Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlife Disease”

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
USGS1976

Wildlife diseases: philosophical considerations

Wildlife diseases are studied because of their adverse impact on human health, agriculture, or wildlife conservation. Viewpoints from these three major areas of concern are not always compatible, yet the ecological nature of disease makes it essential that each is recognized and understood. Within wildlife agencies, resistance or apathy toward controlling wildlife disease arises because: (1) seldom is this action initiated primarily for the direct benefit of wildlife, (2) the action may be at the direct expense of wildlife, (3) there has been little to demonstrate that wildlife diseases can be controlled in free-living wild populations, and (4) the role of disease in the population dynamics of wildlife species has not been adequately documented and, as a result, the importance of many diseases has not been ascertained. In addition to knowing better the effects of disease on the population dynamics of wildlife species, it is essential to investigate chemical-microbial and chemical-parasitic interactions. Greater efforts must be made to prevent the introduction of disease into wildlife populations and to control disease when it occurs. Although management of wildlife populations often parallels intensive agricultural operations, knowledge of animal husbandry and associated disease problems in domestic animals has not been adequately utilized. As a result, disease problems are created that might otherwise be avoided or reduced in magnitude. If we are to be successful in controlling diseases of wildlife, each of us must translate his knowledge into forms that will utilize differing viewpoints in the resolution of common problems.

Book chapter↗
USGS2012

U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 2011 report of selected wildlife diseases

The National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) was founded in 1975 to provide technical assistance in identifying, controlling, and preventing wildlife losses from diseases, conduct research to understand the impact of diseases on wildlife populations, and devise methods to more effectively manage these disease threats. The impetus behind the creation of the NWHC was, in part, the catastrophic loss of tens of thousands of waterfowl as a result of an outbreak of duck plague at the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge in South Dakota during January 1973. In 1996, the NWHC, along with other Department of Interior research functions, was transferred from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), where we remain one of many entities that provide the independent science that forms the bases of the sound management of the Nation’s natural resources. Our mission is to provide national leadership to safeguard wildlife and ecosystem health through dynamic partnerships and exceptional science. The main campus of the NWHC is located in Madison, Wis., where we maintain biological safety level 3 (BSL–3) diagnostic and research facilities purposefully designed for work with wildlife species. The NWHC provides research and technical assistance on wildlife health issues to State, Federal, and international agencies. In addition, since 1992 we have maintained a field station in Hawaii, the Honolulu Field Station, which focuses on marine and terrestrial natural resources throughout the Pacific region. The NWHC conducts diagnostic investigations of unusual wildlife morbidity and mortality events nationwide to detect the presence of wildlife pathogens and determine the cause of death. This is also an important activity for detecting new, emerging and resurging diseases. The NWHC provides this crucial information on the presence of wildlife diseases to wildlife managers to support sound management decisions. The data and information generated also allows for further indepth analyses for determining the biological and ecological significance of disease events, detecting disease trends over time and space, as well as detecting any significant changes to how diseases manifest in the field. Moreover, this information allows us to gain insight into the significance of future wildlife disease events. The purpose of this report is to provide a sample of NWHC data that are available from our Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). These data are presented in summary format with minimal statistical analysis and interpretation. The goal is to share these data with wildlife managers and other stakeholders, promote the use of NHWC data, and encourage the sharing of wildlife disease data to improve temporal and geographic surveillance coverage. Continued national surveillance for wildlife diseases is essential for providing early detection and warning of events that have the potential to result in harm to human health, economic losses, declines in wildlife populations, and subsequent ecological disturbances. Increased collaboration, coordination, and sharing of surveillance data will enhance this Nation’s ability to detect and respond to wildlife disease threats.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
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↗
USGS2026

The National Wildlife Disease Database

The National Wildlife Disease Database (NWDD) is a national information hub that integrates wildlife disease data across jurisdictions to guide natural resource management and deliver early warnings of unusual events and emerging threats, strengthening public health preparedness and protecting the agricultural economy.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2024

Reframing wildlife disease management problems with decision analysis

Contemporary wildlife disease management is complex because managers need to respond to a wide range of stakeholders, multiple uncertainties, and difficult trade-offs that characterize the interconnected challenges of today. Despite general acknowledgment of these complexities, managing wildlife disease tends to be framed as a scientific problem, in which the major challenge is lack of knowledge. The complex and multifactorial process of decision-making is collapsed into a scientific endeavor to reduce uncertainty. As a result, contemporary decision-making may be oversimplified, rely on simple heuristics, and fail to account for the broader legal, social, and economic context in which the decisions are made. Concurrently, scientific research on wildlife disease may be distant from this decision context, resulting in information that may not be directly relevant to the pertinent management questions. We propose reframing wildlife disease management challenges as decision problems and addressing them with decision analytical tools to divide the complex problems into more cognitively manageable elements. In particular, structured decision-making has the potential to improve the quality, rigor, and transparency of decisions about wildlife disease in a variety of systems. Examples of management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, white-nose syndrome, avian influenza, and chytridiomycosis illustrate the most common impediments to decision-making, including competing objectives, risks, prediction uncertainty, and limited resources.

