Geology topics

Evelyn H. Merrill

Publications and source records attributed to Evelyn H. Merrill.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Intrinsic and environmental drivers of pairwise cohesion in wild Canis social groups

Animals within social groups respond to costs and benefits of sociality by adjusting the proportion of time they spend in close proximity to other individuals in the group (cohesion). Variation in cohesion between individuals, in turn, shapes important group-level processes such as subgroup formation and fission–fusion dynamics. Although critical to animal sociality, a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing cohesion remains a gap in our knowledge of cooperative behavior in animals. We tracked 574 individuals from six species within the genus Canis in 15 countries on four continents with GPS telemetry to estimate the time that pairs of individuals within social groups spent in close proximity and test hypotheses regarding drivers of cohesion. Pairs of social canids ( Canis spp.) varied widely in the proportion of time they spent together (5%–100%) during seasonal monitoring periods relative to both intrinsic characteristics and environmental conditions. The majority of our data came from three species of wolves (gray wolves, eastern wolves, and red wolves) and coyotes. For these species, cohesion within social groups was greatest between breeding pairs and varied seasonally as the nature of cooperative activities changed relative to annual life history patterns. Across species, wolves were more cohesive than coyotes. For wolves, pairs were less cohesive in larger groups, and when suitable, small prey was present reflecting the constraints of food resources and intragroup competition on social associations. Pair cohesion in wolves declined with increased anthropogenic modification of the landscape and greater climatic variability, underscoring challenges for conserving social top predators in a changing world. We show that pairwise cohesion in social groups varies strongly both within and across Canis species, as individuals respond to changing ecological context defined by resources, competition, and anthropogenic disturbance. Our work highlights that cohesion is a highly plastic component of animal sociality that holds significant promise for elucidating ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying cooperative behavior.

Ecology↗

USGS2020

Wave-like patterns of plant phenology determine ungulate movement tactics

Animals exhibit a diversity of movement tactics [1]. Tracking resources that change across space and time is predicted to be a fundamental driver of animal movement [2]. For example, some migratory ungulates (i.e., hooved mammals) closely track the progression of highly nutritious plant green-up, a phenomenon called “green-wave surfing” [3-5]. Yet, general principles describing how the dynamic nature of resources determine movement tactics are lacking [6]. We tested emerging theory that predicts surfing and the existence of migratory behavior will be favored in environments where green-up is fleeting and moves sequentially across large landscapes (i.e., wave-like green-up) [7]. Landscapes exhibiting wave-like patterns of green-up facilitated surfing and explained the existence of migratory behavior across 61 populations of four ungulate species on two continents (n=1,696 individuals). At the species level, foraging benefits were equivalent between tactics, suggesting that each movement tactic is fine tuned to local patterns of plant phenology. For decades, ecologists have sought to understand how animals move to select habitat, commonly defining habitat as a set of static patches [8, 9]. Our findings indicate that animal movement tactics emerge as a function of the flux of resources across space and time, underscoring the need to redefine habitat to include its dynamic attributes. As global habitats continue to be modified by anthropogenic disturbance and climate change [10], our synthesis provides a generalizable framework to understand how animal movement will be influenced by altered patterns of resource phenology.

Alberta, British Columbia, Idaho, Wyoming↗

USGS2019

A collaborative approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers

Although most wildlife professionals agree that science should inform wildlife management decisions, disconnect still exists between researchers and managers. If researchers are not striving to incorporate their findings into management decisions, support for research programs by managers can wane. If managers are not using research findings to inform management decisions, those decisions may be less effective or more vulnerable to legal challenges. Both of these situations can have negative consequences for wildlife conservation. We outline a collaborative research‐management approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers. We describe differences in perspectives, perceptions, and priorities between managers and researchers; outline how and why the divide between researchers and managers has likely occurred and continues to grow; and present specific strategies and recommendations to foster stronger collaborations between managers and researchers. We advocate increased synergy between managers and researchers based on a shared vision of conservation and a collaborative structure that rewards researchers and managers. Most importantly, we suggest that relationships and communication between managers and researchers must be established early in research development and decision‐making processes, fostering the trust needed for collaboration. Institutions and agencies can facilitate these relationships by creating opportunities and incentives for integrating collaborative research into management decisions. We suggest this approach will strengthen ties between researchers and managers, increase relevance of research to management decisions, promote effectiveness of management decisions, reduce legal challenges, and ultimately produce positive, tangible, and lasting effects on wildlife conservation.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