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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2004

Combined impacts of Black-crowned Night-Heron predation/disturbance and various management activities on Roseate Tern productivity in 2003, and testing of a video surveillance system for recording the diurnal and nocturnal behavior of terns and night-herons at Falkner Island, Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Connecticut, in 2004: Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Westbrook, Connecticut and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5 Regional Office, Hadley, Massachusetts

Falkner Island (FICT), a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge (SBMNWR) since 1985, is located in Long Island Sound 5 km south of Guilford, CT. For more than three decades it has been the site of the only large breeding colony in Connecticut of the federally endangered Northwest Atlantic population of Roseate Terns (Sterna dougallii) and the state's largest colony of Common Terns (S. hirundo). Both species have been studied at this site since 1978 as part of the Falkner Island Tern Project (FITP), and since 1987 also as part of a regional Cooperative Roseate Tern Metapopulation Dynamics and Ecology Project (CRTMP), both coordinated by Dr. Jeffrey A. Spendelow of the U.S. Geological Survey's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (USGS-PWRC). From 1997-2002 the Roseate Tern breeding population at this site declined by more than 50% from about 150 to about 70 nesting pairs, mostly as a result of the nocturnal predation and disturbance of tern chicks and eggs by Black-crowned Night-Herons (Nycticorax nycticorax). Here we report the results of research done with the goal of improving management of nocturnal predators and developing new practices/structures to reduce losses of tern eggs and chicks so as to prevent the abandonment of this site by Roseate Terns. Notification of release of the USGS 'Quick Response Funds' (QRF) that were to be used to support the part of this study entitled 'Nocturnal behavior/interactions of endangered Roseate Terns and Black-crowned Night-Herons', and final approval of the Study Plan for this research did not occur until after the breeding season in 2003 was well underway. As a result, some work will need to be completed during the 2004 field season. There are two major objectives of this study. The first is to collect basic information (a) on the nocturnal behavior and interactions of Roseate (and Common) Terns with predatory Black-crowned Night-Herons, and (b) on how the behavior of the night-herons and the behavior and productivity of the terns are affected by the activities of management personnel (or researchers) that may be moving around the island at night. The second objective is to develop new structures (or to modify existing ones) that can be used by adult Roseate Terns for nesting sites and/or by chicks as hiding sites so that tern eggs and chicks will be less susceptible to night-heron predation. Work on the development and comparative use of various man-made structures began prior to the start of the 2003 nesting season; work on the evaluation and testing of a video surveillance system to study the nocturnal behavior of the terns and night-herons began in June 2003. Reported here are (1) the results of work on the placement and use by Roseate Terns of several types of structures in different habitats, and (2) a description of the set-up, testing, and evaluation of a multi-camera video system to record tern and predator behavior during both day and night. Also given here is some additional information on other factors that affected the productivity of the Roseate Terns at FICT collected as part of the CRTMP which served as the underlying foundation for the additional work done with support of the 2003 Quick Response Funds.

Book↗
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↗
USGS2023

Interstate 15 wildlife crossing design considerations for focal wildlife species - Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage southern California

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), along with landowners including San Diego State University, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority and Riverside County Flood Control District are developing wildlife crossing infrastructure projects along a 3-mile stretch of Interstate 15 (I-15) in the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage (hereafter ‘Linkage’) in southern California. These crossings will provide a critical missing link that will help reconnect wildlife in the coastal Santa Ana Mountains west of I-15 with those in the interior Palomar and Eastern Peninsular ranges to the east of I-15. The Linkage supports intact and diverse habitats including coastal sage scrub, grasslands, chaparral, and oak and riparian woodlands, and has been a focus of regional conservation efforts for the last 30 years. The three wildlife crossing infrastructure projects include enhancement of the existing Temecula Creek I-15 Bridge, construction of a new vegetated wildlife overcrossing, and construction of a new stand-alone wildlife culvert. Given the challenges and level of financial investment required to secure wildlife crossings for I-15 in the Linkage, TNC and Caltrans proposed that planning efforts would benefit from input by taxonomic experts on design concepts that meet the needs of the broadest range of wildlife. While wildlife crossings are becoming more common, optimal designs that meet the needs of a variety of wildlife species are largely unknown and can be site specific. To address this challenge, we held a workshop in February 2022 that brought together over 50 wildlife experts to brainstorm and identify specific design considerations for various focal wildlife species groups (medium/large mammals, small animals, birds, bats, plants, and invertebrates) that might use the identified I-15 wildlife crossings (The Nature Conservancy 2022). Lead experts for each focal species group worked together to identify specific wildlife crossing features or attributes for each of the three proposed wildlife crossings. Specific attributes evaluated by experts for each crossing type and species group included, at a minimum: • Crossing Structure Attributes; o Habitat features? (cover, habitat structure, substrate, moisture, light and noise mitigation) • Crossing Approach Area Features; o Habitat features (cover type/density, substrate, water, light and noise mitigation) • Barrier design to reduce roadkill and/or to funnel wildlife to the crossing; • Additional research to resolve uncertainties related to crossing design Based on the design considerations for each potential crossing type, the experts then weighed in on the suitability of the existing location and probability of use by their focal species or groups of species. With proposed design features, Temecula Creek Bridge has moderate or high probability of use by 27 of the 36 focal wildlife species assessed, while the vegetated overcrossing could meet the needs of 26 of the 36 species. When combined, Temecula Creek Bridge and the vegetated overcrossing have a moderate or high probability of use for 34 of the 36 species. The wildlife culvert has a moderate or high level of expected use by 10 of the 36 focal species and could serve connectivity needs for representative species from all but the bird and plant species groups.

California↗
USGS2005

Wildlife and habitat damage assessment from Hurricane Charley: recommendations for recovery of the J. N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge Complex. [Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]

On 13 August 2004, the first of four hurricanes to strike Florida in <6 weeks came ashore near J. N. ?Ding? Darling National Wildlife Refuge (JNDDNWR) Complex, Sanibel Island, FL. Hurricane Charley passed just north of Sanibel Island with maximum sustained winds of 145 mph (123 knots) and a storm surge of 0.3-2.7 m. We surveyed storm damage to JNDDNWR Complex from 20-24 September 2004. Our goals were to assess damage to: wetlands for Mangrove Cuckoos (Coccyzus minor) and Black-whiskered Vireo (Vireo altiloquus), waterbird rookeries/mangrove islands, impoundments, sea grass beds, and hardwood hammocks. The refuge complex sustained moderate to catastrophic damage to vegetation, especially mangrove forests and waterbird nesting or roosting islands. Lumpkin Island, Hemp Island, and Bird Key waterbird nesting areas had >50% and sometimes 90% of their vegetation severely damaged (dead, broken tree stems, and tipped trees). Shell Mound Trail of JNDDNWR sustained catastrophic damage to its old growth mangrove forests. Direct storm mortality and injury to manatees in the area was probably slight. Because seagrass beads and manatee habitat extend beyond refuge boundaries, we recommended a regional approach with partner agencies to more thoroughly assess storm impacts and monitor recovery of seagrass and manatees. Besides intensive monitoring of waterbirds and their nesting habitat (pre- and post-storm), we recommend that the Mangrove Cuckoo be used as an indicator species for recovery of mangrove forests and also for monitoring songbirds at risk. Black-whiskered Vireo may be another potential indicator species to monitor in mangrove forests. Damaged vegetation should be monitored for recovery (permanent or long-term plots), especially where previous study plots have been established and with additional plots in mangrove forests of waterbird nesting islands and freshwater wetlands. Potential loss of wetlands may be prevented by water level monitoring, locating the positions (GPS-GIS) and maintaining existing water control structures, creating a GIS map of refuge with accurate vertical data, and monitoring and eradicating invasive plants. Invasive species, including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and air potato (Dioscorea bulbifora), were common in a very limited survey. As an important monitoring goal, we recommend that species presence-absence data analysis (with probability of detection) be used to determine changes in animal communities. This could be accomplished possibly with comparison to other storm-damaged and undamaged refuges in the Region. This information may be helpful to refuge managers when storms return in the future.

Book↗
USGS2011

Monitoring habitat restoration projects: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program Protocol

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Pacific Region (Region 1) includes more than 158 million acres (almost 247,000 square miles) of land base in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawai`i, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Region 1 is ecologically diverse with landscapes that range from coral reefs, broadleaf tropical forests, and tropical savannahs in the Pacific Islands, to glacial streams and lakes, lush old-growth rainforests, inland fjords, and coastal shoreline in the Pacific Northwest, to the forested mountains, shrub-steppe desert, and native grasslands in the Inland Northwest. Similarly, the people of the different landscapes perceive, value, and manage their natural resources in ways unique to their respective regions and cultures. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program work with a variety of partners in Region 1 including individual landowners, watershed councils, land trusts, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, non-governmental organizations, Tribal governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, and local, State, and Federal agencies. The Partners Program is the FWS's vanguard for working with private landowners to voluntarily restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat. Using non-regulatory incentives, the Partners Program engages willing partners to conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat on their property and in their communities. This is accomplished by providing the funding support and technical and planning tools needed to make on-the-ground conservation affordable, feasible, and effective. The primary goals of the Pacific Region Partners Program are to: Promote citizen and community-based stewardship efforts for fish and wildlife conservation Contribute to the recovery of at-risk species, Protect the environmental integrity of the National Wildlife Refuges, Contribute to the implementation of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, and Help achieve the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships and regionally based bird conservation plans (for example, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Pacific Island Shorebird Conservation Plans, Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, etc.). The Partners Program accomplishes these priorities by: Developing and maintaining strong partnerships, and delivering on-the-ground habitat restoration projects designed to reestablish habitat function and restore natural processes; Addressing key habitat limiting factors for declining species; Providing corridors for wildlife and decrease impediments to native fish and wildlife migration; and Enhancing native plant communities by reducing invasive species and improving native species composition. The Coastal Program is a voluntary fish and wildlife conservation program that focuses on watershed-scale, long-term collaborative resource planning and on-the-ground restoration projects in high-priority coastal areas. The Coastal Program conducts planning and restoration work on private, State, and Federal lands, and partnerships with other agencies-Native American Tribes, citizens, and organizations are emphasized. Coastal Program goals include restoring and protecting coastal habitat, providing technical and cost-sharing assistance where appropriate, supporting community-based restoration, collecting and developing information on the status of and threats to fish and wildlife, and using outreach to promote stewardship of coastal resources. The diversity of habitats and partners in Region 1 present many opportunities for conducting restoration projects. Faced with this abundance of opportunity, the Partners Program and Coastal Program must ensure that limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for Federal trust species. In 2007, the Partners Program and Coastal Program developed a Strategic Plan to guide program operations and more efficiently conserve habitat by focusing partnership building and habitat improvement actions within 35 Partners Program Focus Areas and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The Strategic Plan also contains four other goals: broaden and strengthen partnerships; improve information sharing and communications; enhance workforce; and increase accountability to ensure that program resources are used efficiently and effectively. This protocol will help achieve all goals of the Strategic Plan.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2023

Attitudes of the Wildlife Society members toward uses of wildlife

Large-scale sociological, geographic, and demographic changes affect the way people interact with and value wildlife. Beliefs and attitudes of stakeholders towards wildlife and uses of wildlife are also shifting along with these geographical and demographic changes. Changes in societal or professional attitudes toward uses of wildlife has potential to create alignment issues between wildlife professionals and society. To inform deliberations within The Wildlife Society (TWS) and the larger population of conservation professionals, we assessed and compared the change over time between 1998 and 2020 in value orientations, beliefs, and attitudes toward uses of wildlife and wildlife management practices of members of TWS as a proxy for practicing wildlife professionals. We administered a Qualtrics web-based survey ( n = 3,247), January–March 2020. Respondents closely approximated TWS membership demographically, who identified as male (59.7%) and female (37.7%), and geographically within 50 U.S. states at the time of the survey. Results indicated wildlife conservation professionals express as broad of a spectrum of beliefs, albeit shifting, about consumptive uses of wildlife in hunting and trapping much as they did 2 decades ago. Change in attitudes and beliefs was modest but mutualistic or protectionist beliefs and attitudes increased, especially among younger professionals, toward the ethical acceptability of harvested animals involving fair chase and sportsmanship (72% in 1998; 93.2% in 2020), and in expressed acceptance of regulated hunting and trapping. Our work provides insights into potential focus areas of training and education, such as Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow and Trapping Matters.

