Assessing animal condition, nutrition, and stress from urine in snow: A critical view and response
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
SEARCH · Search USGS
Results for “Wildlife Views”
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.
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↗
Transforming the Rockies: Human forces, settlement patterns, and ecosystem effects
The current ecological condition of the Rocky Mountains can be viewed from two somewhat opposing perspectives. The first is that human occupation has had relatively little effect on the Rockies: large natural, if not pristine, areas remain, and the region's open spaces provide wildlife habitat, majestic scenery, and a sense of wildness. Unlike the situation in, say, the Swiss Alps, where even high-elevation meadows have been mown and grazed intensively for as long as 500 years and many large mammals have been extirpated, most elements of Rocky Mountain landscapes and biota are reasonably unaltered. Even the presumption that Native Americans changed regional landscapes with deliberately set fires has been challenged by Baker and Ehle (2001) and others who think that most fires were lightning-caused or accidental ignitions. The second view is that humans have dramatically transformed the Rockies, at least since Euro-American settlement in the mid- to late 1800s. The slaughter of vast buffalo herds, the clearing of timber for railroad ties, and even the removal of whole hillsides in hydraulic placer mining represented substantial transformation. Ranch, resort, and residential development marks the latest incarnation of this transformation. Numerous, complex layers of land use have left landscape legacies, some of which may be unrecognized or underappreciated in modern assessments (Wohl 2001). Here we consider both perspectives because we are impressed with both the many effects of human use of the Rockies and the region's remaining wild landscapes. Ironically, much of the recent population growth and development in the Rockies is driven by the region's wild landscapes, which make the present widespread transformation seem all the more significant. It is, of course, the rapid clip of current human transformation—high population growth rates, pervasive rural residential development, and landscape fragmentation (Baron, Theobald, and Fagre 2000)—that worries ecologists and others concerned with Rocky Mountain ecosystems. So although we offer an overview of historical changes in the Rockies, especially since the 1800s, much of our attention here is on land uses, economies, and settlement patterns since the 1970s and on their future trends.
Book chapter↗
The insignificance of statistical significance testing
Despite their use in scientific journals such as The Journal of Wildlife Management , statistical hypothesis tests add very little value to the products of research. Indeed, they frequently confuse the interpretation of data. This paper describes how statistical hypothesis tests are often viewed, and then contrasts that interpretation with the correct one. I discuss the arbitrariness of P-values, conclusions that the null hypothesis is true, power analysis, and distinctions between statistical and biological significance. Statistical hypothesis testing, in which the null hypothesis about the properties of a population is almost always known a priori to be false, is contrasted with scientific hypothesis testing, which examines a credible null hypothesis about phenomena in nature. More meaningful alternatives are briefly outlined, including estimation and confidence intervals for determining the importance of factors, decision theory for guiding actions in the face of uncertainty, and Bayesian approaches to hypothesis testing and other statistical practices.
Journal of Wildlife Management↗
Value of migratory bird recreation at the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico
Each fall, thousands of Rocky Mountain Sandhill Cranes and other migratory birds congregate at the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico’s Rio Grande Valley in search of wintering habitat. As such, this refuge is known as one of the premier destinations for bird viewing and photography in the United States. Using contingent valuation data, this case study quantifies the value associated with migratory bird recreation at this refuge to be \$7.5 million in 2010. It is estimated that this annual value increased by more than \$6.4 million in 2017 due to growth in annual refuge visitation.
New Mexico↗
Temporal variation in survival and recovery rates of lesser scaup
Management of lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) has been hindered by access to reliable data on population trajectories and vital rates. We conducted a Bayesian analysis of historical (1951–2011) band-recovery data throughout North America to estimate annual survival and recovery rates for juvenile and adult male and female lesser scaup to determine if increasing harvest or declining survival rates have contributed to population changes and to determine if harvest has been primarily additive or compensatory. Annual recovery rates were low, ranging from 1% to 4% for adults and 2% to 10% for juveniles during most years, with trend models indicating that recovery rates have declined through time for all age–sex classes. Annual survival (mid-Aug to mid-Aug) averaged 0.402 (σ ̂ 0.043) for juvenile males, 0.416 (σ ̂ 0.067) for juvenile females, 0.689 (σ ̂ 0.109) for adult males, and 0.602 (σ ̂ 0.115) for adult females, where σ ̂ represents an estimate of annual process variation in each survival rate. Annual survival rates exhibited no evidence of long-term declines or negative correlations with annual recovery rates (i.e., an index of harvest intensity) for any age–sex class, suggesting that declining fecundity was the most likely explanation for population declines during 1975–2005. We conclude that hunting mortality played a minor role in affecting population dynamics of lesser scaup and waterfowl managers could take a less cautious approach in managing harvest, especially if recruiting or maintaining waterfowl hunters are viewed as important management objectives.
