Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlife Research”

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 901 records · Page 50Linked to original sources
USGS2011

Abbreviated bibliography on energy development—A focus on the Rocky Mountain Region

Energy development of all types continues to grow in the Rocky Mountain Region of the western United States. Federal resource managers increasingly need to balance energy demands, effects on the natural landscape and public perceptions towards these issues. To assist in efficient access to valuable information, this abbreviated bibliography provides citations to relevant information for myriad of issues for which resource managers must contend. The bibliography is organized by seven large topics with various sup-topics: broad energy topics (energy crisis, conservation, supply and demand, etc.); energy sources (fossil fuel, nuclear, renewable, etc.); natural landscape effects (climate change, ecosystem, mitigation, restoration, and reclamation, wildlife, water, etc.); human landscape effects (attitudes and perceptions, economics, community effects, health, Native Americans, etc.); research and technology; international research; and, methods and modeling. A large emphasis is placed on the natural and human landscape effects.

Idaho;Montana;Wyoming;Utah;Colorado;New Mexico;Ari↗
USGS2012

Ecosystem services valuation to support decisionmaking on public lands—A case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona

This report details the findings of the Bureau of Land Management–U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Services Valuation Pilot Study. This project evaluated alternative methods and tools that quantify and value ecosystem services, and it assessed the tools’ readiness for use in the Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking process. We tested these tools on the San Pedro River watershed in northern Sonora, Mexico, and southeast Arizona. The study area includes the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (managed by the Bureau of Land Management), which has been a focal point for conservation activities and scientific research in recent decades. We applied past site-specific primary valuation studies, value transfer, the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) and Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) models to value locally important ecosystem services for the San Pedro River watershed—water, carbon, biodiversity, and cultural values. We tested these approaches on a series of scenarios to evaluate ecosystem service changes and the ability of the tools to accommodate scenarios. A suite of additional tools were either at too early a stage of development to run, were proprietary, or were place-specific tools inappropriate for application to the San Pedro River watershed. We described the strengths and weaknesses of these additional ecosystem service tools against a series of evaluative criteria related to their usefulness for Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking. Using these tools, we quantified gains or losses of ecosystem services under three categories of scenarios: urban growth, mesquite management, and water augmentation. These results quantify tradeoffs and could be useful for decisionmaking within Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Results are accompanied by a relatively high level of uncertainty associated with model outputs, valuation methods, and discount rates applied. Further guidance on representing uncertainty and applying uncertain results in decisionmaking would benefit both tool developers and those offices in using ecosystem services to compare management tradeoffs. Decisionmakers and Bureau of Land Management managers at the State-, district-, and field-office level would also benefit from continuing model improvements, training, and guidance on tool use that can be provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of the Interior. Tradeoffs were identified in the level of effort needed to parameterize and run tools and the amount and quality of information they provide to the decision process. We found the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, Ecosystem Services Review, and United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre Ecosystem Services Toolkit to be immediately feasible for application by the Bureau of Land Management, given proper guidance on their use. It is also feasible for the Bureau of Land Management to use the InVEST model, but in early 2012 the process of parameterizing the model required resources and expertise that are unlikely to be available in most Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Application of past primary valuation is feasible, but developing new primary-valuation studies is too time consuming for regular application. Value transfer approaches (aside from the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit) are best applied carefully on the basis of guidelines described in this report, to reduce transfer error. The ARIES model can provide useful information in regions modeled in the past (Arizona, California, Colorado, and Washington), but it lacks some features that will improve its usability, such as a generalized model that could be applied anywhere in the United States. Eleven other tools described in this report could become useful as the tools more fully develop, in high-profile cases for which additional resources are available for tool application or in case-study regions where place-specific models have already been developed. To improve the value of these tools in decisionmaking, we suggest scientific needs that agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey can help meet—for instance, development and support of data archives. Such archives could greatly reduce resource needs and improve the reliability and consistency of results. Given the rapid state of evolution in the field, periodic follow-up studies on ecosystem services tools would help to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management and other public land management agencies are kept up to date on new tools and features that bring ecosystem services closer to readiness for use in regular decisionmaking.

