New research on hydrogen isotopes on golden eagles shows that at least some birds of a feather may fly together.

While researchers have long known more or less where eastern golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) come from and where they end up during their migrations, they haven’t known about many of the specifics including whether some subpopulations always group together, and how much connectivity there is between the birds.

“Establishing these patterns of connectivity is really important to conservation,” said Todd Katzner, a research wildlife biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center and a coauthor of a new study published this week in The Condor: Ornithological Applications.

To get a better idea of population dynamics, the research team took hydrogen isotopes from feathers they gathered in winter and summer areas. The water that eagles ingest in different areas contains consistent isotope patterns that can indicate where the birds spent their time. The researchers combined this with telemetry for control, though the gathering of feathers is much cheaper and gives a broader picture of the population makeup.

Based on the data, researchers determined that eagles that spend their winters in Pennsylvania generally spend summers in the mid-latitudes of Quebec, for example. The eagles in general also exhibit what Katzner calls an intermediate level of connectivity between eagle populations — something he said is good due to the fact that it may allow the birds to be more resilient in the face of habitat destruction. For example, if something happens to a population of birds in the summer grounds due to resource development in their area, it won’t necessarily affect an entire wintering population down south, and vice versa.

He also said that connecting different birds’ summering and wintering grounds will allow conservationists to better understand factors affecting different populations. “It underpins a huge amount of conservation action.”

Don’t be deceived by the vibrant colors and sweet-smelling petals. Flowers can be a host for parasites that are harmful to bees — if there aren’t enough of them planted, according to recent research.

“Flowers acted as a platform that retained bee parasites following bee visitation,” said Peter Graystock, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Entomology at the University of California, Riverside and the lead author in a new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. “Subsequent foraging bees then picked up these parasites and could both further spread these parasites to other flowers and also bring the parasites back in the hive.”

As part of the study, Graystock worked with professors William Hughes and Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex, England, to identify if flowers were involved in the transmission of parasites and to see if that dispersal could involve a variety of bees and parasites including non-host bees.

The team conducted experiments on honey bees and bumblebees, which suffer declines due to habitat change, pesticide use and parasite spread, to test the presence of four common parasites that infect both species including: Nosema bombi, which has been linked to the rapid decline of at least four species of bumblebees in North America, Nosema ceranae, a honey bee parasite that’s also found in bumblebees, Crithidia bombi, which infects bumblebees, and Apicystis bombi, which has caused bumblebee declines in South America and has been shown to spill over through commercial bumblebee hives.

For their experiment, the research team allowed either honey bees or bumblebees from hives containing parasites to forage on flowers for three hours. Then, the researchers removed the bees and introduced a new group of flowers and the other species of bees that wasn’t used previously. The new bees then foraged on both groups of flowers for three hours.

The researchers then sampled both sets of flowers to determine if there were parasites in them, and found that the parasites were present on both flower patches. They concluded both of the flowers used acted as parasite transmission hubs for the parasites that infect both bee species, and allowed transmission of parasites to occur without direct bee-to-bee contact, Graystock said.

While Graystock advises people to be wary when introducing bees to new areas and to regularly screen bees for parasites where possible, one of the ways to combat this transmission is simple — plant more flowers. “Planting more flowers would provide bees with more options, and parasite spread may thus be reduced,” Graystock said.

Flowers are like soda cans, Graystock explained. If you share a single can between 50 people, there’s a good chance the last person to take a sip will be getting a good dose of the germs from the people who drank from it before him/her. But if there are more cans available, like 10 to share among 50 people, then the last person to take a sip would only be exposed to the germs of four other people.

“I think it should be clear that flowers are vital for bees and that this research highlights the need for more flowers, which may ultimately reduce the likelihood of parasite spread — rather than thinking that flowers are bad per se,” Graystock said.

A program vital to the conservation of public lands and waterways is set to expire in less than 50 days.

This program, known as the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), provides funding for the federal government to acquire lands of high conservation and recreational value. The LWCF also provides assistance for federal, state, and local parkland projects. On the state and local level, this is accomplished through a matching grant program.

This fund relies on a small portion of the royalties the federal government receives from oil and gas companies that drill on the Outer Continental Shelf and has proven to be immensely beneficial.

Since it was signed into law in 1964, nearly three billion dollars from LWCF grants have leveraged more than seven billion dollars in outside matching funds to advance land conservation projects. This has protected over five million acres of land in 98% of U.S. counties and supported more than 41,000 state and local projects. A large amount of this land, over 1.5 million acres, has gone to increasing the size of wildlife refuges.

Without Congressional action this program will expire on September 30.

Current Legislation

In addition to pieces of legislation from earlier this spring that have stalled, two recent bills have been introduced by members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee that include permanent reauthorization of the LWCF at $900 million annually.

The first of these bills is the “The Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015”. Introduced through a bipartisan effort by Senate ENR Chairwomen Murkowski (R-AK) and Ranking Member Cantwell (D-WA), this broad energy package includes a restructuring of how LWCF funds are allocated.

The current language of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act guarantees 40 percent of funds for federal agencies to acquire parcels of land. Senator Murkowski has long been against the funds guaranteed to federal land holdings through this law, believing that more money should be given to state and local projects. Due in part to this, her proposed bill to reauthorize the LWCF would also guarantee that state and local projects receive a guaranteed 40 percent of LWCF funds.

The energy package also includes separate provisions such as the creation of the Historic Preservation Fund and the National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund, which would work to combat the $11.5 billion National Park Service maintenance backlog. This energy package would allocate an additional $150 million annually to each of these programs from government revenues collected from oil and gas operations.

The creation of the National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund was also seen as a compromise to help advance LWCF reauthorization. Many Republicans, including Senator Murkowski, oppose spending more money on land acquisition while there is a maintenance backlog on currently owned federal land.

The second bill, S. 1925, was introduced on August 4 by Senator Heinrich (D-NM) along with twelve Democratic co-sponsors, and provides reauthorization of the LWCF in its current form.

This bill would also temporarily reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program and permanently reauthorize Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. SRS provides funding for rural schools located near national forests as well as for projects aimed at forest health. PILT compensates rural communities for tax revenue they are unable to generate from nearby federal lands.

Outlook

S. 1925 is awaiting action in the Senate ENR Committee. The Energy Policy Modernization Act has already passed that hurdle, making it through a vote in that committee on July 30. It is unclear as to whether either bill will act quickly enough as a vehicle to get the LWCF through Congress before it expires.

The Energy Policy Modernization Act will likely not result in a viable path forward for the LWCF. In order for the bill to advance, the proposed funding allocation framework would have to survive the full Senate as well as compromises with the House version of the bill, all before September 30.

Whether it is through the Senate Energy Bill, S. 1925, or a different measure, securing the future of the LWCF is of great importance for the health of U.S. lands and waterways.

The Wildlife Society is a member of the LWCF Coalition and supports reauthorization of this program to enable wildlife professionals to better manage and conserve public-trust wildlife resources.

Additional Resources: Environment & Energy Daily (August 5, 2015) Greenwire (July 30, 2015), Greenwire (July 23, 2015), Senator Heinrich Press Release (August 4, 2015), The Wilderness Society Land and Water Conservation Fund Webpage, Congressional Research Service Publication: Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues (October 21, 2014), National Wildlife Refuge Association Land and Water Conservation Fund Webpage