Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Molecular Biology Reports”

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.

38 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2020

Book review: Proceedings of the First International Snakehead Symposium

Snakehead fishes (family Channidae) are among the most maligned aquatic invasive species in the USA and some other countries where they have been introduced outside of their native range in Asia and Africa. Nevertheless, snakeheads continue to be widely exploited in the live‐food trade in aquaculture and wild‐capture fisheries, are highly sought by anglers, and are also popular in the aquarium trade (Courtenay and Williams 2004). The Northern Snakehead Channa argus is the most widespread of the three channid species that are currently naturalized in the USA. This species has generated much concern and controversy, a situation that is partly fueled by sensational media coverage and B‐grade science fiction horror films, such as “Frankenfish,” “Snakehead Terror,” and “Snakehead Swamp.” Media reports of snakehead introductions are often replete with provocative terms, such as “vicious,” “villain,” “voracious,” “monster,” “diabolical,” and even “ecological Armageddon.” When snakeheads first appeared in natural waters of the USA, fisheries professionals became increasingly interested in their status. Established populations rapidly expanded in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas, with scattered reports of introduced snakeheads from isolated locations in Hawaii, California, North Carolina, Florida, the Upper Midwest, and New England. In 2002, snakeheads were added to the list of injurious fishes under the Lacey Act, thereby prohibiting their importation or transport across state lines without a permit. This symposium was conceived by the editors and other concerned fisheries professionals of the Mississippi River Basin Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species. The mission of the symposium, held in Alexandria, Virginia, in July 2018, was to bring together experts on snakehead biology and ecology and to synthesize existing information into summary papers. In this book, 35 authors contributed to 15 peer‐reviewed articles that detail the current state of knowledge about snakehead introductions in the USA. Additionally, 16 abstracts are included from meeting presentations that were not accompanied by full‐length manuscripts. Also included is a summary of a facilitated symposium panel discussion featuring eight experts representing state and federal natural resource agencies and private fishing organizations. The book is organized into six sections. In the first section (Distribution), three papers provide an overview of the Channa species introduced into the USA and historical accounts of occurrence and dispersal of the Northern Snakehead in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas. The second section (Biology/Ecology) consists of two articles that examine growth and energetics of Northern Snakehead populations and two papers that investigate diet, diel feeding activity, and movement of this species in the Potomac River drainage. The third section (Monitoring/Response) includes a paper that models range expansion of the Northern Snakehead in the southeastern USA based on occurrence data and environmental conditions. Also included in this section is a paper summarizing an environmental DNA study to assess the status and range of the Bullseye Snakehead C. marulius in southern Florida. The fourth section (Management/Control) is comprised of four papers that address harvest, age and growth, and development of a stock–recruitment model to inform management decisions regarding control and mitigation for Northern Snakehead populations in the greater Chesapeake Bay area. The fifth section (Perspectives) includes a paper on the history of snakehead introductions in Japan and a thought‐provoking social commentary on the human dimensions of Northern Snakehead management. Abstracts in the final section provide brief summaries of a diversity of snakehead studies, including aspects of distribution, ecology, behavior, control and monitoring efforts, public outreach, and pathology. The summary of the panel discussion is an engaging dialogue about the challenges of snakehead management in the context of conflicts regarding snakeheads as injurious versus their value as game and food species. Most of this book is focused on the Northern Snakehead. Much has been done to document snakehead distributions and certain aspects of snakehead biology, such as diets, age, and growth. Less research has been devoted to understanding the ecological impacts of snakeheads to native aquatic communities and ecosystems. This book would have benefited from a chapter summarizing the current systematics and diversity of the Channidae to inform fisheries biologists about the morphological characteristics of the family, approximate numbers of genera and species, and taxonomic instability. Exemplifying the latter, recent molecular and morphological evidence indicates uncertainty regarding identification of the feral snakehead population in Florida (Adamson and Britz 2019). Those authors suggest that this population may have originated from western Thailand, a possibility that could have implications for understanding historical pathways of snakehead introductions into the USA. In comparison with many published AFS symposia, this volume is relatively narrow in scope and lacks cohesive integration. It will primarily be of interest to those fisheries professionals engaged in the study of snakeheads as well as other nonnative species for which there are contrasting social values regarding their management: whether to monitor and attempt control or eradication efforts or to maintain populations for harvest as game or food species. The book should serve to identify information gaps and guide future research.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society↗
USGS2004

