USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Biologist”

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
USGS2002

Educational background and professional participation by federal wildlife biologists: Implications for science, management, and The Wildlife Society

Over 2,000 people are employed in wildlife biology in the United States federal government. The size of this constituency motivated me to examine the amount of formal education federal biologists have received and the extent of continuing education they undertake by reading journals or attending scientific meetings. Most federal biologists who are members of The Wildlife Society (TWS) have a graduate degree. However, one-third have only a Bachelor of Science degree, despite the current trend toward hiring people with graduate degrees. Most federal biologists are not research biologists. Numbers of journals subscribed to was positively related to educational level. Less than one-third of all wildlife biologists employed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service are members of TWS or subscribe to any of its journals. In contrast, the majority of presenters at the TWS 2000 Annual Conference were research biologists and members of TWS. The failure of many federal wildlife biologists to read scientific literature or attend professional meetings indicates a failure to promote the importance of continuing education in the federal workplace. I identify 2 potential adverse impacts of this failing: an inability to recognize important and relevant scientific contributions and an ineffectiveness in carrying out adaptive management.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2006

Modeling approaches in avian conservation and the role of field biologists

This review grew out of our realization that models play an increasingly important role in conservation but are rarely used in the research of most avian biologists. Modelers are creating models that are more complex and mechanistic and that can incorporate more of the knowledge acquired by field biologists. Such models require field biologists to provide more specific information, larger sample sizes, and sometimes new kinds of data, such as habitat-specific demography and dispersal information. Field biologists need to support model development by testing key model assumptions and validating models. The best conservation decisions will occur where cooperative interaction enables field biologists, modelers, statisticians, and managers to contribute effectively. We begin by discussing the general form of ecological models—heuristic or mechanistic, "scientific" or statistical—and then highlight the structure, strengths, weaknesses, and applications of six types of models commonly used in avian conservation: (1) deterministic single-population matrix models, (2) stochastic population viability analysis (PVA) models for single populations, (3) metapopulation models, (4) spatially explicit models, (5) genetic models, and (6) species distribution models. We end by considering their unique attributes, determining whether the assumptions that underlie the structure are valid, and testing the ability of the model to predict the future correctly.

Ornithological Monographs↗
USGS2002

Values and attitudes of National Wildlife Refuge managers and biologists; Report to respondents

The issues affecting natural resource management, the society in which natural resource management occurs, natural resource agency personnel, and the publics they serve have changed in recent decades. Previous studies of Refuge professionals in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) have revealed that employees lack strong commitment to the current organizational structure, were frustrated with the lack of communication within the agency and felt there was a need for strong leadership (PEER 1998, 1999). These results prompted the authors to have further questions about refuge management in the Fish and Wildlife Service. What do employees value about their agency? Is there a difference in values between refuge managers and biologists and if so, what are those differences and what influences those differences? Recently, there has been speculation that changes in society and the demographic makeup of natural resource professionals has caused a paradigm shift for natural resource management (Ballard 2002; Brown and Harris 1992abc, 2000; Maestas 2002). But, there has been little work assessing the values, attitudes or behaviors of natural resource professionals to determine if a paradigm shift is really occurring. Most of the work in the field of values, attitudes, and behaviors has focused on the public and their interaction with environmental management issues; such as, endangered species management (Lybecker et al. 2002; Solomon 1998), human-wildlife conflict (Baker and Fritsch 1997; Chase et al. 1999; Jones and Thomas 1999; Mankin et al. 1999), changes in hunting or trapping regulations (Loker et al. 1998; Manfredo et al. 1999; Whittaker and Torres 1998), or management of public lands (Badalamente et al. 2000). The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the values and attitudes refuge employees have toward natural resources. The goal was to survey National Wildlife Refuge professionals about natural resource management. We surveyed Refuge Managers and Refuge Biologists (n=480) at staffed U.S. National Wildlife Refuges in the contiguous 48 states in the fall of 200 1. We used a modified Dillman design, resulting in a 68% response rate. The objectives of this study were to (1) determine and compare the environmental values of refuge managers and biologists at selected refuges and (2) assess attitudes about various institutional factors (public involvement and planning). Analyses of data revealed that these managers and biologists did not differ substantially in terms of their environmental values. Refuge professionals were supportive of public involvement in planning and management, but hoped to maintain management authority throughout the process. Professionals were skeptical concerning the applicability of long term planning, but were generally supportive of the planning process. Attitudes toward the Service were conflicting: professionals felt that the Service needed to provide better leadership and direction, but that the Refuge System needed to assert its autonomy and independence from the rest of the Service.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

