Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Jeff P. Smith

Publications and source records attributed to Jeff P. Smith.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2022

Age-specific survival rates, causes of death, and allowable take of golden eagles in the western United States

In the United States, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits take of golden eagles ( Aquila chrysaetos ) unless authorized by permit, and stipulates that all permitted take must be sustainable. Golden eagles are unintentionally killed in conjunction with many lawful activities (e.g., electrocution on power poles, collision with wind turbines). Managers who issue permits for incidental take of golden eagles must determine allowable take levels and manage permitted take accordingly. To aid managers in making these decisions in the western United States, we used an integrated population model to obtain estimates of golden eagle vital rates and population size, and then used those estimates in a prescribed take level (PTL) model to estimate the allowable take level. Estimated mean annual survival rates for golden eagles ranged from 0.70 (95% credible interval = 0.66–0.74) for first-year birds to 0.90 (0.88–0.91) for adults. Models suggested a high proportion of adult female golden eagles attempted to breed and breeding pairs fledged a mean of 0.53 (0.39–0.72) young annually. Population size in the coterminous western United States has averaged ~31,800 individuals for several decades, with λ = 1.0 (0.96–1.05). The PTL model estimated a median allowable take limit of ~2227 (708–4182) individuals annually given a management objective of maintaining a stable population. We estimate that take averaged 2572 out of 4373 (59%) deaths annually, based on a representative sample of transmitter-tagged golden eagles. For the subset of golden eagles that were recovered and a cause of death determined, anthropogenic mortality accounted for an average of 74% of deaths after their first year; leading forms of take over all age classes were shooting (~670 per year), collisions (~611), electrocutions (~506), and poisoning (~427). Although observed take overlapped the credible interval of our allowable take estimate and the population overall has been stable, our findings indicate that additional take, unless mitigated for, may not be sustainable. Our analysis demonstrates the utility of the joint application of integrated population and prescribed take level models to management of incidental take of a protected species.

western United States↗
USGS2017

Patterns of spatial distribution of golden eagles across North America: How do they fit into existing landscape-scale mapping systems?

Conserving wide-ranging animals requires knowledge about their year-round movements and resource use. Golden Eagles ( Aquila chrysaetos ) exhibit a wide range of movement patterns across North America. We combined tracking data from 571 Golden Eagles from multiple independent satellite-telemetry projects from North America to provide a comprehensive look at the magnitude and extent of these movements on a continental scale. We compared patterns of use relative to four alternative administrative and ecological mapping systems, namely Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs), U.S. administrative migratory bird flyways, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Our analyses suggested that eagles initially captured in eastern North America used space differently than those captured in western North America. Other groups of eagles that exhibited distinct patterns in space use included long-distance migrants from northern latitudes, and southwestern and Californian desert residents. There were also several groupings of eagles in the Intermountain West. Using this collaborative approach, we have identified large-scale movement patterns that may not have been possible with individual studies. These results will support landscape-scale conservation measures for Golden Eagles across North America.

Journal of Raptor Research↗
USGS1997

Nesting season food habits of 4 species of herons and egrets at Lake Okeechobee, Florida

Based on the composition of nestling regurgitations collected during 3 breeding seasons, fish were the most important prey group for Great Egrets (Ardea alba: N = 200 nest-day samples; aggregate percent biomass [APB] = 73.4%), Snowy Egrets (Egretta thula: N = 115; APB = 91.4%), and Tricolored Herons (E. tricolor: N = 68; APB = 97.3%). For Little Blue Herons (E. caerulea: N = 57), grass shrimp (Palaemonetes paludosus; APB = 39.7%) ranked higher in overall importance than all fishes combined (APB = 36.5%). Dietary overlap, as measured by Schoener's Similarity Index, was greatest between Snowy Egrets and Tricolored Herons (77%) and lowest between Tricolored Herons and Little Blue Herons (30%). Diet diversity, as measured by Shannon's Index, was highest for Great Egrets (2.04), intermediate for Snowy Egrets (1.71) and Tricolored Herons (1.68), and lowest for Little Blue Herons (1.60). Great Egrets ate a wider variety of fish species and sizes, especially larger fishes, and more crayfish than the other species. Little Blue Herons ate fewer fish and more grass shrimp and insects, and ate smaller forage fishes than Tricolored Herons but similar-sized fish as Snowy Egrets. The coarse-scale trophic composition of Snowy Egret and Tricolored Heron diets did not differ significantly, but Tricolored Herons ate larger forage fishes than Snowy Egrets. Pronounced interannual and intercolony variation in diet composition suggested that Great Egrets and Little Blue Herons switched prey types as hydrologic conditions and habitat availability changed. Conversely, lack of such variation suggested that Snowy Egrets and Tricolored Herons adjusted their foraging tactics to ensure continued encounters with preferred prey despite changing habitat conditions. These results are generally consistent with other published data, help confirm some generalizations about foraging strategies and patterns of niche differentiation among these ecologically similar species, and have implications for managing the Lake Okeechobee ecosystem.

Florida↗