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 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
USGS2016

Book review: Foundations of wildlife diseases

A new textbook for practitioners and students of wildlife disease is available. Rick Botzler and Richard Brown have provided an excellent addition to the wildlife disease literature with Foundations of Wildlife Diseases . It has been 8 years since the last major wildlife disease book ( Wobeser 2006 ), and over 40 years since the first major wildlife disease compilation ( Page 1975 ), an edited summary of the 3rd International Wildlife Disease meeting in Munich, Germany. Many people interested in wildlife diseases have waited eagerly for this book, and they will not be disappointed. Book information: Foundations of Wildlife Diseases. By Richard G. Botzler and Richard N. Brown. University of California Press, Oakland, California, USA. 2014. 429 pp., viii preface material. ISBN: 9780520276093.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
USGS2020

Antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife: Perspectives on trends, acquisitions and dissemination, data gaps, and future directions

The proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the environment has potential negative economic and health consequences. Thus, previous investigations have targeted wild animals to understand the occurrence of antibiotic resistance in diverse environmental sources. In this critical review and synthesis, we summarize important concepts learned through the sampling of wildlife for antibiotic resistant indicator bacteria. These concepts are helpful for understanding dissemination of resistance through environmental pathways and helping to guide future research efforts. Our review is comprised of six sections. The first section briefly introduces antibiotic resistance as it pertains to bacteria harbored in environmental sources such as wild animals. Next, we differentiate wildlife from other animals in the context of how diverse taxa provide different information on antibiotic resistance in the environment. In the third section, we identify representative research and seminal works that illustrate important associations between the occurrence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife and anthropogenic inputs into the environment. For example, we highlight numerous investigations that support the premise that anthropogenic inputs into the environment drive the occurrence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria harbored by free-ranging wildlife. Additionally, we summarize previous research demonstrating foraging as a mechanism by which wildlife may be exposed to anthropogenic antibiotic resistance contamination in the environment. In the fourth section of our review, we summarize molecular evidence for the acquisition and dissemination of resistance among bacteria harbored by wildlife. In the fifth section, we identify what we believe to be important data gaps and potential future directions that other researchers may find useful towards the development of efficient, informative, and impactful investigations of antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife. Finally, we conclude our review by highlighting the need to move from surveys that simply identify antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife towards hypothesis-driven investigations that: (1) identify point sources of antibiotic resistance; (2) provide information on risk to human and animal health; (3) identify interventions that may interrupt environmentally mediated pathways of antibiotic resistance acquisition/transmission; and (4) evaluate whether management practices are leading to desirable outcomes.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
USGS2021

What is the effect of poaching activity on wildlife species?

Poaching is a pervasive threat to wildlife, yet quantifying the direct effect of poaching on wildlife is rarely possible because both wildlife and threat data are infrequently collected concurrently. In this study, we used poaching data collected through the Management Information System (MIST) and wildlife camera trap data collected by the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring (TEAM) network from 2014 to 2017 in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. We implemented co-occurrence multi-season occupancy models that accounted for imperfect detection to investigate the effect of poaching on initial occupancy, colonization, and extinction of 5 mammal species. Specifically, we focused on 2 species of conservation concern (mountain gorilla ( Gorilla beringei beringei ) and golden money ( Cercopithecus mitis kandti )), and 3 species targeted by poachers (black-fronted duiker ( Cephalophus nigrifrons ), bushbuck ( Tragelaphus scriptus ), and African buffalo ( Syncerus caffer )). We found that the probability of local extinction was highest in sites with poaching activity for golden monkey and bushbuck. In addition, the probability of initial occupancy for golden monkey was highest in sites without poaching activity. We only found weak evidence of effects of poaching on parameters governing the occupancy dynamics of the other species. All species showed evidence of poaching presence affecting the probability of detection of the wildlife species. This is the first study to our knowledge to combine direct threat observations from ranger-based monitoring data with camera trap wildlife observations to quantify the effect of poaching on wildlife. Given the widespread collection of ranger-based monitoring and camera trap data, our approach is broadly applicable to numerous protected areas and has the potential to significantly improve conservation management. Specifically, the relationship between poaching activity and wildlife population dynamics (this paper) can be combined with information on the relationship between ranger patrols and poaching activity (Moore et al. 2017) to develop models useful for making wise decisions about ranger patrol deployment.

