Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Waterfowl”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2021

Using the California Waterfowl Tracker to assess proximity of waterfowl to commercial poultry in the Central Valley of California

Migratory waterfowl are the primary reservoir of avian influenza viruses (AIV) which can be spread to commercial poultry. Surveillance efforts that track the location and abundance of wild waterfowl and link those data to inform assessments of risk and sampling for AIV currently do not exist. To assist surveillance and minimize poultry exposure to AIV, here we explored the utility of remotely sensed MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite imagery in combination with land-based climate measurements (e.g., temperature and precipitation) to predict waterfowl location and abundance in near real-time in the California Central Valley (CCV), where both wild waterfowl and domestic poultry are densely located. Specifically, remotely collected MODIS and climate data were integrated into a previously developed Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) model to predict and visualize waterfowl distributions across the CCV. Daily model-based predictions are publicly available during the winter as part of the dynamic California Waterfowl Tracker (CWT) web-app hosted on the University of California’s Cooperative Extension webpage. In this study, we analyzed 52 days of model predictions and produced daily spatio-temporal maps of waterfowl concentrations near the 605 commercial poultry farms in the CCV during January and February of 2019. Exposure of each poultry farm to waterfowl during each day was classified as “high”, “medium”, “low”, or “none” depending on the density of waterfowl within 4 km of a farm. Results indicated that farms were at substantially greater risk of “exposure” in January, when CCV waterfowl populations peak, than in February. For example, during January, 33% (199/605) of the farms were exposed ≥ 1 day to “high” waterfowl density versus 19% (115/605) of the farms in February. In addition to demonstrating the overall variability of waterfowl location and density, these data demonstrate how remote sensing can be used to better triage AIV surveillance and biosecurity efforts via the utilization of a functional web-app based tool. The ability to leverage remote sensing is an integral advancement toward improving AIV surveillance in waterfowl in close proximity to commercial poultry. Expansion of these types of remote sensing methods linked to a user-friendly web-tool could be further developed across the continental U.S. The BRT model incorporated into the CWT reflects a first attempt to give an accurate representation of waterfowl distribution and density relative to commercial poultry.

California↗
USGS2021

Using high resolution satellite and telemetry data to track flooded habitats, their use by waterfowl, and evaluate effects of drought on waterfowl and shorebird bioenergetics in California

Wetland managers in the Central Valley of California, a dynamic hydrological landscape, require information regarding the amount and location of existing wetland habitat to make decisions on how to best use water resources to support multiple wildlife objectives, particularly during drought. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center (WERC), Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) partnered to learn how wetland and flooded agricultural habitats used by waterfowl and shorebirds change during the non-breeding season (July–April) particularly during drought. During extreme drought conditions, the ability to provide sufficient water for wildlife often depends on the timing of water deliveries to managed wetlands and winter-flooded crop fields and decisions on whether to fallow croplands. Waterfowl and shorebirds could be particularly affected by these decisions because they typically rest and feed in flooded habitats. Poor habitat conditions resulting from spatially or temporally suboptimal water deliveries (that is, mismatch between waterfowl habitat needs and timing and location of flooded habitats) could reduce waterfowl hunting opportunities and body condition. Point Blue scientists developed a system for near real-time tracking of habitats used by waterfowl, shorebirds, and some other wetland-dependent “waterbirds” ( www.pointblue.org/watertracker ) and to assess the impacts of drought on habitat availability and on waterfowl and shorebird bioenergetics. The WERC researchers linked these data with near real-time tracking (telemetry) data of duck locations throughout the Valley. The team used these two datasets to relate duck locations to open-water characteristics and to learn how waterfowl use habitats under spatially and temporally changing conditions during drought and non-drought periods. We found that recent extreme drought (2013–15) significantly changed the timing and magnitude of flooding and consequently reduced the availability of habitats used by waterfowl and shorebirds more than other recent historic droughts 2000–11. Drought reduced irrigations of moist soil seed plants and thus there was lower food energy available for waterfowl. Analyses using bioenergetics models indicated that, overall, extreme drought increased food energy deficits (total number of deficit days) for shorebirds and waterfowl. Our analysis indicated a strong direct relationship between duck locations and classified habitat derived from open-water data during the wintering period (October–March). This result helps confirm the application of dynamic water data to identify flooded areas that provide waterfowl habitat. Presence of open water at a 1-hectare resolution can be used effectively to identify flooded landscape areas available as habitat for ducks. Our discoveries from evaluating use of space by ducks also indicated that nighttime feeding locations of ducks were concentrated nearby primary roosts and that foraging distances could depend on hydrologic dynamics of location (Suisun Marsh versus California excluding Suisun Marsh) and time of season (early, middle, late). Other results indicated that some areas on the California landscape with extremely reliable water supplies could receive consistent use by ducks year after year (in essence, almost drought proof). The Water Tracker is set up to automatically track wetland habitat and food availability each year and is making these data available to water and wetland managers. Results from this research are a significant step toward understanding how waterfowl and shorebird habitats can be optimally managed on the landscape to support desired populations of these migratory birds during extreme drought.

