Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Wildlife Society Technical 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.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2008

Sources and implications of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on natural resources

A technical review of lead sources that originate from hunting, shooting sports, and fishing activities was undertaken by the American Fisheries Society and The Wildlife Society. The report addresses (1) sources of lead that originate from hunting, shooting sports, and fishing activities, (2) the hazard and risk that lead from these activities pose to natural resources, and (3) the management implications for fish and wildlife professionals and policy makers.

Wildlife Society Technical Review↗
USGS1993

Acidic Depositions: Effects on Wildlife and Habitats

The phenomenon of 'acid rain' is not new; it was recognized in the mid-1800s in industrialized Europe. In the 1960s a synthesis of information about acidification began in Europe, along with predictions of ecological effects. In the U.S. studies of acidification began in the 1920s. By the late 1970s research efforts in the U.S. and Canada were better coordinated and in 1980 a 10-year research program was undertaken through the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Plan (NAPAP) to determine the causes and consequences of acidic depositions. Much of the bedrock in the northeastern U.S. and Canada contains total alkalinity of <200 ?eq 1-1, thus, it lacks acid-neutralizing capacity. In the U.S. about 5% of the land area and in Canada about 43 % of the land area is sensitive to acidic depositions. Further, these areas receive >20 kg/ha/yr of wet sulphate depositions and are vulnerable to acidifying processes. Acidic depositions contribute directly to acidifying processes of soil and soil water. Soils must have sufficient acid-neutralizing capacity or acidity of soil will increase. Natural soil-forming processes that lead to acidification can be accelerated by acidic depositions. Long-term effects of acidification are predicted, which will reduce soil productivity mainly through reduced availability of nutrients and mobilization of toxic metals. Severe effects may lead to major alteration of soil chemistry, soil biota, and even loss of vegetation. Several species of earthworms and several other taxa of soil-inhabiting invertebrates, which are important food of many vertebrate wildlife species, are affected by low pH in soil. Loss of canopy in declining sugar maples results in loss of insects fed on by certain neotropical migrant bird species. No definitive studies categorically link atmospheric acidic depositions with direct or indirect effects on wild mammals. Researchers have concentrated on vegetative and aquatic effects. Circumstantial evidence suggests that effects are probable for certain species of aquatic-dependent mammals (water shrew, mink, and otter) and that these species are at risk from the loss of foods or contamination of these foods by metals, especially methylmercury. Continued acidification of terrestrial habitats, to the extent that earthworm populations are broadly reduced, might expose some fossorial mammalian species to risk because of decline in their major prey species. Acidic deposition affects primarily aquatic habitats of avian species by disrupting food webs (ecological effects) and increasing amounts of available heavy metals (mercury, aluminum, cadmium) in prey of avian species (toxicological effects). The ecological effects of acidifying wetlands are to reduce acid-intolerant prey (invertebrates) and to change prey quality from high-calcium bearing prey to low-calcium bearing prey. The toxicological effects are to increase contamination by heavy metals, especially methylated mercury, in foods of breeding waterbirds. The combination of these 2 types of effects results in potentially lower survival of adults and reduced production, growth, or survival of young of many bird species. Effects of acidification on herpteofauna and their habitats are mainly reproductive failure of susceptible species and reduced or metal-contaminated foods for both amphibians and reptiles.

Wildlife Society Technical Review↗
USGS2012

Ungulate management in national parks of the United States and Canada

Enabling legislation—that which gives appropriate officials the authority to implement or enforce the law—impacts management of ungulates in national parks of Canada and the United States (U.S.). The initial focus of such legislation in both countries centered on preserving natural and culturally significant areas for posterity. Although this objective remains primary, philosophies and practices have changed. A Canadian vision for ungulate management emerged during the latter half of the 20th century to protect and maintain or restore the ecological integrity of representative samples of the country’s 39 distinct landscapes, and to include provisions for traditional hunting and fishing practices representative of past cultural impacts on the environment. The current ungulate management approach in the U.S. relies on natural (ecological) processes, as long as normal conditions are promoted and there is no impairment of natural resources. Emphasizing natural processes as the basis has been a challenge because ecosystem dynamics are complex and management is multi-jurisdictional. Additionally, natural regulation typically will not prevent ungulates from reaching and sustaining densities that are incompatible with preservation or restoration of native flora and fauna, natural processes, or historical landscapes.

The Wildlife Society Technical Review↗
USGS2005

Grassland bird use of Conservation Reserve Program fields in the Great Plains

An enormous area in the Great Plains is currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): 19.5 million acres (nearly 8 million ha) in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This change in land use from cropland to grassland since 1985 has markedly influenced grassland bird populations. Many, but certainly not all, grassland species do well in CRP fields. The responses by birds to the program differ not only by species but also by region, year, the vegetation composition in a field, and whether or not a field has been hayed or grazed. The large scale and extent of the program has allowed researchers to address important conservation questions, such as the effect of the size of habitat patch and the influence of landscape features on bird use. However, most studies on nongame bird use of CRP in or near the Great Plains have been short-lived; 83% lasted only 1-3 years. Further, attention to the topic seems to have waned in recent years; the number of active studies peaked in the early 1990s and dramatically declined after 1995. Because breeding-bird use of CRP fields varies dramatically in response both to vegetational succession and to climatic variation, long-term studies are important. What was learned about CRP in its early stages may no longer be applicable. Finally, although the CRP provisions of the Farm Bill have been beneficial to many grassland birds, it is critical that gains in grassland habitat produced by the program not be off set by losses of native prairie.