Volcanoes National Park↗
USGS2025

SiMPL wildlife magnets: A camera trap tool for detecting all creatures great and small

We created the SiMPL wildlife magnet—a baited camera trap design that allows passive monitoring of wildlife, particularly small- to medium-sized mammals. The SiMPL wildlife magnet is inexpensive and easy to construct. To evaluate its effectiveness, we conducted a two-year case study using 9 camera stations along an elevation gradient in the White Mountains of the northeastern United States. We examined how the detection probability of mammal species changed with the inclusion of a SiMPL wildlife magnet using data from pre-and post-establishment. We found a significant increase in community-level detection probability with the use of SiMPL wildlife magnets and for individual species, including red squirrels ( Tamiasciurus hudsonicus ), American marten ( Martes americana ), and fisher ( Pekania pennanti ). Moreover, we were able to capture more species with SiMPL wildlife magnets than without, including flying squirrels ( Glaucomys spp.), various rodents ( Cricetidae spp.), black bears ( Ursus americanus ), moose ( Alces alces ), owls, and other birds. The SiMPL wildlife magnet is an effective, low-cost method for surveying wildlife communities, especially rodents and mesocarnivores. It addresses the limited field of view presented by other techniques for capturing small mammals on camera traps and enables efficient collection of phenology data, including vegetation and snowpack. This tool has several applications, including monitoring species' responses to management practices and global change.

Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Has the time come for big science in wildlife health?

The consequences of wildlife emerging diseases are global and profound with increased burden on the public health system, negative impacts on the global economy, declines and extinctions of wildlife species, and subsequent loss of ecological integrity. Examples of health threats to wildlife include Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis , which causes a cutaneous fungal infection of amphibians and is linked to declines of amphibians globally; and the recently discovered Pseudogymnoascus (Geomyces) destructans , the etiologic agent of white nose syndrome which has caused precipitous declines of North American bat species. Of particular concern are the novel pathogens that have emerged as they are particularly devastating and challenging to manage. A big science approach to wildlife health research is needed if we are to make significant and enduring progress in managing these diseases. The advent of new analytical models and bench assays will provide us with the mathematical and molecular tools to identify and anticipate threats to wildlife, and understand the ecology and epidemiology of these diseases. Specifically, new molecular diagnostic techniques have opened up avenues for pathogen discovery, and the application of spatially referenced databases allows for risk assessments that can assist in targeting surveillance. Long-term, systematic collection of data for wildlife health and integration with other datasets is also essential. Multidisciplinary research programs should be expanded to increase our understanding of the drivers of emerging diseases and allow for the development of better disease prevention and management tools, such as vaccines. Finally, we need to create a National Fish and Wildlife Health Network that provides the operational framework (governance, policies, procedures, etc.) by which entities with a stake in wildlife health cooperate and collaborate to achieve optimal outcomes for human, animal, and ecosystem health.

EcoHealth↗
USGS2023

Positive but un-sustained wildlife community responses to reserve expansion and mammal reintroductions in South Africa

The creation and expansion of protected areas, coupled with wildlife reintroductions, are increasingly used as conservation measures to combat wildlife declines worldwide. Although these types of restoration efforts are expected be beneficial to wildlife populations, variable species management and interactions among species within complex food webs have the potential to lead to unintended species-specific responses to reserve expansion which can counteract the anticipated positive effects. We used a multi-season camera trap study to investigate community-wide responses of wildlife to a reserve expansion and associated wildlife releases in South Africa. We analyzed the camera trap data using community occupancy and N-mixture models to assess how the occupancy and intensity of use of individual species changed in the four seasons following reserve expansion. We found species-specific responses to reserve expansion, although responses were generally positive in occupancy and intensity of use but un-sustained. The apex predator, the lion ( Panthera leo ) and the majority of managed herbivores exhibited sustained or delayed positive responses, whereas most subordinate predators and unmanaged herbivores had short-lived, fluctuating, or neutral responses. Interactive effects of top-down suppression, competitive pressure, and increased space and food resources likely resulted in the temporally-variable responses of most species. Although no species responded negatively to reserve expansion and mammal reintroductions, the lack of sustained positive responses for most species indicates the complexities of implementing conservation actions to benefit multiple wildlife species. Our results highlight the importance of monitoring the entire wildlife community following management actions such as reserve expansion or wildlife reintroductions.

