SEARCH · Search USGS
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Wildlife can be an important source of transmission of infectious disease to humans. One potential transmission route involves hunting and fishing, both common activities in the United States and worldwide. For example, during 1996, approximately 11 million Americans, about 40 percent of the total population 16 years of age and older, took part in some recreational activity relating to wildlife and fish. Another potential route of infection focuses on urban and suburban environments. These locations are of special concern because of their increasing role as wildlife habitat, the greater interface between humans and wildlife that takes place within those environments, the paucity of knowledge about disease in those wildlife populations, and the general lack of orderly management for wildlife within those environments. In the wild, several trends are contributing to the growing importance of zoonotic diseases. First, the spectrum of infectious diseases affecting wildlife today is greater than at any time during the previous century. Second, the occurrence of infectious diseases has changed, from sporadic, self-limiting outbreaks that generally resulted in minor losses to frequently occurring events that generally result in major losses of wildlife. Third, disease emergence has occurred on a worldwide scale in a broad spectrum of wildlife species and habitats. Given the scope of the problem, current disease surveillance efforts are inadequate. Few state wildlife agencies allocate personnel and resources to address wildlife disease, despite their statutory responsibility for managing nonmigratory wildlife. Some state agencies provide minimal support for regional programs based at universities. At the federal level, the primary surveillance effort is conducted by the National Wildlife Health Center, operated by the U.S. Geological Survey. Outside of government, some veterinary schools, agriculture diagnostic laboratories, and other programs provide additional information on animal diseases, primarily by examining carcasses of dead wildlife submitted for analysis, and individual university-based researchers carry out a variety of studies. Typically, information about the occurrence of disease in free-ranging wildlife is derived from surveys and mortality events in areas where wildlife observations by agencies and the public are frequent enough to detect their occurrence before carcasses are removed by scavengers and predatory animals. The result is that disease occurrence is grossly underreported, heavily biased toward mortality events, and biased toward species of special concern and interest, such as game and endangered species. Therefore, the available information should be viewed as the “proverbial tip of the iceberg” relative to disease activity within wildlife populations.
Executive Summary Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an ecologically and economically important animal disease that can also directly affect humans (a “zoonotic” disease). HPAI was once limited almost exclusively to domestic poultry but has rapidly adapted to diverse animal hosts. Viruses causing HPAI now appear to be maintained and dispersed by wild birds largely independent of poultry, though HPAI continues to cause considerable economic losses and supply chain disruptions in the domestic poultry trade. Coincident with the adaptation of HPAI viruses to wild birds, particularly waterfowl and gulls, increasingly diverse wild bird hosts are becoming exposed to HPAI, often resulting in disease and death. More sporadically, HPAI has caused mass mortality events, particularly among seabirds. Furthermore, viral spillover to wild and domestic mammals has become more common. Spillover to wild mammals has resulted in mortality among diverse terrestrial and marine taxa, including episodic losses of such scale as to represent potential conservation challenges. Since approximately March 2024, HPAI has also affected dairy cows, which represents a new threat to the agricultural economy. Lastly, HPAI has increasingly affected humans through domestic animal exposures, exemplifying the considerable implications of this disease beyond animal health. Rapid changes in the ecology of HPAI are currently outpacing research efforts. For example, it is not entirely clear which newly established hosts may become reservoirs for HPAI viruses (in other words, capable of maintaining HPAI viruses within a broad population indefinitely) and how this may influence viral evolution and dissemination. As a result, there are considerable information gaps regarding HPAI in wildlife that, if filled, would improve the ability of scientists, managers, agricultural industry representatives, and healthcare professionals to understand and to anticipate the effects of HPAI on wild animal, domestic animal, environmental, and human health (“One Health”). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead Federal agency providing scientific research on avian influenza viruses (AIVs), including HPAI viruses, that affect wildlife for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has management authority. States have jurisdiction over wildlife on Federal lands within their borders (43 CFR § 24.3), so the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area (EMA) coordinates with State natural resource management agencies. The EMA focuses its research on HPAI through priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team ( app. 1 ). Priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team are based on Administration priorities, Congressional direction, and discussions with State, Federal, and Tribal natural resource management agencies that identify specific scientific gaps that need to be filled to inform sound wildlife management decisions. Notable non-DOI Federal partners include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the lead for the HPAI regulatory response in poultry and livestock, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the lead agency for the HPAI response pertaining to human health. The USGS offers unique expertise and capacity pertaining to research on diseases affecting free-ranging wildlife populations. This expertise has been critical to interjurisdictional surveillance and capacity-building efforts, including programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the CDC. The USGS also provides resources, guidance, and tools to inform surveillance and interventions conducted by natural resource management agencies. More specifically, the USGS EMA provides objective and rigorous scientific data for inferring (1) the utility of new methods to detect and characterize AIVs, including those maintained in wildlife and the environment; (2) effects of HPAI on wildlife; (3) spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife host and AIV dispersal; (4) the presence and persistence of AIVs in the environment; (5) how HPAI in wildlife influences consumptive and nonconsumptive utilization of wildlife; (6) how new tools and scientific methods may promote sound management decisions for HPAI-affected wildlife, particularly species of conservation concern; and (7) the combined effects of HPAI and other stressors on ecosystem health and resiliency. This science strategy builds upon research outlined in a previous USGS science strategy for HPAI (2016–20) by Harris and others (2016) . This strategy also details research priorities identified by the Administration (for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2025 ) and others based on USGS Avian Influenza Science Team discussions with natural resource management agencies to address HPAI and wildlife health over the next 5 years (2025–29). This strategy presents 7 goals and 26 objectives that focus USGS and partner efforts on priorities that will fill data gaps regarding the effects of HPAI on wildlife managed by or co-managed with the U.S. Department of the Interior such that agencies and partners might anticipate or limit adverse effects on public resources. This strategy also identifies research priorities intended to address HPAI in wildlife and wildlife habitat that are anticipated to support interjurisdictional One Health efforts.
