Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlifer”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
USGS2008

Wildlife values of North American ricelands

Ricelands have become an indispensable component of waterbird habitat and a leading example of integrating agricultural and natural resource management in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Gulf Coast, and Central California. Residual rice, weed seeds, and invertebrates provide food for many avian species during fall and winter. In North America, considerable information exists on the use of ricefields by wintering waterbirds, the value of ricelands as breeding habitat for birds, and the effects of organic chemicals on birds that- feed in ricefields. Recent research has also examined the influence of field management practices, such as winter flooding and post-harvest straw manipulation, on the suitability of ricefields for wildlife. Whereas early studies focused on detrimental effects of wildlife on rice production (e.g., crop depredation), it has become apparent that waterbirds may benefit producers by enhancing straw decomposition, reducing weed and pest pressure, and providing additional income through hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. A comprehensive evaluation of agronomic and environmental issues is needed to meet the challenges of producing food and sustaining wildlife in twenty-first-century rice lands. Changes in agricultural markets, pressures of increased urban development, conflicting needs for limited resources such as water, endangered species constraints, and concerns over water quality must be addressed in developing a sustainable, mutually beneficial partnership among the rice industry, wildlife, and environmental interests. Research is also needed to evaluate potential reductions in the wildlife carrying capacity of ricelands resulting from new harvest and field management techniques, crop conversion, or loss of rice acreage. Key uncertainties include: (1) changes in waste grain abundance and availability due to various harvest and post-harvest management practices; (2) evaluating food depletion by birds feeding in rice6elds and derermining threshold food levels required to maintain bird use; (3) quantifying use of ricefields by nonwaterfowl species throughout the year; and (4) determining the amount and distribution of rice habitat needed to meet objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan.

Book chapter↗
USGS1987

Modeling potential impacts of the Garrison Diversion Unit project on Sand Lake and Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuges: a feasibility analysis

The Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program was authorized in 1965, with the purpose of diverting Missouri River water to the James River for irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and flood control. The project was reauthorized in 1986, with the specification that comprehensive studies be conducted to address a variety of issues. One of these ongoing studies addresses potential impacts of GDU construction and operation on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system, including Arrowwood and Sand Lake Refuges (the Refuges) on the James River. A number of concerns at these Refuges have been identified; the primary concerns addressed in this report include increased winter return flows, which would limit control of rough fish; increased turbidity during project construction, which would decrease production of sago pondweed; and increased water level fluctuations in the late spring and early summer, which would destroy the nests of some over-water nesting birds. The facilitated workshop described in this report was conducted February 18-20, 1987, under the joint sponsorship of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. The primary objectives of the workshop were to evaluate the feasibility of using simulation modeling techniques to estimate GDU impacts on Arrowwood and Sand Lake Refuges and to suggest enhancements to the James River Refuge monitoring program. The workshop was structured around the formulation of four submodels: a Hydrology and Water Quality submodel to simulate changes in Refuge pool elevations, turnover rates, and water quality parameters (e.g., total dissolved solids, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, water temperature, pesticides) due to GDU construction and operation; a Vegetation submodel to simulate concomitant changes in wetland communities (e.g., sago pondweed, wet meadows, deep and shallow marsh); a Fish submodel to estimate changes in abundance or biomass of rough fish (carp, buffalo) and sportfish (northern pike); and a Wildlife submodel to calculate indices of waterfowl abundance or habitat suitability (e.g., for mallards, western grebes, migrating diving ducks, white-faced ibis, egrets, over-water nesters). Submodels considered weekly to monthly changes in pools within a Refuge over a time horizon of 30-50 years. Based on workshop discussions and past experience with impact analysis modeling, a phased modeling approach was recommended for the James River Refuges analysis. The first phase would involve two modeling efforts. The existing Sand Lake hydrology model, and a similar one developed for Arrowwood NWR, would be validated and used to predict changes on pool elevations and winter inflows to each pool for a variety of GDU alternatives. Outputs from simulations would then be evaluated in terms of potential fish and wildlife impacts. For example, the models could generate indices comparing the magnitude and timing of winter inflows for pre- and postproject conditions; fisheries biologists could then use these indices to better quantify their concerns relative to potential changes in the frequency of rough-fish control. The other modeling effort in the first phase would involve developing a sago pondweed growth model to integrate Refuge monitoring data and existing literature and perhaps to address some questions concerning turbidity impacts. A second phase of simulation modeling would be undertaken only if the initial analyses of hydrologic outputs indicated significant potential problems and if monitoring and research projects had clarified some of the biological and physical processes that cannot be modeled reliably at the present time (e.g., resuspension of sediments by carp, immigration and winter mortality of fish, loss of waterfowl nests due to wave action). The second phase would attempt to develop an integrated impact assessment model. In order to address some of the biological and physical processes that presently are not well understood, a number of studies and enhancements to the Refuge monitoring program were suggested. The Hydrology and Water Quality workgroup recommended increasing turbidity and dissolved oxygen sampling, dropping expensive analysis of some trace elements, adding more pesticide analysis (including some biological monitoring), and developing better area-capacity data for the Sand Lake hydrology model. The Vegetation workgroup suggested expanding the number of monitoring stations, monitoring photosynthetically active radiation by depth, and modifying the biomass sampling procedure and schedule. Also suggested were additional analyses of existing Refuge monitoring data and additional field studies concerning sago growth under a variety of environmental conditions and effects of rough fish density on sago. A careful examination of Refuge narrative reports was recommended by the Fish workgroup to characterize conditions that led to various rates of winter-kill. Monitoring enhancement related to a better understanding of fish population dynamics included increasing dissolved oxygen monitoring, continuing present monitoring of fish movement upstream from Jamestown Reservoir into Arrowwood NWR, initiating similar efforts for upstream movement into Sand Lake NWR and downstream movements into both Refuges, and augmenting the present gillnetting program (or replacing it) with sampling for population and age/size structure estimates. The Wildlife workgroup suggested estimating the relative density of mallard nests in over-water and wet meadow nesting areas, estimating the number of western grebe nests lost due to wave action, delineating wet meadows on the Refuge vegetation maps, estimating annual tuber consumption by birds, and monitoring insect/macroinvertebrate abundance. The workgroup also suggested research studies to better understand the relationships between food supplies and the growth and survival of ducklings and young grebes. the workshop discussions also helped identify some suggestions for modifying project features that, if feasible from an engineering and operational standpoint, would reduce impacts on Refuge lands. These suggestions included: designing drains with control structures or small "reregulation" reservoirs to hold winter return flows that might adversely affect rough fish control, spreading construction activities over a number of years to reduce potential impacts of turbidity on sago pondweed in any single year, scheduling construction to occur after the spring sprouting and elongation growth stages to reduce impacts on sago pondweed, and installing "quick acting" control structures at Arrowwood NWR to reduce pool level fluctuations that might destroy nests of some over-water nesting waterfowl.

Report↗
USGS1988

Book review of Wildlife 2000: Modeling relationships of terrestrial vertebrates, edited by J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph

"Wildlife 2000" is the proceedings of a conference held 7-11 October 1984, near Lake Tahoe, California, the objective of which was to present an up-to-date synthesis of models that predict the responses of wildlife to habitat change. This extremely attractive, well-produced volume has been well received by the wildlife management profession; the editors received an outstanding publication award from The Wildlife Society for this publication. The accolades are deserved. The symposium was purposely integrated in terms of research and management perspectives. Each of the six sections is summarized by both research and management points of view. A majority of the 60 papers presented deal with birds. Although many chapters require a strong quantitative background, especially in multivariate statistics, many others do not. When one compares this publication with previous habitat-modeling symposia proceedings, one realizes what a superior contribution "Wildlife 2000" is, and how incredible far wildlife-habitat modelers have come in a short time. There are very few redundant papers of "nonpapers" in this volume. The wide array of modeling procedures, statistical methods, and computer software developed and used by the authors is impressive; we have indeed learned how to build models. Whether or not we have learned how to build good models is another question.

