ライフサイエンスコーパス: wildlife

1 teway for arbovirus spillback from humans to wildlife.

2 threats to humans, livestock, and endangered wildlife.

3 the likelihood of adverse health effects in wildlife.

4 ubstances will have serious consequences for wildlife.

5 e range of companion animals, livestock, and wildlife.

6 k in humans, domestic animals and threatened wildlife.

7 ts, and other adverse outcomes in humans and wildlife.

8 s has led to significant concerns for marine wildlife.

9 production and forage available for grazing wildlife.

10 singly used to index physiological stress in wildlife.

11 to assess the effects of water pollution in wildlife.

12 portant behavioral and ecological effects on wildlife.

13 xhibit greater diet-microbiome turnover than wildlife.

14 ity regarding the effects of dog presence on wildlife.

15 nvironment may pose risk to human health and wildlife.

16 BPE) flame retardant is generally unknown in wildlife.

17 everely compromising habitat suitability for wildlife.

18 of LCCPs surpass those of SCCPs and MCCPs in wildlife.

19 behavioral patterns and health in humans and wildlife.

20 ns of these management decisions for grazing wildlife.

21 te and chronic health problems in humans and wildlife.

22 ronment, possibly affecting human health and wildlife.

23 lt to establish, particularly in free-living wildlife.

24 dying the effects of contaminant exposure on wildlife.

25 as predators of and competitors with native wildlife.

26 h important implications for both humans and wildlife.

27 ng to different health outcomes in migratory wildlife.

28 ral challenges complicate its application to wildlife.

29 nts into valuable habitat for such important wildlife.

30 ers the perceptual world for both humans and wildlife.

31 ne habitat suitability and hence patterns of wildlife abundances over broad spatial scales is importa

32 liably estimating density of pumas and other wildlife across geographically expansive areas.

33 g disparate facets of disease systems at the wildlife-agriculture interface, it is essential that mul

34 stin resistance genes in animals, especially wildlife and aquaculture, and their possibility of trans

35 emic preparedness and should be monitored in wildlife and at the animal-human interface.

36 entally at the South Dakota State University Wildlife and Fisheries Captive Facility where adult whit

37 ion with consequences for climate feedbacks, wildlife and human communities.

38 those interested in simultaneously improving wildlife and human health.

39 d much concern because MeHg poses threats to wildlife and human health.

40 ng the role of climate and climate change on wildlife and human infectious disease dynamics over the

41 s in the world and is frequently detected in wildlife and humans, particularly children.

42 ate change will affect disease risk for both wildlife and humans.

43 has been associated with adverse effects on wildlife and humans.

44 health hazard to aquatic biota, piscivorous wildlife and humans.

45 Restructuring of wildlife and livestock assemblages (both in terms of spe

46 tly control the disease, in particular where wildlife and livestock co-occur.

47 lection of biomarkers associated with human, wildlife and livestock diseases for development of diagn

48 on of pathogens across the interface between wildlife and livestock presents a challenge to the devel

49 t of human activities on the biodiversity of wildlife and livestock with which humans co-exist across

50 und impacts on the distributional ecology of wildlife and livestock, with implications for biodiversi

51 are an impractical, separated management of wildlife and outdated protected species lists.

52 isruption, leading to unexpected threats for wildlife and the environment.

53 as the scale of persistence and the role of wildlife and thus the opportunities and scale at which v

54 teria isolated from people, livestock, dogs, wildlife and water sources (n = 62,376 isolates).

55 tion at the appropriate scales might prevent wildlife and zoonotic diseases from increasing in preval

56 ps and suggest that vector-borne, generalist wildlife and zoonotic pathogens are the types of parasit

57 ervices to humans and preserving most forest wildlife, and can therefore guide forest preservation an

58 r potential negative impacts on the economy, wildlife, and human health provide strong incentives for

59 pecies, animal models, and the risk to pets, wildlife, and livestock.

60 of antimicrobial resistance between humans, wildlife, and livestock.

61 l for production, but highly significant for wildlife, and suggest that such tradeoffs may be further

62 framework across human and agricultural and wildlife animal health, focusing on the genetic and anti

63 l occurrence dataset of human, livestock and wildlife anthrax outbreaks.

64 dlife is consistent with the hypothesis that wildlife are a net sink rather than source of clinically

65 and the environment, to investigate whether wildlife are a net source for antimicrobial resistance i

66 orced regulations on recreational UAS use in wildlife areas are necessary to minimise disturbance to

67 Whether an infectious disease threat to wildlife arises from pathogen introduction or the increa

68 hat many of the globally observed impacts on wildlife attributed to anthropogenic activity may be exp

69 aily as part of the global > 30-billion USD, wildlife-based tourism industry.

70 t artificial lighting patterns may influence wildlife behavior at a broad scale throughout urban area

71 climates are altering wildlife habitats and wildlife behavior in complex ways.

72 many landscapes, and can dramatically alter wildlife behavior, physiology, and demography.

73 rse for not only the study of self-urbanized wildlife, but also for understanding life history and bo

74 tion on livestock farms that are managed for wildlife by the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (R

75 larly sensitive to dog bite rate, and during wildlife campaigns to animal consumption rate and human

76 Food-provisioning of wildlife can facilitate reliable up-close encounters des

77 However, intentional feeding of wildlife can impact numerous aspects of an animals' beha

78 Wildlife carried a low prevalence of E coli isolates sus

79 Urban wildlife carry a high burden of clinically relevant anti

80 Promoting human-wildlife coexistence is critical to the long-term conser

81 the diversity of anthropogenic influences on wildlife communities globally.

