Grizzly bear response to translocation into a novel environment
Gordon B. Stenhouse
A * , Terrence A. Larsen A , Cameron J. R. McClelland A , Abbey E. Wilson B , Karen Graham A , Dan Wismer A , Paul Frame C and Isobel Phoebus A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Grizzly Bear Program, fRI Research, 1176 Switzer Drive, Hinton, AB T7V 1V3, Canada.
B Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 52 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4, Canada.
C Alberta Environment and Parks, 9920 108 Street NW, Edmonton, AB T5K 2M4, Canada.
Wildlife Research 49(6) 540-556 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR21060
Submitted: 31 March 2021 Accepted: 14 January 2022 Published: 30 March 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY)
Abstract
Context: To mitigate conservation conflicts, some jurisdictions translocate large carnivores into novel environments where they have no previous experience. Behavioural responses of these individuals are not typically monitored to evaluate the impacts of this management approach on the animals or populations.
Aims: We examined how grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) involved in conservation conflict responded to novel environments after translocation.
Methods: We used GPS location data to compare grizzly bears translocated to a novel environment (n = 12) with bears resident within the new area (n = 12). Our analyses investigated differences between these groups in relation to exploration behaviour, habitat use and response to human-caused mortality risk.
Key results: Translocated bears had higher movement rates, greater daily displacement and revisited areas less frequently than did resident bears. They spent more time in poor-quality habitat and the habitat used was of even lower quality in the second year after translocation. Translocated bears selected for agricultural lands and active oil and gas wellsites. They also spent more time in areas with higher potential mortality risk than resident bears. However, translocated bears avoided residential areas, which resident bears selected, and crossed roads at the same rate as did resident bears. Both groups avoided campgrounds and recreation sites. Only 25% of bears engaged in further conflict behaviour after translocation and 67% of translocated bears survived over the 2-year monitoring period.
Conclusions: This work found differences in exploration behaviour and habitat use between translocated and resident bears, and showed that translocated bears can survive without reoffending during the critical few years following translocation.
Implications: Managers and the public should recognise potential impacts for translocating grizzly bears. Translocated bears require time to explore and learn within their new environment, a process that can occur without repeating conflict. When conflict behaviour does re-occur, it should be viewed as a part of animal learning and not immediately as failure. On the basis of the amount of time translocated bears spent near humans and anthropogenic features, our findings suggest that translocated bears do not pose a greater threat to humans than do resident bears.
Keywords: habitat use, human dimensions, outcome assessment, population management, radio telemetry, survival, threatened species, wildlife management.
References
Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) (2018) ABMI Human Footprint Inventory: Wall-to-Wall Human Footprint Inventory. (AMBI: Edmonton, AB, Canada) Available at https://abmi.ca/home.htmlAchuff PL (1994) ‘Natural Regions, Subregions and Natural History Themes of Alberta: a Classification for Protected Areas Management-Updated and Revised.’ (Alberta Environment Protection, Parks Services)
Armstrong D, Hayward M, Moro D, Seddon P (2015) ‘Advances in Reintroduction Biology of Australian and New Zealand Fauna.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic., Australia)
Bauder, JM, Roberts, NM, Ruid, D, Kohn, B, and Allen, ML (2020). Black bear translocations in response to nuisance behaviour indicate increased effectiveness by translocation distance and landscape context. Wildlife Research 47, 426.
| Black bear translocations in response to nuisance behaviour indicate increased effectiveness by translocation distance and landscape context.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Berger-Tal, O, and Saltz, D (2014). Using the movement patterns of reintroduced animals to improve reintroduction success. Current Zoology 60, 515–526.
| Using the movement patterns of reintroduced animals to improve reintroduction success.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Berman, EE, Coops, NC, Kearney, SP, and Stenhouse, GB (2019). Grizzly bear response to fine spatial and temporal scale spring snow cover in Western Alberta. PLoS One 14, 1–15.
| Grizzly bear response to fine spatial and temporal scale spring snow cover in Western Alberta.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blanchard, BM, and Knight, RR (1995). Biological consequences of relocating grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 560–565.
