DOCSLIB.ORG

Grizzly Bear Population Dynamics Across Productivity and Human Influence Gradients

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grizzly Bear Population Dynamics Across Productivity and Human Influence Gradients Grizzly bear population dynamics across productivity and human influence gradients by Clayton T. Lamb A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta © Clayton T. Lamb, 2019 Abstract Coexistence with large carnivores is one of the greatest conservation challenges across the globe, in part because mechanisms of coexistence are unknown or contested. Large carnivores can be conflict-prone and pose real or perceived threats to human life and property. In North America, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) typify the struggle to conserve and coexist with large carnivores amongst a matrix of competing land uses. Grizzly bears are a symbol of wildness to society, but the management of this species can divide communities, derail collaborative conservation initiatives, and are the focus of high-profile media coverage and lawsuits. At the center of this controversy is scientific uncertainty around population dynamics of the species, primarily relating to population size, limiting factors, and the ecology of conflict. The contemporary threats of wilderness loss, human population expansion, and climate change pose both a no-analog future for grizzly bears, but also opportunity. Leveraging novel ecological tools, and the ongoing human-induced landscape and climate change, considerable opportunity exists to investigate the mechanisms driving grizzly bear population dynamics and those promoting coexistence—enduring populations of wildlife in human-dominated landscapes. The goal of this dissertation was to test the factors limiting grizzly bear population dynamics across ecosystems, update local population estimates, and to identify the mechanisms promoting carnivore coexistence and those exacerbating it. Here I leverage 40 years of demographic data on grizzly bears collected across ecosystems to investigate hypotheses around grizzly bear population dynamics across productivity and human influence gradients in British Columbia (BC). This work provides multiple lines of evidence that grizzly bear populations purportedly coexisting in human-dominated landscapes are highly reliant on demographic rescue (immigration) from adjacent wilderness areas. This source-sink dynamic is exacerbated when ii attractive habitat decouples the link between habitat quality and fitness, resulting in an ecological trap. Human influences such as human population density and road density have the potential to create strong, top-down limiting forces on bear populations that dwarf bottom-up influences. However, much of British Columbia is not permanently occupied by people, and the majority of grizzly populations across the province are more strongly bottom-up limited. Considerable potential exists to ensure the conservation and coexistence of bears is a success if evidence-based mitigation is executed collaboratively and equitably. I provide insight into the response of bear density to mitigation measures for reducing road density and highlight several cases where evidence from this dissertation lead to meaningful conservation actions that will benefit bears, a variety of wildlife inhabiting similar areas, and people. Collectively, this dissertation provides strong inference into the spatial structure and drivers of grizzly bear population dynamics across ecosystems and suggests that data generated for applied problems can be leveraged to test theory while informing conservation at massive spatial extents. iii Preface This dissertation is an original work by Clayton Lamb. The grizzly bear telemetry research projects, of which this dissertation is a part, received research ethics approval from the University of Alberta Research Ethics Board, “Rates and causes of grizzly bear mortality”, No. AUP00002181, June 14, 2017. Ethical approval for the analyses of the genetic tagging data used here was provided by the University of Alberta Research Ethics Office, December 2014 (Category A, non-invasive). Chapter 2: this chapter was published in Ecological Applications, March 2019: Lamb, C.T., Ford, A.T., Proctor, M., Royle, A.J., Mowat, G., Boutin, S. 2019. Genetic tagging in the Anthropocene: scaling ecology from alleles to ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 29(4): e01876. PDF Chapter 3: this chapter was published in Journal of Applied Ecology, January, 2018: Lamb, C.T., Mowat, G., Reid, A., Smit, L., Proctor, M., McLellan, B.M., Nielsen, S.E., Boutin, S. 2018. The effect of habitat quality and access management on the density of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(3): 1406-1417. PDF Chapter 5: this chapter was published in Journal of Animal Ecology, September, 2017: Lamb, C.T., Mowat, G., McLellan, B.M., Nielsen, S.E., Boutin, S. 2017. Forbidden fruit: Human settlement and abundant fruit create an ecological trap for an apex omnivore. Journal of Animal Ecology. 