California↗
USGS2018

Public views of wetlands and waterfowl conservation in the United States—Results of a survey to inform the 2018 update of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

Executive Summary This report provides information from a general public survey conducted in early 2017 to help inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 2018 update. This report is intended for use by the NAWMP advisory committees and anyone interested in the human dimensions of wetlands and waterfowl management. A mail-out survey was sent to 5,000 addresses in the United States, which were selected randomly in proportion to the population of each State. A total of 1,030 completed surveys representing 49 States were returned, resulting in a 23 percent overall response rate. When comparing the demographics of the respondents to the U.S. census data, this sample overrepresented people who are male, older, highly educated, and white. Data were weighted on gender and age to make the results more representative of the overall U.S. population. Additionally, this sample had higher participation rates in all wildlife-related recreation activities than has been found in previous studies; this indicates there may have been selection bias, with people interested in nature-related topics more likely to complete the survey. Therefore, results likely represent a segment of the U.S. public that is more oriented toward and aware of wildlife and conservation issues than the general public as a whole. Because of this bias, responses for each question were also broken down by recreationist type (hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers, and no wildlife-related recreation). Additionally, responses for each question were split by administrative flyway (Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, Pacific) and residency (urban, urban cluster, rural) to better understand the different groups. Most respondents knew of wetlands in their local area or community, and more than half had visited wetlands in the previous 12 months. Of those who had visited wetlands, the most common reasons were for walking/hiking/biking and enjoying nature/picnicking. In addition, this sample was very concerned about the reduction or loss of ecosystem services resulting from wetlands degradation or loss. A majority of respondents were somewhat or very concerned about 9 out of 10 wetlands benefits, with hunting opportunities being the only benefit the majority of people were not concerned about. People were the most concerned about clean water, clean air, and providing a home for wildlife. In contrast, people were least concerned about hunting opportunities and wetlands providing scenic places for inspiration or spiritual renewal. Communication about wetlands that focuses on habitat, clean air, and clean water may resonate with the widest variety of people. However, if communication is targeted toward wildlife-related recreationists, including more information about the recreation benefits of wetlands and emphasizing habitat benefits may be the most effective. Many people reported having participated in conservation behaviors in the last year. The most popular activity was making the yard more desirable to wildlife, with more than three-fourths of respondents participating, followed by donating money to support wildlife/habitat conservation and talking to others in their community about conservation issues. There was lower participation in conservation behavior specifically related to wetlands and waterfowl, with two-fifths of respondents voting for candidates or ballot issues to support wetlands/waterfowl conservation and one-third advocating for political action to conserve wetlands/waterfowl. In order to better understand how to reach out to the public on nature-related topics, preferences in information channels and