Boulanger, J, and Stenhouse, GB (2014). The impact of roads on the demography of grizzly bears in Alberta. PLoS One 9, e115535.
| The impact of roads on the demography of grizzly bears in Alberta.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25532035PubMed |
Boulanger, J, Nielsen, SE, and Stenhouse, GB (2018). Using spatial mark-recapture for conservation monitoring of grizzly bear populations in Alberta. Scientific Reports 8, 1–15.
| Using spatial mark-recapture for conservation monitoring of grizzly bear populations in Alberta.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bourbonnais, ML, Nelson, TA, Cattet, MRL, Darimont, CT, Stenhouse, GB, and Janz, DM (2014). Environmental factors and habitat use influence body condition of individuals in a species at risk, the grizzly bear. Conservation Physiology 2, 1–14.
| Environmental factors and habitat use influence body condition of individuals in a species at risk, the grizzly bear.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boyce, MS, Vernier, PR, Nielsen, SE, and Schmiegelow, FKA (2002). Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling 157, 281–300.
| Evaluating resource selection functions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bracis, C, Bildstein, KL, and Mueller, T (2018). Revisitation analysis uncovers spatio-temporal patterns in animal movement data. Ecography 41, 1801–1811.
| Revisitation analysis uncovers spatio-temporal patterns in animal movement data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brannon, RD (1987). Nuisance grizzly bears, Ursus arctos, translocations in the greater Yellowstone area. Tha Canadian Feild-Naturalist 101, 569–575.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) ‘Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.’ 2nd edn. (Spring-Verlag: New York, NY, USA)
Burns, CE (2005). Behavioral ecology of disturbed landscapes: the response of territorial animals to relocation. Behavioral Ecology 16, 898–905.
| Behavioral ecology of disturbed landscapes: the response of territorial animals to relocation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Calenge, C (2006). The package ‘adehabitat’ for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecological Modelling 197, 516–519.
| The package ‘adehabitat’ for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carnahan, AM, Manen, FT, van Haroldson, MA, Stenhouse, GB, and Robbins, CT (2021). Quantifying energetic costs and defining energy landscapes experienced by grizzly bears. Journal of Experimental Biology , .
| Quantifying energetic costs and defining energy landscapes experienced by grizzly bears.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cattet, MR, Christison, K, Caulkett, NA, and Stenhouse, GB (2003). Physiologic responses of grizzly bears to different methods of capture. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39, 649–654.
| Physiologic responses of grizzly bears to different methods of capture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14567227PubMed |
Cattet, M, Boulanger, J, Stenhouse, G, Powell, RA, and Reynolds-Hogland, MJ (2008). An Evaluation of Long-Term Capture Effects in Ursids: Implications for Wildlife Welfare and Research. Journal of Mammalogy 89, 973–990.
| An Evaluation of Long-Term Capture Effects in Ursids: Implications for Wildlife Welfare and Research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Champagnon, J, Elmberg, J, Guillemain, M, Gauthier-Clerc, M, and Lebreton, J-D (2012). Conspecifics can be aliens too: a review of effects of restocking practices in vertebrates. Journal for Nature Conservation 20, 231–241.
| Conspecifics can be aliens too: a review of effects of restocking practices in vertebrates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clark, J, Huber, D, and Servheen, C (2002). Bear Reintroductions: Lessons and Challenges. Ursus 13, 335–345.
| Bear Reintroductions: Lessons and Challenges.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coogan, SC, Nielsen, SE, and Stenhouse, GB (2012). Spatial and temporal heterogeneity creates a ‘brown tide’ in root phenology and nutrition. International Scholarly Research Network 2012, 1–10.
Dice, LR (1931). The Relation of Mammalian Distribution to Vegetation Types. The Scientific Monthly 33, 312–317.
Dubois, S, Fenwick, N, Ryan, EA, Baker, L, Baker, SE, Beausoleil, NJ, Carter, S, Cartwright, B, Costa, F, Draper, C, Griffin, J, Grogan, A, Howald, G, Jones, B, Littin, KE, Lombard, AT, Mellor, DJ, Ramp, D, Schuppli, CA, and Fraser, D (2017). International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology 31, 753–760.
| International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28092422PubMed |
Festa-Bianchet M (2010) ‘Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta: Update 2010.’ (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development: Edmonton, AB, Canada)
Fischer, J, and Lindenmayer, DB (2000). An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biological Conservation 96, 1–11.
| An assessment of the published results of animal relocations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gaynor, KM, Hojnowski, CE, Carter, NH, and Brashares, JS (2018). The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360, 1232–1235.
| The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29903973PubMed |
Frair, Jl, Merrill, EH, Allen, JR, and Boyce, MS (2007). Know Thy Enemy: Experience Affects Elk Translocation Success in Risky Landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 541–554.
| Know Thy Enemy: Experience Affects Elk Translocation Success in Risky Landscapes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Graham, K, and Stenhouse, GB (2014). Home range, movements, and denning chronology of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in west-central Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 128, 223–234.
| Home range, movements, and denning chronology of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in west-central Alberta.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gusset, M, Swarner, MJ, Mponwane, L, Keletile, K, and McNutt, JW (2009). Human–wildlife conflict in northern Botswana: Livestock predation by endangered African wild dog lycaon pictus and other carnivores. Oryx 43, 67–72.
| Human–wildlife conflict in northern Botswana: Livestock predation by endangered African wild dog lycaon pictus and other carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hayward, MW, Adendorff, J, Moolman, L, Hayward, GJ, and Kerley, GIH (2006). The successful reintroduction of leopard Panthera pardus to the Addo Elephant National Park. African Journal of Ecology 45, 103–104.
| The successful reintroduction of leopard Panthera pardus to the Addo Elephant National Park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hertel, AG, Zedrosser, A, Mysterud, A, Støen, O-G, Steyaert, SMJG, and Swenson, JE (2016). Temporal effects of hunting on foraging behavior of an apex predator: Do bears forego foraging when risk is high? Oecologia 182, 1019–1029.
| Temporal effects of hunting on foraging behavior of an apex predator: Do bears forego foraging when risk is high?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27696003PubMed |
Hertel, AG, Leclerc, M, Warren, D, Pelletier, F, Zedrosser, A, and Mueller, T (2019). Don’t poke the bear: using tracking data to quantify behavioural syndromes in elusive wildlife. Animal Behaviour 147, 91–104.
| Don’t poke the bear: using tracking data to quantify behavioural syndromes in elusive wildlife.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hoogenboom, I, Daan, S, Dallinga, JH, and Schoenmakers, M (1984). Seasonal change in the daily timing of behaviour of the common vole, Microtus arvalis. Oecologia 61, 18–31.
| Seasonal change in the daily timing of behaviour of the common vole, Microtus arvalis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28311381PubMed |
Kearney, SP, Coops, NC, Stenhouse, GB, Nielsen, SE, Hermosilla, T, White, JC, and Wulder, MA (2019). Grizzly bear selection of recently harvested forests is dependent on forest recovery rate and landscape composition. Forest Ecology and Management 449, 117459.
| Grizzly bear selection of recently harvested forests is dependent on forest recovery rate and landscape composition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Landriault, LJ, Brown, GS, Hamr, J, and Mallory, FF (2009). Age, sex and relocation distance as predictors of return for relocated nuisance black bears Ursus americanus in Ontario, Canada. Wildlife Biology 15, 155–164.
| Age, sex and relocation distance as predictors of return for relocated nuisance black bears Ursus americanus in Ontario, Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Larsen, TA, Nielsen, SE, Cranston, J, and Stenhouse, GB (2019). Do remnant retention patches and forest edges increase grizzly bear food supply? Forest Ecology and Management 433, 741–761.
| Do remnant retention patches and forest edges increase grizzly bear food supply?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Leclerc, M, Vander, E, Zedrosser, A, Swenson, JE, Kindberg, J, and Pelletier, F (2016). Quantifying consistent individual differences in habitat selection. Oecologia 180, 697–705.
