Litter Sizes of Brown Bears in the Central Alborz Protected Area, Iran

SHORT COMMUNICATION N Nezami and Farhadinia Litter sizes of brown bears in the Central Alborz Protected Area, Iran Bagher Nezami1,2,3 and Mohammad S. aspects of the species. Additionally, brown bear Farhadinia1 conservation has not been properly considered in management plans for protection of the area 1Iranian Cheetah Society, PO Box 14155-8549, Tehran, (Iranian Department of Environment 2001). Iran Estimating population size and trends of brown 2Islamic Azad University, Science and Technology bear populations has frequently been based on Branch, Tehran, Iran tallying the number of females with cubs observed annually (Knight et al. 1995, Palomero et al. 1997) Abstract: Although smaller than 4,000 km2, the and is central to evaluating conservation measures. Central Alborz Protected Area (CAPA) is one of the Family groups are an important portion of the main habitats of brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Iran. population and are the most important demo- During August 2005 to September 2009, we gathered graphic component (Palomero et al. 1997). Moni- data through direct observations of bears, identify- toring females with cubs provides information about ing individual bears by means of age, sex, color, and demography and contributes to their surveillance behavior. We observed bears on 115 occasions. and protection (Knight et al. 1995). Mean size of cub litters was 2.00 (SE 5 0.20, n 5 Aside from its intrinsic importance for conser- 13) and varied from 1 to 3. We speculate that low vation as a large carnivore protected by law occurrence of meat in food items of the bears in the (Farhadinia et al. unpublished data), the Iranian area explains this relatively small litter size. We brown bears occur in habitats where there is hypothesize that the north-central portion of the relatively high diversity of fauna, such as Persian Alborz Protected Area is a female core area which leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor), maral red deer supports surrounding sink populations and needs to (Cervus elaphus maral), roe deer (Capreolus capreo- be protected more effectively. lus), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), and wolf (Canis lupus) (Darvishsefat 2006, Ziaie 2008). Because the Key words: brown bear, Central Alborz Protected brown bear distribution overlaps major ecosystems Area, Iran, litter size, Ursus arctos in CAPA, the species is considered an umbrella Ursus 22(2):167–171 (2011) species (Carroll et al. 2001); focusing conservation efforts on it can provide effective conservation management for the vanishing forest habitats of Iran. The brown bear (Ursus arctos) is continuously The size and frequency of litters and the survival distributed in northern and western portions of Iran, of cubs are important parameters of population mainly in the Alborz and Zagros Mountains (Lay change (Frkovicˆ et al. 2001), and monitoring these 1967, Gutleb and Ziaie 1999). The Alborz Moun- parameters can help managers evaluate protection tains are thought to hold a larger number of bears effectiveness. Thus, we investigated litter sizes in a than the Zagros to the west (Etemad 1985, Gutleb brown bear population in the northern portion of and Ziaie 1999, Farhadinia et al. unpublished data), CAPA in Iran during 2005–09. We hope this will with a rough estimate of 500–1,000 bears (Gutleb provide part of a scientific base for monitoring and Ziaie 1999). Hosting one of the largest popu- efforts within bear habitats, particularly areas with lations of the Syrian brown bear in Iran (Nezami relatively long conservation histories. 2008), western Mazandaran province, including the Central Alborz Protected Area (CAPA), has been widely considered in the literature to have reliable Study area evidence of bear presence (e.g. Blanford 1876, Stretching across the southern shore of the Goodwin 1940, Misonne 1959, Lay 1967). However, Caspian Sea in an east–west direction, the Alborz scientific data on brown bears are scarce in Iran, Mountains are home to a number of the well-known especially on population size and reproductive reserves of Iran, including CAPA (Fig. 1). One of the oldest reserves in the country, CAPA was [email protected] designated as a protected area in 1963 with an area 167 168 SHORT COMMUNICATION N Nezami and Farhadinia Fig. 1. Distribution of brown bear in Iran, 2010 (heavier black lines). of ,4,000 km2 (Darvishsefat 2006); the approxi- humid, temperate semi-arid, and warm Mediterra- mately 5,000-ha core zone of CAPA, in Mazandaran nean climates in the region (Darvishsefat 2006). province, is the location of this study (Fig. 2). High mountains and forests are covered by heavy The study area consisted of various ecosystems, snow from December to March and are not from Irano–Turanian landscapes in the south to accessible during these times. highland alpine scrublands extending to deep Hyr- Due to its exposure to the Caspian Sea, its humid canian forests