Geology topics

Amy C. Macleod

Publications and source records attributed to Amy C. Macleod.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2016

Demographic mechanisms underpinning genetic assimilation of remnant groups of a large carnivore

Current range expansions of large terrestrial carnivores are occurring following human-induced range contraction. Contractions are often incomplete, leaving small remnant groups in refugia throughout the former range. Little is known about the underlying ecological and evolutionary processes that influence how remnant groups are affected during range expansion. We used data from a spatially explicit, long-term genetic sampling effort of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), USA, to identify the demographic processes underlying spatial and temporal patterns of genetic diversity. We conducted parentage analysis to evaluate how reproductive success and dispersal contribute to spatio-temporal patterns of genetic diversity in remnant groups of grizzly bears existing in the southwestern (SW), southeastern (SE) and east-central (EC) regions of the NCDE. A few reproductively dominant individuals and local inbreeding caused low genetic diversity in peripheral regions that may have persisted for multiple generations before eroding rapidly (approx. one generation) during population expansion. Our results highlight that individual-level genetic and reproductive dynamics play critical roles during genetic assimilation, and show that spatial patterns of genetic diversity on the leading edge of an expansion may result from historical demographic patterns that are highly ephemeral.

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem↗

USGS2015

Density, distribution, and genetic structure of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem

The conservation status of the 2 threatened grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) populations in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) of northern Montana and Idaho had remained unchanged since designation in 1975; however, the current demographic status of these populations was uncertain. No rigorous data on population density and distribution or analysis of recent population genetic structure were available to measure the effectiveness of conservation efforts. We used genetic detection data from hair corral, bear rub, and opportunistic sampling in traditional and spatial capture–recapture models to generate estimates of abundance and density of grizzly bears in the CYE. We calculated mean bear residency on our sampling grid from telemetry data using Huggins and Pledger models to estimate the average number of bears present and to correct our superpopulation estimates for lack of geographic closure. Estimated grizzly bear abundance (all sex and age classes) in the CYE in 2012 was 48–50 bears, approximately half the population recovery goal. Grizzly bear density in the CYE (4.3–4.5 grizzly bears/1,000 km 2 ) was among the lowest of interior North American populations. The sizes of the Cabinet ( n = 22–24) and Yaak ( n = 18–22) populations were similar. Spatial models produced similar estimates of abundance and density with comparable precision without requiring radio-telemetry data to address assumptions of geographic closure. The 2 populations in the CYE were demographically and reproductively isolated from each other and the Cabinet population was highly inbred. With parentage analysis, we documented natural migrants to the Cabinet and Yaak populations by bears born to parents in the Selkirk and Northern Continental Divide populations. These events supported data from other sources suggesting that the expansion of neighboring populations may eventually help sustain the CYE populations. However, the small size, isolation, and inbreeding documented by this study demonstrate the need for comprehensive management designed to support CYE population growth and increased connectivity and gene flow with other populations.

Idaho, Montana↗

USGS2013

Black bear density in Glacier National Park, Montana

We report the first abundance and density estimates for American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) in Glacier National Park (NP),Montana, USA.We used data from 2 independent and concurrent noninvasive genetic sampling methods—hair traps and bear rubs—collected during 2004 to generate individual black bear encounter histories for use in closed population mark–recapture models. We improved the precision of our abundance estimate by using noninvasive genetic detection events to develop individual-level covariates of sampling effort within the full and one-half mean maximum distance moved (MMDM) from each bear’s estimated activity center to explain capture probability heterogeneity and inform our estimate of the effective sampling area.Models including the one-halfMMDMcovariate received overwhelming Akaike’s Information Criterion support suggesting that buffering our study area by this distance would be more appropriate than no buffer or the full MMDM buffer for estimating the effectively sampled area and thereby density. Our modelaveraged super-population abundance estimate was 603 (95% CI¼522–684) black bears for Glacier NP. Our black bear density estimate (11.4 bears/100 km2, 95% CI¼9.9–13.0) was consistent with published estimates for populations that are sympatric with grizzly bears (U. arctos) and without access to spawning salmonids. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Montana↗

USGS2012

Balancing precision and risk: should multiple detection methods be analyzed separately in N-mixture models?

Using multiple detection methods can increase the number, kind, and distribution of individuals sampled, which may increase accuracy and precision and reduce cost of population abundance estimates. However, when variables influencing abundance are of interest, if individuals detected via different methods are influenced by the landscape differently, separate analysis of multiple detection methods may be more appropriate. We evaluated the effects of combining two detection methods on the identification of variables important to local abundance using detections of grizzly bears with hair traps (systematic) and bear rubs (opportunistic). We used hierarchical abundance models (N-mixture models) with separate model components for each detection method. If both methods sample the same population, the use of either data set alone should (1) lead to the selection of the same variables as important and (2) provide similar estimates of relative local abundance. We hypothesized that the inclusion of 2 detection methods versus either method alone should (3) yield more support for variables identified in single method analyses (i.e. fewer variables and models with greater weight), and (4) improve precision of covariate estimates for variables selected in both separate and combined analyses because sample size is larger. As expected, joint analysis of both methods increased precision as well as certainty in variable and model selection. However, the single-method analyses identified different variables and the resulting predicted abundances had different spatial distributions. We recommend comparing single-method and jointly modeled results to identify the presence of individual heterogeneity between detection methods in N-mixture models, along with consideration of detection probabilities, correlations among variables, and tolerance to risk of failing to identify variables important to a subset of the population. The benefits of increased precision should be weighed against those risks. The analysis framework presented here will be useful for other species exhibiting heterogeneity by detection method.

PLoS ONE↗