Journal of Wildlife Management↗
Truth, models, model sets, AIC, and multimodel inference: a Bayesian perspective
Statistical inference begins with viewing data as realizations of stochastic processes. Mathematical models provide partial descriptions of these processes; inference is the process of using the data to obtain a more complete description of the stochastic processes. Wildlife and ecological scientists have become increasingly concerned with the conditional nature of model-based inference: what if the model is wrong? Over the last 2 decades, Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) has been widely and increasingly used in wildlife statistics for 2 related purposes, first for model choice and second to quantify model uncertainty. We argue that for the second of these purposes, the Bayesian paradigm provides the natural framework for describing uncertainty associated with model choice and provides the most easily communicated basis for model weighting. Moreover, Bayesian arguments provide the sole justification for interpreting model weights (including AIC weights) as coherent (mathematically self consistent) model probabilities. This interpretation requires treating the model as an exact description of the data-generating mechanism. We discuss the implications of this assumption, and conclude that more emphasis is needed on model checking to provide confidence in the quality of inference.
Journal of Wildlife Management↗
Changing landscapes and the cosmopolitism of the eastern Colorado avifauna
The avifauna of continental North America has changed dramatically since colonial times. Excessive hunting contributed, at least in part, to the extinction of birds such as the great auk ( Pinguinus impennis ) and passenger pigeon ( Ectopistes migratorius ), while more recently organochlorine insecticide residues have resulted in drastic reductions in numbers of brown pelicans ( Pelecanus occidentalis ) (Anderson et al. 1975) and other species. Generally, however, vertebrate populations change in direct response to changes in their habitats. For example, herring gulls ( Larus argentatus ) have increased in numners (Kadlec and Drury 1968) with urbanization of the New England coastline, in the same locations formerly occupied by the extinct heath hen ( Tympanuchus cupido cupido ). Also, passerine birds of forest interiors have declined in numbers with fragmentation of the eastern deciduous forest into small stands; this fragmentation has led to increases in numbers of edge species (Robbins 1979, Ambuel and Temple 1983). Even subtle community shifts can introduce new competitive processes that can augment population changes among species (Brittingham and Temple 1983). Such studies of broad-scale changes in vegetative communities and their influence on native wildlife species have fostered the recent topical emphasis on "conservation biology" (Soule and Wilcox 1980, Soule 1985) and "landscape ecology" (Burgess and Sharpe 1981, Harris 1984:25-43). As changes in landscapes are causing subtle (but potentially dramatic) changes in the distribution of native species, conservation biologists are finding that mere presence-absence data on populations, or even accurate information on reproductive success, is inadequate to evaluate management activities or environmental perturbations. The principles of "conservation genetics" are attracting interest in the management of natural preserves especially (Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983). Changing patterns in landscape complexion or genetic makeup of a population are difficult to detect locally. Contemporary issues in the conservation of native species demand regional and continental perspectives (Samson and Knopf 1982). Thus, management activities at specific sites are often viewed as short-sighted by planners and conservation critics. This paper illustrates how these contemporary theories can influence a local conservation perspective. That perspective is developed around historical processes that have led to cosmopolitism of the local avifauna on the Colorado Division of Wildlife's South Platte Wildlife Management Area (SPWMA) near Crook, Colorado.
Colorado↗
Challenges and solutions for applying the travel cost demand model to geographically remote visitor destinations: A case study of bear viewing at Katmai National Park and Preserve
Remote and unique destinations present difficulties when attempting to construct traditional travel cost models to value recreation demand. The biggest limitation comes from the lack of variation in the dependent variable, defined as the number of trips taken over a set time frame. There are various approaches that can be used for overcoming limitations of the traditional travel cost model in the context of remote destinations. This study applies an adaptation of the standard model to estimate recreation benefits of bear viewing at Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska, which represents a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many visitors. Results demonstrate that visitors to this park’s Brooks Camp area are willing to pay an average of US$287 per day of bear viewing. Implications of these findings for valuing recreation at other remote destinations are discussed.
Alaska↗
Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota
Depredation by wolves (Canis lupus) on cattle, sheep, and other livestock in Minnesota currently is a minor problem except to a few individual farmers. Indices to the seriousness of the problem are available only from recent years, so historical trends cannot be detected. From 1976 through 1980 the number of farms in the wolf range suffering verified losses to wolves ranged from 9 to 19 (mean of x = 13) per year out of about 12,230. From 1977 through 1980, the highest cattle losses claimed by farmers were 0.45 per 1,000 cattle available in 1979; the highest sheep losses claimed were 1.18 per 1,000 available in 1980. Many claims of losses (especially of calves) are based on missing animals, and few wolves are involved in the verified losses. Most losses occur in summer when livestock are released to graze in open and wooded pasture. Herd management practices, such as calving in forested or brushy pastures and disposal of carcasses in or near pastures, are responsible for many instances of wolf depredation. Failure to distinguish wolves from coyotes (Canis latrans) has contributed to an exaggerated view of the importance of wolves as livestock predators. Recently the number of wolves killed in depredation control has declined, whereas the number of livestock killed has remained fairly stable. Results of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's depredation- control program in 1979 and 1980 suggest that highly restricted trapping, coupled with other management methods, has potential for reducing both livestock losses and the number of wolves that need to be killed.
Resource Publication↗
The gap between experts, farmers and non-farmers on perceived environmental vulnerability and the influence of values and beliefs
Science has played a mixed role in guiding conservation and sustainability-oriented decision-making by individuals, policymakers, institutions, and governments. Not all science-based conservation and sustainability initiatives that address issues facing humanity and ecosystems and global problems have gained public support. Conservation decisions and policy prescriptions are and may be based on perceptions about and experiences with the environment, local land use, and ecosystems that may not align with or be grounded in science or evidence from experts in the field. Values, beliefs, and perceptions associated with nature play a critical role in how individuals view biodiversity conservation, sustainability, and natural resource management . This study first examines the gap between experts (scientists and other field experts) and the public (farmers and non-farmers) about the state of water and land resources, wildlife and associated habitats, and aquatic biodiversity in the Smoky Hill River Watershed in western Kansas. Second, the study examines the role that values and beliefs play in shaping environmental perceptions for farmers and non-farmers. Analysis confirms that a gap between experts and farmers/non-farmers does exist, especially with respect to the state of the Ogallala Aquifer, playas, rivers and streams, lakes and reservoirs, native grasslands, wildlife habitats, farmland, native fish populations, and wildlife species. Ordered-logistic regression analyses, meanwhile, indicate that farmer and non-farmer perceptions about the state of the local environment are influenced by traditional and self-interested values, as well as environmental values and beliefs, but less so by religiosity and political ideology. Despite broad takeaways, results exhibited heterogeneity across the farmer and non-farmer subpopulations. If environmental professionals cannot align ecological data, stakeholders’ values/perceptions, and policies, then the existing body of technical research and management on sustainability in natural and social sciences may be of little value.
Journal of Environmental Management↗
Preliminary United States-Mexico border watershed analysis, twin cities area of Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora
The United States - Mexico border area faces the challenge of integrating aspects of its binational physical boundaries to form a unified or, at least, compatible natural resource management plan. Specified geospatial components such as stream drainages, mineral occurrences, vegetation, wildlife, and land-use can be analyzed in terms of their overlapping impacts upon one another. Watersheds have been utilized as a basic unit in resource analysis because they contain components that are interrelated and can be viewed as a single interactive ecological system. In developing and analyzing critical regional natural resource databases, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and non-governmental agencies have adopted a ?watershed by watershed? approach to dealing with such complicated issues as ecosystem health, natural resource use, urban growth, and pollutant transport within hydrologic systems. These watersheds can facilitate the delineation of both large scale and locally important hydrologic systems and urban management parameters necessary for sustainable, diversified land-use. The twin border cities area of Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona, provide the ideal setting to demonstrate the utility and application of a complete, cross-border, geographic information systems (GIS) based, watershed analysis in the characterization of a wide range of natural resource as well as urban features and their interactions. In addition to the delineation of a unified, cross-border watershed, the database contains sewer/water line locations and status, well locations, geology, hydrology, topography, soils, geomorphology, and vegetation data, as well as remotely sensed imagery. This report is preliminary and part of an ongoing project to develop a GIS database that will be widely accessible to the general public, researchers, and the local land management community with a broad range of application and utility.