Arizona;Sonora↗
USGS1980

[Book review] Endangered Birds: Management techniques for preserving threatened species

This volume contains the proceedings of a symposium held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, during 17-20 August 1977. In the words of the book's editor, Stanley Temple, the symposium "offered a unique opportunity for leading scientists from around the world to meet and share their experiences with endangered birds." That this objective was achieved is indicated by a list of contributors standing as a "Who's Who" in endangered species research and management. This symposium was jointly sponsored by the International Council for Bird Preservation, World Wildlife Fund, National Audubon Society, New York Zoological Society, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fifty-one papers by 53 contributors are listed under 10 topics: endangered bird problems and the concept of managing threatened species; increasing reproductive effort and success by reducing nest-site limitations; alleviating problems of competition, predation, parasitism, and disease; supplemental feeding and manipulation of feeding ecology; manipulating aspects of nesting biology; captive breeding of endangered birds; genetic aspects of managing dwindling populations; reintroducing endangered birds to the wild; integrated approaches to management of endangered birds; and summary. A 14-page index provides convenient reference to subjects in the text.

The Auk↗
USGS1993

Wetland modeling and information needs at Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge

The marshes in and around Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge) are extremely dynamic; expanding and contracting in size both seasonally, due to runoff and subsequent evapotranspiration, and over longer periods, due to climatic variation. The dynamic nature of these marshes results in a diversity of wetland habitats, which support a variety of migratory birds. To maintain this wetland diversity and control the loss of migratory bird habitat in the Lahontan Valley, the Refuge was established and currently manages a complex of marsh units. However, changes in the hydrology, and changes that will occur as a result of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone and Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Public Law 101-618, 104 Stat. 3389), greatly affect the Refuge's wetland management capability. In light of these changes, and the legal requirements associated with environmental impact assessments, the Refuge convened a workshop to discuss several aspects of wetland management in the Lahontan Valley. The workshop, described in this report, had three primary objectives: 1. discuss the types and relative proportions of primary wetland habitats that should be provided as described in the settlement act; 2. discuss wetland management models that might be developed to help manage these marshes under hydrologic regimes likely in the future; and 3. discuss future information and monitoring needs, including proposals for valley-wide biodiversity surveys, which would be helpful when considering withdrawn Bureau of Reclamation (BR) lands for possible incorporation into the Refuge. Several presentations at the beginning of the workshop provided a common basis for discussing these objectives. Refuge staff provided background on the history and past management. The Nature Conservatory discussed their role in the settlement act, proposals for valley-wide biodiversity surveys, and results of a literature review for Stillwater Marsh and the Lahontan Valley (Nachlinger 1993). Kay Fowler provided an historical context of changes in vegetation and waterbird use of the marshes based on her ethnography of the local Paiute Indians (Fowler 1993). Finally, Bob Elston discussed a model that predicts archaeological sites based on environmental variables (Raven and Elston 1989). The workshop was organized by staff from the Refuge and facilitated by the authors of this report. Participants included Ron Anglin, Bill Henry, Anne Janik, Cliff Creger, Fred Paveglio, and Mary Jo Elpers of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service); Jeff Baumgartner, Jan Nachlinger, Hope Humphries, and Graham Chisholm of The Nature Conservancy; David Yardas of the Environmental Defense Fund; David Robertson of Robertson Software, Inc.; Norm Saake, Terry Retterer, and Larry Neel of the Nevada Department of Wildlife; Lew Oring and Kay Fowler of the University of Nevada; and Robert Elston of Intermountain Research.

