Geometeorological data collected by the USGS Desert Winds Project at Gold Spring, Great Basin desert, northeastern Arizona, 1979-1992

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.J. Helm ◽  
C.S. Breed ◽  
R.K. Tigges ◽  
P.A. Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Great Basin Desert

scholarly journals Subterranean Caching of Domestic Cow (Bos taurus) Carcasses by American Badgers (Taxidea taxus) in the Great Basin Desert, Utah

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan H. Frehner ◽  
Evan R. Buechley ◽  
Tara Christensen ◽  
Çağan H. Şekercioğlu
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Bos Taurus ◽  
Great Basin Desert ◽  
Taxidea Taxus

scholarly journals Summer Watering Patterns of Mule Deer in the Great Basin Desert, USA: Implications of Differential Use by Individuals and the Sexes for Management of Water Resources

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew V. Shields ◽  
Randy T. Larsen ◽  
Jericho C. Whiting
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
Great Basin ◽  
Mule Deer ◽  
Free Water ◽  
Water Sources ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Mountain Range ◽  
Great Basin Desert ◽  
Water Developments ◽  
Conservation And Management

Changes in the abundance and distribution of free water can negatively influence wildlife in arid regions. Free water is considered a limiting factor for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in the Great Basin Desert. Consequently, a better understanding of differential use of water by individuals and the sexes could influence the conservation and management of mule deer and water resources in their habitats. We deployed remote cameras at all known water sources (13 wildlife water developments and 4 springs) on one mountain range in western Utah, USA, during summer from 2007 to 2011 to document frequency and timing of water use, number of water sources used by males and females, and to estimate population size from individually identified mule deer. Male and female mule deer used different water sources but visited that resource at similar frequencies. Individual mule deer used few water sources and exhibited high fidelity to that resource. Wildlife water developments were frequently used by both sexes. Our results highlight the differing use of water sources by sexes and individual mule deer. This information will help guide managers when siting and reprovisioning wildlife water developments meant to benefit mule deer and will contribute to the conservation and management of this species.

scholarly journals Enemy release from the effects of generalist granivores can facilitate Bromus tectorum invasion in the Great Basin Desert

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 8490-8499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob E. Lucero ◽  
Urs Schaffner ◽  
Ghorbanali Asadi ◽  
Alireza Bagheri ◽  
Toshpulot Rajabov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Bromus Tectorum ◽  
Enemy Release ◽  
Great Basin Desert

scholarly journals Conservation of Kit Foxes in the Great Basin Desert: Review and Recommendations

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 679-698
Author(s):  
Robert C. Lonsinger ◽  
Bryan M. Kluever ◽  
Lucas K. Hall ◽  
Randy T. Larsen ◽  
Eric M. Gese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Population Change ◽  
Basin And Range ◽  
Population Connectivity ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Central Basin ◽  
Great Basin Desert ◽  
Kit Fox ◽  
Resource Managers

Abstract The kit fox Vulpes macrotis is a species of concern to land managers in the Great Basin Desert of North America. Once common, kit foxes have declined from historical levels. Research on kit foxes in western Utah has spanned nearly 70 y and has potential to inform management and conservation within the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion of the Great Basin Desert. We conducted a systematic literature review on the northern kit fox subspecies V. m. nevadensis. We focused on studies conducted in the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion, which represents the majority of the Great Basin Desert, and provided a comprehensive summary of their ecology and demographics for resource managers. To guide future monitoring, we also reviewed techniques used for kit fox monitoring and research, and evaluated the strengths, limitations, and advances of these techniques. We identified four key factors that deserve consideration when selecting monitoring techniques for kit foxes: estimable parameters, reliability, cost, and rate of data return. Finally, we identify four primary management recommendations. We recommend that managers (1) expand kit fox monitoring and population assessments more broadly across the Great Basin Desert. To ensure future monitoring meets the needs of resource managers, we recommend (2) the application of a structured decision-making process to identify key parameters and approaches. To better understand the factors limiting kit fox populations we recommend (3) population viability and parameter sensitivity analyses to identify drivers of population change. Finally, based on evidence that genetic diversity of kit fox populations has been maintained by undescribed patterns of gene flow, we recommend (4) a broad-scale assessment of population connectivity to identify corridors supporting metapopulation dynamics. These recommendations will facilitate proactive conservation of kit foxes and management practices to reduce future population declines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document