Arizona, Sonora↗
Using role analysis to plan for stakeholder involvement: a Wyoming case study
Prior to implementing laws and policies regulating water, wildlife, wetlands, endangered species, and recreation, natural resource managers often solicit public input. Concomitantly, managers are continually seeking more effective ways to involve stakeholders. In the autumn of 1999, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department sought to develop a state management plan for its portion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population if it was removed from the federal threatened species list. A key aspect of developing this plan was the involvement of federal, state, and local agencies, representatives from nongovernmental organizations, and citizens. Wyoming wildlife managers asked researchers from the United States Geological Survey to demonstrate how the Legal-Institutional Analysis Model could be used to initiate this process. To address these needs, we conducted similar workshops for a group of state and federal managers or staffers and a broad group of stakeholders. Although we found similarities among the workshop groups, we also recorded differences in perspective between stakeholder groups. The managers group acknowledged the importance of varied stakeholders but viewed the grizzly bear planning process as one centered on state interests, influenced by state policies, and amenable to negotiation. The other workshops identified many stakeholders and viewed the decision process as diffuse, with many opportunities for entry into the process. These latter groups were less certain about the chance for a successful negotiation. We concluded that if these assumptions and differences were not reconciled, the public involvement effort was not likely to succeed.
Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
Effectiveness of Brucella abortus Strain 19 single calfhood vaccination in elk (Cervus elaphus)
Brucellosis in Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) bison and elk has been a source of controversy and focus of the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC) for years. Brucellosis has been eradicated from cattle in the 3 states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho and all three states currently are classified as “brucellosis free” with regard to livestock. Yet free-ranging elk that attend feedgrounds in the GYA, and bison in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, still have high seroprevalence to the disease and are viewed as a threat to the state-federal cooperative national brucellosis eradication program. Recently, cattle in eastern Idaho were found infected with brucellosis and transmission was apparently from fed elk. The GYIBC, formed of state and federal agencies involved in wildlife and livestock management in the 3 states, has committed to eventual elimination of the disease from wildlife. Management tools to control or eliminate the disease are limited; however, wildlife vaccination is one of the methods currently employed. Effective wildlife vaccination depends on dose efficacy, deliverability, and safety to non-targeted species. We commenced a single-dose efficacy study of vaccine Brucella abortus strain 19 (S19) in elk in 1999.
Wyoming↗
Public views of wetlands and waterfowl conservation in the United States—Results of a survey to inform the 2018 update of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Executive Summary This report provides information from a general public survey conducted in early 2017 to help inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 2018 update. This report is intended for use by the NAWMP advisory committees and anyone interested in the human dimensions of wetlands and waterfowl management. A mail-out survey was sent to 5,000 addresses in the United States, which were selected randomly in proportion to the population of each State. A total of 1,030 completed surveys representing 49 States were returned, resulting in a 23 percent overall response rate. When comparing the demographics of the respondents to the U.S. census data, this sample overrepresented people who are male, older, highly educated, and white. Data were weighted on gender and age to make the results more representative of the overall U.S. population. Additionally, this sample had higher participation rates in all wildlife-related recreation activities than has been found in previous studies; this indicates there may have been selection bias, with people interested in nature-related topics more likely to complete the survey. Therefore, results likely represent a segment of the U.S. public that is more oriented toward and aware of wildlife and conservation issues than the general public as a whole. Because of this bias, responses for each question were also broken down by recreationist type (hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers, and no wildlife-related recreation). Additionally, responses for each question were split by administrative flyway (Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, Pacific) and residency (urban, urban cluster, rural) to better understand the different groups. Most respondents knew of wetlands in their local area or community, and more than half had visited wetlands in the previous 12 months. Of those who had visited wetlands, the most common reasons were for walking/hiking/biking and enjoying nature/picnicking. In addition, this sample was very concerned about the reduction or loss of ecosystem services resulting from wetlands degradation or loss. A majority of respondents were somewhat or very concerned about 9 out of 10 wetlands benefits, with hunting opportunities being the only benefit the majority of people were not concerned about. People were the most concerned about clean water, clean air, and providing a home for wildlife. In contrast, people were least concerned about hunting opportunities and wetlands providing scenic places for inspiration or spiritual renewal. Communication about wetlands that focuses on habitat, clean air, and clean water may resonate with the widest variety of people. However, if communication is targeted toward wildlife-related recreationists, including more information about the recreation benefits of wetlands and emphasizing habitat benefits may be the most effective. Many people reported having participated in conservation behaviors in the last year. The most popular activity was making the yard more desirable to wildlife, with more than three-fourths of respondents participating, followed by donating money to support wildlife/habitat conservation and talking to others in their community about conservation issues. There was lower participation in conservation behavior specifically related to wetlands and waterfowl, with two-fifths of respondents voting for candidates or ballot issues to support wetlands/waterfowl conservation and one-third advocating for political action to conserve wetlands/waterfowl. In order to better understand how to reach out to the public on nature-related topics, preferences in information channels and trust in information sources were explored. Respondents were mostly likely to want to receive their information through personal experience, by reading or accessing online content, and through watching visual media online. People were least likely to want to receive information through listening to recorded audio media, attending educational opportunities, and listening to live audio media. These results emphasize the importance of having content available online in an easily accessible and appealing format. Visual media in particular seems to be preferred across a wide variety of people. Additionally, people had the highest trust in scientific organizations, universities/educational organizations, and friends/family/neighbors/colleagues. The least trusted sources were national media/news, religious organizations, and local media/news. Urban respondents had higher trust levels overall, particularly for the government. Hunters and those in rural areas had lower levels of trust in the government but higher trust in family/friends. In this sample, few respondents reported hunting waterfowl (5 percent) or hunting other game (16 percent) in the last year. Additionally, few respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to hunt waterfowl in the following 12 months. Even after considering that self-selection bias would make it more likely for hunters to respond to the survey, the relatively small number of respondents who identified as hunters reinforces that engagement of other wildlife-related recreationists is critical to meeting the third goal of the NAWMP 2012 revision—to increase numbers of wetlands/waterfowl conservationists. Many people also had negative perceptions of hunting. Half of the respondents stated that hunting would be unpleasant, and two-fifths believed hunting would be boring. In contrast, people had more favorable attitudes toward birdwatching, with only one-sixth saying it would be unpleasant and less than one-third saying it would be boring. A majority of respondents thought they could easily go hunting or birdwatching in the following 12 months. Overall, people had much more positive views toward birdwatching and expressed fewer barriers to participating in it. When asked what would prevent them from hunting, the most frequently stated reasons were moral opposition, no interest, personal health, and time constraints; for birdwatching, the most popular responses were nothing, no interest, and time constraints. These responses indicate it may be beneficial to move beyond hunting and find ways for other groups, such as birdwatchers, to play a more active role in conservation. Although not many people hunted and many people tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting, over three-fourths of people said they knew a hunter. Given that wildlife viewers, those who did not participate in wildlife-related recreation, and urban residents tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting and (or) were not interested in participating, attempting to recruit them to participate in hunting may not be effective. However, given how many people across all groups knew a hunter and the relatively high levels of trust people had in their friends/family, hunters may be effective ambassadors for promoting waterfowl and wetlands conservation among nonhunters. Additionally, because people had less preference for viewing waterfowl and other game birds compared to their preference for seeing hummingbirds and birds of prey, conservation efforts that extend beyond waterfowl and include other species that benefit from wetlands may have more appeal to a broader range of people.
Open-File Report↗
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↗
Observations of elk movement patterns on Fossil Butte National Monument
The elk herd that frequents Fossil Butte National Monument, a subset of the West Green River elk population, provides visitors with seasonal opportunities to view an iconic species of the western United States. Throughout the year, these elk range across a variety of private, State, and Federal lands within close proximity to the Monument. These lands are managed differently for various uses which can create challenging wildlife-management issues and influence the herd’s seasonal movements and distribution. Research lead by the USGS investigates some of the factors associated with these seasonal changes.
Wyoming↗
Wildlife associates of nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) burrows in Arkansas
The Nine-banded Armadillo ( Dasypus novemcinctus ) is a widespread burrowing species with an expanding geographic range across the southeastern and midwestern United States. Armadillos dig numerous, large burrows within their home ranges and these burrows are likely used by a diverse suite of wildlife species as has been reported for other burrowing ecosystem engineers such as Gopher Tortoises ( Gopherus polyphemus ), Desert Tortoises ( Gopherus agassizi ), and Black-tailed Prairie Dogs ( Cynomys ludovicianus ). We used motion-triggered game cameras at 35 armadillo burrows in 4 ecoregions of Arkansas and documented 19 species of mammals, 4 species of reptile, 1 species of amphibian, and 40 species of bird interacting with burrows. Bobcat ( Lynx rufus ), Coyote ( Canis latrans ), Eastern Cottontail ( Sylvilagus floridanus ), Gray Fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), Gray Squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis ), Northern Raccoon ( Procyon lotor ), Virginia Opossum ( Didelphis virginiana ), and unidentified rodents (mice and rats) were documented using burrows in all four ecoregions. We documented wildlife hunting, seeking shelter, rearing young in, and taking over and modifying armadillo burrows. The rate of use was highest in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, a landscape dominated by agriculture, where natural refugia may be limited and rodents are abundant. Armadillo burrows are clearly visited and used by numerous wildlife species to fulfill various life stage requirements, and this list will likely expand if more attention is devoted to understanding the role of armadillos burrows. Armadillos are important ecosystem engineers, and their ecological role warrants more investigation and attention as opposed to only being viewed and managed as agricultural and garden pests.
Arkansas↗