Distribution of summer-habitat for the Indiana bat on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia

J.L. De La Cruz; W. Mark Ford; S. Beaux Jones; J.R. Johnson; A. Silvis

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70262832

Distribution of summer-habitat for the Indiana bat on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia

J.L. De La Cruz·W. Mark Ford·S. Beaux Jones·J.R. Johnson·A. Silvis

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Hierarchical conservation and management of Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) habitat may benefit from use of species distribution models. White-nose syndrome has caused additional declines for this endangered bat, requiring use of historical presence locations for habitat-related analy- ses. We created random forest presence/pseudo-absence models to assess the distribution and availability of Indiana bat habitat across the 670,000-ha Monongahela National Forest (MNF), West Virginia, USA. We collated historical roost and capture locations, both individually and in combination, to examine impacts of various biotic and abiotic predictors on roosting and foraging habitat of Indiana bats. Our final concordance map suggests that Indiana bat habitat was abundant (37.2% of the MNF) but localized, with predicted suitable areas often associated with edges of dry-calcareous forests. We observed significant variation between models, with the capture-only model independently identifying the greatest amount of potential habitat (47.8%). However, 21.9% of all potential Indiana bat habitat was identified by complete inter-model agreement. Our SDM outputs may assist land managers in identifying avoidance areas and new survey sites (i.e., capture and acoustic sampling) to support forest management activities.

Explore related subjects

Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 38.104444484140316° to 38.52966246222408° latitude; -80.6422160008137° to -79.92561978482631° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J.L. De La Cruz, W. Mark Ford, S. Beaux Jones, J.R. Johnson, A. Silvis. 2023. Distribution of summer-habitat for the Indiana bat on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70262832

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

How hunters and non-hunters view barriers to allowing hunting access in an urban county

Barriers to allowing hunting of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) on private land shape hunter recruitment, retention, and reactivation efficacy as well as the ability of wildlife management agencies to use hunting as a management tool. Understanding perceptions of these barriers is crucial in urbanizing landscapes where there are increased challenges to allowing hunting access, and deer may persist in relatively high numbers. We compared barriers to allowing hunting access on one’s property among hunters (n = 281) and non-hunters (n = 874) who did not have hunting occur on their property across urban, suburban, and rural groups in Durham County, North Carolina. (i.e., six groups). Rural landowners tended to perceive geographic barriers (e.g., property size) as less problematic than suburban and urban landowners, irrespective of personal participation in hunting, but landowners who hunted tended to view all barriers as less problematic than those who did not. Small property size, human population density, and housing density were viewed as important barriers to allowing hunting access for all groups, but suburban and urban non-hunters perceived the challenges as greater barriers compared to other groups. Conversely, the complexity of hunting regulations was viewed as a minor barrier to allowing hunting among all landowners. Safety concerns, not knowing other hunters, and disagreement with hunting as a practice showed the greatest contrasts between landowners who hunted and those who did not, with the latter group reporting the barriers as more important. Barriers to hunting identified in this study aligned with variables that predicted whether land is huntable (e.g., property size, housing density) in prior research. Our results indicate that developing public outreach highlighting hunting safety and creating landowner-hunter partnership programs may help facilitate hunting access in urbanizing areas.

North Carolina↗

USGS2024

Comparison of two otolith processing methods for silver carp age estimation

Accurate age estimates are critical in the development, implementation, and assessment of silver carp ( Hypophthalmichthys molitrix ) management plans. Lapilli otoliths are the most commonly used calcified structures for silver carp age estimation, but studies on the precision of two established preparation methods [i.e., grind-and-burn (GB), thin-section (TS)] are lacking. Therefore, we assessed within-reader, between-reader, and between-method precision for 125 silver carp collected from six rivers throughout the Lower Mississippi River Basin (Arkansas, Cache, Mississippi, St. Francis, White, and Yazoo). Additionally, we compared the effort and material costs associated with each method. Overall, younger ages were estimated with the GB method (median estimated age = 6 yr, range = 3–12) than the TS method (median estimated age = 7 yr, range = 3–13). Between-method comparisons revealed low agreement (average CV = 16.40) and significant bias (Evans-Hoenig χ2 = 31.81, P < 0.01) between the two methods, particularly in older individuals. The TS method (average CV = 12.50) displayed similar between-reader precision to the GB method (average CV = 11.75). Younger age estimates for the GB method may be a result of misidentification of annuli near the otolith margin as both readers reported that TS otoliths offered clearer views than GB otoliths. Processing effort (TS method = 6.7 min otolith–1; GB method = 4.6 min otolith–1) and material costs (TS method = US$0.37 otolith–1; GB method = $0.34 otolith–1) were similar for the two methods and are likely not a factor when choosing an age estimation protocol. Our results indicate that use of the TS method for silver carp age estimation may lead to less biased age estimates, especially in established populations with greater abundances of older individuals, assuming putative additional annuli observed in thin-sections are true annuli.

Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish an↗

USGS2024

Nonbreeding waterfowl behavioral response to crewed and uncrewed aerial surveys on conservation areas in Missouri

Monitoring waterfowl populations provides the basis for improving habitat quantity and quality, establishing harvest regulations, and ensuring sustainable waterfowl populations through appropriate management. Waterfowl biologists currently use a variety of population and habitat monitoring methods ranging from informal ground observations to low-level occupied aircraft surveys. Although unoccupied aerial systems (UAS) may provide safer and more precise alternatives to traditional aerial survey techniques that are less disturbing to waterfowl, there is limited information on how waterfowl in winter respond to UAS. We compared the behavioral responses of waterfowl to helicopters and UAS on Missouri Department of Conservation wetland conservation areas October – February 2021-2022. Helicopter surveys were flown using an Airbus H125 helicopter at heights of 100 – 350 m, with UAS surveys flown using a DJI Mavic 2 Pro UAS at 15 – 90 m. Waterfowl behavior was categorized as alert, swim, fly, or abandonment using flock-scan surveys recorded for 10-minute periods before, during, and after the surveys. The percentage of time flocks spent in each behavior during- or post-survey were compared to time spent in those behaviors pre-survey. Waterfowl increased time spent swimming, flying, and abandonment in response to helicopter flights, whereas UAS flights did not influence overall waterfowl behavior. Additionally, waterfowl did not change behavior in response to UAS flights regardless of waterfowl guild (mallard, other duck, or goose) or hunting season (open or closed). Waterfowl did increase flight behavior during UAS flights at 30 m, however, there was no change in behavior at all other UAS survey altitudes. UAS may be a good alternative to traditional waterfowl survey methods and are not likely to affect waterfowl distributions or energy expenditures during the survey periods.

Missouri↗