| Quantifying consistent individual differences in habitat selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26597548PubMed |
Lewis, JH, Alldredge, MW, Dreher, BP, George, JL, Wait, S, Petch, B, and Runge, JP (2019). Summarizing Colorado’s black bear two‐strike directive 30 years after inception. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43, 599–607.
| Summarizing Colorado’s black bear two‐strike directive 30 years after inception.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Linnell, J, Odden, J, and Smith, M (1999). Large carnivores that kill livestock: do ‘problem individuals’ really exist? Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, 698–705.
Massei, G, Quy, RJ, Gurney, J, and Cowan, DP (2010). Can translocations be used to mitigate human - wildlife conflicts? Wildlife Research 37, 428.
| Can translocations be used to mitigate human - wildlife conflicts?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McClelland, CJR, Coops, NC, Kearney, SP, Burton, AC, Nielsen, SE, and Stenhouse, GB (2020). Variations in grizzly bear habitat selection in relation to the daily and seasonal availability of annual plant-food resources. Ecological Informatics 58, 101116.
| Variations in grizzly bear habitat selection in relation to the daily and seasonal availability of annual plant-food resources.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McLellan, BN, and Shackleton, DM (1989). Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: habitat displacement in response to seismic exploration, timber harvesting and road maintenance. Journal of Applied Ecology 26, 371–380.
| Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: habitat displacement in response to seismic exploration, timber harvesting and road maintenance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miller, B, Ralls, K, Reading, RP, Scott, JM, and Estes, J (1999). Biological and technical considerations of carnivore translocation: a review. Animal Conservation 2, 59–68.
| Biological and technical considerations of carnivore translocation: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Milligan, S, Brown, L, Hobson, D, Frame, P, and Stenhouse, G (2018). Factors affecting the success of grizzly bear translocations. The Journal of Wildlife Management 82, 519–530.
| Factors affecting the success of grizzly bear translocations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Minteer, BA, and Collins, JP (2010). Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of relocating species under climate change. Ecological Applications 20, 1801–1804.
| Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of relocating species under climate change.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21049870PubMed |
Morehouse, AT, and Boyce, MS (2017). Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores. Ecology and Society 22, art4.
| Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morehouse, AT, Graves, TA, Mikle, N, and Boyce, MS (2016). Nature vs. nurture: evidence for social learning of conflict behaviour in grizzly bears. PLoS ONE 11, e0165425.
| Nature vs. nurture: evidence for social learning of conflict behaviour in grizzly bears.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27851753PubMed |
Munro, RHM, Nielsen, SE, Price, MH, Stenhouse, GB, and Boyce, MS (2006). Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central Alberta. Journal of Mammalogy 87, 1112–1121.
| Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central Alberta.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Murray, MH, Fassina, S, Hopkins, JB, Whittington, J, and St Clair, CC (2017). Seasonal and individual variation in the use of rail-associated food attractants by grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in a national park. PloS One 12, e0175658.
| Seasonal and individual variation in the use of rail-associated food attractants by grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in a national park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28542218PubMed |
National Research Council of Canada (2015) Sunrise/sunset calculator with advanced options and sun angles. Available at http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/services/sunrise/advanced.html
Nichols, JD, and Williams, BK (2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21, 668–673.
| Monitoring for conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16919361PubMed |
Nielsen, SE, Boyce, MS, and Stenhouse, GB (2004a). Grizzly bears and forestry I: selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199, 51–65.
Nielsen, SE, Herrero, S, Boyce, MS, Mace, RD, Benn, B, Gibeau, ML, and Jevons, S (2004b). Modelling the spatial distribution of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies ecosystem of Canada. Biological Conservation 120, 101–113.
| Modelling the spatial distribution of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies ecosystem of Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nielsen, SE, Munro, RHM, Bainbridge, EL, Stenhouse, GB, and Boyce, MS (2004c). Grizzly bears and forestry II. Distribution of grizzly bear foods in clearcuts of west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199, 67–82.
| Grizzly bears and forestry II. Distribution of grizzly bear foods in clearcuts of west-central Alberta, Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nielsen, SE, McDermid, G, Stenhouse, GB, and Boyce, MS (2010). Dynamic wildlife habitat models: seasonal foods and mortality risk predict occupancy-abundance and habitat selection in grizzly bears. Biological Conservation 143, 1623–1634.