86(1): 55-65. PDF Three papers that support this dissertation were also published during Clayton Lamb’s PhD, but were not part of the core dissertation on population dynamics, and are not included in this document. The three papers can be found here: Lamb, C.T., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boyce, M.S. 2018. Invest long term in Canada’s wilderness. Science. 359(6379) pp. 1002. PDF Lamb, C.T., Walsh, D., Mowat, G. 2016. Factors influencing detection success of grizzly bears at genetic sampling sites. Ursus. 27(1): 31-44. PDF Lamb, C.T., G. Mowat, S. Gilbert, B.M. McLellan, S.E. Nielson, S. Boutin. 2017. Density- dependent signaling: An alternative hypothesis on the function of chemical signaling in a non-territorial solitary carnivore. PLoS ONE. PDF iv Acknowledgements One might say “It takes a village to raise a Ph.D.”, and my Ph.D. was no different. There are hundreds of people to thank for their contributions to my education and growth, ranging from administration staff in government and academia, dedicated environmental groups, industry leaders, field partners, my supervisors and lab mates, and of course family and friends. I will endeavor to share some of the contributions from individuals and groups who have continually supported, shaped, and mentored me through this process. My parents, Joanne and Rick, without your limitless love and support this would not have been possible. Thank you for introducing me to the wild. The intricacies and beauty of nature’s flora and fauna are reserves of energy and joy for me. The time we spent in Renfrew, on the banks of the Vedder River, or the Kettle Valley facilitated a deep connection to the land and water, and an opportunity to learn and develop on my own. You have always wholly encouraged me to pursue my passions, whatever they may be, and to be continually learning and growing. My success as a person and professional stem from your continued investment in my happiness, wellbeing, character, and skills. Love you guys, always. My University supervisors, Stan and Scott, thank you for pushing me to do better while providing unwavering support for me and my education. You both gave me the space to pursue my interests and live a lifestyle that was sustainable for me during my Ph.D., while always being there at a moment’s notice to offer advice, ideas, or much-needed manuscript edits. My time spent with you shaped my ability to test and understand ecological processes at both small and large extents and set a high bar for scientific veracity. Melanie Dickie was essential in helping me finish this dissertation as she helped me coerce this document into the very strict submission format of PDF/A, which my Mac was not v interested in doing. Such investment from Mel is actually part of >5 years of friendship and professional collaboration. Thanks, Mel, and all of the Boutin, Nielsen, Boyce, Merrill, and Derocher lab members for your support and motivation over the years. A special thanks to Adam Ford, who was not officially on my committee but has played a large role in my academic and professional development in the latter half of my Ph.D. A first encounter at a Revelstoke bar produced banter about Resource Selection Functions and the capacity of wild animals to detect ecology in elevation rasters, and has since developed into a strong and collaborative relationship that I look forward to continuing. My non-University supervisors, primarily Garth, but also Bruce and Michael, you guys collectively shared with me nearly a century of knowledge about bears, their ecology, management, and how to catch them. Further, your enduring commitment to evidence and strong inference (like my University supervisors) shaped my ability to do science and think critically. Thank you for encouraging me to start a large-scale collaring program mid-PhD, this endeavor has yielded more academic, applied, and personal benefits than I could have imagined. Thanks to Bruce and Michael for shacking up in a small Elkford apartment with me and being there to teach me how to safely, ethically, and effectively capture and collar the first grizzly bears on the Elk Valley project. Thanks to Garth for your lasting investment in me, which started in 2013 before I began my Ph.D. and continues to this day. When I needed a spot to stay your family was always welcoming (sometimes for months! Lots of great cheeses were had), when money dried up you always seemed to find a reserve, and you were always approachable and insightful when I needed to resolve scientific or professional uncertainties. My field partners, especially Laura S, Laura G, and Dusty, thanks for your optimism, humor, organization, and skills in some of the best and most adverse situations outside. Laura S, vi you have been a keystone in keeping Garth and I from surely losing all of our gear, data, and forgetting to pay bills or order field supplies on time. But more than that, thanks for your enthusiasm and dedication to being a part of our team, I don’t know what we’d do without you. I reluctantly admit that you might be a better bear trapper than I am.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Insert Park Picture Here
