Nielsen SE, Cattet MRL, Boulanger J, Cranston J, McDermid GJ, Shafer ABA, Stenhouse GB. 2013. Environmental, biological and anthropogenic effects on grizzly bear body size: temporal and spatial considerations. BMC Ecol. 13:31.

​

The researchers’ studied the effects of resources and parental effects on life history on the body mass of a Grizzly bear. They examined the body size and the body condition. They found out that age and sex was linked to body mass and condition during different climates and the year of birth.  Mostly smaller bears were in cooler habitats than larger bears, showing a global warming shift in the body mass of the bears. The results showed that grizzly bears body size was affected by biological factors such as age, sex, and size could be influenced environmental factors such as seasonal and regional changes. The article was reliable in providing information on the make-up of grizzly bears in different environmental conditions and the biological effects. The article could be an asset to the paper in the physical description section giving a more in-depth explanation.

Morehouse AT, Graves TA, Mikle N, Boyce MS. 2016. Nature vs. Nurture: Evidence for Social Learning of Conflict Behaviour in Grizzly Bears. PLoS ONE 11:e0165425.

​

The authors, researchers at the University of Alberta, Canada, studied conflict behavior in Grizzly bears and the correlation between social behavior, genetic inheritance in mother and cubs. The researchers looked at genotypes in different grizzly bears and compared the occurrence of non-problem mothers and problem mothers. The hypothesis of social learning was supported but the genetic inheritance was not. The offspring of problem mother had a higher chance of being in a conflict than the non-problem offspring. The researchers concluded taking a proactive approach in reducing female bears would help prevent conflict in female bears. The article was objective and provided an in depth look in the behavior of female grizzly bears. The article would be a great portion to the research paper in the behavioral section giving a different perspective on female grizzly bears being more aggressive than males. 

Fortin JK, Schwartz CC, Gunther KA, Teisberg JE, Haroldson MA, Evans MA, Robbins CT. 2013. Dietary Adjustability of Grizzly Bears and American Black Bears in Yellowstone National Park. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77:270–281.

​

Grizzly bears common food sources cutthroat trout, nuts, white bark pine has declined in recent years, researchers conducted an experiment to see how the bears were adjusting to the decline. In the study researchers determined the diets of the bears by collecting hairs near cutthroat trout streams and monitored bears wearing a Global Positing System (GPS) to identify feeding behaviors. They found that grizzly bears killed elks at a higher rate in the last 10 years. The cutthroat trout took a major decline and the white bark pine and nuts stayed a constant food source for the grizzly bears. It was determined that carnivorous behavior was adapted due to the changing resources of food. The article provided insight on the dietary habits of grizzly bear, and the rise and fall of different food sources. The article would fit into the ecology section of the research paper, providing an interesting research on grizzly bears nutritional values.

Mattson DJ, Knight RR, Blanchard BM. 1987. The Effects of Developments and Primary Roads on Grizzly Bear Habitat Use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Bears: Their Biology and Management 7:259–273.

The researchers’ studied the effect of human interaction and the development of roads among Grizzly bears in Yellowstone Park. Adult males were indifferent, and were more likely to be further away from humans during different seasonal changes. The adult female grizzly bears, during the summer season, had a higher mortality rate with poor habitat conditions with less contact to humans. They concluded that grizzly avoidance among seasons heightened in females causing a decline in female bear development. The article provided an objective viewpoint of bear and human contact, comparing and contrasting both female and male grizzly bears interaction with humans. This article provided valid information that would be a great addition to the paper in the human interaction section.

McLoughlin PD, Taylor MK, Messier F. 2005. Conservation Risks of Male-Selective Harvest for Mammals with Low Reproductive Potential. The Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1592–1600.

​

The authors, researchers at the University of Saskatchewan studied caribou, a random population model of grizzly bears and polar bears to show reduction of male age and males with low reproductive potential. They compared their data from the caribou, a species with a high reproductive potential. Researchers found that species with a low reproductivity that the probabilities were overestimated after a sex selective harvest, and a lack of sexual mature population. They supported the correlation between ages of male bears and the frequency in adult male population in both grizzly bears and polar bears. The article didn’t give an objective point, and mainly focused on reproductivity of male bears. This article would not be an article included in the research paper, but it was a very informative research article on the conservation of male selective reproduction.