The Wilson Bulletin↗
USGS1993

Monitoring and research at Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge-Prairie Learning Center (Walnut Creek or the Refuge) is one of the newest additions to the National Wildlife Refuge System, which consists of over 480 units throughout the United States operated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service). Located about 20 miles east of Des Moines, Iowa, the Refuge has an approved acquisition boundary containing 8,654 acres (Figure 1). Acquisition is from willing sellers only, and to date the Service has purchased approximately 5,000 acres. The acquisition boundary encompasses about 43% of the watershed of Walnut Creek, which bisects the Refuge and drains into the Des Moines River to the southeast. Approximately 25%-30% of the Walnut Creek watershed is downstream of the Refuge. As authorized by Congress in 1990, the purposes of the Refuge are to (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992): • restore native tallgrass pairie, wetland, and woodland habitats for breeding and migratory waterfowl and resident wildlife; • serve as a major environmental education center providing opportunities for study; • provide outdoor recreation benefits to the public; and • provide assistance to local landowners to improve their lands for wildlife habitat. To implement these purposes authorized by Congress, the Refuge has established the goal of recreating as nearly as possible the natural communities that existed at the time of settlement by Euro-Americans (circa 1840). Current land use is largely agricultural, including 69% cropland, 17% grazed pasture, and 7.5% grassland (dominantly brome) enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program). About 1,395 acres of relict native communities also exist on the Refuge, including prairie (725 acres), oak savanna and woodland (450 acres), and riparian or wetland areas (220 acres). Some of these relicts are highly restorable; others contain only a few prairie plants in a matrix of brome and will be more difficult to restore. When the process of restoration (management and enhancement of existing remnant communities) and reconstruction (reestablishment of native communities on agricultural sites) is completed, it is anticipated that the Refuge will consist of approximately 5,900 acres of prairie, 2,000 acres of oak savanna or woodland, and 750 acres of wetland and riparian communities. Ecological restoration and reconstruction at this scale in the tallgrass prairie ecosystem is unprecedented in the United States.

Report↗
USGS2019

Impacts to wildlife of wind energy siting and operation in the United States

Electricity from wind energy is a major contributor to the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use and thus reduce the negative impacts of climate change. Wind energy, like all power sources, can have adverse impacts on wildlife. After nearly 25 years of focused research, these impacts are much better understood, although uncertainty remains. In this report, we summarize positive impacts of replacing fossil fuels with wind energy, while describing what we have learned and what remains uncertain about negative ecological impacts of the construction and operation of land-based and offshore wind energy on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the U.S. Finally, we propose research on ways to minimize these impacts. TO SUMMARIZE: 1 Environmental and other benefits of wind energy include near-zero greenhouse gas emissions, reductions of other common air pollutants, and little or no water use associated with producing electricity from wind energy. Various scenarios for meeting U.S. carbon emission reduction goals indicate that a four- to five-fold expansion of land-based wind energy from the current 97 gigawatts (GW) by the year 2050 is needed to minimize temperature increases and reduce the risk of climate change to people and wildlife. 2 Collision fatalities of birds and bats are the most visible and measurable impacts of wind energy production. Current estimates suggest most bird species, especially songbirds, are at low risk of population-level impacts. Raptors as a group appear more vulnerable to collisions. Population-level impacts on migratory tree bats are a concern, and better information on population sizes is needed to evaluate potential impacts to these species. Although recorded fatalities of cave-dwelling bat species are typically low at most wind energy facilities, additional mortality from collisions is a concern given major declines in these species due to white-nose syndrome (WNS). Assessments of regional and cumulative fatality impacts for birds and bats have been hampered by the lack of data from areas with a high proportion of the nation’s installed wind energy capacity. Efforts to expand data accessibility from all regions are underway, and this greater access to data along with improvements in statistical estimators should lead to improved impact assessments. 3 Habitat impacts of wind energy development are difficult to assess. An individual wind energy facility may encompass thousands of acres, but only a small percentage of the landscape within the project area is directly transformed. If a project is sited in previously undisturbed habitat, there is concern for indirect impacts, such as displacement of sensitive species. Studies to date indicate displacement of some species, but the long-term population impacts are unknown. 4 Offshore wind energy development in the U.S. is just beginning. Studies at offshore wind facilities in Europe indicate some bird and marine mammal species are displaced from project areas, but substantial uncertainty exists regarding the individual or population-level impacts of this displacement. Bird and bat collisions with offshore turbines are thought to be less common than at terrestrial facilities, but currently the tools to measure fatalities at offshore wind energy facilities are not available. The wind energy industry, state and federal agencies, conservation groups, academia, and scientific organizations have collaborated for nearly 25 years to conduct the research needed to improve our understanding of risk to wildlife and to avoid and minimize that risk. Efforts to reduce the uncertainty about wildlife risk must keep up withthe pace and scale of the need to reduce carbon emissions. This will require focusing our research priorities and increasing the rate at which we incorporate research results into the development and validation of best practices for siting and operating wind energy facilities.

