SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Bears: Their Biology and Management”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2024

A systematic review of the effects of climate variability and change on black and brown bear ecology and interactions with humans

Climate change poses a pervasive threat to humans and wildlife by altering resource availability, changing co-occurrences, and directly or indirectly influencing human-wildlife interactions. For many wildlife agencies in North America, managing bears ( Ursus spp.) and human-bear interactions is a priority, yet the direct and indirect effects of climate change are exacerbating management challenges. Understanding the underlying ecological drivers of bear responses to climate variability and change, and the implications for conflict, will be critical for maintaining human-bear coexistence in North America. We synthesized 120 articles that identified direct and indirect mechanisms by which climate variability and change affect brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) and American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) in North America. The literature focused on examining climate impacts on bear diet, body size, habitat selection, space use, activity, denning chronology, and population demographics and dynamics. Across these categories, we summarized the documented and projected bear responses and resulting implications for human-bear interactions. Climate-driven changes in natural food availability were frequently implicated in influencing bear behavior and demography, and creating conditions under which interactions with humans are likely to increase. Bears in North America may face increased challenges as habitat and natural food availability continue to be altered by climate change. Our review provides a foundation upon which to identify climate drivers of bear ecology, conditions conducive to human-bear interactions, and adaptive management strategies. Given substantial evidence of climate impacts to bears, incorporating climate considerations into bear management can help managers strategically allocate resources and promote human-bear coexistence.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2011

Polar bear population status in the northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971-2006

Polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) of the northern Beaufort Sea (NB) population occur on the perimeter of the polar basin adjacent to the northwestern islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Sea ice converges on the islands through most of the year. We used open-population capture–recapture models to estimate population size and vital rates of polar bears between 1971 and 2006 to: (1) assess relationships between survival, sex and age, and time period; (2) evaluate the long-term importance of sea ice quality and availability in relation to climate warming; and (3) note future management and conservation concerns. The highest-ranking models suggested that survival of polar bears varied by age class and with changes in the sea ice habitat. Model-averaged estimates of survival (which include harvest mortality) for senescent adults ranged from 0.37 to 0.62, from 0.22 to 0.68 for cubs of the year (COY) and yearlings, and from 0.77 to 0.92 for 2–4 year-olds and adults. Horvtiz-Thompson (HT) estimates of population size were not significantly different among the decades of our study. The population size estimated for the 2000s was 980 ± 155 (mean and 95% CI). These estimates apply primarily to that segment of the NB population residing west and south of Banks Island. The NB polar bear population appears to have been stable or possibly increasing slightly during the period of our study. This suggests that ice conditions have remained suitable and similar for feeding in summer and fall during most years and that the traditional and legal Inuvialuit harvest has not exceeded sustainable levels. However, the amount of ice remaining in the study area at the end of summer, and the proportion that continues to lie over the biologically productive continental shelf (<300 m water depth) has declined over the 35-year period of this study. If the climate continues to warm as predicted, we predict that the polar bear population in the northern Beaufort Sea will eventually decline. Management and conservation practices for polar bears in relation to both aboriginal harvesting and offshore industrial activity will need to adapt.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2014

