Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlife Review”

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
USGS2010

Use of wildlife webcams - Literature review and annotated bibliography

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center requested a literature review product that would serve as a resource to natural resource professionals interested in using webcams to connect people with nature. The literature review focused on the effects on the public of viewing wildlife through webcams and on information regarding installation and use of webcams. We searched the peer reviewed, published literature for three topics: wildlife cameras, virtual tourism, and technological nature. Very few publications directly addressed the effect of viewing wildlife webcams. The review of information on installation and use of cameras yielded information about many aspects of the use of remote photography, but not much specifically regarding webcams. Aspects of wildlife camera use covered in the literature review include: camera options, image retrieval, system maintenance and monitoring, time to assemble, power source, light source, camera mount, frequency of image recording, consequences for animals, and equipment security. Webcam technology is relatively new and more publication regarding the use of the technology is needed. Future research should specifically study the effect that viewing wildlife through webcams has on the viewers' conservation attitudes, behaviors, and sense of connectedness to nature.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

Transboundary pollution: Persistent organochlorine pesticides in migrant birds of the Southwestern United States and Mexico

The hypothesis that migratory birds accumulate persistent organochlorine pesticides (POPs) during the winter in Latin America has been prevalent for many years, particularly since 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2–bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT) was banned in the United States in 1972. It has been suggested that peregrine falcons ( Falco peregrinus ), black-crowned night herons ( Nycticorax nycticorax ), white-faced ibises ( Plegadis chihi ), various migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, and other avian species accumulate higher concentrations of POPs while on migration or on their wintering grounds in Latin America. Nonetheless, the data obtained thus far are limited, and there is no clear pattern to suggest that such accumulation occurs on a widespread basis. In this review wildlife contaminant studies conducted along the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout Mexico are discussed. The results for the most part seem to indicate that no major accumulation of 2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dichloroethylene) (DDE), the most persistent organochlorine compound, has occurred or been reported for most parts of Mexico. The majority of the DDE values in birds from Mexico were similar to those reported in birds from the southwestern United States during the same years. More work needs to be done, particularly in those cotton-producing areas of Mexico where DDT was applied heavily in the past (e.g., Chiapas and Michoacan). Because DDT is still used for malaria control and may still be used in agriculture in Chiapas, this state is probably the one where most migrant species would still be at a significant risk of increased accumulation of DDE and DDT.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry↗
USGS2014

Ecological consequences of mountain pine beetle outbreaks for wildlife in western North American forests

Mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) (MPB) outbreaks are increasingly prevalent in western North America, causing considerable ecological change in pine ( Pinus spp.) forests with important implications for wildlife. We reviewed studies examining wildlife responses to MPB outbreaks and postoutbreak salvage logging to inform forest management and guide future research. Our review included 16 studies describing MPB outbreak relationships with 89 bird species and 6 studies describing relationships with 11 mammalian species, but no studies of reptiles or amphibians. We included studies that compared wildlife response metrics temporally (before versus after the outbreak) and spatially (across sites that varied in severity of outbreak) in relation to beetle outbreaks. Outbreaks ranged in size from 20,600 to ≥10 7 ha and studies occurred 1‐30 years after the peak MPB outbreak, but most studies were conducted over the short-term (i.e., ≤6 years after the peak of MPB-induced tree mortality). Birds were the only taxa studied frequently; however, high variability existed among those studies to allow many inferences, although some patterns were evident. Avian studies concluded that cavity-nesting species responded more favorably to beetle-killed forests than species with open-cup nests, and species nesting in the shrub layer favored outbreak forests compared with ground and open-cup canopy nesters that generally showed mixed relationships. Bark-drilling species as a group clearly demonstrated a positive short-term association with MPB epidemics compared with that of other foraging assemblages. Cavity-nesting birds that do not consume bark beetles (i.e., secondary cavity-nesting species and nonbark-drilling woodpeckers) also exhibited some positive responses to MPB outbreaks, although not as pronounced or consistent as those of bark-drilling woodpeckers. Mammalian responses to MPB outbreaks were mixed. Studies consistently reported negative effects of MPB outbreaks on red squirrels ( Tamiasciurus hudsonicus ). However, there is evidence that red squirrels can persist after an outbreak under some conditions, e.g., when nonhost tree species are present. For small mammal species associated with forest understories, responses may be most pronounced during the postepidemic period (>6 years after the peak of beetle-induced tree mortality) when snags fall to produce coarse woody debris. Postoutbreak salvage logging studies ( n = 6) reported results that lacked consensus. Postoutbreak salvage logging may have an impact on fewer wildlife species than postfire salvage logging, probably because only host-specific tree species are removed after beetle outbreaks.

