Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 19;15(8):e0237444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237444. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Animal structural body size and condition are often measured to evaluate individual health, identify responses to environmental change and food availability, and relate food availability to effects on reproduction and survival. A variety of condition metrics have been developed but relationships between these metrics and vital rates are rarely validated. Identifying an optimal approach to estimate the body condition of polar bears is needed to improve monitoring of their response to decline in sea ice habitat. Therefore, we examined relationships between several commonly used condition indices (CI), body mass, and size with female reproductive success and cub survival among polar bears (Ursus maritimus) measured in two subpopulations over three decades. To improve measurement and application of morphometrics and CIs, we also examined whether CIs are independent of age and structural size-an important assumption for monitoring temporal trends-and factors affecting measurement precision and accuracy. Maternal CIs and mass measured the fall prior to denning were related to cub production. Similarly, maternal CIs, mass, and length were related to the mass of cubs or yearlings that accompanied her. However, maternal body mass, but not CIs, measured in the spring was related to cub production and only maternal mass and length were related to the probability of cub survival. These results suggest that CIs may not be better indicators of fitness than body mass in part because CIs remove variation associated with body size that is important in affecting fitness. Further, CIs exhibited variable relationships with age for growing bears and were lower for longer bears despite body length being related to cub survival and female reproductive success. These results are consistent with findings from other species indicating that body mass is a useful metric to link environmental conditions and population dynamics.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Arctic Regions
  • Body Size*
  • Breeding
  • Ecosystem
  • Female
  • Male
  • Oceans and Seas
  • Reproduction / physiology
  • Seasons
  • Ursidae / growth & development
  • Ursidae / physiology*

Grants and funding

Funding was provided by U.S. Geological Survey’s Changing Arctic Ecosystems Initiative and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Employees of these agencies that were involved in the study are coauthors on this manuscript. Additional support was provided by the Detroit Zoological Association, a Coastal Impact Assessment Program grant through the State of Alaska, United States Air Force, the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Teck Alaska Inc, BP Exploration Alaska, Inc.; ARCO Alaska Inc.; Conoco-Phillips, Inc.; Defenders of Wildlife; and the ExxonMobil Production Company provided in-kind support. None of these organizations played a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.