A punch-card system suitable for use with small samples in wildlife management and research
No abstract available.
Special Scientific Report - Wildlife↗
SEARCH · Search USGS
Results for “Wildlife Research”
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.
Outside the box: Working with wildlife in biocontainment
Research with captive wildlife in Animal Biosafety Level 2 (ABSL2) and 3 (ABSL3) facilities is becoming increasingly necessary as emerging and re-emerging diseases involving wildlife have increasing impacts on human, animal, and environmental health. Utilizing wildlife species in a research facility often requires outside the box thinking with specialized knowledge, practices, facilities, and equipment. The USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) houses an ABSL3 facility dedicated to understanding wildlife diseases and developing tools to mitigate their impacts on animal and human health. This review presents considerations for utilizing captive wildlife for infectious disease studies, including, husbandry, animal welfare, veterinary care, and biosafety. Examples are drawn from primary literature review and collective 40-year experience of the NWHC. Working with wildlife in ABSL2 and ABSL3 facilities differs from laboratory animals in that typical laboratory housing systems, husbandry practices, and biosafety practices are not designed for work with wildlife. This requires thoughtful adaptation of standard equipment and practices, invention of customized solutions and development of appropriate enrichment plans using the natural history of the species and the microbiological characteristics of introduced and native pathogens. Ultimately, this task requires critical risk assessment, understanding of the physical and psychological needs of diverse species, creativity, innovation, and flexibility. Finally, continual reassessment and improvement are imperative in this constantly changing specialty area of infectious disease and environmental hazard research.
ILAR Journal↗
The fitting of general force-of-infection models to wildlife disease prevalence data
Researchers and wildlife managers increasingly find themselves in situations where they must deal with infectious wildlife diseases such as chronic wasting disease, brucellosis, tuberculosis, and West Nile virus. Managers are often charged with designing and implementing control strategies, and researchers often seek to determine factors that influence and control the disease process. All of these activities require the ability to measure some indication of a disease's foothold in a population and evaluate factors affecting that foothold. The most common type of data available to managers and researchers is apparent prevalence data. Apparent disease prevalence, the proportion of animals in a sample that are positive for the disease, might seem like a natural measure of disease's foothold, but several properties, in particular, its dependency on age structure and the biasing effects of disease-associated mortality, make it less than ideal. In quantitative epidemiology, the a??force of infection,a?? or infection hazard, is generally the preferred parameter for measuring a disease's foothold, and it can be viewed as the most appropriate way to a??adjusta?? apparent prevalence for age structure. The typical ecology curriculum includes little exposure to quantitative epidemiological concepts such as cumulative incidence, apparent prevalence, and the force of infection. The goal of this paper is to present these basic epidemiological concepts and resulting models in an ecological context and to illustrate how they can be applied to understand and address basic epidemiological questions. We demonstrate a practical approach to solving the heretofore intractable problem of fitting general force-of-infection models to wildlife prevalence data using a generalized regression approach. We apply the procedures to Mycobacterium bovis (bovine tuberculosis) prevalence in bison (Bison bison) in Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada, and demonstrate strong age dependency in the force of infection as well as an increased mortality hazard in positive animals.
Ecology↗
Africa’s drylands in a changing world: Challenges for wildlife conservation under climate and land-use changes in the Greater Etosha Landscape
Proclaimed in 1907, Etosha National Park in northern Namibia is an iconic dryland system with a rich history of wildlife conservation and research. A recent research symposium on wildlife conservation in the Greater Etosha Landscape (GEL) highlighted increased concern of how intensification of global change will affect wildlife conservation based on participant responses to a questionnaire. The GEL includes Etosha and surrounding areas, the latter divided by a veterinary fence into large, private farms to the south and communal areas of residential and farming land to the north. Here, we leverage our knowledge of this ecosystem to provide insight into the broader challenges facing wildlife conservation in this vulnerable dryland environment. We first look backward, summarizing the history of wildlife conservation and research trends in the GEL based on a literature review, providing a broad-scale understanding of the socioecological processes that drive dryland system dynamics. We then look forward, focusing on eight key areas of challenge and opportunity for this ecosystem: climate change, water availability and quality, vegetation and fire management, adaptability of wildlife populations, disease risk, human-wildlife conflict, wildlife crime, and human dimensions of wildlife conservation. Using this model system, we summarize key lessons and identify critical threats highlighting future research needs to support wildlife management. Research in the GEL has followed a trajectory seen elsewhere reflecting an increase in complexity and integration across biological scales over time. Yet, despite these trends, a gap exists between the scope of recent research efforts and the needs of wildlife conservation to adapt to climate and land-use changes. Given the complex nature of climate change, in addition to locally existing system stressors, a framework of forward-thinking adaptive management to address these challenges, supported by integrative and multidisciplinary research could be beneficial. One critical area for growth is to better integrate research and wildlife management across land-use types. Such efforts have the potential to support wildlife conservation efforts and human development goals, while building resilience against the impacts of climate change. While our conclusions reflect the specifics of the GEL ecosystem, they have direct relevance for other African dryland systems impacted by global change.