trust in information sources were explored. Respondents were mostly likely to want to receive their information through personal experience, by reading or accessing online content, and through watching visual media online. People were least likely to want to receive information through listening to recorded audio media, attending educational opportunities, and listening to live audio media. These results emphasize the importance of having content available online in an easily accessible and appealing format. Visual media in particular seems to be preferred across a wide variety of people. Additionally, people had the highest trust in scientific organizations, universities/educational organizations, and friends/family/neighbors/colleagues. The least trusted sources were national media/news, religious organizations, and local media/news. Urban respondents had higher trust levels overall, particularly for the government. Hunters and those in rural areas had lower levels of trust in the government but higher trust in family/friends. In this sample, few respondents reported hunting waterfowl (5 percent) or hunting other game (16 percent) in the last year. Additionally, few respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to hunt waterfowl in the following 12 months. Even after considering that self-selection bias would make it more likely for hunters to respond to the survey, the relatively small number of respondents who identified as hunters reinforces that engagement of other wildlife-related recreationists is critical to meeting the third goal of the NAWMP 2012 revision—to increase numbers of wetlands/waterfowl conservationists. Many people also had negative perceptions of hunting. Half of the respondents stated that hunting would be unpleasant, and two-fifths believed hunting would be boring. In contrast, people had more favorable attitudes toward birdwatching, with only one-sixth saying it would be unpleasant and less than one-third saying it would be boring. A majority of respondents thought they could easily go hunting or birdwatching in the following 12 months. Overall, people had much more positive views toward birdwatching and expressed fewer barriers to participating in it. When asked what would prevent them from hunting, the most frequently stated reasons were moral opposition, no interest, personal health, and time constraints; for birdwatching, the most popular responses were nothing, no interest, and time constraints. These responses indicate it may be beneficial to move beyond hunting and find ways for other groups, such as birdwatchers, to play a more active role in conservation. Although not many people hunted and many people tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting, over three-fourths of people said they knew a hunter. Given that wildlife viewers, those who did not participate in wildlife-related recreation, and urban residents tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting and (or) were not interested in participating, attempting to recruit them to participate in hunting may not be effective. However, given how many people across all groups knew a hunter and the relatively high levels of trust people had in their friends/family, hunters may be effective ambassadors for promoting waterfowl and wetlands conservation among nonhunters. Additionally, because people had less preference for viewing waterfowl and other game birds compared to their preference for seeing hummingbirds and birds of prey, conservation efforts that extend beyond waterfowl and include other species that benefit from wetlands may have more appeal to a broader range of people.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Modeling waterfowl habitat selection in the Central Valley of California to better understand the spatial relationship between commercial poultry and waterfowl

