Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

C.C. Schwartz

Publications and source records attributed to C.C. Schwartz.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2011

Population fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in Western Canada and the Northern United States

Population fragmentation compromises population viability, reduces a species ability to respond to climate change, and ultimately may reduce biodiversity. We studied the current state and potential causes of fragmentation in grizzly bears over approximately 1,000,000 km 2 of western Canada, the northern United States (US), and southeast Alaska. We compiled much of our data from projects undertaken with a variety of research objectives including population estimation and trend, landscape fragmentation, habitat selection, vital rates, and response to human development. Our primary analytical techniques stemmed from genetic analysis of 3,134 bears, supplemented with radiotelemetry data from 792 bears. We used 15 locus microsatellite data coupled withmeasures of genetic distance, isolation-by-distance (IBD) analysis, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), linear multiple regression, multi-factorial correspondence analysis (to identify population divisions or fractures with no a priori assumption of group membership), and population-assignment methods to detect individual migrants between immediately adjacent areas. These data corroborated observations of inter-area movements from our telemetry database. In northern areas, we found a spatial genetic pattern of IBD, although there was evidence of natural fragmentation from the rugged heavily glaciated coast mountains of British Columbia (BC) and the Yukon. These results contrasted with the spatial pattern of fragmentation in more southern parts of their distribution. Near the Canada-US border area, we found extensive fragmentation that corresponded to settled mountain valleys andmajor highways. Genetic distances across developed valleys were elevated relative to those across undeveloped valleys in central and northern BC. In disturbed areas, most inter-area movements detected were made by male bears, with few female migrants identified. North-south movements within mountain ranges (Mts) and across BC Highway 3 were more common than east-west movements across settled mountain valleys separating Mts. Our results suggest that relatively distinct subpopulations exist in this region, including the Cabinet, Selkirk South, and the decadesisolated Yellowstone populations. Current movement rates do not appear sufficient to consider the subpopulations we identify along the Canada-US border as 1 inter-breeding unit. Although we detected enough male movement to mediate gene flow, the current low rate of female movement detected among areas is insufficient to provide a demographic rescue effect between areas in the immediate future (0-15 yr). In Alberta, we found fragmentation corresponded to major east-west highways (Highways 3, 11, 16, and 43) and most inter-area movements were made by males. Gene flow and movement rates between Alberta and BC were highest across the Continental Divide south of Highway 1 and north of Highway 16. In the central region between Highways 1 and 11, we found evidence of natural fragmentation associated with the extensive glaciers and icefields along the Continental Divide. The discontinuities that we identified would form appropriate boundaries formanagement units. We related sex-specific movement rates between adjacent areas to several metrics of human use (highway traffic, settlement, and humancaused mortality) to understand the causes of fragmentation. This analysis used data from 1,508 bears sampled over a 161,500-km 2 area in southeastern BC, western Alberta, northern Idaho, and northern Montana during 1979-2007. This area was bisected by numerous human transportation and settlement corridors of varying intensity and complexity. We used multiple linear regression and ANCOVA to document the responses of female and male bears to disturbance. Males and females both demonstrated reduced movement rates with increasing settlement and traffic. However, females reduced their movement rates dramatically when settlement increased to >20% of the fracture zone. At this same

Wildlife Monographs↗
USGS2011

Grizzly bear population vital rates and trend in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana

We estimated grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) population vital rates and trend for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), Montana, between 2004 and 2009 by following radio-collared females and observing their fate and reproductive performance. Our estimates of dependent cub and yearling survival were 0.612 (95% CI = 0.300–0.818) and 0.682 (95% CI = 0.258–0.898). Our estimates of subadult and adult female survival were 0.852 (95% CI = 0.628–0.951) and 0.952 (95% CI = 0.892–0.980). From visual observations, we estimated a mean litter size of 2.00 cubs/litter. Accounting for cub mortality prior to the first observations of litters in spring, our adjusted mean litter size was 2.27 cubs/litter. We estimated the probabilities of females transitioning from one reproductive state to another between years. Using the stable state probability of 0.322 (95% CI = 0.262–0.382) for females with cub litters, our adjusted fecundity estimate ( m x ) was 0.367 (95% CI = 0.273–0.461). Using our derived rates, we estimated that the population grew at a mean annual rate of approximately 3% (λ = 1.0306, 95% CI = 0.928–1.102), and 71.5% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations produced estimates of λ > 1.0. Our results indicate an increasing population trend of grizzly bears in the NCDE. Coupled with concurrent studies of population size, we estimate that over 1,000 grizzly bears reside in and adjacent to this recovery area. We suggest that monitoring of population trend and other vital rates using radioed females be continued.

Montana↗
USGS2011

Study design and sampling intensity for demographic analyses of bear populations

The rate of population change through time (??) is a fundamental element of a wildlife population's conservation status, yet estimating it with acceptable precision for bears is difficult. For studies that follow known (usually marked) bears, ?? can be estimated during some defined time by applying either life-table or matrix projection methods to estimates of individual vital rates. Usually however, confidence intervals surrounding the estimate are broader than one would like. Using an estimator suggested by Doak et al. (2005), we explored the precision to be expected in ?? from demographic analyses of typical grizzly (Ursus arctos) and American black (U. americanus) bear data sets. We also evaluated some trade-offs among vital rates in sampling strategies. Confidence intervals around ?? were more sensitive to adding to the duration of a short (e.g., 3 yrs) than a long (e.g., 10 yrs) study, and more sensitive to adding additional bears to studies with small (e.g., 10 adult females/yr) than large (e.g., 30 adult females/yr) sample sizes. Confidence intervals of ?? projected using process-only variance of vital rates were only slightly smaller than those projected using total variances of vital rates. Under sampling constraints typical of most bear studies, it may be more efficient to invest additional resources into monitoring recruitment and juvenile survival rates of females already a part of the study, than to simply increase the sample size of study females. ?? 2011 International Association for Bear Research and Management.

Ursus↗
USGS2010

Evaluation of rules to distinguish unique female grizzly bears with cubs in Yellowstone

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service uses counts of unduplicated female grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) with cubs-of-the-year to establish limits of sustainable mortality in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA. Sightings are dustered into observations of unique bears based on an empirically derived rule set. The method has never been tested or verified. To evaluate the rule set, we used data from radiocollared females obtained during 1975-2004 to simulate populations under varying densities, distributions, and sighting frequencies. We tested individual rules and rule-set performance, using custom software to apply the rule-set and duster sightings. Results indicated most rules were violated to some degree, and rule-based dustering consistently underestimated the minimum number of females and total population size derived from a nonparametric estimator (Chao2). We conclude that the current rule set returns conservative estimates, but with minor improvements, counts of unduplicated females-with-cubs can serve as a reasonable index of population size useful for establishing annual mortality limits. For the Yellowstone population, the index is more practical and cost-effective than capture-mark-recapture using either DNA hair snagging or aerial surveys with radiomarked bears. The method has useful application in other ecosystems, but we recommend rules used to distinguish unique females be adapted to local conditions and tested.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2010

Contrasting activity patterns of sympatric and allopatric black and grizzly bears

The distribution of grizzly (Ursus arctos) and American black bears (U. americanus) overlaps in western North America. Few studies have detailed activity patterns where the species are sympatric and no studies contrasted patterns where populations are both sympatric and allopatric. We contrasted activity patterns for sympatric black and grizzly bears and for black bears allopatric to grizzly bears, how human influences altered patterns, and rates of grizzlyblack bear predation. Activity patterns differed between black bear populations, with those sympatric to grizzly bears more day-active. Activity patterns of black bears allopatric with grizzly bears were similar to those of female grizzly bears; both were crepuscular and day-active. Male grizzly bears were crepuscular and night-active. Both species were more night-active and less day-active when ???1 km from roads or developments. In our sympatric study area, 2 of 4 black bear mortalities were due to grizzly bear predation. Our results suggested patterns of activity that allowed for intra- and inter-species avoidance. National park management often results in convergence of locally high human densities in quality bear habitat. Our data provide additional understanding into how bears alter their activity patterns in response to other bears and humans and should help park managers minimize undesirable bearhuman encounters when considering needs for temporal and spatial management of humans and human developments in bear habitats. ?? 2010 The Wildlife Society.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2008

Mapping regional distribution of a single tree species: Whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Moderate resolution satellite imagery traditionally has been thought to be inadequate for mapping vegetation at the species level. This has made comprehensive mapping of regional distributions of sensitive species, such as whitebark pine, either impractical or extremely time consuming. We sought to determine whether using a combination of moderate resolution satellite imagery (Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus), extensive stand data collected by land management agencies for other purposes, and modern statistical classification techniques (boosted classification trees) could result in successful mapping of whitebark pine. Overall classification accuracies exceeded 90%, with similar individual class accuracies. Accuracies on a localized basis varied based on elevation. Accuracies also varied among administrative units, although we were not able to determine whether these differences related to inherent spatial variations or differences in the quality of available reference data.

Sensors↗
USGS2007

Population growth of Yellowstone grizzly bears: Uncertainty and future monitoring

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the US Rocky Mountains have recently increased in numbers, but remain vulnerable due to isolation from other populations and predicted reductions in favored food resources. Harris et al. (2006) projected how this population might fare in the future under alternative survival rates, and in doing so estimated the rate of population growth, 1983–2002. We address issues that remain from that earlier work: (1) the degree of uncertainty surrounding our estimates of the rate of population change (λ); (2) the effect of correlation among demographic parameters on these estimates; and (3) how a future monitoring system using counts of females accompanied by cubs might usefully differentiate between short-term, expected, and inconsequential fluctuations versus a true change in system state. We used Monte Carlo re-sampling of beta distributions derived from the demographic parameters used by Harris et al. (2006) to derive distributions of λ during 1983–2002 given our sampling uncertainty. Approximate 95% confidence intervals were 0.972–1.096 (assuming females with unresolved fates died) and 1.008–1.115 (with unresolved females censored at last contact). We used well-supported models of Haroldson et al. (2006) and Schwartz et al. (2006a,b,c) to assess the strength of correlations among demographic processes and the effect of omitting them in projection models. Incorporating correlations among demographic parameters yielded point estimates of λ that were nearly identical to those from the earlier model that omitted correlations, but yielded wider confidence intervals surrounding λ. Finally, we suggest that fitting linear and quadratic curves to the trend suggested by the estimated number of females with cubs in the ecosystem, and using AIC c model weights to infer population sizes and λ provides an objective means to monitoring approximate population trajectories in addition to demographic analysis.

Wyoming, Montana, Idaho↗
USGS2006

Distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 2004

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed delisting the Yellowstone grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) in November 2005. Part of that process required knowledge of the most current distribution of the species. Here, we update an earlier estimate of occupied range (1990–2000) with data through 2004. We used kernel estimators to develop distribution maps of occupied habitats based on initial sightings of unduplicated females ( n = 481) with cubs of the year, locations of radiomarked bears ( n = 170), and spatially unique locations of conflicts, confrontations, and mortalities ( n = 1,075). Although each data set was constrained by potential sampling bias, together they provided insight into areas in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) currently occupied by grizzly bears. The current distribution of 37,258 km 2 (1990–2004) extends beyond the distribution map generated with data from 1990–2000 (34,416 km 2 ). Range expansion is particularly evident in parts of the Caribou–Targhee National Forest in Idaho and north of Spanish Peaks on the Gallatin National Forest in Montana.

Wyoming↗
USGS2006

Grizzly bear management in Yellowstone National Park: The heart of recovery in the Yellowstone Ecosystem

Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in the past quarter century has resulted in more than doubling of the population from around 200 to more than 500, expansion of range back into habitats where the bear has extirpated more than a century ago, and a move toward removal from the U.S. Endangered Species list. At the center of this success story are the management programs in Yellowstone National Park (YNP). Regulations that restrict human activity, camping, and food storage, elimination of human food and garbage as attractants, and ranger attendance of roadside bears have all resulted in the population of grizzlies in YNP approaching carrying capacity. Recent studies suggest, however, that YNP alone is too small to support the current population, making management beyond the park boundary important and necessary to the demographics of the population as a whole. Demographic analyses suggest a source-sink dynamic exists within the GYE, with YNP and lands outside the park within the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (RZ) representing source habitats, whereas lands beyond the RZ constitute sinks. The source-sink demography in the GYE is indicative of carnivore conservation issues worldwide where many national parks or preserves designed to protect out natural resources are inadequate in size or shape to provide all necessary life history requirements for these wide-ranging species. Additionally, wide-ranging behavior and long-distance dispersal seem inherent to large carnivores, so mortality around the edges is virtually inevitable, and conservation in the GYE is inextricably linked to management regimes not only within YNP, but within the GYE as a whole. We discuss those needs here.

Wyoming↗
USGS2004

Use of naturally occurring mercury to determine the importance of cutthroat trout to Yellowstone grizzly bears

Spawning cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki (Richardson, 1836)) are a potentially important food resource for grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis Ord, 1815) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We developed a method to estimate the amount of cutthroat trout ingested by grizzly bears living in the Yellowstone Lake area. The method utilized ( i ) the relatively high, naturally occurring concentration of mercury in Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout (508 ± 93 ppb) and its virtual absence in all other bear foods ( 6 ppb), ( ii ) hair snares to remotely collect hair from bears visiting spawning cutthroat trout streams between 1997 and 2000, ( iii ) DNA analyses to identify the individual and sex of grizzly bears leaving a hair sample, ( iv ) feeding trials with captive bears to develop relationships between fish and mercury intake and hair mercury concentrations, and ( v ) mercury analyses of hair collected from wild bears to estimate the amount of trout consumed by each bear. Male grizzly bears consumed an average of 5 times more trout/kg bear than did female grizzly bears. Estimated cutthroat trout intake per year by the grizzly bear population was only a small fraction of that estimated by previous investigators, and males consumed 92% of all trout ingested by grizzly bears.

Wyoming, Montana, Idaho↗
USGS2004

Grizzly bear-human conflicts in the Yellowstone ecosystem, 1992-2000

For many years, the primary strategy for managing grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) that came into conflict with humans in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) was to capture and translocate the offending bears away from conflict sites. Translocation usually only temporarily alleviated the problems and most often did not result in long-term solutions. Wildlife managers needed to be able to predict the causes, types, locations, and trends of conflicts to more efficiently allocate resources for pro-active rather than reactive management actions. To address this need, we recorded all grizzly bear-human conflicts reported in the GYE during 1992-2000. We analyzed trends in conflicts over time (increasing or decreasing), geographic location on macro- (inside or outside of the designated Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone [YGBRZ]) and micro- (geographic location) scales, land ownership (public or private), and relationship to the seasonal availability of bear foods. We recorded 995 grizzly bear-human conflicts in the GYE. Fifty-three percent of the conflicts occurred outside and 47% inside the YGBRZ boundary. Fifty-nine percent of the conflicts occurred on public and 41% on private land. Incidents of bears damaging property and obtaining anthropogenic foods were inversely correlated to the abundance of naturally occurring bear foods. Livestock depredations occurred independent of the availability of bear foods. To further aid in prioritizing management strategies to reduce conflicts, we also analyzed conflicts in relation to subsequent human-caused grizzly bear mortality. There were 74 human-caused grizzly bear mortalities during the study, primarily from killing bears in defense of life and property (43%) and management removal of bears involved in bear-human conflicts (28%). Other sources of human-caused mortality included illegal kills, electrocution by downed power-lines, mistaken identification by American black bear ( Ursus americanus ) hunters, and vehicle strikes. This analysis will help provide wildlife managers the information necessary to develop strategies designed to prevent conflicts from occurring rather than reacting to conflicts after they occur.

