**7. References**


Telemetry as a Tool to Study Spatial Behaviour and Patterns of

Applied Ecology 33, 1395–1404.

distribution. Ursus 10, 607–611.

Usage. Oikos 102:367-377.

Wildlife Monographs1-63.

Applications 9:37-44.

Arctic. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:728-737.

northern Spain Conservation Biology 17:1276-1289.

Ecological Modelling 157:227-247.

Ecology 39:79-90.

21:97-107.

Brown Bears as Affected by the Newly Constructed Egnatia Highway – N. Pindos - Greece 327

Jones, P. F., R. J. Hudson, and D. R. Farr. 2002. Evaluation of a Winter Habitat Suitability Index Model for Elk in West-Central Alberta. Forest Science 48:417-425. Kobler, A. and M. Adamic. 2000. Identifying Brown Bear Habitat by a Combined Gisand

Le Pape, O., F. Chauvet, S. Mahevas, P. Lazure, D. Guerault, and Y. Desaunay. 2003.

Mace, R.D. Waller, J.S. Manley, T.L. Lyon L.J. and Zuuring, H. 1996. Relationships among

McLellan, B.N., 1998. Maintaining viability of brown bears along the southern fringe of their

Manderson, J. P., B. A. Phelan, C. Meise, L. L. Stehlik, A. J. Bejda, J. Pessutti, L. Arlen, A.

Massolo, A. and A. Meriggi. 1998. Factors Affecting Habitat Occupancy by Wolves in

Matthiopoulos, J. 2003. Model-Supervised Kernel Smoothing for the Estimation of Spatial

Mazaris, D. A., Matsinos, G. Y., Margaritoulis, D., 2006. Analyzing the profiles of nest site

Greece. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 336, 157 – 162 Mauritzen, M., A. E. Derocher, O. Wiig, S. E. Belikov, A. N. Boltunov, E. Hansen, and G. W.

Mcgrath, M. T., S. Destefano, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially Explicit

McLoughlin, P. D., H. D. Cluff, R. J. Gau, R. Mulders, R. L. Case, and F. Messier. 2002.

Miller, J. and J. Franklin. 2002. Modeling the Distribution of Four Vegetation Alliances Using

Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, and A. P. Wydeven. 1999. Predicting Grey Wolf Landscape

Naves, J., Wiegand, T., Revilla, E., and Delibes. M., 2003., Endangered species balancing

Nielsen, E.S., Boyce M.S. and Stenhouse, G.B., 2006. A habitat-based framework for grizzly

bear conservation in Alberta. Biological Conservation, 130, 217-229

Estuarine Nursery. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 228:227-239.

Quantitative Description of Habitat Suitability for the Juvenile Common Sole (Solea Solea, L.) In the Bay of Biscay (France) and the Contribution of Different Habitats to

grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana, Journal of

Draxler, and A. W. Stoner. 2002. Spatial Dynamics of Habitat Suitability for the Growth of Newly Settled Winter Flounder Pseudopleuronectes Americanus in an

Northern Apennines (Northern Italy): a Model of Habitat Suitability.Ecography

selection of loggerhead sea turtles. A case study of the island of Zakynthos, W-

Garner. 2002. Using Satellite Telemetry to Define Spatial Population Structure in Polar Bears in the Norwegian and Western Russian Arctic. Journal of Applied

Influences on Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat in the Interior Pacific Northwest.

Population Delineation of Barren-Ground Grizzly Bears in the Central Canadian

Generalized Linear Models and Classification Trees With Spatial Dependence.

Recolonization: Logistic Regression Models Vs. New Field Data. Ecological

between natural and human constrains: the case of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in

Machine Learning Method. Ecological Modelling 135:291-300.

the Adult Population. Journal of Sea Research 50:139-149.


Dettki, H., R. Lφfstrand, and L. Edenius. Modeling habitat suitability for moose in coastal

Death, G. and Fabricius. K. E., 2000. Classification and Regression Trees: a Powerful Yet Simple Technique for Ecological Data Analysis. Ecology 81:3178-3192. Franco, A. M. A., J. C. Brito, and J. Almeida. 2000. Modelling Habitat Selection of Common

Giannakopoulos Al., Akriotis T., Mertzanis Y.(2011) : Spatio-temporal interactions in

Glenz, C., A. Massolo, D. Kuonen, and R. Schlaepfer. 2001. A Wolf Habitat Suitability Prediction Study in Valais (Switzerland). Landscape and Urban Planning 55:55-65. Gros, P. M. and M. Rejmanek. 1999. Status and Habitat Preferences of Uganda Cheetahs: an

Guisan, A., J. P. Theurillat, and F. Kienast. 1998. Predicting the Potential Distribution of Plant Species in an Alpine Environment. Journal of Vegetation Science 9:65-74. Guisan, A. and N. E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive Habitat Distribution Models in Ecology.

Hastie, L. C., S. L. Cooksley, F. Scougall, M. R. Young, P. J. Boon, and M. J. Gaywood.2003.

