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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2019

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

Access to affordable and reliable energy remains a critical need for people and the economy. To satisfy society’s demand for energy, the United States is expanding access to vast natural resources to produce electricity as well as petroleum and natural gas products. Development of our Nation’s energy resources, however, often conflicts directly with the equally vast fish and wildlife resources, which contribute billions of dollars to the economy through harvest, recreation, and services to humans and agriculture. The effects of energy development on living resources include fragmentation of populations, degradation or loss of habitat, and mortality of birds, bats, fish, and other wildlife interacting with energy generation facilities. Thus, an expanding energy infrastructure results in new requirements for land and ocean conversion for project siting and operational decisions to minimize risk to fish and wildlife resources. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists partner with more than 150 Federal, State, and local government agencies; Tribal nations; academic institutions; and nongovernmental organizations to deliver timely and relevant information on pressing resource management issues. This report summarizes ongoing USGS research projects and publications related to the impacts of energy development on fish and wildlife resources, tools to assess those impacts, and solutions to avoid or minimize risk. This information helps decision makers balance development with stewardship of the Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage.

Circular↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey—Energy and wildlife research annual report for 2017

Introduction Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems provide valuable services to humans and are a source of clean water, energy, raw materials, and productive soils. The Nation’s food supply is more secure because of wildlife. For example, native pollinators enhance agricultural crops, and insect-eating bats provide pest control services worth billions of dollars to farmers annually. Fish and wildlife are also vital to a vibrant outdoor recreation and tourism industry. Recreational activities, such as hunting, shooting, boating, and angling, generated \$1.1 billion in excise taxes paid to State wildlife agencies in 2017. National parks, wildlife refuges, and monuments accounted for $35 billion in economic output and 318,000 jobs nationwide in 2016. Additional economic benefits are generated from the use and enjoyment of wildlife in State-owned lands and waters. Although the United States is rich in natural resources, human activity continues to place new pressures on fish and wildlife and the habitats they rely on. The United States became the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas products in 2012, surpassing Russia’s natural gas production levels in 2009 and Saudi Arabia’s petroleum production in 2013. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that the demand for liquid fuel, natural gas, and renewable energy will show strong growth in the next 20 years. Wind energy has demonstrated consistent growth since 2007 with now more than 53,000 wind turbines contributing to power grids in 41 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Solar energy has seen rapid growth since 2013 and made up nearly one-third of the total electricity generation additions in 2016. Yet as our Nation works to advance energy security and sustain wildlife, some conflicts have surfaced. Impacts of an expanding energy infrastructure include fragmentation and loss of habitat as well as mortality of birds, bats, fish, and other animals from interactions with energy generation facilities. Because energy development can often occur in wildlife habitats, ecological science can help guide project siting and operational decisions to areas that present the lowest risk to wildlife and energy developers. To address these challenges and make the most of new opportunities, the U.S. Geological Survey is producing innovative science to develop workable solutions that can help sustain wildlife and the habitat they rely upon, while allowing informed development.

Circular↗
USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey energy and wildlife research annual report for 2018

USGS scientists provide scientific information and options that land and resource managers and private industries can use to make decisions regarding the development of energy resources while protecting the health of ecosystems. Studies focus on delivering information to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts of energy infrastructure on fish and wildlife. USGS scientists are currently developing mapping tools and models that identify areas of biological strengths and weaknesses or high- and low-quality habitat and can identify opportunities for conservation—areas of high-quality habitat where energy-generating potential is low—and areas of potential risk—areas of high-quality habitat where energy-generating potential is high. These tools can assist resource managers and the industry concerning siting of energy development and selection of off-site mitigation areas. Scientific efforts, such as these, further the understanding of impacts related to energy development and create workable solutions. The three goals guiding USGS activities related to the interactions between wildlife and energy development are to understand risks by identifying when, where, and how fish and wildlife share space with energy facilities, measure direct and indirect impacts to species, and inform feasible and cost-effective solutions to minimize impacts through technological fixes, management, and mitigation.

Circular↗
USGS1997

Statistical power analysis in wildlife research

Statistical power analysis can be used to increase the efficiency of research efforts and to clarify research results. Power analysis is most valuable in the design or planning phases of research efforts. Such prospective (a priori) power analyses can be used to guide research design and to estimate the number of samples necessary to achieve a high probability of detecting biologically significant effects. Retrospective (a posteriori) power analysis has been advocated as a method to increase information about hypothesis tests that were not rejected. However, estimating power for tests of null hypotheses that were not rejected with the effect size observed in the study is incorrect; these power estimates will always be ≤ 0.50 when bias adjusted and have no relation to true power. Therefore, retrospective power estimates based on the observed effect size for hypothesis tests that were not rejected are misleading; retrospective power estimates are only meaningful when based on effect sizes other than the observed effect size, such as those effect sizes hypothesized to be biologically significant. Retrospective power analysis can be used effectively to estimate the number of samples or effect size that would have been necessary for a completed study to have rejected a specific null hypothesis. Simply presenting confidence intervals can provide additional information about null hypotheses that were not rejected, including information about the size of the true effect and whether or not there is adequate evidence to 'accept' a null hypothesis as true. We suggest that (1) statistical power analyses be routinely incorporated into research planning efforts to increase their efficiency, (2) confidence intervals be used in lieu of retrospective power analyses for null hypotheses that were not rejected to assess the likely size of the true effect, (3) minimum biologically significant effect sizes be used for all power analyses, and (4) if retrospective power estimates are to be reported, then the α -level, effect sizes, and sample sizes used in calculations must also be reported.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS1979

Canada geese of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center: family relationships, behavior and productivity

Geese described are non-migratory, free-flying Todd's Canada geese (Branta canadensis interior). The genealogy of 261 of these geese was traced by archival research and three years of field observations. Nest locations and densities, preferences for various types of artificial nest structures, clutch sizes, hatching success, brood survival to flight stage, and food habits were recorded. Resul ts indicate geese may:,pair as yearlings, but these bonds may be broken and re-formed before breeding. Pair bonding generally resulted in geese of similar ages remaining together until the death of one partner, although re-pairing, polygamy, and pairing between broodmates also occurred. The dominance hierarchy of related birds strongly influenced the position of 'outsiders' pairing with indigenous females. Dominant status passed not only from male to male, but, upon the death of the dominant male, in at least one instance, the surviving female retained dominant status. Gang broods were composed of progeny of the rearing pair, plus goslings relinquished by female offspring or siblings of the rearing pair. Among indentifiable geese, gang broods were reared by the dominant pair on each impoundment. Geese retained their family integrity both in flight and during the post-molt dispersion. Female and males paired with local females, nested in their natal areas. No significant relationship (P < 0.05) was found between clutch size and age of the female. Twelve-year productivity of the Patuxent geese appeared related to the reproductive success of a specific resident family. Collars, legbands, and telemetry were initially used to distinguish conspecifics. It was subsequently discovered that individual geese could be recognized by cheek-patch patterns, unusual plumage, or mannerisms. It is suggested that cheek-patch similarities in related Canada geese might be used to trace gene flow within flocks, and may be used for individual recognition by other Canada geese.

Book↗