Landowner and biologist perceptions of game bird predators and management

Nest survival has been identified as one of the most influential vital rates causing population change in game birds, and depredation, often influenced by habitat loss and fragmentation, is the primary cause of nest failure of upland game birds. We were interested in quantifying and comparing the perspectives of landowners and biologists in South Dakota regarding complex predator-prey interactions to improve communication and management efficacy. We developed a questionnaire regarding the following: 1) general attitude statements about game bird species; 2) perceived impacts of 9 factors (e.g., development, pollution, predators) and 13 potential predators on game bird abundances; and 3) attitude statements regarding use of lethal predator control and nesting habitat management practices. A cluster analysis using landowner attitude statements about predator management identified 3 landowner segments that had strong (most supportive; 37%), moderate (moderately supportive; 35%), or weak (least supportive; 28%) attitude statements about lethal predator control. Landowner segments most supportive and moderately supportive of predator control rated predators as the primary negative factor impacting game bird abundances and agreed that predators were the primary cause of game bird abundance declines, whereas the landowner segment least supportive of predator control rated habitat loss as the top factor and disagreed that predators were the primary cause of game bird declines. Biologists rated habitat loss as the top factor negatively impacting game bird abundances and disagreed that predators were the primary cause of game bird abundance declines. Thus, when considering the effectiveness of strategies to reduce nest depredation, most landowners focused on the direct cause of nest failures (predators), whereas biologists focused on an indirect cause (habitat loss). Perception differences among these groups emphasizes the need for better communication on proximate and ultimate factors affecting game bird populations and how these differences may impact management decisions.

South Dakota↗
USGS1996

Water transfer projects and the role of fisheries biologists

Water transfer projects are commonly considered important mechanisms for meeting increasing water demands. However, the movement of water from one area to another may have broad ecosystem effects, including on fisheries. The Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society held a symposium in 1995 at Virginia Beach, Virginia, to discuss the ecological consequences of water transfer and identify the role of fisheries biologists in such projects. Presenters outlined several case studies, including the California State Water Project, Garrison Diversion Project (North Dakota), Lake Texoma Water Transfer Project (Oklahoma-Texas), Santee-Cooper Diversion and Re-diversion projects (South Carolina), and Tri-State Comprehensive Study (Alabama-Florida-Georgia). Results from these studies suggest that fisheries biologists have provided critical information regarding potential ecological consequences of water transfer. If these professionals continue to be called for information regarding the ecological consequences of water transfer projects, developing a broader understanding of the ecological processes that affect the fish species they manage may be necessary. Although the traditional role of fisheries biologists has focused on the fishing customer base, fisheries management issues are only one component of the broad spectrum of ecosystem issues resulting from water transfer.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2016

Measuring, interpreting, and responding to changes in coral reefs: A challenge for biologists, geologist, and managers

What, exactly, is a coral reef? And how have the world’s reefs changed in the last several decades? What are the stressors undermining reef structure and function? Given the predicted effects of climate change, do reefs have a future? Is it possible to “manage” coral reefs for resilience? What can coral reef scientists contribute to improve protection and management of coral reefs? What insights can biologists and geologists provide regarding the persistence of coral reefs on a human timescale? What is reef change to a biologist… to a geologist? Clearly, there are many challenging questions. In this chapter, we present some of our thoughts on monitoring and management of coral reefs in US national parks in the Caribbean and western Atlantic based on our experience as members of monitoring teams. We reflect on the need to characterize and evaluate reefs, on how to conduct high-quality monitoring programs, and on what we can learn from biological and geological experiments and investigations. We explore the possibility that specific steps can be taken to “manage” coral reefs for greater resilience.

Book chapter↗
USGS1953

Biologists in the field of wildlife conservation

We often hear comments such as "people are funny" and "one meets the strangest people!" Such sage remarks are not infrequently directed towards biologists, particularly those engaged in one of the many phases of wildlife conservation work. Bulletins of the "love life" of the raccoon or frog, and biologists who, for one reason or another, count the "whiskers" on a fox squirrel are held up for ridicule or dismissed with a shake of the head or a shrug of the shoulder and termed "batty."

AIBS Bulletin↗
USGS2007

The Washington Biologists' Field Club : Its members and its history (1900-2006)

This book is based on the interesting one-hundred-plus-year history of the Club and its members. Plummers Island and the historic cabin on the Island have served as a common meeting area where the Club members have conducted research and held many social activities for over a century. The history has been written and revised over the years by members, and the biographical sketches also have been collected and written by the members. The Club was formed in 1900 and incorporated as a society in 1901 for scientists in the Washington, D.C., area. In recent years the Club has sponsored research by many non-member local scientists with grants totaling over $305,000. The cumulative total of 267 members represents all branches of natural science, with a strong emphasis on biology as the Club name indicates. In addition to the biologists there have been famous naturalists (e.g., John Burroughs), high-level administrators (e.g., Ira Gabrielson), and well-known artists (e.g., Roger Tory Peterson). Most members have been biological scientists, working for agencies in the Washington, D.C., area, who have published many articles and books dealing with biology and related subjects. The book is publIshed mainly for the benefit of the living Club members and for relatives of the deceased members. The members hope that the book will find its way into libraries across the country and that in the future, persons interested in some of the pioneer scientists, in the various professional areas of science, can obtain biographical information from a well-documented source. Most of the 542 illustrations of the members, cabin, and the Island have not been published previously. It is hopeful that the biographical sketches, pictures, and other information presented in this book can generate new information for future publications and for the website of the Washington Biologists' Field Club, which is updated frequently.

Book↗
USGS2024

A guide to environmental DNA extractions for non-molecular trained biologists, ecologists, and conservation scientists

Ecologists, biologists, and conservation scientists are increasingly interested in the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) data for research and potentially decision-making. While commercial DNA extraction kits are typically user-friendly and accessible, they may fail to deliver the desired results with inherently complex eDNA samples, necessitating protocol optimization or educated selection of alternative approaches. To this end, knowledge of the basic steps and principles of DNA extractions is essential, but traditional education tracks in ecology, conservation, and environmental management typically do not include in-depth training in molecular methods. The primary objective of this paper is to enable scientists with an ecological background and limited molecular training to understand the four key steps of eDNA isolations, and to use this expertise to their advantage. We describe the purpose of commonly used reagents and chemicals, point out alternatives for each key step, explain the impact of certain choices regarding isolation approaches on DNA integrity and purity, and highlight the possibility of a tailor-made “mix and match” approach. We anticipate that this paper will enable field ecologists to develop a deeper understanding of the mechanisms and chemistry underlying eDNA extractions, thus allowing them to make informed decisions regarding the best eDNA extraction method for their research goals. Our intention is not to provide comprehensive, step-by-step protocols, but to offer guiding principles while highlighting alternative solutions. Finally, we hope that this paper will act as a useful resource to support knowledge transfer and teaching.

Environmental DNA↗
USGS1987

Faces from the past: Frederic Morton Chamberlain (1867-1921), pioneer fishery biologist of the American West

The life of Frederic Morton Chamberlain (1867–1921) was marked by his many contributions to fishery science. As an assistant with the old U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, he pioneered life history studies of salmon in California and Alaska, and assisted in the collection of hundreds of thousands of natural history specimens from the Pacific Ocean as resident naturalist on the U.S.S. Albatross . He was innovative in the use of field photography in fishery work, and the design and construction of capture nets and collecting gear. His detailed reports were important in documenting the conditions of the native ichthyofauna in Alaska, Arizona, and California at the turn of the century and have been heavily relied upon by subsequent investigators. His ability to design and conduct scientifically justifiable studies to solve fishery problems while under many kinds of hardships is a testament to his background and dedication to the field. He represents the prototype of the modern fishery biologist.

Fisheries↗
USGS2013

On estimating the economic value of insectivorous bats: Prospects and priorities for biologists

Bats are among the most economically important nondomesticated mammals in the world. They are well-known pollinators and seed dispersers, but crop pest suppression is probably the most valuable ecosystem service provided by bats. Scientific literature and popular media often include reports of crop pests in the diet of bats and anecdotal or extrapolated estimates of how many insects are eaten by bats. However, quantitative estimates of the ecosystem services provided by bats in agricultural systems are rare, and the few estimates that are available are limited to a single cotton-dominated system in Texas. Despite the tremendous value for conservation and economic security of such information, surprisingly few scientific efforts have been dedicated to quantifying the economic value of bats. Here, we outline the types of information needed to better quantify the value of bats in agricultural ecosystems. Because of the complexity of the ecosystems involved, creative experimental design and innovative new methods will help advance our knowledge in this area. Experiments involving bats in agricultural systems may be needed sooner than later, before population declines associated with white-nose syndrome and wind turbines potentially render them impossible.

Book chapter↗
USGS1982

Chlamydiosis in 2 biologists investigating disease occurrences in wild waterfowl

Chlamydiosis (ornithosis, psittacosis) is an infectious disease of birds that can be transmitted to humans. Human infections are probably acquired by inhalation of aerosols containing elementary bodies of the causative agent Chlamydia psittaci , from bird droppings, or from tissues. Infected birds do not have to be ill to transmit the organism (Schachter and Dawson 1978). The disease in humans is considered an occupational risk for people working with pet birds (particularly psittacine species) and poultry, but all avian species can be considered as potential reservoirs (Schachter and Dawson 1978). Burkhart and Page (1971) listed >130 species of wild birds as being infected. The purpose of this report is to draw the disease to the attention of those working with wild birds by describing 2 cases acquired from wild waterfowl and by reviewing other information on human infections associated with wild birds. We do this because the disease can be serious if not treated properly, and because the disease is not usually associated with wild birds the diagnosis may not be considered by physicians without some prompting from the patient.

California, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Texas, Wiscons↗