
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

71258
10.1038/s41598-024-71258-w
Article
Land-based foraging by polar bears reveals sexual conflict outside mating season
Prop Jouke jouke.prop@wxs.nl

1
Black Jeffrey M. 2
Aars Jon 3
Oudman Thomas 4
Wolters Eva 4
Moe Børge 5
1 https://ror.org/012p63287 grid.4830.f 0000 0004 0407 1981 Arctic Centre, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
2 https://ror.org/02qt0xs84 grid.257157.3 0000 0001 2288 5055 Department of Wildlife, Cal Poly Humboldt (formerly Humboldt State University), Arcata, CA USA
3 grid.418676.a 0000 0001 2194 7912 FRAM Centre, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway
4 Branta Research, Ezinge, Groningen, The Netherlands
5 https://ror.org/04aha0598 grid.420127.2 0000 0001 2107 519X Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway
31 8 2024
31 8 2024
2024
14 202753 6 2024
26 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
According to sexual selection theory, the sexes are faced with opposing evolutionary goals. Male fitness benefits from access to females, whereas female fitness is constrained by food resources and safety for themselves and their offspring. Particularly in large solitary carnivores, such as polar bears (Ursus maritimus), these divergent goals can potentially lead to conflict between the sexes. Outside the mating season, when polar bears are on the move across vast distances, the consequences of such conflict can become apparent when individuals arrive at the same food source. To investigate interrelationships between the sexes, we observed successive polar bears visiting a bird breeding colony to feed on clutches of eggs. We found that males succeeded females more frequently and more closely than expected by chance. Moreover, when males were closer to conspecifics, they walked faster, spent less time in the colony and ingested less food. In contrast, female foraging performance was not associated with proximity to other bears. Irrespective of proximity, females generally spent short periods in the colony and ingested fewer clutches than males. Our results suggest that in polar bears, there is a trade-off between the benefits of food intake and the opportunities (in males) and risks (in females) posed by encountering conspecifics.

Keywords

Intrasexual selection
Familiarise
Forager
Male competition
Solitary carnivore
Subject terms

Ecology
Evolution
Zoology
INNO-fund (WWF-Netherlands)Willem Barentsz FoundationFram Centre programme Catchment-to-Coastissue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Within the framework of sexual selection theory, males and females are expected to differ in how they resolve the trade-off between approaching and avoiding others, resulting in a wealth of mating systems across the animal kingdom1,2. For example, in solitary carnivores, where females raise offspring alone, the fitness of females may be constrained by day-to-day safety for themselves and accompanying offspring3,4 due to risks of sexual harassment or infanticide from larger males4–6. In contrast, the fitness of males may be constrained by access to receptive females7, which may depend on opportunities to locate potential mates as well as potential competitors well before the breeding period8,9. Such conditions may lead to the emergence of conflict between the sexes10,11 with respect to the proximity that males and females prefer to maintain on the landscape, linked to future reproductive success in males and safety (or survival) in females. Solutions to daily challenges arising from this conflict may include monitoring the proximity of conspecifics and adjusting foraging decisions and movements in order to either get closer, in the case of males, or maintain safe distances, in the case of females12–14.

From an optimal foraging theory perspective15, foraging decisions must balance the benefits of nutritional gains and costs of finding food, including avoiding predators and competitors16,17. In male carnivores, costs may arise due to the incompatibility of foraging and other competing activities that determine fitness18,19, such as finding mates. Choosing to forage will lead to costs associated with spending less time investing in the other activities20, and the severity of these costs may depend on distance to conspecifics. Close proximities imply a larger previous investment of time and energy in getting close as well as a larger potential loss of proximity benefits if contact is not made20. In female carnivores, lengthy sittings with a prey incur increased probability of encountering males that are attracted to the same prey21,22 with mortality risks to the female or associated offspring23. These costs may be reduced by alternating between high-risk foraging habitat and low-risk refuges, where food is digested during resting periods16,24. Thus, we infer from optimal foraging theory that in solitary carnivores, proximity to conspecifics has an impact on foraging activities. Although such relationships may be universal, actual field observations are sparse because observations on foraging behaviour may be lacking25,26 or spatial positions relative to conspecifics may be unknown27. Yet, the interplay between foraging performance28,29 and proximity adjustment is key to appreciating the ecological impacts of such potential conflict30.

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are solitary carnivores in which full-grown males have twice the body mass of females31. Both sexes have finely tuned adaptations for hunting seals on Arctic sea ice32,33, with the most important species for polar bears being ringed seals (Pusa hispida)34. Males as well as females exhibit seasonal site fidelity, although the strength may vary among populations35,36. Polar bears are non-territorial and their mating system falls within the category of “roving males”7. This means that males and females are distributed at low densities, and only consort during the mating season (March–May) when males actively search for females that signal receptiveness to mating through the scent left in their tracks, urine marks, and scat34,37. For example, Laidre et al.38 monitored the travel paths of male and female polar bears marked with satellite transmitters. Using information on the angle between subsequent steps of individual bears and distances between subsequent locations across days and weeks, Laidre et al.38 calculated the paths of females to be more linear and those of males more tortuous during the breeding season. With the aid of simulations, Laidre et al.38 hypothesised that this disparity can be explained if males are assumed to follow females while also avoiding encounters with other males.

The arrival of spring in the Arctic signals the start of the brief breeding season. Given the strong competition among males for access to females39, we propose that male polar bears may prepare for successful breeding not only during this period but also throughout the year by getting closer to females. The selective advantages of periodically “closing the proximity gap” might include opportunities to investigate scent marks, which may communicate information on females’ qualities. Males may also advertise personal qualities to females to smoothen interactions when they meet later during the mating season40. Furthermore, male polar bears might gain a direct reproductive benefit from following females, as polar bears occasionally mate after the usual breeding season as late as June or July41,42. This may occur after a cub dies and the female returns to estrus41,43. In contrast, female polar bears may be selected to avoid males outside the breeding season, and several polar bear populations exhibit strict sexual segregation44–46. In populations where polar bear sexes are not segregated, infanticide and femicide by males occur5,47,48.

Due to climate change, the sea ice in many parts of the Arctic does not fully freeze in winter and quickly thaws in spring. This leaves limited opportunities for land-based bears to reach retreating pack-ice49 and the seals that form their staple food. Concurrently, polar bears have increasingly been observed to exploit terrestrial food sources, including berries, fish, reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus), birds and bird eggs50–55. In Svalbard, polar bears have discovered an alternative food supply on offshore islands and cliffs where birds establish nesting colonies50,51,56. During several years, polar bears were found to eat more than 90% of the eggs produced by gulls, ducks, and geese in a single colony56. The birds’ annual return to the colonies offers a window of opportunity for foraging polar bears each summer from the beginning of June until mid-July56. During this annual window, these bird colonies also allow for unique opportunities to observe the arrival, departure, and foraging performance of individual polar bears.

If a “closing the proximity gap” phenomenon operates on the Svalbard coastline for polar bears, it should be possible to distinguish sex-mediated travel patterns. These include adjustments in the speed or pace of continuing along travel paths depending on “who” or at least which sex has passed through an area. The sex of the previous bear may influence how quickly the next bear proceeds because of a trade-off between time spent foraging in the bird colony and adjustments in proximity. In order to test these predictions and explore evidence for conflicting adaptive strategies in males and females, we determined the positions of polar bear individuals relative to others, and linked these positions to foraging behaviour in the bird colony. First, if males follow females, this would become apparent in the order that bears visit the bird colony and time spans between successive bears. Thus, we predict males to more often succeed females and at shorter intervals than expected by chance alone. Further, bears are expected to adjust the time spent foraging and resting in the colony with respect to the distance of other polar bears. More precisely, we predict males to effectively close the gap in distance to another bear, and to females in particular, and to spend less time in the colony, take fewer clutches, and consequently be less likely to take rest breaks when other bears are proximate. If female polar bears are followed by males, they are restricted in how to sense their followers. Namely, a bear that follows the travel path of another bear likely uses olfactory cues from tracks, scat, and urine left on the landscape to gain information57,58, whereas those being followed will have less information about their followers unless scent plumes are within range and local weather conditions are favourable59. Female polar bears, therefore, may not rely on proximate cues as the prime source to detect and locate others. Rather, in line with abundant empirical work on abilities of foragers to cope with the “average” predation risks in their environment20,60, female polar bears are anticipated to exhibit more moderate responses while foraging in the colony. That is, since the bird colony can be viewed as a high-risk habitat for females, we expect females to reduce taking rest breaks in the bird colony, to stay for shorter times in the bird colony than males, and take fewer clutches. If true, this would indicate that foraging decisions by polar bears are constrained by the way the sexes interact, which may have consequences for nutritional gain.

Methods

Study area and study setup

The study area is located on Nordenskiöldkysten at the west coast of Spitsbergen, the largest island of the Svalbard archipelago (Fig. 1). During the winter, polar bears reside in the adjacent fjord complex of the Van Mijen–fjorden–Bellsund area31,61. In this fjord complex, mating takes place during the months of March to May62,63. Polar bears used to roam the sea ice expanses around Svalbard62 but with decreasing sea ice, an increasing number of polar bears spend much of the summer on land49,64. With retreating sea ice in spring, polar bears initiate movements passing through Nordenskiöldkysten, usually within 1 km of the coastline, with detours inland. The polar bear population under study, which resides on land during summers, does not exhibit sexual spatial segregation, and males and females use the same stretches of land. The landscape is generally open with a variety in structure, such as beach ridges, river beds, inland raised beaches, and mounds of up to 55 m in elevation. Snow beds may persist until early July, but otherwise the study area is not covered by snow from mid-June onwards. Along the coast, greenstone islands are home to breeding barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis), common eiders (Somateria mollissima) and glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus). One of these islands is Diabasøya (77.77°N 13.71°E), which hosts the main study colony of birds and is 3 ha in size and 150 m offshore65. A 6-m tall tower on the beach wall opposite the island provides views over the island and surroundings. The tower was used for observation for most of the time that birds occupied nests on the island, which lasts from the end of May through mid-July56. During the time that the tower was not used, observations were continued from a research camp that was located at 800 m from the island. To check for the unlikely event that a polar bear visit had been overlooked, we operated Bushnell wildlife cameras from the tower to take photographs once per minute. From the tower and camp, polar bears could be spotted at distances of up to 8 km as long as atmospheric conditions allowed, which gave the opportunity to prepare an observation session as soon as a polar bear approached the study area. In this study we focus on observations in the core study area within a radius of 2 km of the observation tower (hereafter “study area”). Data were collected in 2009–2022 from the end of May through end of July. The field seasons of 2020 and 2021 were exceptions in that they started six weeks later, and these years were therefore not used for calculating seasonal bear presence.Fig. 1 Overview of part of the study area (a), with the study island in the background, observation tower on the beach wall, and research camp in the foreground. The study area (b) is located on the west coast of Svalbard, Norway, (within the red square).

