English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Stable isotope ratios of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) guard hair collected from bears on the lower Stikine River, British Columbia (BC) were analyzed to: 1) test whether measuring δ 34 S values improved the precision of the salmon ( Oncorhynchus  spp.) diet fraction estimate relative to δ 15 N as is conventionally done, 2) investigate whether measuring δ 34 S values improves the separation of diet contributions of moose ( Alces alces ), marmot ( Marmota caligata ), and mountain goat ( Oreamnos americanus ) and, 3) examine the relationship between collection date and length of hair and stable isotope values. Variation in isotope signatures among hair samples from the same bear and year were not trivial. The addition of δ 34 S values to mixing models used to estimate diet fractions generated small improvement in the precision of salmon and terrestrial prey diet fractions. Although the δ 34 S value for salmon is precise and appears general among species and areas, sulfur ratios were strongly correlated with nitrogen ratios and therefore added little new information to the mixing model regarding the consumption of salmon. Mean δ 34 S values for the three terrestrial herbivores of interest were similar and imprecise, so these data also added little new information to the mixing model. The addition of sulfur data did confirm that at least some bears in this system ate marmots during summer and fall. We show that there are bears with short hair that assimilate >20% salmon in their diet and bears with longer hair that eat no salmon living within a few kilometers of one another in a coastal ecosystem. Grizzly bears are thought to re-grow hair between June and October however our analysis of sectioned hair suggested at least some hairs begin growing in July or August, not June and, that hair of wild bears may grow faster than observed in captive bears. Our hair samples may have been from the year of sampling or the previous year because samples were collected in summer when bears were growing new hair. The salmon diet fraction increased with later hair collection dates, as expected if samples were from the year of sampling because salmon began to arrive in mid-summer. Bears that ate salmon had shorter hair and δ 15 N and δ 34 S values declined with hair length, also suggesting some hair samples were grown the year of sampling. To be sure to capture an entire hair growth period, samples must be collected in late fall. Early spring samples are also likely to be from the previous year but the date when hair begins to grow appears to vary. Choosing the longest hair available should increase the chance the hair was grown during the previous year and, maximize the period for which diet is measured.

The influence of sulfur and hair growth on stable isotope diet estimates for grizzly bears