Ursus americanus floridanus
Skip to Main Content
, ,
Classification
Scientific Name:
Ursus americanus floridanus Merriam, 1896
Other Common Names:
Florida black bear (EN)
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Craniata
Class:
Mammalia
Order:
Carnivora
Family:
Ursidae
Genus:
Ursus
Scientific Name Reference:
Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.
Concept Reference:
Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.
Name Used in Concept Reference:
Ursus americanus floridanus
NatureServe Unique Identifier:
ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103279
NatureServe Element Code:
AMAJB01011
Related ITIS Names:
Ursus americanus floridanus Merriam, 1896 (TSN 726978)
Taxonomic Comments:
Differences between floridanus and the contiguous subspecies, luteolus and americanus, with both of which floridanus presumably intergrades, are slight. Nonetheless, preliminary results of current studies by Kennedy suggest that floridanus is a valid taxon.
Parent Species:
Conservation Status
NatureServe Status
Global Status:
G5T4
Global Status (Rounded):
T4
Global Status Last Reviewed:
7/9/2018
Rank Method Used:
Ranked by calculator
Reasons:
Population has increased, and is likely to continue to increase over the short term, but habitat fragmentation and highway mortality remain significant threats.
National & State/Provincial Statuses
on
off
United States: N4
United States:
N4
Alabama:
S2
Florida:
S4
Georgia:
S4
Other Statuses
U.S. Endangered Species Act:
None
Comments on Endangered Species Act Statuses:
In a 90-day finding on a petition to list to list this subspecies, USFWS (2017) found that the petition is not warranted ('not-substantial').
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES):
Appendix II
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC):
None
NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors
Range Extent:
20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments:
Historical range was mainly in Florida but extended into coastal plain areas of Georgia, Alabama, and extreme southeastern Mississippi. In Florida this species is widely distributed, occupying about 45% of its historical range. Concentrations occur in the Apalachicola basin, Osceola NF and adjacent Pinhook Swamp, Gulf Hammock, Ocala NF, St. Johns River basin, and Big Cypress region. The range extends into the areas within and around the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southern Georgia and into southwest Alabama.
Area of Occupancy:
2,501-12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:
AOO roughly estimated using GeoCat (http://geocat.kew.org).
Estimated Number of Element Occurrences:
6 - 20
Estimated Number of Element Occurrences Comments:
In Florida, approximately 10 populations, with two to four very secure (Osceola and Apalachicola National Forests, followed by Big Cypress National Preserve and Ocala National Forest).
Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity:
Few (4-12)
Global Protection:
Several (4-12) occurrences appropriately protected and managed
Global Protection Comments:
In Florida, occurs in a large number of Managed Areas statewide. A managed hunt was allowed in 2015.
Degree of Threat:
Medium
Threat Comments:
Habitat loss and fragmentation are major threats in the historical range, but not for the four major remaining populations. Much habitat has been and is being lost to expanding urbanization, agricultural development, and increasing recreational use of wildlands (Maehr and Wooding 1992). Small Alabama population in shrinking habitat shows signs of excessive inbreeding and could be extirpated in the near future (USFWS 1998). Hunting has been eliminated as a significant threat (USFWS 1998); now restricted to the five counties surrounding the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. Illegal persecution by beekeepers, poachers, timbermen, farmers, etc., may be a problem in some areas. Highway mortality has been significant (250 bears were killed on Florida highways from 1976 to 1991), particularly in the Florida peninsula. However, USFWS (1998) concluded that illegal killing and highway mortality currently are not significant threats, though the bear is sensitive to excessive mortality due to its low reproductive rate (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Long-term Trend:
Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Long-term Trend Comments:
Population has rebounded from an estimated population size of 300 bears in 1974 (Brian Scheick, pers. comm., 2004).
Short-term Trend:
Increase of 10-25%
Short-term Trend Comments:
In Florida the population declined at least 50% from 1960 to the 1990s, but more recently the population has increased. In the two hunted populations, there was no indication of a decline throughout the 1980's despite a mean harvest of 46 per year. However, there was concern of overharvest for 1990, and the state has altered regulations accordingly. A managed hunt of the populations in the Apalachicola and Ocala National Forests was conducted in 2015. In the recent past, highway mortality has exceeded legal take in Florida.
Global Abundance:
2500 - 10,000 individuals
Global Abundance Comments:
In Florida, current population estimate (2018) is over 4,000 bears.
In Alabama, about 377 sq km support an estomated population of less than 50 bears; bears also may occur occasionally on an additional 6,641 sq km of adjacent lands but not as a resident breeding population (USFWS 1998).
In Alabama, about 377 sq km support an estomated population of less than 50 bears; bears also may occur occasionally on an additional 6,641 sq km of adjacent lands but not as a resident breeding population (USFWS 1998).
Fragility:
Moderately vulnerable
Environmental Specificity:
Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information
Inventory Needs:
Careful monitoring of population is needed.
Protection Needs:
Through purchase or easement, protect additional habitat large enough to support viable populations of bears.
