Geology topics

Andrew J. Dinges

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew J. Dinges.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Developing a photography-based harvest survey to estimate age and subspecies composition of midcontinent sandhill cranes

Midcontinent sandhill cranes ( Antigone canadensis ) are managed as a single population, but hunting regulations are structured so harvest is targeted towards the more numerous lesser sandhill cranes ( A. c. canadensis ). However, research indicates that greater sandhill cranes ( A. c. tabida ) have been disproportionally exposed to harvest at a rate exceeding their proportion within the midcontinent population. In addition, harvest has increased 22% per year in the U.S. Central Flyway states. The midcontinent population appears to be growing in recent years, but variability in annual abundance estimates has increased substantially. With limited resources and harvest management uncertainty increasing, we developed methods for a citizen science, photography-based harvest survey to estimate age and subspecies composition of harvested midcontinent sandhill cranes. To develop survey methods, we collected physical parts from 284 sandhill cranes in North Dakota in 2019 and 2020. We manually measured the culmen and tarsus using calipers, and digitally measured these parts using photographs and computer software. All digitally derived measurements were 2.5% to 5.9% larger than manual measurements; therefore, we developed linear models that adjusted digital measurements, facilitating subspecies prediction using an existing morphometric-based technique. In 2021, we requested an equal number of hunters to participate using 2 data collection methods to test if hunters could reliably take photographs suitable for digital measurement. Collection method 1 involved photographing the head and leg simultaneously, and Collection method 2 involved photographing the head only. Hunters submitted a total of 239 photographs. Only 80 of these photographs were submitted using Collection method 1, and 72% were suitable for digital measurement. Conversely, hunters submitted twice as many photographs using Collection method 2, and 88% of these photographs were deemed suitable. Although obtaining the tarsus measurement slightly improved subspecies predictability, Collection method 2 increased participation and usable data. We believe our results could be used to develop an operational survey of age and subspecies composition of midcontinent sandhill cranes, wherein a sample of crane hunters throughout the midcontinent population range would be asked to electronically submit a photograph of the head of each bird they harvest. A time series of age and subspecies composition of this population would provide managers with valuable information and improve harvest management at minimal additional cost and burden, compared to a traditional parts collection survey administered by mail.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2016

Light Goose Conservation Order effects on nontarget waterfowl behavior and energy expenditure

When the Light Goose Conservation Order (LGCO) was established during 1999 in the Rainwater Basin of Nebraska, USA, LGCO activities were limited to 4 days/week and 16 public wetlands were closed to the LGCO to limit disturbance to nontarget waterfowl during this energetically important time period. However, the effects of LGCO activities on waterfowl behavior and energy expenditure are relatively unknown in this critical waterfowl staging area. To evaluate LGCO effects on target and nontarget species, we paired wetlands open and closed to LGCO and recorded waterfowl behavior and hunter encounters during springs 2011 and 2012. We constructed hourly energy expenditure models based on behavior data collected for mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and northern pintails ( A. acuta ). In 2011, dabbling ducks ( Anas spp.) spent more time feeding and less time resting in wetlands closed to hunting during early season when the majority of hunting encounters occurred; behaviors did not differ between hunt categories during late season when hunting activities subsided. However, in 2012, dabbling ducks spent more time feeding and less time resting in wetlands open to hunting during early and late seasons. We detected no differences in behaviors of lesser snow geese ( Chen caerulescens ) or greater white-fronted geese ( Anser albifrons ) between hunting categories in early season. Mallards had slightly greater energy expenditure on wetlands closed to hunting ( = 38.94 ± 0.31 kJ/bird/hr), compared with wetlands open to hunting ( = 37.87 ± 0.32 kJ/bird/hr); therefore, greater energy spent by mallards cannot be attributed to hunting disturbance. We also detected no differences in dabbling duck behavior or energy expenditure between days open or closed to hunting in the region. A refuge system of wetlands closed to LGCO activities in the Rainwater Basin may be an important management strategy in providing reduced disturbance for nontarget waterfowl species in some years. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Nebraska↗

USGS2015

Effects of the light goose conservation order on non-target waterfowl distribution during spring migration

The Light Goose Conservation Order (LGCO) was initiated in 1999 to reduce mid-continent populations of light geese (lesser snow geese Chen caerulescens and Ross's geese C. rossi) . However, concern about potential for LGCO activities (i.e. hunting activities) to negatively impact non-target waterfowl species during spring migration in the Rainwater Basin (RWB) of Nebraska prompted agency personnel to limit the number of hunt days each week and close multiple public wetlands to LGCO activities entirely. To evaluate the effects of the LGCO in the RWB, we quantified waterfowl density at wetlands open and closed to LGCO hunting and recorded all hunter encounters during springs 2011 and 2012. We encountered a total of 70 hunting parties on 22 study wetlands, with over 90% of these encounters occurring during early season when the majority of waterfowl used the RWB region. We detected greater overall densities of dabbling ducks Anas spp., as well as for mallards A. platyrhynchos and northern pintails A. acuta on wetlands closed to the LGCO. We detected no effects of hunt day in the analyses of dabbling duck densities. We detected no differences in mean weekly dabbling duck densities among wetlands open to hunting, regardless of weekly or cumulative hunting encounter frequency throughout early season. Additionally, hunting category was not a predictor for the presence of greater white-fronted geese Anser albifrons in a logistic regression model. Given that dabbling duck densities were greater on wetlands closed to hunting, providing wetlands free from hunting disturbance as refugia during the LGCO remains an important management strategy at migration stopover sites. However, given that we did not detect an effect of hunt day or hunting frequency on dabbling duck density, our results suggest increased hunting frequency at sites already open to hunting would likely have minimal impacts on the distribution of non-target waterfowl species using the region for spring staging.

Nebraska↗

USGS2014

Migratory bird hunter opinions regarding potential management strategies for controlling light goose populations

We expanded the Nebraska Light Goose Conservation Order (LGCO) harvest survey (NE, USA) in spring 2012 to assess migratory bird hunter opinions regarding future management strategies for controlling light goose populations. Although hunters strongly agreed that population control of light geese was an important wildlife management issue, they were generally unsupportive of wildlife officials using forms of direct control methods to control light goose populations. Respondents who indicated participation in the 2012 LGCO were also less supportive of any form of direct control compared with migratory bird hunters who did not participate in the LGCO. When presented with alternative methods by wildlife officials for future light goose population control, respondents were most supportive of wildlife agencies selectively shooting light geese on migration and wintering areas and least supportive of wildlife officials using bait with approved chemicals to euthanize light geese. A clear understanding of public perception of various potential direct-control options will likely assist wildlife biologists in making informed decisions on how to proceed with population control of light geese.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