To avoid disturbing polar bears and breeding birds, the colony island was not visited during the birds’ incubation period. Instead, nests were mapped from the observation tower to determine nest availability for each observation day. The locations of bird nests (barnacle goose, eider and glaucous gull) were marked on high-resolution photographs of the island and updated daily throughout the breeding season to give the number of nests mapped (NAMds) for species (s) and date (d). Not all nests were visible, such as when the view was obstructed by rocks. Visibility of nests was determined by an inventory of the island after the breeding season, which gave the proportion of visible nests (PV) averaging at 0.62 (± 0.041 SD, n = 12 years). We assumed that the visibility of nests remained constant throughout the season, giving the daily number of nests available as NAMds/PV. Food availability was expressed as densities (number of nests per ha).

Polar bear observations

We define a polar bear record as extending from the moment that a bear entered the study area until departure. Typically, bears in the study area also visited the main colony island. A colony visit was composed of one or several periods of uninterrupted foraging (searching for bird nests and eating clutches) alternating with resting periods (bears lying on the ground with head down). Resting took place on the island or on patches of snow on the adjacent tundra. Distinction of sex was based on posture and size42,66,67. Females were further assigned to reproductive classes based on whether they were accompanied by cubs or not. Within sex categories, bears were classified by size, which tentatively corresponds to age classes (subadult and adult) and was facilitated by observing bears from a standard position and at similar distances. Whenever possible, polar bears were identified individually based on sex, body shape and size (Fig. 2), and the pattern of whisker spots68. Identification was improved by using a set of physiognomic characteristics as derived from photographs taken in the field at distances of up to 400 m69. Further support came from information on presence or absence of various types of ear marks70, satellite transmitters or numbers painted on the back (supplementary Data Records). On the rare occasions that identification through these methods was not possible, we were generally able to track down the bear’s identity by linking the record to previous or subsequent observations of the same individual (supplementary Data Records). Alternatively, circumstantial evidence was used to ascertain whether the presence of a bear was unique in a particular year, although its identity remained masked. For example, we detected the tracks of a female polar bear with two cubs crossing the study area after a snow storm on 26 May 2019. In this particular year, we did not observe any other polar bear families, which means that this particular female was not observed on other occasions in 2019. Still, it remained unknown whether this female was observed in other years. Another uncertainty was introduced by the growing number of observation years. Repeated observations of individuals over several years indicated that distinctive characteristics might change. As a consequence, individual identification might be hampered if a bear did not show up regularly over the years, potentially leading to an overestimate of the number of different individuals. To arrive at a second, more conservative estimate, we matched any first record of a polar bear individual to previous records of a potentially corresponding group of bears as defined by sex, age class, and absence or presence of markings (details in supplementary Data Records). With any match in the dataset and no evidence to the contrary, such bears were rated as “possibly observed in previous years”.Fig. 2 Identification of individual polar bears combines assessing the build and shape of the bear as well as exploring finer details. Example sets show three individuals observed at different occasions: a male with scar on its head (a–c), a female recognisable from head and body shape, and GPS collar (d–f), and a male with a tiny protuberance just beside its right eye (g–i). Dates of the photographs are indicated.

Intervals between successive individuals were calculated from the period of time between bear records as the difference between the time of arrival in the study area and time of departure of the previous individual. Successive records of the same individual, without other individuals showing up in between, were regarded as a single unit, such that the time of arrival was taken from the first record and the time of departure from the last.

As a measure of walking rate, we recorded the time needed for 15 complete step cycles71 during walking gait72 to the nearest 0.1 s. We suppose that within sex and age groups, these step times properly reflect variation in walking rates as large quadruped mammals, including polar bear, primarily modify step (or stride) frequency rather than step length to adjust speed73. Records were collected opportunistically within the study area, and each record was composed of 10–15 sequential assessments. For sake of comparison, individuals were recorded when walking within 100 m of the shoreline (on the beach or beach wall) and moving in a direction away from the observer.

The time spent in the colony was calculated as the time period from arrival on the colony island up to departure. Foraging activities included feeding, moving, and vigilance behaviour. Occasional resting periods on the mainland, but within the study area, were included in the colony time.

The total number of predated clutches during a visit was established by direct observation. If needed, a correction was applied for the time that bears were out of sight by dividing the time out of sight by the average interval between subsequent nest predation events56. To focus analyses on bears potentially deriving nutritional benefits from foraging, records with nest density below an arbitrary threshold of 1 per ha at bear arrival were not considered in analyses.

Statistical analyses

We used R version 4.2.3 in the RStudio environment for statistical analyses. The package glmmTMB74 was used to generate generalised linear mixed effects models. The most appropriate statistical distribution of dependent variables was chosen through package fitdistrplus75. Continuous predictor variables were mean-centred. To account for possible recurrence of individuals within the same season, the structure of random effects was specified as identity of the bears nested within year of observation. As an exception, the structure of random effects in pace rate analyses reflected a design with multiple observations by record nested within year. Random factors were always included in the models, also when explaining close to zero variance. The package DHARMa76 was used to detect overdispersion or any deviations from the expected distributions. Significance of fixed effects was obtained using Wald tests with associated z-score. To find the most parsimonious model, we started with a global model that included main effects of predictor variables with any relevant interaction terms77. As we did not have an a priori hypothesis about which combination of predictor variables would provide the most parsimonious model, a candidate set was generated from all lower order models using the package MuMIn78. Models containing both sex and reproductive class (which included a sex effect) were not considered. Models were ranked by the Akaike Information Criterion (AICc as corrected for small sample sizes) and were selected when the AICc value was within 2 units of the lowest AICc in the candidate set. Parameter estimates were (full-)averaged across selected models by the R package MuMIn78. The associated standard errors were unconditional, which accounts for sampling variance and model selection uncertainty79. For each model, the conditional and marginal coefficients of determination R2 were calculated following Nakagawa et al.80 using the package MuMIn and interpreted as the variance explained by the fixed effects only and the fixed and random effects combined, respectively81. Group means are reported ± standard errors, as obtained from estimated marginal means by package emmeans82. When several models contributed to a selected set for further model averaging, marginal means were derived from the global model rather than from the averaged model83. A Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied whenever appropriate.

To analyse variation in intervals, a gamma error distribution with a log link was adopted. The global model contained age class and sex of the focal animal, and sex and reproductive class of the previous bear, and up to three-way interactions as fixed effects. To investigate whether the observed distribution of intervals was skewed in any way, we compared the observations with intervals generated based on random timing of arriving. As a first step in each simulation, each of the years’ arrival times were randomised and intervals between consecutive visits were calculated while accounting for an averaged residence time in the study area. To achieve a conservative measure of intervals and avoid bias towards longer intervals, the simulations did not cover the periods beyond the actual field observations. Subsequently, differences in intervals (with 95% confidence bands, based on percentiles) between simulations and field observations were generated by non-parametric bootstrapping (R package boot). Average confidence bands of intervals for both sexes were calculated across 5000 randomisations.

To explore associations between the sex of subsequent individuals, the dependent variable was set as the sex of the focal bear as modelled using a binomial error distribution. The global model contained the fixed factors sex and reproductive class of the previous bear, age class of the focal individual, and interval between departure of the previous bear and arrival of the focal individual as covariates, together with three-way interaction terms.

Variation in time needed for 15 steps was analysed using a gamma error distribution with a log link function. The fixed effects part of the global model contained age class and sex of the focal individual, sex of the previous individual, and the time elapsed after departure of the previous individual (represented by “intervals”), together with two-way interactions between sex and each of the other variables.

To explore variation in foraging performance, the adopted error distributions were set to a gamma distribution with a log link function (for the time spent in the colony), a negative binomial distribution using the nbinom2 parameterisation with a log link (for the number of clutches taken), and a binomial link (for the probability of resting in the colony). Predictor variables in the global models were age class and sex of the focal animal, and sex and reproductive class of the previous individual, the time elapsed after the previous individual, and nest density on a log scale, together with two-way interactions between sex and each of the other variables. The observations featured an excess of zero-values because not all individuals in the study area visited the colony. To handle excess zeros in the time and predation models, a zero-inflation component was added to the models. As we expected a seasonal pattern in colony visitation, we started with a second-order polynomial using date as a fixed effect in the zero-inflation part. However, due to convergence problems, we simplified the global models by taking nest density as the fixed effect in the zero-inflation part.

To compare food intake between the sexes, we scaled the number of clutches taken per visit to metabolic requirements as MMfemale/MMmale×BMmale0.75/BMfemale0.75. The result represents the proportional amount of energy needs covered by females relative to those by males. MM represents the marginal means of the global model for average nest density and average interval between successive records. Marginal means were averaged across the sex of the previous individual, and were conditional on visiting the colony. We followed Pagano et al.84 in that metabolic requirements were set as proportional to body mass (BM) raised to the power of 0.75. Average body mass was set at 389 kg and 185 kg for adult males and females, respectively, and for subadults at 257 kg and 138 kg31, respectively.