Other Considerations:
Although previously listed as Threatened by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (except in Baker and Columbia counties and Apalachicola NF), the Florida Black Bear population has increased significantly in recent years.
Distribution
National and State/Provincial Distribution:
United States:
AL, FL, GA
Endemism:
endemic to a single nation
Ecology and Life History
Weight:
113 kilograms
Reproduction Comments:
Breeds apparently in June-July. Implantation is delayed about four months (also reported as 5-6 months). Gestation lasts 7-7.5 months (average 220 days). Females give birth every two years at most. Young are born January-February, stay with mother until fall of second year. Litter size usually is 2-4. Females generally first give birth at 3-4 years. As in the southern Appalachians, productivity and survival of young may be enhanced when fall food (especially hard mast) supply is favorable (A89EIL01NA).
Ecology Comments:
Basically solitary, aside from family groups of mother and young.
Home range sizes determined via radiotelemetry were about 28 sq km for females and 170 sq km for males (largest male range was about 450 sq km) (see Maehr and Wooding 1992). A 140-km movement by a 2.5-year-old male may have been a dispersal event (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
May be a important agent of dispersal and germination for plants requiring acid scarification (see Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Major mortality factors are associated with humans and include legal hunting (northern Florida), poaching, and vehicle collisions (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Home range sizes determined via radiotelemetry were about 28 sq km for females and 170 sq km for males (largest male range was about 450 sq km) (see Maehr and Wooding 1992). A 140-km movement by a 2.5-year-old male may have been a dispersal event (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
May be a important agent of dispersal and germination for plants requiring acid scarification (see Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Major mortality factors are associated with humans and include legal hunting (northern Florida), poaching, and vehicle collisions (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Mobility and Migration
Colonial Breeder:
No
Non-Migrant:
No
Locally Migrant:
No
Long Distance Migrant:
No
Habitat
Palustrine Habitats:
FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitats:
Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed
Habitat Comments:
Large undeveloped wooded tracts; pine flatwoods, hardwood swamp, cypress swamp, cabbage palm forest, sand pine scrub, mixed hardwood hammock; usually in areas that include multiple forest types; habitat use varies with food availability (Maehr and Wooding 1992, which see for further details). Inhabits areas of dense cover, such as those referred to as "bay-galls" in south Florida, "swamps" in middle Florida, and titi swamps in the panhandle (Layne 1978). Dens usually are in thick shrub/vine cover in remote swamps or thickets, sometimes in hollow trees (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Young are born in a den in dense cover or hollow tree, in hardwood swamp or dense thicket (Wooding and Hardisky 1992).
Young are born in a den in dense cover or hollow tree, in hardwood swamp or dense thicket (Wooding and Hardisky 1992).
Phenology
Immature Phenologies:
Crepuscular, Nocturnal, Hibernates/aestivates, Circadian
Adult Phenologies:
Crepuscular, Nocturnal, Hibernates/aestivates, Circadian
Phenology Comments:
Primarily nocturnal. May be dormant in winter for periods ranging from a few days to several months; pregnant females remain inactive in dens for minimum of 3-4 months; males and barren females spend less time in hibernation (Wooding and Hardisky 1992, Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Food
Immature Food Habits:
Frugivore, Carnivore, Granivore, Invertivore, Herbivore
Adult Food Habits:
Frugivore, Carnivore, Granivore, Invertivore, Herbivore
Food Comments:
Opportunistic omnivore. Dominant foods may include herbaceous matter in early spring, soft fruits in summer, and hard mast in fall. Major food items include the fruits and hearts of saw palmetto and cabbage palm, and the fruits of swamp tupelo, oaks, blueberry, and gallberry (ILEX GLABRA). Insects are the most important animal food, the introduced honey bee being a frequent item. Vertebrates, such as armadillos, wild hogs, and deer, are eaten infrequently (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Management Summary
Management Requirements:
Intense forestry practices involving even-age timber management over large areas probably reduce habitat suitability for bears (Maehr and Wooding 1992). Large-scale winter burning may reduce food resource diversity by increasing saw palmetto and reducing blueberry and runner oak; summer burning may encourage the latter species and should be considered in managing areas occupied by bears (Maehr and Wooding 1992). Beeyards can be protected through the use of a well-maintained electric fence in conjunction with a trap-and-release program (see Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Limited sport hunting where populations would not be adversely affected could be helpful in generating support (among hunters) for maintaining, protecting, and reestablishing bear populations (Layne 1978). In large areas of suitable habitat, apparently can sustain regulated annual fall harvests (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Highway underpasses for bears should be installed along major movement corridors. In 1994, an experimental underpass was built on S.R. 46 in Florida; the state is radio-monitoring bears to determine their use of this prototype, which could help reduce the number of road kills.
Limited sport hunting where populations would not be adversely affected could be helpful in generating support (among hunters) for maintaining, protecting, and reestablishing bear populations (Layne 1978). In large areas of suitable habitat, apparently can sustain regulated annual fall harvests (Maehr and Wooding 1992).
Highway underpasses for bears should be installed along major movement corridors. In 1994, an experimental underpass was built on S.R. 46 in Florida; the state is radio-monitoring bears to determine their use of this prototype, which could help reduce the number of road kills.
