, Volume 184, Issue 1, pp 101–114 | Cite as

Effects of habitat features on size-biased predation on salmon by bears

  • Luke C. Andersson
  • John D. Reynolds
Behavioral ecology – original research


Predators can drive trait divergence among populations of prey by imposing differential selection on prey traits. Habitat characteristics can mediate predator selectivity by providing refuge for prey. We quantified the effects of stream characteristics on biases in the sizes of spawning salmon caught by bears (Ursus arctos and U. americanus) on the central coast of British Columbia, Canada by measuring size-biased predation on spawning chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and pink (O. gorbuscha) salmon in 12 streams with varying habitat characteristics. We tested the hypotheses that bears would catch larger than average salmon (size-biased predation) and that this bias toward larger fish would be higher in streams that provide less protection to spawning salmon from predation (e.g., less pools, wood, undercut banks). We then we tested for how such size biases in turn translate into differences among populations in the sizes of the fish. Bears caught larger-than-average salmon as the spawning season progressed and as predicted, this was most pronounced in streams with fewer refugia for the fish (i.e., wood and undercut banks). Salmon were marginally smaller in streams with more pronounced size-biased predation but this predictor was less reliable than physical characteristics of streams, with larger fish in wider, deeper streams. These results support the hypothesis that selective forces imposed by predators can be mediated by habitat characteristics, with potential consequences for physical traits of prey.


Eco-evolutionary dynamics Predation Predator–prey interactions Stream characteristics Size-selective predation 



We are grateful to the Heiltsuk First Nation for their support of our research. We thank Aaron Gaffney, Howard Humchitt, Jane Pendray, Ben Rabinovich, Michelle Segal, Mary Vasey, Marlene Wagner, Kirsten Wilcox and Ross Wilcox for field assistance and for making this such an enjoyable project. We also thank Isabelle Côté, Larry Dill and the Earth to Ocean Research Group at Simon Fraser University for their valuable project input. We thank Andy Cooper, Will Atlas, Joel Harding and Sean Godwin for their guidance in statistical analyses, and Lindsay Davidson for editing the manuscript. Finally, we thank Tom Quinn, Brian Shuter and an anonymous reviewer for suggestions that greatly improved this paper.

Author contribution statement

JDR obtained funding and supervised the project. LCA and JDR designed the study. LCA did the fieldwork and analyzed the data. LCA and JDR wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


This research was funded by Simon Fraser University, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Tom Buell BC Leadership Chair endowment funded by the Pacific Salmon Foundation and the BC Leading Edge Endowment Fund. Additional support was provided to LCA by the W. Garfield Weston Foundation.


