Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “American Wildlife”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2018

Science alive and well in North American wildlife management

Artelle et al. (1) entitled a recent article with the provocative claim: “Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management”. Although we agree with some of the concerns and recommendations of Artelle et al. (1), we believe that the article is misleading about the distinction between science and management, the role of science in wise management, and the degree to which science is used in North American wildlife management. Here we distinguish between science and management, specify an appropriate role of science in management, and document the explicit use of science in at least some programs of North American wildlife management.

Science Advances↗
USGS2018

Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management

Artelle et al . (2018) conclude that “hallmarks of science” are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. We highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of the conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of “hallmarks of science,” confusion about the roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with the scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.

Science Advances↗
USGS2026

Enduring cultural legacies affect Euro-American wildlife values

Social values shape biodiversity conservation success. Yet information is lacking on how values form, change and adapt people to their environment. Our 33-nation survey in 2021–2023 ( n = 18,477) explored the effect of the institutions of European colonization on present-day values towards wildlife in the Americas. Here we found mutualism values (seeing wildlife as part of one’s social community) prevail in Iberian-origin Latin American countries, whereas domination values (seeing wildlife as a resource for human use) are more prevalent in British-origin North American countries. Multilevel analysis showed significant country-level effects of colonial institution (for example, colonial origin, Protestant versus Catholic religious cultures) and endowment (for example, pre-colonial population density, Indigenous ancestry, settler mortality) factors on wildlife values in the Americas. The strong mutualism emphasis in Latin America appears to be consistent with acculturation between the compatible ideologies of Indigenous peoples and the Iberian colonizers. The effectiveness of wildlife institutions and policies will depend on their congruence with the social values of publics being served.

Nature Sustainability↗
USGS1983

[Book review] Waterfowl ecology and management: Selected readings

This book is a compilation of papers from the extensive and varied published literature on the ecology and management of waterfowl. The 125 technical papers reprinted in this book are arranged in eight major sections and are from 21 journals, government reports, several books, and proceedings of symposia and annual conferences. The most frequent sources of papers are The Journal of Wildlife Management, The Auk, Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, and Wildfowl. These readings span the period from 1937 through 1981. A majority of the technical papers was published during the sixties and seventies, reflecting the expansion of waterfowl research during that period. The front cover and the introductory page of each section are illustrated with black-and-white drawings of North American waterfowl by D. R. Barrick.

The Auk↗
USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗
USGS2022

Management of diseases in free-ranging wildlife populations

Diseases are increasingly threatening the conservation of wildlife species. Spillover of pathogens into humans and domestic animals may negatively impact public health and the economy, requiring increased proactive management actions. The North American Wildlife Management Model provides the philosophical basis for managing wildlife and underpins all management options. Diseases in wildlife populations may be managed by manipulation of the environment, manipulation of the host, manipulation of the agent, and modification of human behavior. Important considerations include setting management goals, and metrics to assess success. Future strategies include using systems and One Health approaches to develop interventions that optimize outcomes for humans, animals, and the environment.

Book chapter↗
USGS2019

Identifying common decision problem elements for the management of emerging fungal diseases of wildlife

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) of wildlife have characteristics that make them difficult to manage, leading to reactive and often ineffective management strategies. Currently, two fungal pathogens, Pseudogymnoascus destructans (Pd) and Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), are causing declines in novel host species. To improve the application of management strategies addressing the risk of these pathogens to North American wildlife, we queried wildlife managers about their concerns regarding managing populations of bats and amphibians potentially impacted by Pd and Bsal. Using these responses, we identified aspects of each decision problem that were shared across pathogens, regions and agencies – and found similarities in decision-problem elements for disease management. Reframing management problems as decisions can enable managers to identify similarities across EIDs, i.e. uncertainties within management actions, and improve reactive responses if proactive management is not possible. Such an approach recognizes context-specific constraints and identifies relevant uncertainties that must be reduced in developing a response.

