Harvest can affect the ecology and evolution of wild species. The removal of key individuals, such as matriarchs or dominant males, can disrupt social structure and exacerbate the impact of hunting on population growth. We do not know, however, how and when the spatiotemporal reorganization takes place after removal and if such changes can be the mechanism that explain a decrease in population growth. Detailed behavioral information from individually monitored brown bears, in a population where hunting increases sexually selected infanticide, revealed that adult males increased their use of home ranges of hunter-killed neighbors in the second year after their death. Use of a hunter-killed male’s home range was influenced by the survivor’s as well as the hunter-killed male’s age, population density, and hunting intensity. Our results emphasize that hunting can have long-term indirect effects which can affect population viability.

Humans are important agents of wildlife mortality, and understanding such mortality is paramount for effective population management and conservation. However, the spatial mechanisms behind wildlife mortality are often assumed rather than tested, which can result in unsubstantiated caveats in ecological research (e.g. fear ecology assumptions) and wildlife conservation and/or management (e.g. ignoring ecological traps). We investigated spatial patterns in human‐caused mortality based on 30 years of brown bear Ursus arctos mortality data from a Swedish population. We contrasted mortality data with random locations and global positioning system relocations of live bears, as well as between sex, age and management classes (‘problem’ versus ‘no problem’ bear, before and after changing hunting regulations), and we used resource selection functions to identify potential ecological sinks (i.e. avoided habitat with high mortality risk) and traps (i.e. selected habitat with high mortality risk). We found that human‐caused mortality and mortality risk were positively associated with human presence and access. Bears removed as a management measure were killed in closer proximity to humans than hunter‐killed bears, and supplementary feeding of bears did not alter the spatial structure of human‐caused bear mortality. We identified areas close to human presence as potential sink habitat and agricultural fields (oat fields in particular) as potential ecological traps in our study area. We emphasize that human‐caused mortality in bears and maybe in wildlife generally can show a very local spatial structure, which may have far‐reaching population effects. We encourage researchers and managers to systematically collect and geo‐reference wildlife mortality data, in order to verify general ecological assumptions and to inform wildlife managers about critical habitat types. The latter is especially important for vulnerable or threatened populations.

Harvest by means of hunting is a commonly used tool in large carnivore management. To evaluate the effects of harvest on populations, managers usually focus on numerical or immediate direct demographic effects of harvest mortality on a population's size and growth. However, we suggest that managers should also give consideration to indirect and potential evolutionary effects of hunting (e.g., the consequences of a change in the age, sex, and social structure), and their effects on population growth rate. We define “indirect effects” as hunting-induced changes in a population, including human-induced selection, that result in an additive change to the population growth rate “lambda” beyond that due to the initial offtake from direct mortality. We considered 4 major sources of possible indirect effects from hunting of bears: (1) changes to a population's age and sex structure, (2) changes to a population's social structure, (3) changes in individual behavior, and (4) human-induced selection. We i...

Human encroachment on nature grows constantly, increasing human-wildlife interactions. Flight initiation distance (FID, the distance at which animals flee from an approaching threat) is often used to measure antipredator behaviour and establish buffer zones to reduce human impact on wildlife. In this study, we approached 10 waterbird species on larger lakes and narrower rivers using a motorboat. We investigated whether water body type, season (winter/spring), approach starting distance, species body mass, and group size influenced bird FID. Average bird FID was 145 ± 92 m and differed between species. In general, FID of all species was larger on lakes than rivers and increased with increasing group size and approach starting distance. When analysed separately for the two most common species, common goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula) and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), FID increased with increasing starting distance on rivers, but not lakes, likely because birds on lakes have enough time to evaluate the approaching object and take flight at great distance. Additionally, birds might perform different activities on lakes versus rivers, leading to varying energetic trade-offs between the two habitat types, which may affect the decision when to take flight. Finally, mallards aggregated in larger groups on lakes, which affected FID, likely due to enhanced visibility (i.e., earlier detection of the approaching boat) and detection probability (via increased group size) on lakes. Our results emphasize the importance of accounting for habitat characteristics, such as water body type, when studying waterbird FID, because they can affect the visibility of stimuli, group size and potentially animal behaviour, factors which should be taken into account when planning buffer zones for waterbirds in conservation areas.