Demography and behavior of polar bears summering on land in Alaska

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the southern Beaufort Sea population (SB) are spending increased time on the coastal North Slope of Alaska between July and October (Gleason and Rode 2010). The duration spent on land by polar bears, satellite collared on the sea-ice in the spring, during the summer and fall has also increased (USGS, unpublished data; Figure 1). This change in polar bear ecology has relevance for human-bear interactions, subsistence harvest, prevalence of defense kills, and disturbance associated with existing land-based development [e.g., National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPRA), Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)], Native Alaskan communities, recreation (ANWR) and tourism (e.g., bear viewing in Kaktovik, AK). These activities have the potential to impact, in new ways, the status of the entire SB population. Concomitantly, the change in polar bear ecology will impact these human activities, and a base-line characterization of this phenomenon can better inform mitigation (e.g., industry permitting under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act). In this study we aim to characterize the demography, habitat-use, and aspects of foraging ecology and health of polar bears spending fall on land. The SB population is characterized by a divergent-sea ice ecology, where polar bears typically spend most of the year on the sea-ice, even as the pack ice retreats northward, away from the coast, to its minimal extent in September (Amstrup et al. 2008; Durner et al. 2009). From 2000 – 2005, using coastal aerial surveys, Schliebe et al. (2008) observed between 3.7 and 8% of polar bears from SB (~ 60 – 120 of 1526, Regher et al. 2006) on land during the autumn. Sighting probability was not estimated in these surveys, and therefore the numbers represent minimum numbers of bears on land. Our analysis of USGS data suggest an annual average of 15% (± 3%, SE) of polar bears satellite-tagged on the spring-time sea ice (total n = 18 of 124 satellite tags, 2003 – 2009) come to land during July – October. Based on these data, and an assumption that bears satellite-tagged on the spring time sea ice are representative of the entire SB population of independent bears, there would be an average of 230 bears on land each fall. In contrast to the SB population, in five of the world’s 19 polar bear populations (Obbard et al. 2010), polar bears spend significant periods of time on land (1 – 5 months) when ice completely melts. In these seasonal-ice populations (Amstrup et al. 2008), polar bears are largely in a hypophagic condition (e.g., Hobson et al. 2009), relying on fat stores from the spring hyperphagic season, when ringed seals (Phoca hispida) pup. In general, these seasonal-ice populations are demographically productive (Taylor et al. 2005), although recently an increase in the ice-free season has resulted in a population decline in western Hudson Bay (Stirling et al. 1999; Regehr et al. 2007). There have been measured declines in the body condition and productivity of polar bears in SB, and changes in these parameters have been linked to declining optimal ice habitat (e.g., Durner et al. 2009; Regehr et al. 2010). We do not understand the relationship between land-use and the overall status of the population. Individual polar bears that use land may have increased or decreased fitness, in comparison to polar bears that remain on ice in the autumn. This project, which focuses on the biology of animals that spend time on-shore, will help address this question. This project is funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) under Agreement No. M09PG00025 and the USGS Outer Continental Shelf Program (OCS) for FY 2009-2014. Parts of this study are also funded by US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Marine Mammals Management; the Bureau of Land Management; and the North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management. This report is comprehensive, describing results for achieving the overlap

Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea↗

USGS1995

Kodiak brown bears

Brown bears ( Ursus arctos middendorffi ) on the Kodiak Archipelago are famous for their large size and seasonal concentrations at salmon streams. Sport hunting of Kodiak bears has been popular since World War II. Their value as captivating subjects to observe or photograph is a more recent development that is increasing rapidly; visitors from around the world come to experience brown bears on Kodiak, adding substantially to Alaska's economy. An equally important contribution of brown bears is their value as an indicator of ecosystem vitality. Despite high population numbers, Kodiak bears are vulnerable to the environmental effects that have seriously depleted brown bear populations in Europe and parts of North America (Cowan 1972; Servheen 1990). They are long-lived mammals that require large expanses of land to meet biological needs, and their low reproductive rate limits population recovery. Energy development, depletion of salmon resources, and recreational growth are factors that can adversely affect bears and, in doing so, signal a loss of environmental quality affecting many species. Management of Kodiak brown bears is directed at maintaining current density, distribution, and habitat-use patterns. This goal is challenged by growing levels of commercial and private use throughout the region. An immediate concern is cabin and lodge development on 121,500 ha (300,000 acres), formerly part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, that were deeded to Alaska Natives via the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Much of that Native-conveyed land is coastal or riparian habitat especially important to brown bears during summer and fall. Concurrently, recreational use of the Kodiak refuge is increasing about 10% annually (USFWS 1987). Sport fishing, bear photography, and deer and elk hunting often put bears and humans in direct conflict (Smith et al. 1989). Timber harvest on Afognak Island, uncertain trends of salmon populations due to natural or human-caused events (e.g., Exxon Valdez oil spill), and hydroelectric development (Smith and Van Daele 1990) could impose additional long-term effects on localized bear populations.

Alaska↗

USGS2017

Model-based estimators of density and connectivity to inform conservation of spatially structured populations

