DOCSLIB.ORG

Number 3 -- Spring 1987

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

I a PARK SCUENCE A RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BULLETIN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR VOLUME7 - NUMBER3 SPRING1987 q PARK SPRING 1987 A report to park managers of recent and on- SCIENCE going research in parks with emphasis on its NATIONAL PARK SERVICE implications for planning and management In This Issue Page Meet the New AD Meet the New AD .......................... 2 Dr. F Eugene Hester has been appointed Associate How Urban Development Near Director for Natural Resources for the Nattonal Park Parks is Affecting Streams .................. .3 Service. Before joining the Service, he was Deputy Director of the U.S. Ftsh and Wildlife Service (19% Soleduck Revegetation Project .............. .4 1967). Hester began his caleer in 1959 as Assistant Using 35mm Color Infrared Professor of Zoology at Norih Carolina State Univer- Slides to Map Vegetation .................... 5 sity In 1963, he left this position to become the leader Letters to the edltor ........................ 6 of the North Carolina Cooperative Fishery Research Unit of the USFWS. He became Chief of the Division MAB Notes ............................... 7 of Fishery Research in 1971 and later was made As- BookReview ............................. sociate Director for Research (1974-1981). Among the Tom Lucke ............................... 7 nurnelous awards Hester has received for his service The Boundary Approach to the Analysis with the Federal Government, are the Department of of Conservation of Nature Reserves .......... (8 the Interior Meritorious Service Award (1981) and a Presidential DIstinguished Rank Award (1982). Computer Corner ......................... .9 He has a B.S. from North Carolina State University, Conservation Biology Group an M.S. in wildlife biology from North Carolina State, Exhibits ‘Elastic’ Response ................. 10 and a Ph.D. in fisheries from Auburn University. He Is Our Face Red! ......................... 10 has published widely on fish genetics, fisheries man- agement, and waterfowl population dynamvx. An ac- Five-Year Plan for Biodiversity complished wildlife photographer, he has had photos Action on Track. .......................... 10 published !n and on the covel of many magazines. Information Crossfile ...................... 11 Of the many diverse natural rescuce issues in the NPS scfence sphere, Dr. Hester Indicated particular interest Regional Highlights ....................... 12 in genetic and biological dwersity, the implementation of a Servicewide strategy to collect baseline inventory and long-term monitoring information, and the ecologtcal impacts of adjacent land use changes on resources in the Panel Reviews Sequoia parks. One of Dr. Hester’s first activities will be to visit the Regions, meet with the Regional Directors, Regional Fire Management Program ................. 13 natural resource management and science staffs, and park staffs, and discuss how the Washington Offtce can Revegetation Notes ....................... 13 help them address natural resource management problems. He expressed particular interest in assuring that Research Notes .......................... 13 the necessary communications occur between managers and scientists so that manaqement decisions will be NPS Scientists Involved based on good scientific information. in Wilderness Congress .................... 14 Modified Elk ‘Cocklail’ Regional Chief Scientists Lowers Knockout Risk ..................... 14 Andenon. William H. Huff Dan NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION Meetings of Interest ....................... 14 1100 Ohio Drive. SW. P.O. Box 25027 Imagine This Guy - Washington, DC 20242 Denver. CO 60225 Using His GIS Data!. ...................... 15 6(202)342-1443 S-776-9425 (303) 236-9425 Streamside Management Proceedings ........ 15 Doltavio. Dominic Larson, James W. SOUTHEAST REGION PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION ‘The Visitor Experience’ - 75 spring St. s w. 63 S. Kmg S1. What Do We Really Mean? ................. 16 Atlanta. GA 30303 Suite 212 Equipment Ailernatives for Using SAGIS ...... 17 S-242-4916 (404) 221-4916 Seanle. WA 98104 8.399-4176 (206) 4424176 Black Bear Species/Area Relationships Karish. John R. MID ATLANTIC REGION Saukup, Michael Studied at Rocky Mountain NP .............. 16 Ferguson Bldg, Room 209-B NORTH ATLANTIC REGION In Search of a Better Feral Pig Trap: Pennsylvama Slate Univenlty 15 state street a Modification in Trap Door Designs .......... 19 University Park, PA 16602 Boston. MA o2tW 8(814,865.7974 8-635-8805 (617) 565-6805 ‘411’ Impresses Trackers with Her Native Skills ...................... 20 Kilgore, Bruce Flether, Mllford WESTERN REGION SOUTHWEST REGION HIstory, Mythology, and Limnology 450 Golden Gate Ave. PO. Box 726 of Lake Crescent, Olympic NP ............... 21 P 0 Box 36063 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Chaparral Studies at Sequma San Francisco, CA 94102 6-476-6412 (505) 966-6412 Pmvide Management Insights ............... 23 8.556.4968 (415) 556-4966 Lovaas. Allen L. Rugglero, Michael ALASKA REGION MIDWEST REGION 2525 Gambell St, Room 107 ,709 Jackson St Anchorage, AK 99503-2692 Cover: Stream gauges esfablished on Poore Creek, Omaha, NE 66102 S (907) 271-2612 Petersburg National Baniei& make poss;ble a 6-664-3436 (402) 221-3436 quantirabve evaiuat;on of storm runoff from the ur- banized watershed (see sfory page 3j. 2 How Urban Development Near Parks is Affecting Streams By James 0. Gregory, Charles A. Williams, Karl (Chuck) Smith, Chuck Rafkind, Sam Kunkle. and John Karish Urban development closing in on small park units Stream gauging and precipitation measuring sites in densely populated areas can have severe ecologi- have been established, and field measurements of cal effects on park resources. One example is con. runoff and water quality are underway (see cover). struction upstream from a park, which can cause era- Park staff are surveying cross-sections along POOre sion. flooding, siltation, and even vegetation die-off in Creek and Harrison Creeks so that long-term cross- a park. Preliminary observations indicate that secttonal measurements can be repeated and erosion Petersburg and Richmond National Battlefields, two quantified with existing park resources beyond the NPS sites in central Virginia, are cases in point. research contract period. An automatic storm-water sampler, which fills up when a stream rises during The Petersburg Study storm events, is being assembled in the park so that At Petersburg NatIonal Battlefield (NE), extensive sediment in storm runoff can be monitored. In order upstreamconstructionof highways, housing and other to evaluate pollution and erosion impacts, water sam- developments evidently IS causing excessive channel ples are being collected for analysis 01 bacterial con- Ftgura 2. Housing construction can cause erosion, erosion along Poore Creek, a small stream flowing tamination, suspended sediment, and dissolved sol- which bws as sadiment downstream during storms. through the heali of the park (Fig. 1). Unusually high ids, and benthic macminvertebrates are being sw This eroded site is onty about 100 meters from the volumes of runoff I” Poore Creek are now seen during veyed in the stream. parkboundary at Richmond Natfonaf Battlefield Parh. storms. The increased runoff is undercutting the Preliminary storm data collected to date at the posits in the park after storms, NPS personnel have stream banks, causing large trees to uproot and fall stream gauging sites indicate that Poore Creek is been working actively with the county, developers, and Inlo the stream, and has scoured out the channel to drastically affected by the urbanization: storm runoff other groups to effect better conservation practices its clay base. This is a classic example of the runoff is much higher in Poore Creek than in the control upstream. In one case, developers 01 a subdivision impacts caused by the conversion of forest and fields stream. Sewage contamination also has been found. near the park already have improved their erosion into asphalt and roofs. Such runoff water also may be It is too early to pronounce findings on channel era- control measures after park personnel pressed lor of poor quality, which can adversely affect park w- soon, which must be measured over time. sources and their use. such actton. In order to stimulate interest in more effective up- The Richmond Study Possible Conservation Measures stream conservation, the park has initiated a study of At Richmond National Battlefield Park (NBP). ur- More effective conservation measures must be im- Poore Creek’s urbanization impacts and is working in banization is having a different impact on the riparian plemented by upstream developers in order to protect cooperation with the Department of Forestry at North environment. Erosion from housing and road con- resources at both Richmond and Petersburg. De- Caroltna State University. The objective of the struction upstream apparently is sendtng increased velopers can take many kinds of conwvation actlons, Petersburg NB study is to evaluate runoff from Poore sediment loads downstream into the park’s Beaver such as leaving undeveloped “buffer” strips along Creek and its urbanized watershed of 1,230 acres to Dam Creek Unit (Fig. 2). Lossof forest cover upstream streams; using better erosion control and sediment determine if the runoff from storms is in fact abnor- also is very likely causing higher peak flows during retarding devices; building runoff retention ponds to mally high and causing the severe channel erosion. storms. Because this park unit lies in a lowland area,
Recommended publications
  • 2019 National Park Service Report