    Mount Assiniboine Park Management Plan Part of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site November 2012 Cover Page Photo Credit: Christian Kimber (Park Ranger) This document replaces the direction provided in the Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park Master Plan (1989). Mount Assiniboine Park Management Plan Approved by: November 15, 2012 ______________________________ __________________ Tom Bell Date Regional Director, Kootenay Okanagan Region BC Parks November 15, 2012 ______________________________ __________________ Brian Bawtinheimer Date Executive Director, Parks Planning and Management Branch BC Parks Plan Highlights The management vision for Mount Assiniboine Park is that the park continues to be an international symbol of the pristine scenic grandeur of British Columbia’s wilderness and the recreational enjoyment it offers. Key elements of the management plan include strategies to: Implement a zoning plan that enhances the emphasis on Mount Assiniboine Park’s value both as a component of a UNESCO World Heritage Site (which protects significant examples of Canadian Rocky Mountain ecosystems) and as the location of an internationally recognized wilderness recreation feature associated with heritage structures from the earliest days of facility-based backcountry tourism in the Canadian Rockies. Approximately 86% of the park is zoned as Wilderness Recreation, 13% is zoned as Nature Recreation, less than 1% is zoned as Special Feature and less than 0.01% is zoned as Intensive Recreation. Develop an ecosystem management strategy that coordinates management of vegetation and wildlife in the park with that of adjacent protected areas under other agencies’ jurisdiction and with activities on adjacent provincial forest lands. This includes a proposal to prepare a vegetation management strategy to maintain or restore natural disturbance regimes (i.e., insects, disease and fire) wherever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of the Protected Area Provincial and Regional Context
    Role of the Protected Area Provincial and Regional Context Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks lie in southeastern British Columbia in the Rocky Mountains, about 85 km southwest of Calgary, Alberta. They are flanked to the East by the Elk Valley and the Kananaskis Valley and to the West by the Park Ranges. The mountain ranges of the Kootenay District provide a wide diversity of natural values and recreation opportunities as evidenced by the numerous national and provincial parks in the District (Fig. 2). Over 16% of the land base in the East Kootenays is in protected areas. · Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks are a significant part of BC's system of protected areas. In conjunction with Banff National Park and Peter Lougheed Provincial Park in Alberta, they form a large, contiguous protected area that is rich in natural, recreational and cultural values. Also, these parks are critical links in the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y)1. · The combined size of these two provincial parks contributes to the protection of biodiversity in the region and is integral to the conservation of wildlife populations, plant communities and biodiversity. · These parks offer a wide range of top caliber wilderness recreation opportunities and outstanding features. Plate 2 : Fish fossil in Elk Lakes Provincial Park 1 Proposal by Canada and U.S. conservation groups to create a thread of ecological connectivity linking protected areas in both countries from Yellowstone National Park to the Yukon. 11 Significance in the Protected Areas System Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks are a significant part of BC's system of protected areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Glaciers of the Canadian Rockies
    Glaciers of North America— GLACIERS OF CANADA GLACIERS OF THE CANADIAN ROCKIES By C. SIMON L. OMMANNEY SATELLITE IMAGE ATLAS OF GLACIERS OF THE WORLD Edited by RICHARD S. WILLIAMS, Jr., and JANE G. FERRIGNO U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1386–J–1 The Rocky Mountains of Canada include four distinct ranges from the U.S. border to northern British Columbia: Border, Continental, Hart, and Muskwa Ranges. They cover about 170,000 km2, are about 150 km wide, and have an estimated glacierized area of 38,613 km2. Mount Robson, at 3,954 m, is the highest peak. Glaciers range in size from ice fields, with major outlet glaciers, to glacierets. Small mountain-type glaciers in cirques, niches, and ice aprons are scattered throughout the ranges. Ice-cored moraines and rock glaciers are also common CONTENTS Page Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J199 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------- 199 FIGURE 1. Mountain ranges of the southern Rocky Mountains------------ 201 2. Mountain ranges of the northern Rocky Mountains ------------ 202 3. Oblique aerial photograph of Mount Assiniboine, Banff National Park, Rocky Mountains----------------------------- 203 4. Sketch map showing glaciers of the Canadian Rocky Mountains -------------------------------------------- 204 5. Photograph of the Victoria Glacier, Rocky Mountains, Alberta, in August 1973 -------------------------------------- 209 TABLE 1. Named glaciers of the Rocky Mountains cited in the chapter