Ethics statement

The study complied with relevant national and international guidelines and legislation. Permissions to conduct the study and fieldwork were obtained each year from the Governor of Svalbard (RiS-ID 3533).

Results

The average annual numbers of polar bears visiting the study area (from the end of May through the end of July) were 5.5 females (range 2–11) and 4.7 males (range 1–10). The average numbers of different individuals annually were 2.8 females (range 2–5) and 2.8 males (range 1–4). Over the 14 years of this study, 11–14 different females and 14–21 males were identified (supplementary Data Records).

Intervals between successive bears

Intervals between successive bears in the study area varied between 0 days (when a bear arrived while the previous individual was still in the area, which occurred six times) and 32.4 days. The frequency distribution of intervals peaked at values of less than one day with a skew to the right (supplementary Fig. S1), and 50% of the intervals were shorter than 2.25 days (n = 91). Models containing sex and reproductive class of the previous individual had little statistical support (supplementary Table S1). The length of intervals varied by sex of the focal individual, with a weak additional effect of age class (Table 1, supplementary Table S1). Females came 4.6 days (± 1.06) after a previous bear, and males after 2.7 days (± 0.64). The observation that males succeeded other bears more closely than females was further supported by bootstrapping. Randomising the timing of bear arrivals across the seasons and sexes resulted in intervals of on average 5.2 days (± 0.03). The observed average interval between females and a previous bear did not differ from the simulated values (on average 0.05 days shorter, 95% confidence bands: –2.68, 2.78), whereas intervals between males and a previous individual were significantly shorter than the simulated values (on average 2.27 days less, 95% confidence bands: 0.48, 4.06). Table 1 Intervals (days) between arrival of successive polar bears in the study area.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	Z-score	P	
Intercept	1.14	0.214	5.342	 < 0.001	
Sex	0.63	0.292	2.150	0.032	
Age	− 0.14	0.268	0.516	0.606	
Model-averaged parameter estimates of the fixed parts of selected mixed effects models. Estimates are on the log scale. Predictor variables are sex and age class (Age) of focal animal. Random effects in the model are random intercepts of individual identity nested within year. Reference categories are male in sex, and adult in age class. Estimates were obtained from 91 records across 12 years and 64 year × individual combinations. See supplementary Table S1 for model selection.

Sequence by sex

In 63% of the records (95% confidence band: 52.4%, 71.9%), bears were succeeded by individuals of the opposite sex. The selected models exploring patterns in sequence contained the interval between successive records, age class of the focal individual, and sex of the previous bear in interaction with interval (Table 2, supplementary Table S2). Notably, during the first five days after a female departed from the study site, successors were dominantly males (Fig. 3) —either adults or subadults— with the odds ratio in favour of males starting at 3.3 on the first day after departure of the female, and thereafter dropping daily by a factor 0.90 (as obtained by exponentiating the interval effect, Table 2). After departure of a male, new arrivals were female-biased with an initial odds ratio of 1.1, which increased to 9 after 20 days. However, the 95% confidence bands of the estimates overlapped with the average proportion of males in the local population, which means that the pattern was not significantly different from a random pattern (Fig. 3). The weak age effect (Table 2), together with lack of support for the interaction term between age and sex of the previous individual (supplementary Table S2), indicates that a preference for either sex was irrespective of age. Table 2 Probability that the sex of the next (focal) polar bear is male.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	Z-score	P	
Intercept	− 0.56	0.371	1.503	0.133	
Age	− 0.12	0.332	0.347	0.729	
Interval	− 0.11	0.069	1.541	0.123	
PrevSex	1.19	0.515	2.302	0.021	
Interval × PrevSex	− 0.03	0.077	0.389	0.698	
Model-averaged parameter estimates of the fixed parts of selected mixed effects models. Estimates are on the log-odds scale. Predictor variables are sex of the previous individual (PrevSex), age class of the focal individual (Age), and the number of days elapsed after the previous bear (Interval). The reference category is male in PrevSex, and adult in Age. Interactions are indicated by ‘ × ’. Random effects in the model are random intercepts of individual identity nested within year. Estimates were obtained from 91 records across 12 years and 68 year × individual combinations. See supplementary Table S2 for model selection.

Fig. 3 Probability that the focal (next) individual is a male in relation to the time elapsed after departure of a polar bear. Lines represent the predictions of the averaged mixed effects model given in Table 2 with 95% confidence bands, after departure of a male (a) or a female (b), and averaged across age classes. The horizontal dashed line represents the averaged proportion of males in the local observations (0.46, n = 107).

Rate of movement

The selected models explaining variation in step times contained sex, age class, and interval between successive records (Table 3, supplementary Table S3). In addition to the longer step times in males than in females, step times increased with increasing time elapsed after a previous bear (Fig. 4). Step times tended to be shorter in subadults than in adults, but a small sample size of subadults led to low statistical power of this result. Table 3 Step times of polar bears walking along the coast line in the study area (seconds per 15 steps).

Predictor	Estimate	SE	Z-score	P	
Intercept	21.94	0.441	49.784	 < 0.001	
Sex	− 2.13	0.605	3.528	 < 0.001	
Age	− 1.30	0.885	1.469	0.142	
Interval	0.30	0.083	3.586	 < 0.001	
Age × Sex	0.42	1.011	0.418	0.676	
Interval × Sex	0.02	0.076	0.250	0.803	
Model-averaged parameter estimates of fixed part of the selected mixed effects models with predictor variables sex, age class, and the number of days elapsed after the previous individual (Interval). Male is the reference category in sex, and adult is the reference category in age class. Interactions are indicated by ‘ × ’. Random effects in the model are observation record nested within year of observation. Estimates obtained from 305 observations across 35 records and 14 individual polar bears. See supplementary Table S3 for model selection.

Fig. 4 Step times of male and female polar bears walking along the coast line (seconds per 15 step cycles) in relation to the time elapsed after a previous individual. Given values are means per record with 95% confidence bands. Lines represent the predictions for adult males and females of an averaged mixed effects model (Table 3) with 95% confidence bands. Note that the longer step times in males may be compensated by larger step lengths.

Foraging performance in colony

The time that polar bears spent in the bird colony varied by sex, age class, the interval between successive records, and density of nests (Table 4, supplementary Table S4). Adult males spent on average 8.0 (± 1.44) hours in the colony (conditional on visiting the colony), which was considerably longer than residence times of adult females (1.6 ± 0.33 h), subadult males (3.0 ± 0.99 h), and subadult females (1.9 ± 0.57 h) (all comparisons with adult males z-score > 2.62, P < 0.04). Models containing the sex of the previous individual had little support (supplementary Table S4). With increasing number of days elapsed after departure of the previous individual, males —but not females— spent more time in the colony (Fig. 5). Further, both males and females spent more time in the colony with increasing nest density. The zero-inflated part of the model showed that at an average density 15.6% of the bears (obtained by converting the log-odds of the intercept, Table 4) passed by without visiting the colony. Table 4 Time (h) spent by polar bears in the bird colony.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	Z-score	P	
A. Conditional part	
Intercept	2.07	0.193	10.722	 < 0.001	
Sex	− 1.56	0.303	5.156	 < 0.001	
Age	− 0.71	0.574	1.230	0.219	
Interval	0.66	0.179	3.692	 < 0.001	
Density	0.48	0.086	5.551	 < 0.001	
Age × Sex	0.84	0.716	1.175	0.240	
Interval × Sex	− 0.63	0.247	2.569	0.010	
B. Zero-inflation part	
Intercept	− 1.69	0.331	5.094	 < 0.001	
Density	0.40	0.339	1.170	0.242	
Model-averaged parameter estimates of the fixed part of selected mixed effects models with predictor variables sex, age class, the number of days elapsed after the previous individual (Interval, log transformed), density of nests (Density, log transformed) The model is separated in (A) a conditional part (conditional on visiting the colony, on a log scale), and (B) a zero-inflation part (modelling the probability not to visit the colony, on a log-odds scale). Male is the reference category in sex, and adult is the reference category in age class. Interactions are indicated by ‘ × ’. Random effects in the model are random intercepts of individual identity nested within year. Estimates were obtained from 87 records across 12 years, and 54 individual × year combinations. See supplementary Table S4 for model selection.

Fig. 5 Polar bear behaviour in the study area in relation to the time elapsed after a previous individual. Given are (a, b) the number of hours spent in the bird colony, and (c, d) number of clutches taken for adult and subadult males (left panels) and females (right panels). Lines represent the predictions of the averaged mixed effects models given in Tables 4 and 5 with 95% confidence bands, averaged across sex of the previous individual, if appropriate, and for an average nest density. Shown are the raw data.

Variation in the number of predated clutches was associated with sex, age class, interval between successive records, nest density, and sex of the previous individual (Table 5, supplementary Table S5). With increasing number of days elapsed after departure of the previous individual, polar bears took more clutches (Fig. 5), a trend that was more prominent in males than in females. On average, adult males took 79.3 (± 9.99) clutches during a visit (conditional upon taking any clutch at all), which was considerably more than the number of clutches taken by adult females (25.2 ± 3.63), subadult males (39.9 ± 9.80), and subadult females (22.8 ± 5.65) (all comparisons with adult males z-score > 2.54, P < 0.05). Females preceded by another female tended to ingest fewer clutches than females coming after a male (17.7 ± 3.41 and 26.6 ± 2.92, respectively, z = 1.89, P = 0.059). Table 5 Number of clutches taken by polar bears during visits to the bird colony.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	Z-score	P	
A. Conditional part	
Intercept	4.10	0.128	32.010	 < 0.001	
Sex	− 0.66	0.190	3.492	 < 0.001	
Age	− 0.39	0.171	2.313	0.021	
Interval	0.26	0.083	3.191	0.001	
Density	0.57	0.083	6.862	 < 0.001	
PrevSex	0.10	0.157	0.630	0.528	
PrevSex × Sex	− 0.56	0.328	1.708	0.088	
Age × Sex	0.04	0.140	0.259	0.796	
Interval × Sex	− 0.06	0.117	0.482	0.630	
Density × Sex	− 0.06	0.100	0.581	0.561	
B. Zero-inflation part	
Intercept	− 1.86	0.395	4.728	 < 0.001	
Density	0.75	0.361	2.074	0.038	
Model-averaged parameter estimates of the fixed part of selected mixed effects models with predictor variables sex, age class, sex of previous individual, the number of days elapsed after the previous individual (Interval), and density of nests (Density). The model is separated in (A) a conditional part (conditional on visiting the colony and eating eggs, on a log scale), and (B) a zero-inflation part (modelling the probability not to visit the colony and eating eggs, on a log-odds scale). Further details in Table 4. See supplementary Table S5 for model selection.