Biological Conservation↗
USGS2022

Review of harmful algal blooms effects on birds with implications for avian wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay region

The Chesapeake Bay, along the mid-Atlantic coast of North America, is the largest estuary in the United States and provides critical habitat for wildlife. In contrast to point and non-point source release of pesticides, metals, and industrial, personal care and household use chemicals on biota in this watershed, there has only been scant attention to potential exposure and effects of algal toxins on wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay region. As background, we first review the scientific literature on algal toxins and harmful algal bloom (HAB) events in various regions of the world that principally affected birds, and to a lesser degree other wildlife. To examine the situation for the Chesapeake, we compiled information from government reports and databases summarizing wildlife mortality events for 2000 through 2020 that were associated with potentially toxic algae and HAB events. Summary findings indicate that there have been few wildlife mortality incidents definitively linked to HABs, other mortality events that were suspected to be related to HABs, and more instances in which HABs may have indirectly contributed to or occurred coincident with wildlife mortality. The dominant toxins found in the Chesapeake Bay drainage that could potentially affect wildlife are microcystins, with concentrations in water approaching or exceeding human-based thresholds for ceasing recreational use and drinking water at a number of locations. As an increasing trend in HAB events in the U.S. and in the Chesapeake Bay have been reported, additional information on HAB toxin exposure routes, comparative sensitivity among species, consequences of sublethal exposure, and better diagnostic and risk criteria would greatly assist in predicting algal toxin hazard and risks to wildlife.

Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2023

AIMS for wildlife: Developing an automated interactive monitoring system to integrate real-time movement and environmental data for true adaptive management

To effectively manage species and habitats at multiple scales, population and land managers require rapid information on wildlife use of managed areas and responses to landscape conditions and management actions. GPS tracking studies of wildlife are particularly informative to species ecology, habitat use, and conservation. Combining GPS data with administrative data and a diverse suite of remotely sensed, geo-referenced environmental (e.g., climatic) data, would more comprehensively inform how animals interact with and utilize habitats and ecosystems and our goal was to create a conceptual model for a system that would accomplish this – the ‘Automated Interactive Monitoring System (AIMS) for Wildlife’. Our objective for this study was to develop a Customized Wildlife Report (CWR) - the first AIMS for Wildlife deliverable product. CWRs collate and summarize our 8-year GPS tracking dataset of ∼11 million locations from 1338 individual (16 species) avifauna and make actionable, real-time data on animal movements and trends in a specific area of interest available to managers and stakeholders for rapid application in day-to-day management. The CWR exemplar presented in this paper was developed to address needs identified by habitat managers of Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge and illustrates the highly specific, information offered and how it contributes to assessing the efficacy of conservation actions while allowing for near real-time adaptive management. The report can be easily customized for any of the thousands of wildlife refuges or regional areas of interest in the United States, emphasizing the broad application of an animal movement data stream. Utilizing diverse, extensive telemetry data streams through scientific collaboration can aid managers and conservation stakeholders with short and long-term research and conservation planning and help address a cadre of issues from local-scale habitat management to improving the understanding of landscape level impacts like drought, wildfire, and climate change on wildlife populations.