Society and Natural Resources↗
USGS2018

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program was involved in a number of notable events during 2017, many concerning our personnel. Dr. Barry Grand left his position as Leader of the Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to become the Cooperative Units Program Supervisor for the South, replacing Dr. Kevin Whalen who took over as Supervisor for the West. We welcomed Dr. Sarah Converse who left the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to become Leader of the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Dr. Amanda Rosenberger joined the Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit as Assistant Leader, transferring from the Missouri Cooperative Unit. Dr. Scott Carleton left his position as Assistant Unit Leader in New Mexico to become Chief of the Region 2 Migratory Bird Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We said farewell to many colleagues who retired. Their departure is bittersweet as we wish them health, happiness, and wellness in retirement. We will miss their companionship and the extraordinary contributions they have made to the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program and conservation. The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program has a record high number of vacant scientist positions due to a combination of retirements and base funding short-falls. These issues are affecting our ability to meet cooperator needs. Yet, we remain highly productive. For example, this year we released a report ( https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1427 ) containing abstracts of nearly 600 of our research projects, covering thematic areas ranging from advanced technologies to wildlife diseases. We provided highly competent, trained scientists and natural resource managers for our cooperators’ workforce. We delivered technical training and guidance to professional practitioners. We provided critical information to cooperators for decisions on species status assessments and management of species of greatest conservation need. This year we had an active presence at major national meetings, including the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference where we co-sponsored a workshop on continuing education as a means to bridge the gap between science and management. During the coming year, with support from the U.S. Geological Survey and our cooperators, we intend to reduce the number of vacancies in the program. It will take time and active support of our cooperators to get back to full strength, but I am committed to this goal and encouraged by the resolve of our partners. We look forward to an even more productive year in 2018!

Circular↗
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↗
USGS2022

Highly pathogenic avian influenza is an emerging disease threat to wild birds in North America

Prior to the emergence of the A/goose/Guangdong/1/1996 (Gs/GD) H5N1 influenza A virus, the long-held and well-supported paradigm was that highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks were restricted to poultry, the result of cross-species transmission of precursor viruses from wild aquatic birds that subsequently gained pathogenicity in domestic birds. Therefore, management agencies typically adopted a prevention, control, and eradication strategy that included strict biosecurity for domestic bird production, isolation of infected and exposed flocks, and prompt depopulation. In most cases, this strategy has proved sufficient for eradicating HPAI. Since 2002, this paradigm has been challenged with many detections of viral descendants of the Gs/GD lineage among wild birds, most of which have been associated with sporadic mortality events. Since the emergence and evolution of the genetically distinct clade 2.3.4.4 Gs/GD lineage HPAI viruses in approximately 2010, there have been further increases in the occurrence of HPAI in wild birds and geographic spread through migratory bird movement. A prominent example is the introduction of clade 2.3.4.4 Gs/GD HPAI viruses from East Asia to North America via migratory birds in autumn 2014 that ultimately led to the largest outbreak of HPAI in the history of the United States. Given the apparent maintenance of Gs/GD lineage HPAI viruses in a global avian reservoir; bidirectional virus exchange between wild and domestic birds facilitating the continued adaptation of Gs/GD HPAI viruses in wild bird hosts; the current frequency of HPAI outbreaks in wild birds globally, and particularly in Eurasia where Gs/GD HPAI viruses may now be enzootic; and ongoing dispersal of AI viruses from East Asia to North America via migratory birds, HPAI now represents an emerging disease threat to North American wildlife. This recent paradigm shift implies that management of HPAI in domestic birds alone may no longer be sufficient to eradicate HPAI viruses from a given country or region. Rather, agencies managing wild birds and their habitats may consider the development or adoption of mitigation strategies to minimize introductions to poultry, to reduce negative impacts on wild bird populations, and to diminish adverse effects to stakeholders using wildlife resources. The main objective of this review is, therefore, to provide information that will assist wildlife managers in developing mitigation strategies or approaches for dealing with outbreaks of Gs/GD HPAI in wild birds in the form of preparedness, surveillance, research, communications, and targeted management actions. Resultant outbreak response plans and actions may represent meaningful steps of wildlife managers toward the use of collaborative and multi-jurisdictional One Health approaches when it comes to the detection, investigation, and mitigation of emerging viruses at the human-domestic animal-wildlife interface.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2023

