Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Wildlife Review”

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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
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↗
USGS1995

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review

In 1979 the US Fish and Wildlife Service published and adopted a classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. The system was designed for use in a national inventory of wetlands. It was intended to be ecologically based, to furnish the mapping units needed for the inventory, and to provide national consistency in terminology and definition. We review the performance of the classification after 13 years of use. The definition of wetland is based on national lists of hydric soils and plants that occur in wetlands. Our experience suggests that wetland classifications must facilitate mapping and inventory because these data gathering functions are essential to management and preservation of the wetland resource, but the definitions and taxa must have ecological basis. The most serious problem faced in construction of the classification was lack of data for many of the diverse wetland types. Review of the performance of the classification suggests that, for the most part, it was successful in accomplishing its objectives, but that problem areas should be corrected and modification could strengthen its utility. The classification, at least in concept, could be applied outside the United States. Experience gained in use of the classification can furnish guidance as to pitfalls to be avoided in the wetland classification process.

Vegetatio↗
USGS1985

Atlantic Flyway review: Region V: Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Prince Georges County, MD (390-0764)

This was my 4th year of banding in a powerline right-of-way that is specially managed to encourage growth of dense scrub. Nets were run for 2 to 3 hours each morning, because activity dropped off rapidly after the sun hit the nets. I banded on 79 days, from 1 August to 22 November. Frost continues to be a problem late in the season; the frostpocket effect of the stream valley and the lack of vegetative cover over the nets result in frozen nets on more mornings than would be expected. Warblers continued to dominate, with as many as 16 species in one day and a season total of 33 plus a Brewster's hybrid. Net-hours declined from 8506 to 7672 because I discontinued six of my least productive nets; this change accounted for much of the increase in birds per 100 net-hours (Table 1). Overall effort was comparable to that of 1982.

Maryland↗
USGS1996

Planar PCB Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

Ecological and toxicological aspects of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the environment are reviewed with emphasis on biologically active congeners and fish and wildlife. Subtopics include sources and uses, chemical and biochemical properties, concentrations in field collections, lethal and sublethal effects, and recommendations for the protection of sensitive resources. All production of PCBs in the United States ceased in 1977. Of the 1.2 million tons of PCBs manufactured to date, about 65% are still in use in electrical equipment and 31% in various environmental compartments, and 4% were degraded or incinerated. The 209 PCB congeners and their metabolites show wide differences in biological effects. A significant part of the toxicity associated with commercial PCB mixtures is related to the presence of about 20 planar congeners, i.e., congeners without chlorine substitution in the ortho position. Toxic planar congeners, like other PCB congeners, have been detected in virtually all analyzed samples, regardless of collection locale. Planar PCB concentrations were usually highest in samples from near urban areas and in fat and liver tissues, filter-feeding bivalve mollusks, fish-eating birds, and carnivorous marine mammals. Adverse effects of planar PCBs on growth, survival, and reproduction are highly variable because of numerous biotic and abiotic modifiers, including interaction with other chemicals. In general, embryos and juveniles were the most sensitive stages tested to planar PCBs, and the chinook salmon, domestic chicken, mink, rhesus macaque, and laboratory white rat were among the most sensitive species. for protection of natural resources, most authorities now recommend (1) analyzation of environmental samples for planar and other potentially hazardous congeners; (2) exposure studies with representative species and specific congeners, alone and in combination with other environmental contaminants; (3) clarification of existing structure-induction-metabolism relations; and (4) more research on physiological and biochemical indicators of PCB-stress.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
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↗
USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: 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 scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU 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 CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗
USGS1989

Atrazine Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

The herbicide atrazine (2chloro4ethylamino6isopropylamino1,3,5triazine) is the most heavily used agricultural pesticide in North America. Domestically, more than 50 million kg are applied yearly to more than 25 million ha, primarily to control weeds in corn and sorghum crops. Atrazine residues have been detected in runoff from treated fields in lakes and streams at phytotoxic levels. Birds and mammals were comparatively resistant, with a low probability for atrazine accumulation and retention. Data are lacking on indirect effects of atrazine on wildlife granivores and insectivores. Direct effects to aquatic fauna occur at 94 micrograms/l, and higher; however, indirect effects may occur at 20 micrograms/l, and higher, partly through reduction of the food supply of herbivores, and partly through loss of macrophyte habitat. Ecological and toxicological aspects of atrazine in the environment are briefly reviewed, with special emphasis on fishery and wildlife resources.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS1989

Pentachlorophenol Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) is now widely used as a wood preservative, and this has contributed to the detection of PCP residues in air, rain, groundwaters, surface waters, fish and aquatic invertebrates, and in human urine, blood, and milk of nursing mothers. This report briefly reviews the technical literature on ecological and toxicological aspects of PCP in the environment, with emphasis on fishery and wildlife resources. Subtopics include sources and uses, chemical properties, fate, background concentrations, lethal and sublethal effects, and current recommendations for resource protection

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS2021

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2020 Year in review

Established in 1935, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program (CRU program) is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and the necessity for trained professionals in the growing field of wildlife management, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units located on university campuses in 38 States. The partnerships that form each unit are some of the USGS’s strongest links to Federal and State land and natural resource agencies as mandated by the Cooperative Research and Training Units Act of 1960 (P.L. 86–686). This report highlights the activities and accomplishments of the program and its cooperators for calendar year 2020.

Circular↗
USGS2022

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program — 2021 year in review

Established in 1935, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and the necessity for trained professionals in the growing field of wildlife management, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 41 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units located on university campuses in 39 States. The partnerships that form each unit are some of the USGS’s strongest links to Federal and State land and natural resource agencies as mandated by the Cooperative Research and Training Units Act of 1960 (P.L. 86–686). This report highlights the activities and accomplishments of the program and its cooperators for 2021.

Circular↗
USGS1998

Nickel Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

This account is a selective review and synthesis of the technical literature on nickel and nickel salts in the environment and their effects on terrestrial plants and invertebrates, aquatic plants and animals, avian and mammalian wildlife, and other natural resources, The subtopics include nickel sources and uses; physical, chemical, and metabolic properties of nickel; nickel concentrations in field collections of abiotic materials and living organisms; nickel deficiency effects; lethal and sublethal effects, including effects on survival, growth, reproduction, metabolism, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity; currently proposed nickel criteria for the protection of human health and sensitive natural resources; and recommendations for additional research.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