Geology topics

Justin A. Dellinger

Publications and source records attributed to Justin A. Dellinger.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Exploring the exploitation of migratory moths by radio-marked grizzly bears in Wyoming

Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) feeding on migratory army cutworm moths ( Euxoa auxiliaris ) was first documented by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during the early 1980s in the southeastern portion of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Since those initial observations, use of this seasonally available food resource by grizzly bears has grown substantially. As of 2023, we have documented 4,754 observations of grizzly bears feeding or digging at high-elevation talus slopes. We used those records to identify 36 unique moth sites in the GYE, assessed geographic characteristics of these sites, and documented chronology and frequency of use by grizzly bears. We used occurrences of radio-collared grizzly bears to identify a sample of bears that foraged at moth sites and investigated characteristics of fidelity, duration, diel activity, and movement patterns. Grizzly bears exhibited high fidelity to specific moth sites within and across years. Bears showed approximately 50% reductions in movement metrics while using sites, albeit with increased activity patterns. Estimates of feeding metrics by females exceeded those of males in intensity and duration of both use and daily activity. Given increasing human impacts and interest in observing this feeding interaction, quantifying metrics that describe the spatial and temporal patterns of moth site use by grizzly bears could be beneficial for future management. Further analyses are needed to fully examine the relationship between caloric influences of moth use on grizzly bear demographic rates.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS2025

A summary of grizzly bear distribution in the lower-48 US states in 2024

Understanding the distribution of grizzly bear populations in the lower-48 states, is important for their conservation and management, and for public safety. Previously, our research teams working in grizzly bear ecosystems in the lower-48 states used varying methods to estimate distribution of grizzly bear populations. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), zonal analysis and ordinary kriging were applied to an array of grid cells with or without verified presence of grizzly bears, however the parameters of the methods varied between the two ecosystems. In the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) and the Selkirk Ecosystem (SE), population distribution was mapped as the Recovery Zone plus “bears outside of Recovery Zone” areas (Allen 2011). Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a method for estimating areas where grizzly bears “may be present” to help agencies or prospective applicants evaluate whether or not proposed actions may affect grizzly bears (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020). Since the mid 2010s, cooperating agencies have collaborated in documenting and maintaining a database of verified outlier observations that occur between or well outside of grizzly bear Recovery Zones and these data inform the “may be present” mapping.

lower 48 states↗

USGS2024

A unified approach to long-term population monitoring of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Long-term wildlife research and monitoring programs strive to maintain consistent data collections and analytical methods. Incorporating new techniques is important but can render data sets incongruent and limit their potential to discern trends in demographic parameters. Integrated population models (IPMs) can address these limitations by combining data sources that may span different periods into a unified statistical framework while providing a holistic view of population dynamics. We developed an IPM in a Bayesian framework for grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We coupled demographic data with multiple, independent population count data to link annual changes in abundance with vital rates over 4 decades (1983–2023). Abundance increased threefold from an estimated 270 individuals in 1984 to 1030 individuals in 2023. Parameter estimates indicated survival of bears ≥2 years of age was high, contributing to robust population growth during the 1980s (λ = 1.023 [50 % interquartile range = 0.993–1.082]) and 1990s (λ = 1.064 [1.023–1.103]). A slowing of population growth started around 2000 (2000s: λ = 1.030 [0.989–1.068]) and continued into the 2010s (λ = 1.021 [0.985–1.057]), due primarily to reductions in survival of bears <2 years of age. These findings corroborate previous research that identified density-dependent effects as a likely cause. The IPM framework provided greater certainty and understanding regarding the dynamic demographic characteristics of the population and serves as a powerful monitoring tool for this long-lived species. Implementation of the IPM allows timely dissemination of demographic data to help inform adaptive management strategies and policy decisions necessary for the continued management and conservation of this population. This robust and flexible monitoring system allows scientists to investigate the effects of a changing ecosystem on population dynamics, incorporate new data sources and statistical models, and respond to changes in monitoring needs for the population. We highlight the efficacy of the IPM in estimating and tracking demographic parameters for a long-lived species, while accommodating shifts in monitoring techniques and data collections typical of long-term wildlife conservation programs worldwide.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS2017

Using diets of Canis breeding pairs to assess resource partitioning between sympatric red wolves and coyotes

Foraging behaviors of red wolves ( Canis rufus ) and coyotes ( Canis latrans ) are complex and their ability to form congeneric breeding pairs and hybridize further complicates our understanding of factors influencing their diets. Through scat analysis, we assessed prey selection of red wolf, coyote, and congeneric breeding pairs formed by red wolves and coyotes, and found that all 3 had similar diets. However, red wolf and congeneric pairs consumed more white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) than coyote pairs. Coyotes forming breeding pairs with red wolves had 12% more white-tailed deer in their diet than conspecifics paired with coyotes. Contrary to many studies on coyotes in the southeastern United States, we found coyotes in eastern North Carolina to be primarily carnivorous with increased consumption of deer during winter. Although prey selection was generally similar among the 3 groups, differences in diet among different breeding pairs were strongly associated with body mass. Larger breeding pairs consumed more white-tailed deer, and fewer rabbits ( Sylvilagus spp.) and other small mammals. Partitioning of food resources by sympatric red wolves and coyotes is likely via differences in the proportions of similar prey consumed, rather than differences in types of prey exploited. Consequently, our results suggest coexistence of red wolves and coyotes in the southeastern United States may not be possible because there are limited opportunities for niche partitioning to reduce competitive interactions.

Journal of Mammalogy↗