risk). We found that human‐caused mortality and mortality risk were positively associated with human presence and access. Bears removed as a management measure were killed in closer proximity to humans than hunter‐killed bears, and supplementary feeding of bears did not alter the spatial structure of human‐caused bear mortality. We identified areas close to human presence as potential sink habitat and agricultural fields (oat fields in particular) as potential ecological traps in our study area. We emphasize that human‐caused mortality in bears and maybe in wildlife generally can show a very local spatial structure, which may have far‐reaching population effects. We encourage researchers and managers to systematically collect and geo‐reference wildlife mortality data, in order to verify general ecological assumptions and to inform wildlife managers about critical habitat types. The latter is especially important for vulnerable or threatened populations.
Highlights
Understanding mortality is paramount for effective management and conservation of wildlife populations (Primack 2002)
Our results suggested that agricultural fields may act as an ecological trap for bears in our study area, because bears selected for these fields, despite their disproportionately large mortality risk (8.4% of the bears were killed in agricultural fields covering 0.5% of the study area, whereas only 1% of all bear GPS relocations were registered within that land cover type)
We identified areas nearby human presence and access as potential sink habitats, i.e. areas which were low in habitat quality and which were generally avoided by bears
Summary
Understanding mortality is paramount for effective management and conservation of wildlife populations (Primack 2002). Knowledge about spatial patterns of wildlife mortality is important for management and conservation, for example to identify secure habitat, sink habitats (i.e. avoided habitat, in which mortality rates exceed birth rates), and ecological traps (i.e. habitat low in quality for survival and reproduction that is selected for) (Pulliam 1988, Donovan and Thompson 2001), or age- and sex-related spatial bias and selectivity in humancaused mortality (Elfström et al 2014b). Such knowledge is important within a broader ecological context. We predict (H1d) that areas close to human presence act as potential sink habitat (i.e. avoided habitat with high mortality risk)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
