ArticleScientific reports2019
Using bear rub data and spatial capture-recapture models to estimate trend in a brown bear population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Huckleberry Habitat and Its Influence on Two Small Populations of Grizzly Bears (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Evaluating density-weighted connectivity of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Glacier National Park with spatial capture-recapture models.Movement ecology · 2024Article
- Protection status, human disturbance, snow cover and trapping drive density of a declining wolverine population in the Canadian Rocky Mountains.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Precision and bias of spatial capture-recapture estimates: A multi-site, multi-year Utah black bear case study.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2022Article
- Gaining insight into the assimilated diet of small bear populations by stable isotope analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trends in population abundance can be challenging to quantify during range expansion and contraction, when there is spatial variation in trend, or the conservation area is large. We used genetic detection data from natural bear rubbing sites and spatial capture-recapture (SCR) modeling to estimate local density and population growth rates in a grizzly bear population in northwestern Montana, USA. We visited bear rubs to collect hair in 2004, 2009-2012 (3,579-4,802 rubs) and detected 249-355 individual bears each year. We estimated the finite annual population rate of change 2004-2012 was 1.043 (95% CI = 1.017-1.069). Population density shifted from being concentrated in the north in 2004 to a more even distribution across the ecosystem by 2012. Our genetic detection sampling approach coupled with SCR modeling allowed us to estimate spatially variable growth rates of an expanding grizzly bear population and provided insight into how those patterns developed. The ability of SCR to utilize unstructured data and produce spatially explicit maps that indicate where population change is occurring promises to facilitate the monitoring of difficult-to-study species across large spatial areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.