Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70155991

Chromic and iron oxides as fecal markers to identify individual whooping cranes

Abstract

The whooping crane ( Grus americana ) is listed as endangered under the IUCN Red List, the United States Endangered Species Act, and the Canadian Species at Risk Act (BirdLife International 2012, CWS and USFWS 2007). A major focus of recovery efforts for this endangered species is reintroduction to establish new populations (CWS and USFWS 2007). Captive populations are critical as a source of individuals for reintroduction efforts and also serve as insurance populations. Currently, there are a total of 157 whooping cranes held in captive breeding centers across North America, with the largest at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) in Laurel, Maryland. Birds produced in this facility are currently being released as part of efforts to establish the Eastern Migratory Population (EMP, Urbanek et al. 2005) and in an effort to establish a non-migratory population in Louisiana. In the past decade, PWRC has produced and released annually an average of 18 birds into the wild; however, reproductive performance of birds at this facility is lower than desired. PWRC had a 60% fertility rate for eggs laid from 2000 through 2010 (J. N. Chandler, personal communication, 2011). Furthermore, reproductive onset in this captive population appears to be delayed compared to wild populations. In wild populations, reproductive onset (production of sperm and eggs) normally occurs ~5 years of age in both males and females, ~2 years after initial pair formation occurs (Ellis et al., 1996), while some females in the EMP have laid eggs earlier than 5 years of age (Converse et al. 2011). However, PWRC females in some cases do not start to lay eggs until 7 years of age (Mirande et al. 1996). Currently, the PWRC population consists of a total of 74 whooping cranes, including 22 pairs. Six of these pairs (27%) are consistently infertile (i.e., no production of fertile eggs) and 3 other pairs (14%) have low fertility (30- 45% fertility in eggs laid), which is variable from year to year. Six pairs (27%) are recently formed and have not produced eggs, and so have unknown fertility. This leaves only 7 pairs (33%) which contribute maximally to PWRC’s chick production (J. N. Chandler, personal communication, 2011). Because of the challenges occurring within this captive colony, PWRC and Smithsonian National Zoo have initiated a joint research project to identify potential underlying causes of poor reproduction in captive whooping cranes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Megan E. Brown, Robert Doyle, Jane N. Chandler, Glenn H. Olsen, John B. French, David E Wildt, Sarah J. Converse, Carol L Keefer, Nucharin Songsasen. 2014. Chromic and iron oxides as fecal markers to identify individual whooping cranes. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70155991

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Authoritative knowledge infrastructure for GeoAI: Implications for scientific spatial data providers

Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) increasingly relies on automated analysis of authoritative geospatial data, exposing limitations in data infrastructures originally designed for simple dissemination rather than for knowledge-driven use. From the perspective of scientific spatial data providers, the challenge is enabling GeoAI responsibly while retaining semantic clarity, provenance, reproducibility, and governance. This short paper (i) examines how GeoAI exposed limitations within existing geospatial data infrastructures, and (ii) identifies provider-side requirements for an authoritative knowledge infrastructure. Drawing on GIScience, scientific workflow, and operational AI literature, the paper outlines implications for national mapping organizations that seek to support advanced analytics without jeopardizing scientific rigor or stewardship responsibilities.

Conference Paper↗

Springs of the Catskill Mountains: A conduit flow system in predominantly siliciclastic strata

The Catskill Mountains of New York state are composed of thick sequences of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone that are intercalated with thin beds of paludal limestone and calcareous mudstone. Sandstones often contain rip-up clasts of calcareous material at their bases and contain minor amounts of carbonate cement throughout their mass. This minor amount of calcareous material weathers out to produce thin zones of solutional porosity and permeability integrated within perched aquifers that feed perennial hillslope springs. Solutional features are evident within thin carbonate lenses and along fractures in sandstones, occasionally resulting in explorable cave-sized conduits. This study focuses on the behavior of bedrock springs and seeps in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin above the Neversink Reservoir. Bedrock springs are numerous throughout the Catskill Mountains and serve to provide baseflow to the headwater streams that tends to be more persistent during dry times than other baseflow sources. We observed dissolution-influenced conduits within the bedrock, and suffosional conduits within unconsolidated materials. Continuous water temperature at six springs was monitored at hourly intervals from May to October 2022 to investigate the thermal response of groundwater to daily and seasonal changes in air temperature along with event-based meteorological events. Temperature monitoring was augmented at some springs with time-lapse photography to evaluate persistence of flow. The thermal responses of springs to precipitation events were highly variable across sites, with some springs exhibiting flashy responses indicating a strong connection to the surface, while other springs showed muted or no thermal response to events. The seasonal thermal response also varied across sites having lag times of 23-48 days between peak air temperature and peak spring water temperature. The water temperatures and geochemical compositions of these bedrock springs support a conceptual model of multiple residence times, showing both event and seasonal groundwater storage within the conduit flow system that feeds the springs of the Catskill Mountains.

New York↗

Stability changes after weak layer collapse: Insights from an unexpected dataset

While conducting avalanche mitigation or traveling through the backcountry, avalanche professionals sometimes experience a "whumpf": a collapse-mode crack accompanied by surface cracking that does not produce an avalanche. These whumpfs are a clear warning sign of instability in the surrounding terrain. But assessing the collapsed slope itself, if it is steep enough to avalanche, carries much more uncertainty. Can slopes that whumpf and are steep enough to slide still avalanche? The answer to this question supports avalanche mitigators and ski guides in assessing whether to open such slopes. Previous research on collapsed slopes is limited to one study conducted before tests that estimate crack propagation propensity, such as the Propagation Saw Test (PST), were developed. This work showed that weak layer shear strength decreased immediately after collapsing and then increased over time. However, no research has examined crack propagation propensity after a whumpf. Studying propagation propensity is key for assessing how whumpfs immediately affect slope stability. To improve our understanding of changes in propagation propensity following weak layer collapse, we conducted PSTs on a test slope in the hours and days after an unexpected collapse occurred on a layer of surface hoar. Two PSTs at our study site three days prior to this collapse provided an estimate of weak layer propagation propensity. PST cut lengths decreased immediately following the collapse, suggesting that the collapse increased the propagation propensity. However, over the next 4-5 hours, PST cut lengths steadily increased at our site, likely due to ongoing sintering and strengthening in the collapsed weak layer. By the end of day two, we were no longer able to initiate propagation, suggesting substantial stabilization of the weak layer. Our results support prior findings and observations suggesting that slopes may remain capable of producing avalanches immediately after a collapse but likely stabilize over the next day or two. Although this research does not provide answers about precisely when a slope becomes stable after a collapse, it does highlight uncertainties in our understanding and interpretation of the stability of slopes that have whumped.

Montana↗