While adjusting for differences in metabolic body mass, females ingested on average only 58.7% (95% confidence band 38.8%–89.0%) of the males’ intake during a colony visit. In subadults, differences between the sexes were smaller with females ingesting on average 72.7% (35.4%–149.5%) of the number of clutches taken by males.

The probability of a polar bear resting in the colony or adjacent tundra varied by sex, interval between successive records, and nest density (Table 6, supplementary Table S6). In males, the probability of resting increased with time elapsed after a previous bear, whereas in females, the probability was consistently low (Fig. 6). On average, males were more likely to rest in the colony than females, with the odds for males being 7.5 times higher than for females (Table 6). Table 6 Probability that a polar bear takes a rest break in the study area, including the bird colony.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	Z-score	P	
Intercept	− 0.21	0.632	0.341	0.733	
Sex	− 2.02	0.962	2.096	0.036	
Interval	0.24	0.165	1.451	0.147	
Density	0.96	0.419	2.300	0.021	
Interval × Sex	− 0.15	0.174	0.842	0.400	
Model-averaged parameter estimates of the fixed part of selected mixed effects models with predictor variables sex, the number of days elapsed after the previous individual (Interval), and the density of nests (Density). Estimates are on the log-odds scale. Further details in Table 4. See supplementary Table S6 for model selection.

Fig. 6 The probability of resting in the colony for (a) males and (b) females in relation to the time elapsed after a previous individual. Lines represent the predictions of the averaged mixed effects models given in Table 6 with 95% confidence bands, for an average nest density.

Discussion

Polar bear densities are among the lowest among carnivores85–87, yet polar bears are known to exhibit an interest in each other for much of the year37,57,88. This study confirms persistence of sex-mediated travel patterns after the mating season, and suggests that foraging decisions include a trade-off between food intake and getting closer to others (in males) or maintaining safe distances (in females). Travel patterns of male polar bears corresponded to the strategy of closing the proximity gap. Male polar bears followed conspecifics, in particular females, more often and more closely than expected if individuals move independently of one another. Females tended to follow males, however without being particularly close to males, and the sequence could have arisen from males occupying positions immediately after females rather than from females actively seeking the presence of males.

The disparate behaviour between the sexes in the bird colony suggests that males and females balanced the benefits and potential costs of foraging in different ways. When males were close to other bears, they walked faster and reduced residence time in the colony, including rest time. Although we do not exclude the possibility of alternative explanations, these behaviours are consistent with a strategy to keep up with an individual that one is following14, and are among the behavioural tools used to increase probability of encountering other individuals14,38. This supports the hypothesis that, when conditions for contact were favourable, males prioritised maintaining a link to others over gaining energy. Female residence times in the colony were considerably shorter than those of males and, notably, it was uncommon to see females resting in the colony. Instead, females departed from the colony before initiating a resting bout. This corresponds to behaviours observed in other carnivores when other predators are nearby. For example, female cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) retreated sooner from their prey after a meal when lions (Panthera leo) were present, even when they ran the risk of losing their unguarded kill to scavengers89. Likewise, leopards (Panthera pardus) were found to rest at greater distances from a kill when lions or competing male conspecifics were present22. Choosing where to spend a resting break, at the kill site itself or at some distance, includes a trade-off between the costs and benefits of each option24. When the risk increases of predators being attracted to the kill site, the choice will be to seek a safer place. It seems reasonable to assume that female polar bears run less risk of encountering males on the vast expanses of the tundra than within the limited confines of bird breeding colonies. Therefore, female choice of lower-risk resting sites supports the hypothesis that females followed a strategy of avoiding males. This is further supported by the observation that females increased walking speed, thus reducing the time needed to reach a refuge, when other bears were nearby.

Investing in familiarity with a potential mating partner during the non-breeding season may be particularly important in male polar bears because access to females is subject to strong competition33,39. Because of strong intra-sex competition39, lifetime reproductive success of male polar bears may be extremely skewed, and in one population only 5% of the males sired more than 50% of the offspring39. The adaptive value of investing in successful reproduction beyond the breeding season might therefore be high. Building on familiarity with potential mates is a strategy to enhance reproductive success in a wide variety of species8,40,90–92. Familiarity enhances reproductive success by positive effects on compatibility between partners93, a safer environment to rear offspring94, shortening the period to find a partner95, or appeasement among partners that could potentially harm each other96. Building up familiarity may be markedly important in promiscuous species, such as the polar bear63,97, because promiscuous females tend to avoid males with which they have already mated98. We propose that the spatial and behavioural patterns observed in this study reflect the process of male polar bears attempting to get acquainted with members of the opposite sex or to improve their knowledge of others. Further work is needed to establish the efficacy of this strategy.

Despite a male bear’s intentions, an approaching male polar bear is a potential threat to females. Apart from the possibility of males killing cubs or females, males and females are competitors for food when visiting the same food patch and males might respond accordingly99. Females are not necessarily subordinate to males32 but when it comes to aggressive interactions, the smaller females are at a disadvantage and are likely to be injured33,66,100. An option of sexual spatial segregation101 is subject to suitability of geography and distribution of food resources102,103. Suitable conditions may be unavailable to polar bears in parts of the Arctic, including Svalbard, and possibly aggravated by declining sea ice cover and shrinking availability of habitat. In fact, the behaviours that we described may have been amplified by the polar bears’ shift to a land-based lifestyle along this coastline in Svalbard. Although polar bear distribution on sea ice is extremely patchy86,104,105, opportunities to avoid others might be particularly reduced when residing on land strips in a landscape free of sea ice.

Most of the individuals in our study were seen during several years (supplementary Data Records) but, apart for the associations of mothers and their 0- and 1-year old offspring, we did not detect apparent links between individuals. However, we suspect that many of the observed bears shared a common winter range in nearby fjords, with possibly overlapping tracks. Polar bears do not form networks as observed in several other carnivores21, but the bears in our study may have had common histories, with behavioural dependencies and relationships among individuals beyond the mother–offspring bonds106. With current knowledge, it is difficult to assess to what extent these histories may have affected our results. Formation of networks may become more apparent with a shrinking polar bear population or when populations become isolated due to loss of sea ice13,107.

Behaviour of subadults was not strikingly different from that of adults, which indicates that young polar bears may be under similar adaptive pressures as adults. Getting acquainted with others, learning from others, and avoiding fatal encounters are probably as important in subadults as in adults, although the time scale of the pay-off may be different. However, subadults may also form semi-social bonds with siblings or their mothers which are lost at an older age. During the first months after family break-up, siblings may team up together, following each other or their mother at a distance. Thus, this family behaviour may have contributed to some of the trends observed in this study.

The divergent strategies in male and female polar bears, with males benefitting from proximity to others and females from keeping distance, suggest a conflict between the sexes over proximity. Sexual conflicts are often associated with events during the breeding period, such as those over mating rate, parental effort, or clutch size108. However, conflicts may arise outside the breeding season as well. For example, in brown bears (Ursus arctos), females preferring sub-optimal habitat, closer to humans but void of aggressive males, were more successful in rearing their cubs than females in optimal habitat103. The role of intra-specific distances and the adjustments of proximity occupy a central place in the study of population processes109. However, it is uncommon that in this context proximity may also be a source of conflict between the sexes. We suggest that in solitary carnivores, opposing interests to proximity in the sexes may be an important aspect of the mating system.

In the process of coping with divergent strategies, polar bears may sacrifice foraging time and food intake for the benefit of future reproductive success (in males) or survival (in females). Thus, male residence time in the colony dropped with proximity to other polar bears. Over the range of proximities observed (from 0 to 14 days), the residence times varied by a factor of five, while other variables were kept constant (Fig. 5). We interpret this finding to suggest that males reduced residence times by up to 80% as a response of proximity to others. This had an impact on food intake and over a similar range of proximities, the number of clutches taken varied by a factor of two, corresponding to a reduction by up to 50% (Fig. 5). Males were apparently able to partially compensate for shorter residence times by taking more clutches per unit of foraging time. Nevertheless, the reduction in food intake over the range of proximities remained considerable. Similarly, we interpret the reduced food intake by females –representing only half of the intake by males under average food conditions– as an energy cost emerging from an inter-sexual conflict. Both these effects are biologically significant because energy intake during spring and summer must provide the body stores needed in the subsequent winter34. Moreover, food conditions for land-based polar bears are likely to be inferior to food resources available to polar bears on sea ice87,110,111, which is additional to any existing nutritional stress112,113. Females could possibly mitigate energy consequences of brief visits by returning more often to the colony, which they did in 53% of the cases (n = 34) (versus 29% in males, n = 34, χ2(1) = 2.98, P = 0.085). Nevertheless, by spending more time walking to and from resting places away from the bird colony, females inevitably lost energy and time, and moreover foraging opportunities were lost if another bear had visited the colony in the meantime.