Article↗
USGS1960

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Pesticide-Wildlife Review: 1959

Research findings of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, State agencies and independent research workers in Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., La., Mass., Mich., Mont., N. Dak., Tex., and Wis. are summarized in this report together with recommendations for reducing damage from pest control operations. Major topics discussed are: Scope of Pesticide-Wildlife Problem; Effects on Wildlife-General; Laboratory Studies and Toxicology; Direct and Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Wildlife; Recent Pesticide Legislation; Value of Wildlife; and Recommendations for Safeguarding Wildlife Values during Pest Control. To avoid undue hazards to wildlife, applications must not exceed the toxicity equivalent of the following concentrations of DDT to the respective forms of wildlife: 0.1 pounds of DDT/acre for crustaceans; 0.2 for fish; 1.0 for amphibians; 2.0 for reptiles and birds; and 5.0 for most mammals. Other suggestions are: 1) Chemical treatment should be used only when entomological research has proved it to be necessary; 2) Before pesticides are used, the effects on different kinds of animals and on animals living in different habitats should be known and carefully considered; 3) Only minimum quantities of chemicals necessary to achieve adequate control of pests should be applied; 4) Pesticides should not be applied to areas that are any larger than is necessary and the chemicals that are used should be the ones whose effects are no more long-lasting than necessary; 5) Whenever possible, chemicals should be applied at the seasons of the year when wildlife damage will be least; 6) Conscientious effort should be made to be sure that pesticides are applied at no more than the intended rates and that no areas receive double doses. Alternates to chemical control are suggested. Among these are biological control, modified agricultural practices, destruction of insect wintering quarters, and the manipulation of water levels.

Circular↗
USGS2004

Less waste corn, more land in soybeans, and the switch to genetically modified crops: Trends with important implications for wildlife management

American agriculture has provided abundant high-energy foods for migratory and resident wildlife populations since the onset of modern wildlife management. Responding to anecdotal evidence that corn residues are declining in cropland, we remeasured waste corn post-harvest in the Central Platte River Valley (CPRV) of Nebraska during 1997 and 1998 to compare with 1978. Post-harvest waste corn averaged 2.6% and 1.8% of yield in 1997 and 1998, respectively. After accounting for a 20% increase in yield, waste corn in 1997 and 1998 was reduced 24% and 47% from 1978. We also evaluated use of soybeans by spring-staging sandhill cranes ( Crus canadensis ) and waterfowl during spring 1998 and 1999. Despite being widely available in the CPRV, soybeans did not occur in esophageal contents of sandhill cranes ( n= 174), northern pintails ( Anas acuta , n= 139), greater white-fronted geese ( Anser albifrons , n= 198), or lesser snow geese ( Chen caerulescens , n= 208) collected with food in their esophagi. Lack of soybean consumption by cranes and waterfowl in Nebraska in early spring builds upon previously published findings, suggesting that soybeans are poorly suited for meeting nutrient needs of wildlife requiring a high-energy diet. Given evidence that high-energy food and numerous populations of seed-eating species found on farmland are declining, and the enormous potential risk to game and nongame wildlife populations if high-energy foods were to become scarce, a comprehensive research effort to study the problem appears warranted. Provisions under the Conservation Security subtitle of The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 offer a potential mechanism to encourage producers to manage cropland in ways that would replace part of the high-energy foods that have been lost to increasing efficiency of production agriculture.

Nebraska↗
USGS2025

Chapter 6: Climate change, wildlife, and wildlife habitats in the Oregon Coast Range

Climate change is likely to have profound effects on wildlife species within the Oregon Coast Adaptation Partnership (OCAP) assessment area, although the direction and magnitude of effects are likely to vary across species. Increased mean and extreme temperatures, especially during summer, may cause shifts in plant and animal species ranges, reduce habitat for some temperature-sensitive wildlife, alter plant phenology and the timing of available food resources, and affect species interactions (e.g., predation, competition). Altered timing of precipitation, summer drought, loss of fog, increased flooding events, earlier snowmelt, and rising sea level may reduce plant productivity, increase tree mortality, shift plant species composition, and lead to reduced wildlife habitat and habitat quality for some forests, riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, estuaries, and beaches. In addition, increasing frequency and extent of wildfire and insect outbreaks may reduce the extent of late-successional forest, reduce habitat connectivity, and increase the spread of invasive species. The biggest change expected for the assessment area is an increase in area where climatic conditions favor coastal mixed forest and a large reduction in area favoring montane conifer forest. Although actual changes in forest types may not necessarily occur by the end of the 21st century, climate change may add physiological and behavioral stress to wildlife. Some wildlife species will be able to persist in place and adapt to new conditions; some may be able to migrate to find suitable habitat; and some may be greatly reduced or extirpated from the assessment area or even go extinct. Shifts in major tree and shrub species will play a major role in food, den, and cover availability for wildlife. Rising sea level will reduce low-elevation habitats along the coast. An increase in the frequency of high-severity weather events will increase frequency and magnitude of flooding, including debris flow events. Coupled with increased temperatures during summer, this may reduce or fragment important ecosystems for aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Evaluation of the vulnerabilities of nine wildlife species based on literature reviews suggests that each species has life-history attributes that can lead to resilience or vulnerability to climate change effects. Depending on long-term objectives, several broad adaptation strategies focus on protecting refugia, establishing redundant wildlife strongholds with large-scale connectivity, and promoting structural and biological complexity.

Oregon↗
USGS2010

Effectiveness of Wildlife Underpasses and Fencing to Reduce Wildlife–Vehicle Collisions

Transportation planners are increasingly incorporating roadway design features to mitigate impacts of highways on wildlife and to increase driver safety. We used camera and track surveys to evaluate wildlife use before and after construction of 3 wildlife underpasses and associated fencing on a new section of United States Highway 64 in Washington County, North Carolina, USA. We recorded 242 occasions of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) use of underpass areas before highway construction began. Following completion of the highway, we collected 2,433 photographs of 9 species with deer representing 93% of all crossings. Adjusting for differences in number of monitoring days, white-tailed deer use of underpass areas averaged 6.7 times greater after the new highway and underpasses were completed. We recorded 3,614 wildlife crossings of ≥20 species based on track counts, representing most medium and large mammals known to occur in the area and several reptiles and birds. After completion of the highway, we documented wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions during a 13-month period and recorded 128 incidences representing ≥24 species. Within fenced highway segments, mortalities were lowest near underpasses and increased with distance from the underpasses. However, we also documented more mortalities in fenced areas compared with unfenced areas. With greater distance from an underpass, animals with smaller home ranges seemed less likely to reach the underpass and instead attempted to climb over or crawl under fencing. Based on collision reports from adjacent highway sections, the new section of United States Highway 64 experienced approximately 58% fewer wildlife mortalities (primarily white-tailed deer), suggesting underpasses and fencing reduced the number of deer–vehicle collisions. Continuous fencing between underpasses may further reduce the number of vehicle collisions for deer but additional design features (e.g., buried fencing) should be considered for other wildlife species.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2005

Wildlife as valuable natural resources vs. intolerable pests: A suburban wildlife management model

Management of wildlife in suburban environments involves a complex set of interactions between both human and wildlife populations. Managers need additional tools, such as models, that can help them assess the status of wildlife populations, devise and apply management programs, and convey this information to other professionals and the public. We present a model that conceptualizes how some wildlife populations can fluctuate between extremely low (rare, threatened, or endangered status) and extremely high (overabundant) numbers over time. Changes in wildlife abundance can induce changes in human perceptions, which continually redefine species as a valuable resource to be protected versus a pest to be controlled. Management programs thatincorporate a number of approaches and promote more stable populations of wildlife avoid the problems of the resource versus pest transformation, are less costly to society, and encourage more positive and less negative interactions between humans and wildlife. We presenta case example of the beaver Castor canadensis in Massachusetts to illustrate how this model functions and can be applied. ?? 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

Urban Ecosystems↗
USGS2018

Timelines and mechanisms of wildlife population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill

Research and monitoring activities over the 28 years since the T/V Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska have led to an improved understanding of how wildlife populations were damaged, as well as the mechanisms and timelines of recovery. A key finding was that for some species, such as harlequin ducks and sea otters, chronic oil spill effects persisted for at least two decades and were a larger influence on population dynamics over the long term than acute effects of the spill. These data also offer insights into population variation resulting from factors other than the oil spill. For example, while many seabirds experienced direct and indirect effects of the spill, population trajectories of some piscivorous birds, including pigeon guillemots and marbled murrelets, were linked to long-term environmental changes independent of spill effects. Another species, killer whales, suffered population declines due to acute spill effects that have not been resolved despite lack of chronic direct effects, representing a novel pathway of long-term injury. The observed variation in mechanisms and timelines of recovery is linked to species specific life history and natural history traits, and thus may be useful for predicting population recovery for other species following other spills.

Alaska↗
USGS2026

The WOAH global wildlife health collaborating centre network (WOAH-WildNet): A coordinated and transformative approach to global wildlife health challenges

Wildlife health is integral to functioning, complex ecosystems [ 1 ], directly and indirectly influencing the health of people, animals, plants, and the environment [ 2 – 4 ]. Healthy wildlife populations are essential for ecosystem services and are at the heart of the One Health approach [ 3 , 4 ], which aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems through multisectoral and transdisciplinary collaboration [ 5 ]. Despite its importance, wildlife health initiatives often operate in silos, limiting capacity to address transboundary threats such as emerging diseases, pollution, and environmental changes. Anthropogenic changes, including habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and unsustainable harvesting, exacerbate wildlife health challenges [6–9]. These pressures disrupt species biology and alter host-pathogen dynamics [10–12], underscoring the importance of coordinated collective action in addressing harmful effects on the health of wild animals. While local conservation efforts are vital, long-term success in safeguarding biodiversity requires a unified, global network. For instance, without harmonized surveillance and response systems, individual institutions cannot effectively track pathogens across borders or share diagnostic capabilities. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Collaborating Centre Network for Wildlife Health—WOAH-WildNet—was established to bridge these gaps. By fostering global collaboration, sharing resources, and enabling data exchange, WOAH-WildNet provides a transformative, systems-based approach to wildlife health, managing risks, and enhancing ecosystem resilience. Central to this mission is breaking down silos to promote intersectoral coordinated responses to complex wildlife health challenges.

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation↗
USGS2017

The USGS National Wildlife Health Center: Advancing wildlife and ecosystem health

In 1975, the Federal government responded to the need for establishing national expertise in wildlife health by creating the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), a facility within the Department of the Interior; the NWHC is the only national center dedicated to wildlife disease detection, control, and prevention. Its mission is to provide national leadership to safeguard wildlife and ecosystem health through active partnerships and exceptional science. Comparisons are often made between the NWHC, which strives to protect the health of our Nation’s wildlife, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which strive to protect public health. The NWHC, a science center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with specialized laboratories, works to safeguard the Nation’s wildlife from diseases by studying the causes and drivers of these threats, and by developing strategies to prevent and manage them. In addition to the main campus, located in Madison, Wisconsin, the NWHC also operates the Honolulu Field Station that addresses wildlife health issues in Hawaii and the Pacific Region.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2008

Wildlife feeding in parks: methods for monitoring the effectiveness of educational interventions and wildlife food attraction behaviors

Opportunities to view and interact with wildlife are often an important part of high quality recreational experiences. Such interactions frequently include wildlife feeding, resulting in food-conditioned behaviors that may cause harm to both wildlife and visitors. This study developed and applied efficient protocols for simultaneously evaluating wildlife feeding-related behaviors of visitors and related foraging behaviors of chipmunks along a trail in Zion National Park. Unobtrusive observation protocols permitted an evaluation of educational messages delivered, and documentation of wildlife success in obtaining human food and the strength of their food attraction behavior. Significant improvements were documented for some targeted visitor behaviors and human food available to chipmunks, with minor differences between treatments. Replication of these protocols as part of a long-term monitoring program can help protected area managers evaluate and improve the efficacy of their interventions and monitor the strength of food attraction behavior in wildlife.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife↗
USGS2014

Wildlife friendly roads: the impacts of roads on wildlife in urban areas and potential remedies

Roads are one of the most important factors affecting the ability of wildlife to live and move within an urban area. Roads physically replace wildlife habitat and often reduce habitat quality nearby, fragment the remaining habitat, and cause increased mortality through vehicle collisions. Much ecological research on roads has focused on whether animals are successfully crossing roads, or if the road is a barrier to wildlife movement, gene flow, or functional connectivity. Roads can alter survival and reproduction for wildlife, even among species such as birds that cross roads easily. Here we examine the suite of potential impacts of roads on wildlife, but we focus particularly on urban settings. We report on studies, both in the literature and from our own experience, that have addressed wildlife and roads in urban landscapes. Although road ecology is a growing field of study, relatively little of this research, and relatively few mitigation projects, have been done in urban landscapes. We also draw from the available science on road impacts in rural areas when urban case studies have not fully addressed key topics.

Book chapter↗