It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Here we present annual nearest-neighbour distances (as a proxy of density) between females with cubs-of-the-year (hereafter FCOY) and reproductive characteristics of brown bears Ursus arctos in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain), from 1989 to 2017. FCOY nearest-neighbour distances and reproduction parameters of 19 focal females followed over several consecutive years (from 2004 to 2017) were obtained from bears inhabiting the western sector of the Cantabrian Mountains, where most of the bear population resides. In contrast, general reproductive characteristics were studied in the whole Cantabrian Mountains (western and eastern sectors together) on a sample of 362 litter sizes and 695 cubs. Mean nearest-neighbour distance between FCOY was 2559 ± 1222 m (range = 1305–4757 m). Mean litter size was significantly larger in the west (1.8 ± 0.2 cubs) than in the east (1.3 ± 0.6 cubs). Mean litter size for the whole of the Cantabrian Mountains was 1.6 ± 0.3 cubs. Litter sizes of one, two and three cubs represented 33.4, 56.1 and 10.5% of observed family groups, respectively. Interannual variations in litter size were not significant for both the western and the eastern areas. Mean cub mortality was 0.2 ± 0.5 cubs and did not vary among years. Cub mortality per litter size was 3.9% for one cub, 69.2% for two cubs and 26.9% for three cubs. Mean reproductive rate of the 19 focal females was 1.5 ± 0.6 cubs (n = 58 litters). Litter size of focal FCOY did not differ from the litter size obtained from systematic observations in the whole Cantabrian Mountains. During this period, cub mortality occurred in 24.1% of the 58 litters. Females usually bred every second year (average litter interval = 2.2 years). The estimated reproductive rate for the bear population was 0.7 young born/year/reproductive adult female.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (IPE), CSIC, Zaragoza, Spain; Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo University, Mieres, Spain
2 Research Unit of Biodiversity (UMIB, UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo University, Mieres, Spain
3 Consejería de Ordenación del Territorio, Infraestructuras y Medio Ambiente, Dirección General de Biodiversidad, Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
4 Instituto Cavanilles de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
5 Consejería de Ordenación del Territorio, Infraestructuras y Medio Ambiente, Dirección General de Biodiversidad, Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain; Real Instituto de Estudios Asturianos (RIDEA), Oviedo, Spain