Journal of Wildlife Management最新文献

{"title":"Risk metrics vs. rat metrics: An alternative approach to measuring and managing urban rat infestations","authors":"Chelsea G. Himsworth,&nbsp;Kaylee A. Byers","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70052","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Urban Norway rats (<i>Rattus norvegicus</i>) and black rats (<i>R. rattus</i>) can have diverse and significant negative impacts on urban landscapes and residents. A variety of different approaches have been developed for measuring rat populations to support management efforts. However, the utility of these approaches has been limited, as they account for the magnitude but not the consequences of infestations and thus may not reflect the harm that cities are ultimately seeking to mitigate. We propose an alternative approach through the development of a rat risk index, which would add novel measures of rat-related impacts to existing measures of rat abundance. Such an index would be particularly useful for goal setting, program evaluation, and prioritization in the context of municipal rat management programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Issue Information - Cover","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.22611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22611","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.22611","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sea otter interactions with mariculture oyster farms","authors":"Emily Reynolds,&nbsp;Brenda Konar,&nbsp;Lara Horstmann","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70055","url":null,"abstract":"<p>While oyster farms and sea otters (<i>Enhydra lutris</i>) coexist in some locations, sustaining these farms and growing interest in their expansion necessitate a comprehensive evaluation of potential interactions. We assessed sea otter interactions with oyster farms through behavioral observations of otters in oyster farms, adjacent non-farm areas (controls), or bays with no farming activity (references) in southcentral Alaska in 2022–2023. Behavioral observations, conducted through scan surveys, captured sea otter activities (e.g., resting, grooming, swimming, and foraging). Targeted foraging observations tracked foraging success and prey (species and count). We hypothesized that sea otters preferentially used oyster farms for foraging and resting activities compared to non-farm areas. Contrary to our hypothesis, sea otter activities showed no significant difference in foraging or resting behaviors between oyster farms and controls. Similarly, foraging behavior, including success and prey diversity, did not differ among areas. The dominant prey items in our study included clams (e.g., butter clam [<i>Saxidomus gigantea</i>]), crabs (e.g., helmet crab [<i>Telmessus cheiragonus</i>], red rock crab [<i>Cancer productus</i>]), and mussels (e.g., Pacific blue mussel [<i>Mytilus trossulus</i>]). Notably, there were no observations of farmed oysters being consumed by sea otters. There was strong evidence of differences in the average number of prey consumed per sea otter per dive between the control and reference areas, with the control area averaging 2.6 prey items per dive (SD = 3.6) compared to 4.8 prey items per dive (SD = 7.3) in the reference area. These differences may be attributed to variations in prey biomass and environmental conditions. Our observations indicate that there are no discernible differences in overall sea otter activity or foraging behavior in the presence of oyster farms.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Virtual issues as foundational resources","authors":"Jacqueline L. Frair,&nbsp;Allison Cox","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70058","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Through Wiley, &lt;i&gt;The Journal of Wildlife Management&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;i&gt;JWM&lt;/i&gt;) has created virtual issues that provide curated collections of research articles on key themes, draw material from multiple journals, and make articles freely available to read for 3 months. Virtual issues can be particularly useful for those seeking a comprehensive overview of a specific field of research. As we look forward to the annual meeting this October, we encourage symposium and working group organizers to partner with us to also publish a virtual issue.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We first ventured into the world of virtual issues in 2019 with a pair of issues co-published by The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society in advance of the 2019 Joint Annual Meeting (Trushenski et al. &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;&lt;i&gt;b&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;). After a bit of a dry spell, in 2024 we published 4 more. The first 2 focused on the top-cited articles published in 2022 and 2023 (JWM &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;) and the most-read articles in 2023 (JWM &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;i&gt;b&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;), containing content exclusively drawn from &lt;i&gt;JWM&lt;/i&gt;. The next 2 issues took a different tack by