Conservation and management of spatially structured populations is challenging because solutions must consider where individuals are located, but also differential individual space use as a result of landscape heterogeneity. A recent extension of spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models, the ecological distance model, uses spatial encounter histories of individuals (e.g., a record of where individuals are detected across space, often sequenced over multiple sampling occasions), to estimate the relationship between space use and characteristics of a landscape, allowing simultaneous estimation of both local densities of individuals across space and connectivity at the scale of individual movement. We developed two model-based estimators derived from the SCR ecological distance model to quantify connectivity over a continuous surface: (1) potential connectivity—a metric of the connectivity of areas based on resistance to individual movement; and (2) density-weighted connectivity (DWC)—potential connectivity weighted by estimated density. Estimates of potential connectivity and DWC can provide spatial representations of areas that are most important for the conservation of threatened species, or management of abundant populations (i.e., areas with high density and landscape connectivity), and thus generate predictions that have great potential to inform conservation and management actions. We used a simulation study with a stationary trap design across a range of landscape resistance scenarios to evaluate how well our model estimates resistance, potential connectivity, and DWC. Correlation between true and estimated potential connectivity was high, and there was positive correlation and high spatial accuracy between estimated DWC and true DWC. We applied our approach to data collected from a population of black bears in New York, and found that forested areas represented low levels of resistance for black bears. We demonstrate that formal inference about measures of landscape connectivity can be achieved from standard methods of studying animal populations which yield individual encounter history data such as camera trapping. Resulting biological parameters including resistance, potential connectivity, and DWC estimate the spatial distribution and connectivity of the population within a statistical framework, and we outline applications to many possible conservation and management problems.

Ecosphere↗

USGS2017

Implications of rapid environmental change for polar bear behavior and sociality

Historically, the Arctic sea ice has functioned as a structural barrier that has limited the nature and extent of interactions between humans and polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ). However, declining sea ice extent, brought about by global climate change, is increasing the potential for human-polar bear interactions. Loss of sea ice habitat is driving changes to both human and polar bear behavior—it is facilitating increases in human activities (e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction, trans-Arctic shipping, recreation), while also causing the displacement of bears from preferred foraging habitat (i.e., sea ice over biologically productive shallow) to land in some portions of their range. The end result of these changes is that polar bears are spending greater amounts of time in close proximity to people. Coexistence between humans and polar bears will require imposing mechanisms to manage further development, as well as mitigation strategies that reduce the burden to local communities.

Book chapter↗

USGS2005

Conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly bear

We review literature relevant to the conservation of Yellowstone's grizzly bear population and appraise the bear's long-term viability. We conclude that the population is isolated and vulnerable to epidemic perturbation and that the carrying capacity of the habitat is likely to shift downward under conditions of climate change. Viability analyses based on the assumption that future habitats will closely resemble those existing at present have limited applicability; more information is needed on the autecology of important bear foods and on the implications of landscape-scale changes for bear population dynamics. Optimism over prospects of long-term persistence for Yellowstone's grizzly bears does not seem to be warranted and management of this population should be conservative and not unduly swayed on short-term positive trends.

Yellowstone National Park↗

USGS2017

Relative influences of climate change and human activity on the onshore distribution of polar bears

Climate change is altering habitat for many species, leading to shifts in distributions that can increase levels of human-wildlife conflict. To develop effective strategies for minimizing human-wildlife conflict, we must understand the relative influences that climate change and other factors have on wildlife distributions. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are increasingly using land during summer and autumn due to sea ice loss, leading to higher incidents of conflict and concerns for human safety. We sought to understand the relative influence of sea ice conditions, onshore habitat characteristics, and human-provisioned food attractants on the distribution and abundance of polar bears while on shore. We also wanted to determine how mitigation measures might reduce human-polar bear conflict associated with an anthropogenic food source. We built a Bayesian hierarchical model based on 14 years of aerial survey data to estimate the weekly number and distribution of polar bears on the coast of northern Alaska in autumn. We then used the model to predict how effective two management options for handling subsistence-harvested whale remains in the community of Kaktovik, Alaska might be. The distribution of bears on shore was most strongly influenced by the presence of whale carcasses and to a lesser extent sea ice and onshore habitat conditions. The numbers of bears on shore were related to sea ice conditions. The two management strategies for handling the whale carcasses reduced the estimated number of bears near Kaktovik by > 75%. By considering multiple factors associated with the onshore distribution and abundance of polar bears we discerned what role human activities played in where bears occur and how successful efforts to manage the whale carcasses might be for reducing human-polar bear conflict.