    [Show full text]
  • The Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia: Field Surveys, Collections Development and Public Education by Robert A
    Living Landscapes The Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia: Field Surveys, Collections Development and Public Education by Robert A. Cannings, RBCM, Sydney G. Cannings, CDC, and Leah Ramsay, CDC The Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia: Field Surveys, Collections Development and Public Education by: Robert A. Cannings, Royal BC Museum Sydney G. Cannings, B.C. Conservation Data Centre Leah Ramsay, B.C. Conservation Data Centre Table of Contents CIP data Acknowledgements Overview of the Project Introduction to the Dragonflies of the Columbia Basin Dragonfly Habitat in the Columbia Basin Biogeography and Faunal Elements Systematic Review of the Fauna Suborder Zygoptera (Damselflies) Family Calopterygidae (Jewelwings) Family Lestidae (Spreadwings) Family Coenagrionidae (Pond Damsels) Suborder Anisoptera (Dragonflies) Family Aeshnidae (Darners) Family Gomphidae (Clubtails) Family Cordulegastridae (Spiketails) Family Macromiidae (Cruisers) Family Corduliidae (Emeralds) Family Libellulidae (Skimmers) The Effects of Human Activity on Dragonfly Populations Recommendations for Future Inventory, Research and Monitoring References Appendix 1: Checklist of Columbia Basin Dragonflies Appendix 2: Columbia Basin Odonata and Their Faunal Elements Appendix 3: Project Participants Species Distribution Maps and Collecting Data Royal British Columbia Museum 1-888-447-7977 1 675 Belleville Street (250) 356-7226 Copyright 2000 Royal British Columbia Museum Victoria, British Columbia http://www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Forest Management Plan Canfor Kootenay Operations Version 5.0 December 2017
    Sustainable Forest Management Plan Canfor Kootenay Operations Version 5.0 December 2017 Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Kootenay Operations “Sustainable forest management is the balanced, concurrent sustainability of forestry-related ecological, social and economic values for a defined area over a defined time frame.” Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Acknowledgements We wish to thank all members, past and present, of the Public Advisory Group (PAG) for their contributions and dedication to sustainable forest management in the Kootenay Region. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions from Indigenous Peoples, ENGOs and members of the public who provided input into the development of this plan, as well as the Annual Reports. In addition, we would like to thank Kootenay Forest Management Group staff who provided timely and thought-provoking additions to many sections. The biodiversity and wildlife sections of this plan (Criterion 1) were written by Kari Stuart- Smith, PhD., RPBio, Forest Scientist for Canfor, with the assistance of Stephanie Keightley, BSc. In addition, they provided expertise into the Climate Change, soils and water quality sections. Ecosystem Resilience sections, including silviculture, regeneration, invasive plant species and climate change were written by Kori Vernier, RPF. Ian Johnson, RPF wrote the sections on forest productivity, soils, water quantity and quality, as well as socio-economic sections such as, overlapping tenure holders and non-timber forest benefits. In addition to leading this SFM Plan, Grant Neville, RPF wrote the balance of the socio-economic sections. These included but are not limited to: First Nation and stakeholder involvement/information sharing, local employment, local procurement, contribution to the communities and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • A. Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Team
    CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT Volume One: Report Version 2.0 (May 2004) British Columbia Conservation Data Centre CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT • VOLUME 1 • REPORT i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL TEAM..................................... vii Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment Core Team............................................... vii Coordination Team ....................................................................................................................... vii Canadian Rocky Mountains Assessment Contact........................................................................viii B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................... ix C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... xi Description..................................................................................................................................... xi Land Ownership............................................................................................................................. xi Protected Status.............................................................................................................................. xi Biodiversity Status......................................................................................................................... xi Ecoregional Assessment ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared For
    Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 5.1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING OF PIPELINE AND FACILITIES 5.1 Introduction The following section is a summary of the environmental and socio-economic conditions for the Proposed Route of the TMX – Anchor Loop Project. It was compiled from technical studies conducted in 2004 and 2005, and has been supplemented where warranted with materials listed in Section 5.5. 5.1.1 Spatial Boundaries Five spatial boundaries were used to describe the environmental and socio-economic conditions within the Project area. These spatial boundaries were determined using Guide A.2.4 Description of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting of the NEB Filing Manual (2004). The spatial boundaries considered for describing the environmental and socio-economic conditions include one or more of the following study areas (Figure 5.1): • A Project Footprint study area made up the area directly disturbed by assessment, construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent right-of-way, temporary construction workspace, temporary access routes, temporary stockpile sites, temporary staging areas, construction work camps, off load areas, borrow pits, facility sites). • A Local Study Area (LSA) consisting of a 2 km buffer centered on the proposed pipeline right-of-way. The LSA is based on the typical ‘indirect footprint’ of pipeline facilities and activities (i.e., the zone of influence within which plants (50 m), animals (500 m), and humans (500-800 m) are most likely to be affected by project construction and operation.
    [Show full text]
  • MOUNT ASSINIBOINE PROVINCIAL PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND DOCUMENT DRAFT 4P Prepared for Ministry of Environment Environmenta
    MOUNT ASSINIBOINE PROVINCIAL PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND DOCUMENT DRAFT 4P Prepared for Ministry of Environment Environmental Stewardship Division Kootenay Region November 2005 Wildland Consulting Inc. Table Of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................II Figure 2: Summer and Winter Mean Temperatures (in ºC) 15....................................... 0 MAP #5: CULTURAL SITES, EXISTING FACILITIES AND TRAILS 55.......................................... 0 MAP #6: MOUNT ASSINIBOINE PROVINCIAL PARK LAND TENURES 77 ................................... 0 PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3 PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY ..................................................................................... 3 PARK ESTABLISHMENT, LEGISLATION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................... 6 1989 Master Plan Highlights................................................................................................... 7 Direction from the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan and Implementation Strategy .......... 9 NATURAL VALUES..................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park Ecosystem - a Model-Based Assessment
    ELK IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ECOSYSTEM - A MODEL-BASED ASSESSMENT Final Report to: U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division and U.S. National Park Service Michael B. Coughenour Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................1 7 SITE DESCRIPTION. .........................................................2 4 Landscape..............................................................2 4 Climate................................................................2 4 Soils..................................................................2 5 Vegetation. ............................................................2 5 ECOLOGICAL HISTORY......................................................2 8 Evidence of Elk Prior to Euro-American Settlement.. 2 8 Elk Carrying Capacity Estimates............................................2 9 Elk Management. .......................................................3 0 Upland Herbaceous and Shrub Communities. 3 1 Aspen.................................................................3 3 Willow................................................................3 4 Beaver. ...............................................................3 5 VEGETATION MAP. .........................................................3 7 MODEL DESCRIPTION AND DATA INPUTS.....................................4 0 Ecosystem
    [Show full text]
  • The Grasslands of British Columbia