Wyoming↗
USGS2004

Possible effects of elk harvest on fall distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

The tradition of early elk ( Cervus elaphus ) hunting seasons adjacent to Yellowstone National Park (YNP), USA, provides grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) with ungulate remains left by hunters. We investigated the fall (Aug–Oct) distribution of grizzly bears relative to the boundaries of YNP and the opening of September elk hunting seasons. Based on results from exact tests of conditional independence, we estimated the odds of radiomarked bears being outside YNP during the elk hunt versus before the hunt. Along the northern boundary, bears were 2.40 times more likely to be outside YNP during the hunt in good whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) seed-crop years and 2.72 times more likely in poor seed-crop years. The level of confidence associated with 1-sided confidence intervals with a lower endpoint of 1 was approximately 94% in good seed-crop years and 61% in poor years. Along the southern boundary of YNP, radiomarked bears were 2.32 times more likely to be outside the park during the hunt in good whitebark pine seed-crop years and 4.35 times more likely in poor seed-crop years. The level of confidence associated with 1-sided confidence intervals with a lower endpoint of 1 was approximately 93% in both cases. Increased seasonal bear densities and human presence in early hunt units increases potential for conflicts between bears and hunters. Numbers of reported hunting-related grizzly bear mortalities have increased in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) during the last decade, and nearly half of this increase is due to bear deaths occurring in early hunt units during September. Human-caused grizzly bear mortality thresholds established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been exceeded in recent years. This is because agency actions have reduced other sources of human-caused mortalities, and because population parameters that mortality thresholds are based on have increased. Agencies must continue to monitor and manage hunter-caused grizzly bear mortality at sustainable levels to ensure the long-term health of the GYE population.

Wyoming↗
USGS2003

Use of sulfur and nitrogen stable isotopes to determine the importance of whitebark pine nuts to Yellowstone grizzly bears

Whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) is a masting species that produces relatively large, fat- and protein-rich nuts that are consumed by grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ). Trees produce abundant nut crops in some years and poor crops in other years. Grizzly bear survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is strongly linked to variation in pine-nut availability. Because whitebark pine trees are infected with blister rust ( Cronartium ribicola ), an exotic fungus that has killed the species throughout much of its range in the northern Rocky Mountains, we used stable isotopes to quantify the importance of this food resource to Yellowstone grizzly bears while healthy populations of the trees still exist. Whitebark pine nuts have a sulfur-isotope signature (9.2 ± 1.3‰ (mean ± 1 SD)) that is distinctly different from those of all other grizzly bear foods (ranging from 1.9 ± 1.7‰ for all other plants to 3.1 ± 2.6‰ for ungulates). Feeding trials with captive grizzly bears were used to develop relationships between dietary sulfur-, carbon-, and nitrogen-isotope signatures and those of bear plasma. The sulfur and nitrogen relationships were used to estimate the importance of pine nuts to free-ranging grizzly bears from blood and hair samples collected between 1994 and 2001. During years of poor pine-nut availability, 72% of the bears made minimal use of pine nuts. During years of abundant cone availability, 8 ± 10% of the bears made minimal use of pine nuts, while 67 ± 19% derived over 51% of their assimilated sulfur and nitrogen (i.e., protein) from pine nuts. Pine nuts and meat are two critically important food resources for Yellowstone grizzly bears.