coordinating the publication of special focuses in The Wildlife Professional in tandem with a virtual issue containing research articles on the same theme. The first of these focused on beaver management and conservation (JWM &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;), the second focused on wildlife in desert ecosystems (JWM &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;i&gt;d&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;), and both coalesced articles from across The Wildlife Society family of publications, including &lt;i&gt;JWM&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Wildlife Society Bulletin&lt;/i&gt;, and &lt;i&gt;Wildlife Monographs&lt;/i&gt;. That same year, The Wildlife Society published a virtual issue on greater sage-grouse in the &lt;i&gt;Wildlife Society Bulletin&lt;/i&gt; to support the ongoing drafting of a conservation plan for the species by the Bureau of Land Management (Wildlife Society Bulletin &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Expanding on our efforts to provide the science behind hot topics highlighted in The Wildlife Professional, we have recently published a virtual issue on nutritional ecology (JWM &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;). This issue drew together 28 articles across 11 different journals available within the Wiley Online Library. This collection was curated by the Nutritional Ecology Working Group of The Wildlife Society. The Working Group organized a series of 5 articles highlighting the foundations and frontiers of nutritional ecology within the May/June 2025 issue of The Wildlife Professional and provided us with their list of modern foundational readings (since 2003) for this virtual issue. We then worked to gain permission to include as many of these resources as possible. The resulting virtual issue includes 6 review, synthesis, or meta-analysis articles ranging from critical reviews on the application of key methodologies, such as stable isotope analysis (Stephens et al. &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;), to outlining an integrated framework for nutritional ecology (Rauenheimer e","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70058","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bears in North America: Habitats, hunting, and politics","authors":"Mark S. Boyce,&nbsp;Andrew E. Derocher","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70057","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Populations of all 3 of North America's bear species have increased during the past 50 years, attributable to reduced persecution and improved management. Some actions consistent with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation can explain these population increases, although conservation practices vary substantially among jurisdictions and species. Most management and conservation of North America's bear species is by state, provincial, or territorial agencies. However, federal engagement has occurred for grizzly bears (<i>Ursus arctos</i>), polar bears (<i>U. maritimus</i>), and some black bear (<i>U. americanus</i>) populations. Harvest has been the primary tool that agencies have used to manage bear populations. Increased focus on managing habitats and mitigating human–bear conflicts will help to ensure the long-term success of bear management in North America.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors influencing antlered buck selectivity and its impact on deer management: a case study","authors":"Meghan E. Henry,&nbsp;Ben Beardmore,&nbsp;Timothy R. Van Deelen,&nbsp;Robert H. Holsman","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70056","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Motivations and sources of satisfaction associated with deer hunting vary, yet few studies have evaluated how hunters' individual characteristics and field behaviors influence harvest success. For example, emergent societal and technological shifts in hunting may be associated with selective deer harvest choices (e.g., choosing to pass on a harvest opportunity). We surveyed resident white-tailed deer (<i>Odocoileus virginianus</i>) hunters in Wisconsin, USA, and used a mixed-mode and multi-part survey to quantify hunters' expectations, motivations, perceptions, and field behavior during the 9-day firearm season in 2022. We used repeated measures logistic regression to model hunter behavior at the decision point of whether to take a shot at an antlered deer on a given day. Hunters' motivations, scouting effort, trail camera use, perception of deer density, prior harvest of a mature male deer, and prior participation in the archery season influenced this decision. In addition, hunting method, hunting location, and day of hunt influenced hunters' likelihood to take a shot. Our results identified factors influencing a growing practice of more selective deer hunting, which affects the efficacy of recreational hunting for managing white-tailed deer populations relative to social or ecological goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Issue Information - Cover","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70051","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144299579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A