    2019 National Park Service Report

    TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTACT INFORMATION page one ACKNOWLEDGMENTS page one CONSERVATION LEGACY OVERVIEW page two EXECUTIVE SUMMARY page three STATEMENT OF PURPOSE page three OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM SUCCESS page five DEMOGRAPHICS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS page six PARK LOCATIONS page six PROGRAM & PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS page seven PARTICIPANT AND PARTNER EXPERIENCE page twenty-two CONCLUSION page twenty-three APPENDIX A: PRESS AND MEDIA page twenty-four APPENDIX B: PROJECTS page twenty-four ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDIX C: FUNDING Conservation Legacy would like to thank the National Park Service page twenty-six staff, Cooperators and Partners who make our shared vision, mission and programming a continued success. We absolutely could not APPENDIX D: OTHER DOI PROGRAMS page twenty-six positively impact these individuals, communities, and treasured places without you! APPENDIX E: INTERN SURVEY RESULTS page twenty-seven NPS STAFF AND UNITS: NPS Washington Office NPS Youth Programs NPS Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program NPS Historic Preservation Training Center CONSERVATION LEGACY Region 1 North Atlantic Appalachian NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Region 2 South Atlantic Gulf FY2019 REPORT Region 3 Great Lakes Report Term: October 2018–September 2019 Region 4 Mississippi Basin Region 5 Missouri Basin CONTACT INFO Region 6 Arkansas Rio Grande Texas Gulf FOR CONSERVATION LEGACY: Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin Amy Sovocool, Chief External Affairs Officer Region 8 Lower Colorado Basin 701 Camino del Rio, Suite 101 Region 9 Colombia Pacific Northwest Durango, Colorado 81301 Region 10 California Great Basin Email: [email protected] Region 11 Alaska Phone: 970-749-1151 Region 12 Pacific Islands www.conservationlegacy.org 1 OVERVIEW FOSTERING CONSERVATION SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF COMMUNITIES & ECOSYSTEMS LOCAL ACTION.
  • International Coordinating Council of the MAB Programme; 29Th; Final

    International Coordinating Council of the MAB Programme; 29Th; Final

    SC-17/CONF.229/15 Paris, 15 June 2017 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme Twenty-ninth session UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room IV (Fontenoy Building) 12 – 15 June 2017 FINAL REPORT The Secretariat of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation provided by States to the Secretariat of UNESCO. The publication of any such advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation on UNESCO’s website and/or on working documents also does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries. List of contents Item Page I. Opening by the Chair of the ICC 2 II. Opening remarks of the Director-General of UNESCO 2 III. Report of the Chair of the ICC (full report in Annex 2) 3 IV. Adoption of the agenda and timetable 4 V. Report of the Secretary of the MAB Programme 4 VI. Reports on actions undertaken by Member States / regional and thematic MAB Networks in the context of MAB with a focus on the Lima Action Plan 8 VII. Implementation of the Exit Strategy 15 VIII. Periodic Review Reports and Follow-Up Information Received since the last MAB International Coordinating Council (MAB ICC) Meeting 20 A. Recommendations for New Periodic Review Reports 21 B. Follow-Up Information Received since the last MAB MAB ICC Meeting 69 IX.
  • RESEARCH Factors Limiting Kererū (Hemiphaga Novaeseelandiae) Populations Across New Zealand

    RESEARCH Factors Limiting Kererū (Hemiphaga Novaeseelandiae) Populations Across New Zealand

    CarpenterNew Zealand et al.: Journal Limiting of Ecology factors for(2021) kerer 45(2):u 3441 © 2021 New Zealand Ecological Society. 1 RESEARCH Factors limiting kererū (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) populations across New Zealand Joanna K. Carpenter1* , Susan Walker1 , Adrian Monks1 , John Innes2 , Rachelle N. Binny3,4 and Ann-Kathrin V. Schlesselmann1 1Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Private Bag 1930, Dunedin, New Zealand 2Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Private Bag 3127, Hamilton, New Zealand 3Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln, New Zealand 4Te Pūnaha Matatini, Centre of Research Excellence, New Zealand *Author for correspondence (Email: [email protected]) Published online: 25 June 2021 Abstract: Kererū declined rapidly following European settlement in New Zealand, and they remain at a reduced density. We assessed three sources of information to test the hypothesis that predation by introduced mammals and abundance of food resources are the two major factors determining kererū abundance across New Zealand. First, we reviewed the literature on factors affecting the vital rates of kererū. This analysis showed that predation is the cause of most nest failures and deaths in kererū. Second, we examined data from a major database of bird sanctuary outcomes across New Zealand to evaluate long-term responses of kererū to intensive pest control at local scales. Kererū detections did not always increase following predator control, which suggests that food supply or forest area may be more important limiting factors at some sanctuaries. Third, to understand the factors underlying temporal and spatial kererū distribution patterns at a national scale, we assessed changes and patterns in kererū local occupancy through time using data from the 1969–1979 and 1999–2004 editions of the Atlas of Bird Distribution in New Zealand.
  • MAUNGATAUTARI ECOLOGICAL ISLAND TRUST Annual General Meeting Unconfirmed Minutes 22 October 2019

    MAUNGATAUTARI ECOLOGICAL ISLAND TRUST Annual General Meeting Unconfirmed Minutes 22 October 2019

    MAUNGATAUTARI ECOLOGICAL ISLAND TRUST Annual General Meeting unconfirmed Minutes 22 October 2019 unconfirmed minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust held in Te Manawa o Matariki room at the Don Rowlands Complex, Mighty River Domain at Lake Karāpiro on Tuesday, 22 October 2019 commencing at 6.00m. 1 Opening Karakia – Taiapa Kara; Mihi Whakatau – Johnson Raumati; and MEIT response – Simon Anderson 2 Present Poto Davies (co-Chair), Don Scarlet (Acting co-Chair), Aaron Barnsdall, Graham Parker, Maryanne Sambells Simon Anderson, Steve Cooper, Clare Crickett, Joce Dawkins, Neville Dawkins, Gabrielle Dela Rue, Anne Deulin, George Dingle, Antonia Eames, Ruth Etches, Joyce Fleming, Margaret Gasquoine, Adua Geremia, Ron Guest, Beth Guest, Angela Harris, John Innes, Bryan Jenkin, Nanette Jenkin, Taiapa Kara, Colleen Lecky, Pam Lemming, Helen Lewis, Alan Livingston, Rod Lugton, Rosemary Lugton, Linda McCarter, Nigel McCarter, David Mans, Graham Mayall, Craig Montgomerie, Brent Montgomerie, Robyn Nightingale, Kurarangi Paki, Elaine Parkinson, Annie Perkins, Pat Quin, Johnson Raumati, Clare Ravenscroft, Sue Reid, Dan Ritchie, Tony Roxburgh, Sally Sheedy, Neil Smith, Carol Tauroa, Lance Tauroa, Tao Tauroa, Kiri Joy Wallace, Brian Walton, Harry Wilson Phil Lyons, Sue Dela Rue, Daniel Howie, Nathalia Jellyman, Jessica Meade, Maureen Poole, Daniel Scanlon, Ricki-Lee Scanlon, Ally Tairi, Janelle Ward 3 Apologies The apologies from Rahui Papa, Gary Dyet, John Erica, Raewyn Jones, Raewyn Kirkham, James Matthews, Jim Mylchreest, Dylan Newbold, Vaughan Payne Ashley Reid, Bruce Scott, Graham Scott, Dene Sambells, Pam Walton were accepted. unconfirmed Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust AGM Minutes – 22 October 2019 Page 1 4 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OF TRUSTEES On behalf of the Trust, Acting Co-Chair Don Scarlet welcomed everyone to the 2019 AGM and introduced all current Trustees present at the meeting.
  • 1997 Species Report Card: the State of U.S

    1997 Species Report Card: the State of U.S

    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269112191 1997 Species Report Card: The State of U.S. Plants and Animals Book · January 1997 CITATIONS READS 38 102 2 authors, including: Bruce A. Stein National Wildlife Federation 62 PUBLICATIONS 2,285 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Natural Defenses In Action View project National Climate Assessment (3rd) View project All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce A. Stein on 05 December 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. 1997 Species Report Card The State of U.S. Plants and Animals IN COOPERATION WITH THE NATURAL HERITAGE NETWORK A NatureServe™ Publication 1997 Species Report Card The State of U.S. Plants and Animals Citation: Bruce A. Stein and Stephanie R. Flack. 1997. 1997 Species Report Card: The State of U.S. Plants and Animals. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. ISBN: 1-886765-08-1 This publication is available on The Nature Conservancy’s Web site at http://www.tnc.org/science/library. © 1997 The Nature Conservancy NATURESERVE: Science for Conservation Program Sponsor This publication is a product of NatureServe, which is made possible by Canon U.S.A.’s Clean Earth Campaign. The NatureServe program is designed to promote biodiversity conservation by raising public awareness and advancing scientific knowledge. Contents Summary ......................................................................................................
  • Re-Establishing North Island Kākā (Nestor Meridionalis Septentrionalis