near the Caspian Sea, with elevations northern slope is predominantly covered with dense ranging from 210–4,300 m. The mean annual Hyrcanian forests. The main plant species include temperature of 8–17uC and precipitation of 350– beech (Fagus orientalis), hornbeam (Carpinus betu- 1,100 mm result in temperate pre-humid, cold lus), chestnut-leaved oak (Quercus spp.), scotch elm Ursus 22(2):167–171 (2011) SHORT COMMUNICATION N Nezami and Farhadinia 169 Fig. 2. Central Alborz Protected Area and its location in Iran. (Ulmus glabra), alder (Alnus spp.), lime tree (Tilia were recorded upon sighting a bear. The bear’s color spp., Astragalus spp.), and various graminoids. was also considered which, together with other age– sex characteristics, we found helpful in individual identification over short periods. These characteris- Methods tics have been used in other brown bear studies as a Field investigations were carried out from August tool to recognize individuals through time (Sellers 2005 to September 2009 in the CAPA, mainly in and Aumiller 1994, Craighead 2000, Nawaz 2008). the Core Zone. Field surveys were conducted We used 2 pairs of 12x binoculars to observe monthly until May 2007, but afterward surveys were bears (simultaneous observation by both authors). conducted only during June and July, during which To aid in differentiating individuals and minimize time we noted that bears mainly occupied high duplication, we photographed bears using a camera elevations and were easier to document. Data were equipped with a 75–300 zoom lens. To enhance the collected mainly on mountains peaks and ridges reliability of individual identification, animals were where visibility was good, or along 6 main transects carefully watched from a location without any throughout the area. disturbance to the bears, resulting approximately Information on number, age (i.e. cub, yearling, 2,900 minutes of direct observation during the and adult), time, location, habitat, and behavior study. Ursus 22(2):167–171 (2011) 170 SHORT COMMUNICATION N Nezami and Farhadinia Herein, we report only on bears systematically population) in Spain’s Cantabrian Mountains (Pa- recorded by us; we did not accept bear sighting notes lomero et al. 1997), or the 1.33 in the Himalaya of made by game wardens nor by other experts or Pakistan (Nawaz 2008). students in the area. In total, we considered 34 According to Bunnell and Tait (1981), nutrition is observations duplicates and excluded them from the primary factor regulating reproductive parame- calculations. We are aware that duplicate observa- ters in bears. Mammals are believed to be the highest tions may have been undetectable by our methods, quality food throughout the year for bears (McLel- but we believe the number of duplicates to be low lan and Hovey 1995, Hilderbrand et al. 1999), and and unlikely to bias our results. Individual compar- abundant meat resources positively affect reproduc- ison was conducted between animals seen in each tive success in bears (Hilderbrand et al. 1999). It has year’s sampling; however, we avoided comparing also been reported for the Himalayan brown bears bears between years, because color changes with age that their small litter size is related to their (Nawaz 2008). predominant vegetarian diet with low meat content (Nawaz 2008). We speculate that bears in our area lack meat in their diet (Nezami and Farhadinia Results unpublished data), because we believe that they have We observed bears on a total of 115 occasions difficulty preying on the native large mammals such during the 4-year study, of which 91% occurred as wild goat (Capra aegagrus), red deer, and wild in the 3 summer months, and most were in high boar (Sus scrofa), which are more agile than are elevation habitats. We identified what we believe to bears in the high, rugged mountains of the CAPA. have been 22 bears in 2006, 24 in 2007, 19 in 2008, Most family groups were observed near cliffs or and 14 in 2009. Despite continuous field surveys rocky terrain. prior to May 2007, we observed no bears during Females with young have rarely been observed in either autumn or winter. However, we did encounter the South Alborz Protected Area, located south of fresh tracks and scars, and believe our failure to see our study area (E. Jannati, Iranian Cheetah Society, bears at these times may have been because of the unpublished data; Ataei 2010). Therefore, we difficulty of observing them while they occupy dense speculate that the Core Zone of CAPA may forest. Among sighting in which groups of bears function as a core area for females (Swenson et al. were seen, 86% were family groups. 1994). We observed 19 different family units, of which 13 consisted of females with cubs of the year (Table 1). Litter size varied from 1 to 3 and averaged 2.0 (SE 5 Conservation recommendations 0.20). Reproductive parameters are important for management of brown bears; we thus believe our results can form a useful baseline for monitoring of bear Discussion populations in Iran.

Load more