Wyoming↗
USGS2003

Large carnivores response to recreational big game hunting along the Yellowstone National Park and Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness boundary

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem contains the rare combination of an intact guild of native large carnivores, their prey, and differing land management policies (National Park versus National Forest; no hunting versus hunting). Concurrent field studies on large carnivores allowed us to investigate activities of humans and carnivores on Yellowstone National Park's (YNP) northern boundary. Prior to and during the backcountry big-game hunting season, we monitored movements of grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ), wolves ( Canis lupus ), and cougars ( Puma concolor ) on the northern boundary of YNP. Daily aerial telemetry locations (September 1999), augmented with weekly telemetry locations (August and October 1999), were obtained for 3 grizzly bears, 7 wolves in 2 groups of 1 pack, and 3 cougars in 1 family group. Grizzly bears were more likely located inside the YNP boundary during the pre-hunt period and north of the boundary once hunting began. The cougar family tended to be found outside YNP during the pre-hunt period and moved inside YNP when hunting began. Wolves did not significantly change their movement patterns during the pre-hunt and hunting periods. Qualitative information on elk ( Cervus elaphus ) indicated they moved into YNP once hunting started, suggesting that cougars followed living prey or responded to hunting activity, grizzly bears focused on dead prey (e.g., gut piles, crippled elk), and wolves may have taken advantage of both. Measures of association (Jacob's Index) were positive within carnivore species but inconclusive among species. Further collaborative research and the use of new technologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry collars will advance our ability to understand these species, the carnivore community and its interactions, and human influences on carnivores.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2003

Grizzly bear

The grizzly bear inspires fear, awe, and respect in humans to a degree unmatched by any other North American wild mammal. Like other bear species, it can inflict serious injury and death on humans and sometimes does. Unlike the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) of the sparsely inhabited northern arctic, however, grizzly bears still live in areas visited by crowds of people, where presence of the grizzly remains physically real and emotionally dominant. A hike in the wilderness that includes grizzly bears is different from a stroll in a forest from which grizzly bears have been purged; nighttime conversations around the campfire and dreams in the tent reflect the presence of the great bear. Contributing to the aura of the grizzly bear is the mixture of myth and reality about its ferocity. unpredictable disposition, large size, strength, huge canines, long claws, keen senses, swiftness, and playfulness. They share characteristics with humans such as generalist life history strategies. extended periods of maternal care, and omnivorous diets. These factors capture the human imagination in ways distinct from other North American mammals. Precontact Native American legends reflected the same fascination with the grizzly bear as modern stories and legends (Rockwell 1991).

Book chapter↗
USGS2002

Estimating total human-caused mortality from reported mortality using data from radio-instrumented grizzly bears

Tracking mortality of the Yellowstone grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) is an essential issue of the recovery process. Problem bears removed by agencies are well documented. Deaths of radiocollared bears are known or, in many cases, can be reliably inferred. Additionally, the public reports an unknown proportion of deaths of uncollared bears. Estimating the number of non-agency human-caused mortalities is a necessary element that must be factored into the total annual mortality. Here, we describe a method of estimating the number of such deaths from records of reported human-caused bear mortalities. We used a hierarchical Bayesian model with a non-informative prior distribution for the number of deaths. Estimates of reporting rates developed from deaths of radio-instrumented bears from 1983 to 2000 were used to develop beta prior probability distributions that the public will report a death. Twenty-seven known deaths of radio-instrumented bears occurred during this period with 16 reported. Additionally, fates of 23 radio-instrumented bears were unknown and are considered possible unreported mortalities. We describe 3 ways of using this information to specify prior distributions on the probability a death will be reported by the public. We estimated total deaths of noninstrumented bears in running 3-year periods from 1993 to 2000. Thirty-nine known deaths of non-instrumented bears were reported during this period, ranging from 0 to 7/year. Seven possible mortalities were recorded. We applied the method to both sets of mortality data. Results from this method can be combined with agency removals and deaths of collared bears to produce defensible estimates of total mortality over relevant periods and to incorporate uncertainty when evaluating mortality limits established for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Assumptions and limitations of this procedure are discussed.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