Wildlife researchers frequently study resource and habitat selection of wildlife to understand their potential habitat requirements and to conserve their populations. Understanding wildlife spatial-temporal distributions related to habitat have other applications such as to model interfaces between wildlife and domestic food animals in order to mitigate disease transmission to food animals. The highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus represents a significant risk to the poultry industry. The Central Valley of California offers a unique geographical confluence of commercial poultry and wild waterfowl, which are thought to be a key reservoir of avian influenza (AI). Therefore, understanding spatio-temporal distributions of waterfowl could improve our understanding of potential risk of HPAI exposure from a commercial poultry perspective. Using existing radio-telemetry data on waterfowl (U.S. Geological Survey) in combination with habitat and vegetation data based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS), we are developing GIS-based statistical models that predict the probability of waterfowl presence (Habitat Suitability Mapping). Near-real-time application can be developed using recent habitat data derived from Landsat imagery (acquired by satellites and publicly available through the U.S. Geological Survey) to predict temporally- and spatially-varying distributions of waterfowl in the Central Valley. These results could be used to provide decision support for the poultry industry in addressing potential risk of HPAI exposure related to waterfowl proximity.

California↗
USGS2022

Changes in waterfowl migration phenologies in central North America: Implications for future waterfowl conservation

Globally, migration phenologies of numerous avian species have shifted over the past half-century. Despite North American waterfowl being well researched, published data on shifts in waterfowl migration phenologies remain scarce. Understanding shifts in waterfowl migration phenologies along with potential drivers is critical for guiding future conservation efforts. Therefore, we utilized historical (1955–2008) nonbreeding waterfowl survey data collected at 21 National Wildlife Refuges in the mid- to lower portion of the Central Flyway to summarize changes in spring and autumn migration phenology. We examined changes in the timing of peak abundance from survey data at monthly intervals for each refuge and species (or species group; n = 22) by year and site-specific temperature for spring (Jan–Mar) and autumn (Oct–Dec) migration periods. For spring ( n = 187) and autumn ( n = 194) data sets, 13% and 9% exhibited statistically significant changes in the timing of peak migration across years, respectively, while the corresponding numbers for increasing temperatures were 4% and 9%. During spring migration, ≥80% of significant changes in the timing of spring peak indicated advancements, while 67% of significant changes in autumn peak timing indicated delays both across years and with increasing temperatures. Four refuges showed a consistent pattern across species of advancing spring migration peaks over time. Advancements in spring peak across years became proportionally less common among species with increasing latitude, while delays in autumn peak with increasing temperature became proportionally more common. Our study represents the first comprehensive summary of changes in spring and autumn migration phenology for Central Flyway waterfowl and demonstrates significant phenological changes during the latter part of the twentieth century.

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas↗
USGS1999

Evaluation of waterfowl conservation under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

In 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Plan) was signed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the Canadian Minister of the Environment, with a goal of restoring waterfowl populations to levels of the 1970s via habitat conservation. Central to the Plan is a set of ambitious continental population goals and habitat objectives to be met through broad-based public-private partnerships. Inadequate attention has been paid to evaluation of the Plan, despite the fact that Plan delivery can be enhanced via improved understanding of the effects of habitat conservation on waterfowl population dynamics. Several factors confound the effort to evaluate the Plan at regional and continental levels, including difficulties in accounting for national land-use policies. To date, evaluation has proceeded along 2 avenues of investigation: (1) the study of conservation actions at local-regional levels, and (2) statistical assessment of Plan assumptions. Among other things, results thus far indicate duck production from the U.S. Northern Great Plains has increased in recent years, and intensive treatments such as planted cover have had positive effects on local reproductive success. Many duck species currently exceed Plan population goals; however, population levels of some species, most notably northern pintail (Anas acuta), remain below expectations based on historic relationships with precipitation. Management implications include the need for ongoing and more carefully prioritized conservation efforts, broader partnerships, and improved understanding of the linkages between habitats and biological processes. Delivery of the Plan must involve collaboration among the Continental Evaluation Team, joint Venture partners, the Adaptive Management and Assessment Team of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other conservation groups. Although the challenges and projected costs of Plan conservation efforts are considerable, the long-term potential benefits to waterfowl conservation are great.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS1997

Relationship between waterfowl nutrition and condition on agricultural drainwater ponds in the Tulare Basin, California: Waterfowl body composition

We examined carcass composition and proximate food composition of ruddy ducks ( Oxyura jamaicensis ), northern shovelers ( Anas clypeata ), and northern pintails ( Anas acuta ) wintering on agricultural drainwater ponds in California during 1983–84. Lipids varied seasonally in northern shovelers and northern pintails. Protein did not fluctuate except in ruddy ducks whose protein mass increased over winter, suggesting that some protein was catabolized prior to arrival on wintering areas or that a buildup of protein occurred prior to spring migration. Waterfowl diets varied among species and time, but the nutritional composition of the diets was relatively stable. Ruddy ducks and shovelers consumed mostly animal foods rich in protein (53–60%) and low in Nitrogen Free Extract (NFE) (1–7%). Pintail diets contained more NFE (23–38%) and less protein (14–38%) because of greater consumption of plant foods. Nutritional composition of pintail diets varied with lower protein consumption occurring from November through January.