Abundance estimation and conservation biology

Abundance is the state variable of interest in most population–level ecological research and in most programs involving management and conservation of animal populations. Abundance is the single parameter of interest in capture–recapture models for closed populations (e.g., Darroch, 1958; Otis et al., 1978; Chao, 2001). The initial capture–recapture models developed for partially (Darroch, 1959) and completely (Jolly, 1965; Seber, 1965) open populations represented efforts to relax the restrictive assumption of population closure for the purpose of estimating abundance. Subsequent emphases in capture–recapture work were on survival rate estimation in the 1970’s and 1980’s (e.g., Burnham et al., 1987; Lebreton et al.,1992), and on movement estimation in the 1990’s (Brownie et al., 1993; Schwarz et al., 1993). However, from the mid–1990’s until the present time, capture–recapture investigators have expressed a renewed interest in abundance and related parameters (Pradel, 1996; Schwarz & Arnason, 1996; Schwarz, 2001). The focus of this session was abundance, and presentations covered topics ranging from estimation of abundance and rate of change in abundance, to inferences about the demographic processes underlying changes in abundance, to occupancy as a surrogate of abundance. The plenary paper by Link & Barker (2004) is provocative and very interesting, and it contains a number of important messages and suggestions. Link & Barker (2004) emphasize that the increasing complexity of capture–recapture models has resulted in large numbers of parameters and that a challenge to ecologists is to extract ecological signals from this complexity. They offer hierarchical models as a natural approach to inference in which traditional parameters are viewed as realizations of stochastic processes. These processes are governed by hyperparameters, and the inferential approach focuses on these hyperparameters. Link & Barker (2004) also suggest that our attention should be focused on relationships between demographic processes such as survival and recruitment, the two quantities responsible for changes in abundance, rather than simply on the magnitudes of these quantities. They describe a type of Jolly–Seber capture–recapture model that permits inference about the underlying relationship between per capita recruitment rates and survival rates (Link & Barker, this volume). Implementation used Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods and appeared to work well, yielding inferences about the relationship between recruitment and survival that were robust to selection of prior distribution. We believe that readers will find their arguments compelling, and we expect to see increased use of hierarchical modeling approaches in capture–recapture and related fields. Otto (presentation without paper) also recommended use of hierarchical models in analysis of multiple data sources dealing with population dynamics of North American mallards. He integrated survival inferences from ringing data, abundance information from aerial survey data, and recruitment information based on age ratios from a harvest survey. He used a Leslie matrix population projection model as an integrating framework and obtained estimates of breeding population size using all data.Otto’s approach also permitted inference about biases in estimated quantities. As with the work of Link & Barker (2004), we find Otto’s recommendation to use hierarchical models to integrate data from multiple sources to be very compelling. Alisauskas et al. (2004) report results of an analysis of capture–recapture data for a askatchewan population of white–winged scoters. They used the approach of Pradel (1996) to estimate population growth rate (See the PDF) directly. Estimates for 1975–1985 were quite low, but estimates for the recent period, 2000–2003,increased to values > 1. Parameter estimates for seniority, survival and per capita recruitment (Pradel, 1996) led to the inference that increased recruitment was largely responsible for the improvements in population status and growth. However, various data sources also indicated that this increase in recruitment was likely a result of increased immigration rather than improved reproduction on the area. This latter inference is important from a conservation perspective in indicating the importance of birds in other locations to growth and health of the study population. Lukacs and Burnham presented material to be published elsewhere that dealt with the use of genetic markers in capture–recapture studies. The data sources for such studies are samples of hair or feces, which are then analyzed using molecular genetic techniques in order to determine individual genotypes with respect to a usually small number of loci. Two types of classification error can arise in such analyses. First, if only a small number of loci is examined, then there may be nonnegligible probabilities that multiple individual animals will have the same genotypes. The second type of error arises during the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process and can result from failure of alleles to amplify (allelic dropout) or from PCR inhibitors in hair and feces that produce the appearance of false alleles or misprinting (Creel et al., 2003). Lukacs and Burnham developed models that formally incorporate possible misclassification of samples resulting from these errors. These models permit estimation of parameters such as abundance and survival in a manner that properly incorporates this uncertainty of individual identity. We anticipate that noninvasive sampling based on molecular genetic analyses of hair or feces will become extremely important for some species, and that the models of Lukacs and Burnham will become very popular for such analyses. MacKenzie & Nichols (2004) discuss the use of occupancy (proportion of patches or habitat area that is occupied) as a surrogate for abundance. In cases of territorial species and where birds occur at low densities, the number of occupied patches may provide a reasonable estimate of abundance. In other cases, occupancy can be viewed as providing information about one tail of the abundance distribution, P (N = 0). The motivation for considering occupancy as a surrogate for abundance is that occupancy is based on so–called presence–absence surveys that are frequently less expensive of time and effort than methods that estimate abundance directly. We describe one set of models that can be used to estimate occupancy for a single season and another that can be used to estimate parameters such as local probabilities of extinction and colonization that are associated with occupancy dynamics. We outline a possible hybrid approach that combines occupancy data with data on marked individuals in order to betterexplore the mechanisms underlying occupancy dynamics. These five presentations made for an interesting session containing useful information and recommendations for future work. A number of themes connecting these presentations could be emphasized. For example, two of the presentations considered alternatives to standard capture–recapture sampling that can be used to draw inferences about abundance, or a portion of the abundance distribution, with field methods that should be less expensive than usual capture–recapture approaches of handling animals. We believe that the most important theme of the session was the emphasis on the processes responsible for changes in abundance. In particular, we are excited by the potential for using hierarchical models as a means of investigating relationships among vital rates and as a means of combining multiple sources of data relevant to system dynamics. Indeed, we expect the importance of this session theme to be reflected in the content and presentations of the next EURING meeting.

Animal Biodiversity and Conservation↗