Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Endorsements -- Copyright -- Acknowledgements -- Content -- About The On A Shoestring Series -- Introduction -- What This Book Isn't, and What It Is -- DEEPER DIVE Instructional Design Theory and Models -- What Is Instructional Design? -- Build, Borrow, or Buy: How to Use This Book -- Recurring Elements -- You Can Do It-Even on a Shoestring -- PART 1: BUILD -- 1: Building With Structure -- What Is "Instructional Design Structure"? -- DEEPER DIVE Instructional Design Models -- How Do You Build With Structure? -- TIME SAVER Getting It Right From the Beginning -- Figure 1-1. Actions to Take When Using ADDIE -- Analyze -- DEEPER DIVE Needs Assessments -- Design -- Develop -- Implement -- Evaluate -- What Does Build With StructureLook Like in Practice? -- Example 1. "We Need Training" -- Example 2. "We Need Training" -- TOOL Putting ADDIE to Work -- A Shoestring Summary -- 2: Building the Formal Learning Experience -- Can You Be Ruthless? -- TOOL How Ruthless Are You? -- What Happens If You Can't Be Ruthless? -- TIME SAVER Shortcut to Being Ruthless -- How Can You Ruthlessly Build Your Learning Experience? -- What Is Your Intent? -- Table 2-1. Matching Intent and Delivery Options -- What Are Your Options? -- Building a Learning Experience That Includes Instructor-Led Training -- TOOL Lesson Plan for Instructor-Led Training -- Learning Objectives -- DEEPER DIVE Effective Learning Objectives -- Estimated Time -- Table 2-2. Estimating Time -- Table 2-3. Estimating Time With Precision -- Content and Key Points -- Table 2-4. Outlining Content and Key Points -- Table 2-5. Outlining Content and Key Points With Greater Detail -- Instructional Technique -- Table 2-6. Attempt at Assigning Instructional Techniques to Content -- Table 2-7. Diversifying the Instructional Techniques -- TIME SAVER "I Just Need Something That's Good Enough".

Bird-aircraft collisions (bird strikes) pose a serious safety risk to aircraft. Raptors (i.e., hawks and owls) are one of the most frequently struck guild of birds within North America. Integrated wildlife damage management programs combine a variety of non-lethal and lethal management tools to reduce the presence and duration of raptors at airports. Live-capture and translocation away from an airport is a commonly used method to reduce the risk of raptor-aircraft collisions. In 2007, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services (WS) developed an airport program-specific plastic leg band (i.e., black with yellow alpha-numerics) for use in operational raptor management activities by the agency at airports. As part of this nation-wide effort, WS airport biologists live-captured, marked with auxiliary markers (i.e., project-specific leg band), and conducted over 3,900 raptor translocations from airports and military bases located in 16 states during January 2008-May, 2015. This represents a large portion of the raptors that were managed using this non-lethal method by WS during these years. Not unexpectedly, raptor translocation efforts and the raptor species managed varied among geographic regions/states and at specific airport locations due to a variety of logistical factors. Fifteen different raptor species were marked and translocated during this effort. Red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, and great horned owls accounted for 58%, 14%, and 6% of marked/translocated birds, respectively. Although research is needed to better understand and increase the efficacy of such management efforts, this non-lethal method of reducing the presence of individual raptors at airports will be an important component of future wildlife damage mitigation programs.

Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) pose a serious safety risk to aircraft. Raptors (i.e., hawks and owls) are one of the most frequently struck guilds of birds within North America. Integrated wildlife damage management programs combine a variety of non-lethal and lethal management tools to reduce presence of raptors on airports. Live-capture and translocation away from an airport is a commonly used non-lethal method to reduce the risk of raptor-aircraft collisions. In southern California, USDA Wildlife Services airport biologists live-captured, marked with auxiliary markers (i.e., airport program-specific plastic leg band), and translocated approximately 1,232 raptors from seven airports and military bases located within the highly urbanized environment of the Los Angeles Basin during January of 2010-December of 2016. Ten different raptor species were marked and relocated during this effort. The composition of translocated raptors was red-tailed hawks (38.9%), Cooper's hawks (27.5%), American kestrels (20.7%), barn owls (7.4%), and great horned owls (3.7%). Overall, the percentage of translocated raptors that returned to an airport was 11.1%. Although research is needed to better understand and increase the efficacy of such management efforts, this non-lethal method of reducing the presence of individual raptors at airports in southern California will be an important component of future wildlife management programs.

The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is one of the most widely distributed and well studied bird species of the Northern Hemisphere; however, little is known about their potential impacts to military flight operations. A Department of Defense Legacy Natural Resources Program-funded multi-agency research project examining the strike-risk posed by breeding and migrating osprey was initiated in 2006. During the 2006 nesting season, 6 adult osprey were live-captured, fitted with GPS-capable satellite transmitters, and released from selected nest locations near Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, in the Mid-Atlantic Chesapeake Bay Region. We monitored satellite-tagged osprey movement patterns of fitted osprey by tracking them during the breeding, migration, and wintering periods via the ARGOS satellite network. Movement information collected from breeding osprey was cross- referenced to Langley Air Force Base flying operations to assess the risk breeding osprey pose to military aircraft near the airfield. In addition, migratory patterns of osprey were evaluated to assess the risk migrating osprey to military aircraft operations along the Eastern seaboard. Incorporation and integration of osprey movement information (e.g., timing, travel routes) into military flight mission planning systems will increase pilot awareness of potential osprey-aircraft strikes during critical time periods and will allow for military flight operations to occur at times and locations that minimize the risk of osprey-aircraft collisions.

Context Over the past two decades, an increase in the number of resident (non-migratory) Canada geese (Branta canadensis) in the United States has heightened the awareness of human–goose interactions. Aims Accordingly, baseline demographic estimates for goose populations are needed to help better understand the ecology of Canada geese in suburban areas. Methods As a basis for monitoring efforts, we estimated densities of adult resident Canada geese in a suburban environment by using a novel spatial mark–resight method. We resighted 763 neck- and leg-banded resident Canada geese two to three times per week in and around Greensboro, North Carolina, over an 18-month period (June 2008 – December 2009). We estimated the density, detection probabilities, proportion of male geese in the population, and the movements and home-range radii of the geese by season ((post-molt I 2008 (16 July – 31 October), post-molt II 2008/2009 (1 November – 31 January), breeding and nesting 2009 (1 February – 31 May), and post-molt I 2009). Additionally, we used estimates of the number of marked individuals to quantify apparent monthly survival. Key results Goose densities varied by season, ranging from 11.10 individuals per km2 (s.e. = 0.23) in breeding/nesting to 16.02 individuals per km2 (s.e. = 0.34) in post-molt II. The 95% bivariate normal home-range radii ranged from 2.60 to 3.86 km for males and from 1.90 to 3.15 km for females and female home ranges were smaller than those of male geese during the breeding/nesting and post-molt II seasons. Apparent monthly survival across the study was high, ranging from 0.972 (s.e. = 0.005) to 0.995 (s.e. = 0.002). Conclusions By using spatial mark–resight models, we determined that Canada goose density estimates varied seasonally. Nevertheless, the seasonal changes in density are reflective of the seasonal changes in behaviour and physiological requirements of geese. Implications Although defining the state–space of spatial mark–resight models requires careful consideration, the technique represents a promising new tool to estimate and monitor the density of free-ranging wildlife. Spatial mark–resight methods provide managers with statistically robust population estimates and allow insight into animal space use without the need to employ more costly methods (e.g. telemetry). Also, when repeated across seasons or other biologically important time periods, spatial mark–resight modelling techniques allow for inference about apparent survival.