Search USGS⌕ Search

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2019–20 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal years 2019–20 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

North Dakota↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2021–23 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal years 2021–23 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

Circular↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program had an interesting and challenging year in 2018. We made significant strategic advances on many fronts and had setbacks in others. Our relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency we belonged to from 1935 to the mid-1990s, was further reinforced through strategic efforts with the Service’s Science Applications senior staff. This is bearing fruit in terms of research collaborations and funding support. As part of a larger effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area and the Service’s endangered species program, we are also collaborating to address science needs for species in pre-listing status. Barry Grand, Unit Supervisor (South), has been instrumental in this effort. Tom Edwards of the Utah Unit has met with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to promote training of leaders and “hands dirty” biologists in species distribution modeling. The Association passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the training at their midyear meeting in March. Tom held a workshop at the annual meeting of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in September, and future workshops, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be held bringing State agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists together to work on species of common concern. Wyoming Unit Leader Matt Kauffman’s pioneering work in identifying and mapping big-game migration corridors has captured the attention of conservationists far and wide. In the spring, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order No. 3362, "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors" directing efforts of several U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to collaborate with States in identifying and protecting big-game corridors in 11 States. Matt has conducted several workshops that directly support the Secretarial order, and more are planned. Corridor mapping efforts supported by the USGS and the DOI, based in the States and coordinated by Matt, are unfolding. Unit Administrative Officer Shana Coulby and her staff hosted a training program for university support staff at USGS National Headquarters in March. Shana’s team did a superb job, and the camaraderie among all was evident. We co-sponsored the third in a series of workshops at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March on bridging the gap between science and management. The State Department requested that we coordinate a workshop that would bring CRU scientists and other U.S. representatives together with Brazilian, Colombian, and Peruvian scientists and decision makers to develop best practices to minimize environmental damage from infrastructure development in the Amazon and to collaborate on science needs. The workshop was held in Iquitos, Peru, in the heart of the Amazon during August. Our cooperator community, represented by the National Cooperators Coalition, was very active in response to the President’s budget proposal that would have redirected funding for the CRU program to other priorities. Their efforts are reflected in the House and Senate marks on the fiscal year 2019 budget that not only restored funding, but recommended increases. You will see in this report many other accomplishments of our individual scientists and students during 2018. It was an impressive and productive year! What you won’t see chronicled is the work of the CRU headquarters staff and University support staff. These folks are extraordinary in their dedication to working with cooperators and scientists to solve problems and ensure the important work gets accomplished with minimal interference. We are truly fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated folks in the trenches. I was fortunate to visit several units during 2018. For me, this is the most enriching part of my duties. I get to see firsthand the work our scientists do, the incredible students being mentored, and meet our cooperators on their turf. As we look forward towards the horizon, 2019 looks brighter for the CRU program. Efforts by our cooperators to generate support for filling our vacancies are materializing. Our cadre of scientists is second to none, and the breadth and depth of our work are nothing short of impressive. Thanks to all who are part of this cooperative endeavor—conservation is the ultimate winner in our efforts!

Circular↗
USGS2017

The history of Patuxent: America’s wildlife research story

This report, based on a symposium held on October 13, 2011, at the National Wildlife Visitor Center at the Patuxent Research Refuge in Laurel, MD, documents the history of the Patuxent Research Refuge and the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, collectively known as Patuxent. The symposium was one of the many activities occurring at that time to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the creation of the Patuxent Research Refuge in 1936. The Patuxent Wildlife Research Center is located at the refuge, and the research center director, Dr. Gregory J. Smith, with great enthusiasm, personally supervised all aspects of the celebration. The symposium was coordinated by Dr. Matthew C. Perry, the editor of this report, with Dr. Smith’s strong support. The refuge and the research center have been essentially synonymous for the almost 80 years of their history.

Circular↗
USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗
USGS2019

U.S. Geological Survey energy and wildlife research annual report for 2019 postcard

This postcard provides details about the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Energy and Wildlife Research Annual Report for 2019, which highlights new research on the interactions of energy development with wildlife. Encompassing investigations of conventional and renewable energy development across the United States, from the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska to the balmy waters of Florida, the report features progress made by USGS scientists and partners in developing methods to minimize the impacts of energy infrastructure on wildlife. The report is available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1458 .

