Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2019

Conserving transboundary wildlife migrations: Recent insights from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Animal migrations are ecologically, culturally, and economically important. Ungulate populations in many parts of Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas migrate long distances to access seasonally available resources, traversing vast landscapes in large numbers. Yet some migrations are declining, raising concerns among scientists and natural resource managers. We synthesize recent advances in ungulate migration ecology with relevance to management and policy. Using case studies from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), we show how new tools can be applied to map ungulate migrations and assess threats across multiple seasonal habitats, serving as a conservation roadmap. To help conserve ungulate migrations, we also propose a transboundary science, policy, and management framework that could be adapted beyond the GYE and that encompasses the needs of multiple species. The key elements of this framework consist of more widespread mapping and assessment of migrations, improved federal and state coordination across jurisdictional lines, increased investment in private land conservation, and strong engagement of local stakeholders positioned to sustain conservation activities over the long term.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2019

Plasticity in elk migration timing is a response to changing environmental conditions

Migration is an effective behavioral strategy for prolonging access to seasonal resources and may be a resilient strategy for ungulates experiencing changing climatic conditions. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), elk are the primary ungulate, with approximately 20,000 individuals migrating to exploit seasonal gradients in forage while also avoiding energetically costly snow conditions. How climate-induced changes in plant phenology and snow accumulation are influencing elk migration timing is unknown. We present the most complete record of elk migration across the GYE, spanning 9 herds and 414 individuals from 2001 to 2017, to evaluate the drivers of migration timing and test for temporal shifts. The timing of elk departure from winter range involved a trade-off between current and anticipated forage conditions, while snow melt governed summer range arrival date. Timing of elk departure from summer range and arrival on winter range were both influenced by snow accumulation and exposure to hunting. At the GYE scale, spring and fall migration timing changed through time, most notably with winter range arrival dates becoming almost 50 days later since 2001. Predicted herd-level changes in migration timing largely agreed with observed GYE-wide changes—except for predicted winter range arrival dates which did not reflect the magnitude of change detected in the elk telemetry data. Snow melt, snow accumulation, and spring green-up dates all changed through time, with different herds experiencing different rates and directions of change. We conclude that elk migration is plastic, is a direct response to environmental cues, and that these environmental cues are not changing in a consistent manner across the GYE. The impacts of changing elk migration timing on predator–prey dynamics, carnivore–livestock conflict, disease ecology, and harvest management across the GYE are likely to be significant and complex.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2019

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2018

This annual report summarizes the results of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) research and monitoring conducted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during 2018. The research and monitoring program is focused on population estimation and demographics, food monitoring, and habitat monitoring. The report also contains a summary of grizzly bear management actions to address conflict situations and agency outreach efforts. This report is a summary of annual data collections. Data analyses, and summaries presented in this report supersede those published previously and may be subject to change contingent on additional information, future manuscript publications, and the peer review process.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2018

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations — Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2017

This Annual Report summarizes results of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) monitoring and research conducted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during 2017. This report also contains a summary of grizzly bear management actions to address conflict situations. Annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information may be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. Data, analyses, and summaries presented in this report supersede previously published data and analyses and interpretations may be subject to change contingent on future manuscript publication and the peer review process. The research described in this report complied with current laws of the United States of America, was conducted in accordance with animal care and use guidelines, and was approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of the respective member agencies.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2016

Detecting grizzly bear use of ungulate carcasses using global positioning system telemetry and activity data

Global positioning system (GPS) wildlife collars have revolutionized wildlife research. Studies of predation by free-ranging carnivores have particularly benefited from the application of location clustering algorithms to determine when and where predation events occur. These studies have changed our understanding of large carnivore behavior, but the gains have concentrated on obligate carnivores. Facultative carnivores, such as grizzly/brown bears ( Ursus arctos ), exhibit a variety of behaviors that can lead to the formation of GPS clusters. We combined clustering techniques with field site investigations of grizzly bear GPS locations ( n = 732 site investigations; 2004–2011) to produce 174 GPS clusters where documented behavior was partitioned into five classes (large-biomass carcass, small-biomass carcass, old carcass, non-carcass activity, and resting). We used multinomial logistic regression to predict the probability of clusters belonging to each class. Two cross-validation methods—leaving out individual clusters, or leaving out individual bears—showed that correct prediction of bear visitation to large-biomass carcasses was 78–88%, whereas the false-positive rate was 18–24%. As a case study, we applied our predictive model to a GPS data set of 266 bear-years in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (2002–2011) and examined trends in carcass visitation during fall hyperphagia (September–October). We identified 1997 spatial GPS clusters, of which 347 were predicted to be large-biomass carcasses. We used the clustered data to develop a carcass visitation index, which varied annually, but more than doubled during the study period. Our study demonstrates the effectiveness and utility of identifying GPS clusters associated with carcass visitation by a facultative carnivore.

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem↗
USGS2016

Amphibian mortality events and ranavirus outbreaks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Mortality events in wild amphibians go largely undocumented, and where events are detected, the numbers of dead amphibians observed are probably a small fraction of actual mortality (Green and Sherman 2001; Skerratt et al. 2007). Incidental observations from field surveys can, despite limitations, provide valuable information on the presence, host species, and spatial distribution of diseases. Here we summarize amphibian mortality events and diagnoses recorded from 2000 to 2014 in three management areas: Yellowstone National Park; Grand Teton National Park (including John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway); and the National Elk Refuge, which together span a large portion of protected areas within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE; Noss et al. 2002). Our combined amphibian monitoring projects (e.g., Gould et al. 2012) surveyed an average of 240 wetlands per year over the 15 years. Field crews recorded amphibian mortalities during visual encounter and dip-netting surveys and collected moribund and dead specimens for diagnostic examinations. Amphibian and fish research projects during these years contributed additional mortality observations, specimens, and diagnoses.

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem↗
USGS2015

Influences of supplemental feeding on winter elk calf:cow ratios in the southern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Several elk herds in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are fed during winter to alleviate interactions with livestock, reduce damage to stored crops, and to manage for high elk numbers. The effects of supplemental feeding on ungulate population dynamics has rarely been examined, despite the fact that supplemental feeding is partially justified as necessary for maintaining or enhancing population growth rates. We used linear regression to assess how the presence of feedgrounds, snowpack, summer rainfall, indices of grizzly bear density and wolves per elk, elk population trend counts, brucellosis seroprevalence, and survey date were correlated with midwinter calf:cow ratios, a metric correlated with population growth, from 1983–2010 from 12 ecologically similar elk herd units (7 fed and 5 unfed) in Wyoming, USA. Our statistical approach allowed for rigorous tests of the hypotheses that supplemental feeding had positive effects on calf:cow ratios and reduced sensitivity of calf:cow ratios to bottom-up limitation relative to top-down limitation from native predators. Calf:cow ratios generally declined across all herd units over the study period and varied widely among units with feedgrounds. We found no evidence that the presence of feedgrounds had positive effects on midwinter calf:cow ratios in Wyoming. Further, fed elk showed stronger correlations with environmental factors, whereas calf:cow ratios for unfed elk showed stronger correlations with predator indices. Although we found no consistent association between winter feeding and higher calf:cow ratios, we did not assess late winter mortality and differences in human offtake between fed and unfed regions, which remain a priority for future research.

Wyoming↗
USGS2015

Estimating the phenology of elk brucellosis transmission with hierarchical models of cause-specific and baseline hazards

Understanding the seasonal timing of disease transmission can lead to more effective control strategies, but the seasonality of transmission is often unknown for pathogens transmitted directly. We inserted vaginal implant transmitters (VITs) in 575 elk ( Cervus elaphus canadensis ) from 2006 to 2014 to assess when reproductive failures (i.e., abortions or still births) occur, which is the primary transmission route of Brucella abortus , the causative agent of brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Using a survival analysis framework, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical model that simultaneously estimated the total baseline hazard of a reproductive event as well as its 2 mutually exclusive parts (abortions or live births). Approximately, 16% (95% CI = 0.10, 0.23) of the pregnant seropositive elk had reproductive failures, whereas 2% (95% CI = 0.01, 0.04) of the seronegative elk had probable abortions. Reproductive failures could have occurred as early as 13 February and as late as 10 July, peaking from March through May. Model results suggest that less than 5% of likely abortions occurred after 6 June each year and abortions were approximately 5 times more likely in March, April, or May compared to February or June. In western Wyoming, supplemental feeding of elk begins in December and ends during the peak of elk abortions and brucellosis transmission (i.e., Mar and Apr). Years with more snow may enhance elk-to-elk transmission on supplemental feeding areas because elk are artificially aggregated for the majority of the transmission season. Elk-to-cattle transmission will depend on the transmission period relative to the end of the supplemental feeding season, elk seroprevalence, population size, and the amount of commingling. Our statistical approach allowed us to estimate the probability density function of different event types over time, which may be applicable to other cause-specific survival analyses. It is often challenging to assess the cause of death, or in this case whether the reproductive event was an abortion or live birth. Accounting for uncertainty in the event type is an important future addition to our methodological approach.

Wyoming↗
USGS2015

Projecting the spatiotemporal carbon dynamics of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem from 2006 to 2050

Background Climate change and the concurrent change in wildfire events and land use comprehensively affect carbon dynamics in both spatial and temporal dimensions. The purpose of this study was to project the spatial and temporal aspects of carbon storage in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) under these changes from 2006 to 2050. We selected three emission scenarios and produced simulations with the CENTURY model using three General Circulation Models (GCMs) for each scenario. We also incorporated projected land use change and fire occurrence into the carbon accounting. Results The three GCMs showed increases in maximum and minimum temperature, but precipitation projections varied among GCMs. Total ecosystem carbon increased steadily from 7,942 gC/m 2 in 2006 to 10,234 gC/m 2 in 2050 with an annual rate increase of 53 gC/m 2 /year. About 56.6% and 27% of the increasing rate was attributed to total live carbon and total soil carbon, respectively. Net Primary Production (NPP) increased slightly from 260 gC/m 2 /year in 2006 to 310 gC/m 2 /year in 2050 with an annual rate increase of 1.22 gC/m 2 /year. Forest clear-cutting and fires resulted in direct carbon removal; however, the rate was low at 2.44 gC/m 2 /year during 2006–2050. The area of clear-cutting and wildfires in the GYE would account for 10.87% of total forested area during 2006–2050, but the predictive simulations demonstrated different spatial distributions in national forests and national parks. Conclusions The GYE is a carbon sink during 2006–2050. The capability of vegetation is almost double that of soil in terms of sequestering extra carbon. Clear-cutting and wildfires in GYE will affect 10.87% of total forested area, but direct carbon removal from clear-cutting and fires is 109.6 gC/m 2 , which accounts for only 1.2% of the mean ecosystem carbon level of 9,056 gC/m 2 , and thus is not significant.

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem↗
USGS2014

Influence of whitebark pine decline on fall habitat use and movements of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

When abundant, seeds of the high-elevation whitebark pine (WBP; Pinus albicaulis ) are an important fall food for grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rates of bear mortality and bear/human conflicts have been inversely associated with WBP productivity. Recently, mountain pine beetles ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) have killed many cone-producing WBP trees. We used fall (15 August–30 September) Global Positioning System locations from 89 bear years to investigate temporal changes in habitat use and movements during 2000–2011. We calculated Manly–Chesson (MC) indices for selectivity of WBP habitat and secure habitat (≥500 m from roads and human developments), determined dates of WBP use, and documented net daily movement distances and activity radii. To evaluate temporal trends, we used regression, model selection, and candidate model sets consisting of annual WBP production, sex, and year. One-third of sampled grizzly bears had fall ranges with little or no mapped WBP habitat. Most other bears (72%) had a MC index above 0.5, indicating selection for WBP habitats. From 2000 to 2011, mean MC index decreased and median date of WBP use shifted about 1 week later. We detected no trends in movement indices over time. Outside of national parks, there was no correlation between the MC indices for WBP habitat and secure habitat, and most bears (78%) selected for secure habitat. Nonetheless, mean MC index for secure habitat decreased over the study period during years of good WBP productivity. The wide diet breadth and foraging plasticity of grizzly bears likely allowed them to adjust to declining WBP. Bears reduced use of WBP stands without increasing movement rates, suggesting they obtained alternative fall foods within their local surroundings. However, the reduction in mortality risk historically associated with use of secure, high-elevation WBP habitat may be diminishing for bears residing in multiple-use areas.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2013

Female elk contacts are neither frequency nor density dependent

Identifying drivers of contact rates among individuals is critical to understanding disease dynamics and implementing targeted control measures. We studied the interaction patterns of 149 female elk ( Cervus canadensis ) distributed across five different regions of western Wyoming over three years, defining a contact as an approach within one body length (∼2 m). Using hierarchical models that account for correlations within individuals, pairs, and groups, we found that pairwise contact rates within a group declined by a factor of three as group sizes increased 33-fold. Per capita contact rates, however, increased with group size according to a power function, such that female elk contact rates fell in between the predictions of density- or frequency-dependent disease models. We found similar patterns for the duration of contacts. Our results suggest that larger elk groups are likely to play a disproportionate role in the disease dynamics of directly transmitted infections in elk. Supplemental feeding of elk had a limited impact on pairwise interaction rates and durations, but per capita rates were more than two times higher on feeding grounds. Our statistical approach decomposes the variation in contact rate into individual, dyadic, and environmental effects, and provides insight into factors that may be targeted by disease control programs. In particular, female elk contact patterns were driven more by environmental factors such as group size than by either individual or dyad effects.

Wyoming↗
USGS2010

Hazards affecting grizzly bear survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

During the past 2 decades, the grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) has increased in numbers and expanded its range. Early efforts to model grizzly bear mortality were principally focused within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, which currently represents only about 61% of known bear distribution in the GYE. A more recent analysis that explored one spatial covariate that encompassed the entire GYE suggested that grizzly bear survival was highest in Yellowstone National Park, followed by areas in the grizzly bear Recovery Zone outside the park, and lowest outside the Recovery Zone. Although management differences within these areas partially explained differences in grizzly bear survival, these simple spatial covariates did not capture site-specific reasons why bears die at higher rates outside the Recovery Zone. Here, we model annual survival of grizzly bears in the GYE to 1) identify landscape features (i.e., foods, land management policies, or human disturbances factors) that best describe spatial heterogeneity among bear mortalities, 2) spatially depict the differences in grizzly bear survival across the GYE, and 3) demonstrate how our spatially explicit model of survival can be linked with demographic parameters to identify source and sink habitats. We used recent data from radiomarked bears to estimate survival (1983–2003) using the known-fate data type in Program MARK. Our top models suggested that survival of independent (age ≥2 yr) grizzly bears was best explained by the level of human development of the landscape within the home ranges of bears. Survival improved as secure habitat and elevation increased but declined as road density, number of homes, and site developments increased. Bears living in areas open to fall ungulate hunting suffered higher rates of mortality than bears living in areas closed to hunting. Our top model strongly supported previous research that identified roads and developed sites as hazards to grizzly bear survival. We also demonstrated that rural homes and ungulate hunting negatively affected survival, both new findings. We illustrate how our survival model, when linked with estimates of reproduction and survival of dependent young, can be used to identify demographically the source and sink habitats in the GYE. Finally, we discuss how this demographic model constitutes one component of a habitat-based framework for grizzly bear conservation. Such a framework can spatially depict the areas of risk in otherwise good habitat, providing a focus for resource management in the GYE.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2007

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2006

The contents of this Annual Report summarize results of monitoring and research from the 2006 field season. The report also contains a summary of nuisance grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) management actions. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) continues to work on issues associated with counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of- the-year (COY). These counts are used to establish a minimum population size, which is then used to establish mortality thresholds for the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1993). After considerable delays due to programming issues, a computer program that defines the rule set used by Knight et al. (1995) to differentiate unique family groups was development and tested in 2005 and 2006. Simulations using observations of collared females with COY were randomly sampled to generate datasets of observations of random females with COY. These datasets were then run though the simulations program to test the accuracy of the rules. Data are currently being summarized. This project has been completed and a manuscript was submitted to the Journal of Wildlife Management. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USFWS 1993) established human-caused mortality quotas. We used the latest information on reproduction and survival to estimate population trajectory in the same simulation model originally used by Harris (1984). A Wildlife Monographs was published in 2006. Additionally, the study team, in cooperation with several quantitative experts, reassessed how population size is indexed and how sustainable mortality rates are established. A draft report was presented to the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee in spring 2005. It was published as part of the USFWS Delisting Rule (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 221, Nov. 17, 2005, 69853–69884) and subjected to public comment. This workshop document can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. During the summer of 2006, a second workshop was held to address public comment and professional peer review. The result of this workshop was a supplement to the 2005 workshop document. This supplement can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm under the link Revised Methods to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits. Results of those estimates are provided in Appendix A. Our project addressing the potential application of stable isotopes and trace elements to quantify consumption rates of whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) by grizzly bears was completed. Our manuscript on consumption rates of whitebark pine was published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770. Results of the mercury studies were also published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:493–501. Copies can be found on the IGBST website http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. Based upon this work, we submitted a proposal to analyze all historic tissue samples from grizzly bears in the ecosystem. That proposal was funded and samples have been sent to a lab for isotopic analysis. We hope to have those results in early 2008. Results of DNA hair snaring work conducted on Yellowstone Lake were submitted and published in the Journal Ursus (Haroldson et al. 2005). Results of this study conducted from 1997–2000 showed a decline in fish use by grizzly bears when compared to earlier work conducted by Reinhart (1990) in 1985–1987. As a consequence, the IGBST submitted a proposal to the National Park Service and received 3 years funding to repeat that work. This project began in 2007. There are 2 graduate students and several field technicians working on the program. We completed the final field season in Grand Teton National Park evaluating habitat use both temporally and spatially between grizzly and black bears ( Ursus americanus ). We continue to use GPS technology that incorporates a spread spectrum communication system. Spread spectrum allows for transfer of stored GPS locations from the collar to a remote receiving station. Results of the 2006 field season are reported here. We plan to complete the final report in late 2007. We continued to monitor the health of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in cooperation with the Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. A summary of the 2006 monitoring is also presented (Appendix B). The IGBST uses counts of winter-killed ungulates to index spring carcass abundance for grizzly bears. Likewise, we use wier counts and stream surveys to index cutthroat trout abundance. We ask Dr. Steve Cherry, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University-Bozeman, to review the protocols and make recommendations for improving them. That review and recommendations are presented in Appendix C. Finally, the state of Wyoming, following recommendations from the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee and the IGBST, launched the Bear Wise Community Effort. The focus is to minimize human/bear conflicts, minimize human-caused bear mortalities associated with conflicts, and safeguard the human community. Results of these efforts are detailed in Appendix D. The annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information can be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. For that reason, data analyses and summaries presented in this report supersede all previously published data. The study area and sampling techniques are reported by Blanchard (1985), Mattson et al. (1991 a), and Haroldson et al. (1998).

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2005

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2004

The contents of this Annual Report summarize results of monitoring and research from the 2004 field season. The report also contains a summary of nuisance grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) management actions. The study team continues to work on issues associated with counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year (COY). These counts are used to establish a minimum population size, which is then used to establish mortality thresholds for the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1993). A computer program that defines the rule set used by Knight et al. (1995) to differentiate unique family groups was completed in spring 2005. We will use an improved version of this model to verify the accuracy of the rules using known bears and their telemetry locations in test runs. We hope to have this work complete by the end of 2005. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USFWS 1993) established mortality quotas at 4% of the minimum population estimate derived from female with COY data and no more than 30% of the 4% (1.2%) could be female bears. Simulation modeling (Harris 1984) established sustainable mortality at around 6% of the population. We used the latest information on reproduction and survival to estimate population trajectory in the same simulation model originally used by Harris. A Wildlife Monograph has been accepted for publication and should be available by summer 2005. Our project addressing the potential application of stable isotopes and trace elements to quantify consumption rates of whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) by grizzly bears was completed. Our manuscript on consumption rates of whitebark pine has been published (Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770). The manuscript on fish consumption rates was also accepted and is published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:493-501. Both can be found on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) website http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. We began a new study in Grand Teton National Park evaluating habitat use both temporally and spatially between grizzly and black ( Ursus americanus ) bears. We will employ a new form of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology that incorporates a spread spectrum communication system. Spread spectrum allows for transfer of stored GPS locations from the collar to a remote receiving station. Results of our first yea r’s field season are summarized in this report. Whitebark pine (WBP) has been identified as one of the import ant fall foods of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Previous efforts to map the distribution of WBP were for the Cumulative Effects Model. Consequently the only coverage of WBP distribution was for the grizzly bear Recovery Zone. We were successful in getting financial support through the U.S. Geological Survey Land Remote Sensing Program and Interdisciplinary Science Support Activities Project to create an ecosystem-wide map of the distribution of WBP. The results of that project are reported in Appendix A. The study team annually estimates WBP cone production on a series of transects. That information is reported annually in our reports. Concern over the long-term health of WBP prompted us to investigate the usefulness of cone counts as an indirect index of WBP health. Results of this analysis (Appendix B) indicated that cone production is too variable to serve this purpose. Consequently, we partnered with several 2 other agencies and embarked on a program to develop a long-term monitoring program directed specifically at WBP health in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Our team (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group) was successful in obtaining funds to develop and implement a WBP health monitoring program. Results of our first years work are presented in Appendix C. We also successfully competed for funds in 2005 and will continue to collect information on WBP health. Army cutworm moths ( Euxoa auxiliaris ) are also a very important food for a segment of the GYE grizzly bear population. Hillary Robison, graduate student at University of Nevada, Reno, is nearing completion of her program. In this report, we post her annual work summary, and abstracts of her most recently submitted publications. These include one on the levels of pesticides in cutworm moths and their potential affect on grizzly bears (Appendix D), a spatial analysis to identify army cutworm moth habitat (Appendix E), and the results of a preliminary analysis of pollen grains on the mouth parts of moths (Appendix F) to help identify which plant species are commonly fed upon. Other study team members have also been working on various aspects of grizzly bear science. Study team member Kerry Gunther hosted a workshop on habituated grizzly bears in North America. A copy of the abstract of that report can be found in Appendix G. Additionally, Kerry Gunther and Doug Smith, wolf researcher in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), reported on the interactions between gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) and female grizzly bears with young. They report that of 15 interactions between these 2 carnivores, 8 involve d females with COY. They observed 2 incidents where cubs were killed by wolves at ungulate carcasses (Appendix H). The annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information can be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. For that reason, data analyses and summaries presented in this report supersede all previously published data. The study area and sampling techniques are reported by Blanchard (1985), Mattson et al. (1991 a ), and Haroldson et al. (1998).

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