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS2020

Methylmercury exposure in wildlife: A review of the ecological and physiological processes affecting contaminant concentrations and their interpretation

Exposure to methylmercury (MeHg) can result in detrimental health effects in wildlife. With advances in ecological indicators and analytical techniques for measurement of MeHg in a variety of tissues, numerous processes have been identified that can influence MeHg concentrations in wildlife. This review presents a synthesis of theoretical principals and applied information for measuring MeHg exposure and interpreting MeHg concentrations in wildlife. Mercury concentrations in wildlife are the net result of ecological processes influencing dietary exposure combined with physiological processes that regulate assimilation, transformation, and elimination. Therefore, consideration of both physiological and ecological processes should be integrated when formulating biomonitoring strategies. Ecological indicators, particularly stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur, compound-specific stable isotopes, and fatty acids, can be effective tools to evaluate dietary MeHg exposure. Animal species differ in their physiological capacity for MeHg elimination, and animal tissues can be inert or physiologically active, act as sites of storage, transformation, or excretion of MeHg, and vary in the timing of MeHg exposure they represent. Biological influences such as age, sex, maternal transfer, and growth or fasting are also relevant for interpretation of tissue MeHg concentrations. Wildlife tissues that represent current or near-term bioaccumulation and in which MeHg is the predominant mercury species (such as blood and eggs) are most effective for biomonitoring ecosystems and understanding landscape drivers of MeHg exposure. Further research is suggested to critically evaluate the use of keratinized external tissues to measure MeHg bioaccumulation, particularly for less-well studied wildlife such as reptiles and terrestrial mammals. Suggested methods are provided to effectively use wildlife for quantifying patterns and drivers of MeHg bioaccumulation over time and space, as well as for assessing the potential risk and toxicological effects of MeHg on wildlife.

Science of the Total Environment↗
USGS2025

Applying the resist-accept-direct (RAD) framework to wildlife health management

Wildlife diseases can have substantial impacts on wildlife populations as well as on human and domestic animal health and well-being. Although many agencies and stakeholders share a goal of supporting wildlife health, reducing wildlife disease burden is complicated by a scarcity of effective interventions for wildlife, competition for funds, and conflicting priorities. As a result, agencies are unlikely to avoid the impacts of wildlife diseases in all contexts and need to evaluate where resisting disease is most feasible and beneficial. The resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework is a tool that assists natural resource managers in exploring and communicating about management interventions, including in situations where resisting ecological changes may not be possible. In the present article, we discuss how the RAD framework could be adapted to wildlife disease contexts to address several outstanding challenges in wildlife health management.

BioScience↗
USGS2021

Outside the box: Working with wildlife in biocontainment

Research with captive wildlife in Animal Biosafety Level 2 (ABSL2) and 3 (ABSL3) facilities is becoming increasingly necessary as emerging and re-emerging diseases involving wildlife have increasing impacts on human, animal, and environmental health. Utilizing wildlife species in a research facility often requires outside the box thinking with specialized knowledge, practices, facilities, and equipment. The USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) houses an ABSL3 facility dedicated to understanding wildlife diseases and developing tools to mitigate their impacts on animal and human health. This review presents considerations for utilizing captive wildlife for infectious disease studies, including, husbandry, animal welfare, veterinary care, and biosafety. Examples are drawn from primary literature review and collective 40-year experience of the NWHC. Working with wildlife in ABSL2 and ABSL3 facilities differs from laboratory animals in that typical laboratory housing systems, husbandry practices, and biosafety practices are not designed for work with wildlife. This requires thoughtful adaptation of standard equipment and practices, invention of customized solutions and development of appropriate enrichment plans using the natural history of the species and the microbiological characteristics of introduced and native pathogens. Ultimately, this task requires critical risk assessment, understanding of the physical and psychological needs of diverse species, creativity, innovation, and flexibility. Finally, continual reassessment and improvement are imperative in this constantly changing specialty area of infectious disease and environmental hazard research.

ILAR Journal↗
USGS2021

Sarcoptic mange: An emerging panzootic in wildlife

Sarcoptic mange, a skin infestation caused by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei , is an emerging disease for some species of wildlife, potentially jeopardizing their welfare and conservation. Sarcoptes scabiei has a near-global distribution facilitated by its forms of transmission and use of a large diversity of host species (many of those with broad geographic distribution). In this review, we synthesize the current knowledge concerning the geographic and host taxonomic distribution of mange in wildlife, the epidemiological connections between species, and the potential threat of sarcoptic mange for wildlife conservation. Recent sarcoptic mange outbreaks in wildlife appear to demonstrate ongoing geographic spread, increase in the number of hosts and increased virulence. Sarcoptic mange has been reported in at least 12 orders, 39 families and 148 species of domestic and wild mammals, making it one of the most generalist ectoparasites of mammals. Taxonomically, the orders with most species found infested so far include Perissodactyla (67% species from the entire order), Artiodactyla (47%), and Diprotodontia (67% from this order). This suggests that new species from these mammal orders are likely to suffer cross-species transmission and be reported positive to sarcoptic mange as surveillance improves. We propose a new agenda for the study of sarcoptic mange in wildlife, including the study of the global phylogeography of S. scabiei , linkages between ecological host traits and sarcoptic mange susceptibility, immunology of individuals and species, development of control strategies in wildlife outbreaks and the effects of global environmental change in the sarcoptic mange system. The ongoing transmission globally and sustained spread among areas and wildlife species make sarcoptic mange an emerging panzootic in wildlife. A better understanding of sarcoptic mange could illuminate the aspects of ecological and evolutionary drivers in cross-species transmission for many emerging diseases.

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases↗
USGS2025

Rapid risk assessment framework to estimate potential for spillback at human-wildlife interfaces

More than 60% of emerging infectious diseases of humans have a wildlife origin, and when these diseases spread through human populations to new geographical areas, there is a considerable risk of spillback from humans to wildlife species. Spillback events can have severe consequences for wildlife populations, where the disease may cause morbidity and mortality, and human populations, where the establishment in wildlife may lead to prolonged transmission or new exposures in humans. Mitigating these consequences requires identifying the key risk factors that lead to human–wildlife transmission events and implementing risk-reducing actions, a challenge given that cross-species transmission events are rare and often data deficient. To identify potential species and locations that are most likely to lead to these rare events, we developed a spatially explicit, rapid risk assessment framework that incorporates three components of the spillback process: wildlife susceptibility, wildlife exposure, and pathogen introduction pressure. To demonstrate the broad applicability of our framework, we conducted a rapid risk assessment on two recent emerging zoonotic pathogens in humans, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and mpox, to determine the relative spillback risk to wild mammalian species in the continental United States. The rapid risk assessment identified both species and locations with higher than expected spillback risk, providing managers and researchers with valuable information to prioritize surveillance and risk-mitigation actions. Our framework represents a rapid and flexible approach to assess the risks of spillback to wildlife populations during rapidly evolving zoonotic disease outbreaks.

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program had an interesting and challenging year in 2018. We made significant strategic advances on many fronts and had setbacks in others. Our relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency we belonged to from 1935 to the mid-1990s, was further reinforced through strategic efforts with the Service’s Science Applications senior staff. This is bearing fruit in terms of research collaborations and funding support. As part of a larger effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area and the Service’s endangered species program, we are also collaborating to address science needs for species in pre-listing status. Barry Grand, Unit Supervisor (South), has been instrumental in this effort. Tom Edwards of the Utah Unit has met with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to promote training of leaders and “hands dirty” biologists in species distribution modeling. The Association passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the training at their midyear meeting in March. Tom held a workshop at the annual meeting of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in September, and future workshops, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be held bringing State agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists together to work on species of common concern. Wyoming Unit Leader Matt Kauffman’s pioneering work in identifying and mapping big-game migration corridors has captured the attention of conservationists far and wide. In the spring, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order No. 3362, "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors" directing efforts of several U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to collaborate with States in identifying and protecting big-game corridors in 11 States. Matt has conducted several workshops that directly support the Secretarial order, and more are planned. Corridor mapping efforts supported by the USGS and the DOI, based in the States and coordinated by Matt, are unfolding. Unit Administrative Officer Shana Coulby and her staff hosted a training program for university support staff at USGS National Headquarters in March. Shana’s team did a superb job, and the camaraderie among all was evident. We co-sponsored the third in a series of workshops at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March on bridging the gap between science and management. The State Department requested that we coordinate a workshop that would bring CRU scientists and other U.S. representatives together with Brazilian, Colombian, and Peruvian scientists and decision makers to develop best practices to minimize environmental damage from infrastructure development in the Amazon and to collaborate on science needs. The workshop was held in Iquitos, Peru, in the heart of the Amazon during August. Our cooperator community, represented by the National Cooperators Coalition, was very active in response to the President’s budget proposal that would have redirected funding for the CRU program to other priorities. Their efforts are reflected in the House and Senate marks on the fiscal year 2019 budget that not only restored funding, but recommended increases. You will see in this report many other accomplishments of our individual scientists and students during 2018. It was an impressive and productive year! What you won’t see chronicled is the work of the CRU headquarters staff and University support staff. These folks are extraordinary in their dedication to working with cooperators and scientists to solve problems and ensure the important work gets accomplished with minimal interference. We are truly fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated folks in the trenches. I was fortunate to visit several units during 2018. For me, this is the most enriching part of my duties. I get to see firsthand the work our scientists do, the incredible students being mentored, and meet our cooperators on their turf. As we look forward towards the horizon, 2019 looks brighter for the CRU program. Efforts by our cooperators to generate support for filling our vacancies are materializing. Our cadre of scientists is second to none, and the breadth and depth of our work are nothing short of impressive. Thanks to all who are part of this cooperative endeavor—conservation is the ultimate winner in our efforts!