California↗
USGS2016

Waterfowl populations are resilient to immediate and lagged impacts of wildfires in the boreal forest

Summary 1. Wildfires are the principal disturbance in the boreal forest, and their size and frequency are increasing as the climate warms. Impacts of fires on boreal wildlife are largely unknown, especially for the tens of millions of waterfowl that breed in the region. This knowledge gap creates significant barriers to the integrative management of fires and waterfowl, leading to fire policies that largely disregard waterfowl. 2. Waterfowl populations across the western boreal forest of North America have been monitored annually since 1955 by the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (BPOP), widely considered the most extensive wildlife survey in the world. Using these data, we examined impacts of forest fires on abundance of two waterfowl guilds – dabblers and divers. We modelled waterfowl abundance in relation to fire extent (i.e. amount of survey transect burned) and time since fire, examining both immediate and lagged fire impacts. 3. From 1955 to 2014, >1100 fires in the western boreal forest intersected BPOP survey transects, and many transects burned multiple times. Nonetheless, fires had no detectable impact on waterfowl abundance; annual transect counts of dabbler and diver pairs remained stable from the pre- to post-fire period. 4. The absence of fire impacts on waterfowl abundance extended from the years immediately following the fire to those more than a decade afterwards. Likewise, the amount of transect burned did not influence waterfowl abundance, with similar pair counts from the pre- to post-fire period for small (1–20% burned), medium (21–60%) and large (>60%) burns. 5. Policy implications. Waterfowl populations appear largely resilient to forest fires, providing initial evidence that current policies of limited fire suppression, which predominate throughout much of the boreal forest, have not been detrimental to waterfowl populations. Likewise, fire-related management actions, such as prescribed burning or targeted suppression, seem to have limited impacts on waterfowl abundance and productivity. For waterfowl managers, our results suggest that adaptive models of waterfowl harvest, which annually guide hunting quotas, do not need to emphasize fires when integrating climate change effects.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗
USGS2007

Waterfowl distribution and abundance during spring migration in Southern Oregon and Northeastern California

We used aerial surveys to study abundance and distribution of waterfowl (ducks, geese, swans, and coots) during spring in southern Oregon and northeastern California (SONEC). Total waterfowl-use days in SONEC during the 119-day, 5 January-3 May, spring period was similar during 2002 (127,977,700) and 2003 (128,076,200) and averaged 1,075,900 birds per day (bpd); these estimates should be adjusted upward 4%-10% to account for areas not surveyed. Waterfowl abundance peaked in mid-March in both years: 2,095,700 in 2002 and 1,681,700 in 2003. Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) was the most abundant species in both years, accounting for 25.6% of the 2002 and 24.5% of the 2003 waterfowl-use days. Pintail abundance peaked during the 13 March survey at 689,300 in 2002 and 532,100 in 2003. All other dabbling ducks accounted for 27.6% and 28.6%, diving ducks for 13.5% and 9.2%, geese for 24.6% and 29.3%, swans for 2.8% and 1.0%, and coots for 5.8% and 6.4% of the spring waterfowl-use days in SONEC during 2002 and 2003, respectively. Although use days changed little for total waterfowl (+0.08%) and dabbling ducks (-0.1%), diving duck use was lower (-32%), and goose use days were greater (+19%) in 2003 than in 2002. Distribution was similar in both years, with the most waterfowl use in the Lower (66%) and Upper (14%) Klamath subregions; 2%-6% occurred in each of the other subregions. Although the Lower Klamath subregion received the greatest overall waterfowl use, distribution among subregions varied among species and surveys, and all subregions were important during some part of the spring for 1 or more species. Peak spring abundance in SONEC during 2002 and 2003 averaged 50.3% of the midwinter abundance in California (all survey regions) and southern Oregon (69-3 survey region) for all waterfowl, 46.1% for dabbling ducks, 62.4% for diving ducks, 68.8% for geese, 109.4% for swans, and 43.8% for coots. Each spring, 75% of all waterfowl use in SONEC occurred on federal, state, or Nature Conservancy lands (i.e., protected areas). On protected areas there was a higher percentage of dabbling ducks (80.5%), geese (70.5%), and coots (81.5%) than diving ducks (60.4%) and swans (49%). Waterfowl use of Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) averaged 42% greater during spring 2002-2003 (568,500 bpd) than during 1998-2001 (Gilmer et al. 2004). Numerous factors likely impacted magnitude and distribution of waterfowl use of SONEC during spring, including weather, waterfowl populations, SONEC habitat, and species ecology. SONEC is a critical spring staging area for waterfowl that winter in the Central Valley of California and other Pacific Flyway regions and should be a major focus area for waterfowl-habitat conservation efforts.