Issues in Ecology↗
USGS2018

Development of the Wildlife Adaptation Menu for Resource Managers

The Climate Change Response Framework is an example of a collaborative, cross-boundary approach to create a set of tools, partnerships, and actions to support climate-informed conservation and land management. Historically, this effort has focused on the needs of forest managers and forestry professionals. In recent years, however, there has been increasing demand for science and tools to address climate change adaptation in wildlife management and conservation. Not only do wildlife and resource managers need the best available science, it must also be presented in a usable format with feasible options within the purview of an individual manager. The research team is first completing a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed studies to summarize what wildlife-related management actions currently exist in climate change adaptation. They will then develop and test a “menu” of climate change adaptation actions that are suitable for wildlife management in terrestrial ecosystems. This Wildlife Adaptation Menu will be modeled off existing adaptation menus for Forestry and Urban Forestry, and it will be designed to be used in conjunction with the Adaptation Workbook . In addition to a menu of adaption strategies and approaches, the scientists will also identify site-level tactics and develop case studies demonstrating the use and implementation of the menu. To ensure that information and tools meet the needs of managers, the team is involving and integrating input from wildlife managers at every step of the process. Managers will be involved in scoping the project, testing the menu, and implementing the menu.

Final Report↗
USGS2021

Managing wildlife at landscape scales

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.

Book chapter↗
USGS2005

Wildlife health and disease investigations

Wildlife population management requires knowledge of factors that affect population sustainability. Mortality is one of the most important of those factors. Without a clear understanding of the causes of mortality, decisions by managers of whether or how to intercede may be inappropriate. Wildlife biologists are usually the first to discover, assess, and respond to wildlife mortality. Biologists who make accurate, complete and timely field investigations, and proper collection and shipment of samples to a diagnostic facility are essential for an accurate diagnosis. In combination with wildlife disease specialists, biologists can identify causes of wildlife mortality, detect long-term patterns in factors that affect the survival of populations, and take appropriate corrective action to minimize the impact of some mortality factors on wildlife populations.

Book chapter↗
USGS2002

A critique of wildlife radio-tracking and its use in National Parks: a report to the National Park Service

Because of the naturalness of National Parks and because of the public’s strong interest in the parks, the National Park Service (NPS) must gather as much information as needed to help understand and preserve the natural functioning of its ecosystems, and especially of its wildlife. The most useful technique for studying wildlife is radio-tracking, or wildlife telemetry. Radio-tracking is the technique of determining information about an animal through the use of radio signals from or to a device carried by the animal. The basic components of a traditional radio-tracking system are (1) a transmitting subsystem consisting of a radio transmitter, a power source and a propagating antenna, and (2) a receiving subsystem including a “pick-up” antenna, a signal receiver with reception indicator (speaker and/or display) and a power source. Most radio tracking systems involve transmitters tuned to different frequencies (analogous to different AM/FM radio stations) that allow individual identification. Three distinct types of radio-tracking are in use today: (1)conventional, very-high-frequency (VHF) radio tracking, (2) satellite tracking, and (3) Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking. VHF radio-tracking is the standard technique that has been in use since 1963. However, radio-tracking can be considered intrusive in that it requires live-capturing animals and attaching a collar or other device to them. A person must then monitor signals from the device, thus usually requiring people in the field in vehicles, aircraft, and on foot. Nevertheless, most national parks have recognized the benefits of radio-tracking and have hosted radio-tracking studies for many years; in some parks, hundreds of animals have been, or are being, so studied. As a result, some NPS staff are concerned about actual or potential intrusiveness of radio-tracking. Ideally, wildlife studies would still be done but with no intrusion on animals or conflict with park visitors. Thus the NPS has decided to closely examine the technique and use of radio-tracking to determine (1) if any less-intrusive method could supply the same information, (2) what the full range of radio-tracking technology is, to determine if the least-intrusive techniques are being used, and (3) whether future technological improvements might lead to less-intrusive techniques. The present review is the result. We first present a simple overview of radio-tracking technology, its benefits, variety, cost, and availability, advantages and disadvantages, and recent refinements that, if used, could reduce research intrusiveness. Then we consider whether any less-intrusive, non-radio-tracking techniques could supply the same information. Next we discuss possible future improvements and suggest some that would help reduce intrusion during wildlife research in national parks. Last, we review radio-tracking technology in detail for readers who want a more complete understanding. This review should also allow administrators and scientists to determine whether the least-intrusive radio-tracking techniques are currently being used. We conclude that no substitute for radio-tracking appears to be on the horizon but that a few recent improvements in the technology can reduce some of its intrusiveness. Further, we recommend that the NPS (1) formally assess the extent of park visitors’ perceptions and concerns about any intrusiveness caused by wildlife radio-tracking studies (2) help minimize visitor concern about the technique by educating the public about radio-tracking and some of its findings in the parks, (3) promote use of the most up-to-date refinements and improvements in radio-tracking technology, and (4) encourage funding projects using such technology.

Report↗
USGS2019

A collaborative approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers

Although most wildlife professionals agree that science should inform wildlife management decisions, disconnect still exists between researchers and managers. If researchers are not striving to incorporate their findings into management decisions, support for research programs by managers can wane. If managers are not using research findings to inform management decisions, those decisions may be less effective or more vulnerable to legal challenges. Both of these situations can have negative consequences for wildlife conservation. We outline a collaborative research‐management approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers. We describe differences in perspectives, perceptions, and priorities between managers and researchers; outline how and why the divide between researchers and managers has likely occurred and continues to grow; and present specific strategies and recommendations to foster stronger collaborations between managers and researchers. We advocate increased synergy between managers and researchers based on a shared vision of conservation and a collaborative structure that rewards researchers and managers. Most importantly, we suggest that relationships and communication between managers and researchers must be established early in research development and decision‐making processes, fostering the trust needed for collaboration. Institutions and agencies can facilitate these relationships by creating opportunities and incentives for integrating collaborative research into management decisions. We suggest this approach will strengthen ties between researchers and managers, increase relevance of research to management decisions, promote effectiveness of management decisions, reduce legal challenges, and ultimately produce positive, tangible, and lasting effects on wildlife conservation.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2020

Preparing wildlife for climate change: How far have we come?