  1. Andersson LC, Reynolds JD (2017) Habitat-mediated, selective consumption of spawning salmon by bears. Freshw Sci. SubmittedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain MB, Stevenson NJ (1999) Aquatic habitat assessment: common methods. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  3. Beacham TD (1984) Age and morphology of chum salmon in southern British Columbia. Trans Am Fish Soc 113:727–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beacham TD, Murray CB (1987) Adaptive variation in body size, age, morphology, egg size, and developmental biology of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44:244–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun DC, Reynolds JD (2011) Relationships between habitat characteristics and breeding population densities in sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:758–767. doi: 10.1139/f2011-015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson SM, Quinn TP (2007) Ten years of varying lake level and selection on size-at-maturity in sockeye salmon. Ecology 88:2620–2629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson SM, Rich HB, Quinn TP (2009) Does variation in selection imposed by bears drive divergence among populations in the size and shape of sockeye salmon? Evolution 63:1244–1261. doi: 10.1111/j.l558-5646.2009.00643.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson SM, Quinn TP, Hendry AP (2011) Eco-evolutionary dynamics in Pacific salmon. Heredity 106:438–447. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2010.163 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. R Core Team computing (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical. R foundation for statistical computing.
  11. Cunningham CJ, Ruggerone GT, Quinn TP (2013) Size selectivity of predation by brown bears depends on the density of their sockeye salmon prey. Am Nat 181:663–673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Darimont CT, Reimchen TE, Paquet PC (2003) Foraging behaviour by gray wolves on salmon streams in Coastal British Columbia. Can J Zool 81:349–353. doi: 10.1139/z02-246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derocher AE, Lunn NJ, Stirling I (2004) Polar bears in a warming climate. Integr Comp Biol 44:163–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Domenici P, Claireaux G, McKenzie DJ (2007) Environmental constraints upon locomotion and predator–prey interactions in aquatic organisms: an introduction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 362:1929–1936. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. English KK, Bocking RC, Irvine JR (1992) A robust procedure for estimating salmon escapement based on the area-under-the-curve method. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:1982–1989. doi: 10.1139/f92-220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fausti K, Dugaw D, Chambers J, Dykstra J, Sedell T,Moyer C, Lanigan S, Anderson A, Archer E, Henderson R (2004) Stream channel methods for core attributes. In: Multi-federal Agency Monitoring Program, Logan, Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program and PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinions (PIBO), Corvallis (eds) Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the Pacific Northwest.
  17. Field RD, Reynolds JD (2011) Sea to sky: impacts of residual salmon-derived nutrients on estuarine breeding bird communities. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 278:3081–3088. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fleming IA, Gross MR (1989) Evolution of adult female life history and morphology in a Pacific salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch). Evolution 43:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleming IA, Gross MR (1994) Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch): measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 48:637–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foote CJ (1990) An experimental comparison of male and female spawning territoriality in a Pacific salmon. Behaviour 115:283–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelman A (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat Med 27:2865–2873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gende SM, Quinn TP, Willson MF (2001) Consumption choice by bears feeding on salmon. Oecologia 127:372–382. doi: 10.1007/s004420000590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gende SM, Quinn TP, Hilborn R, Hendry AP, Dickerson B (2004) Brown bears selectively kill salmon with higher energy content but only in habitats that facilitate choice. Oikos 104:518–528. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12762.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert BK, Lanner RM (1995) Energy, diet selection and restoration of brown bear populations. International Conference on Bear Research and Management. French Ministry of the Environment and the Natural History Museum of Grenoble, vol 9. pp 231–240Google Scholar
  25. Helfield JM, Naiman RJ (2006) Keystone interactions: salmon and bear in riparian forests of Alaska. Ecosystems 9:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hendry AP, Berg OK (1999) Secondary sexual characters, energy use, senescence, and the cost of reproduction in sockeye salmon. Can J Zool 77:1663–1675. doi: 10.1139/z99-158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hocking MD, Reynolds JD (2011) Impacts of salmon on riparian plant diversity. Science 331:1609–1612. doi: 10.1126/science.1201079 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hocking MD, Dulvy NK, Reynolds JD, Ring RA, Reimchen TE (2013) Salmon subsidize an escape from the size spectrum. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 280:2012243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Janetski DJ, Chaloner DT, Tiegs SD, Lamberti GA (2009) Pacific salmon effects on stream ecosystems: a quantitative synthesis. Oecologia 159:583–595. doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-1249-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lisle TE (1987) Using ‘residual depths’ to monitor pool depths independently of discharge. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson RA (1980) Protein and fat metabolism in hibernating bears. Fed Proc 39:2955–2958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson RA, Folk GE Jr, Pfeiffer EW, Craighead JJ, Jonkel CJ, Steiger DL (1983) Behavior, biochemistry, and hibernation in black, grizzly, and polar bears. Int Conf Bear Res Manag 5:284–290. doi: 10.2307/3872551 Google Scholar
  34. O’Connell MF, Dempson JB, Reddin DG (1992) Evaluation of the impacts of major management changes in the Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, 1984–1988. ICES J Mar Sci 49:69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palkovacs EP, Wasserman BA, Kinnison MT (2011) Eco-evolutionary trophic dynamics: loss of top predators drives trophic evolution and ecology of prey. PLoS ONE 6(4):e18879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018879 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Pelletier F, Garant D, Hendry AP (2009) Eco-evolutionary dynamics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 364:1483–1489. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quinn TP (2005) The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  38. Quinn TP, Buck GB (2001) Size- and sex-selective mortality of adult sockeye salmon: bears, gulls, and fish out of water. Trans Am Fish Soc 130:995–1005. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(2001)130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quinn TP, Foote CJ (1994) The effects of body size and sexual dimorphism on the reproductive behaviour of sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Anim Behav 48:751–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quinn TP, Kinnison MT (1999) Size-selective and sex-selective predation by brown bears on sockeye salmon. Oecologia 121:273–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Quinn TP, Hendry AP, Wetzel LA (1995) The influence of life history trade-offs and the size of incubation gravels on egg size variation in sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Oikos 74:425–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quinn TP, Hendry AP, Buck GB (2001a) Balancing natural and sexual selection in sockeye salmon: interactions between body size, reproductive opportunity and vulnerability to predation by bears. Evol Ecol Res 3:917–937Google Scholar
  43. Quinn TP, Wetzel L, Bishop S, Overberg K, Rogers DE (2001b) Influence of breeding habitat on bear predation and age at maturity and sexual dimorphism of sockeye salmon populations. Can J Zool 79:1782–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quinn TP, Gende SM, Ruggerone GT, Rogers DE (2003) Density-dependent predation by brown bears (Ursus arctos) on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:553–562. doi: 10.1139/F03-045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinn TP, Cunningham CJ, Wirsing AJ (2016) Diverse foraging opportunities drive the functional response of local and landscape-scale bear predation on Pacific salmon. Oecologia. In PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Reimchen TE (1994) Further studies of predator and scavenger use of chum salmon in stream and estuarine habitats at Bag Harbour, Gwaii Haanas. Islands Ecological Research Press, Queen Charlotte CityGoogle Scholar
  47. Reimchen TE (2000) Some ecological and evolutionary aspects of bear-salmon interactions in coastal British Columbia. Can J Zool 78:448–457. doi: 10.1139/z99-232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruggerone GT, Hanson R, Rogers DE (2000) Selective predation by brown bears (Ursus arctos) foraging on spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can J Zool 78:974–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sahashi G, Yoshiyama T (2016) A hump-shaped relationship between migration distance and adult pink salmon morphology suggests interactive effects of migration costs and bear predation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73:427–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00012.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schindler DE, Scheuerell MD, Moore JW, Gende SM, Francis TB, Palen WJ (2003) Pacific salmon and the ecology of coastal ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 1:31–37. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0031:PSATEO]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  52. Smith RD, Sidle RC, Porter PE, Noel JR (1993) Effects of experimental removal of woody debris on the channel morphology of a forest, gravel-bed stream. J Hydrol 152:153–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steen RP, Quinn TP (1999) Egg burial depth by sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka): implications for survival of embryos and natural selection on female body size. Can J Zool 77:836–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stirling I, Derocher AE (1993) Possible impacts of climatic warming on polar bears. Arctic 46:240–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Svenning MA, Gullestad N (2002) Adaptations to stochastic environmental variations: the effects of seasonal temperatures on the migratory window of Svalbard Arctic Charr. Environ Biol Fishes 64:165–174. doi: 10.1023/A:1016002102945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vamosi SM (2005) On the role of enemies in divergence and diversification of prey: a review and synthesis. Can J Zool 83:894–910. doi: 10.1139/z05-063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saleliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations