Elevated numbers of PAS-positive granulocytes in peripheral blood signify presence of disease in certain fish species
No abstract available at this time
Tech Notes↗
SEARCH · USGS Science
Results for “Tech Notes”
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.
Barcodes are a useful tool for labeling and tracking ecological samples
Barcodes are used to label and track just about everything these days. Look around your office, in your medicine cabinet, at the package you just received in the mail, or on the shelves of any shop in town, and you will immediately grasp the ubiquity of their use. Interestingly, railroads and supermarkets were the early pioneers of barcode development: the former needing a way to track railway car location and ownership on a national scale, the latter needing a way to track a diverse array of products and to decrease checkout times (Nelson 1997). Barcodes first came to use in the sciences via the field of medicine, and the medical literature contains hundreds of publications describing how this technology has reduced errors in patient specimen identification and handling, where error mitigation is crucial. In short, barcodes have been adopted by many industries, and in many fields they are now synonymous with asset tracking. In spite of their potential to efficiently organize “assets” (i.e., samples) and minimize human error, the use of barcodes has yet to gain widespread application in ecology. In an age where students take notes on laptops instead of paper, and where “text messaging” involves a smartphone rather than a ball‐point pen, why do otherwise tech‐savvy ecologists persist in hand‐labeling samples? Why do we repeatedly transcribe long and unique identifiers at each step in the process of sample analysis, thereby wasting time and creating opportunities for transcription errors and data loss? Why are most sample storage areas only successfully navigable by the lab manager who personally shelved the samples? In the case of our large ecology lab—and, we suspect, in many others as well—the answer to these questions was perpetually, “bar‐coding won't be worth the trouble.” Recently, however, we realized this was no longer a sufficient answer when we started a new research project that involved collecting an additional thousands of samples each year; we decided to embrace the tangible benefits of an electronic labeling system, and implemented barcoding in our lab. To be clear, the use of barcoding in ecology is not completely novel, and there have been early adopters of this technology. For example, the Cedar Creek Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) site has been using barcodes since at least the mid‐1990s to track the large number of samples collected in their long‐term experimental grasslands (T. A. Kennedy, personal observation ). Overall, however, Cedar Creek is an outlier: in informal e‐mail surveys of LTER sites, only two of eight respondents used barcodes for sample identification or tracking, and even then their use was generally limited to certain samples or certain stages of sample analysis. Our objective in this article is to use our lab as a case study to highlight the potential of barcodes to simplify numerous aspects of sample collection and processing.
Arizona↗
International meeting on sarcoptic mange in wildlife, June 2018, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Sarcoptic mange is a globally distributed disease caused by the burrowing mite Sarcoptes scabiei , which also causes scabies in humans. A wide and increasing number of wild mammal species are reported to be susceptible to mange; however, the impacts of the disease in wildlife populations, mechanisms involved in its eco-epidemiological dynamics, and risks to public and ecosystem health are still unclear. Major gaps exist concerning S. scabiei host specificity and the mechanisms involved in the different presentations of the disease, which change between individuals and species. Immunological responses to the mite may have a relevant role explaining these different susceptibilities, as these affect the clinical signs, and consequently, the severity of the disease. Recently, some studies have suggested sarcoptic mange as an emerging threat for wildlife, based on several outbreaks with increased severity, geographical expansions, and novel wild hosts affected. Disease ecology experts convened for the “International Meeting on Sarcoptic Mange in Wildlife” on 4–5 June 2018, hosted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. The meeting had a structure of (i) pre-workshop review; (ii) presentation and discussions; and (iii) identification of priority research questions to understand sarcoptic mange in wildlife. The workgroup concluded that research priorities should be on determining the variation in modes of transmission for S. scabiei in wildlife, factors associated with the variation of disease severity among species, and long-terms effects of the mange in wildlife populations. In this note we summarize the main discussions and research gaps identified by the experts.
Parasites & Vectors↗
Evaluation of geophysical logs, Phase II, at Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Between March and April 1998, the U.S. Navy contracted Tetra Tech NUS Inc., to drill two monitor wells in the Stockton Formation at the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Horsham Township, Montgomery County, Pa. The wells MG-1634 and MG-1635 were installed to monitor water levels and sample contaminants in the shallow, intermediate, and deep water-producing zones of the fractured bedrock. Chemical analyses of the samples will help determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of any contaminated ground water migrating from known contaminant sources. Wells were drilled near the Fire Training Area (Site 5). Depths of all boreholes range from 69 to 149 feet below land surface. The U.S. Geological Survey conducted borehole geophysical logging and video surveys to identify water-producing zones in newly drilled monitor wells MG-1634 and MG-1635 and in wells MG-1675 and MG-1676. The logging was conducted from March 5, 1998, to April 16, 1998. This work is a continuation of the Phase I work. Caliper logs and video surveys were used to locate fractures; inflections on fluid-temperature and fluid-resistivity logs were used to locate possible water-producing fractures. Heatpulse-flowmeter measurements were used to verify the locations of water-producing or water-receiving zones and to measure rates of flow between water-bearing fractures. Single-point-resistance and natural-gamma logs provided information on stratigraphy. After interpretation of geophysical logs, video surveys, and driller's notes, wells MG-1634 and MG-1635 were screened such that water-levels fluctuations could be monitored and discrete water samples collected from one or more water-producing zones in each borehole.
Pennsylvania↗