Application of Threshold Concepts to Ecological Management Problems: Occupancy of Golden Eagles in Denali National Park, Alaska

  • Mitchell J. EatonEmail author
  • Julien Martin
  • James D. Nichols
  • Carol McIntyre
  • Maggie C. McCluskie
  • Joel A. Schmutz
  • Bruce L. Lubow
  • Michael C. Runge


In this chapter, we demonstrate the application of the various classes of thresholds, detailed in earlier chapters and elsewhere, via an actual but simplified natural resource management case study. We intend our example to provide the reader with the ability to recognize and apply the theoretical concepts of utility, ecological and decision thresholds to management problems through a formalized decision-analytic process. Our case study concerns the management of human recreational activities in Alaska’s Denali National Park, USA, and the possible impacts of such activities on nesting Golden Eagles, Aquila chrysaetos. Managers desire to allow visitors the greatest amount of access to park lands, provided that eagle nesting-site occupancy is maintained at a level determined to be acceptable by the managers themselves. As these two management objectives are potentially at odds, we treat minimum desired occupancy level as a utility threshold which, then, serves to guide the selection of annual management alternatives in the decision process. As human disturbance is not the only factor influencing eagle occupancy, we model nesting-site dynamics as a function of both disturbance and prey availability. We incorporate uncertainty in these dynamics by considering several hypotheses, including a hypothesis that site occupancy is affected only at a threshold level of prey abundance (i.e., an ecological threshold effect). By considering competing management objectives and accounting for two forms of thresholds in the decision process, we are able to determine the optimal number of annual nesting-site restrictions that will produce the greatest long-term benefits for both eagles and humans. Setting a utility threshold of 75 occupied sites, out of a total of 90 potential nesting sites, the optimization specified a decision threshold at approximately 80 occupied sites. At the point that current occupancy falls below 80 sites, the recommended decision is to begin restricting access to humans; above this level, it is recommended that all eagle territories be opened to human recreation. We evaluated the sensitivity of the decision threshold to uncertainty in system dynamics and to management objectives (i.e., to the utility threshold).


Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos Utility threshold Ecological threshold Decision threshold Occupancy modeling Structured decision-making Adaptive management Uncertainty Wildlife disturbance 


  1. Andersen, T., J. Carstensen, E. Hernandez-Garcia, and C. M. Duarte. 2009. Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bellman, R. 1957. Dynamic programming. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clemen, R. T. 1996. Making hard decisions: an introduction to decision analysis. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clemen, R. T., and T. Reilly. 2001. Making hard decisions with decision tools. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hines, J. E. 2008. PRESENCE2—Software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters. USGS-PWRC. Accessed 25 Jan 2012.
  8. Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. McIntyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In The birds of North America, eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The Birds of North America Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Lande, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic-models of territorial populations. American Naturalist 130:624–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lubow, B. C. 2001. Adaptive stochastic dynamic programming (ASDP) v3.2. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.Google Scholar
  11. Lyons, J. E., M. C. Runge, H. P. Laskowski, and W. L. Kendall. 2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1683–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, J. E. Hines, and L. L. Bailey. 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Martin, J., J. D. Nichols, C. L. McIntyre, G. Ferraz, and J. E. Hines. 2009b. Perturbation analysis for patch occupancy dynamics. Ecology 90:10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin, J., C. L. McIntyre, J. E. Hines, J. D. Nichols, J. A. Schmutz, and M. C. MacCluskie. 2009a. Dynamic multistate site occupancy models to evaluate hypotheses relevant to conservation of Golden Eagles in Denali National Park, Alaska. Biological Conservation 142:2726–2731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin, J., M. C. Runge, J. D. Nichols, B. C. Lubow, and W. L. Kendall. 2009c. Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management. Ecological Applications 19:1079–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, J., P. L. Fackler, J. D. Nichols, M. C. Runge, C. McIntyre, B. Lubow, M. C. McCluskie, and J. A. Schmutz. 2011. An adaptive-management framework for optimal control of hiking near golden eagle nests in Denali National Park. Conservation Biology 25:316–323.Google Scholar
  17. McCarthy, M. A., and H. P. Possingham. 2007. Active adaptive management for conservation. Conservation Biology 21:956–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGowan, C. P., and T. R. Simons. 2006. Effects of human recreation on the incubation behavior of American Oystercatchers. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118:485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morse, J. A., A. N. Powell, and M. D. Tetreau. 2006. Productivity of Black Oystercatchers: Effects of recreational disturbance in a national park. Condor 108:623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nichols, J. D., M. J. Eaton, and J. Martin. In press. Thresholds for conservation and management: Structured decision making as a conceptual framework. In Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making, ed. G. Gunterspergen New York:Springer. Google Scholar
  21. Regan, H. M., Y. Ben-Haim, B. Langford, W. G. Wilson, S. J. Andelman, and M. A. Burgman. 2005. Robust decision-making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecological Applications 15:1471–1477. Google Scholar
  22. Samhouri, J. F., P. S. Levin, and C. H. Ainsworth. 2010. Identifying thresholds for ecosystem-based management. PLoS ONE 5:e8907. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.000890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steidl, R. J., and R. G. Anthony. 2000. Experimental effects of human activity on breeding Bald Eagles. Ecological Applications 10:258–268.Google Scholar
  24. Swarthout, E. C. H., and R. J. Steidl. 2003. Experimental effects of hiking on breeding Mexican spotted owls. Conservation Biology 17:307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations: modeling, estimation, and decision making. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitchell J. Eaton
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Julien Martin
    • 1
    • 3
  • James D. Nichols
    • 1
  • Carol McIntyre
    • 4
  • Maggie C. McCluskie
    • 4
  • Joel A. Schmutz
    • 5
  • Bruce L. Lubow
    • 6
  • Michael C. Runge
    • 1
  1. 1.Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterU.S. Geological SurveyLaurelUSA
  2. 2.Southeast Climate Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyNCSU RaleighUSA
  3. 3.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionFish and Wildlife Research InstituteSt PetersburgUSA
  4. 4.National Park ServiceFairbanksUSA
  5. 5.Alaska Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyAnchorageUSA
  6. 6.Natural Resource Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations