Efficacy of non‐lead ammunition distribution programs to offset fatalities of golden eagles in southeast Wyoming

IF 1.9 3区环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY

Journal of Wildlife Management Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1002/jwmg.22647

Vincent A. Slabe, Ross H. Crandall, Todd Katzner, Adam E. Duerr, Tricia A. Miller

{"title":"Efficacy of non‐lead ammunition distribution programs to offset fatalities of golden eagles in southeast Wyoming","authors":"Vincent A. Slabe, Ross H. Crandall, Todd Katzner, Adam E. Duerr, Tricia A. Miller","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.22647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) face many anthropogenic risks including illegal shooting, electrocution, collision with wind turbines and vehicles, and lead poisoning. Minimizing or offsetting eagle deaths resulting from human‐caused sources is often viewed as an important management objective. Despite understanding the leading anthropogenic sources of eagle fatalities, existing scientific research supports few practical solutions to mitigate these causes of death. We implemented a non‐lead ammunition distribution program in southeast Wyoming, USA, and evaluated its effectiveness as a compensatory mitigation action to offset incidental take (i.e., fatalities) of golden eagles at wind energy facilities. In 2020 and 2022, we distributed non‐lead ammunition to 699 hunters with big‐game tags specific to our >400,000‐ha study area. These hunters harvested 296 pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), 14 deer (Odocoileus spp.), and 33 elk (Cervus canadensis) in the study area, which accounted for 6.9% and 6.5% of the harvest in these hunt units in 2020 and 2022, respectively. We used road surveys in 2020 to estimate a density of 0.036 (95% CI = 0.018–0.058) golden eagles/km2 during the big game hunting season in our study area. Model output suggests that our non‐lead ammunition distribution program offset the fatality of 3.84 (95% CI = 1.06–23.72) eagles over the course of these 2 hunting seasons. Our work illustrates the potential usefulness of non‐lead ammunition distribution programs as an action to mitigate eagle fatalities caused by wind facilities or other anthropogenic causes of death.","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22647","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) face many anthropogenic risks including illegal shooting, electrocution, collision with wind turbines and vehicles, and lead poisoning. Minimizing or offsetting eagle deaths resulting from human‐caused sources is often viewed as an important management objective. Despite understanding the leading anthropogenic sources of eagle fatalities, existing scientific research supports few practical solutions to mitigate these causes of death. We implemented a non‐lead ammunition distribution program in southeast Wyoming, USA, and evaluated its effectiveness as a compensatory mitigation action to offset incidental take (i.e., fatalities) of golden eagles at wind energy facilities. In 2020 and 2022, we distributed non‐lead ammunition to 699 hunters with big‐game tags specific to our >400,000‐ha study area. These hunters harvested 296 pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), 14 deer (Odocoileus spp.), and 33 elk (Cervus canadensis) in the study area, which accounted for 6.9% and 6.5% of the harvest in these hunt units in 2020 and 2022, respectively. We used road surveys in 2020 to estimate a density of 0.036 (95% CI = 0.018–0.058) golden eagles/km2 during the big game hunting season in our study area. Model output suggests that our non‐lead ammunition distribution program offset the fatality of 3.84 (95% CI = 1.06–23.72) eagles over the course of these 2 hunting seasons. Our work illustrates the potential usefulness of non‐lead ammunition distribution programs as an action to mitigate eagle fatalities caused by wind facilities or other anthropogenic causes of death.

查看原文本刊更多论文

抵消怀俄明州东南部金雕死亡的无铅弹药分发计划的效果

金雕（Aquila chrysaetos）面临许多人为风险，包括非法射杀、触电、与风力涡轮机和车辆相撞以及铅中毒。尽量减少或抵消人为因素造成的金雕死亡通常被视为一个重要的管理目标。尽管了解了造成鹰死亡的主要人为因素，但现有的科学研究却很少支持减少这些死亡原因的实用解决方案。我们在美国怀俄明州东南部实施了一项无铅弹药分发计划，并评估了该计划作为补偿性缓解措施的有效性，以抵消风能设施附带捕获（即死亡）的金雕。2020 年和 2022 年，我们向 699 名猎人发放了无铅弹药，这些猎人都持有我们 40 万公顷研究区域的大型猎物标签。这些猎人在研究区域内收获了 296 头美洲角（Antilocapra americana）、14 头鹿（Odocoileus spp.）和 33 头麋鹿（Cervus canadensis），分别占 2020 年和 2022 年这些狩猎单元收获量的 6.9% 和 6.5%。我们利用 2020 年的道路调查估计，在研究区域的大型狩猎季节，每平方公里的金雕密度为 0.036（95% CI = 0.018-0.058）只。模型输出结果表明，我们的无铅弹药分发计划抵消了这两个狩猎季期间3.84（95% CI = 1.06-23.72）只金雕的死亡。我们的工作表明，无铅弹药分发计划作为一项行动，对减轻风力设施或其他人为原因造成的鹰死亡具有潜在的作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Wildlife Management 环境科学-动物学

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

13.00%

发文量

188

审稿时长

9-24 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.