Rodent repellents
Why rodent repellents are needed, how they are tested, and what ones are showing promise. Some of the best ones now known are too toxic, too costly, or both.
Latest report on U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service r↗
SEARCH · Search USGS
Results for “Wildlife Research Report”
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.
Progress Report: Stratton Ecological Research Site - An Experimental Approach to Assess Effects of Various Grazing Treatments on Vegetation and Wildlife Communities Across Managed Burns and Habitat Controls
Understanding how management practices affect wildlife is fundamental to wise decisions for conservation of public lands. Prescribed fire and grazing timing are two management tools frequently used within publicly owned sagebrush ecosystems. We conducted a variety of surveys in order to assess the impacts of grazing timing strategies (early summer before peak green-up, mid-summer at peak green-up, and late summer after peak green-up) in conjunction with prescribed fire on avian and small mammal populations in a high-elevation sagebrush ecosystem. Avian surveys resulted in a large detection sample size for three bird species: Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), and vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). Brewer's sparrows had the lowest number of detections within the mid-summer grazing treatment compared to early and late summer grazing treatments, while horned larks and vesper sparrows had higher detection frequencies within the late summer grazing treatment. Summer and fall sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) pellet counts revealed that the greatest over-winter and over-summer use by sage-grouse occurred within the early summer grazing treatment with minimal use of burn treatment areas across all grazing treatments. Deer-mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) represented approximately 90 percent of small mammals captured and were most prevalent within the mid-summer grazing treatment. Sagebrush cover was greatest within the mid-summer grazing treatment. We monitored 50 and 103 nests in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The apparent success rate for shrub-obligate nesting species was 58 percent in 2007 and 63 percent in 2008. This research will support management of sagebrush ecosystems by providing public land managers with direct comparisons of wildlife response to management regimes.
Open-File Report↗
Indian backgrounds of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Popular account of archaeological history of the area.
Circular↗
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: A survey of visitor experiences: Report to respondents
In the fall of 2000, researchers from the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Program (PASA) of the Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) met with the staff of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR) to discuss the issues related to social, economic, and human dimensions of natural resource management as it related to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) planning process. As a result of the meeting a research study was designed to better understand how visitors are affected by environmental management decisions and provide information to assist the refuge managers in making decisions regarding public use and recreational management related to the goals of the proposed CCP. More specifically, information was collected to document the type and frequency of visitor use; assess the importance of recreational activities; and to determine visitor attitudes about recreation management decisions within the refuge. To this end, we designed a study to assess the effects of the no-action and alternative management plans for the Refuge visitors’ perceptions and likely visitation patterns. In fall of 2002 a questionnaire was developed in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the CCP planning team and mailed to 1090 people who visited the refuge between June 2001 and June 2002. We used standard research methods in designing and administering the questionnaire. Six hundred and eightyfive (685) completed questionnaires (74%) were considered usable. We developed the questionnaire (OMB Control Number 1040-00) to answer the following questions: What are the important differences in visitors’ attitudes and perception regarding recreation and visitor use at CPNWR? What are the factors that explain the differences in visitor attitudes and perception regarding recreation and visitor use at CPNWR? What are the regional economic impacts of visitor spending? In general the respondents indicated support for current management practices of CPNWR. We found that people came to the Refuge to experience a connection with the resource and the environment. More than half of the respondents said that viewing the desert scenery, seeking wilderness solitude and viewing wildlife were the most important reasons for making the visit to the refuge.
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge↗
An annotated bibliography of field studies conducted on the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center: 1940-1987
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biological Report↗
Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Eastern Meadowlark
Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on grassland birds were summarized from information in more than 4,000 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. A special section on prey habitat is included for those predatory species that have more specific prey requirements. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) is an obligate brood parasite of many grassland birds. The section on cowbird brood parasitism summarizes rates of cowbird parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes specific recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. If management recommendations differ in different portions of the species’ breeding range, recommendations are given separately by region. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of grassland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below. This report has been downloaded from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center WorldWide Web site, www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm. Please direct comments and suggestions to Douglas H. Johnson, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 8711 37th Street SE, Jamestown, North Dakota 58401; telephone: 701- 253-5539; fax: 701-253-5553; e-mail: Douglas_H_Johnson@usgs.gov.
Report↗
Effects of management practices on wetland birds: Marsh Wren
Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on wetland birds were summarized from information in more than 500 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although the BBS may not capture the presence of elusive waterbird species, the BBS is a standardized survey and the range maps, in many cases, represent the most consistent information available on species’ distributions. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The section on brood parasitism summarizes information on intra- and interspecific parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of wetland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below. This report has been downloaded from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center WorldWide Web site, www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm. Please direct comments and suggestions to Douglas H. Johnson, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 8711 37th Street SE, Jamestown, North Dakota 58401; telephone: 701- 253-5539; fax: 701-253-5553; e-mail: Douglas_H_Johnson@usgs.gov.
Report↗
Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Wilson's Phalarope
Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on grassland birds were summarized from information in more than 4,000 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. A special section on prey habitat is included for those predatory species that have more specific prey requirements. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) is an obligate brood parasite of many grassland birds. The section on cowbird brood parasitism summarizes rates of cowbird parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes specific recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. If management recommendations differ in different portions of the species’ breeding range, recommendations are given separately by region. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of grassland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below. This report has been downloaded from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center WorldWide Web site, www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm. Please direct comments and suggestions to Douglas H. Johnson, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 8711 37th Street SE, Jamestown, North Dakota 58401; telephone: 701- 253-5539; fax: 701-253-5553; e-mail: Douglas_H_Johnson@usgs.gov.
