Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40611173›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2025

Identifying presence or absence of grizzly and polar bear cubs from the movements of adult females with machine learning.

Erik M Andersen, Justin G Clapp, Milan A Vinks, Todd C Atwood, Daniel D Bjornlie, Cecily M Costello, David D Gustine, Mark A Haroldson, Lori L Roberts, Karyn D Rode and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Erik M AndersenU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK, 99503, USA. erik_andersen@fws.gov.
Justin G ClappWyoming Game and Fish Department, Large Carnivore Section, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY, 82520, USA.
Milan A VinksMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 490 N Meridian Rd, Kalispell, MT, 59901, USA.
Todd C AtwoodAlaska Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, AK, 99508, USA.
Daniel D BjornlieU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK, 99503, USA.
Cecily M CostelloMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 490 N Meridian Rd, Kalispell, MT, 59901, USA.
David D GustineU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK, 99503, USA.
Mark A HaroldsonNorthern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, U.S. Geological Survey, 2327 University Way, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT, 59715, USA.
Lori L RobertsMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 490 N Meridian Rd, Kalispell, MT, 59901, USA.
Karyn D RodeAlaska Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, AK, 99508, USA.
Frank T van ManenNorthern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, U.S. Geological Survey, 2327 University Way, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT, 59715, USA.
Ryan R WilsonU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK, 99503, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation on reproductive success is crucial to understanding population dynamics but can be difficult to obtain, particularly for species that birth while denning. For grizzly (Ursus arctos) and polar bears (U. maritimus), den visits are impractical because of safety and logistical considerations. Reproduction is typically documented through direct observation, which can be difficult, costly, and often occurs long after den departure. Reproduction could be documented remotely, however, from post-denning movement data if discernable differences exist between females with and without cubs.

methodsWe trained support vector machines (SVMs) with eight variables derived from telemetry data of female grizzly (2000-2022) and polar bears (1985-2016) with or without cubs during seven periods with lengths ranging from 5 to 60 days starting at den departure. We assessed SVM classification accuracy by withholding two samples (one cub-present, one cub-absent), training SVMs with the remaining data, predicting classification of the withheld samples, and repeating this process for each sample combination. Additionally, we evaluated how classification accuracy for grizzly bears was influenced by sample size, length of the post-departure period, and frequency of standardized location estimates.

resultsAccuracy of predicting cub presence or absence was 87% for grizzly bears with only 5 days of post-departure data and increased to a maximum of 92% with 20 days of data. For polar bears, accuracy was 86% at 5 days post-departure and increased to a maximum of 93% at 50 days. Classification accuracy for grizzly bears increased from 76 to 90% when sample size increased from 10 to 30 bears while holding period length constant (30 days) but did not increase at larger sample sizes. When sample size was held constant, increasing the length of the post-departure period did not affect classification accuracy markedly.

conclusionPresence or absence of grizzly and polar bear cubs can be identified with high accuracy even when SVM models are trained with limited data. Detecting cub presence or absence remotely could improve estimates of reproductive success and litter survival, enhancing our understanding of factors affecting cub recruitment.

Indexed as

Brown bearClusteringLearning algorithmLitter survivalMovement metricsPolar bearReproductive classReproductive successSupport vector machineUrsid

Identifiers

PMID40611173
PMCPMC12226834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.