Abstract
In a recent paper, we presented new evidence and provided new insights on the status of Cantabrian brown bear subpopulations, relevant for this species conservation. Namely, we revealed the likely phylogeographic relation between eastern Cantabrian subpopulation and the historical Pyrenean population. We have also detected an asymmetric flow of alleles and individuals from the eastern to the western subpopulation, including seven first-generation male migrants. Based on our results and on those of previous studies, we called the attention to the fact that Eastern Cantabrian brown bears might be taking advantage of increased connectivity to avoid higher human pressure and direct persecution in the areas occupied by the eastern Cantabrian subpopulation. In reply, Blanco et al (2020) [11] have criticized our ecological interpretation of the data presented in our paper. Namely, Blanco and co-authors criticize: (1) the use of the exodus concept in the title and discussion of the paper; (2) the apparent contradiction with source-sink theory; (3) the apparent overlooking of historical demographic data on Cantabrian brown bear and the use of the expression of population decline when referring to eastern subpopulation. Rather than contradicting the long and growing body of knowledge on the two brown bear subpopulations, the results presented in our paper allow a new perspective on the causes of the distinct pace of population growth of the two brown bear subpopulations in the last decades. Here, we reply to the criticisms by: clarifying our ecological interpretation of the results; refocusing the discussion on how the new genetic data suggest that currently, the flow of individuals and alleles is stronger westward, and how it may be linked to direct persecution and killing of brown bears. We provide detailed data on brown bear mortality in the Cantabrian Mountains and show that neither migration, gene flow, population increase nor mortality are balanced among the two subpopulations.