Monitoring Requirements:
Better information on the effects of human-induced mortality is needed.
Attention should be paid to the potential problem of illegal harvesting of bears to supply the trade in bear gall bladders and other parts.
Attention should be paid to the potential problem of illegal harvesting of bears to supply the trade in bear gall bladders and other parts.
Management Research Needs:
Maintain a diversity of habitats over extensive acreage, including dense baygalls that are inaccessible to humans.
Population / Occurrence Delineation
Subtype(s):
Den site, Feeding concentration site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence:
Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers:
Major water barriers; arbitrarily set at those greater than 5 kilometers across.
Alternate Separation Procedure:
Occurrences generally should be based on major occupied physiographic or ecogeographic units that are separated along areas of relatively low bear density or use (e.g., major urban areas, very rugged alpine ridges, very wide bodies of water). These units may be based on available bear sightings/records or on movements of radio-tagged individuals, or they may be based on the subjective determinations by biologists familiar with bears and their habitats. Where occupied habitat is exceptionally extensive and continuous, that habitat may be subdivided into multiple contiguous occurrences as long as that does not reduce the occurrence rank (i.e., do not split up an A occurrence into multiple occurrences that would be ranked less than A).
Separation Justification:
Black bears are highly mobile and readily disperse hundreds of kilometers across many types of habitats; populations and metapopulations tend to encompass huge areas. For example, in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, genetic data indicate that northern Mexico was the source of bears that recently recolonized areas in western Texas (Onorato et al. 2004). Female-mediated gene flow is proceeding slowly in this system, but its occurrence was inferred via field observations. Long-distance colonization is the likely cause of extant geographical associations between New Mexican and Mexico-Texas populations (Onorato et al. 2004). The naturally fragmented, xeric environment of the Chihuahuan Desert impedes colonization but is not a complete barrier to this process (Onorato et al. 2004).
Hence, meaningful bear occurrences should represent large occupied landscape units, but these often will not be demographically isolated from other occurrences. Isolation would require huge separation distances that would yield impractically large occurrences.
Hence, meaningful bear occurrences should represent large occupied landscape units, but these often will not be demographically isolated from other occurrences. Isolation would require huge separation distances that would yield impractically large occurrences.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown):
3.5 kilometers
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification:
Home ranges vary considerably in size. This distance based on a conservatively small male home range of 1000 hectares (see Separation Justification).
Date:
2005-03-08
Author:
Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Population / Occurrence Viability
Justification:
Use the Generic Element Occurrence Rank Specifications (2008).
Authors and Contributors
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date:
7/9/2018
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Authors:
Jackson, D. R., and G. Hammerson (2015), Price, F. (2018).
References
- Brady, J. R., and D. S. Maehr. 1985. Distribution of black bears in Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 13:1-7.
- Dusi, J. L. 1987. Ecology of the black bear in southwest Alabama. Final report, project no. W-44. Alabama Department of Wildlife and Conservation. 21 September 1993. 23 pp.
- Eiler, J. H., W. G. Wathen, and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Reproduction in black bears in the southern Appalachian Mountains. J. Wildlife Management 53:53:353-360.
- Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1993. Management of the black bear in Florida: a staff report to the Commissioners. 21 September 1993. 23 pp.
- Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.
- Horton, Rick. Florida Game and Fish Biologist. Ocala, FL
- Kasbohm, J. W., and M. R. Vaughan. 1993. Taxonomy of black bears in the southeastern United States. First annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 pp.
- Kasbohm, J. W., D. A. Miller, and M. R. Vaughan. 1994. Taxonomy of black bears in the southeastern United States. Second annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 24 pp.
- Layne, J. N., editor. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. State of Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. xx + 52 pp.
- Maehr, D. S., and J. B. Wooding. 1992. Florida black bear URSUS AMERICANUS FLORIDANUS. Pages 265-275 in S. R. Humphrey, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. Univ. Press of Florida, Gainesville. xviii + 392 pp.
- Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, and J. C. Roof. 1993. Southwest Florida black bear habitat use, distribution, movements, and conservation strategy. Annual report, Project W-41 XXXII, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 61 pp.
- Miller, D. A., J. W. Kasbohm, and M. R. Vaughan. 1995. Taxonomy of black bears in the southeastern United States. Third annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.
- Roof, Jayde. Florida Game and Fish, Biologist. Gainesville, FL
- Seibert, S. G. 1993. Status and management of black bears in Apalachicola National Forest. Final Report, Project W-41 XXX, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 29 pp.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 8 December 1998. New 12-month finding for a petition to list the Florida black bear. Federal Register 63(235):67613-67618.
- Wooding, J. B. 1990. Black bear harvest analysis. Final report, Study No. 7554, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 8 pp.
- Wooding, J. B. 1993. Monitoring black bear populations by carcass necropsy. Annual report, Project W-41 XXIX, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 3 pp.
- Wooding, J. B., and T. S. Hardisky. 1992. Denning by black bears in northcentral Florida. J. Mammalogy 73:895-898.
Page Last Published:
1/3/2025