Western North American Naturalist↗
USGS1981

Waterfowl and their wintering grounds in Mexico, 1937-64

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been interested in migratory birds, especially waterfowl, in Mexico for many years, An early period of cooperation in waterfowl administration was culminated in 1937 with the final ratification of the Convention Between the United States and the United Mexican States for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, usually referred to as the Migratory Bird Treat. Management of waterfowl on this continent is primarily carried out by hunting regulations. Current information on the status of each species must be obtained each year to serve as a basis for any needed modifications in the regulations. In the United States and Canada, wildlife biologists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service annually make the surveys to obtain this basic information. But the Government of Mexico has made no comparable surveys. Mexicans are not interested in hunting waterfowl to the extent that citizens of the United States and Canada are. As a consequence, Mexico's Department of Game emphasizes activities other than waterfowl management. Waterfowl, especially ducks, winter in or migrate through Mexico in large numbers, so it is obvious that and continental surveys of the winter population should include Mexico. Some general investigations of waterfowl distribution there were made in 1926 and earlier by E. A. Goldman. He was familiar with much of Mexico because he and E. W. Nelson studied mammals and biota there for many years. In the 1930's, because of the greater emphasis on waterfowl conservation and management, more detailed surveys were made of the continental breeding and wintering populations. One of these activities was designated as the midwinter, or January, inventory. In the early 1940's the senior author, who had been the Central Flyaway Biologist since 1937, recommended that the waterfowl wintering grounds in Mexico be included in the coverage of the midwinter waterfowl inventory. This was arranged in 1947, and the first aerial coverage, which only included coastal localities, was made in January-February of that year. The information obtained confirmed the value and advisability of including the Mexican wintering grounds in the annual survey; beginning in 1951 the wintering grounds in the Mexican highlands also were included. The surveys of Mexico were continued, except in 1957, through 1965; after 1965 they were greatly reduced. Ground reconnaissance and surveys had begun in Mexico with the preliminary work of Goldman in 1926, but quantitative studies were not started until 1937. The ground surveys continued at intervals in various parts of the Republic until 1960. Ground surveys are invaluable for such purposes as securing ecological information, specimens of birds and plants, and historical data about the areas from local residents, but the only satisfactory method of obtaining accurate quantitative information on waterfowl populations and their distribution is by airplane. Consequently, the major emphasis since 1947 has been on the annual aerial surveys. Ground studies were made much less frequently and were carried out mainly to obtain correlative information on the waterfowl foods available, the ecology of habitats, and for liaison with wildlife officials and biologists in Mexico. An important reason for the surveys of the waterfowl wintering grounds in Mexico was to determine their adequacy for the population of birds using them, and their potential to accommodate additional waterfowl if the wintering grounds in the United States became inadequate and larger flights entered Mexico. Other advantages included providing accurate information to hunters and other interested persons in the United States regarding the waterfowl shooting in Mexico, and determining the current status of these birds and their habitats in that country. Some of these findings were previously summarized by us (Saunders and Saunders 1949; Saunders 1964).

Resource Publication↗
USGS2024

Nonbreeding waterfowl behavioral response to crewed and uncrewed aerial surveys on conservation areas in Missouri

Monitoring waterfowl populations provides the basis for improving habitat quantity and quality, establishing harvest regulations, and ensuring sustainable waterfowl populations through appropriate management. Waterfowl biologists currently use a variety of population and habitat monitoring methods ranging from informal ground observations to low-level occupied aircraft surveys. Although unoccupied aerial systems (UAS) may provide safer and more precise alternatives to traditional aerial survey techniques that are less disturbing to waterfowl, there is limited information on how waterfowl in winter respond to UAS. We compared the behavioral responses of waterfowl to helicopters and UAS on Missouri Department of Conservation wetland conservation areas October – February 2021-2022. Helicopter surveys were flown using an Airbus H125 helicopter at heights of 100 – 350 m, with UAS surveys flown using a DJI Mavic 2 Pro UAS at 15 – 90 m. Waterfowl behavior was categorized as alert, swim, fly, or abandonment using flock-scan surveys recorded for 10-minute periods before, during, and after the surveys. The percentage of time flocks spent in each behavior during- or post-survey were compared to time spent in those behaviors pre-survey. Waterfowl increased time spent swimming, flying, and abandonment in response to helicopter flights, whereas UAS flights did not influence overall waterfowl behavior. Additionally, waterfowl did not change behavior in response to UAS flights regardless of waterfowl guild (mallard, other duck, or goose) or hunting season (open or closed). Waterfowl did increase flight behavior during UAS flights at 30 m, however, there was no change in behavior at all other UAS survey altitudes. UAS may be a good alternative to traditional waterfowl survey methods and are not likely to affect waterfowl distributions or energy expenditures during the survey periods.