Wildlife recreationists' participation in conservation behaviors could provide key support to the conservation efforts of state fish and wildlife agencies. However, little is known about how identifying with multiple forms of wildlife recreation (i.e., hunters, anglers, birders, wildlife viewers) may influence participation in conservation behaviors, specifically for supporting state fish and wildlife agencies and their conservation goals. Using a mixed-mode survey of Virginia wildlife recreationists, we explored the hypothesized relationship between individuals' participation in conservation behaviors and their identification with multiple forms of consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. We found wildlife recreation identity is multidimensional, with many individuals identifying with consumptive and nonconsumptive identities simultaneously. Further, consumptive-only recreationists (i.e., hunters and/or anglers) participated in conservation behaviors less often than nonconsumptive-only recreationists (i.e., birders and/or wildlife viewers) and recreationists with both consumptive and nonconsumptive identities were less likely to support a state fish and wildlife agency in the future. Our findings underscore the importance of all types of wildlife recreationists, especially those with intersecting identities, as state fish and wildlife agencies work to advance conservation. Hence, developing multi-faceted engagement strategies may enhance support for state fish and wildlife agencies among their growing wildlife recreation constituency.
Proclaimed in 1907, Etosha National Park in northern Namibia is an iconic dryland system with a rich history of wildlife conservation and research. A recent research symposium on wildlife conservation in the Greater Etosha Landscape (GEL) highlighted increased concern of how intensification of global change will affect wildlife conservation based on participant responses to a questionnaire. The GEL includes Etosha and surrounding areas, the latter divided by a veterinary fence into large, private farms to the south and communal areas of residential and farming land to the north. Here, we leverage our knowledge of this ecosystem to provide insight into the broader challenges facing wildlife conservation in this vulnerable dryland environment. We first look backward, summarizing the history of wildlife conservation and research trends in the GEL based on a literature review, providing a broad-scale understanding of the socioecological processes that drive dryland system dynamics. We then look forward, focusing on eight key areas of challenge and opportunity for this ecosystem: climate change, water availability and quality, vegetation and fire management, adaptability of wildlife populations, disease risk, human-wildlife conflict, wildlife crime, and human dimensions of wildlife conservation. Using this model system, we summarize key lessons and identify critical threats highlighting future research needs to support wildlife management. Research in the GEL has followed a trajectory seen elsewhere reflecting an increase in complexity and integration across biological scales over time. Yet, despite these trends, a gap exists between the scope of recent research efforts and the needs of wildlife conservation to adapt to climate and land-use changes. Given the complex nature of climate change, in addition to locally existing system stressors, a framework of forward-thinking adaptive management to address these challenges, supported by integrative and multidisciplinary research could be beneficial. One critical area for growth is to better integrate research and wildlife management across land-use types. Such efforts have the potential to support wildlife conservation efforts and human development goals, while building resilience against the impacts of climate change. While our conclusions reflect the specifics of the GEL ecosystem, they have direct relevance for other African dryland systems impacted by global change.