Report↗
USGS2003

Seabird, fisheries, marine mammal, and oceanographic investigations around Kasatochi, Koniuji, and Ulak Islands, August 1996 (SMMOCI 96-3)

Although islands in the Aleutians are known to support some of the highest densities of seabirds in the world, their remoteness has limited systematic research on the at-sea distribution of seabirds near these colonies. Kasatochi, Koniuji, and Ulak islands, in the central Aleutian Islands, together comprise one of nine ecological sites monitored once every 5 years on an annual rotation since 1996 by the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR). To supplement annual colony monitoring and examine seabird distribution away from colony sites, the AMNWR personnel in conjunction with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers, conducted a pelagic survey of the waters around these 3 islands in 1996. Previous research in this area has focused on the seabird colony sites located on Kasatochi, Koniuji, and Ulak islands. Although boat-based circumnavigations have been used to evaluate colony populations (Early et al. 1981; Bailey and Trapp 1986; Byrd and Williams 1994; Byrd 1995a, 1995b), wide ranging pelagic surveys to examine foraging patterns had not previously been conducted near the islands. The goal of this survey was to examine foraging patterns of the seabirds nesting in the study area and identify factors that may explain seabird distribution patterns.

Alaska↗
USGS2011

Forest bird monitoring protocol for strategic habitat conservation and endangered species management on O'ahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Island of O'ahu, Hawai'i

This report describes the results of a pilot forest bird survey and a consequent forest bird monitoring protocol that was developed for the O'ahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge, O'ahu Island, Hawai'i. The pilot survey was conducted to inform aspects of the monitoring protocol and to provide a baseline with which to compare future surveys on the Refuge. The protocol was developed in an adaptive management framework to track bird distribution and abundance and to meet the strategic habitat conservation requirements of the Refuge. Funding for this research was provided through a Science Support Partnership grant sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Hawai'i↗
USGS2021

Filling knowledge gaps for a threatened species: Age and growth of Green Sturgeon of the southern distinct population segment

The Green Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris is an anadromous, long-lived species that is distributed along the Pacific coast of North America. Green Sturgeon is vulnerable to global change because of its sensitive life history (e.g., delayed maturation) and few spawning locations. The persistence of Green Sturgeon is threatened by habitat modification, altered flows, and rising river temperatures. In 2006, because of persistent stressors, the U.S. Endangered Species Act listed the southern distinct population segment as threatened. Despite increased research efforts on this species after the listing, substantial gaps in basic population information for Green Sturgeon remain. We present the only published information on age structure and growth of a threatened population of Green Sturgeon. By analyzing archived fin rays collected from 1984 to 2016, we revealed highly variable growth among individuals. We detected several age classes from 0 to 26 y and found similar growth rates of southern distinct population segment Green Sturgeon compared with northern population Green Sturgeon. Although limited, this analysis is an important first step to understanding Green Sturgeon population dynamics and highlights critical research needs.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS1979

Marsh nesting by mallards

Nest-site selection by mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) hens was studied on a 52-km2, privately owned area in the Missouri Coteau of south-central North Dakota during 1974-77. Sixty-six percent of 53 nests initiated by radio-marked and unmarked hens were in wetlands in dense stands of emergent vegetation and usually within 50 m of the wetland edge. These findings and other sources of information suggest that significant numbers of mallards breeding in the Prairie Pothole Region nest in marsh habitat. Potential factors contributing to mallard use of marsh habitat for nesting purposes are discussed. Management considerations associated with marsh nesting by mallards are described and research needs are identified.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS1995

Can we manage for biological diversity in the absence of science?

Conservation of biological diversity is dependent on sound scientific information about underlying ecological processes. Current knowledge of the composition, distribution, abundance and life cycles of most species of plants and animals is incomplete, insufficient, unreliable, or nonexistent. Contemporary managers are also confronted with additional levels of complexity related to varying degrees of knowledge and understanding about interactions of species and ecosystems. Consequently, traditional species-oriented management schemes may have unintended consequences and ecosystem-oriented management initiatives may fail in the face of inadequate or fragmentary information on the structure, function, and dynamics of biotic communities and ecological systems. Nevertheless, resource managers must make decisions and manage based on the best biological information currently available. Adaptive resource management may represent a management paradigm that allows managers to learn something about the species or systems that they are managing while they are managing, but potential pitfalls lurk for such approaches. In addition to lack of control over the primary physical, chemical, and ecological processes, managers also lack control over social, economic, and political parameters affecting resource management options. Moreover, appropriate goals may be difficult to identify and criteria for determining success may be elusive. Some management responsibilities do not lend themselves to adaptive strategies. Finally, the lessons learned from adaptive management are usually obtained from a highly situational context that may limit applicability in a wider range of situations or undermine confidence that problems and solutions were properly diagnosed and addressed. Several scenarios are critically examined where adaptive management approaches may be inappropriate or ineffective and where management for biological diversity may be infeasible or inefficient without a sound scientific basis. Whereas some level of management must exist to meet agency responsibilities, more research is needed to conserve biological diversity.

Wildlife Society Annual Conference↗
USGS2024

Integrating the human dimensions into fish and wildlife management depends on increasing managers’ social science fluency

It is a common experience in human dimensions to hear people say, “wildlife management is people management.” Good people management requires the full integration of the human dimensions into natural resources work. This means going beyond conducting human dimensions research to understanding and applying lessons learned from social science. A key step here is building managers’ fluency in social science concepts so they can more easily relate existing literature to their own practical questions. I use three example issues from human-wildlife conflict – calibrating trust, managing anger, and fostering autonomy – to illustrate how increased fluency in psychology could inform conflict management in the context of larger sociopolitical discourses. I conclude with ideas for how organizations and scientists could help managers build this integrative capacity in order to better achieve a shared objective of a wildlife management profession that works well with people for the good of humans and wildlife.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife↗
USGS2026

Avoiding common pitfalls in the implementation of adaptive forest wildlife management

Forest management planning requires the evaluation of tradeoffs in proposed management actions to meet multiple objectives, including providing the habitat required to sustain wildlife populations. However, various species-specific life history strategies and ecological uncertainties complicate our understanding of the responses of wildlife to disturbances, such as wildfires and forest management. We believe that adaptive management processes, applied through the close collaboration of researchers and managers (e.g., coproduction), will be valuable in this effort. Although adaptive management programs have been touted in the past, we stress that many of these programs have fallen short of the requisite steps to complete the learning cycles of this process (i.e., single- and double-loop learning). Thus, we provide guidance on what we believe to be the missing components of these efforts in hopes to guide future coordination of local and regional adaptive management programs for forest wildlife.

General Technical Report↗
USGS2011

Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona

Three high-flow experiments (HFEs) were conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, in March 1996, November 2004, and March 2008. These experiments, also known as artificial or controlled floods, were large-volume, scheduled releases of water from Glen Canyon Dam that were designed to mimic some aspects of pre-dam Colorado River seasonal flooding. The goal of these experiments was to determine whether high flows could be used to benefit important physical and biological resources in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park that had been affected by the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Efforts such as HFEs that seek to maintain and restore downstream resources are undertaken by the U.S. Department of the Interior under the auspices of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA; title XVIII, secs. 1801-1809, of Public Law 102-575). Scientists conducted a wide range of monitoring and research activities before, during, and after the experiments. Initially, research efforts focused on whether HFEs could be used to rebuild and maintain Grand Canyon sandbars, which provide camping beaches for hikers and whitewater rafters, create habitats potentially used by native fish and other wildlife, and are the source of windborne sand that may help to protect some archaeological resources from weathering and erosion. As scientists gained a better understanding of how HFEs affect the physical environment, research efforts expanded to include additional investigations about the effects of HFEs on biological resources, such as native fishes, nonnative sports fishes, riverside vegetation, and the aquatic food web. The chapters that follow summarize and synthesize for decisionmakers and the public what has been learned about HFEs to provide a framework for implementing similar future experiments. This report is a product of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), a Federal initiative authorized to ensure that the primary mandate of the GCPA (GCPA sec. 1802 (a)) is met through advances in information and resource management. The program and its research efforts focus on a study area that encompasses the Colorado River corridor from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park, which is identified as the Colorado River ecosystem elsewhere in this report. The study area includes the approximately 16-mile river corridor between the dam and Lees Ferry within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the entire 277-river mile corridor downstream from Lees Ferry and within Grand Canyon National Park. The U.S. Geological Survey's Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) is responsible for the scientific monitoring and research efforts of the GCDAMP, including the preparation of this report. The GCMRC gratefully acknowledges the contributions of those scientists with Federal and State resource-management agencies, academic institutions, and private consulting firms who undertook much of the research presented in the chapters that follow.

Circular↗
USGS2023

Ecological effects of pinyon-juniper removal in the Western United States—A synthesis of scientific research, January 2014–March 2021

Executive Summary Increasing density of pinyon ( Pinus spp. ) and juniper ( Juniperus spp. ) woodlands (hereinafter “pinyon-juniper”), as well as expansion of these woodlands into adjacent shrublands and grasslands, has altered ecosystem function and wildlife habitat across large areas of the interior western United States. Although there are many natural and human-caused drivers of woodland infilling and expansion, restoration of sagebrush ( Artemisia spp. ) habitat through removal of pinyon-juniper is considered an urgent management objective in many locations, particularly in support of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species of conservation concern. In December 2020, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) established the Pinyon-Juniper Management Categorical Exclusion (PJCX) to expedite the regulatory process for pinyon-juniper removal projects on public lands, largely intended to benefit mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) habitats. During final preparation of this report, the BLM discontinued use of the PJCX (as of November, 2022), but the pinyon-juniper tree removal techniques assessed in this report are commonly used and understanding their effects remains relevant to land use planning. To address areas of uncertainty relative to potential ecological effects of the PJCX, we conducted a review of the peer-reviewed science literature to better understand the likely responses of vegetation, environmental (for example, soils), and wildlife variables to specific tree removal techniques permitted by the PJCX. In brief, the PJCX permitted removal of trees by either manual cutting, mechanical cutting, or mastication; allowed certain methods to redistribute or remove resulting tree biomass after treatment; and prohibited broadcast burning, roadbuilding, removal of old-growth, and seeding of non-native species. Specifically, we conducted our review to address the following questions: How will PJCX removal techniques affect plant communities, soils, and abiotic resources? How do these pinyon-juniper removal techniques affect wildlife communities, including both woodland- and sagebrush-dependent species? What are the potential ecological implications of different pinyon-juniper removal treatment types and implementation strategies (for example, treatment sizes) over time? What are the most important gaps in our scientific understanding of how treatments might affect targeted ecosystems over space and time (for example, potential effects of climate change)? To answer these questions, we considered studies related to pinyon-juniper ecosystems, focusing on research that occurred over a large portion of the interior western United States that is the primary focus of the PJCX. We also focused on papers published from 2014 onward, to avoid excessive overlap with other recent reviews on pinyon-juniper management effects. Using strict criteria, including only considering research that tested responses for statistical significance, we identified 48 papers that primarily examined treatment effects on vegetation and other environmental variables (1,709 responses), and 11 papers that addressed effects on wildlife (132 responses). Responses to the PJCX-permitted treatments were summarized as either positive (that is, a significant increase), negative (that is, a significant decrease), or non-significant (that is, no significant difference). Responses were assigned to categories (for example, Native Annual Grass/Forb Abundance) and hierarchical treatment levels. We found that there were large proportions of non-significant responses among all categories combined, with roughly half or more of all responses non-significant (48 percent for wildlife, 60 percent for vegetation-environmental), comparable to other recent systematic reviews of pinyon-juniper treatment effects. However, we also found that when there were significant responses, some important trends potentially emerged. Important undesirable outcomes included far more positive than negative responses of exotic grass and forb abundance among nearly all treatment types. Cutting treatments were also more likely to decrease biocrust cover and microbial activity. Potentially beneficial outcomes included mostly positive responses among sagebrush obligate species, including more positive than negative responses for mule deer and sage-grouse. Some treatment types (for example, mastication) also resulted in more positive than negative responses for native grasses and forbs (although, non-significant responses were the majority). We also highlighted many