Report↗
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center—Celebrating 50 years of science
The Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) celebrated its 50-year anniversary in 2015. This report is written in support of that observance. We document why and how the NPWRC came to be and describe some of its many accomplishments and the influence the Center’s research program has had on natural resource management. The history is organized by major research themes, proceeds somewhat chronologically within each theme, and covers the Center’s first 50 years of research. During that period, Center scientists authored more than 1,700 publications and reports. More than 1,000 seasonal or temporary field personnel, and more than 100 graduate students, contributed to the Center’s success; many went on to have exemplary careers in natural resource management, conservation, and education. The mission of the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center today remains true to the original vision: to provide the knowledge needed to understand, conserve, and manage the Nation’s natural resources for current and future generations, with an emphasis on species and ecosystems of the northern Great Plains. The Center’s first 50 years of applied biological research provides a deep scientific foundation on which to address emerging issues for the natural resources in the northern Great Plains and beyond.
Circular↗
The status of wildlife research: 1937.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Wildlife Leaflet↗
Flora of the Patuxent Research Refuge, Maryland
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Wildlife Leaflet↗
Report to the fish farmers: Status of warmwater fish farming and progress in fish farming research
No abstract available.
Resource Publication↗
Locating and managing peninsulas for nesting ducks
The purpose of this extension bulletin is to guide the management of nesting ducks on peninsulas on public and private lands. Managing peninsulas for ducks is a relatively new strategy that was developed in the grassland region of western North America. Information contained in this bulletin is primarily from studies conducted by biologists working at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.
Report↗
Some helminth parasites of the American bald eagle
Bald eagles ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) found dead or moribund in the United States and Canada and submitted to Patuxent Wildlife Research Center were examined for helminth parasites. Nine genera of helminths were reported which include new host records for Clinostomum complanatum , Neogogatea pandionis , Centrorhynchus sp., Serratospiculum amaculata , Capillaria contorta , and Habronema americanum .
Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
Impacts to wildlife of wind energy siting and operation in the United States
Electricity from wind energy is a major contributor to the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use and thus reduce the negative impacts of climate change. Wind energy, like all power sources, can have adverse impacts on wildlife. After nearly 25 years of focused research, these impacts are much better understood, although uncertainty remains. In this report, we summarize positive impacts of replacing fossil fuels with wind energy, while describing what we have learned and what remains uncertain about negative ecological impacts of the construction and operation of land-based and offshore wind energy on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the U.S. Finally, we propose research on ways to minimize these impacts. TO SUMMARIZE: 1 Environmental and other benefits of wind energy include near-zero greenhouse gas emissions, reductions of other common air pollutants, and little or no water use associated with producing electricity from wind energy. Various scenarios for meeting U.S. carbon emission reduction goals indicate that a four- to five-fold expansion of land-based wind energy from the current 97 gigawatts (GW) by the year 2050 is needed to minimize temperature increases and reduce the risk of climate change to people and wildlife. 2 Collision fatalities of birds and bats are the most visible and measurable impacts of wind energy production. Current estimates suggest most bird species, especially songbirds, are at low risk of population-level impacts. Raptors as a group appear more vulnerable to collisions. Population-level impacts on migratory tree bats are a concern, and better information on population sizes is needed to evaluate potential impacts to these species. Although recorded fatalities of cave-dwelling bat species are typically low at most wind energy facilities, additional mortality from collisions is a concern given major declines in these species due to white-nose syndrome (WNS). Assessments of regional and cumulative fatality impacts for birds and bats have been hampered by the lack of data from areas with a high proportion of the nation’s installed wind energy capacity. Efforts to expand data accessibility from all regions are underway, and this greater access to data along with improvements in statistical estimators should lead to improved impact assessments. 3 Habitat impacts of wind energy development are difficult to assess. An individual wind energy facility may encompass thousands of acres, but only a small percentage of the landscape within the project area is directly transformed. If a project is sited in previously undisturbed habitat, there is concern for indirect impacts, such as displacement of sensitive species. Studies to date indicate displacement of some species, but the long-term population impacts are unknown. 4 Offshore wind energy development in the U.S. is just beginning. Studies at offshore wind facilities in Europe indicate some bird and marine mammal species are displaced from project areas, but substantial uncertainty exists regarding the individual or population-level impacts of this displacement. Bird and bat collisions with offshore turbines are thought to be less common than at terrestrial facilities, but currently the tools to measure fatalities at offshore wind energy facilities are not available. The wind energy industry, state and federal agencies, conservation groups, academia, and scientific organizations have collaborated for nearly 25 years to conduct the research needed to improve our understanding of risk to wildlife and to avoid and minimize that risk. Efforts to reduce the uncertainty about wildlife risk must keep up withthe pace and scale of the need to reduce carbon emissions. This will require focusing our research priorities and increasing the rate at which we incorporate research results into the development and validation of best practices for siting and operating wind energy facilities.
Issues in Ecology↗