Alaska↗

USGS2021

Anthropogenic edge effects in habitat selection by sun bears in a protected area

Wildlife populations in southeast Asia are increasingly experiencing a broad array of anthropogenic threats, and mammalian carnivores are particularly vulnerable. Populations of the Malayan sun bear Helarctos malayanus are estimated to have declined by 30% over the last 30 years from forest conversion to industrial plantations and mortality associated with human–bear conflicts and illegal wildlife trade. However, the effects of industrial plantations on habitat selection and activity patterns of mammals that live at the protected area-plantation interface, including sun bears, are not well known. We investigated habitat selection and activity patterns of sun bears in Tabin Wildlife Reserve in Sabah, Malaysia. We deployed 83 remote camera sites to record sun bear detections during two sampling periods (2012–2013 and 2017). We used generalized linear models to examine relationships between sun bear presence and site covariates representing physical, environmental and anthropogenic elements of the landscape. Relative probability of sun bear presence was positively associated with distance to roads and elevation. Because most roads were on the reserve boundary and often associated with oil palm plantations, proximity to roads likely served as a surrogate measure of human accessibility and activity in peripheral areas of the reserve. Supporting that interpretation, sun bears close to the reserve boundary were primarily active at night, whereas daytime activity was more common for bears in the interior. Our findings indicate that sun bears alter behaviour and habitat selection likely in response to anthropogenic activities at the edges of Tabin Wildlife Reserve (112 200 ha). Because the ratio of edge to interior increases steeply with declining habitat area, smaller protected areas bordered by plantations are predicted to have greater impacts on sun bear behaviour and, potentially, population persistence. Effective conservation actions may benefit from management to improve the security of edge habitats for sun bears and other vulnerable species.

Tabin Wildlife Reserve↗

USGS2000

Mercury bioaccumulation in fish in a region affected by historic gold mining: The South Yuba River, Deer Creek, and Bear River watersheds, California, 1999

Mercury that was used historically for gold recovery in mining areas of the Sierra Nevada continues to enter local and downstream water bodies, including the Sacramento Delta and the San Francisco Bay of northern California. Methylmercury is of particular concern because it is the most prevalent form of mercury in fish and is a potent neurotoxin that bioaccumulates at successive trophic levels within food webs. In April 1999, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with several other agencies the Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture), the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California State Water Resources Control Board, and the Nevada County Resource Conservation District began a pilot investigation to characterize the occurrence and distribution of mercury in water, sediment, and biota in the South Yuba River, Deer Creek, and Bear River watersheds of California. Biological samples consisted of semi-aquatic and aquatic insects, amphibians, bird eggs, and fish. Fish were collected from 5 reservoirs and 14 stream sites during August through October 1999 to assess the distribution of mercury in these watersheds. Fish that were collected from reservoirs included top trophic level predators (black basses, Micropterus spp.) intermediate trophic level predators [sunfish (blue gill, Lepomis macrochirus; green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus; and black crappie, Poxomis nigromaculatus)] and benthic omnivores (channel catfish, Ictularus punctatus). At stream sites, the species collected were upper trophic level salmonids (brown trout, Salmo trutta) and upper-to-intermediate trophic level salmonids (rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss). Boneless and skinless fillet portions from 161 fish were analyzed for total mercury; 131 samples were individual fish, and the remaining 30 fish were combined into 10 composite samples of three fish each of the same species and size class. Mercury concentrations in samples of black basses (Micropterus spp.), including largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass, ranged from 0.20 to 1.5 parts per million (ppm), wet basis. Mercury concentrations in sunfish ranged from less than 0.10 to 0.41 ppm (wet). Channel catfish had mercury concentrations from 0.16 to 0.75 ppm (wet). The range of mercury concentrations observed in rainbow trout was from 0.06 to 0.38 ppm (wet), and in brown trout was from 0.02 to 0.43 ppm (wet). Mercury concentrations in trout were greater than 0.3 ppm in samples from three of 14 stream sites. Mercury at elevated concentrations may pose a health risk to piscivorous wildlife and to humans who eat fish on a regular basis. Data presented in this report may be useful to local, state, and federal agencies responsible for assessing the potential risks associated with elevated levels of mercury in fish in the South Yuba River, Deer Creek, and Bear River watersheds.

California↗

USGS1980

Biological considerations in the delineation of critical habitat

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) require large areas to satisfy their needs for food, cover, and space. They thrive best where disturbance by man is minimal. It is not a coincidence that the two major grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states exist in large wilderness systems closely associated with two large national parks and a relatively large game preserve. If management objectives for these areas do not change, and man-bear interactions can be kept low, viable grizzly bear populations can be maintained. Outside of parks and wilderness areas, the picture is less clear. Grizzly bears adapt to some habitat modifications. the extent of their adaptability to habitat modification or human interaction is largely unknown. Answers to many pertinent questions will be slow in coming. In the meantime, management policies based on common sense rather than on adversary reactions among agencies are the best insurance of the grizzlies' survival.