Conservation Biology↗
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↗
USGS2025

The effectiveness of harvest for limiting wildlife disease: Insights from 20 years of chronic wasting disease in Wyoming

Effective, practical options for managing disease in wildlife populations are limited, especially after diseases become established. Removal strategies (e.g., hunting or culling) are used to control wildlife diseases across a wide range of systems, despite conflicting evidence of their effectiveness. This is especially true for chronic wasting disease (CWD), an untreatable, fatal prion disease threatening cervid populations across multiple countries, for which recreational harvest has been suggested as an important disease control strategy. Using observational data to evaluate whether harvest effectively limits CWD prevalence has been difficult because statistical relationships between harvest and disease prevalence can arise from a causal effect of harvest (i.e., harvest's impacts on prevalence via changes in transmission or demographic structure) or from a number of alternative mechanisms. For instance, correlations between harvest and disease prevalence can also be driven by disease's impacts on population size and harvest (i.e., reverse causality) or from confounding variables (e.g., habitat or geographic location) that impact both harvest rates and disease prevalence. We analyzed two decades of surveillance data (2000–2021) from 10 mule deer herds in Wyoming, using statistical approaches informed by causal inference theory, to test for the effects of harvest on CWD prevalence. Herds with consistently high harvest pressure across 20 years had significantly lower prevalence. Our models predicted that harvesting 40% of adult males per year across 20 years would maintain prevalence below 5% on average, whereas if only 20% of males were harvested in each year, prevalence would increase to >30% by year 20. Moreover, shifting the relative harvest pressure within a herd over a shorter period (3 years) reduced subsequent prevalence, albeit to a smaller degree. Although high harvest is unlikely to completely eradicate CWD, our analysis suggests that maintaining hunting pressure on adult males is an important tactic for slowing CWD epidemics within mule deer herds. Our study also provides guidance for future analyses of longitudinal surveillance data, including the importance of demographic data and appropriate time lags.

Wyoming↗
USGS2020

Human dimensions considerations in wildlife disease management

In 1943, Aldo Leopold observed that the real problem of wildlife management is not how to handle wildlife, but how to manage humans. As with any other aspect of wildlife management, social sciences can improve understanding the human dimensions of wildlife disease management (WDM). Human activities have accelerated the emergence of wildlife diseases, and human concerns about the ecological, social, and economic impacts of wildlife diseases and their management have led to diseases becoming headline-worthy public issues. This chapter provides guidance to help front-line professionals understand and address the public’s perspectives and behaviors relevant to WDM. This chapter focuses on practical needs of wildlife disease managers who have to consider and interact with specific stakeholders and the broader public. The chapter does not dive deeply into social science; instead it briefly reviews some concepts that are most relevant to WDM. The chapter also suggests where to look for assistance and additional resources for further reading. Following brief introductory comments, the chapter is organized around a simple model of the general process for WDM. It addresses three key areas where social science can assist in WDM—audience research to understand stakeholders; engaging stakeholders in wildlife disease management; and using risk communication about wildlife diseases and disease management to inspire risk-wise behavior.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2013

Taming wildlife disease: bridging the gap between science and management

1.Parasites and pathogens of wildlife can threaten biodiversity, infect humans and domestic animals, and cause significant economic losses, providing incentives to manage wildlife diseases. Recent insights from disease ecology have helped transform our understanding of infectious disease dynamics and yielded new strategies to better manage wildlife diseases. Simultaneously, wildlife disease management (WDM) presents opportunities for large-scale empirical tests of disease ecology theory in diverse natural systems. 2.To assess whether the potential complementarity between WDM and disease ecology theory has been realized, we evaluate the extent to which specific concepts in disease ecology theory have been explicitly applied in peer-reviewed WDM literature. 3.While only half of WDM articles published in the past decade incorporated disease ecology theory, theory has been incorporated with increasing frequency over the past 40 years. Contrary to expectations, articles authored by academics were no more likely to apply disease ecology theory, but articles that explain unsuccessful management often do so in terms of theory. 4.Some theoretical concepts such as density-dependent transmission have been commonly applied, whereas emerging concepts such as pathogen evolutionary responses to management, biodiversity–disease relationships and within-host parasite interactions have not yet been fully integrated as management considerations. 5.Synthesis and applications. Theory-based disease management can meet the needs of both academics and managers by testing disease ecology theory and improving disease interventions. Theoretical concepts that have received limited attention to date in wildlife disease management could provide a basis for improving management and advancing disease ecology in the future.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗
USGS2024

Early detection of wildlife disease pathogens using CRISPR-Cas system methods

Wildlife diseases are a considerable threat to human health, conservation, and the economy. Surveillance is a critical component to mitigate the impact of animal diseases in these sectors. To monitor human diseases, CRISPR-Cas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-CRISPR-associated protein) biosensors have proven instrumental as diagnostic tools capable of detecting unique DNA and RNA sequences related to their associated pathogens. However, despite the significant advances in the general development of CRISPR-Cas biosensors, their use to support wildlife disease management is lagging. In some cases, wildlife diseases of concern could be rapidly surveyed using these tools with minimal technical, operational, or cost requirements to end users. This review explores the potential to further leverage this technology to advance wildlife disease monitoring and highlights how concerted standardization of protocols can help to ensure data reliability.

The CRISPR Journal↗
USGS2017

Using decision analysis to support proactive management of emerging infectious wildlife diseases

Despite calls for improved responses to emerging infectious diseases in wildlife, management is seldom considered until a disease has been detected in affected populations. Reactive approaches may limit the potential for control and increase total response costs. An alternative, proactive management framework can identify immediate actions that reduce future impacts even before a disease is detected, and plan subsequent actions that are conditional on disease emergence. We identify four main obstacles to developing proactive management strategies for the newly discovered salamander pathogen Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans ( Bsal ). Given that uncertainty is a hallmark of wildlife disease management and that associated decisions are often complicated by multiple competing objectives, we advocate using decision analysis to create and evaluate trade-offs between proactive (pre-emergence) and reactive (post-emergence) management options. Policy makers and natural resource agency personnel can apply principles from decision analysis to improve strategies for countering emerging infectious diseases.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2002

Wildlife disease in the Colorado Delta as an indicator of ecosystem health

Ecosystem health and management are relatively new paradigms for environmental management (Costanza et al., 1992) and will be continually redefined and reevaluated relative to their purpose and utility in serving human society (Costanza et al., 1992; Sutter, 1993; Grumbine, 1994; Lackey, 1998, 1999). The stimulus for ecosystem management is often associated with sustaining or restoring ecosystem health to provide values sought by humans (Costanza et al., 1992). We accept the concepts of ecosystem health and management as useful precepts. However, we argue that the orientation in serving human values often has resulted in inadequate attention being given to nonhuman species. The need to address ecosystem health for the benefit of all species that share Planet Earth is noted by Merchant (1997). This humanistic viewpoint also has economic benefits that are part of the wealth that we will pass on to future generations (Pulliam, 1995). Despite the viewpoints just noted, disease occurrence in wildlife receives inadequate consideration with regard to perspectives of ecosystem health and as a focus for ecosystem management. Evidence for this view is the limited resources allocated for wildlife disease programs and prevention efforts, and persistent attitudes within the wildlife conservation community that disease is a “natural event,” not influenced by environmental conditions or anthropogenic insults.

California↗
USGS2006

The fitting of general force-of-infection models to wildlife disease prevalence data

Researchers and wildlife managers increasingly find themselves in situations where they must deal with infectious wildlife diseases such as chronic wasting disease, brucellosis, tuberculosis, and West Nile virus. Managers are often charged with designing and implementing control strategies, and researchers often seek to determine factors that influence and control the disease process. All of these activities require the ability to measure some indication of a disease's foothold in a population and evaluate factors affecting that foothold. The most common type of data available to managers and researchers is apparent prevalence data. Apparent disease prevalence, the proportion of animals in a sample that are positive for the disease, might seem like a natural measure of disease's foothold, but several properties, in particular, its dependency on age structure and the biasing effects of disease-associated mortality, make it less than ideal. In quantitative epidemiology, the a??force of infection,a?? or infection hazard, is generally the preferred parameter for measuring a disease's foothold, and it can be viewed as the most appropriate way to a??adjusta?? apparent prevalence for age structure. The typical ecology curriculum includes little exposure to quantitative epidemiological concepts such as cumulative incidence, apparent prevalence, and the force of infection. The goal of this paper is to present these basic epidemiological concepts and resulting models in an ecological context and to illustrate how they can be applied to understand and address basic epidemiological questions. We demonstrate a practical approach to solving the heretofore intractable problem of fitting general force-of-infection models to wildlife prevalence data using a generalized regression approach. We apply the procedures to Mycobacterium bovis (bovine tuberculosis) prevalence in bison (Bison bison) in Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada, and demonstrate strong age dependency in the force of infection as well as an increased mortality hazard in positive animals.

