USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

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 1,009 records · Page 56Linked to original sources
USGS1997

Statistical power analysis in wildlife research

Statistical power analysis can be used to increase the efficiency of research efforts and to clarify research results. Power analysis is most valuable in the design or planning phases of research efforts. Such prospective (a priori) power analyses can be used to guide research design and to estimate the number of samples necessary to achieve a high probability of detecting biologically significant effects. Retrospective (a posteriori) power analysis has been advocated as a method to increase information about hypothesis tests that were not rejected. However, estimating power for tests of null hypotheses that were not rejected with the effect size observed in the study is incorrect; these power estimates will always be ≤ 0.50 when bias adjusted and have no relation to true power. Therefore, retrospective power estimates based on the observed effect size for hypothesis tests that were not rejected are misleading; retrospective power estimates are only meaningful when based on effect sizes other than the observed effect size, such as those effect sizes hypothesized to be biologically significant. Retrospective power analysis can be used effectively to estimate the number of samples or effect size that would have been necessary for a completed study to have rejected a specific null hypothesis. Simply presenting confidence intervals can provide additional information about null hypotheses that were not rejected, including information about the size of the true effect and whether or not there is adequate evidence to 'accept' a null hypothesis as true. We suggest that (1) statistical power analyses be routinely incorporated into research planning efforts to increase their efficiency, (2) confidence intervals be used in lieu of retrospective power analyses for null hypotheses that were not rejected to assess the likely size of the true effect, (3) minimum biologically significant effect sizes be used for all power analyses, and (4) if retrospective power estimates are to be reported, then the α -level, effect sizes, and sample sizes used in calculations must also be reported.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2018

Survey of Arctic Alaskan wildlife for influenza A antibodies: Limited evidence for exposure of mammals

Influenza A viruses (IAVs) are maintained in wild waterbirds and have the potential to infect a broad range of species, including wild mammals. The Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska supports a diverse suite of species, including waterfowl that are common hosts of IAVs. Mammals co-occur with geese and other migratory waterbirds during the summer breeding season, providing a plausible mechanism for interclass transmission of IAVs. To estimate IAV seroprevalence and identify the subtypes to which geese, loons, Arctic foxes ( Vulpes lagopus ), caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), and polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) are potentially exposed, we used a blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (bELISA) and a hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay to screen for antibodies to IAVs in samples collected during spring and summer of 2012–16. Apparent IAV seroprevalence using the bELISA was 50.7% in geese (range by species: 46.1–52.8%), 9.2% in loons, (range by species: 3.4–20.0%), and 0.4% in Arctic foxes. We found no evidence for exposure to IAVs in polar bears or caribou by either assay. Among geese, we estimated detection probability from replicate bELISA analyses to be 0.92 and also found good concordance (>85%) between results from bELISA and HI assays, which identified antibodies reactive to H1, H6, and H9 subtype IAVs. In contrast, the HI assay detected antibodies in only one of seven loon samples that were positive by bELISA; that sample had low titers to both H4 and H5 IAV subtypes. Our results provide evidence that a relatively high proportion of waterbirds breeding on the Arctic Coastal Plain are exposed to IAVs, although it is unknown whether such exposure occurs locally or on staging or wintering grounds. In contrast, seroprevalence of IAVs in concomitant mammals is apparently low.

Alaska↗
USGS2023

Flea control on prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) with fipronil bait pellets: Potential plague mitigation tool for rapid field application and wildlife conservation

Sylvatic plague is a widespread, primarily flea-vectored disease in western North America. Because plague is highly lethal to endangered black-footed ferrets ( Mustela nigripes , BFFs) and the prairie dogs ( Cynomys spp., PDs) on which BFFs depend for habitat and prey, minimizing the impacts of plague is a priority at BFF reintroduction sites. We developed a new, flour-based bait pellet containing 0.84 mg of fipronil and weighing ∼1.25 g (FipBits). We measured the degree and duration of flea control on black-tailed PDs ( C. ludovicianus ) in Montana and on Gunnison's PDs ( C. gunnisoni ) in Arizona, USA from 2018–2020. FipBits were distributed on treated plots one time at a rate of 125/ha. Fleas were virtually eliminated in Montana from 1 mo posttreatment to 1 yr later and remained substantially depressed 2 yr posttreatment. With the split colony design, we probably underestimated the degree of flea control achieved with FipBits due to crossover edge effects along the arbitrary line dividing the plots. Flea control in Arizona was significant from 1 mo posttreatment to 1 yr later, but flea abundance had recovered by 2 yr posttreatment. Flea control was evaluated from 2020–2021 in South Dakota, USA on four plots treated with three concentrations of fipronil in FipBits (0.68, 0.71, and 0.83 mg/FipBit). Fleas were essentially eliminated for 10 mo on the 0.83-mg plot and were substantially reduced on the two 0.71-mg plots. Fleas were reduced on the 0.68-mg plot, but the degree of control was less than observed on other treated plots. Impacts of plague on PDs and BFFs would probably be greatly reduced by the levels of flea control observed with FipBits. Options for expanded FipBit evaluations are being pursued for what may become a highly practical, affordable, and effective plague mitigation tool.

Arizona, Montana, South Dakota↗