Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

J.D. Nichols

Publications and source records attributed to J.D. Nichols.

220 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
USGS1977

A comparison of 2 techniques for estimating deer density

We applied mark-resight and area-conversion methods to estimate deer abundance at a 2,862-ha area in and surrounding the Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site during 1987-1991. One observer in each of 11 compartments counted marked and unmarked deer during 65-75 minutes at dusk during 3 counts in each of April and November. Use of radio-collars and vinyl collars provided a complete inventory of marked deer in the population prior to the counts. We sighted 54% of the marked deer during April 1987 and 1988, and 43% of the marked deer during November 1987 and 1988. Mean number of deer counted increased from 427 in April 1987 to 582 in April 1991, and increased from 467 in November 1987 to 662 in November 1990. Herd size during April, based on the mark-resight method, increased from approximately 700-1,400 from 1987-1991, whereas the estimates for November indicated an increase from 983 for 1987 to 1,592 for 1990. Given the large proportion of open area and the extensive road system throughout the study area, we concluded that the sighting probability for marked and unmarked deer was fairly similar. We believe that the mark-resight method was better suited to our study than the area-conversion method because deer were not evenly distributed between areas suitable and unsuitable for sighting within open and forested areas. The assumption of equal distribution is required by the area-conversion method. Deer marked for the mark-resight method also helped reduce double counting during the dusk surveys.

American Birds↗
USGS1956

Fifty-sixth Christmas Bird Count. 147. Southern Dorchester County, Md

Summary and Recommendations: We suggest that managers are approaching the limits of their ability to improve waterfowl harvest management, primarily because the information needed to make better decisions is being sacrificed by the current approach to setting regulations. We propose an actively adaptive management strategy in which regulatory decisions play a dominant role in reducing uncertainty about population dynamics. The proposed strategy recognizes 'value' in acquiring knowledge only to the extent that it contributes to the objective of optimizing harvests. To implement this strategy, managers will need: (1) a set of regulatory options, with possible constraints on their use; (2) quantifiable harvest management objectives; (3) a set of models that represent an array of meaningful hypotheses about the effects of regulations on populations; and (4) a measure of credibility (or likelihood) for each model, which can be updated regularly using information from waterfowl monitoring programs. Adaptive optimization is an iterative process in which the harvest-management policy converges over time to one that maximizes harvest under the most appropriate model. At each time step, an optimal regulatory decision is identified based on the state of the system and the model likelihoods. In the next time step, predicted population changes from the alternative models are compared with the actual changes provided by the monitoring program, The likelihoods are increased or decreased to the extent that predicted and actual population changes correspond. These updated likelihoods then are used in setting regulations in the next cycle and the process begins again. This iterative process produces the most informative regulations when uncertainty is prevalent and produces maximum sustainable yields as uncertainty is eliminated. We see no major obstacles to implementing this adaptive strategy, although there are a number of practical considerations. First and foremost, managers should assess the 'value' of learning. Only when there is a high degree of uncertainty about the effects of hunting regulations on population dynamics will the merit of our proposed strategy be evident. We suggest that this almost always will be true given our current understanding of the relationship between annual regulations, survival and population growth in waterfowl. Nonetheless, careful consideration should be given to formulating the set of alternative models. There is no value in distinguishing between models which differ in their mathematical formulation or biological realism, but which suggest similar harvest strategies. We suspect that 'mechanistic' models (i.e., those that attempt to capture the essence of biological processes) will make better candidates for model sets than so-called 'phenomenological' models. Assuming that all model sets include a good approximation of reality, learning rates will be dependent on the quality of monitoring programs. Fortunately, a variety of high-quality monitoring plans for many duck and goose populations of North America, when used with our adaptive approach, should provide new knowledge about population dynamics and response to hunting, and, thus, lead to improved management.

Audubon Field Notes↗