Book chapter↗

USGS2015

Establishing a definition of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) health: A guide to research and management activities

The meaning of health for wildlife and perspectives on how to assess and measure health, are not well characterized. For wildlife at risk, such as some polar bear (Ursus maritimus) subpopulations, establishing comprehensive monitoring programs that include health status is an emerging need. Environmental changes, especially loss of sea ice habitat, have raised concern about polar bear health. Effective and consistent monitoring of polar bear health requires an unambiguous definition of health. We used the Delphi method of soliciting and interpreting expert knowledge to propose a working definition of polar bear health and to identify current concerns regarding health, challenges in measuring health, and important metrics for monitoring health. The expert opinion elicited through the exercise agreed that polar bear health is defined by characteristics and knowledge at the individual, population, and ecosystem level. The most important threats identified were in decreasing order: climate change, increased nutritional stress, chronic physiological stress, harvest management, increased exposure to contaminants, increased frequency of human interaction, diseases and parasites, and increased exposure to competitors. Fifteen metrics were identified to monitor polar bear health. Of these, indicators of body condition, disease and parasite exposure, contaminant exposure, and reproductive success were ranked as most important. We suggest that a cumulative effects approach to research and monitoring will improve the ability to assess the biological, ecological, and social determinants of polar bear health and provide measurable objectives for conservation goals and priorities and to evaluate progress.

Science of the Total Environment↗

USGS2002

Science and management of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears

The science and management of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) in the Rocky Mountains of North America have spawned considerable conflict and controversy. Much of this can be attributed to divergent public values, but the narrow perceptions and incomplete and fragmented problem definitions of those involved have exacerbated an inherently difficult situation. We present a conceptual model that extends the traditional description of the grizzly bear conservation system to include facets of the human domain such as the behavior of managers, elected officials, and the public. The model focuses on human-caused mortality, the key determinant of grizzly bear population growth in this region and the interactions and feedback loops among humans that have a major potential influence on bear mortality. We also briefly evaluate existing information and technical methods relevant to understanding this complex human-biophysical system. We observe not only that the extant knowledge is insufficient for prediction (and in some cases for description), but also that traditional positivistic science alone is not adequate for dealing with the problems of grizzly bear conservation. We recommend changes in science and management that could improve learning and responsiveness among the involved individuals and organizations, clarify some existing uncertainty, and thereby increase the effectiveness of grizzly bear conservation and management. Although adaptive management is a promising approach, we point out some key—as yet unfulfilled—contingencies for implementation of a method such as this one that relies upon social processes and structures that promote open learning and flexibility in all facets of the policy process.

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Washin↗

USGS2012

Impacts of rural development on Yellowstone wildlife: linking grizzly bear Ursus arctos demographics with projected residential growth

Exurban development is consuming wildlife habitat within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem with potential consequences to the long-term conservation of grizzly bears Ursus arctos. We assessed the impacts of alternative future land-use scenarios by linking an existing regression-based simulation model predicting rural development with a spatially explicit model that predicted bear survival. Using demographic criteria that predict population trajectory, we portioned habitats into either source or sink, and projected the loss of source habitat associated with four different build out (new home construction) scenarios through 2020. Under boom growth, we predicted that 12 km 2 of source habitat were converted to sink habitat within the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (RZ), 189 km 2 were converted within the current distribution of grizzly bears outside of the RZ, and 289 km 2 were converted in the area outside the RZ identified as suitable grizzly bear habitat. Our findings showed that extremely low densities of residential development created sink habitats. We suggest that tools, such as those outlined in this article, in addition to zoning and subdivision regulation may prove more practical, and the most effective means of retaining large areas of undeveloped land and conserving grizzly bear source habitat will likely require a landscape-scale approach. We recommend a focus on land conservation efforts that retain open space (easements, purchases and trades) coupled with the implementation of ‘bear community programmes’ on an ecosystem wide basis in an effort to minimize human-bear conflicts, minimize management-related bear mortalities associated with preventable conflicts and to safeguard human communities. Our approach has application to other species and areas, and it has illustrated how spatially explicit demographic models can be combined with models predicting land-use change to help focus conservation priorities.