limitations of this review, including how responses often come from few studies, and how some response-treatment category combinations lack adequate response data. Moreover, the existing research is often insufficient to address many key questions about treatment effects, largely owing to short time-scales and limited spatial extents of observations, which do not match the size of treatments being implemented by land managers, nor capture long-term, post-treatment ecological dynamics. We also identify a lack of research that addresses key interactions that could undermine restoration objectives, including potential effects of climate change and grazing on post-treatment environments. Thus, we emphasize the importance of integrating these factors into future pinyon-juniper treatment research, and we stress the need for use of monitoring programs and research studies that partake in data collection and analysis over long durations and broad spatial scales.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Elk migration patterns and human activity influence wolf habitat use in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Identifying the ecological dynamics underlying human–wildlife conflicts is important for the management and conservation of wildlife populations. In landscapes still occupied by large carnivores, many ungulate prey species migrate seasonally, yet little empirical research has explored the relationship between carnivore distribution and ungulate migration strategy. In this study, we evaluate the influence of elk ( Cervus elaphus ) distribution and other landscape features on wolf ( Canis lupus ) habitat use in an area of chronic wolf–livestock conflict in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA. Using three years of fine-scale wolf ( n = 14) and elk ( n = 81) movement data, we compared the seasonal habitat use of wolves in an area dominated by migratory elk with that of wolves in an adjacent area dominated by resident elk. Most migratory elk vacate the associated winter wolf territories each summer via a 40–60 km migration, whereas resident elk remain accessible to wolves year-round. We used a generalized linear model to compare the relative probability of wolf use as a function of GIS-based habitat covariates in the migratory and resident elk areas. Although wolves in both areas used elk-rich habitat all year, elk density in summer had a weaker influence on the habitat use of wolves in the migratory elk area than the resident elk area. Wolves employed a number of alternative strategies to cope with the departure of migratory elk. Wolves in the two areas also differed in their disposition toward roads. In winter, wolves in the migratory elk area used habitat close to roads, while wolves in the resident elk area avoided roads. In summer, wolves in the migratory elk area were indifferent to roads, while wolves in resident elk areas strongly avoided roads, presumably due to the location of dens and summering elk combined with different traffic levels. Study results can help wildlife managers to anticipate the movements and establishment of wolf packs as they expand into areas with migratory or resident prey populations, varying levels of human activity, and front-country rangelands with potential for conflicts with livestock.

Wyoming↗
USGS2014

Polar bears from space: Assessing satellite imagery as a tool to track Arctic wildlife

Development of efficient techniques for monitoring wildlife is a priority in the Arctic, where the impacts of climate change are acute and remoteness and logistical constraints hinder access. We evaluated high resolution satellite imagery as a tool to track the distribution and abundance of polar bears. We examined satellite images of a small island in Foxe Basin, Canada, occupied by a high density of bears during the summer ice-free season. Bears were distinguished from other light-colored spots by comparing images collected on different dates. A sample of ground-truthed points demonstrated that we accurately classified bears. Independent observers reviewed images and a population estimate was obtained using mark- recapture models. This estimate (N: 94; 95% Confidence Interval: 92-105) was remarkably similar to an abundance estimate derived from a line transect aerial survey conducted a few days earlier (N: 102; 95% CI: 69-152). Our findings suggest that satellite imagery is a promising tool for monitoring polar bears on land, with implications for use with other Arctic wildlife. Large scale applications may require development of automated detection processes to expedite review and analysis. Future research should assess the utility of multi-spectral imagery and examine sites with different environmental characteristics.

PLoS ONE↗