In 2000, the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) was organized as a global disease watchdog group to coordinate disease outbreak information and health crisis response. The World Health Organization (WHO) is the headquarters for this network. Understandably, the primary focus for WHO is human health. However, diseases such as the H5N1 avian influenza epizootic in Asian bird populations demonstrate the need for integrating knowledge about disease emergence in animals and in humans. Aside from human disease concerns, H5N1 avian influenza has major economic consequences for the poultry industry worldwide. Many other emerging diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), monkeypox, Ebola fever, and West Nile fever, also have an important wildlife component. Despite these wildlife associations, the true integration of the wildlife component in approaches towards disease emergence remains elusive. This separation between wildlife and other species’ interests is counterproductive because the emergence of zoonotic viruses and other pathogens maintained by wildlife reservoir hosts is poorly understood. This book is about the wildlife component of emerging diseases. It is intended to enhance the reader’s awareness of the role of wildlife in disease emergence. By doing so, perhaps a more holistic approach to disease prevention and control will emerge for the benefit of human, domestic animal, and free-ranging wildlife populations alike. The perspectives offered are influenced by more than four decades of my experiences as a wildlife disease practitioner. Although wildlife are victims to many of the same disease agents affecting humans and domestic animals, many aspects of disease in free-ranging wildlife require different approaches than those commonly applied to address disease in humans or domestic animals. Nevertheless, the broader community of disease investigators and health care professionals has largely pursued a separatist approach for human, domestic animal, and wildlife rather than embracing the periodically proposed concept of “one medicine.” We especially need to embrace this concept as the human population increases because there will be more contact, direct and indirect, among humans, domestic animals, and wildlife. An “Ecology for a Crowded Planet” will be an even more pressing concern, and that includes increasing our understanding of disease ecology, especially that of the zoonoses.
If current climate change trends continue, rising sea levels may inundate low-lying islands across the globe, placing island biodiversity at risk. Recent models predict a rise of approximately one meter (1 m) in global sea level by 2100, with larger increases possible in areas of the Pacific Ocean. Pacific Islands are unique ecosystems home to many endangered endemic plant and animal species. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), which extend 1,930 kilometers (km) beyond the main Hawaiian Islands, are a World Heritage Site and part of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. These NWHI support the largest tropical seabird rookery in the world, providing breeding habitat for 21 species of seabirds, 4 endemic land bird species and essential foraging, breeding, or haul-out habitat for other resident and migratory wildlife. In recent years, concern has grown about the increasing vulnerability of the NWHI and their wildlife populations to changing climatic patterns, particularly the uncertainty associated with potential impacts from global sea-level rise (SLR) and storms. In response to the need by managers to adapt future resource protection strategies to climate change variability and dynamic island ecosystems, we have synthesized and down scaled analyses for this important region. This report describes a 2-year study of a remote northwestern Pacific atoll ecosystem and identifies wildlife and habitat vulnerable to rising sea levels and changing climate conditions. A lack of high-resolution topographic data for low-lying islands of the NWHI had previously precluded an extensive quantitative model of the potential impacts of SLR on wildlife habitat. The first chapter (chapter 1) describes the vegetation and topography of 20 islands of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, the distribution and status of wildlife populations, and the predicted impacts for a range of SLR scenarios. Furthermore, this chapter explores the potential effects of SLR on wildlife breeding habitats for each island. The subsequent chapter (chapter 2) details a study of the Laysan Island ecosystem, describing a quantitative model that incorporates SLR, storm wave, and rising groundwater inundation. Wildlife, storm, and oceanographic data allowed for an assessment of the phenological and spatial vulnerability of Laysan Island's breeding bird species to SLR and storms. Using remote sensing and geospatial techniques, we estimated topography, classified vegetation, modeled SLR, and evaluated a range of climate change scenarios. On the basis of high-resolution airborne data collected during 2010-11 (root-mean-squared error = 0.05-0.18 m), we estimated the maximum elevation of 20 individual islands extending from Kure Atoll to French Frigate Shoals (range: 1.8-39.7 m) and computed the mean elevation (1.7 m, standard deviation 1.1 m) across all low-lying islands. We also analyzed general climate models to describe rainfall and temperature scenarios expected to influence adaptation of some plants and animals for this region. Outcomes for the NWHI predicted an increase in temperature of 1.8-2.6 degrees Celsius (°C) and an annual decrease in precipitation of 24.7-76.3 millimeters (mm) across the NWHI by 2100. Our models of passive SLR (excluding wave-driven effects, erosion, and accretion) showed that approximately 4 percent of the total land area in the NWHI will be lost with scenarios of +1.0 m of SLR and 26 percent will be lost with +2.0 m of SLR. Some atolls are especially vulnerable to SLR. For example, at Pearl and Hermes Atoll our analysis indicated substantial habitat losses with 43 percent of the land area inundated at +1.0 m SLR and 92 percent inundated at +2.0 m SLR. Across the NWHI, seven islands will be completely submerged with +2.0 m SLR. The limited global ranges of some tropical nesting birds make them particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts in the NWHI. Climate change scenarios and potential SLR impacts presented here emphasize the need for early climate change adaptation and mitigation planning, especially for species with limited breeding distributions and/or ranges restricted primarily to the low-lying NWHI: Cyperus pennatiformis var. bryanii , Black-footed Albatross ( Phoebastria nigripes ), Laysan Albatross ( P. immutabilis ), Bonin Petrel ( Pterodroma hypoleuca ), Gray-backed Tern ( Onychoprion lunatus ), Laysan Teal ( Anas laysanensis ), Laysan Finch ( Telespiza cantans ), and Hawaiian monk seal ( Monachus schauinslandi ). Furthermore, SLR scenarios that include the effects of wave dynamics and groundwater rise may indicate amplified vulnerability to climate change driven habitat loss on low-lying islands. In chapter 2, we incorporated the combined effects of SLR, dynamic wave-driven inundation, and rising groundwater in a quantitative study specifically for the Laysan Island ecosystem. This is the first hydrodynamic model to simulate the combined impacts of SLR and wave-driven inundation in the NWHI. We developed a high-resolution digital elevation model (mean vertical accuracy of 0.32 m) for the island. Then using recent satellite imagery, geospatial models, and historical oceanographic, storm, and biological data we estimated potential inundation extent, habitat loss, and wildlife population impacts for a range of potential SLR scenarios (0.00, +0.50, +1.00, +1.50, and +2.00 m) that may occur over the next century. Additionally, we estimated the carrying capacity of Laysan Island for five species based on the available population monitoring data and described how potential losses in nesting habitat could influence population dynamics for Black-footed Albatross, Laysan Albatross, Red-footed Booby (Sula sula), Laysan Teal, and Laysan Finch. For some other seabird populations (Masked Booby, S. dactylatra ; Brown Booby, S. leucogaster ; Great Frigatebird, Fregata minor ; and Sooty Tern, Onychoprion fuscata ), we used recent colony distribution data, land cover maps, and nesting behavior to estimate potential losses of nesting habitat from SLR and wave-driven inundation. We observed far greater potential impacts of SLR to wildlife with the dynamic wave-driven modeling approach than with the passive modeling approach. Depending on SLR scenario and coastal orientation, during storms under a +2.00 m SLR scenario, the wave-driven inundation model predicted three times more inundation than the passive model (17.2 percent of total terrestrial area versus 4.6 percent, respectively). Large-wave events generally added 1 m of water height to passive inundation surfaces, therefore our dynamic models (during storm events) forecasted comparable inundation extents earlier than passive models. Although wave-driven water levels were highest in the northwest quadrant of Laysan Island, the greatest extent of inundation occurred in the southeast where coastal dunes less than 3 m above mean sea level provide little protection from wave-driven inundation. When wave-driven inundation was included in the SLR model for Laysan Island greater nesting habitat loss and potential impacts on wildlife population dynamics were predicted. The consequences of habitat loss due to SLR may be worse for species with colonies in the wave-exposed coastal zones (for example, Black-footed Albatross) and for populations already near the island's carrying capacity (for example, Laysan Teal). Species whose peak incubation and chick-rearing periods coincide with seasonally high wave heights also will be increasingly vulnerable, especially those species nesting on the ground in areas vulnerable to inundation, such as Gray-backed Tern and Black-footed Albatross. Other species that have space for population growth, or are not restricted to a narrow range of habitat types on Laysan (for instance, Sooty Terns), may be less sensitive to habitat loss from SLR over the next century. Our assessments of inundation risk, habitat loss, and wildlife species vulnerability synthesize current knowledge about individual islands and contribute to a broader understanding of the impacts of inundation from SLR and storm-induced waves. Yet, most NWHI and their bird populations lack monitoring data to evaluate adaptations to and impacts of climate change. Exceptions include some data sets from long-term monitoring of wildlife populations, tides, or weather at French Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, and Midway Atoll. These data sets are potentially valuable baselines, which could be informative for adaptive learning (integrating management and science) to predict, adapt, and mitigate the effects of climate change on NWHI wildlife in the future. This study provides the first quantitative vulnerability assessment for all of the low-lying NWHI, and results identify biological communities, locales, and resident endangered species of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument expected to be at risk from SLR. This report is also intended as a reference for managers and conservation planners, a tool to identify and potentially reduce uncertainty, and a starting place for developing climate change monitoring priorities and future scientific studies.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, within the Department of Interior, is responsible for providing national leadership in the management and protection of the nation's fish and wildlife resources, their habitat, and environment. Specifically, the Office of Biological Services obtains and assimilates biological and environmental data and identifies additional informational needs and means necessary to provide biological input into major natural resource decisions. The Wyoming Coal Coordinator for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service is assigned the duty of becoming attuned to the ramifications of energy development within the State and its potential impact upon wildlife. In order for the Coal Coordinator to fulfill his obligations in becoming an "energy expert" for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Wyoming, it will be necessary for him to develop a means of obtaining an overview of the energy development situation. Similarly, in order for him to identify those area of critical concern to wildlife resources, it will be necessary that he determine or predict where energy development will occur, the nature of this development, and the cumulative effects of energy development upon wildlife. Likewise, in order to identify where wildlife data gaps occur and to determine future wildlife information needs, it will be necessary for him to compile and synthesize relevant existing data resources. It therefore becomes apparent that a need exists for him to gather and interpret pertinent information in a systematic way to meet these ends. The following is an account of the tactical number in which the Wyoming Coal Coordinator intends to approach the duties outlined above the rationale to be followed in meeting these needs. First, a general discussion on assessing impacts on wildlife is provided to form a basis for obtaining an overview. Secondly, a series of reports which will be generated to summarize existing information and to help identify potential problem areas is outlined. These reports will be further utilized to determine wildlife data gaps and future information needs related to wildlife and future energy development.
Fifty years ago, infectious diseases were rarely considered threats to wildlife populations, and the study of wildlife diseases was largely a neglected endeavor. Furthermore, public health leaders at that time had declared that “it is time to close the book on infectious diseases and the war against pestilence won,” a quote attributed to Dr. William H. Stewart in 1967. There is some debate whether he actually said these words; however, they reflect the widespread belief at that time (Spellberg, 2008). Leap forward to today, and the book on infectious diseases has been dusted off. There is general consensus that the global environment favors the emergence of infectious diseases, and in particular, diseases of wildlife origin (Taylor et al., 2001). Examples of drivers of these infectious diseases include climate and landscape changes, human demographic and behavior changes, global travel and trade, microbial adaptation, and lack of appropriate infrastructure for wildlife disease control and prevention (Daszak et al., 2001). The consequences of these emerging diseases are global and profound with increased burden on the public health system, negative impacts on the global economy and food security, declines and extinctions of wildlife species, and subsequent loss of ecosystem integrity. For example, 35 million people are currently living with HIV infection globally (http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en); 400 million poultry have been culled since 2003 as a result of efforts to control highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza (http://www.fao.org/avianflu/en/index.html), and there are increasing biological and ecological consequences. Examples of health threats to biodiversity include the “spillover” of human diseases to great ape populations (Köndgen et al., 2008), the near-extirpation of the black-footed ferret from canine distemper and sylvatic plague (for a review see Abbott et al., 2012), and threats to Hawaiian forest birds from introduced pathogens such as avian malaria and avian pox (van Riper et al., 1986, 2002). There are also newly discovered pathogens or diseases that have resulted in population declines, and global extinctions of several species. Examples include Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which causes a cutaneous fungal infection of amphibians and is linked to declines of amphibians globally (Kriger and Hero, 2009); and recently discovered Pseudogymnoascus (Geomyces) destructans, the etiologic agent of white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has caused precipitous declines of North American bat species (Blehert et al., 2009). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of the subsequent impacts on human and ecosystem health; for example, increasing risk of exposure to Lyme disease as a consequence of decreased biodiversity (LoGiudice et al., 2003) as well as the economic cost of the loss of bats due to decreased insect control services (Boyles et al., 2011). Figure A12-1 is a timeline of important diseases investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey since the 1970s, which illustrates three factors: 1. The unprecedented emergence of new pathogens and geographic spread of known pathogens since the 1990s; 2. Diseases are increasingly causing large-scale, negative impacts on wildlife populations and spreading over larger geographic areas rather than remaining localized; and 3. Diseases are increasingly of concern for multiple sectors, including public health, agriculture and wildlife management agencies. Of increasing concern are these novel diseases such as WNS as they are hard to anticipate, particularly devastating to human health or wildlife populations, challenging to manage, spread over large geographic areas in short time periods, and may result in ecological ripple effects that are difficult to predict. The following article provides examples of recently emerged viral diseases of wildlife origin. The examples have been selected to illustrate the drivers of emerging viral diseases, both novel pathogens and previously known diseases, the impacts of these diseases, as well as the role of wildlife both as “villains” or reservoirs as well as “victims” of these viral diseases. The article also discusses potential management strategies for emerging viral diseases in wildlife populations and future science directions in wildlife health to prevent, prepare, respond to, and recover from these disease events. Finally, the concept of One Health and its potential role in developing solutions to these issues of mutual concern is discussed.
Wildlife diseases can have significant impacts on wildlife conservation and management. Many of the pathogens that affect wildlife also have important implications for domestic animal and human health. However, management interventions to prevent or control wildlife disease are hampered by uncertainties about the complex interactions between pathogens and free-ranging wildlife. We often lack crucial knowledge about host ecology, pathogen characteristics, and host–pathogen dynamics. The purpose of this review is to familiarize wildlife biologists and managers with the application of genetic and genomic methodologies for investigating pathogen and host biology to better understand and manage wildlife diseases. The genesis of this review was a symposium at the 2013 annual Wildlife Society Conference. We reviewed the scientific literature and used our personal experiences to identify studies that illustrate the application of genetic and genomic methods to advance our understanding of wildlife epidemiology, focusing on recent research, new techniques, and innovative approaches. Using examples from a variety of pathogen types and a broad array of vertebrate taxa, we describe how genetics and genomics can provide tools to detect and characterize pathogens, uncover routes of disease transmission and spread, shed light on the ways that disease susceptibility is influenced by both host and pathogen attributes, and elucidate the impacts of disease on wildlife populations. Genetic and increasingly genomic methodologies will continue to contribute important insights into pathogen and host biology that will aid efforts to assess and mitigate the impacts of wildlife diseases on global health and conservation of biodiversity.
