Premium
Managing salmon for wildlife: Do fisheries limit salmon consumption by bears in small Alaskan streams?
Author(s) -
Lincoln Alexandra E.,
Hilborn Ray,
Wirsing Aaron J.,
Quinn Thomas P.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
ecological applications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.864
H-Index - 213
eISSN - 1939-5582
pISSN - 1051-0761
DOI - 10.1002/eap.2061
Subject(s) - oncorhynchus , fishery , wildlife , context (archaeology) , per capita , predation , biomass (ecology) , ursus , wildlife management , grizzly bears , abundance (ecology) , resource (disambiguation) , ecosystem , ecology , geography , biology , fish <actinopterygii> , population , computer network , demography , archaeology , sociology , computer science
Ecosystem‐based management requires consideration of overlapping resource use between humans and other consumers. Pacific salmon are an important resource for both fisheries and populations of wildlife around the Pacific rim, including coastal brown bears ( Ursus arctos ); salmon consumption has been positively linked to bear density, body size, and reproductive rate. As a case study within the broader context of human–wildlife competition for food, we used 16–22 yr of empirical data in four different salmon‐bearing systems in southwestern Alaska to explore the relationship between sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ) availability and consumption by bears. We found a negative relationship between the annual biomass of salmon available to bears and the fraction of biomass consumed per fish, and a saturating relationship between salmon availability and the total annual biomass of salmon consumed by bears. Under modeled scenarios, bear consumption of salmon was predicted to increase only with dramatic (on the order of 50–100%) increases in prey availability. Even such large increases in salmon abundance were estimated to produce relatively modest increases in per capita salmon consumption by bears (2.4–4.8 kg·bear −1 ·d −1 , 15–59% of the estimated daily maximum per capita intake), in part because bears did not consume salmon entirely, especially when salmon were most available. Thus, while bears catching salmon in small streams may be limited by salmon harvest in some years, current management of the systems we studied is sufficient for bear populations to reach maximum salmon consumption every 2–4 yr. Consequently, allocating more salmon for brown bear conservation would unlikely result in an ecologically significant response for bears in these systems, though other ecosystem components might benefit. Our results highlight the need for documenting empirical relationships between prey abundance and consumption, particularly in systems with partial consumption, when evaluating the ecological response of managing prey resources for wildlife populations.