Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70227730

Managing wildlife at landscape scales

Abstract

Managing wildlife populations on a landscape is not a new concept to the field of wildlife management. However, a variety of barriers exist to effectively manage wildlife species at landscape scales. For example, competing management objectives for the same population can occur in parts of two adjoining states and 3-4 agencies within a single state may be charged with managing the habitat on which that population depends at varying spatial scales. Moreover, most state and federal agencies have different mandates and implement management actions out of offices that have static administrative or jurisdictional boundaries. Hence, implementing management actions across relatively large spatial extents can be difficult because one manager or one agency field office may have little or no input on the management of habitats or populations for which they do not have administrative responsibility. In contrast, landscape ecologists often focus on actions that ignore those same logistical hurdles. Landscape ecologists and wildlife managers should be aware of such barriers and incorporate these unique challenges and constraints into their research questions, proposed management actions, and policies. Our goal is to identify challenges, constraints, and opportunities to managing wildlife populations at a landscape scale and describe how resource agencies and landscape ecologists can work collaboratively to overcome challenges and constraints. We also explore the potential management challenges created by continuing to manage wildlife populations and habitats based on local-scale approaches to management and decision making. Finally, we provide a case study using the greater sage-grouse as an example of challenges and constraints to managing a species at a landscape scale.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John W. Connelly, Courtney J. Conway. 2021. Managing wildlife at landscape scales. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70227730

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Loma salmonae and related species

Loma salmonae is a microsporidium that infects Pacific salmon and causes a gill inflammatory syndrome known as microsporidial gill disease of salmon. This disease has been mostly associated with netpen-farmed Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) in British Columbia, Canada. Clinical, diagnostic, pathological aspects of disease, as well as approaches for disease avoidance in salmon aquaculture are discussed. A laboratory infection model in rainbow trout was used to determine life cycle-stages, transmission dynamics, pathophysiology, influence of temperature, and to test therapeutics applicable to aquaculture. This experimental model has been informative on various approaches of disease control, including the development of a promising vaccine. In addition to improving fish health in salmon farming in North America, this L. salmonae model will be applicable to other microsporidial diseases that may be encountered in emerging aquaculture regions.

Book chapter

Cumulative effects of multiple stressors on marine mammals: Elephant seals as a model system

Noise exposure is a potential stressor for free-ranging marine mammals and is often studied in the absence of other environmental factors. Here, a multi-investigator, interdisciplinary effort was undertaken to examine the response of elephant seals to multiple stressors. An integrated physiological and ecological approach was taken, including immunology, stress physiology, toxicology, animal behavior, population biology, and life history theory, to examine the cumulative effects of exposure to multiple stressors in elephant seals. While we measured the response of individual animals, a population response can be predicted by incorporating these results into the long-term data on elephant seal demographics.

Book chapter

When is a parasite a problem?

A parasite’s perceived societal impact depends on the disease it causes and the perception of the affected host species. For instance, doctors and veterinarians have a mission to treat parasites that infect humans or that impact host species that have some utilitarian or aesthetic value for society. Marine scientists have different concerns than doctors. Although the number of parasites that marine scientists should be concerned about may vary, only 13% of parasites and 6% of host–parasite links might be considered “problematic” in a kelp forest food web. With regard to the many threats to marine ecosystems, these percentages suggest that most parasites and infectious diseases are inconsequential. A related issue is the common expectation that parasites and the impacts that they cause are increasing under stress as ocean environments across the globe degrade. Yet, reports of disease have not increased due to human impacts on the marine environment, where the factors that influence parasitism are more complex. Thus, the expectation that marine parasites create problems, and that the diseases they cause are getting worse, is more likely the exception than the rule.

Book chapter