Africa, Greater Etosha Landscape↗
Evaluating noninvasive methods for estimating cestode prevalence in a wild carnivore population
Helminth infections are cryptic and can be difficult to study in wildlife species. Helminth research in wildlife hosts has historically required invasive animal handling and necropsy, while results from noninvasive parasite research, like scat analysis, may not be possible at the helminth species or individual host levels. To increase the utility of noninvasive sampling, individual hosts can be identified by applying molecular methods. This allows for longitudinal sampling of known hosts and can be paired with individual-level covariates. Here we evaluate a combination of methods and existing long-term monitoring data to identify patterns of cestode infections in gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Our goals were: (1) Identify the species and apparent prevalence of cestodes infecting Yellowstone wolves; (2) Assess the relationships between wolf biological and social characteristics and cestode infections; (3) Examine how wolf samples were affected by environmental conditions with respect to the success of individual genotyping. We collected over 200 wolf scats from 2018–2020 and conducted laboratory analyses including individual wolf genotyping, sex identification, cestode identification, and fecal glucocorticoid measurements. Wolf genotyping success rate was 45%, which was higher in the winter but decreased with higher precipitation and as more time elapsed between scat deposit and collection. One cestode species was detected in 28% of all fecal samples, and 38% of known individuals. The most common infection was Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato (primarily E . canadensis ). Adult wolves had 4x greater odds of having a cestode infection than pups, as well as wolves sampled in the winter. Our methods provide an alternative approach to estimate cestode prevalence and to linking parasites to known individuals in a wild host system, but may be most useful when employed in existing study systems and when field collections are designed to minimize the time between fecal deposition and collection.
PLoS ONE↗
Why is environmental contaminant research done by wildlife management agencies?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Na↗
Tactical planning in fish and wildlife management and research
No abstract available.
Resource Publication↗
Where the wild things are: A research agenda for studying wildlife-wilderness relationship
We explore the connection between US designated wilderness areas and wildlife with the goal of establishing a research agenda for better understanding this complex relationship. Our research agenda has two components. The first, “wildlife for wilderness,” considers the impact of wildlife on wilderness character. Whereas studies show that wildlife is important in both the perception and actual enhancement of wilderness character, the context and particulars of this relationship have not been evaluated. For instance, is knowing that a rare, native species is present in a wilderness area enough to increase perceptions of naturalness (an important wilderness quality)? Or does the public need to observe the species or its sign (e.g., tracks) for this benefit? The second part of our research agenda, “wilderness for wildlife,” considers the types of research needed to understand the impact of wilderness areas on wildlife and biodiversity conservation. Several studies show the effect of one area being designated wilderness on one wildlife species. Yet, there has been no research that examines how the networks of wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) are used by a species or a community of species. Furthermore, we found no studies that focused on how the NWPS affects ecological or trophic interactions among species. We hope that by providing a research agenda, we can spur multiple lines of research on the topic of wildlife and wilderness.