General Information Product↗
USGS1997

Whooping crane mortality at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 1982-95

Whooping cranes (Grus americana) have been reared at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center since 1966. During 1982-95 there were 103 mortalities caused by infectious and parasitic diseases (46%), trauma (21%), anatomic abnormalities (17%), miscellaneous conditions (12%), and open or no diagnoses (5%). The implications that disease may have on new whooping crane flocks in Florida and Canada are discussed, based on these mortality factors in captivity.

Book chapter↗
USGS2025

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2023 Year-in-Review

Introduction Established in 1935, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, host universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, USGS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and to produce trained wildlife management professionals, the program has grown from the original nine wildlife-only Units to a program that, as of 2024, includes 43 Units located on university campuses in 41 States.

Circular↗
USGS2001

Natural fertility in whooping cranes and Mississippi sandhill cranes at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

The first fertile whooping crane (Grus americana; WC) egg produced through natural breeding at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Patuxent) was laid in 1991. Prior to that time, all fertile whooping crane eggs were the result of artificial insemination. Since 1991, eight different whooping crane pairs at Patuxent have produced fertile eggs through natural breeding. Mean fertility averages over years for each pair range from 40% to 93%. Fertility rates for each pair also vary greatly between years, from 0% to 100% but the causes of the variance are unknown. Experiences with natural fertility in Mississippi sandhill cranes (G. canadensis pulla; MSC) have been similar. Annual natural fertility rates averaged from 21% to 89% and fertility averages for each of 7 pairs also varied greatly between years. Rearing methods have not determined success in natural breeding for either species. Both hand-reared and parent-reared pairs have been fertile. Wing condition, however, has been an important factor affecting natural fertility. Becausce artificial insemination (AI) generally results in higher fertility rates than natural breeding, Al should continue for some pairs.

Book chapter↗
USGS2025

Two-stage models improve machine learning classifiers in wildlife research: A case study in identifying false positive detections of Ruffed Grouse

Autonomous recording units are increasingly being used to monitor wildlife on large geographic and temporal scales, paired with machine learning (ML) to automate detection of wildlife. However, false positive detections from ML classifiers can result in erroneous ecological models that can lead to misguided management and conservation actions. We used a two-stage general approach to understand and reduce false positive detections, a technique in which outputs of the primary classification model are passed to a secondary classification model to yield the probability that a detection from the primary model is a true positive detection. This approach is demonstrated on two open-source models that detect Ruffed Grouse ( Bonasa umbellus ). We analyzed over 9500 h of acoustic data collected in 2022–2023 from the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont, USA, and found the two models detected different types of acoustic signals associated with differing life history traits. The first model yielded 4106 detections (71.5 % true positives) while the second model yielded 524 detections (17.0 % true positives). Secondary logistic regression models separated true positives and false positives with high accuracy (84.5 % and 89.8 % respectively). Our findings go beyond improving Ruffed Grouse monitoring and conservation efforts to, more broadly, illustrate how two-stage ML approaches can improve the use of model-derived detections in wildlife research.

Vermont↗
USGS1981

Captive propagation of bald eagles at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and introductions into the wild, 1976-80

One to 5 pairs of the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) were in the captive propagation project at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center during 1976-80. Four pairs produced viable eggs or young by natural mating in one or more years. Pairs laid second clutches 9 of 11 times when their first clutches were collected within 8 days of clutch completion. Sixty-nine percent of fertile artificially incubated eggs hatched; 93% of fertile parent-incubated eggs hatched. Eleven eaglets from artificially incubated eggs were hand reared. Age of birds at the time they were acquired from the wild was not a factor in their reproductive success. Ten hand-reared and 2 parent-reared young were fostered to adult Bald Eagles at active wild nests; 11 were accepted and survived. Eleven parent-reared young were provided to hacking projects. Egg transplants to wild nests were conducted, but discontinued because of poor success. Double clutching of captive pairs has not resulted in substantially increased numbers of eaglets. Additional research is needed in artificial incubation, artificial insemination, and nutrition and care of hand-reared eaglets.