Heithaus, M. R., L. M. Dill, G. J. Marshall, and B. Buhleier. 2002. Habitat Use andForaging

Hirzel, A. H. and R. Arlettaz. 2003. Modeling Habitat Suitability for Complex Species

Hirzel, A. H., J. Hausser, D. Chessel, and N. Perrin. 2002. Ecological-Niche Factor Analysis:

Hirzel, A. H., V. Helfer, and F. Metral. 2001. Assessing Habitat-Suitability Models With a

Huettmann, F. and J. Linke. 2003. An Automated Method to Derive Habitat Preferences of

Jerina, K., M. Debeljak, S. Dzeroski, A. Kobler, and M. Adamic. 2003. Modeling the Brown

Johnson, C. J., K. L. Parker, D. C. Heard, and M. P. Gillingham. 2002. Movement Parameters

Johnson, C.J., Boyce, M.S., Schwartz, C.C., Haroldson, M.A., 2004. Modeling survival:

Virtual Species. Ecological Modelling 145:111-121.

Application. Zeitschrift Fur Jagdwissenschaft 49:219-232.

Threatened Species. Ecological Modelling 170:453-469.

relation to social behaviour of Brown bears in Greece (submitted.)

Biodiversity and Conservation 8:1561-1583.

Ecological Modelling 135:147-186.

Freshwater Ecosystems 13:213-224.

Biology 140:237-248.

83:2027-2036.

Ecology 71:225-235.

Wildl. Manage. 68, 966–978.

Management 32:614-623.

556. 2003.

142:351-358.

northern Sweden: empirical vs. process-oriented approaches. AMBIO 32[8], 549-

Cranes Grus Grus Wintering in Portugal Using Multiple Logistic Regression. Ibis

Attempt to Predict Carnivore Occurrence Based on Vegetation Structure.

Characterization of Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera Margaritifera) Riverine Habitat Using River Habitat Survey Data. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and

Behavior of Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo Cavier) in a Seagrass Ecosystem. Marine

Distributions by Environmental-Distance Geometric Mean. Environmental

How to Compute Habitat- Suitability Maps Without Absence Data? Ecology

Wildlife in Gis and Telemetry Studies: a Flexible Software Tool and Examples of Its

Bear Population in Slovenia - a Tool in the Conservation Management of a

of Ungulates and Scale-Specific Responses to the Environment. Journal of Animal

application of the multiplicative hazards model to Yellowstone grizzly bear. J.


**16** 

*Portugal* 

**Combining Radio and PIT-Telemetry to** 

*2University of Trás-os-Montes, Centre for the Research and Technology of* 

**in a Northeastern Stream, Portugal** 

Amílcar A. T. Teixeira1 and Rui M. V. Cortes2

*Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences* 

**Study the Large and Fine-Scale Movements of Stocked and Wild Brown Trout (***Salmo trutta* **L.)** 

*1Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, School of Agriculture, Mountain Research Centre* 

Stream-resident salmonid movements have been the subject of numerous studies and their behaviour is relatively well-known (Harcup et al., 1984; Heggenes, 1988). For example, brown trout (*Salmo trutta*) is described as a sedentary species based on the behaviour displayed, often associated to the strong site attachment to a territory or home range (Bridcut & Giller, 1993; Armstrong & Herbert, 1997). Other salmonids like brook (*Salvelinus fontinalis*) (Roghair & Dolloff, 2005) and cutthroat trout (*Oncorhynchus clarki*) (Hegennes et al., 1991) showed similar behaviour. However, there are studies reporting a wide range of movements for brown (Meyers et al., 1992; Young, 1994), cutthroat (Hilderbrand & Kershner, 2000) and brook (Gowan & Fausch, 1996) trout populations. Trout behaviour can be modified by natural (*e.g.* fish density, food availability) and especially by man induced factors (*e.g.* environmental degradation, harvest and stocking) responsible for major threats of wild populations (Laikre et al., 2000). Indeed, stocking of hatchery-reared brown trout is a management tool commonly used to improve the recreational fishing (Cowx, 1999). This activity is responsible for a sudden artificial increase of fish density in a particular area. Negative impacts on wild populations, such as genetic contamination, competition, predator attraction and disease transmission were often referred (White et al., 1995; Einum & Fleming, 2001; Weber & Fausch, 2003) and are potentially amplified with the dispersal failure, since many hatchery-reared trout tend to remain near of the stocking site (Cresswell, 1981; Aarestrup et al., 2005). There are also contradictory results, as reported by Bettinger & Bettoli (2002) where stocked trout dispersal reached over 12 km in the downstream direction, just 24 hours after their release. Cortes et al. (1996) found for Portuguese salmonid streams that, during three successive years (2000 to 2003), less than 20% of stocked brown trout remained in the stream segment, one month after the release. However, in this study a mark-recapture method was used that did not allow to assess the main causes of the fish depletion and was not appropriate for the observation of fish behaviour. In fact, a wide variety of techniques, grouped as capture dependent (*e.g.* mark-recapture, telemetry) and independent (*e.g.* visual observation) methods, were used for the investigation of the spatio-

**1. Introduction** 