Circular↗
USGS2012

National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. The Service collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. This data series consists of 53 separate data files. Each file describes the results of the survey for an individual refuge and contains the following information: * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Refuge Description: A brief description of the refuge location, acreage, purpose, recreational activities, and visitation statistics, including a map (where available) and refuge website link. * Sampling at This Refuge: The sampling periods, locations, and response rate for the refuge. * Selected Survey Results: Key findings for the refuge, including: - Visitor and Trip Characteristics - Visitor Spending in the Local Communities - Visitors Opinions about This Refuge - Visitor Opinions about National Wildlife Refuge System Topics * Conclusion * References * Survey Frequencies (Appendix A): The survey instrument with the frequency results for this refuge. * Visitor Comments (Appendix B): The verbatim responses to the open-ended survey questions for this refuge. Combined results for the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/ as part of USGS Data Series 685.

Data Series↗
USGS2009

Stakeholder Evaluation for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Completion Report

The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is the largest system of public lands in the world dedicated to wildlife conservation. There are over 545 national wildlife refuges nationwide, encompassing 95 million acres. As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, each refuge is developing 15-year comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs). Each CCP describes a vision and desired future condition for the refuge and outlines goals, objectives, and management strategies for each refuge's habitat and visitor service programs. The CCP process for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Davis, West Virginia was initiated in 2006. This planning process provides a unique opportunity for public input and involvement. Public involvement is an important part of the CCP process. Participation by parties with a stake in the resource (stakeholders) has the potential to increase understanding and support and reduce conflicts. Additionally, meaningful public participation in a decision process may increase trust and provide satisfaction in terms of both process and outcome for management and the public. Public meetings are a common way to obtain input from community members, visitors, and potential visitors. An 'Issues Workbook' is another tool the FWS uses to obtain public input and participation early in the planning process. Sometimes, however, these traditional methods do not capture the full range of perspectives that exist. A stakeholder evaluation is a way to more fully understand community preferences and opinions related to key topics in refuge planning. It can also help refuge staff understand how changes in management affect individuals in terms of their preference for services and experiences. Secondarily, a process such as this can address 'social goals' such as fostering trust in regulating agencies and reducing conflict among stakeholders. As part of the CCP planning effort at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the FWS sponsored a stakeholder evaluation conducted by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center the winter of 2006-2007. The stakeholder evaluation was intended to answer the following questions: 1)Which Refuge management issues are most important, and to whom?, 2)How do opinions about what is most important to stakeholders overlap or conflict?, 3)Why do stakeholders emphasize specific issues, and what values are driving this?, and 4)What potential solutions do stakeholders have for addressing important issues? This information will be used by the Refuge to help guide development of their CCP as they strive to balance stakeholder desires with their charge to manage the unique wetlands and uplands of the Canaan Valley for wildlife conservation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases

Welcome to a new version of the “Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases.” Unlike the previous printed versions of this publication, this new version is being developed as a “living“ electronic publication. Content will periodically be added and (or) updated as warranted, and it will always be reviewed by scientific experts (“peer reviewed”) before it is released. Thus, this publication will never be completed, and readers should download revised versions of specific chapters, glossaries, and the appendixes whenever they visit the publication Web site. The purpose of this manual is to provide information that will enhance the ecological understanding and comfort level of nonspecialists so that they can address various aspects of wildlife disease within the context of wildlife conservation and management. Other readers, from students to science professionals, may also find the information presented to be of interest and value. Constructive suggestions from readers will help guide adjustments as this project progresses. We begin this new manual with introductory contextual and historical background about the convergence of wildlife disease with wildlife management as a wildlife conservation concern (section A, chap. 1). The remainder of the publication is focused on pragmatic information and considerations for addressing various aspects of wildlife disease. Section B focuses on concepts associated with disease surveillance and response to outbreaks, and section C deals with specific techniques for disease surveillance and investigation. Section D, “Diseases of Wild Birds,” and others that follow will address diseases of concern in various species groups. Electronic links facilitate timely access to a wide variety of supplemental information and processes relevant to content in this new version of the “Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases.”

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2016

Fire effects on wildlife in Central Hardwoods and Appalachian regions

Fire is being prescribed and used increasingly to promote ecosystem restoration (e.g., oak woodlands and savannas) and to manage wildlife habitat in the Central Hardwoods and Appalachian regions, USA. However, questions persist as to how fire affects hardwood forest communities and associated wildlife, and how fire should be used to achieve management goals. We provide an up-to-date review of fire effects on various wildlife species and their habitat in the Central Hardwoods and Appalachians. Documented direct effects (i.e., mortality) on wildlife are rare. Indirect effects (i.e., changes in habitat quality) are influenced greatly by light availability, fire frequency, and fire intensity. Unless fire intensity is great enough to kill a portion of the overstory, burning in closed-canopy forests has provided little benefit for most wildlife species in the region because it doesn’t result in enough sunlight penetration to elicit understory response. Canopy reduction through silvicultural treatment has enabled managers to use fire more effectively. Fire intensity must be kept low in hardwoods to limit damage to many species of overstory trees. However, wounding or killing trees with fire benefits many wildlife species by allowing increased sunlight to stimulate understory response, snag and subsequent cavity creation, and additions of large coarse woody debris. In general, a fire-return interval of 2 yr to 7 yr benefits a wide variety of wildlife species by providing a diverse structure in the understory; increasing browse, forage, and soft mast; and creating snags and cavities. Historically, dormant-season fire was most prevalent in these regions, and it still is when most prescribed fire is implemented in hardwood systems as burn-days are relatively few in the growing season of May through August because of shading from leaf cover and high fuel moisture. Late growing-season burning increases the window for burning, and better control on woody composition is possible. Early growing-season fire may pose increased risk for some species, especially herpetofauna recently emerged from winter hibernacula (April) or forest songbirds that nest in the understory (May to June). However, negative population-level effects are unlikely unless the burned area is relatively large and early growing-season fire is used continually. We did not find evidence that fire is leading to population declines for any species, including Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species (e.g., Indiana bat [ Myotis sodalis Mill. Allen] or northern long-eared bat [ M. septentrionalis Trouess.]). Instead, data indicate that fire can enhance habitat for bats by increasing suitability of foraging and day-roost sites. Similarly, concern over burning and displacement of woodland salamanders (Plethodontidae), another taxa of heightened conservation concern, is alleviated when fire is prescribed along ecologically appropriate aspect and slope gradients and not forced into mesic, high site index environments where salamanders are most common. Because topography across the Central Hardwoods and Appalachians is diverse, we contend that applying fire on positions best suited for burning is an effective approach to increase regional landscape heterogeneity and biological diversity. Herein, we offer prescriptive concepts for burning for various wildlife species and guilds in the Central Hardwoods and Appalachians.

Appalachian region, Central Hardwoods region↗