    The Grasslands of British Columbia The Grasslands of British Columbia Brian Wikeem Sandra Wikeem April 2004 COVER PHOTO Brian Wikeem, Solterra Resources Inc. GRAPHICS, MAPS, FIGURES Donna Falat, formerly Grasslands Conservation Council of B.C., Kamloops, B.C. Ryan Holmes, Grasslands Conservation Council of B.C., Kamloops, B.C. Glenda Mathew, Left Bank Design, Kamloops, B.C. PHOTOS Personal Photos: A. Batke, Andy Bezener, Don Blumenauer, Bruno Delesalle, Craig Delong, Bob Drinkwater, Wayne Erickson, Marylin Fuchs, Perry Grilz, Jared Hobbs, Ryan Holmes, Kristi Iverson, C. Junck, Bob Lincoln, Bob Needham, Paul Sandborn, Jim White, Brian Wikeem. Institutional Photos: Agriculture Agri-Food Canada, BC Archives, BC Ministry of Forests, BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and BC Parks. All photographs are the property of the original contributor and can not be reproduced without prior written permission of the owner. All photographs by J. Hobbs are © Jared Hobbs. © Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia 954A Laval Crescent Kamloops, B.C. V2C 5P5 http://www.bcgrasslands.org/ All rights reserved. No part of this document or publication may be reproduced in any form without prior written permission of the Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia. ii Dedication This book is dedicated to the Dr. Vernon pathfinders of our ecological Brink knowledge and understanding of Dr. Alastair grassland ecosystems in British McLean Columbia. Their vision looked Dr. Edward beyond the dust, cheatgrass and Tisdale grasshoppers, and set the course to Dr. Albert van restoring the biodiversity and beauty Ryswyk of our grasslands to pristine times. Their research, extension and teaching provided the foundation for scientific management of our grasslands.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the Rocky Mountains—Introduction
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Birds of the Rocky Mountains -- Paul A. Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences 11-2009 Birds of the Rocky Mountains—Introduction Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscibirdsrockymtns Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Birds of the Rocky Mountains—Introduction" (2009). Birds of the Rocky Mountains -- Paul A. Johnsgard. 4. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscibirdsrockymtns/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Birds of the Rocky Mountains -- Paul A. Johnsgard by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. This book is dedicated to my new grandson Scotti may he love these mountains as one would a favorite book, and may the life therein offer him its manifold lessons. Introduction The Rocky Mountains represent the longest and in general the highest of the North American mountain ranges, extending for nearly two thou­ sand miles from their origins in Alaska and northwestern Canada south­ ward to their terminus in New Mexico, and forming the continental divide for this entire length. As such, these mountains have provided a convenient corridor for northward and southward movement of both plants and animal life, but on the other hand have produced impor­ tant barriers to eastern and western plant and animal movements. These effects result nat only from their height and physical nature, but also from their manifold effects on such things as precipitation, humidity, temperature, and other important climatic factors affecting plant and animal life.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Resources Inventory Map Document for Glacier National Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Glacier National Park Ancillary Map Information Document Produced to accompany the Geologic Resources Inventory Digital Geologic Data for Glacier National Park glac_geology.pdf Version: 4/24/2020 I Glacier National Park Geologic Resources Inventory Map Document for Glacier National Park Table of Contents Geologic Reso..u..r.c...e..s.. .I.n..v..e..n..t.o..r..y.. .M...a..p.. .D...o..c..u..m...e..n...t............................................................................ 1 About the NPS.. .G...e..o..l.o..g..i.c.. .R...e..s..o..u..r..c..e..s.. .I.n..v..e..n..t..o..r.y.. .P...r.o..g..r..a..m............................................................... 3 GRI Digital Ma.p..s.. .a..n..d... .S..o..u...r.c..e.. .M...a..p.. .C...i.t.a..t.i.o...n..s.................................................................................. 5 Index Map .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Digital Geolog.i.c..-.G...I.S... .M...a..p.. .o..f. .G...l.a..c..i.e..r.. .N..a..t.i.o...n..a..l. .P..a..r..k....................................................................... 7 Map Units Li.s..t....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Map Unit De.s..c.r..ip..t.i.o..n..s............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Qal - Alluvium (H..o..l.o..c..e..n..e.. .a..n..d.. .u..p..p..e..r. .P..l.e..i.s..t.o..c..e..n..e..)............................................................................................................... 8 Qc - Colluvium (.H..o..l.o..c..e..n..e.. .a..n..d.. .u..p..p..e..r. .P...le..i.s..t.o..c..e..n..e..).............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]