Growing evidence suggests that multiple wildlife species can be infected with peste des petits ruminants virus (PPRV), with important consequences for the potential maintenance of PPRV in communities of susceptible hosts, and the threat that PPRV may pose to the conservation of wildlife populations and resilience of ecosystems. Significant knowledge gaps in the epidemiology of PPRV across the ruminant community (wildlife and domestic), and the understanding of infection in wildlife and other atypical host species groups (e.g., camelidae, suidae, and bovinae) hinder our ability to apply necessary integrated disease control and management interventions at the wildlife-livestock interface. Similarly, knowledge gaps limit the inclusion of wildlife in the FAO/OIE Global Strategy for the Control and Eradication of PPR, and the framework of activities in the PPR Global Eradication Programme that lays the foundation for eradicating PPR through national and regional efforts. This article reports on the first international meeting on, “Controlling PPR at the livestock-wildlife interface,” held in Rome, Italy, March 27–29, 2019. A large group representing national and international institutions discussed recent advances in our understanding of PPRV in wildlife, identified knowledge gaps and research priorities, and formulated recommendations. The need for a better understanding of PPRV epidemiology at the wildlife-livestock interface to support the integration of wildlife into PPR eradication efforts was highlighted by meeting participants along with the reminder that PPR eradication and wildlife conservation need not be viewed as competing priorities, but instead constitute two requisites of healthy socio-ecological systems.
There is an increasing need for robust wildlife health programs that provide surveillance and management for diseases in wildlife and wild aquatic populations to manage associated risks. This paper illustrates the value of a systematic method to enhancing wildlife health programs. The U.S. Geological Survey and Mahidol University, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Thailand National Wildlife Health Center formally twinned under the auspices of the World Organisation for Animal Health to enhance wildlife health capacity in Thailand and the Southeast Asia Region. We used a system-wide approach to holistically and interdependently enhance capacity. The project commenced with a wildlife health program needs assessment, and capacity enhancement focused on strengthening the general wildlife health surveillance network and improving wildlife health information management. Activities included partner surveys, interactive and didactic workshops, and individual personnel training. Topics included development of wildlife health information management systems, analysis of the current surveillance network, development of a Theory of Change for a strengthened surveillance network, planning workshops to create a wildlife health network, training on wildlife disease outbreak investigation and field sample collection, leading networks, and individual training on bioinformatics and laboratory techniques. Engagement of stakeholders at all levels, continuous communication throughout the project, use of both strategic planning tools and pedagogical methods, and using iterative and adaptive approaches, were key factors to the success of this project.
Malheur Lake is the largest freshwater marsh in the western contiguous United States and is one of the main management units of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon. The marsh provides excellent waterfowl production habitat as well as vital migration habitats for birds in the Pacific flyway. Water shortages have typically been a problem in this semiarid area; however, record snowfalls and cool summers have recently caused Malheur Lake to rise to its highest level in recorded history. This has resulted in the loss of approximately 57,000 acres of important wildlife habitat as well as extensive flooding of local ranches, roads, and railroad lines. Because of the importance of the Refuge, any water management plan for the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin needs to consider the impact of management alternatives on the hydrology of Malheur Lake. The facilitated modeling workshop described in this report was conducted January 14-18, 1985, under the joint sponsorship of the Portland Ecological Services Field Office and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Portland Field Office is responsible for FWS reporting requirements on Federal water resource projects while the Refuge staff has management responsibility for much of the land affected by high water levels in the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin. The primary objective of the workshop was to begin gathering and analyzing information concerning potential fish and wildlife impacts, needs, and opportunities associated with proposed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) flood control alternatives for Malheur Lake. The workshop was structured around the formulation of a computer model that would simulate the hydrologic effects of the various alternatives and any concommitant changes in vegetation communities and wildlife use patterns. The simulation model is composed of three connected submodels. The Hydrology submodel calculates changes in lake volume, elevation, and surface area, as well as changes in water quality, that result from the proposed water management projects (upstream storage, upstream diversions, drainage canals) and the no action alternative. The Vegetation submodel determines associated changes in the areal extent of wetland and upland vegetation communities. Finally, the Wildlife submodel calculates indices of abundance or habitat suitability for colonial nesting birds (great egret, double-crested cormorant, white-faced ibis), greater sandhill crane, diving ducks, tundra swan, dabbling ducks, and Canada goose based on hydrologic and vegetation conditions. The model represents the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin, but provides water quantity and quality indicators associated with additional flows that might occur in the Malheur River Basin. Several management scenarios, representing various flood control alternatives and assumptions concerning future runoff, were run to analyze model behavior. Scenario results are not intended as an analysis of all potential management actions or assumptions concerning future runoff. Rather, they demonstrate the type of analysis that could be conducted if the model was sufficiently refined and tested. Early in a model development project, the process of building the model is usually of greater benefit than the model itself. The model building process stimulates interaction among agencies, assists in integrating existing information, and helps identify research needs. These benefits usually accrue even in the absence of real predictive power in the resulting model. This workshop initiated interaction among the primary State and Federal resource and development agencies in a nonadversarial forum. The exchange of information and expertise among agencies provided the FWS with the best information currently available for use in the Planning Aid Letter it will develop at the Reconnaissance state of the COE study. If the COE subsequently initiates a Feasability Study, this information will be refined further and will aid the FWS in preparing its Coordination Act Report on any flood control alternative proposed by the COE. The model building and testing process also helped identify model limitations and more general information needs that should be evaluated for further study prior to preparation of an FWS Coordination Act Report. Major needs associated with the Hydrology submodel include a more detailed representation of hydrologic units (separately consider Harney Lake, Mud Lake, and Malheur Lake or the three hydrological units within Malheur Lake, rather than a combined lake system) and explicitly representation of groundwater storage and discharge in water budget calculations. A better representation of the hydrological units will require more detailed topographic data for the basin, capacity-elevation and elevation-surface area curves for each unit, and better water flow data between the units. Additional water quality parameters and constraints on proposed canal operation due to conditions in the Malheur River might also be added. Key Vegetation submodel needs include fine-tuning existing vegetation relationships in the model and adding relationships to address the influence of historical conditions on vegetation development, effects of very rapid changes in lake level, effects of wildlife populations (e.g., carp, muskrat), responses of vegetation to habitat management actions (e.g, haying, grazing, burning), and better representation of sago pondweed dynamics. A complementary geographic information system might also be developed for spatial analyses. Major needs that should be evaluated for the Wildlife submodel include addition of other wildlife species that have important effects on habitat on the Refuge (e.g., carp, muskrat) and consideration of additional life-cycle requisites and controlling variable for species presently in the model. Some of these limitations could perhaps be overcome if historical data on habitat conditions were developed to use with historical data on wildlife populations.
Riparian areas of flood plains typically provide a mosaic of productive habitats (Stanford and others, 2005; Latterell and others, 2006) capable of supporting many wildlife species, particularly in the arid and semiarid Western United States. The establishment of nonnative invasive plants can alter riparian habitat by inhibiting native plant recruitment and by increasing the risk of wildfire (Howe and Knopf, 1991; Busch and Smith, 1995). However, the effects of nonnative plants are not necessarily always negative. Many wildlife species will use the exotic plants to some extent, especially when mixed with native vegetation (van Riper and others, 2008), but overall, species of wildlife exhibit a negative or neutral response to exotic habitat. In many areas of the Western United States where riparian systems have been degraded via anthropogenic activities (for example, flood control or groundwater pumping), native vegetation may have difficulty persisting and nonnative vegetation may provide the only available habitat for some species of wildlife (Katz and Shafroth, 2003; Stromberg and others, 2007). Therefore, where possible, the ultimate goal of ecological restoration activities should be the reestablishment of native riparian plant communities and a return to more natural hydrological regimes. Nonnative saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) are the second and fifth most abundant plants in riparian areas in the Western United States (see chap. 2, this volume; Friedman and others, 2005). Methods for controlling nonnative vegetation can alter riparian areas, often in unpredictable ways, and have the potential to impact a variety of habitat types used by wildlife (Bateman, Chung-MacCoubrey, Finch, and others, 2008). Therefore, understanding how wildlife utilize saltcedar and Russian olive and the effects of control activities on wildlife are important for resource managers who must balance management decisions such as nonnative plant control with protecting critical wildlife habitat. In this chapter, we present a synthesis of published literature on the use of saltcedar and Russian olive by wildlife and discuss how wildlife respond or are likely to respond to control measures for saltcedar and Russian olive and subsequent restoration efforts. We discuss responses of several groups of wildlife, including arthropods, birds, mammals, herpetofauna, and fish.
In 1980, when the U.S. Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), it also mandated a study of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA stated that a comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife resources would be conducted on 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain (1002 Area). Potential petroleum reserves in the 1002 Area were also to be evaluated from surface geological studies and seismic exploration surveys. Results of these studies and recommendations for future management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain were to be prepared in a report to Congress. In 1987, the Department of the Interior published the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment - Report and Recommendations to the Congress of the United States and Final Environmental Impact Statement. This report to Congress identified the potential for oil and gas production (updated* most recently by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2001), described the biological resources, and evaluated the potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources. The 1987 report analyzed the potential environmental consequences of five management alternatives for the coastal plain, ranging from wilderness designation to opening the entire area to lease for oil and gas developement. The report's summary recommended opening the 1002 Area to an orderly oil and gas leasing program, but cautioned that adverse effects to some wildlife populations were possible. Congress did not act on this recommendation nor any other alternative for the 1002 Area, and scientists continued studies of key wildlife species and habitats on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge and surrounding areas. This report contains updated summaries of those scientific investigations of caribou, muskoxen, predators (grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles), polar bears, snow geese, and their wildlife habitats. Contributions to this report were made by scientists affiliated with the U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; Canadian Wildlife Service; Yukon Department of Renewable Resources; and the Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development. Sections of the report presenting new information on caribou and forage plants were peer-reviewed by three independent, non-affiliated scientists. The remaining sections summarize previously published peer-reviewed scientific papers and were reviewed by a single independent scientist. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collaborated in the publication of this report.
To assess the status of research on wildlife diseases in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and to identify trends, knowledge gaps, and directions for future research, we reviewed epidemiologic publications on wildlife-associated diseases in the ROK. We identified a relatively small but rapidly increasing body of literature. The majority of publications were focused on public or livestock health and relatively few addressed wildlife health. Most studies that focused on human and livestock health were cross-sectional whereas wildlife health studies were mostly case reports. Fifteen diseases notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health were identified and 21 diseases were identified as notifiable to either the Korean Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs or the Korean Ministry of Agriculture. Two diseases were reported as occurring as epidemics; highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and virulent Newcastle disease. Six diseases or disease agents were described in the literature as emerging including HPAI, rabies, Babesia microti , avian coronaviruses, scrub typhus, and severe fever thrombocytopenia syndrome virus. The diseases for which there were the largest number of publications were HPAI and rabies. The majority of wildlife-associated zoonotic disease publications focused on food-borne parasitic infections or rodent-associated diseases. Several publications focused on the potential of wildlife as reservoirs of livestock diseases; in particular, water deer ( Hydropotes inermis ) and wild boar ( Sus scrofa ). In contrast, there were few publications on diseases of concern for wildlife populations or research to understand the impacts of these diseases for wildlife management. Increased focus on prospective studies would enhance understanding of disease dynamics in wildlife populations. For the high-consequence diseases that impact multiple sectors, a One Health approach, with coordination among the public health, agricultural, and environmental sectors, would be important. This type of review can provide useful information for countries or regions planning or implementing national wildlife health programs.
On rangelands the livestock–wildlife interface is mostly characterized by management actions aimed at controlling problems associated with competition, disease, and depredation. Wildlife communities (especially the large vertebrate species) are typically incompatible with agricultural development because the opportunity costs of wildlife conservation are unaffordable except in arid and semi-arid regions. Ecological factors including the provision of supplementary food and water for livestock, together with the persecution of large predators, result in livestock replacing wildlife at biomass densities far exceeding those of indigenous ungulates. Diseases are difficult to eradicate from free-ranging wildlife populations and so veterinary controls usually focus on separating commercial livestock herds from wildlife. Persecution of large carnivores due to their depredation of livestock has caused the virtual eradication of apex predators from most rangelands. However, recent research points to a broad range of solutions to reduce conflict at the livestock–wildlife interface. Conserving wildlife bolsters the adaptive capacity of a rangeland by providing stakeholders with options for dealing with environmental change. This is contingent upon local communities being empowered to benefit directly from their wildlife resources within a management framework that integrates land-use sectors at the landscape scale. As rangelands undergo irreversible changes caused by species invasions and climate forcings, the future perspective favors a proactive shift in attitude towards the livestock–wildlife interface, from problem control to asset management.
The outbreak and transmission of disease-causing pathogens are contributing to the unprecedented rate of biodiversity decline. Recent advances in genomics have coalesced into powerful tools to monitor, detect, and reconstruct the role of pathogens impacting wildlife populations. Wildlife researchers are thus uniquely positioned to merge ecological and evolutionary studies with genomic technologies to exploit unprecedented ‘Big Data’ tools in disease research; however, many researchers lack the training and expertise required to use these computationally intensive methodologies. To address this disparity, the inaugural ‘Genomics of Disease in Wildlife’ workshop assembled early to mid-career professionals with expertise across scientific disciplines (e.g., genomics, wildlife biology, veterinary sciences, and conservation management) for training in the application of genomic tools to wildlife disease research. A horizon scanning-like exercise, an activity to identify forthcoming trends and challenges, performed by the workshop participants identified and discussed five themes considered to be the most pressing to the application of genomics in wildlife disease research: i) “Improving Communication”, ii) “Methodological and Analytical Advancements”, iii) “Translation into Practice”, iv) “Integrating Landscape Ecology and Genomics”, and v) “Emerging New Questions”. Wide-ranging solutions from the horizon scan were international in scope, itemized both deficiencies and strengths in wildlife genomic initiatives, promoted the use of genomic technologies to unite wildlife and human disease research, and advocated best practices for optimal use of genomic tools in wildlife disease projects. The results offer a glimpse of the potential revolution in human and wildlife disease research possible through multi-disciplinary collaborations at local, regional, and global scales.