Ecology↗
USGS2025

Integrating climate change, biological invasions, and infectious wildlife diseases

Climate change is likely to affect infectious diseases that are facilitated by biological invasions, with repercussions for wildlife conservation and zoonotic risks. Current invasion management and policy are underprepared for the future risks associated with such invasion-related wildlife diseases. By considering evidence from bioclimatology, invasion biology, and disease research, we illustrate how climate change is anticipated to affect disease agents (parasites and pathogens), hosts, and vectors across the different stages of invasions. We highlight the opportunity to integrate these disciplines to identify the effects of climate change on invasion related wildlife diseases. In addition, shifting to a proactive stance in implementing management and policy, such as by incorporating climate-change effects either into preventative and mitigation measures for biosecurity or with rapid response protocols to limit disease spread and impacts, could help to combat future ecological, economic, and human health risks stemming from invasion-related wildlife diseases.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2014

Why bother about wildlife disease?

In most developed countries, the maintenance of the numbers of wildlife 1 is vested in the natural resource agencies of those countries. During earlier times, game species were the primary focus of natural resource agencies 2,3 however, current wildlife conservation continues to transition towards a more holistic focus on biodiversity 4 and environmental health 5,6 . Nevertheless, that transition lags behind in addressing wildlife disease in “…the struggle for existence between different forms of life…”. 7 Thus, the primary objective of this presentation is to provide a pragmatic assessment of wildlife disease that is irrespective of one’s orientation towards wildlife conservation. A secondary objective is to highlight the changing role of disease over time as a wildlife conservation factor. That transition is relevant to the insights provided for current and future efforts focused on sustaining global biodiversity and desired levels of wildlife populations in nature.

Circular↗
USGS2024

Case definitions for wildlife diseases

Welcome to the first manual of “Case Definitions for Wildlife Diseases,” a “living” electronic publication. The plan is to add and update this manual’s case definitions periodically as warranted; thus, this manual will never be completed, and readers should download the latest versions of specific chapters (that is, definitions) when available. Constructive suggestions from readers are welcome and will help guide adjustments as this project progresses. The purpose of this manual is to provide case definitions for selected diseases of importance to wildlife in Canada and the United States. Case definitions provide standard sets of criteria for classifying the degree of certainty of a particular diagnosis and help improve surveillance data quality and comparability. Better data and standardization allow for improved data sharing, which increases geographic and species surveillance coverage and permits more robust analyses. The definitions included in this manual have been developed by veterinary pathologists, epidemiologists, and wildlife biologists primarily from the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) and Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative (CWHC). Pathologists from each organization reviewed and finalized the definitions. Each case definition has been peer reviewed by two scientific experts before publication. This manual begins with the case definition template. This generic template includes four sections: “Individual, Place, and Time Criteria for Diagnosis and Testing,” “Field Criteria for Diagnosis,” “Laboratory Criteria for Diagnosis,” and “Epidemiological Linkage Criteria for Diagnosis” and can be used to guide development of new case definitions. Information in each section is then combined to provide an overall case classification. Disease diagnoses are classified as “Confirmed,” “Presumptive,” or “Suspected;” and evidence of a pathogen or toxin is classified as “Exposed” or “Present/Detected.” Each subsequent chapter is then a case definition for a specific disease of wildlife, and infectious and non-infectious diseases are included.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2023

U.S. Geological Survey science to support wildlife disease management

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves a principal role in conducting wildlife disease outbreak investigations, surveillance, and ecological research to support management of diseases in free-ranging native wildlife. Approximately 60 percent of emerging human infectious diseases such as COVID-19, are zoonotic, meaning they are transmitted between animals and humans and 70 percent of these diseases originate in wildlife (Jones and others, 2008). The effects of emerging wildlife diseases are global and profound, often resulting in economic and agricultural impacts, declines in wildlife populations, and ecological disturbances.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2012

Transformation through time: How wildlife disease became a focus of conservation

When I began my career as an assistant waterfowl biologist in 1956, wildlife disease was not a major concern for conservation agencies. Some states— such as California, Michigan, New York, Wyoming, and Colorado— had small internal wildlife disease programs to investigate wildlife mortality events, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had a program focused on migratory birds.

The Wildlife Professional↗