USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

J. D. Moore

Publications and source records attributed to J. D. Moore.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Migratory connectivity of American woodcock derived using satellite telemetry

American woodcock ( Scolopax minor ; woodcock) migratory connectivity (i.e., association between breeding and wintering areas) is largely unknown, even though current woodcock management is predicated on such associations. Woodcock are currently managed in the Eastern and Central management regions in the United States with the boundary between management regions analogous to the boundary between the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways, based largely on analysis of band returns from hunters. Factors during migration influence survival and fitness, and existing data derived from banding and very high frequency telemetry provide only coarse-scale information to assess factors influencing woodcock migratory movement patterns and behavior. To assess whether current management-region boundaries correspond with woodcock migratory connectivity in the Central Management Region and to describe migration patterns with higher resolution than has been previously possible, we deployed satellite transmitters on 73 woodcock (25 adult and 28 juvenile females, and 8 adult and 12 juvenile males) and recorded 87 autumn or spring migration paths from 2014 to 2016. Marked woodcock used 2 primary migrations routes: a Western Route and a Central Route. The Western Route ran north-south, connecting the breeding and wintering grounds within the Central Management Region. The hourglass-shaped Central Route connected an area on the wintering grounds reaching from Texas to Florida, to sites throughout northeastern North America in both the Eastern Management Region and Central Management Region and woodcock following this route migrated through the area between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley in western Tennessee during autumn and spring. Two of 17 woodcock captured associated with breeding areas in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota migrated to wintering sites in the Eastern Management Region and 12 marked woodcock captured on wintering areas in Texas and Louisiana migrated to breeding sites in the Eastern Management Region. Woodcock that used the Western Route exhibited high concentrations of stopovers during spring in the Arkansas Ozark Mountains and northern Missouri, and along the Mississippi River on the border between Wisconsin and Minnesota, and autumn concentrations of stopovers in southwestern Iowa, central Missouri, the Arkansas portion of the Ozark Mountains, and around the junction of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Woodcock that used the Central Route exhibited high concentrations of stopovers during spring in northern Mississippi through western Tennessee, western Kentucky, and the Missouri Bootheel, and autumn concentrations of stopovers in northern Illinois, southwestern Ohio, and the portions of Kentucky and Tennessee west of the Appalachian Mountains. We suggest that current management of woodcock based on 2 management regions may not be consistent with the apparent lack of strong migratory connectivity we observed. Our results also suggest where management of migration habitat might be most beneficial to woodcock.

Journal of Wildlife Management

Assessment of the American woodcock singing-ground survey zone timing and coverage

The American woodcock ( Scolopax minor ; hereafter, woodcock) Singing-Ground Survey (SGS) was developed to inform management decisions by monitoring changes in the relative abundance of woodcock. The timing of the designated survey windows was designed to count resident woodcock while minimizing counting of migrating woodcock. Since the implementation of the SGS in 1968, concerns over survey protocols that may bias data have been raised and investigated; however, the extent of survey coverage and the timing of the survey window zones have not been critically investigated. We used 3 years of data collected from male and female woodcock marked with satellite tags to assess the extent of survey coverage and the timing of the SGS survey windows relative to presence of woodcock. SGS coverage encompassed the majority of woodcock breeding-period sites (locations where marked woodcock returned to in spring) within the U.S. (n = 17, 92%) and approximately half of the breeding-period sites in Canada (n = 6, 43%). Thirteen of the 37 monitored woodcock with known breeding-period site arrival dates (35%) were migrating through a survey zone during an active survey window, all in the northernmost 4 of 5 SGS zones. Thirteen woodcock arrived at breeding-period sites after the start of surveys, and all but one of these was located in the northernmost 2 zones. The combination of migration through a SGS zone during the survey window and arrival at breeding-period sites after the beginning of the survey window in northern zones may result in the SGS weighing too heavily the contribution of routes in the southern portion of the primary breeding range, while weighing too lightly the routes in the northern portion of the primary breeding range. We suggest that additional information is necessary to evaluate whether current survey windows are sufficient, or whether they need to be changed.

Conference Paper