Our study indicates that investing in successful reproduction may include spatial arrangements, as a constant process with consequences for both sexes. This result supports those of Laidre et al.38 who showed that local polar bear populations exhibit a spatial structure due to non-random patterns in positioning and movements by both of the sexes relative to each other. Our study adds to their findings in that we found these patterns need not be restricted to the mating season but may occur during other times of the year. Moreover, we provide evidence that the interactions between the sexes have an impact on foraging behaviour and food intake, which are important parameters for a species with high energy needs and quickly changing habitats.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-71258-w.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Governor of Svalbard for permission to work on Nordenskiöldkysten, Spitsbergen. We owe a lot to our colleagues cooperating during field work: Tom van Spanje, Oebele Dijk, Brian Morell, Jeroen Onrust, Annette Scheepstra, and Ronald Visser. Many thanks to Stig Henningsen for transporting us many times to and from the study location. Esther Chang (eScribe Services) provided editorial support. We thank two reviewers for constructive comments. We received financial support from the Willem Barentsz Foundation (Groningen), the INNO-fund (WWF-Netherlands), and the Fram Centre programme Catchment-to-Coast.

Author contributions

J.P. and E.W. conceived the study and collected data in the field together with J.M.B. and T.O. J.A. contributed polar bear data. B.M. and J.P. raised funding. J.P. conducted the statistical analyses. J.P. drafted the manuscript with significant input from J.M.B., J.A., T.O., E.W., and B.M. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

Datasets used during the current study are included in this paper and its Supplementary Information file, or are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Vehrencamp SL Bradbury JW Krebs JR Davies NB Mating systems and ecology Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach 1984 Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford 251 278
Vehrencamp, S. L. & Bradbury, J. W. Mating systems and ecology. In Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach Vol. 2 (eds Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B.) 251–278 (Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford, 1984).
2. Davies NB Davies NB Krebs JR Mating system Behavioural ecology-an evolutionary approach 1991 Blackwell 263 294
Davies, N. B. Mating system. In Behavioural ecology-an evolutionary approach (eds Davies, N. B. & Krebs, J. R.) 263–294 (Blackwell, 1991).
3. Dammhahn M Kappeler PM Females go where the food is: Does the socio-ecological model explain variation in social organisation of solitary foragers? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009 63 939 952 10.1007/s00265-009-0737-2
Dammhahn, M. & Kappeler, P. M. Females go where the food is: Does the socio-ecological model explain variation in social organisation of solitary foragers?. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 939–952 (2009).10.1007/s00265-009-0737-2
4. Cassini MH Sexual aggression in mammals Mammal Rev. 2021 51 247 255 10.1111/mam.12228
Cassini, M. H. Sexual aggression in mammals. Mammal Rev. 51, 247–255 (2021).10.1111/mam.12228
5. Amstrup SC Stirling I Smith TS Perham C Thiemann GW Recent observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea Polar Biol. 2006 29 997 1002 10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5
Amstrup, S. C., Stirling, I., Smith, T. S., Perham, C. & Thiemann, G. W. Recent observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biol. 29, 997–1002 (2006).10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5
6. Palombit RA Infanticide as sexual conflict: Coevolution of male strategies and female counterstrategies Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2015 7 a017640 10.1101/cshperspect.a017640 25986557
Palombit, R. A. Infanticide as sexual conflict: Coevolution of male strategies and female counterstrategies. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7, a017640 (2015).25986557 10.1101/cshperspect.a017640
7. Clutton-Brock TH Review lecture: Mammalian mating systems Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1989 236 339 372 10.1098/rspb.1989.0027 2567517
Clutton-Brock, T. H. Review lecture: Mammalian mating systems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 236, 339–372 (1989).2567517 10.1098/rspb.1989.0027
8. Bebbington K Kinship and familiarity mitigate costs of social conflict between Seychelles warbler neighbors Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2017 114 E9036 E9045 10.1073/pnas.1704350114 29073100
Bebbington, K. et al. Kinship and familiarity mitigate costs of social conflict between Seychelles warbler neighbors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, E9036–E9045 (2017).29073100 10.1073/pnas.1704350114
9. Doran C Bierbach D Laskowski KL Familiarity increases aggressiveness among clonal fish Anim. Behav. 2019 148 153 159 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.12.013
Doran, C., Bierbach, D. & Laskowski, K. L. Familiarity increases aggressiveness among clonal fish. Anim. Behav. 148, 153–159 (2019).10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.12.013
10. Parker GA Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006 361 235 259 10.1098/rstb.2005.1785
Parker, G. A. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 361, 235–259 (2006).10.1098/rstb.2005.1785
11. Schenkel MA Pen I Beukeboom LW Billeter J Making sense of intralocus and interlocus sexual conflict Ecol. Evol. 2018 8 13035 13050 10.1002/ece3.4629 30619603
Schenkel, M. A., Pen, I., Beukeboom, L. W. & Billeter, J. Making sense of intralocus and interlocus sexual conflict. Ecol. Evol. 8, 13035–13050 (2018).30619603 10.1002/ece3.4629
12. Allen ML Yovovich V Wilmers CC Evaluating the responses of a territorial solitary carnivore to potential mates and competitors Sci. Rep. 2016 6 27257 10.1038/srep27257 27251230
Allen, M. L., Yovovich, V. & Wilmers, C. C. Evaluating the responses of a territorial solitary carnivore to potential mates and competitors. Sci. Rep. 6, 27257 (2016).27251230 10.1038/srep27257
13. Berec L Kramer AM Bernhauerová V Drake JM Density-dependent selection on mate search and evolution of Allee effects J. Anim. Ecol. 2018 87 24 35 10.1111/1365-2656.12662 28240356
Berec, L., Kramer, A. M., Bernhauerová, V. & Drake, J. M. Density-dependent selection on mate search and evolution of Allee effects. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 24–35 (2018).28240356 10.1111/1365-2656.12662
14. Mizumoto N Rizo A Pratt SC Chouvenc T Termite males enhance mating encounters by changing speed according to density J. Anim. Ecol. 2020 89 2542 2552 10.1111/1365-2656.13320 32799344
Mizumoto, N., Rizo, A., Pratt, S. C. & Chouvenc, T. Termite males enhance mating encounters by changing speed according to density. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 2542–2552 (2020).32799344 10.1111/1365-2656.13320
15. MacArthur RH Pianka ER On optimal use of a patchy environment Am. Nat. 1966 100 603 609 10.1086/282454
MacArthur, R. H. & Pianka, E. R. On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am. Nat. 100, 603–609 (1966).10.1086/282454
16. Lima SL Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators: A trade-off in the black-capped chickadee Oecologia 1985 66 60 67 10.1007/BF00378552 28310812
Lima, S. L. Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators: A trade-off in the black-capped chickadee. Oecologia 66, 60–67 (1985).28310812 10.1007/BF00378552
17. Lima SL Bednekoff PA Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: The predation risk allocation hypothesis Am. Nat. 1999 153 649 659 10.1086/303202 29585647
Lima, S. L. & Bednekoff, P. A. Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: The predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am. Nat. 153, 649–659 (1999).29585647 10.1086/303202
18. Komdeur J Mate guarding in the Seychelles warbler is energetically costly and adjusted to paternity risk Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2001 268 2103 2111 10.1098/rspb.2001.1750
Komdeur, J. Mate guarding in the Seychelles warbler is energetically costly and adjusted to paternity risk. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268, 2103–2111 (2001).10.1098/rspb.2001.1750
19. Georgiev AV The foraging costs of mating effort in male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii)) Int. J. Primatol. 2014 35 725 745 10.1007/s10764-014-9788-y
Georgiev, A. V. et al. The foraging costs of mating effort in male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii)). Int. J. Primatol. 35, 725–745 (2014).10.1007/s10764-014-9788-y
20. Brown JS Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1988 22 37 47 10.1007/BF00395696
Brown, J. S. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22, 37–47 (1988).10.1007/BF00395696
21. Elbroch LM Quigley H Social interactions in a solitary carnivore Curr. Zool. 2016 10.1093/cz/zow080 29491995
Elbroch, L. M. & Quigley, H. Social interactions in a solitary carnivore. Curr. Zool.10.1093/cz/zow080 (2016).29491995 10.1093/cz/zow080
22. Tarugara A Clegg BW Gandiwa E Muposhi VK The effect of competing carnivores on the feeding behaviour of leopards (Panthera pardus) in an African savanna Ecol. Evol. 2021 11 7743 7753 10.1002/ece3.7608 34188848
Tarugara, A., Clegg, B. W., Gandiwa, E. & Muposhi, V. K. The effect of competing carnivores on the feeding behaviour of leopards (Panthera pardus) in an African savanna. Ecol. Evol. 11, 7743–7753 (2021).34188848 10.1002/ece3.7608
23. Ivanov EA Observations of intraspecific killing, cannibalism, and aggressive behavior among polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the eastern Barents Sea and the Kara Sea Polar Biol. 2020 43 2121 2127 10.1007/s00300-020-02771-7
Ivanov, E. A. et al. Observations of intraspecific killing, cannibalism, and aggressive behavior among polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the eastern Barents Sea and the Kara Sea. Polar Biol. 43, 2121–2127 (2020).10.1007/s00300-020-02771-7
24. Houston AI McNamara JM Hutchinson JM General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 1993 341 375 397 10.1098/rstb.1993.0123
Houston, A. I., McNamara, J. M. & Hutchinson, J. M. General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 341, 375–397 (1993).10.1098/rstb.1993.0123
25. Mace RD Waller JS Spatial and temporal interaction of male and female grizzly bears in Northwestern Montana J. Wildl. Manag. 1997 61 39 10.2307/3802412
Mace, R. D. & Waller, J. S. Spatial and temporal interaction of male and female grizzly bears in Northwestern Montana. J. Wildl. Manag. 61, 39 (1997).10.2307/3802412
26. Silva-Opps M Opps SB Use of telemetry data to investigate home range and habitat selection in mammalian carnivores Mod. Telem. 2011 10.5772/25221
Silva-Opps, M. & Opps, S. B. Use of telemetry data to investigate home range and habitat selection in mammalian carnivores. Mod. Telem.10.5772/25221 (2011).10.5772/25221
27. Powell RA Boitani L Powell RA Movements, home ranges, activity, and dispersal Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques 2012 Oxford University Press
Powell, R. A. Movements, home ranges, activity, and dispersal. In Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques (eds Boitani, L. & Powell, R. A.) (Oxford University Press, 2012). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199558520.003.0009.
28. Magurran AE Seghers BH Sexual conflict as a consequence of ecology: Evidence from guppy, Poecilia reticulata, populations in Trinidad Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1994 255 31 36 10.1098/rspb.1994.0005
Magurran, A. E. & Seghers, B. H. Sexual conflict as a consequence of ecology: Evidence from guppy, Poecilia reticulata, populations in Trinidad. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 255, 31–36 (1994).10.1098/rspb.1994.0005
29. Hawkes M Intralocus sexual conflict over optimal nutrient intake and the evolution of sex differences in life span and reproduction Funct. Ecol. 2022 36 865 881 10.1111/1365-2435.13995
Hawkes, M. et al. Intralocus sexual conflict over optimal nutrient intake and the evolution of sex differences in life span and reproduction. Funct. Ecol. 36, 865–881 (2022).10.1111/1365-2435.13995
30. Perry JC Rowe L Sexual conflict in its ecological setting Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018 373 20170418 10.1098/rstb.2017.0418
Perry, J. C. & Rowe, L. Sexual conflict in its ecological setting. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170418 (2018).10.1098/rstb.2017.0418
31. Derocher AE Wiig Ø Postnatal growth in body length and mass of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) at Svalbard J. Zool. 2002 256 343 349 10.1017/S0952836902000377
Derocher, A. E. & Wiig, Ø. Postnatal growth in body length and mass of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) at Svalbard. J. Zool. 256, 343–349 (2002).10.1017/S0952836902000377
32. Stirling I Midsummer observations on the behavior of wild polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Can. J. Zool. 1974 52 1191 1198 10.1139/z74-157
Stirling, I. Midsummer observations on the behavior of wild polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Can. J. Zool. 52, 1191–1198 (1974).10.1139/z74-157
33. Ramsay MA Stirling I On the mating system of polar bears Can. J. Zool. 1986 64 2142 2151 10.1139/z86-329
Ramsay, M. A. & Stirling, I. On the mating system of polar bears. Can. J. Zool. 64, 2142–2151 (1986).10.1139/z86-329
34. Stirling I Polar Bears: The Natural History of a Threatened Species 2011 Fitzhenry & Whiteside
Stirling, I. Polar Bears: The Natural History of a Threatened Species (Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 2011).
35. Brun C Blanchet M-A Ims RA Aars J Stability of space use in Svalbard coastal female polar bears: Intra-individual variability and influence of kinship Polar Res. 2021 10.33265/polar.v40.5355
Brun, C., Blanchet, M.-A., Ims, R. A. & Aars, J. Stability of space use in Svalbard coastal female polar bears: Intra-individual variability and influence of kinship. Polar Res.10.33265/polar.v40.5355 (2021).10.33265/polar.v40.5355
36. Lone K Aars J Ims RA Site fidelity of Svalbard polar bears revealed by mark-recapture positions Polar Biol. 2013 36 27 39 10.1007/s00300-012-1235-y
Lone, K., Aars, J. & Ims, R. A. Site fidelity of Svalbard polar bears revealed by mark-recapture positions. Polar Biol. 36, 27–39 (2013).10.1007/s00300-012-1235-y
37. Owen MA Davis RW Pagano AM Polar Bear Maternal Care, Neonatal Development, and Social Behavior Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Sea Otters and Polar Bears 2021 Cham Springer International Publishing 293 310
Owen, M. A. Polar Bear Maternal Care, Neonatal Development, and Social Behavior. In Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Sea Otters and Polar Bears (eds Davis, R. W. & Pagano, A. M.) 293–310 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021). 10.1007/978-3-030-66796-2_15.
38. Laidre KL Females roam while males patrol: Divergence in breeding season movements of pack-ice polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2013 280 20122371 10.1098/rspb.2012.2371
Laidre, K. L. et al. Females roam while males patrol: Divergence in breeding season movements of pack-ice polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 280, 20122371 (2013).10.1098/rspb.2012.2371
39. Richardson ES Variance in lifetime reproductive success of male polar bears Behav. Ecol. 2020 31 1224 1232 10.1093/beheco/araa074
Richardson, E. S. et al. Variance in lifetime reproductive success of male polar bears. Behav. Ecol. 31, 1224–1232 (2020).10.1093/beheco/araa074
40. Brandt R Macdonald DW To know him is to love him? Familiarity and female preference in the harvest mouse Micromys minutus. Anim. Behav. 2011 82 353 358 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.011
Brandt, R. & Macdonald, D. W. To know him is to love him? Familiarity and female preference in the harvest mouse. Micromys minutus. Anim. Behav. 82, 353–358 (2011).10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.011
41. Smith TG Aars J Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) mating during late June on the pack ice of northern Svalbard Norway. Polar Res. 2015 34 25786 10.3402/polar.v34.25786
Smith, T. G. & Aars, J. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) mating during late June on the pack ice of northern Svalbard. Norway. Polar Res. 34, 25786 (2015).10.3402/polar.v34.25786
42. Stirling I Spencer C Andriashek D Behavior and activity budgets of wild breeding polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Mar. Mammal Sci. 2016 32 13 37 10.1111/mms.12291
Stirling, I., Spencer, C. & Andriashek, D. Behavior and activity budgets of wild breeding polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Mar. Mammal Sci. 32, 13–37 (2016).10.1111/mms.12291
43. Derocher AE Stirling I Aspects of survival in juvenile polar bears Can. J. Zool. 1996 74 1246 1252 10.1139/z96-138
Derocher, A. E. & Stirling, I. Aspects of survival in juvenile polar bears. Can. J. Zool. 74, 1246–1252 (1996).10.1139/z96-138
44. Derocher AE Stirling I Distribution of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during the ice-free period in western Hudson Bay Can. J. Zool. 1990 68 1395 1403 10.1139/z90-208
Derocher, A. E. & Stirling, I. Distribution of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during the ice-free period in western Hudson Bay. Can. J. Zool. 68, 1395–1403 (1990).10.1139/z90-208
45. Clark DA Stirling I Habitat preferences of polar bears in the hudson bay lowlands during late summer and fall Ursus 1998 10 243 250
Clark, D. A. & Stirling, I. Habitat preferences of polar bears in the hudson bay lowlands during late summer and fall. Ursus 10, 243–250 (1998).
46. Towns L Derocher AE Stirling I Lunn NJ Changes in land distribution of polar bears in western hudson bay Arctic 2010 63 206 212 10.14430/arctic975
Towns, L., Derocher, A. E., Stirling, I. & Lunn, N. J. Changes in land distribution of polar bears in western hudson bay. Arctic 63, 206–212 (2010).10.14430/arctic975
47. Lunn N Stenhouse G An observation of possible cannibalism by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Can. J. Zool. 1985 63 1516 1517 10.1139/z85-225
Lunn, N. & Stenhouse, G. An observation of possible cannibalism by polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Can. J. Zool. 63, 1516–1517 (1985).10.1139/z85-225
48. Stirling I Ross JE Observations of cannibalism by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) on summer and autumn sea ice at svalbard Norway. Arctic 2011 64 478 482
Stirling, I. & Ross, J. E. Observations of cannibalism by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) on summer and autumn sea ice at svalbard. Norway. Arctic 64, 478–482 (2011).
49. Aars J Davis RW Pagano AM Polar Bear Behavior in Response to Climate Change Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Sea Otters and Polar Bears 2021 Springer International Publishing 311 323
Aars, J. Polar Bear Behavior in Response to Climate Change. In Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Sea Otters and Polar Bears (eds Davis, R. W. & Pagano, A. M.) 311–323 (Springer International Publishing, 2021). 10.1007/978-3-030-66796-2_16.
50. Iverson SA Gilchrist HG Smith PA Gaston AJ Forbes MR Longer ice-free seasons increase the risk of nest depredation by polar bears for colonial breeding birds in the Canadian Arctic Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2014 281 20133128 10.1098/rspb.2013.3128
Iverson, S. A., Gilchrist, H. G., Smith, P. A., Gaston, A. J. & Forbes, M. R. Longer ice-free seasons increase the risk of nest depredation by polar bears for colonial breeding birds in the Canadian Arctic. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 281, 20133128 (2014).10.1098/rspb.2013.3128
51. Jagielski PM Dey CJ Gilchrist HG Richardson ES Semeniuk CAD Polar bear foraging on common eider eggs: Estimating the energetic consequences of a climate-mediated behavioural shift Anim. Behav. 2021 171 63 75 10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.11.009
Jagielski, P. M., Dey, C. J., Gilchrist, H. G., Richardson, E. S. & Semeniuk, C. A. D. Polar bear foraging on common eider eggs: Estimating the energetic consequences of a climate-mediated behavioural shift. Anim. Behav. 171, 63–75 (2021).10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.11.009
52. Dyck MG Kebreab E Estimating the energetic contribution of polar bear (Ursus maritimus ) summer diets to the total energy budget J. Mammal. 2009 90 585 593 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-103R2.1
Dyck, M. G. & Kebreab, E. Estimating the energetic contribution of polar bear (Ursus maritimus ) summer diets to the total energy budget. J. Mammal. 90, 585–593 (2009).10.1644/08-MAMM-A-103R2.1
53. Rockwell RF Gormezano LJ The early bear gets the goose: Climate change, polar bears and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay Polar Biol. 2009 32 539 547 10.1007/s00300-008-0548-3
Rockwell, R. F. & Gormezano, L. J. The early bear gets the goose: Climate change, polar bears and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay. Polar Biol. 32, 539–547 (2009).10.1007/s00300-008-0548-3
54. Stempniewicz L Yes, they can: Polar bears Ursus maritimus successfully hunt Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus Polar Biol. 2021 10.1007/s00300-021-02954-w 35226712
Stempniewicz, L. Yes, they can: Polar bears Ursus maritimus successfully hunt Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus. Polar Biol.10.1007/s00300-021-02954-w (2021).35226712 10.1007/s00300-021-02954-w
55. Jagielski PM Polar bears are inefficient predators of seabird eggs R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021 8 rsos.210391 10.1098/rsos.210391
Jagielski, P. M. et al. Polar bears are inefficient predators of seabird eggs. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, rsos.210391 (2021).10.1098/rsos.210391
56. Prop J Climate change and the increasing impact of polar bears on bird populations Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015 3 33 10.3389/fevo.2015.00033
Prop, J. et al. Climate change and the increasing impact of polar bears on bird populations. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 33 (2015).10.3389/fevo.2015.00033
57. Owen MA An experimental investigation of chemical communication in the polar bear J. Zool. 2015 295 36 43 10.1111/jzo.12181
Owen, M. A. et al. An experimental investigation of chemical communication in the polar bear. J. Zool. 295, 36–43 (2015).10.1111/jzo.12181
58. Eisenberg JF Kleiman DG Olfactory communication in mammals Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1972 3 1 32 10.1146/annurev.es.03.110172.000245
Eisenberg, J. F. & Kleiman, D. G. Olfactory communication in mammals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3, 1–32 (1972).10.1146/annurev.es.03.110172.000245
59. Togunov RR Derocher AE Lunn NJ Windscapes and olfactory foraging in a large carnivore Sci. Rep. 2017 7 46332 10.1038/srep46332 28402340
Togunov, R. R., Derocher, A. E. & Lunn, N. J. Windscapes and olfactory foraging in a large carnivore. Sci. Rep. 7, 46332 (2017).28402340 10.1038/srep46332
60. Kats LB Dill LM The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals Écoscience 1998 5 361 394 10.1080/11956860.1998.11682468
Kats, L. B. & Dill, L. M. The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Écoscience 5, 361–394 (1998).10.1080/11956860.1998.11682468
61. Lydersen C The importance of tidewater glaciers for marine mammals and seabirds in Svalbard Norway. J. Mar. Syst. 2014 129 452 471 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.09.006
Lydersen, C. et al. The importance of tidewater glaciers for marine mammals and seabirds in Svalbard. Norway. J. Mar. Syst. 129, 452–471 (2014).10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.09.006
62. Lønø O The polar bear (Ursus maritimus Phipps) in the Svalbard area Nor. Polarinst. Skr. 1970 149 1 103
Lønø, O. The polar bear (Ursus maritimus Phipps) in the Svalbard area. Nor. Polarinst. Skr. 149, 1–103 (1970).
63. Derocher AE Andersen M Wiig Ø Aars J Sexual dimorphism and the mating ecology of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) at Svalbard Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2010 64 939 946 10.1007/s00265-010-0909-0
Derocher, A. E., Andersen, M., Wiig, Ø. & Aars, J. Sexual dimorphism and the mating ecology of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) at Svalbard. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 939–946 (2010).10.1007/s00265-010-0909-0
64. Hamilton CD Kovacs KM Ims RA Aars J Lydersen C An Arctic predator-prey system in flux: Climate change impacts on coastal space use by polar bears and ringed seals J. Anim. Ecol. 2017 86 1054 1064 10.1111/1365-2656.12685 28415134
Hamilton, C. D., Kovacs, K. M., Ims, R. A., Aars, J. & Lydersen, C. An Arctic predator-prey system in flux: Climate change impacts on coastal space use by polar bears and ringed seals. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 1054–1064 (2017).28415134 10.1111/1365-2656.12685
65. Prop J van Eerden MR Drent RH Reproductive success of the Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis in relation to food exploitation on the breeding grounds, western Spitsbergen Nor. Polarinst. Skr. 1984 181 87 118
Prop, J., van Eerden, M. R. & Drent, R. H. Reproductive success of the Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis in relation to food exploitation on the breeding grounds, western Spitsbergen. Nor. Polarinst. Skr. 181, 87–118 (1984).
66. Derocher AE Population ecology of polar bears at Svalbard Norway. Popul. Ecol. 2005 47 267 275 10.1007/s10144-005-0231-2
Derocher, A. E. Population ecology of polar bears at Svalbard. Norway. Popul. Ecol. 47, 267–275 (2005).10.1007/s10144-005-0231-2
67. Smith TS Davis RW Pagano AM Polar Bear Reproductive and Denning Behavior Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Sea Otters and Polar Bears 2021 Springer International Publishing 269 292
Smith, T. S. Polar Bear Reproductive and Denning Behavior. In Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Sea Otters and Polar Bears (eds Davis, R. W. & Pagano, A. M.) 269–292 (Springer International Publishing, 2021). 10.1007/978-3-030-66796-2_14.
68. Anderson CJR Lobo ND Roth JD Waterman JM Computer-aided photo-identification system with an application to polar bears based on whisker spot patterns J. Mammal. 2010 91 1350 1359 10.1644/09-MAMM-A-425.1
Anderson, C. J. R., Lobo, N. D., Roth, J. D. & Waterman, J. M. Computer-aided photo-identification system with an application to polar bears based on whisker spot patterns. J. Mammal. 91, 1350–1359 (2010).10.1644/09-MAMM-A-425.1
69. Prop J Staverløkk A Moe B Identifying individual polar bears at safe distances: A test with captive animals PLOS ONE 2020 15 e0228991 10.1371/journal.pone.0228991 32053691
Prop, J., Staverløkk, A. & Moe, B. Identifying individual polar bears at safe distances: A test with captive animals. PLOS ONE 15, e0228991 (2020).32053691 10.1371/journal.pone.0228991
70. Merkel B Aars J Laidre KL Fox JW Light-level geolocation as a tool to monitor polar bear (Ursus maritimus) denning ecology: A case study Anim. Biotelemetry 2023 11 11 10.1186/s40317-023-00323-4
Merkel, B., Aars, J., Laidre, K. L. & Fox, J. W. Light-level geolocation as a tool to monitor polar bear (Ursus maritimus) denning ecology: A case study. Anim. Biotelemetry 11, 11 (2023).10.1186/s40317-023-00323-4
71. Cless IT Voss-Hoynes HA Ritzmann RE Lukas KE Defining pacing quantitatively: A comparison of gait characteristics between pacing and non-repetitive locomotion in zoo-housed polar bears Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015 169 78 85 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.002
Cless, I. T., Voss-Hoynes, H. A., Ritzmann, R. E. & Lukas, K. E. Defining pacing quantitatively: A comparison of gait characteristics between pacing and non-repetitive locomotion in zoo-housed polar bears. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 169, 78–85 (2015).10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.002
72. Amanat S Mayer J Paracha H Ali Z Granatosky MC Vonk J Shackelford T Bear Locomotion Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior 2020 Springer International Publishing 1 6
Amanat, S., Mayer, J., Paracha, H., Ali, Z. & Granatosky, M. C. Bear Locomotion. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (eds Vonk, J. & Shackelford, T.) 1–6 (Springer International Publishing, 2020). 10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1707-1.
73. Granatosky MC McElroy EJ Stride frequency or length? A phylogenetic approach to understand how animals regulate locomotor speed J. Exp. Biol. 2022 225 ieb243231 10.1242/jeb.243231
