USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

Drew N. Fowler

Publications and source records attributed to Drew N. Fowler.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Harvest as a tool to manage populations of undesirable or overabundant fish and wildlife

Harvest is a common management tool for fish and game species and can also be used for overabundant populations when stakeholders want to reduce populations reduced and still provide recreational opportunities. The authors propose a framework to determine if harvest can be used to control populations when overabundance is an issue, stakeholders support harvest, information is available to set harvest goals and evaluate impacts of harvest, and assessments are conducted to evaluate unintended consequences of harvest. The chapter provides two case examples of mid-continent light geese and blue catfish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, for which overabundance was a problem and stakeholders had interest in harvest. Substantial data existed to set goals for light geese whereas blue catfish data were limited. For both light geese and blue catfish, desired outcomes have not yet been achieved, but hunting and fishing opportunities generated societal benefits despite existing barriers to increasing harvest. Harvest to control overabundant populations can be a useful tool, but consideration of stakeholder support, the data require to establish and monitor goals, and unintended consequences should be considered for an effective harvest plan. Harvest is a common management tool used for centuries to limit populations of game species (Caughley 1977, Redmond 1986). Managing populations using harvest regulations allow certain sizes, numbers, sex, and species to be harvested, and often include open or closed seasons. Regulated hunting opportunity and harvest are cornerstones of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which developed gradually following unregulated harvest of wildlife populations that often were at risk of overharvest or extinction (Geist et al. 2001). Since then, many populations have recovered and expanded to the point where harvest regulations are now often used to limit or even reduce populations of some species. In general, harvest regulations have been well established as an effective way to control animal populations in many aquatic and terrestrial systems and are broadly accepted among the hunting and fishing public. For example, harvest regulations have been established or adapted to reduce or control populations of feral hogs (Sus scrofa; Hanson et al. 2009), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; Simard et al. 2013) and cougar (Puma concolor; Cooley et al. 2009), overabundant small black bass (Micropertus spp.; Isermann and Paukert 2010), northern pike (Esox lucius; Pierce 2010) or non-native species (Arlinghaus et al. 2016b). Harvest has also been employed as a tool for controlling populations of invasive species. However, in many cases invasive species are so overabundant that a substantial commitment to harvest is necessary, which may exceed recreational harvest capacity and require commercial harvest or an active lethal control program by management agencies. Often removal of invasive species is challenging because the ultimate goal may be to eliminate the entire population, which may require impractical efforts. For example, controlling Asian carp in the Illinois River may require harvest rates of at least 70% (Tsehaye et al. 2013), whereas in the Great Smoky Mountains, an annual harvest rate of 40% would be necessary to decrease feral hog populations (Salinas et al. 2015). Many invasive species are known to negatively impact native species and ecosystems; thus, eradication is an ideal outcome. However, there may be opportunity to use harvest to control populations of native (or non-native) species that have some value yet are still overabundant. In this chapter, we explore the process of using harvest to control overabundant populations that have some recreational value, provide two examples to control overabundant populations using harvest, and describe the challenges and effectiveness associated with these efforts and some of the unintended effects of using harvest to control populations.

Book chapter

Winter carry-over effects on spring body condition driven by agricultural subsidies to Lesser Snow Geese (Anser caersulscens caerulescens)

Anthropogenic changes to landscapes associated with intensive agriculture often have deleterious effects on avian abundance. However, some species like the Lesser Snow Goose ( Anser caerulescens caerulescens ), can benefit from increases in agricultural crops on both wintering and migratory stopover sites. We investigated the influence of winter habitat use on spring body condition in Lesser Snow Goose, a species that has increased in population following expansion into agriculturally based winter habitats. We used stable isotope measurements of four elements (δ 2 H, δ 13 C, δ 15 N, and δ 34 S) to determine likely prior winter habitat use of snow geese collected during spring migration across Arkansas, Missouri, and Nebraska in 2016. We evaluated differences in body size, lipid, and protein reserves from individuals with isotope values that suggested winter habitat use in traditional coastal marsh and non-coastal /agriculture habitat. Inferred winter habitat influenced total body lipid levels in snow geese collected during spring migration. Adult and juvenile individuals inferred to have overwintered in coastal marsh (n = 60) had, on average, 33.4 g (95% Confidence Interval: 0.4 g, 66.4 g) less lipid than counterparts wintering in non-coastal / agricultural habitat (n = 77). Waterfowl foods found in marshes typically have low true metabolizable energy values as a consequence of their high fiber content, which likely increases daily consumption rates. Increased energy expenditure related to greater time spent foraging, paired with lower energetic rewards, may result in lower lipid reserves among geese using coastal marsh habitats compared to birds using agricultural landscapes. Consequently, carry-over effects based on winter habitat use could explain variation in lipid reserves among individuals during spring migration and may ultimately explain differential fitness rates or susceptibility to harvest. Our results have implications for the conservation and management of this species as historic wetland landscapes become more intensively converted and used for agricultural purposes.

Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Condition bias of decoy-harvested light geese during the conservation order

Evidence that decoy harvest techniques primarily remove individuals of poorer body condition is well established in short-lived duck species; however, there is limited support for condition bias in longer-lived waterfowl species, such as geese, where decoy harvest is considered primarily additive because of their high natural survival rates. We evaluated support for the harvest condition bias hypothesis of 2 long-lived waterfowl species, the lesser snow goose ( Anser caerulescens caerulescens ) and Ross's goose ( Anser rossii ). We used proximate analysis to quantify lipid and protein content of lesser snow and Ross's geese collected during the Light Goose Conservation Order (LGCO) in 2015 and 2016 during spring migration in Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota, USA. In each state, LGCO participants collected birds using traditional decoy techniques and we collected birds from the general population using jump-shooting tactics. Total body lipid content in both lesser snow and Ross's geese varied with age, region of harvest, and harvest type (decoy or jump-shooting). On average, adult lesser snow and Ross's geese harvested over decoys had 60 g and 41 g, respectively, fewer lipids than conspecifics collected using jump-shooting. We observed lower lipid reserves in decoy-shot geese in all 4 states sampled despite general gains in lipid reserves as migration chronology progressed. Our data support that the harvest condition bias extends to longer-lived waterfowl species and during a life-history event (spring migration) in which harvest is not normally observed. In the case of overabundant light geese, the disproportionate harvest of poorer-conditioned lesser snow and Ross's geese may serve as an additional challenge against any realized effects of harvest to reduce the population, in addition to extremely low harvest rates.

Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota

A multi-isotope (δ13C, δ15N, δ34S, δ2H) approach to establishing migratory connectivity in lesser snow geese: Tracking an overabundant species

Expanding populations of North American midcontinent lesser snow geese ( Anser caerulescens caerulescens ) have potential to alter ecosystems throughout the Arctic and subarctic where they breed. Efforts to understand origins of harvested lesser snow geese to better inform management decisions have traditionally required mark-recapture approaches, while aerial photographic surveys have typically been used to identify breeding distributions. As a potential alternative, isotopic patterns that are metabolically fixed within newly grown flight feathers following summer molting could provide inferences regarding geographic breeding origin of individuals, without the need for prior capture. Our objective was to assess potential to use four stable isotopes (δ 13 C, δ 15 N, δ 34 S, δ 2 H) from feather material to determine breeding origins. We obtained newly grown flight feathers from individuals during summer banding at three Arctic and two subarctic breeding colonies in 2014 ( n = 56) and 2016 ( n = 45). We used linear discriminant analyses to predict breeding origins from models using combinations of stable isotopes as predictors and evaluated model accuracy when predicting colony, subregion, or subpopulation levels. We found a strong inverse relationship between δ 2 H values and increasing latitude ( R 2 = 0.83), resulting in differences ( F 4, 51 = 90.41, P < 0.0001) among sampled colonies. No differences in δ 13 C or δ 15 N were detected among colonies, although δ 34 S in Akimiski Island, Baffin Island, and Karrak Lake were more enriched ( F 4, 51 = 11.25, P < 0.0001). Using δ 2 H values as a predictor, discriminant analyses improved accuracy in classification level as precision decreased [model accuracy = 67% (colony), 88% (subregion), 94% (subpopulation)]. Application of the isotopic methods we describe could be used to provide an alternative monitoring method of population metrics, such as overall breeding population distribution, region-specific productivity and migratory connectivity that are informative to management decision makers and provide insight into cross-seasonal effects that may influence migratory behavior.

Baffin Island, Southampton Island

Evaluating indices of lipid and protein content in lesser snow and Ross's geese during spring migration

Assessing nutrient stores in avian species is important for understanding the extent to which body condition influences success or failure in life‐history events. We evaluated predictive models using morphometric characteristics to estimate total body lipids (TBL) and total body protein (TBP), based on traditional proximate analyses, in spring migrating lesser snow geese ( Anser caerulescens caerulescens ) and Ross's geese ( A. rossii ). We also compared performance of our lipid model with a previously derived predictive equation for TBL developed for nesting lesser snow geese. We used external and internal measurements on 612 lesser snow and 125 Ross's geese collected during spring migration in 2015 and 2016 within the Central and Mississippi flyways to derive and evaluate predictive models. Using a validation data set, our best performing lipid model for snow geese better predicted TBL (root mean square error [RMSE] of 23.56) compared with a model derived from nesting individuals (RMSE = 48.60), suggesting the importance of season‐specific models for accurate lipid estimation. Models that included body mass and abdominal fat deposit best predicted TBL determined by proximate analysis in both species (lesser snow goose, R 2 = 0.87, RMSE = 23.56: Ross's geese, R 2 = 0.89, RMSE = 13.75). Models incorporating a combination of external structural measurements in addition to internal muscle and body mass best predicted protein values ( R 2 = 0.85, RMSE = 19.39 and R 2 = 0.85, RMSE = 7.65, lesser snow and Ross's geese, respectively), but protein models including only body mass and body size were also competitive and provided extended utility to our equations for field applications. Therefore, our models indicated the importance of specimen dissection and measurement of the abdominal fat pad to provide the most accurate lipid estimates and provide alternative dissection‐free methods for estimating protein.

Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota