Geology topics

Donald D. Young

Publications and source records attributed to Donald D. Young.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2010

Ranking Alaska moose nutrition: Signals to begin liberal antlerless harvests

We focused on describing low nutritional status in an increasing moose ( Alces alces gigas ) population with reduced predation in Game Management Unit (GMU) 20A near Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. A skeptical public disallowed liberal antlerless harvests of this moose population until we provided convincing data on low nutritional status. We ranked nutritional status in 15 Alaska moose populations (in boreal forests and coastal tundra) based on multiyear twinning rates. Data on age-of-first-reproduction and parturition rates provided a ranking consistent with twinning rates in the 6 areas where comparative data were available. Also, short-yearling mass provided a ranking consistent with twinning rates in 5 of the 6 areas where data were available. Data from 5 areas implied an inverse relationship between twinning rate and browse removal rate. Only in GMU 20A did nutritional indices reach low levels where justification for halting population growth was apparent, which supports prior findings that nutrition is a minor factor limiting most Alaska moose populations compared to predation. With predator reductions, the GMU 20A moose population increased from 1976 until liberal antlerless harvests in 2004. During 1997–2005, GMU 20A moose exhibited the lowest nutritional status reported to date for wild, noninsular, North American populations, including 1) delayed reproduction until moose reached 36 months of age and the lowest parturition rate among 36-month-old moose (29%, n = 147); 2) the lowest average multiyear twinning rates from late-May aerial surveys ( x̄ = 7%, SE = 0.9%, n = 9 yr, range = 3–10%) and delayed twinning until moose reached 60 months of age; 3) the lowest average mass of female short-yearlings in Alaska ( x̄ = 155 ± 1.6 [SE] kg in the Tanana Flats subpopulation, up to 58 kg below average masses found elsewhere); and 4) high removal (42%) of current annual browse biomass compared to 9–26% elsewhere in boreal forests. When average multiyear twinning rates in GMU 20A (sampled during 1960–2005) declined to <10% in the mid- to late 1990s, we began encouraging liberal antlerless harvests, but only conservative annual harvests of 61–76 antlerless moose were achieved during 1996–2001. Using data in the context of our broader ranking system, we convinced skeptical citizen advisory committees to allow liberal antlerless harvests of 600–690 moose in 2004 and 2005, with the objective of halting population growth of the 16,000–17,000 moose; total harvests were 7–8% of total prehunt numbers. The resulting liberal antlerless harvests served to protect the moose population's health and habitat and to fulfill a mandate for elevated yield. Liberal antlerless harvests appear justified to halt population growth when multiyear twinning rates average ≤10% and ≥1 of the following signals substantiate low nutritional status: <50% of 36-month-old moose are parturient, average multiyear short-yearling mass is <175 kg, or >35% of annual browse biomass is removed by moose.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2002

Predators

Calving caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) of the Central Arctic herd, Alaska, have avoided the infrastructure associated with the complex of petroleum development areas from Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk (Cameron et al. 1992, Nellemann and Cameron 1998, and Section 4 of this document). Calving females of the Porcupine caribou herd may similarly avoid any oil field roads and pipelines developed in areas traditionally used during the calving and post-calving periods. This may displace the caribou females and calves to areas east and south of the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Increased calf mortality could occur if calving caribou are displaced into areas that have a higher density of predators, higher rates of predation, or where a higher proportion of the predators regularly use caribou as a food source (Whitten et al. 1992). Our study assessed predation risks to caribou calving in the 1002 Area versus calving in potential displacement areas. Due to funding constraints, our research focused on grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ), with wolves (Camus lupus) and golden eagles ( Aquila chrysaetos ) receiving only cursory attention. Our research objectives were 1) to compare relative abundance of predators within the 1002 Area with that in adjacent peripheral areas, 2) to determine factors affecting predator abundance on the calving grounds, and 3) to quantify the use of caribou as a food source for predators and the importance of caribou to the productivity of predator populations using the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS1998

Grizzly bears and calving caribou: What is the relation with river corridors?

Researchers have debated the effect of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP) and associated developments to caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) of the central Arctic herd (CAH) since the 1970s. Several studies have demonstrated that cows and calves of the CAH avoided the TAP corridor because of disturbance associated with the pipeline, whereas others have indicated that female caribou of the CAH avoided riparian habitats closely associated with the pipeline. This avoidance was explained as a predator-avoidance strategy. We investigated the relation between female caribou and grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) use of river corridors on the yet undisturbed calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd (PCH) in northeastern Alaska. On the coastal plain, caribou were closer to river corridors than expected (P = 0.038), but bear use of river corridors did not differ from expected (P = 0.740). In the foothills, caribou use of river corridors did not differ from expected (P = 0.520), but bears were farther from rivers than expected (P = 0.001). Our results did not suggest an avoidance of river corridors by calving caribou or a propensity for bears to be associated with riparian habitats, presumably for stalking or ambush cover. We propose that PCH caribou reduce the risks of predation to neonates by migrating to a common calving grounds, where predator swamping is the operational antipredator strategy. Consequently, we hypothesize that nutritional demands, not predator avoidance strategies, ultimately regulate habitat use patterns (e.g., use of river corridors) of calving PCH caribou.

Alaska↗