    Re-Establishing North Island Kākā (Nestor Meridionalis Septentrionalis

    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Re-establishing North Island kākā (Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis) in New Zealand A thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Conservation Biology Massey University Auckland, New Zealand Tineke Joustra 2018 ii For Orlando, Aurora and Nayeli “I don’t want my children to follow in my footsteps, I want them to take the path next to me and go further than I could have ever dreamt possible” Anonymous iii iv Abstract Recently there has been a global increase in concern over the unprecedented loss of biodiversity and how the sixth mass extinction event is mainly due to human activities. Countries such as New Zealand have unique ecosystems which led to the evolution of many endemic species. One such New Zealand species is the kākā (Nestor meridionalis). Historically, kākā abundance has been affected by human activities (kākā were an important food source for Māori and Europeans). Today, introduced mammalian predators are one of the main threats to wild kākā populations. Although widespread and common throughout New Zealand until the 1800’s, kākā populations on the mainland now heavily rely on active conservation management. The main methods of kākā management include pest control and re-establishments. This thesis evaluated current and past commitments to New Zealand species restoration, as well as an analysis of global Psittacine re-establishment efforts.
  • States of the Union: Ranking America's Biodiversity

    States of the Union: Ranking America's Biodiversity

    States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity April 2002 A NatureServe Report Prepared for NatureServe The Nature Conservancy 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor 4245 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22209 Arlington, VA 22203 703-908-1800 703-841-5300 www.natureserve.org http://nature.org NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity A NatureServe Report Prepared for The Nature Conservancy Citation: Bruce A. Stein. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe. NatureServe 2002 ConContentstents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 State of the States ............................................................................................................................ 3 Riches in Our Backyard NatureServe: Exploring Our Natural Heritage................................................................................ 4 Assessing Conservation Status Nature Across America: Ranking the States................................................................................... 6 Overall Biodiversity Patterns Rankings by Plant and Animal Group A More Perfect Union..................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix: State Ranking Tables.................................................................................................
  • Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013

    Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013

    Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013 Prepared by the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership Baker, Nevada i ii Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan September 23, 2011 Plans prepared previously by several National Heritage Areas provided inspiration for the framework and format for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan. National Park Service staff and documents provided guidance. We gratefully acknowledge these contributions. This Management Plan was made possible through funding provided by the National Park Service, the State of Nevada, the State of Utah and the generosity of local citizens. 2011 Great Basin National Heritage Area Disclaimer Restriction of Liability The Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership (GBHAP) and the authors of this document have made every reasonable effort to insur e accuracy and objectivity in preparing this plan. However, based on limitations of time, funding and references available, the parties involved make no claims, promises or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this document and expressly disclaim liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this plan. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, is given with respect to the contents of this document or its references. Reference in this document to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is for the inf ormation and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GBHAP or the authors.
  • New Zealand's Threatened Species Strategy

    New Zealand's Threatened Species Strategy

    NEW ZEALAND’S THREATENED SPECIES STRATEGY DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Toitū te marae a Tāne-Mahuta, Toitū te marae a Tangaroa, Toitū te tangata. If the land is well and the sea is well, the people will thrive. From the Minister ew Zealand’s unique While Predator Free 2050 is the single most significant and Nplants, birds, reptiles ambitious conservation programme in our history, it has to and other animal species be part of a broader range of work if we are to succeed. help us to define who we This draft Threatened Species Strategy is the are as a nation. Familiar Government’s plan to halt decline and restore healthy, emblems include our sustainable populations of native species. The Strategy flightless nocturnal kiwi looks at what steps are needed to restore those species and kākāpō, and the at risk of extinction, and what we should do to prevent silver fern proudly worn others from becoming threatened. by our sportspeople and etched on our war graves We are deliberately using the language of war because we and memorials. are up against invasive enemies that are hard to defeat. If we are to save the creatures we love, we have to eradicate They are our national the predators intent on eating them to extinction. taonga, living treasures found nowhere else on Earth – the unique creations of In response to beech tree seeding ‘mast’ years we have millions of years of geographical isolation. launched the successful Battle for our Birds – pest control on a landscape scale. We have declared a War on Weeds The wildlife on our islands of Aotearoa evolved in a with an annual list of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ to tackle invasive world without teeth, a paradise which for all its stunning plants that are suffocating vast areas of our bush.
  • Local Extinction Means That a Species Disappears from a Part of Its Range but Persists Elsewhere

    Local Extinction Means That a Species Disappears from a Part of Its Range but Persists Elsewhere

    CONSERVATION OF SPECIES How a Species Becomes Endangered and Extinct Endangered Species: Current Status When we say that we want to save a species, what is it that we really want to save? There are four possible answers: .A wild creature in a wild habitat, as a symbol to us of wilderness. .A wild creature in a managed habitat, so the species can feed and reproduce with little interference and so we can see it in a naturalistic habitat. .A population in a zoo, so the genetic characteristics are maintained in live individuals. .Genetic material only—frozen cells containing DNA from a species for future scientific research. The number of species of animals listed as threatened or endangered rose from about 1,700 in 1988 to 3,800 in 1996 and 5,188 in 2004, the most recent assessment by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species reports that about 20% of all known species of mammals are at risk of extinction, as are 12% of known birds, 4% of known reptiles, 31% of amphibians, and 3% of fish, primarily freshwater fish. The Red List also estimates that 33,798 species of vascular plants or 12.5% of those known, have recently become extinct or endangered. It lists more than 8,000 plants that are threatened, approximately 3% of all plants. What does it mean to call a species “threatened” or “endangered”? The terms can have strictly biological meanings, or they can have legal meanings. The U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 defines endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.” In other words, if certain insect species are pests, we want to be rid of them.
  • Breeding and Foraging Ecology of Caspian Terns Nesting on Artificial Islands in the Upper Klamath Basin, California

    Breeding and Foraging Ecology of Caspian Terns Nesting on Artificial Islands in the Upper Klamath Basin, California

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Allison Patterson for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife Science presented on November 13, 2012 Title: Breeding and Foraging Ecology of Caspian Terns Nesting on Artificial Islands in the Upper Klamath Basin, California Abstract approved: Daniel D. Roby Availability of suitable nesting habitat that is free of nest predators and provides access to adequate prey resources within commuting distance is a major factor limiting seabird populations. Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspia ) in western North America have shifted their breeding habitat from naturally occurring habitats in interior wetlands, lakes, and rivers to primarily human-created habitats in coastal bays and estuaries. This shift has brought Caspian terns into conflict with fisheries of conservation concern, in particular anadromous salmonids. Prior to the 2010 breeding season, three artificial islands were built in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex as alternative nesting habitat for Caspian terns currently nesting at the world’s largest colony for the species, near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon. I investigated the efficacy of habitat creation (island building) and social attraction (decoys and recorded vocalizations) for establishing new breeding colonies in the Upper Klamath Basin, California. In 2010, approximately 258 pairs of Caspian terns attempted to nest on the new islands and raised an average of 0.65 fledglings/breeding pair; in 2011, 222 pairs attempted to nest and raised an average of 0.11 fledglings/breeding pair. Competition with California and ring-billed gulls ( Larus californicus and L. delawarensis ) for nesting space, gull predation on Caspian tern eggs and chicks, low water levels, and depredation by great horned owls (Bubo virginianus ) were the primary factors limiting colony development and productivity, especially in 2011.
  • Effects of Human Activity on the Distribution of Desert Bighorn Sheep Along the Border in Southwestern Arizona and Northern Sonora

    Effects of Human Activity on the Distribution of Desert Bighorn Sheep Along the Border in Southwestern Arizona and Northern Sonora

    Effects of Human Activity on the Distribution of Desert Bighorn Sheep Along the Border in Southwestern Arizona and Northern Sonora Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Antaya, Andrew Martyn Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 03/10/2021 12:37:53 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/628159 Effects of Human Activity on the Distribution of Desert Bighorn Sheep Along the Border in Southwestern Arizona and Northern Sonora By Andrew Antaya __________________________ Copyright © Andrew Martyn Antaya A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN NATURAL RESOURCES In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2018 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people and organizations contributed to the success of this research project. First and foremost, this research was made possible by a grant from the National Park Service with a cooperative agreement between the National Park Service and the University of Arizona. The Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society provided a scholarship to this author, for which I am very grateful. Thanks to John Clemens and David Conrad of the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society for coordinating the scholarship opportunity. I would like to thank my committee members Dr. David Christianson, Dr. Tyler Coleman, and Dr.