USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “NWHC Technical Report”

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.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1998

Health evaluation of pronghorns (Antilocapra americana) on Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge in southeastern Oregon, 1996-1997.

One hundred four neonatal (fawns) and 40 adult female (does) pronghorn antelope (pronghorns) ( Antilocapra americana ) were captured on the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge (HMNAR) in Lake County, southeastern Oregon, between 13 May 1996 and 26 May 1997. Blood and fecal samples were taken for an investigation of low fawn survival that may be due to disease and/or poor nutrition. No abnormalities were found in hematological parameters of adult does (n = 40) or fawns (n = 44 to 67). In general, there were lower serum total proteins (TP) and Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) concentrations in this population than in other populations from Alberta, Canada; Idaho; and Baker City, Oregon. Mean BUN values in does were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in December than March. The duration of this apparently low protein content of the December diet may affect the weight of the newborn and consequent survivability if it should continue into late gestation (March-May). Serum copper (Cu) levels in does (range 0.39 to 0.74 ppm) were considered marginal when compared to domestic animals and some wild ungulates. Fawns had low but apparently normal Cu levels at birth and reached the does' marginal values in about three days. Whole blood and serum Selenium (Se) levels (<100 ng/ml) were considered to be marginal to low in most segments of the pronghorn population in this study. However, serum levels of vitamin E (range 1.98 - 3.27 pg/ml), as determined from the does captured in March, are apparently sufficient to offset any signs of deficiency due to low Se levels. No clinical signs of Cu or Se deficiency were observed. Does captured in December 1996 were tested for neutralizing antibodies to Brucella spp. (n = 20, neg.), Leptospira spp. (n = 20, neg.), bluetongue virus (n = 20, 35% pos.), epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (n = 20, 30% pos.), respiratory syncytial virus (n = 18, neg.), parainfluenza virus type 3 (n = 18, 67% pos.), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (n = 18, neg.), and bovine viral diarrhea (n = 18, neg.). Seventeen fawns (9F,8M), nine in 1996 and eight in 1997, survived until at least mid-July each year. Fifty-five of 87 dead fawns were necropsied. Predation by coyotes (Canis latrans) accounted for the majority of fawn mortality (62%), as determined by necropsy, during the two combined summer periods. Other causes of mortality for the combined years included predation by eagle (4%), dystocia (2%), septicemic pasteurellosis (5%), starvation/weak fawn syndrome

Oregon↗
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↗
USGS2012

Plague

Plague offers readers an overview of this highly complex disease caused by the bacteria Yersinia pestis . The history of the disease, as well as information about Yersinia pestis and its transmission by fleas, is described. The section Geographic Distribution presents areas of the world and United States where plague occurs most commonly in rodents and humans. Species Susceptibility describes infection and disease rates in rodents, humans, and other animals. Disease Ecology considers the complex relationship among rodents, domestic and wild animals, and humans and explores possible routes of transmission and maintenance of the organism in the environment. The effects of climate change, the potential for Y. pestis to be used as a bioweapon, and the impact of plague on conservation of wildlife are considered in Points to Ponder . Disease Prevention and Control outlines methods of prevention and treatment including vaccination for prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets. A glossary of technical terms is included. Tonie E. Rocke, the senior author and an epizootiologist at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), is a prominent researcher on oral vaccination of prairie dogs to prevent plague. She is currently working to transfer her success in the laboratory to the field to control plague in prairie dogs. Rachel C. Abbott, a biologist at the NWHC, is assisting Dr. Rocke in this process and will coordinate field trials of the vaccine. Milt Friend, first director of the NWHC, wrote the foreword. Plague is intended for scholars and the general public. The material is presented in a simple, straightforward manner that serves both audiences. Numerous illustrations and tables provide easily understood summaries of key points and information.

Circular↗
USGS1999

Health evaluation of Columbian white-tailed deer on Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian white-tailed deer

The Columbian white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) was designated an endangered species in 1968. At that time the estimated population along the lower Columbia River of Washington and Oregon was 300 to 400 deer (Gavin, 1984). The Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer was established in 1972 to protect Columbian white-tailed deer and associated habitat Currently, an estimated 600 deer are present in several separate populations. The total refuge population is estimated at 200 animals. Of those, the mainland population consists of approximately 60 animals while the largest refuge island (Tenasillahe.Island) supports about 120 animals. The remaining 420 deer are present on private lands near the refuge (AI Clark, pers. com.). Higher than expected deer mortality on Tenasillahe Island in the spring of 1996 prompted refuge personnel to request assistance from the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) for diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of the mortalities. The mortality event occurred in the wake of extraordinary .flooding that reduced the availability and quality of forage on the island. It is estimated that 50% of the deer population on the refuge died during this time period. The basic finding of emaciation attributable to probable starvation raised concerns regarding the health status of the deer herd, available food resources, and current population levels. A health evaluation was conducted on free-ranging deer from the refuge in February, 1998. This evaluation was an analysis of physiologic parameters obtained from live deer in an attempt to determine the health of individual animals and, with adequate sampling, the health of the population. This study was conducted during February to examine individual animal health during the seasonal period when the deer are in their poorest physical condition. The late winter period prior to spring green-up is a time when the effects ofbreeding and winter stress are most evident (Venne and Ozoga, 1971). The objectives of this study were to: (1) gather baseline physiologic data on a subset of the population, (2) evaluate the data to determine the health of the animals sampled, (3) if possible, identify causes of poor health and, ( 4) provide refuge personnel with information that will aid them in managing the population.

Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2005

Coral disease and health workshop: Coral histopathology II, July 12-14, 2005

The health and continued existence of coral reef ecosystems are threatened by an increasing array of environmental and anthropogenic impacts. Coral disease is one of the prominent causes of increased mortality among reefs globally, particularly in the Caribbean. Although over 40 different coral diseases and syndromes have been reported worldwide, only a few etiological agents have been confirmed; most pathogens remain unknown and the dynamics of disease transmission, pathogenicity and mortality are not understood. Causal relationships have been documented for only a few of the coral diseases, while new syndromes continue to emerge. Extensive field observations by coral biologists have provided substantial documentation of a plethora of new pathologies, but our understanding, however, has been limited to descriptions of gross lesions with names reflecting these observations (e.g., black band, white band, dark spot). To determine etiology, we must equip coral diseases scientists with basic biomedical knowledge and specialized training in areas such as histology, cell biology and pathology. Only through combining descriptive science with mechanistic science and employing the synthesis epizootiology provides will we be able to gain insight into causation and become equipped to handle the pending crisis. One of the critical challenges faced by coral disease researchers is to establish a framework to systematically study coral pathologies drawing from the field of diagnostic medicine and pathology and using generally accepted nomenclature. This process began in April 2004, with a workshop titled Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Developing Diagnostic Criteria co-convened by the Coral Disease and Health Consortium (CDHC), a working group organized under the auspices of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, and the International Registry for Coral Pathology (IRCP). The workshop was hosted by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison, Wisconsin and was focused on gross morphology and disease signs observed in the field. A resounding recommendation from the histopathologists participating in the workshop was the urgent need to develop diagnostic criteria that are suitable to move from gross observations to morphological diagnoses based on evaluation of microscopic anatomy. As a continuation of building the foundation and framework for coral disease diagnostics, the CDHC convened the Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Coral Histopathology II in Charleston, South Carolina, July 11-14, 2005. The workshop was hosted by the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC which provided expertise, facilities and equipment in support of the workshop. All of the histological slides and related photographs used in the discussions were prepared and supplied by the IRCP. This workshop brought together 15 experts in veterinary and medical pathology and coral biology from national and international research institutes and government laboratories. The mission was to devise a standardized approach to examining microscopic anatomy and pathology of corals and a standardized nomenclature to facilitate accurate descriptions of the microscopic morphology of corals and enhance communication among specialists investigating causes of coral death. 2 The participants of this workshop deliberated for 3 days to refine the nomenclature for gross and microscopic anatomy of corals and systematically described microscopic changes associated with selected coral diseases. The findings and recommendations from the deliberations will be submitted to the research community for peer review. The standardized nomenclature and descriptions produced at this workshop will ultimately be made available to the scientific community through a variety of media including the World Wide Web. An exciting highlight of this meeting was provided by Professor Robert Ogilvie (MUSC Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy) when he introduced participants to a new digital technology that is revolutionizing histology and histopathology in the medical field. The Virtual Slide technology creates digital images of histological tissue sections by computer scanning actual slides in high definition and storing the images for retrieval and viewing. Virtual slides now allow any investigator with access to a computer and the web to view, search, annotate and comment on the same tissue sections in real time. Medical and veterinary slide libraries across the country are being converted into virtual slides to enhance biomedical education, research and diagnosis. The coral health and disease researchers at this workshop deem virtual slides as a significant way to increase capabilities in coral histology and a means for pathology consultations on coral disease cases on a global scale.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2015

Information resources

During recent decades, natural resources agency personnel and others involved with the management and stewardship of wildlife have experienced an increasing need to access information and obtain technical assistance for addressing a diverse array of wildlife disease issues. This Chapter provides a broad overview of selected sources for obtaining supplemental information and technical assistance for addressing wildlife disease issues in North America. Specifically, examples of existing major wildlife disease programs focusing on free-ranging wildlife populations are highlighted; training opportunities for enhancing within-agency wildlife disease response are identified; a selected reading list of wildlife disease references is provided; and selected Web sites providing timely information on wildlife disease are highlighted. No attempt is made to detail all the North American programs and capabilities that address disease in free-ranging wildlife populations. Instead, this Chapter is focused on enhancing awareness of the types of capabilities that exist as potential sources for assistance and collaboration between wildlife conservation agency personnel and others in addressing wildlife disease issues. A wide variety of entities across North America are involved in wildlife disease investigations; however, the formal assembly of multidimensional programs that primarily address disease for the benefit of free-ranging wildlife is rather limited. The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS), the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), and the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative (CWHC) are selected examples. These programs are highlighted because of the scope of their capabilities and long-term involvement in assisting State and Federal natural resource agencies combat wildlife disease. A variety of other sources for possible assistance in addressing wildlife disease issues exists throughout North America and globally. It is prudent for wildlife conservation field biologists, managers, and administrators to be aware of such local resources. Ideally, awareness and knowledge of the types of assistance those programs can provide should be obtained prior to disease crisis events since appropriate, timely intervention often is required to minimize wildlife losses from disease and prevent the establishment of new infectious diseases within wildlife populations and geographic areas. Increasing recognition of the substantial number of infectious diseases being transferred between wildlife, domestic animals, and humans has led to increased collaborative investigations between wildlife, domestic, and human health programs. That collaboration has led to a heightened focus on wildlife disease within some public health and agriculture agencies. For purposes of this Chapter, wildlife disease is narrowly defined as those diseases (infectious and noninfectious) causing morbidity and mortality in free-ranging wildlife populations. Therefore, there is no focus on the numerous fish disease or environmental contaminant programs that exist on behalf of North American fauna.

Techniques and Methods↗