Experimental infection of Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) with SARS-CoV-2

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus is thought to have originated in wild bats from Asia, and as the resulting pandemic continues into its third year, concerns have been raised that the virus will expand its host range and infect North American wildlife species, including bats. Mexican free-tailed bats ( Tadarida brasiliensis ) live in large colonies in the southern United States, often in urban areas and, as such, could be exposed to the virus from infected humans. We experimentally challenged wild T. brasiliensis with SARS-CoV-2 to determine the susceptibility, reservoir potential, and population impacts of infection in this species. Of 10 bats oronasally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2, 5 became infected and orally excreted moderate amounts of virus for up to 18 days postinoculation. These five subjects all seroconverted and cleared the virus before the end of the study with no obvious clinical signs of disease. We additionally found no evidence of viral transmission to uninoculated subjects. These results indicate that while T. brasiliensis are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection of wild populations of T. brasiliensis would not likely cause mortality. However, the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from T. brasiliensis to or from humans, or to other animal species, is a possibility requiring further investigation to better define.

mSphere↗
USGS1972

Egg measurements for three endangered species

From 1967 through 1969, external dimensions of the eggs of three endangered species of birds were measured. Included were 33 eggs of the Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ), 158 eggs of the Aleutian Canada Goose ( Branta canadensis leucopareia ), and 809 eggs of the Masked Bobwhite Quail ( Colinus virginiana ridgwayi ). In the literature, there are only scattered reports of small samples of Masked Bobwhite Quail and Whooping Crane eggs and, to the best of our knowledge, no measurements of Aleutian Canada Goose eggs have been reported. The information presented herein is intended to augment knowledge of these three threatened forms of North American wildlife. We wish to thank members of the staff of the Endangered Wildlife Re- search Program for assistance in gathering the data.

The Auk↗
USGS2024

A metapopulation strategy to support long term conservation of genetic diversity in Department of the Interior bison

Once numbering in the tens of millions, plains bison ( Bison bison bison ) were nearly driven to extinction with only a few hundred individuals remaining by the late 19th century. Plains bison have since recovered to approximately 20,000 animals managed in conservation herds throughout North America, yet substantial challenges to their recovery remain. The Department of the Interior (DOI) is working with diverse partners to steward approximately 11,000 bison in 18 conservation herds across 12 states. Most herds exist in areas without native predators, and removals are required to keep herd sizes at or below carrying capacity. The loss of genetic diversity within bison, and the fact that most DOI herds are relatively small and isolated from each other with no opportunity for natural gene flow, raises concerns about maintaining genetic diversity over the long term. Connecting populations through gene flow (i.e., creating a metapopulation) can minimize loss of genetic diversity, both within and across populations. Management of DOI bison conservation herds has historically varied across bureaus and conservation units. Adopting a national perspective on bison conservation was identified as a priority in the 2008 Department of the Interior Bison Conservation Initiative (BCI). The concept of metapopulation management as a potential tool to maximize the conservation of genetic diversity among DOI herds was first described in this 2008 Initiative and was specifically encouraged in the 2010 DOI Bison Conservation Genetics Workshop report (Dratch and Gogan 2010). In the 2020 BCI, the DOI re-affirmed its commitment to conserving bison as native, North American wildlife. This document establishes a framework for a nationally coordinated strategy for bison managed by the DOI to support the genetic conservation goals outlined in the 2020 BCI. This is a decisionmaking framework that guides managers through the process of determining when and how to consider translocations. Decisions and actions within the framework are informed by analysis and interpretation of data housed in an integrated, relational database that will be initially populated with the most current data and updated annually thereafter. It provides science-based guidance on how to conserve DOI bison genetic diversity through strategic translocations, while also considering cattle introgression and bison health. We illustrate how this Strategy can be used to guide the establishment of new conservation herds and discuss what it means to be a DOI partner. Finally, this is intended to be used as a living document that will evolve as needs and technologies change.

Science Report↗