Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Jennie N. Duberstein

Publications and source records attributed to Jennie N. Duberstein.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

High-resolution transboundary vegetation community maps of the Sonoran and Mojave Desert ecoregion to support critical landscape conservation planning and habitat management needs

We produced a 30-m resolution binational land cover map of Bird Conservation Region 33 (BCR 33) for the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. The region covers large portions of the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts. The map can support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Migratory Bird Program’s recovery planning efforts and constitutes the first known binational land cover dataset spanning sections of the United States–Mexico border and using a consistent classification system for both countries. The mapped region includes 152 distinct land cover classes, covering a total area of 38,421,453 ha (148,345 mi 2 ), of which 13,148,345 ha (52,706 mi 2 ) are located in Mexico and 24,770,640 ha (95,639 mi 2 ) in the United States. We primarily used Landsat 8 (OLI) imagery, supplemented by limited ground surveys from two field campaigns, drone-based aerial data, and existing vegetation classification frameworks from both countries. The classification applied a data-fusion approach integrating 30-m Landsat 8 imagery, decadal phenology metrics from vegetation indices, and a random forest model trained mainly with datasets from a comprehensive national mapping project from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) GAP Analysis Project (GAP) and federal wildland fire agencies’ Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) (GAP/LANDFIRE) [United States side] and the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) [Mexico side] as well as land cover maps and opportunistic open-access and field observations. Mapping of the full BCR 33 region was carried out in two phases: 1) Phase I, the prototype map, covered a smaller portion of the transboundary area and identified 31 land cover classes, and 2) Phase II, the full BCR 33 map (refer to Figure 1), which resulted in 152 land cover classes. Using a Random Forest classifier, we achieved an overall prediction accuracy of 92% for the Phase I map and 87% for the Phase II full region map. This slight decrease can be attributed to working on a larger, more complex area with a greater number of land cover classes. No formal validation was conducted, aside from using a subset of the collected field observations and training data to assess model performance during and after training. The training sites were further verified using Google Earth (Google, 2026) imagery. Two undergraduate students who worked for over a year visually inspected imagery and open access public images to confirm each training site during model training using in-house developed, online, visual tools. A portion of this field training data was reserved for model validation, and the corresponding results are to be presented in later sections. The project developed an end-to-end, medium- and fine-resolution remote sensing–based data fusion mapping approach. This effort produced a map (Nagler et al., 2025) and the online tools to support a dynamic, live, online map for visualizing the transboundary vegetation communities in BCR 33. The toolset is currently hosted by the University of Arizona (UofA) Vegetation Index and Phenology (VIP) Lab to support FWS partners (https://vip.arizona.edu/viplab_data_explorer?LCM_BCR33). The online map is designed to allow rapid updates using new training, validation, or correction data, making it dynamic and maintainable. The approach we took established a framework for rapid updating and correction of land cover maps, as the model can be quickly retrained with new field observations, updated training data, or other sources. This enables dynamic mapping and change detection of the region’s vegetation. This framework is an advance in data fusion and crowdsourced mapping of complex, vulnerable regions, providing support to regional stakeholders and the wider user community. This transboundary map can inform the protection, conservation, and restoration of vegetation, habitat, and ecosystems, particularly for threatened and endangered species across the two nations using consistent and harmonized binational mapping systems. Beyond supporting land management decisions and stakeholders in the transboundary desert ecoregions, this BCR 33 mapping effort establishes a foundation for future rapid, low-cost, cross-border land cover mapping that can benefit and advance ecosystem management.

Arizona, Baja California, California, Nevada, Sina↗

Methodology

Following the approach developed by Gregory and van Strien (2010), State of the Birds reports focus on composite summaries of population change for collections of species that share common primary habitat or taxonomic affinity. In this report, we provide composite indexes for habitat-obligate species as defined in earlier reports (Grassland, Aridland, Eastern Forest and Western Forest), for several taxonomic-based groups (Shorebirds, Waterbirds, Geese and Swans, Sea Ducks, and Dabbling/Diving Duck species), and for species on our Tipping Point list with adequate data. Lists of species included in each habitat-obligate group are presented as supplemental material at StateoftheBirds.org.

Report↗

What waterfowl hunters want: Exploring heterogeneity in hunting trip preferences

Canadian and American waterfowl hunters were surveyed to identify their hunting trip preferences. Respondents were individuals that were now participating or had participated in waterfowl hunting, and most had hunted the majority of the last five years. We identified four latent classes of waterfowl hunters that varied in their preferences for harvest, access effort, length of travel, quantity of waterfowl seen, and the potential for interference/competition. We found a diminishing return associated with the number of waterfowl harvested, and that ‘devoted’ and ‘local’ hunters did not perceive appreciable benefit from harvesting more birds beyond harvesting a single bird. Results highlight the importance of not only considering population size, but also the location of habitat for people and waterfowl. Our results provide waterfowl managers important insights into the heterogeneity of North American waterfowl hunters by highlighting differences in priorities for waterfowl hunting trips. Notably, to address this heterogeneity, managers could consider the balance of objectives, actions and resources designed to satisfy current waterfowl hunters. Managing access to improve the likelihood that hunters will see and have opportunities to harvest some waterfowl has benefit to hunters.

Wetlands↗

Duck hunters and difficulty complying with harvest regulations

Due to the steady decline of duck hunter participation, several studies have investigated means to bolster the duck hunter population. Researchers and wildlife professionals have assumed that simpler regulations would attract new and unconfident hunters to participate in duck hunting. In light of this, we sought to identify what portion of the duck-hunting population had difficulty understanding species-specific bag limits or complying with species-specific bag limits in the field. We also sought to describe hunters who had difficulty complying with specific bag limits and how their difficulties were associated with elements related to demography, attitude, and behavior. We found most hunters had no difficulty understanding (82%) or complying with (74%) species specific bag limits, but flyway (χ 2 = 35.06, P < 0.01), number of ducks harvested (χ 2 = 9.76, P < 0.01), number of years hunted (χ 2 = 9.20, P < 0.01), and gender (χ 2 = 4.14, P < 0.05), were important to predicting hunter difficulty with compliance. Hunters who can overcome their difficulties understanding and complying with species-specific bag limits may be more likely to be integrated into the duck hunting culture, and more likely to continue duck hunting in the future. More species identification tools and fewer species-specific bag limits may be appropriate for the 18% of the duck hunter population who indicated that bag-specific regulations were difficult to understand and the 26% who indicated that it was difficult to comply with species-specific bag limits in the field. A closer look may be warranted for how the trade-offs associated with the combination of species-specific bag limits in combination with the variety of duck season zone and split options states employ, license/stamp requirements, area-specific regulations, and trespass laws may influence duck hunter experiences.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