Forest Science↗
USGS2016

Book review: Foundations of wildlife diseases

A new textbook for practitioners and students of wildlife disease is available. Rick Botzler and Richard Brown have provided an excellent addition to the wildlife disease literature with Foundations of Wildlife Diseases . It has been 8 years since the last major wildlife disease book ( Wobeser 2006 ), and over 40 years since the first major wildlife disease compilation ( Page 1975 ), an edited summary of the 3rd International Wildlife Disease meeting in Munich, Germany. Many people interested in wildlife diseases have waited eagerly for this book, and they will not be disappointed. Book information: Foundations of Wildlife Diseases. By Richard G. Botzler and Richard N. Brown. University of California Press, Oakland, California, USA. 2014. 429 pp., viii preface material. ISBN: 9780520276093.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
USGS2007

Overview of developmental, reproductive, and behavioral/ neurological effects of mercury exposures in wildlife

We review wildlife/mercury literature and our own research findings that demonstrate the relevance of wildlife toxicity data in protecting human health. Methylmercury affects wildlife through reduced adult survival and reproduction, aberrant behavior, immune system effects, and teratogenic effects. Methylmercury can readily cross the blood-brain barrier, is excreted into eggs in birds, and is transferred to young mammals across the placenta and in milk. Its principal effect on wildlife is on neurological functions. Wild mink (Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis) have died from methylmercury poisoning, with signs of poisoning including anorexia, loss of weight, incoordination, tremors, and convulsions, which are symptoms similar to those experienced by mercury-poisoned humans. Mammals also may experience tonic and clonic convulsions and an increase in fetal anomalies, again paralleling toxic problems in people. Antibody-producing cells can be suppressed by methylmercury. Microscopically, the most notable lesions are in the cerebrum. Extensive vacuolation of hepatocytes in the liver and necrosis and other changes in the appearance of the proximal convoluted tubules of the kidneys are often noted. When harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) were dosed with methylmercury chloride the number of circulating erythrocytes decreased and white blood cell counts greatly increased. The poisoned seals also suffered from uremia, hyperproteinemia, hypercholesterolemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and elevations in lactic dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase. In birds, signs of methylmercury poisoning included emaciation and weakness in the extremities, which progressed until the birds died. Mercury poisoning in birds and mammals can be diagnosed from a combination of the signs of poisoning if the animal is still alive, the pathological effects seen in a gross necropsy, the histopathological effects seen with a microscope, and the concentrations of mercury in various tissues. Our studies with mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) suggest that the dietary concentrations of mercury that cause toxicity are lower than those set in fish consumption advisories to protect humans. Because wild mammals and birds are so sensitive to methylmercury poisoning and cannot escape dietary exposure the way humans can, guidelines set to protect wild birds and mammals may very well provide a margin of safety for human health.

Book chapter↗
USGS2017

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

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 Year in Review postcard This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program—2016 Year in Review, Circular 1424. This Circular provides information relating to fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, background on the CRU program, accolades, and professional services. Snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators are included. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with our research projects at www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗
USGS1989

Molybdenum Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

Ecological and toxicological aspects of molybdenum (Mo) in the environment are briefly reviewed, with emphasis on fish and wildlife. Subtopics include sources and uses, chemical properties, mode of action, background concentrations in biological and nonbiological samples, and lethal and sublethal effects on terrestrial plants and invertebrates, aquatic organisms, birds, and mammals. Current recommendations for Mo and the protection of sensitive living resources are presented.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS1987

Community models for wildlife impact assessment: a review of concepts and approaches

The first two sections of this paper are concerned with defining and bounding communities, and describing those attributes of the community that are quantifiable and suitable for wildlife impact assessment purposes. Prior to the development or use of a community model, it is important to have a clear understanding of the concept of a community and a knowledge of the types of community attributes that can serve as outputs for the development of models. Clearly defined, unambiguous model outputs are essential for three reasons: (1) to ensure that the measured community attributes relate to the wildlife resource objectives of the study; (2) to allow testing of the outputs in experimental studies, to determine accuracy, and to allow for improvements based on such testing; and (3) to enable others to clearly understand the community attribute that has been measured. The third section of this paper described input variables that may be used to predict various community attributes. These input variables do not include direct measures of wildlife populations. Most impact assessments involve projects that result in drastic changes in habitat, such as changes in land use, vegetation, or available area. Therefore, the model input variables described in this section deal primarily with habitat related features. Several existing community models are described in the fourth section of this paper. A general description of each model is provided, including the nature of the input variables and the model output. The logic and assumptions of each model are discussed, along with data requirements needed to use the model. The fifth section provides guidance on the selection and development of community models. Identification of the community attribute that is of concern will determine the type of model most suitable for a particular application. This section provides guidelines on selected an existing model, as well as a discussion of the major steps to be followed in modifying an existing model or developing a new model. Considerations associated with the use of community models with the Habitat Evaluation Procedures are also discussed. The final section of the paper summarizes major findings of interest to field biologists and provides recommendations concerning the implementation of selected concepts in wildlife community analyses.

Report↗
USGS1997

The effects of pollutants on wildlife

In this chapter, selected sources of information which address the effects of pollutants on wildlife are reviewed. Although naturally occurring plant and animal toxins also affect wildlife, the focus of this review is xenobiotic toxicants. Xenobiotic substances are chemicals introduced into the environment in the form of pesticides, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other by-products of human activities. The science of examining the effects of these substances on animal and plant life is multi-disciplinary in nature and contributors to the literature in this field include toxicologists, wildlife and aquatic ecologists, chemists and those in the veterinary and medical professions.

Book chapter↗
USGS1959

Effects on fish and wildlife of chemical treatments of large areas

Summary: The history of field investigations of the effects of DDT on wildlife is reviewed briefly, from the initial studies in 1945 through the more recent studies of the effects of the large-scale programs for spruce-budworm control and gypsy-moth eradication. DDT dosages and procedures that are recommended for protection of wildlife are reviewed. Effects of aldrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene are discussed in connection with the grasshopper and Mormon cricket control programs. Delayed and indirect effects of chemical treatments are emphasized as an important current problem. Cited in this connection are fish losses in the Yellowstone and Miramichi rivers and losses of wildlife from eating earthworms a year after treatment of the area with DDT. Currently recommended procedures to safeguard wildlife in pesticidal programs are listed.

Journal of Forestry↗
USGS2018

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program was involved in a number of notable events during 2017, many concerning our personnel. Dr. Barry Grand left his position as Leader of the Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to become the Cooperative Units Program Supervisor for the South, replacing Dr. Kevin Whalen who took over as Supervisor for the West. We welcomed Dr. Sarah Converse who left the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to become Leader of the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Dr. Amanda Rosenberger joined the Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit as Assistant Leader, transferring from the Missouri Cooperative Unit. Dr. Scott Carleton left his position as Assistant Unit Leader in New Mexico to become Chief of the Region 2 Migratory Bird Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We said farewell to many colleagues who retired. Their departure is bittersweet as we wish them health, happiness, and wellness in retirement. We will miss their companionship and the extraordinary contributions they have made to the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program and conservation. The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program has a record high number of vacant scientist positions due to a combination of retirements and base funding short-falls. These issues are affecting our ability to meet cooperator needs. Yet, we remain highly productive. For example, this year we released a report ( https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1427 ) containing abstracts of nearly 600 of our research projects, covering thematic areas ranging from advanced technologies to wildlife diseases. We provided highly competent, trained scientists and natural resource managers for our cooperators’ workforce. We delivered technical training and guidance to professional practitioners. We provided critical information to cooperators for decisions on species status assessments and management of species of greatest conservation need. This year we had an active presence at major national meetings, including the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference where we co-sponsored a workshop on continuing education as a means to bridge the gap between science and management. During the coming year, with support from the U.S. Geological Survey and our cooperators, we intend to reduce the number of vacancies in the program. It will take time and active support of our cooperators to get back to full strength, but I am committed to this goal and encouraged by the resolve of our partners. We look forward to an even more productive year in 2018!

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↗