Journal of Forestry↗
Vegetation sampling and management
What is the utility of vegetation measurements for wildlife managers? In the prairie, savanna, tundra, forest, steppe, and wetland regions of the world, mixtures of plant species provide wildlife with food, cover and, in some circumstances, water; the 3 essential habitat elements necessary to sustain viable wildlife populations. We define habitat in reference to use of a vegetation type by an animal (e.g., deer habitat) and vegetation type when referring to differences in vegetation stands (e.g., marsh vegetation type versus tall grass prairie vegetation type; Hall et al. 1997). In strict definition, the variety of wildlife using plants ranges from snails and voles (Microtus spp.) to bison (Bison bison) and elephants (Loxodonta spp.) in uplands and from mosquitoes and ducks to muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) and manatees (Trichechus manatus) in wetlands. Through evolutionary processes, some wildlife species are totally dependent on vegetation for all annual life requirements, whereas other species use vegetation only for cover or food. Regardless of the role of vegetation in the sustenance of wildlife, any management or research project that requires evaluation of wildlife and vegetation type relationships on a unit of land will necessitate some form of vegetation measurement. The term vegetation can refer to a single plant or species on a specific site or a community in the landscape. Vegetation may occur naturally or be introduced, and may be live or dead. Uses of vegetation measurements are many: (1) evaluation of vegetation response to management practices, (2) estimation of carrying capacity and/or forage production, (3) characterization of cover and habitat components for an endangered species, or (4) long-term monitoring of the general trend of plant vigor or vegetation type condition. Surveying and measuring quantity and quality of vegetation within habitats are basic to wildlife research and management. Grassland, shrubland, and woodland vegetation types are comprised of populations in which individual plants are usually too numerous to inventory completely. Consequently, wildlife biologists usually use sampling techniques to make inferences about the total plant population within a given vegetation type. Vegetation sampling methodologies have evolved within several ecological disciplines (e.g., plant ecology, forestry, rangeland science) and for a variety of management or research objectives (e.g., estimating forage for ungulates, describing habitat use by passerine birds). Description of every method that has been used to sample vegetation is beyond the scope of this chapter. We describe how to measure vegetation structure, which Dansereau (1957) defined as the spatial organization (distribution) of individuals that form a stand. We have organized this chapter into a description of basic methods of vegetation sampling with examples of how those methods have been applied or modified in wildlife research and management. We assume the investigator/reader has adequate knowledge of the concepts of wildlife ecology, primary habitat requirements of wildlife species under study, and ability to systematically identify the species of wildlife and vascular plants within the geographical area of investigation.
Book chapter↗
Retrospective analysis of the epidemiologic literature, 1990–2015, on wildlife-associated diseases from the Republic of Korea
To assess the status of research on wildlife diseases in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and to identify trends, knowledge gaps, and directions for future research, we reviewed epidemiologic publications on wildlife-associated diseases in the ROK. We identified a relatively small but rapidly increasing body of literature. The majority of publications were focused on public or livestock health and relatively few addressed wildlife health. Most studies that focused on human and livestock health were cross-sectional whereas wildlife health studies were mostly case reports. Fifteen diseases notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health were identified and 21 diseases were identified as notifiable to either the Korean Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs or the Korean Ministry of Agriculture. Two diseases were reported as occurring as epidemics; highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and virulent Newcastle disease. Six diseases or disease agents were described in the literature as emerging including HPAI, rabies, Babesia microti , avian coronaviruses, scrub typhus, and severe fever thrombocytopenia syndrome virus. The diseases for which there were the largest number of publications were HPAI and rabies. The majority of wildlife-associated zoonotic disease publications focused on food-borne parasitic infections or rodent-associated diseases. Several publications focused on the potential of wildlife as reservoirs of livestock diseases; in particular, water deer ( Hydropotes inermis ) and wild boar ( Sus scrofa ). In contrast, there were few publications on diseases of concern for wildlife populations or research to understand the impacts of these diseases for wildlife management. Increased focus on prospective studies would enhance understanding of disease dynamics in wildlife populations. For the high-consequence diseases that impact multiple sectors, a One Health approach, with coordination among the public health, agricultural, and environmental sectors, would be important. This type of review can provide useful information for countries or regions planning or implementing national wildlife health programs.
Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
Coastal mapping programs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Research Center
Over the past 10 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wetlands Research Center (center; formerly the National Coastal Ecosystems Team) has been continuously involved in the production of maps for use by coastal decision makers. The types of maps produced by the center have been national, regional, or local in scope depending on user needs. Map scales have ranged from 1:24,000 to 1:250,000. Themes depicted have included biological resources, including wetlands and seagrasses; upland habitat or land use; water resources such as water quality, bathymetry, and salinity; cultural features such as ownership, archaeological sites, and dredge-spoil disposal areas; and soils and landforms. We present overviews on the various mapping programs of the center. We highlight efforts such as the ecological inventories of the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts; the ecological characterization atlases of the Gulf of Mexico; and the large scale (1:24,000) habitat maps of various coastal regions of the United States. Center methods and techniques are discussed, including the collaborative efforts between the center and FWS's National Wetlands Inventory for updating wetland maps and adding upland and seagrass bed delineations to inventory maps. We also make recommendations for future coastal ecosystem mapping programs that use conventional and automated mapping methodologies, such as geographic information systems and image processing.
Biological Report↗
Survival of translocated sharp-tailed grouse: Temporal threshold and age effects
Context: The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse ( Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) is a subspecies of conservation concern in the western United States, currently occupying ≤10% of its historic range. Land and management agencies are employing translocation techniques to restore Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (CSTG) populations. However, establishing self-sustaining populations by translocating grouse often is unsuccessful, owing, in part, to low survivorship of translocated grouse following release. Aims: We measured and modelled patterns of CSTG mortality for 150 days following translocation into historic range, to better understand patterns and causes of success or failure in conservation efforts to re-establish grouse populations. Methods: We conducted two independent multi-year translocations and evaluated individual and temporal factors associated with CSTG survival up to 150 days following their release. Both translocations were reintroduction attempts in Nevada, USA, to establish viable populations of CSTG into their historic range. Key results: We observed a clear temporal threshold in survival probability, with CSTG mortality substantially higher during the first 50 days following release than during the subsequent 100 days. Additionally, translocated yearling grouse exhibited higher overall survival (0.669 ± 0.062) than did adults (0.420 ± 0.052) across the 150-day period and higher survival than adults both before and after the 50-day temporal threshold. Conclusions: Translocated CSTG are especially vulnerable to mortality for 50 days following release, whereas translocated yearling grouse are more resistant to mortality than are adult grouse. On the basis of the likelihood of survival, yearling CSTG are better candidates for population restoration through translocation than are adult grouse. Implications: Management actions that ameliorate mortality factors for 50 days following translocation and translocations that employ yearling grouse will increase the likelihood of population establishment.
Idaho, Nevada↗
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Pesticide-Wildlife Review: 1959
Research findings of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, State agencies and independent research workers in Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., La., Mass., Mich., Mont., N. Dak., Tex., and Wis. are summarized in this report together with recommendations for reducing damage from pest control operations. Major topics discussed are: Scope of Pesticide-Wildlife Problem; Effects on Wildlife-General; Laboratory Studies and Toxicology; Direct and Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Wildlife; Recent Pesticide Legislation; Value of Wildlife; and Recommendations for Safeguarding Wildlife Values during Pest Control. To avoid undue hazards to wildlife, applications must not exceed the toxicity equivalent of the following concentrations of DDT to the respective forms of wildlife: 0.1 pounds of DDT/acre for crustaceans; 0.2 for fish; 1.0 for amphibians; 2.0 for reptiles and birds; and 5.0 for most mammals. Other suggestions are: 1) Chemical treatment should be used only when entomological research has proved it to be necessary; 2) Before pesticides are used, the effects on different kinds of animals and on animals living in different habitats should be known and carefully considered; 3) Only minimum quantities of chemicals necessary to achieve adequate control of pests should be applied; 4) Pesticides should not be applied to areas that are any larger than is necessary and the chemicals that are used should be the ones whose effects are no more long-lasting than necessary; 5) Whenever possible, chemicals should be applied at the seasons of the year when wildlife damage will be least; 6) Conscientious effort should be made to be sure that pesticides are applied at no more than the intended rates and that no areas receive double doses. Alternates to chemical control are suggested. Among these are biological control, modified agricultural practices, destruction of insect wintering quarters, and the manipulation of water levels.
Circular↗