Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlifer”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2001

The role of native birds and other wildlife on the emergence of zoonotic diseases

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.

National Academy of Science.↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address highly pathogenic avian influenza and its effects on wildlife health 2025–29

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.

Circular↗
USGS2023

Exploring the relevance of the multidimensionality of wildlife recreationists to conservation behaviors: A case study in Virginia

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.

Virginia↗
USGS2022

Africa’s drylands in a changing world: Challenges for wildlife conservation under climate and land-use changes in the Greater Etosha Landscape

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.

Africa, Greater Etosha Landscape↗
USGS2006

Disease emergence and resurgence—the wildlife-human connection

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.

Circular↗