Yellowstone National Park↗

USGS2002

Arctic Refuge coastal plain terrestrial wildlife research summaries

In 1980, when the U.S. Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), it also mandated a study of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA stated that a comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife resources would be conducted on 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain (1002 Area). Potential petroleum reserves in the 1002 Area were also to be evaluated from surface geological studies and seismic exploration surveys. Results of these studies and recommendations for future management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain were to be prepared in a report to Congress. In 1987, the Department of the Interior published the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment - Report and Recommendations to the Congress of the United States and Final Environmental Impact Statement. This report to Congress identified the potential for oil and gas production (updated* most recently by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2001), described the biological resources, and evaluated the potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources. The 1987 report analyzed the potential environmental consequences of five management alternatives for the coastal plain, ranging from wilderness designation to opening the entire area to lease for oil and gas developement. The report's summary recommended opening the 1002 Area to an orderly oil and gas leasing program, but cautioned that adverse effects to some wildlife populations were possible. Congress did not act on this recommendation nor any other alternative for the 1002 Area, and scientists continued studies of key wildlife species and habitats on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge and surrounding areas. This report contains updated summaries of those scientific investigations of caribou, muskoxen, predators (grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles), polar bears, snow geese, and their wildlife habitats. Contributions to this report were made by scientists affiliated with the U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; Canadian Wildlife Service; Yukon Department of Renewable Resources; and the Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development. Sections of the report presenting new information on caribou and forage plants were peer-reviewed by three independent, non-affiliated scientists. The remaining sections summarize previously published peer-reviewed scientific papers and were reviewed by a single independent scientist. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collaborated in the publication of this report.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2019

Accounting for phenology in the analysis of animal movement

The analysis of animal tracking data provides important scientific understanding and discovery in ecology. Observations of animal trajectories using telemetry devices provide researchers with information about the way animals interact with their environment and each other. For many species, specific geographical features in the landscape can have a strong effect on behavior. Such features may correspond to a single point (eg, dens or kill sites), or to higher dimensional subspaces (eg, rivers or lakes). Features may be relatively static in time (eg, coastlines or home‐range centers), or may be dynamic (eg, sea ice extent or areas of high‐quality forage for herbivores). We introduce a novel model for animal movement that incorporates active selection for dynamic features in a landscape. Our approach is motivated by the study of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) movement. During the sea ice melt season, polar bears spend much of their time on sea ice above shallow, biologically productive water where they hunt seals. The changing distribution and characteristics of sea ice throughout the year mean that the location of valuable habitat is constantly shifting. We develop a model for the movement of polar bears that accounts for the effect of this important landscape feature. We introduce a two‐stage procedure for approximate Bayesian inference that allows us to analyze over 300 000 observed locations of 186 polar bears from 2012 to 2016. We use our model to estimate a spatial boundary of interest to wildlife managers that separates two subpopulations of polar bears from the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Biometrics↗

USGS2002

Bet-hedging applications for conservation

One of the early tenets of conservation biology is that population viability is enhanced by maintaining multiple populations of a species. The strength of this tenet is justified by principles of bet-hedging. Management strategies that reduce variance in population size will also reduce risk of extinction. Asynchrony in population fluctuations in independent populations reduces variance in the aggregate of populations whereas environmental correlation among areas increases the risk that all populations will go extinct. We review the theoretical rationale of bet-hedging and suggest applications for conservation management of least terns in Nebraska and grizzly bears in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. The risk of extinction for least terns will be reduced if we can sustain the small central Platte River population in addition to the larger population on the lower Platte. Similarly, by restoring grizzly bears to the Bitterroot wilderness of Idaho and Montana can reduce the probability of extinction for grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains of the United States by as much as 69-93%.

Journal of Biosciences↗

USGS1993

Type specimens and basic principles of avian taxonomy

"Ornithology" may be defined as the scientific study of birds. No aspect of avian biology, including management and conservation, can be carried out without reference by name to birds at some taxonomic level. Thus, the names of species of birds, and of groups of species, can fairly be considered to be of primary importance in ornithology. To be useful, these names themselves must be defined and related to biological entities. The definition of a name is accomplished by the designation of a "type." The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, in paragraph (C) of Article 72 (third edition, 1985), establishes criteria for eligibility of a name-bearing type. The type of a species or sub-species name is the biological specimen defined by the name, and later use of the name implies specific or subspecific identity with the type. It is imperative, therefore, that a type be available for study and comparison so that the identity of other material with it can be established.

The Auk↗