Raptor Research↗
USGS2020

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2019 year in review

Acting Chief’s Message Dear Cooperators: Members of the Cooperative Research Units are pleased to provide you with the “2019 Year in Review” report for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs). You will first note that this report looks a little different than those published in the past few years, as we opted for a shorter, more concise format this year. Inside you will find brief descriptions of just a few highlighted activities of unit scientists, students, and cooperators in support of our joint mission. Because of the shorter format, we are not able to include activities from every unit or State, but rest assured that we continue to value the great work that all of you do across the country and around the world. In fiscal year 2019, the CRU program was very productive despite challenging conditions, including budget uncertainty, a month-long furlough, and hiring delays. John Organ, Chief of the CRU program, retired in January 2019. The process to replace John was delayed several times, but as I write this, the position has been announced on the Federal Government recruitment site. I am hopeful that by the time you read this, we will have a new permanent chief. Congress provided an increase of $1 million in our allocation for the express purpose of filling some of the vacancies in our scientific workforce. Since receiving that increase, the management team has been working to fill vacancies. The program is fortunate to have excellent research scientists, dedicated leadership, and an outstanding administrative staff. However, our accomplishments depend on the tremendous support from all of you. We look forward to a productive 2020. John D. Thompson

Circular↗
USGS2022

Evaluating the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to bats in the context of wildlife research, rehabilitation, and control

Preventing wildlife disease outbreaks is a priority for natural resource agencies, and management decisions can be urgent, especially in epidemic circumstances. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, wildlife agencies were concerned whether the activities they authorize might increase the risk of viral transmission from humans to North American bats, but had a limited amount of time in which to make decisions. We describe how decision analysis provides a powerful framework to analyze and reanalyze complex natural resource management problems as knowledge evolves. Coupled with expert judgment and avenues for the rapid release of information, risk assessment can provide timely scientific information for evolving decisions. In April 2020, the first rapid risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to North American bats. Based on the best available information and relying heavily on expert judgment, the risk assessment found a small possibility of transmission during summer work activities. Following that assessment, additional knowledge and data emerged, such as bat viral challenge studies, that further elucidated the risks of human-to-bat transmission and culminated in a second risk assessment in the fall of 2020. We updated the first SARS-CoV-2 risk assessment with new management alternatives and new estimates of little brown bat ( Myotis lucifugus ) susceptibility, using findings from the fall 2020 assessment and other empirical studies. We found that new knowledge led to an 88% decrease in the median number of bats estimated to be infected per 1,000 encountered when compared to earlier results. The use of facemasks during, or a negative COVID-19 test or vaccination prior to, bat encounters further reduced those risks. Using a combination of decision analysis, expert judgment, rapid risk assessment, and efficient modes of information distribution, we provided timely science-based support to decision makers for summer bat work in North America.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2002

Of bugs and birds: Markov Chain Monte Carlo for hierarchical modeling in wildlife research

Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) is a statistical innovation that allows researchers to fit far more complex models to data than is feasible using conventional methods. Despite its widespread use in a variety of scientific fields, MCMC appears to be underutilized in wildlife applications. This may be due to a misconception that MCMC requires the adoption of a subjective Bayesian analysis, or perhaps simply to its lack of familiarity among wildlife researchers. We introduce the basic ideas of MCMC and software BUGS (Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling), stressing that a simple and satisfactory intuition for MCMC does not require extraordinary mathematical sophistication. We illustrate the use of MCMC with an analysis of the association between latent factors governing individual heterogeneity in breeding and survival rates of kittiwakes ( Rissa tridactyla ). We conclude with a discussion of the importance of individual heterogeneity for understanding population dynamics and designing management plans.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS1966

Nesting of hooded mergansers of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland

The first known record of Hooded Mergansers ( Lophodytes cucullatus ) nesting on the coastal plain of Maryland was in 1961, when Mr. Francis Uhler (pers. comm) found two clutches in Wood Duck nest boxes in impoundments at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, about five miles southeast of Laurel, Maryland. R.E. Stewart and C.S. Robbins (“Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia,” N. Amer. Fauna no. 62, 1958; see p. 102) reported two records of broods for Maryland, one for the Piedmont and one for the mountains.

Maryland↗