Missouri↗
USGS2019

Spatial integration of biological and social objectives to identify priority landscapes for waterfowl habitat conservation

Waterfowl population management and habitat conservation compose one of the oldest and most successful adaptive management frameworks in the world. Since its inception, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) has emphasized strategically targeted conservation investments in regions that most affect waterfowl population dynamics. By 2012, regional conservation had progressively become more science-based and strategic: many migratory bird partnerships had initiated or completed projects on mapping and modeling waterfowl distribution and abundances using geospatial techniques. However, when developing a map depicting and titled “Areas of Greatest Continental Significance to North American Ducks, Geese, and Swans” for the 2012 NAWMP Revision, waterfowl professionals articulated the need for improved decision frameworks and use of consistent datasets for refining large-scale spatial products depicting priority areas for waterfowl and people. This report describes a framework for developing a spatial value model to support the identification of North American geographies of importance to waterfowl during the breeding and non-breeding periods and to resource users who could potentially support (financially and (or) politically) waterfowl habitat conservation. Objectives used to identify priority geographies were determined through a collaborative process of the NAWMP Science Support Team, Priority Landscapes Committee (PLC), and other experts in the fields of waterfowl biology and ecology, environmental science, and human dimensions. ArcGIS Desktop was used as the platform for managing, analyzing, combining and displaying the spatial data as well as producing new data through spatial analysis functions. Thirty-eight spatial layers were developed, and several composite spatially explicit products (maps of North America) were produced based on PLC recommendations. The composite products have extensive similarities to the 2012 NAWMP map depicting areas of greatest continental significance to North American waterfowl. There are also some differences, especially in regions of the high Arctic and in Mexico. These differences between spatial value model maps and the 2012 NAWMP output likely arose from inclusion of social objectives, reduced dependence on expert opinion to generate abundance estimates, lack of population surveys in some regions and availability of expanded survey data in other regions, and use of model-based waterfowl population estimates for some unsurveyed areas. The structured decision-making framework application in this study is discussed, and the appropriate use of the products and their limitations are outlined. Additionally, options for future improvements are presented by identifying gaps in data collection, waterfowl-habitat association assumptions, and uncertainties related to social objectives. These spatial products are intended for use by national, regional, and province/state level wildlife professionals to aid their decisions in targeting waterfowl habitat conservation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

North American Waterfowl Management Plan survey regional profile—Southeast region