Global biodiversity is in unprecedented decline and on-the-ground solutions are imperative for conservation. Although there is a large volume of evidence related to climate change effects on wildlife, research on climate adaptation strategies is lagging. To assess the current state of knowledge in climate adaptation, we conducted a comprehensive literature review and evaluated 1,346 peer-reviewed publications for management recommendations designed to address the consequences of climate change on wildlife populations. From 509 publications, we identified 2,306 recommendations and employed both qualitative and quantitative methods for data analysis. Although we found an increase in the volume and diversity of recommendations since 2007, a focus on protected areas (26%, 596 of 2,306 recommendations) and the non-reserve matrix (12%, 276 of 2,306 recommendations) remained prominent in the climate adaptation literature. Common concepts include protected areas, invasive species, ecosystem services, adaptive management, stepping stones, assisted migration, and conservation easements. In contrast, only 1% of recommendations focused on reproduction ( n = 26), survival ( n = 14), disease ( n = 26), or human-wildlife conflict ( n = 24). Few recommendations reflected the potential for local-scale management interventions. We demonstrate limited advancement in preparing natural resource managers in climate adaptation at local, management-relevant scales. Additional research is needed to identify and evaluate climate adaptation strategies aimed at reducing the vulnerability of wildlife to contemporary climate change. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2013

Status of exotic grasses and grass-like vegetation and potential impacts on wildlife in New England

The Northeastern section of the United States, known as New England, has seen vast changes in land cover and human population over the past 3 centuries. Much of the region is forested; grasslands and other open-land cover types are less common, but provide habitat for many species that are currently declining in abundance and distribution. New England also consists of some of the most densely populated and developed states in the country. The origin, distribution, and spread of exotic species are highly correlated with human development. As such, exotics are common throughout much of New England, including several species of graminoids (grasses and grass-like plants such as sedges and rushes). Several of the more invasive grass species can form expansive dense mats that exclude native plants, alter ecosystem structure and functions, and are perceived to provide little-to-no value as wildlife food or cover. Although little research has been conducted on direct impacts of exotic graminoids on wildlife populations in New England, several studies on the common reed ( Phragmites australis ) in salt marshes have shown this species to have variable effects as cover for birds and other wildlife, depending on the distribution of the plant (e.g., patches and borders of reeds are used more by wildlife than expansive densely growing stands). Direct impacts of other grasses on wildlife populations are largely unknown. However, many of the invasive graminoid species that are present in New England have the capability of outcompeting native plants and thereby potentially affecting associated fauna. Preservation, protection, and restoration of grassland and open-land cover types are complex but necessary challenges in the region to maintain biological and genetic diversity of grassland, wetland, and other open-land obligate species.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2002

Transportation impacts to wildlife on state route 37 in northern San Pablo Bay, California

State Route 37 bisects conservation lands managed by San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) and Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area (California Department of Fish and Game) in Solano and Sonoma Counties. The 2-lane highway connects Interstates 101 and 80 in northern San Francisco Bay and experiences ~26,000 vehicles per day. Road-killed wildlife between Napa River and Tolay Creek bridges (14.7 km) were counted in 2000 to ascertain species composition, relative abundance, and relative occurrence (animal fatality interval). The primary objectives of the study were to determine if endangered salt marsh harvest mice (Reithrodontomys raviventris), California clapper rails (Rallus longirostris), or other species of concern were represented, and to collect baseline data on transportation impacts to wildlife in the area. During 51 surveys, 291 dead birds (54.6%) and mammals (45.4%) were observed. Endangered species were not positively identified dead on the highway. In total, 28 bird, 10 mammal and 1 reptile species were positively identified along this section of highway that traverses tidal marsh and diked baylands (i.e., salt ponds, seasonal wetlands, and oat-hay agriculture fields). The mean animal fatality interval for both lanes was one road-kill every 2.1km (2.1 km SD).

Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlif↗
USGS1981

Establishment of seeded grasslands for wildlife habitat in the prairie pothole region

Techniques are described for establishment of seeded grasslands on cultivated soils to provide wildlife habitat within the glaciated prairie pothole region in the north-central United States. Management of grassland habitats on a sound ecological basis is an important wildlife management activity in the region. The primary purpose of the guidelines in this publication is to help managers establish and maintain good stands of seeded cover for waterfowl nesting and use by other prairie wildlife. Several options are available for selecting a type of cover to be established. The following seeded grassland types are described: (1) introduced cool-season grasses and legumes; (2) tall, warm-season native grasses; and (3) mixed-grass prairie grasses. Major vegetative species recommended for (1) are tall wheatgrass (Agropyron elongatum), intermediate wheatgrass (A. intermedium), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and sweetclover (Melilotus spp.); for (2) are big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum); for (3) are green needlegrass (Stipa viridula), little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula). Important factors that affect the success of establishment of seeded grasslands include site adaptability, site preparation, seedbed preparation, planting equipment and methods, rates and dates of seeding, and seed sources. A management goal for seeded grasslands intended to provide optimum habitat for dabbling duck nesting should be to maintain vigorous stands of vegetation with the tallest, most dense cover form that is possible under prevailing soil and climatic conditions. Grassland management is a never-ending job and seeded grasslands require periodic rejuvenation to maintain them in an optimum condition. Prescribed burning and planned grazing systems are acceptable methods for periodically rejuvenating seeded native grasses. Stands of introduced grasses and legumes are best maintained by mechanical tillages; reseeding is often necessary after 1 or 2 years of grain farming. The need for good management of all areas dedicated to wildlife habitat is emphasized by the rate of destruction and degradation of grassland habitats. Desirable wildlife populations can be benefited by establishment and maintenance of high-quality stands of seeded grasslands.

Prairie pothole region↗
USGS2022

Defining biologically relevant and hierarchically nested population units to inform wildlife management

Wildlife populations are increasingly affected by natural and anthropogenic changes that negatively alter biotic and abiotic processes at multiple spatiotemporal scales and therefore require increased wildlife management and conservation efforts. However, wildlife management boundaries frequently lack biological context and mechanisms to assess demographic data across the multiple spatiotemporal scales influencing populations. To address these limitations, we developed a novel approach to define biologically relevant subpopulations of hierarchically nested population levels that could facilitate managing and conserving wildlife populations and habitats. Our approach relied on the Spatial “K”luster Analysis by Tree Edge Removal clustering algorithm, which we applied in an agglomerative manner (bottom-to-top). We modified the clustering algorithm using a workflow and population structure tiers from least-cost paths, which captured biological inferences of habitat conditions (functional connectivity), dispersal capabilities (potential connectivity), genetic information, and functional processes affecting movements. The approach uniquely included context of habitat resources (biotic and abiotic) summarized at multiple spatial scales surrounding locations with breeding site fidelity and constraint-based rules (number of sites grouped and population structure tiers). We applied our approach to greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ), a species of conservation concern, across their range within the western United States. This case study produced 13 hierarchically nested population levels (akin to cluster levels, each representing a collection of subpopulations of an increasing number of breeding sites). These closely approximated population closure at finer ecological scales (smaller subpopulation extents with fewer breeding sites; cluster levels ≥2), where >92% of individual sage-grouse's time occurred within their home cluster. With available population monitoring data, our approaches can support the investigation of factors affecting population dynamics at multiple scales and assist managers with making informed, targeted, and cost-effective decisions within an adaptive management framework. Importantly, our approach provides the flexibility of including species-relevant context, thereby supporting other wildlife characterized by site fidelity.

Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Management of wetlands for wildlife

Wetlands are highly productive ecosystems that provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife species and afford various ecosystem services. Managing wetlands effectively requires an understanding of basic ecosystem processes, animal and plant life history strategies, and principles of wildlife management. Management techniques that are used differ depending on target species, coastal versus interior wetlands, and available infrastructure, resources, and management objectives. Ideally, wetlands are managed as a complex, with many successional stages and hydroperiods represented in close proximity. Managing wetland wildlife typically involves manipulating water levels and vegetation in the wetland, and providing an upland buffer. Commonly, levees and water control structures are used to manipulate wetland hydrology in combination with other management techniques (e.g., disking, burning, herbicide application) to create desired plant and wildlife responses. In the United States, several conservation programs are available to assist landowners in developing wetland management infrastructure on their property. Managing wetlands to increase habitat quality for wildlife is critical, considering this ecosystem is one of the most imperiled in the world.

Book chapter↗
USGS1986

Wildlife in some areas of New Mexico and Texas accumulate elevated DDE residues, 1983

Over the last decade, data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program have identified an area of elevated DDE contamination in portions of New Mexico and Texas. Extensive wildlife sampling in 1983 confirmed that DDE, the major metabolite of the insecticide DDT, was present at high concentrations in wildlife at selected sites in the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages. DDE in carcasses ranged up to 47 ppm (wet weight) in western kingbirds ( Tyrannus verticalis ), 35 ppm in house sparrows ( Passer domesticus ), 46 ppm in Brazilian free-tailed bats ( Tadarida brasiliensis ), and 104 ppm in whiptail lizards ( Cnemidophorus spp.). DDE was also detected in gut contents from western kingbirds at some of the highest concentrations ever reported, ranging up to 21 ppm in proventricular samples. An average of 40% of the eggs of black-crowned night-herons ( Nycticorax nycticorax ) from two sites along the Pecos River in New Mexico had DDE levels (≥8 ppm) that have been associated in other studies with impaired reproduction. In contrast, wintering mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and American coots ( Fulica americana ) from the study area did not accumulate elevated DDE levels. DDE in wildlife samples at control sites (nonagricultural areas) was either absent or averaged less than 0.35 ppm. Collectively, these data provide evidence that there is major DDE contamination of several vertebrate species in portions of the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages, but whether the contamination is recent or residual was not determined. Apparently, the source was not DDE contamination present in dicofol (4-chloro- a -(4-chlorophenyl)- a -(trichloromethyl) benzenemethanol); neither dicofol nor its metabolite, p,p' -dichlorobenzophenone, were detected in wildlife carcasses (0.1 ppm detection limit) or proventricular contents (0.01 ppm detection limit) of western kingbirds.

New Mexico, Texas↗
USGS2020

Minnesota landowners’ trust in their department of natural resources, salient values similarity and wildlife value orientations

Due to extensive land conversion over the last century, much of the native prairie pothole ecosystem has been converted to agricultural or other human uses. The prairie pothole ecosystem is found in the northern plains of Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana. Because most of the land in this region is privately owned and used for agricultural production, most impacts to wildlife habitat are the result of decisions by individual landowners. Landowner trust in natural resource management agencies is important for agencies to effectively accomplish their mission. We measured the nature (competence and fairness) and level of trust that western Minnesota landowners have in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) and landowners’ wildlife value orientations (WVO). Landowners rated MnDNR slightly higher in competence than fairness; however, these two dimensions were strongly correlated. We developed a MnDNR trust scale (six items) and a three-cluster model dividing landowners along the MnDNR trust scale, which we named Negative (28%), Neutral (43%), and Positive (29%). We provide evidence supporting the salient values similarity (SVS) model that states people have trust in agencies holding similar values; landowners reporting greater importance for wildlife consideration when making land-use decisions also reported greater trust in the MnDNR. In addition, mutualist landowners had the highest trust in the MnDNR and utilitarian landowners the lowest level of trust, which is opposite of the trust relationship reported for the general public with state wildlife agencies. Based on the SVS model, our results suggest that mutualist landowners perceive greater congruence with MnDNR goals related to wildlife habitat compared to utilitarian landowners.

Minnesota↗