Nielsen, SE, Shafer, ABA, Boyce, MS, and Stenhouse, GB (2013). Does learning or instinct shape habitat selection? PLoS One 8, 1–5.
Northrup, JM, Pitt, J, Muhly, TB, Stenhouse, GB, Musiani, M, and Boyce, MS (2012). Vehicle traffic shapes grizzly bear behaviour on a multiple-use landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 1159–1167.
Ordiz, A, Kindberg, J, Sæbø, S, Swenson, JE, and Støen, O-G (2014). Brown bear circadian behavior reveals human environmental encroachment. Biological Conservation 173, 1–9.
| Brown bear circadian behavior reveals human environmental encroachment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pinter-Wollman, N, Isbell, LA, and Hart, LA (2009). Assessing translocation outcome: comparing behavioral and physiological aspects of translocated and resident African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Biological Conservation 142, 1116–1124.
| Assessing translocation outcome: comparing behavioral and physiological aspects of translocated and resident African elephants (Loxodonta africana).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Proctor, MF, McLellan, BN, Stenhouse, GB, Mowat, G, Lamb, CT, and Boyce, MS (2020). Effects of roads and motorized human access on grizzly bear populations in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. Ursus 2019, 16.
| Effects of roads and motorized human access on grizzly bear populations in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Réale, D, Reader, SM, Sol, D, McDougall, PT, and Dingemanse, NJ (2007). Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biological Reviews 82, 291–318.
| Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17437562PubMed |
Riley, SJ, Aune, K, Mace, RD, and Madel, MJ (1994). Translocation of Nuisance Grizzly Bears in Northwestern Montana. Bears: Their Biology and Management 9, 567.
| Translocation of Nuisance Grizzly Bears in Northwestern Montana.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ripple, WJ, Estes, JA, Beschta, RL, Wilmers, CC, Ritchie, EG, Hebblewhite, M, Berger, J, Elmhagen, B, Letnic, M, Nelson, MP, Schmitz, OJ, Smith, DW, Wallach, AD, and Wirsing, AJ (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484.
| Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24408439PubMed |
Roever, CL, Boyce, MS, and Stenhouse, GB (2008). Grizzly bears and forestry II: grizzly bear habitat selection and conflicts with road placement. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 1262–1269.
| Grizzly bears and forestry II: grizzly bear habitat selection and conflicts with road placement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schwartz, CC, Harris, RB, and Haroldson, MA (2003). Temporal, spatial, and environmental influences on the demographics of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs 161, 1–68.
Seddon PJ, Strauss WM, Innes J (2012) Animal translocations: what are they and why do we do them? In ‘Reintroduction Biology: Integrating Science and Management’, 1st edn. (Eds JG Ewen, DP Armstrong, KA Parker, PJ Seddon) pp. 1–32. (Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK)
Spencer, RD, Beausoleil, RA, and Martorello, DA (2007). How agencies respond to human–black bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus 18, 217–229.
| How agencies respond to human–black bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stamps, JA, and Swaisgood, RR (2007). Someplace like home: experience, habitat selection and conservation biology. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102, 392–409.
| Someplace like home: experience, habitat selection and conservation biology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stuparyk, B, Horn, CJ, Karabatsos, S, and Torres, JA (2018). A Meta-analysis of Animal Survival Following Translocation: Comparisons Between Conflict and Conservation Efforts. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management 7, 3–17.
Treves, A, and Karanth, KU (2003). Human-Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide. Conservation Biology 17, 1491–1499.
| Human-Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wood SN (2017) ‘Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R.’ 2nd edn. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA)
Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, and Elphick, CS (2010). A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 3–14.
| A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