Executive Summary Gaining a better understanding of the human dimensions of waterfowl management to inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a valuable but challenging goal for the future success of waterfowl management. Increasing engagement with key stakeholder groups will lead to more support and effective waterfowl management. Social systems are complex because individual values and preferences may vary across geographic and cultural dimensions, so it is valuable to describe those differences rather than only looking at national-scale trends. Therefore, using broad engagement strategies that do not consider the differences among regional groups may do more harm than good. This study analyzed a subset of responses from waterfowl hunters (hereafter respondents) in the Southeast region of the United States from a national-scale survey (Patton, 2018). This study compared how respondents’ opinions differed among two subsections of the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways—the Atlantic subflyway and Mississippi subflyway—and responses from the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Mississippi. Investigating these differences provides waterfowl managers decision-making support and a better understanding of how perceptions may differ among respondents in the Southeast region and the Nation. Responses from each group are presented for each for each survey topic, and statistical tests of homogeneity are included to inform how the differences may be considered when managing for waterfowl and waterfowl hunting. Respondents from the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways did not differ substantially except in their perceptions and preferences of waterfowl harvest and harvest regulations. Respondents from the Mississippi subflyway consistently reported a higher average harvest of ducks and geese, emphasized the importance of higher harvest for their satisfaction with waterfowl hunting, and typically placed a greater emphasis on regulatory decisions that facilitated increased harvest opportunity than respondents from the Atlantic subflyway. This emphasis was especially true when preferring species-specific limits more than simpler aggregate limits. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway were in direct opposition to respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and preferred the opportunity for increased harvest that species-specific bag limits provide. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway placed greater emphasis on harvest and larger bag limits compared with respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway often aligned with the national survey respondents’ perceptions of harvest that placed a lower emphasis on the number of ducks or geese harvested in comparison to Mississippi subflyway respondents. The Atlantic and Mississippi subflyway respondents reported hunting ducks and geese to a much lower degree than the national survey respondents, who favored only hunting ducks or hunting neither ducks nor geese. Similarly, respondents in the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways reported that overcrowding, high hunting pressure, and interference from other respondents limited their participation to a higher degree than respondents from the national survey. The trip-specific preferences for waterfowl hunting in the Southeast region were calculated using latent class analysis and three groups were determined based on individual estimates of attribute importance: generalist, seclusionist, and harvest oriented. The generalist group did not place a high degree of importance on any one attribute and was most likely to choose to not participate given suboptimal conditions. The seclusionist group placed a high degree of importance on lower levels of competition from other groups and felt their well-being was most affected by higher levels of competition. The harvest-oriented group placed a higher degree of importance on harvesting more than three birds and felt their well-being was most negatively affected if they only expected to harvest a single bird. These groups existed uniformly between the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways, had a slightly higher membership of each group in rural areas, and an overall higher membership in the seclusionist group. Subsetting national survey data to profile regional differences provides key information to waterfowl managers seeking to make tailored decisions in their region or flyway. This investigation provides an important resource for informed management decisions in the Southeast region and will assist waterfowl managers by supporting engagement and communication with respondents in the Southeastern United States.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2024

Examining inter-regional and intra-seasonal differences in wintering waterfowl landscape associations among Pacific and Atlantic flyways

The Central Valley of California (CVC) and Mid-Atlantic (MA) in the U.S. are both critical sites for nationwide food security, and many waterfowl species annually, especially during the winter, providing feeding and roosting locations for a variety of species. Mapping waterfowl distributions, using NEXRAD, may aid in the adaptive management of important waterfowl habitat and allow various government agencies to better understand the interface between wild and domestic birds and commercial agricultural practices. We used 9 years (2014–2023) of data from the US NEXRAD network to model winter waterfowl relative abundance in the CVC and MA as a function of weather, temporal period, environmental conditions, and landcover characteristics using boosted regression tree modelling. We were able to quantify the variability in effect size of 28 different covariates across space and time within two geographic regions which are critical to nationwide waterfowl management and host a high density of nationally important commercial agriculture. In general, weather, geographic (distance to features), and landcover condition (wetness index) predictors had the strongest relative effect on predicting wintering waterfowl relative abundance in both regions, while effects of land cover composition were more regionally and temporally specific. Increased daily mean temperature was a major predictor of increasing relative waterfowl abundance in both regions throughout the winter. Increasing precipitation had differing effects within regions, increasing relative waterfowl abundance in the MA, while decreasing in general within the CVC. Increasing relative waterfowl abundance in the CVC are strongly tied to the flooding of the landscape and rice availability, whereas waterfowl in the MA, where water is less limiting, are generally governed by waste grain availability and emergent wetland on the landscape. Waterfowl relative abundance in the MA was generally higher nearer to the Atlantic coast and lakes, while in the CVC they were higher nearer to lakes. Our findings promote a better understanding of spatial associations of waterfowl to landscape features and may aid in conservation and biosecurity management protocols.

California, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North ↗