Wildlife Society Technical Review↗
USGS2008

Management concerns about known and potential impacts of lead use in shooting and in fishing activities

We present a summary of the technical review, jointly requested by the American Fisheries Society and The Wildlife Society, addressing the hazards to wildlife resulting from lead objects or fragments introduced into aquatic and terrestrial environments from the use of ammunition and fishing tackle. Impacts from lead are well documented in humans, as well as in terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Concern about impacts from lead ammunition and fishing tackle has resulted in the development of non-lead alternatives, educational campaigns, and regulations to restrict their use. This article discusses the general biological impacts of lead exposure from fishing and shooting activities to fish, wildlife, and humans; summarizes existing and proposed regulations to reduce lead exposure to biota; reviews alternatives to lead materials that are currently available for fishing; and outlines options for further actions to reduce wildlife and human exposure to lead from fishing activities.

Fisheries↗
USGS2005

Technical review of the status of Northern Goshawks in the western United States

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was petitioned in 1997 to consider listing Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, west of the 100th meridian of the contiguous United States. In their 12-mo finding issued in June 1998, the FWS determined that listing this population as threatened or endangered was not warranted and based that decision on review existing population and habitat information. Because the status of goshawks in the western U.S. continues to be contentious and the FWS finding has been challenged, the Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. and The Wildlife Society jointly formed a committee to review information regarding the status of the goshawk population in the contiguous U.S. west of the 100th meridian. The committee was requested to: (1) determine if there is evidence of a population trend in goshawks in the western U.S., excluding Alaska; (2) determine if there is evidence that goshawks nesting in the eastern and western U.S. represent distinctive, genetically unique populations; and (3) evaluate evidence for goshawk-habitat relations, including any association with large, mostly-unbroken tracts of old growth and mature forests. Based on existing information, the committee concluded: (1) existing data are not adequate to assess population trend in goshawks west of the 100th meridian; (2) existing analyses of phylogeography have not provided evidence of genetic differences among recognized (atricapillus, laingi) or putative (apache) subspecies, and the genetic distinctness of atricapillus goshawks in western and eastern North America is not known; and (3) at present, assessing the status of goshawks solely using distribution of late-successional forests is not appropriate, based on the current understanding of goshawk-habitat relations, although goshawks clearly use and often select late-successional forests for nesting and foraging. We provide recommendations on information needs to assess status and population trend of goshawks in the western U.S. ?? 2005 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.

Journal of Raptor Research↗
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↗
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↗
USGS2014

Guidelines for use of fishes in research: Revised and expanded

The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research (2014; 2014 Guidelines ), now available through the American fisheries Society (AFS) website and in print from the AFS bookstore, is a resource to aid researchers and regulatory authorities regarding responsible, scientifically valid research on fish and aquatic wildlife. The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Field Research (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists [ASIH] et al. 1987, 1988) emphasized field research and was followed by the 2004 Guidelines including laboratory research topics. Each version of the Guidelines has been jointly endorsed and/or published by the ASIH, the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (AIFRB), and AFS--each focusing on the scientific understanding, global conservation, and sustainability of aquatic animals, fisheries, and ecosystems. Changes with time necessitate revisions to make the Guidelines consistent with contemporary practices and scientific literature so to remain relevant as a technical resource. This document provides not only general principles relevant for field and laboratory research endeavors but includes specific requirements for researchers working within the United States and outside of the country. Within the scope of their expertise, the 2014 Uses of Fishers in Research (UFR) Committee members updated and revised sections, resulting in a 90-page 2014 Guidelines having undergone through peer review. As before, topical areas were addressed (see Table of Contents on page 416). Expanded coverage was provided on U.S. and international agencies and programs relevant to research with fishes. The Surgical Procedures and the Marking and Tagging section received special focus by a UFR Subcommittee. Feeds and Feeding and the Administration of Drugs, Biologics and Other Chemicals are just some of the newly added topics. The 2014 Guidelines is user-friendly by way of hyperlinks to external Internet sites, intradocument sections, and tables of acronyms with corresponding terms, low regulatory priority drugs, and Office of International des Epizooties notifiable disease agents. Again, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) role is explained, expectations for research are provided, and a brief checklist for IACUC readiness is included. Overall, the ,i>2014 Guidelines is the taxon-specific resource for our professional societies and is a principal document for standards on the care and use of fish and aquatic vertebrates in research.

Fisheries↗
USGS2024

Evaluating the reliability of environmental concentration data to characterize exposure in environmental risk assessments

Environmental risk assessments often rely on measured concentrations in environmental matrices to characterize exposure of the population of interest—typically, humans, aquatic biota, or other wildlife. Yet, there is limited guidance available on how to report and evaluate exposure datasets for reliability and relevance, despite their importance to regulatory decision-making. This paper is the second of a four-paper series detailing the outcomes of a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Technical Workshop that has developed Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Exposure Datasets (CREED). It presents specific criteria to systematically evaluate the reliability of environmental exposure datasets. These criteria can help risk assessors understand and characterize uncertainties when existing data are used in various types of assessments and can serve as guidance on best practice for the reporting of data for data generators (to maximize utility of their datasets). Although most reliability criteria are universal, some practices may need to be evaluated considering the purpose of the assessment. Reliability refers to the inherent quality of the dataset and evaluation criteria address the identification of analytes, study sites, environmental matrices, sampling dates, sample collection methods, analytical method performance, data handling or aggregation, treatment of censored data, and generation of summary statistics. Each criterion is evaluated as “fully met,” “partly met,” “not met or inappropriate,” “not reported,” or “not applicable” for the dataset being reviewed. The evaluation concludes with a scheme for scoring the dataset as reliable with or without restrictions, not reliable, or not assignable, and is demonstrated with three case studies representing both organic and inorganic constituents, and different study designs and assessment purposes. Reliability evaluation can be used in conjunction with relevance evaluation (assessed separately) to determine the extent to which environmental monitoring datasets are “fit for purpose,” that is, suitable for use in various types of assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1–23. © 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management↗