portable structure for identifying wolverines and Canada lynx using integrated cameras and hair snags","authors":"Kalon C. Baughan,&nbsp;Bret H. Davis,&nbsp;Kristine L. Pilgrim,&nbsp;Anne A. Carlson,&nbsp;Sergio E. Morales,&nbsp;Phillip W. Ramsey,&nbsp;Michael K. Schwartz,&nbsp;Mikaela G. Howie","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70053","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wolverine (<i>Gulo gulo</i>) and Canada lynx (<i>Lynx canadensis</i>), listed as threatened under the United States Endangered Species Act, inhabit remote mountainous terrain across multiple western states. To address challenges associated with collecting long-term occupancy and demographic data for both species, we developed and tested a modified non-invasive camera and hair snag (C&amp;H) monitoring system for simultaneous long-term monitoring of wolverine and Canada lynx (lynx hereafter). We aimed to adapt wolverine monitoring for concurrent use with lynx; redesign the data collection framework and station configuration for portability, affordability, and enhanced data capture; and establish the presence of individual wolverine and lynx through integrated photographic identification and genetic sampling. We validated the system over 5 field seasons by linking photographs to genotypes of individuals and identified reproductive status and sex of individuals across 23 stations spread over a non-contiguous grid covering 1,425 km² in western Montana, USA. We obtained individual genotypes for 13 (9 male, 4 female) of 19 wolverines (12 male, 7 female) and 6 (4 male, 2 female) of 12 lynxes (6 male, 4 female, 2 unknown) identified from unique markings in photographs. We also obtained photographic detections of bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>), red foxes (<i>Vulpes vulpes</i>), and martens (American [<i>Martes americana</i>], Pacific [<i>M. caurina</i>]). The C&amp;H stations offer an efficient, cost-effective, and non-invasive approach for mesocarnivore monitoring in remote mountainous regions.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of removal and spatial mark-resight models for estimating wild pig density","authors":"Charles R. Taylor,&nbsp;Kim M. Pepin,&nbsp;Ryan S. Miller,&nbsp;John R. Foster,&nbsp;James C. Beasley","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70054","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Density estimation is critical to effectively manage invasive species and elucidate areas of highest concern. For wild pigs (<i>Sus scrofa</i>), the ability to estimate density is complicated because of their variable home range sizes and social structure. Common methods for estimating density (e.g., mark-recapture) may be unsuitable in management applications because additional data needs to be collected before and after management. Removal models offer a suitable alternative to estimate density changes following management and can be applied broadly across areas where management of wild pigs is ongoing. We collected wild pig removal and camera trap data from 25 private properties ranging in size from approximately 0.5 km² to 95 km² across 3 ecoregions in South Carolina, USA, from 2020–2023. We compared factors affecting consistency and precision of property-level density estimates between removal and spatial mark-resight (SMR) models. In general, excluding 1 large outlier, density estimates from removal models were between 0.60 and 15.85 wild pigs/km² (median = 5.34) with a median coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.76 and 95% confidence intervals for the CV between 0.70 and 0.94. Similarly, excluding 1 large outlier, density estimates from SMR were between 0.22 and 30.97 wild pigs/km² (median = 5.48) with a median CV of 0.39 and 95% confidence intervals for the CV between 0.38 and 1.20. We found the precision of removal models was affected primarily by the number of wild pigs dispatched in the removal period (3 months) and the ecoregion in which they were removed. None of the covariates, including the number of recaptures (a corresponding measure of sample size), influenced precision of the SMR models, although recaptures did influence the density estimates. At the individual property level, density estimates from our 2 estimators were dissimilar from each other in approximately 80% of instances, although none of the covariates we examined influenced dissimilarity. Our results provide unique insight into how sample size affects density estimates using 2 common methods and into novel SMR models that incorporate both marked and unmarked detections. In addition, the density estimates in this study can be used as a reference for wild pig densities in common land cover types throughout the southeastern United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70054","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Natural History of Bat Foraging: Evolution, Physiology, Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation By Danilo Russo and Brock Fenton (Eds.), London, United Kingdom: Academic Press. 2024. pp. 352. $150.00 (paperback). ISBN 978-0-323-91820-6","authors":"Kylie F. Perez","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70048","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}