Combining resource selection functions and home‐range data to identify habitat conservation priorities for brown bears

• Published in: Animal conservation 2018-08, Vol.21 (4), p.352-362
• Main Authors: Pop, M. I., Iosif, R., Miu, I. V., Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal behavior; Animal populations; Bears; Berries; Biodiversity; brown bear; Carnivores; Coniferous forests; Conservation; conservation planning; Conservation status; Data recovery; Feeding; Females; Forests; Fruits; Habitat connectivity; Habitat selection; Habitats; Home range; human‐wildlife coexistence; Landscape; large carnivores; Males; Mathematical analysis; Priorities; Resource conservation; resource selection; Romanian Carpathians; Seasons; Telemetry; Ursus arctos; Winter; Zonation
• ISSN: 1367-9430; 1469-1795
• DOI: 10.1111/acv.12399

Recovery of large carnivores in the European human‐dominated landscapes has sparked a debate regarding the optimal landscape conditions in which carnivores can thrive and coexist with humans. Here, we use brown bears Ursus arctos in the Romanian Carpathians to test and develop a framework for identifying habitat conservation priorities based on a novel integration of resource selection functions, home‐range data and systematic conservation planning. We used a comprehensive GPS telemetry dataset from 18 individuals to (1) calculate sex‐specific seasonal home ranges and (2) characterize population‐level habitat selection. We then used systematic conservation planning software Zonation to identify contiguous areas of high conservation value for males and females using Manly's habitat selection ratios as weights for habitat layers, and home‐range information as a smoothing parameter for habitat connectivity. Home ranges were smallest during winter (median [IQR] for November–February: 28.2 km2 [9.8–42.4]), and largest during the intense‐feeding season (September–November: 127.3 km2 [62.2–288.5]), with males having larger home ranges across all seasons. Females consistently selected for mixed forest habitat during all seasons. Males selected mixed forest during winter; then switched to a rather generalist approach, selecting regenerating forest and mixed and coniferous forests during low‐feeding/reproduction and wild berries seasons. We identified large tracts of forest habitat (~14% of the landscape) that was selected across all seasons as key habitats for brown bear conservation in the Romanian Carpathians. Spatially, high‐value winter habitat was the most dissimilar for both males and females, suggesting that conservation actions should focus on protecting contiguous denning habitat. These key findings can inform the management and conservation of the brown bear population in the Romanian Carpathians by identifying critical intervention areas for maintaining landscape connectivity, enable transboundary management and contribute to maintaining Favourable Conservation Status, an important target of European Union Strategy for Biodiversity. Recovery of large carnivores in the European human‐dominated landscapes has sparked a debate regarding the optimal landscape conditions in which carnivores can thrive and coexist with humans. We developed a framework for identifying habitats for conservation, using brown bears in the Eastern Carpathians as a case study, based