Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Audubon”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
USGS1955

Fifty-fifth Christmas Bird Count. 159. Ocean City, Md

The distribution of dynamic pressure behind a Harris' hawk's wing was sampled using a wake rake consisting of 15 pitot tubes and one static tube. The hawk was holding on to a perch, but at an air speed and gliding angle at which it was capable of gliding. The perch was instrumented, so that the lift developed by the wing was known and the lift coefficient could be calculated. The mean of 92 estimates of profile drag coefficient was 0.0207, with standard deviation 0.0079. Lift coefficients ranged from 0.51 to 1.08. Reynolds numbers were nearly all in the range 143000-194000. The estimates of profile drag coefficient were reconcilable with previous estimates of the wing profile drag of the same bird, obtained by the subtractive method, and also with values predicted by the ?Airfoil-ii? program for designing aerofoils, based on a digitized wing profile from the ulnar region of the wing. The thickness of the wake suggested that the boundary layer was mostly or fully turbulent in most observations and separated in some, possibly as an active means of creating drag for control purposes. It appears that the bird could momentarily either increase or decrease the profile drag of specific parts of the wing, by active changes of shape, and it appeared to use the carpo-metacarpal region especially for such control movements. Further investigation in a low turbulence wind tunnel would help to resolve doubts about the possible influence of airstream turbulence on the behaviour of the boundary layer.

Audubon Field Notes↗
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↗
USGS1964

Habitat use at night by wintering American woodcock in coastal Georgia and Virginia

Nocturnal habitats used by American woodcock (Scolopux minor) were studied using radio telemetry at two coastal wintering sites in Georgia (1982-84) and Virginia (1991-92). In Georgia, use of forested habitats at night was extensive while use of fields at night varied between years but generally was low. We found no difference in the probability of moving to a field at night among the four age-sex classes (P = 0.23). A significant effect (P < 0.05) of age-sex class was noted between distances moved from diurnal to nocturnal locations in Georgia. Young females moved farther than any other age-sex class. In Virginia, no effect of age-sex class was found on the probability of being located during the night in either a field or a forest.

Audubon Field Notes↗
USGS1962

Evaluating causes of population change in North American insectivorous songbirds

Although the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a principal source of information regarding populations of most North American bird species, many features of the survey complicate analysis of population change. Correlation studies based on BBS data cannot be used to unambiguously define cause and effect relationships. Recently, B?hning-Gaese et al. (1993) presented an analysis of population trends in insectivorous songbirds using data from the BBS. They concluded that predation has played an important role in influencing population trends. We review aspects of the analysis methods for estimating population trends (e.g., observer effects, data subset) and for associating mean trends with species attributes (e.g., confounding of attributes). Using alternative analyses of the same BBS data, we demonstrate that the evidence that predation is associated with population declines is weaker than they suggested. Based on our analyses the only factor among those tested that is consistently associated with population trends is migration status (i.e., short-distance migrant/resident vs. long-distance migrant) during the period 1978-1987. Also, we present evidence that the harsh winters of the mid-1970's severely depressed populations of short-distance migrant species, and may be responsible for the observed associations between migration status and population trends.

Audubon Field Notes↗
USGS2008

Field Marks of a Celebration: Roger Tory Peterson's Centennial Birthday

A red letter day in my life was April 27, 1934, the day I first met Roger. A birding friend, Elisha Atkins, had invited Clinton Reynolds and me to dinner to meet a famous ornithologist. We would all be going on a field trip to Newburyport on the Massachusetts coast the next day. The dinner conversation revolved about a new field guide that Mr. Peterson had just completed and that would be available in a few days. I couldn?t wait to see it! I had been birding since 1930, keying out live birds with Chapman?s Handbook of Birds of Eastern North America (1912) and Hoffman?s Guide to the Birds of New England and Eastern New York (1904). Both books had extensive keys based on color, size, bill shape and season, and pictures of heads or feet of some species. Positive bird identification was a long and tedious process. The field trip the next day with Roger was memorable, not for finding any rare or unusual birds, but for learning how to identify birds to species at a single good glance. I recall asking Roger if he could find a ring-billed gull among a group of gulls resting on a roof beside the Merrimac River. He immediately said, ?No there aren?t any ring-bills there; they would be immediately apparent by their slimmer shape.? There was no need to check the foot color on each bird. While it is easy to say that Roger revolutionized field guides, I truly believe there are few people worldwide under the age of 90 who can really appreciate the difference between the old way of keying out birds and the instant recognition promoted by the Peterson system. Today we take for granted that amateurs can identify birds accurately. Monitoring bird populations by Breeding Bird Surveys, atlas studies, Breeding Bird Censuses, migration banding, and many other studies relies on it. None of these would be possible if we were still keying out live birds using books designed to identify dead birds in the hand.

Audubon Naturalist News↗