Granatosky, M. C. & McElroy, E. J. Stride frequency or length? A phylogenetic approach to understand how animals regulate locomotor speed. J. Exp. Biol. 225, ieb243231 (2022).10.1242/jeb.243231
74. Brooks ME glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling R J. 2017 9 378 400 10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).10.32614/RJ-2017-066
75. Delignette-Muller ML Dutang C fitdistrplus: An R package for fitting distributions J. Stat. Softw. 2015 64 1 34 10.18637/jss.v064.i04
Delignette-Muller, M. L. & Dutang, C. fitdistrplus: An R package for fitting distributions. J. Stat. Softw. 64, 1–34 (2015).10.18637/jss.v064.i04
76. Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) regression models (R package version 0.4. 5)[Computer software]. (2022).
77. Richards SA Whittingham MJ Stephens PA Model selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: The utility of the IT-AIC framework Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2011 65 77 89 10.1007/s00265-010-1035-8
Richards, S. A., Whittingham, M. J. & Stephens, P. A. Model selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: The utility of the IT-AIC framework. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 77–89 (2011).10.1007/s00265-010-1035-8
78. Barton, K. Package MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.42.1. (2018).
79. Burnham KP Anderson DR Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection Sociol. Methods Res. 2004 33 261 304 10.1177/0049124104268644
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 261–304 (2004).10.1177/0049124104268644
80. Nakagawa S Johnson PCD Schielzeth H The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded J. R. Soc. Interface 2017 14 20170213 10.1098/rsif.2017.0213 28904005
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D. & Schielzeth, H. The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J. R. Soc. Interface 14, 20170213 (2017).28904005 10.1098/rsif.2017.0213
81. Nakagawa S Schielzeth H A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models Methods Ecol. Evol. 2013 4 133 142 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
82. Lenth RV Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means R Package Vers. 188 2023 1 3
Lenth, R. V. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R Package Vers. 188 1, 3 (2023).
83. Bolker BM Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009 24 127 135 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 19185386
Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2009).19185386 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
84. Pagano AM High-energy, high-fat lifestyle challenges an Arctic apex predator, the polar bear Science 2018 359 568 572 10.1126/science.aan8677 29420288
Pagano, A. M. et al. High-energy, high-fat lifestyle challenges an Arctic apex predator, the polar bear. Science 359, 568–572 (2018).29420288 10.1126/science.aan8677
85. Stirling I Øritsland NA Relationships between estimates of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations in the Canadian Arctic Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1995 52 2594 2612 10.1139/f95-849
Stirling, I. & Øritsland, N. A. Relationships between estimates of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations in the Canadian Arctic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52, 2594–2612 (1995).10.1139/f95-849
86. Taylor M Lee J Distribution and abundance of canadian polar bear populations: A management perspective Arctic 1995 48 147 154 10.14430/arctic1236
Taylor, M. & Lee, J. Distribution and abundance of canadian polar bear populations: A management perspective. Arctic 48, 147–154 (1995).10.14430/arctic1236
87. Hamilton SG Derocher AE Assessment of global polar bear abundance and vulnerability Anim. Conserv. 2019 22 83 95 10.1111/acv.12439
Hamilton, S. G. & Derocher, A. E. Assessment of global polar bear abundance and vulnerability. Anim. Conserv. 22, 83–95 (2019).10.1111/acv.12439
88. Stirling I Derocher AE Factors affecting the evolution and behavioral ecology of the modern bears Bears Their Biol. Manag. 1990 8 189 10.2307/3872919
Stirling, I. & Derocher, A. E. Factors affecting the evolution and behavioral ecology of the modern bears. Bears Their Biol. Manag. 8, 189 (1990).10.2307/3872919
89. Hunter JS Durant SM Caro TM To flee or not to flee: Predator avoidance by cheetahs at kills Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007 61 1033 1042 10.1007/s00265-006-0336-4
Hunter, J. S., Durant, S. M. & Caro, T. M. To flee or not to flee: Predator avoidance by cheetahs at kills. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 1033–1042 (2007).10.1007/s00265-006-0336-4
90. Black JM Owen M Reproductive performance and assortative pairing in relation to age in barnacle geese J. Anim. Ecol. 1995 64 234 244 10.2307/5758
Black, J. M. & Owen, M. Reproductive performance and assortative pairing in relation to age in barnacle geese. J. Anim. Ecol. 64, 234–244 (1995).10.2307/5758
91. Palphramand KL White PCL Badgers, Meles meles, discriminate between neighbour, alien and self scent Anim. Behav. 2007 74 429 436 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.026
Palphramand, K. L. & White, P. C. L. Badgers, Meles meles, discriminate between neighbour, alien and self scent. Anim. Behav. 74, 429–436 (2007).10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.026
92. Siracusa ER Familiar neighbors, but not relatives, enhance fitness in a territorial mammal Curr. Biol. 2021 31 438 445.e3 10.1016/j.cub.2020.10.072 33338428
Siracusa, E. R. et al. Familiar neighbors, but not relatives, enhance fitness in a territorial mammal. Curr. Biol. 31, 438-445.e3 (2021).33338428 10.1016/j.cub.2020.10.072
93. Ranta E Lindström K Peuhkuri N Size matters when three-spined sticklebacks go to school Anim. Behav. 1992 43 160 162 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80082-X
Ranta, E., Lindström, K. & Peuhkuri, N. Size matters when three-spined sticklebacks go to school. Anim. Behav. 43, 160–162 (1992).10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80082-X
94. Firth JA Sheldon BC Social carry-over effects underpin trans-seasonally linked structure in a wild bird population Ecol. Lett. 2016 19 1324 1332 10.1111/ele.12669 27623746
Firth, J. A. & Sheldon, B. C. Social carry-over effects underpin trans-seasonally linked structure in a wild bird population. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1324–1332 (2016).27623746 10.1111/ele.12669
95. Choudhury S Black JM Mate-selection behaviour and sampling strategies in geese Anim. Behav. 1993 46 747 757 10.1006/anbe.1993.1252
Choudhury, S. & Black, J. M. Mate-selection behaviour and sampling strategies in geese. Anim. Behav. 46, 747–757 (1993).10.1006/anbe.1993.1252
96. Charlton BD Martin-Wintle MS Owen MA Zhang H Swaisgood RR Vocal behaviour predicts mating success in giant pandas R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018 5 181323 10.1098/rsos.181323 30473861
Charlton, B. D., Martin-Wintle, M. S., Owen, M. A., Zhang, H. & Swaisgood, R. R. Vocal behaviour predicts mating success in giant pandas. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 181323 (2018).30473861 10.1098/rsos.181323
97. Zeyl E Aars J Ehrich D Bachmann L Wiig Ø The mating system of polar bears: A genetic approach Can. J. Zool. 2009 87 1195 1209 10.1139/Z09-107
Zeyl, E., Aars, J., Ehrich, D., Bachmann, L. & Wiig, Ø. The mating system of polar bears: A genetic approach. Can. J. Zool. 87, 1195–1209 (2009).10.1139/Z09-107
98. Cheetham SA Thom MD Beynon RJ Hurst JL Hurst JL Beynon RJ Roberts SC Wyatt TD The Effect of Familiarity on Mate Choice Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 11 2008 Springer, New York 271 280
Cheetham, S. A., Thom, M. D., Beynon, R. J. & Hurst, J. L. The Effect of Familiarity on Mate Choice. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 11 (eds Hurst, J. L. et al.) 271–280 (Springer, New York, 2008).
99. Pilfold NW Derocher AE Richardson E Influence of intraspecific competition on the distribution of a wide-ranging, non-territorial carnivore Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014 23 425 435 10.1111/geb.12112
Pilfold, N. W., Derocher, A. E. & Richardson, E. Influence of intraspecific competition on the distribution of a wide-ranging, non-territorial carnivore. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 425–435 (2014).10.1111/geb.12112
100. Taylor M Larsen T Schweinsburg RE Observations of Intraspecific Aggression and Cannibalism in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) Arctic 1985 38 303 309 10.14430/arctic2149
Taylor, M., Larsen, T. & Schweinsburg, R. E. Observations of Intraspecific Aggression and Cannibalism in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus). Arctic 38, 303–309 (1985).10.14430/arctic2149
101. Galezo AA Krzyszczyk E Mann J Sexual segregation in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins is driven by female avoidance of males Behav. Ecol. 2018 29 377 386 10.1093/beheco/arx177
Galezo, A. A., Krzyszczyk, E. & Mann, J. Sexual segregation in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins is driven by female avoidance of males. Behav. Ecol. 29, 377–386 (2018).10.1093/beheco/arx177
102. Rode KD Farley SD Robbins CT Sexual dimorphism, reproductive strategy, and human activities determine resource use by Brown Bears Ecology 2006 87 2636 2646 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2636:SDRSAH]2.0.CO;2 17089671
Rode, K. D., Farley, S. D. & Robbins, C. T. Sexual dimorphism, reproductive strategy, and human activities determine resource use by Brown Bears. Ecology 87, 2636–2646 (2006).17089671 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2636:SDRSAH]2.0.CO;2
103. Steyaert SMJG Human shields mediate sexual conflict in a top predator Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016 283 20160906 10.1098/rspb.2016.0906
Steyaert, S. M. J. G. et al. Human shields mediate sexual conflict in a top predator. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20160906 (2016).10.1098/rspb.2016.0906
104. Amstrup SC Durner GM Stirling I Lunn NJ Messier F Movements and distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea Can. J. Zool. 2000 78 948 966 10.1139/z00-016
Amstrup, S. C., Durner, G. M., Stirling, I., Lunn, N. J. & Messier, F. Movements and distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. Can. J. Zool. 78, 948–966 (2000).10.1139/z00-016
105. Aars J The number and distribution of polar bears in the western Barents Sea Polar Res. 2017 36 1374125 10.1080/17518369.2017.1374125
Aars, J. et al. The number and distribution of polar bears in the western Barents Sea. Polar Res. 36, 1374125 (2017).10.1080/17518369.2017.1374125
106. Galef BG Laland KN Social learning in animals: Empirical studies and theoretical models Bioscience 2005 55 489 499 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0489:SLIAES]2.0.CO;2
Galef, B. G. & Laland, K. N. Social learning in animals: Empirical studies and theoretical models. Bioscience 55, 489–499 (2005).10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0489:SLIAES]2.0.CO;2
107. Molnar PK Derocher AE Lewis MA Taylor MK Modelling the mating system of polar bears: A mechanistic approach to the Allee effect Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2008 275 217 226 10.1098/rspb.2007.1307
Molnar, P. K., Derocher, A. E., Lewis, M. A. & Taylor, M. K. Modelling the mating system of polar bears: A mechanistic approach to the Allee effect. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 275, 217–226 (2008).10.1098/rspb.2007.1307
108. Chapman T Arnqvist G Bangham J Rowe L Sexual conflict Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003 18 41 47 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00004-6
Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. & Rowe, L. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 41–47 (2003).10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00004-6
109. Newton I Population Limitation in Birds 1998 Academic Press
Newton, I. Population Limitation in Birds (Academic Press, 1998). 10.1016/B978-012517365-0/50000-4.
110. Laidre KL Stirling I Estes JA Kochnev A Roberts J Historical and potential future importance of large whales as food for polar bears Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018 16 515 524 10.1002/fee.1963
Laidre, K. L., Stirling, I., Estes, J. A., Kochnev, A. & Roberts, J. Historical and potential future importance of large whales as food for polar bears. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 515–524 (2018).10.1002/fee.1963
111. Rode KD Robbins CT Nelson L Amstrup SC Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015 13 138 145 10.1890/140202
Rode, K. D., Robbins, C. T., Nelson, L. & Amstrup, S. C. Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 138–145 (2015).10.1890/140202
112. Regehr EV Lunn NJ Amstrup SC Stirling L Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson bay J. Wildl. Manag. 2007 71 2673 2683 10.2193/2006-180
Regehr, E. V., Lunn, N. J., Amstrup, S. C. & Stirling, L. Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson bay. J. Wildl. Manag. 71, 2673–2683 (2007).10.2193/2006-180
113. Pagano AM Polar bear energetic and behavioral strategies on land with implications for surviving the ice-free period Nat. Commun. 2024 15 947 10.1038/s41467-023-44682-1 38351211
Pagano, A. M. et al. Polar bear energetic and behavioral strategies on land with implications for surviving the ice-free period. Nat. Commun. 15, 947 (2024).38351211 10.1038/s41467-023-44682-1
