Are American black bears in an agricultural landscape being sustained by crops?

• Published in: Journal of mammalogy Vol. 97; no. 1; pp. 54 - 67
• Main Authors: Ditmer, Mark A., Garshelis, David L., Noyce, Karen V., Haveles, Andrew W., Fieberg, John R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US American Society of Mammalogists 20.01.2016; Oxford University Press
• Subjects: Agricultural land; agricultural landscape; Animal behavior; Animal populations; Anthropogenic factors; Bears; Body size; corn; Crop fields; Crops; Diet; Environmental quality; FEATURE ARTICLES; Females; Foraging behavior; foraging strategies; Habitats; Landscape; Minnesota; Natural & organic foods; stable isotope; Stable isotopes; sunflowers; Ursus americanus; United States > US; Minnesota; foraging strategies; corn; Minnesota; agricultural landscape; crops; stable isotope; sunflowers
• ISSN: 0022-2372; 1545-1542
• DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyv153

Human-altered landscapes are thought to reduce habitat quality for many forest-dependent species, but some omnivorous, opportunist species take advantage of human-related food sources, such as garbage and crops. It is unknown, however, whether anthropogenic foods can sustain populations in areas with relatively little natural habitat. We studied (2007–2012) a population of American black bears (Ursus americanus) at the western periphery of their range in Minnesota, in a landscape that was heavily impacted by agriculture (~50%). We estimated the dietary contributions of corn and sunflowers (2–4% of the landscape) versus seasonally available natural foods (spring vegetation, ants, deer, fruit, and nuts) with stable isotope analyses (δ13C and δ15N) of 110 hair samples from 51 bears. We identified associations between diet and sex, age, body size and condition, reproductive status, space use, habitat connectivity, and natural food abundance. At the population level, adult males and adult females without cubs consumed considerable crops in fall (95% credible intervals: males = 19–46% of diet, females = 10–40%), but females with cubs and juvenile bears rarely consumed crops. Individual estimates of crop consumption were positively correlated with the proportion of GPS-collar locations in crop fields. Females, but not males, decreased crop consumption in years with high availability of natural fall foods. Further, the degree of crop consumption was more closely tied to local crop availability and landscape composition in females than in males. Weight and fat were positively correlated with crop use for both sexes, and males’ use of crops also increased with their physical stature, suggesting that crops provided substantial caloric benefits to bears and that social dominance may have influenced foraging decisions. However, a large segment of this bear population (44% of sampled bear–years) made little use of crops, and crops accounted for more than half the fall diet for only 14% of the population. Whereas some bears clearly benefited from consumption of crops, we conclude that a population of bears could be sustained in this largely agricultural region even without crops as a food source.