82 ve cascading, landscape-scale impacts across wildlife communities, which could result largely from th

83 dscape of fear with pervasive effects across wildlife communities.

84 While such subsidies can enhance wildlife condition, they can also result in unintended n

85 ement concern due their involvement in human-wildlife conflict, and their role as vectors of zoonotic

86 Accelerated habitat reduction, human-wildlife conflict, limited funding, and the complexity o

87 t prompt questions about how to reduce human-wildlife conflict.

88 Human-wildlife conflicts occur worldwide.

89 nvironments and contribute to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts.

90 ding primates, and frequently leads to human-wildlife conflicts.

91 sequencing technologies have revolutionized wildlife conservation genetics.

92 hazards to human health, food security, and wildlife conservation globally.

93 China's wildlife conservation has faced a series of challenges,

94 l wildlife species, so strengthening China's wildlife conservation is of great significance to global

95 sults clearly illustrate that management for wildlife conservation should be critically evaluated thr

96 ecosystem and identify potential threats for wildlife conservation, we analyzed, through real-time PC

97 significant units" should be integrated into wildlife conservation.

98 g industrial impacts for the human-dominated wildlife contact zone.

99 Identifiable traits of the wildlife contribute to this exposure; however, compared

100 ion needed for brown bear conservation using wildlife corridor parameters.

101 Identifying patterns of wildlife crime is a major conservation challenge.

102 es is key to disrupting trade and curtailing wildlife crime.

103 e pattern and severity of diseases affecting wildlife, crops and ourselves.

104 freshwater aquaculture in disease spread in wildlife, developing risk assessment modeling, and explo

105 We assessed wildlife diel activity responses to human presence and c

106 e and movement data collection to understand wildlife disease dynamics and plan their effective contr

107 in host home range movement and space use on wildlife disease dynamics are poorly understood, but cou

108 A key aim in wildlife disease ecology is to understand how host and p

109 Wildlife disease hosts vary in home range-associated for

110 case of chytridiomycosis, the most important wildlife disease of the past century.

111 m the mechanistic underpinnings of important wildlife disease processes, and this review represents a

112 ey conducted by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study and from the United States Drough

113 s the spatial spread of directly transmitted wildlife disease through host-host contact structure.

114 n land use change, microbiome dysbiosis, and wildlife disease.

115 ing of the dynamics of HPAI infection in the wildlife-domestic poultry interface and may help to esta

116 Human-wildlife encounters are becoming increasingly frequent a

117 ttributed to serovars commonly isolated from wildlife/environment (e.g., Javiana).

118 suggest that the effects of urbanization on wildlife extend into the aerosphere and are complex, str

119 , an increasingly recognized cause of global wildlife extinctions worldwide, particularly in avian po

120 environment, such as habitat destruction or wildlife fatalities.

121 Assessment of toxin risk to wildlife focuses mostly on offspring-related metrics, wh

122 spanning 40 years, which is rare for Arctic wildlife, for two species of seabird were assessed, and

123 ngths for environmental pollutants in Arctic wildlife, found correlations with precipitation for murr

124 s, which will ultimately allow the design of wildlife-friendly urban environments and contribute to m

125 agricultural matrix via the integration of "wildlife-friendly" habitat features (land sharing).

126 Furthermore, much of our knowledge of wildlife-GMB relationships is based on studies of coloni

127 To better understand wildlife-GMB relationships, we engaged hunters as citize

128 particulate materials, SPMs) from Miankaleh Wildlife/Gorgan Bay, (Caspian Sea, Iran).

129 conservation priorities for several fish and wildlife groups - small-bodied vertebrates, large mammal

130 services such as flood control and fish and wildlife habitat, should be considered when creating pol

131 e 2008-16 and its impacts on crop yields and wildlife habitat.

132 Changing climates are altering wildlife habitats and wildlife behavior in complex ways.

133 ensifying anthropogenic pressures on aquatic wildlife habitats.

134 causing adverse health effects in humans and wildlife has led to the development of scientific and re

135 Disease outbreaks among wildlife have surged in recent decades alongside climate

136 predicting the impacts of climate change on wildlife health requires a deeper understanding of seaso

137 bstantially impacted public, veterinary, and wildlife health.

138 Our results suggest that variation in wildlife home range movement behaviour increases the spa

139 aviruses (CoVs) have repeatedly emerged from wildlife hosts and infected humans and livestock animals

140 mate change models indicate that ectothermic wildlife hosts from temperate and tropical zones may exp

141 Known wildlife hosts of human-shared pathogens and parasites o

142 Unlike domestic pigs, warthogs, which are wildlife hosts of the virus, do not succumb to the letha

143 must co-occur with both humans and potential wildlife hosts, such as monkeys, in space and time.

144 read of infectious diseases within human and wildlife hosts.

145 reveal the hidden death toll of pathogens on wildlife hosts.

146 s in the context of evolutionary ecology and wildlife-human interactions.

147 istant phenotypes was compared between urban wildlife, humans, livestock, and the environment, to inv

148 crobial resistance overlap between sympatric wildlife, humans, livestock, and their shared environmen

149 vers and consequences of spatial patterns in wildlife immune defence.

150 habitat- and population-level differences in wildlife immune phenotypes.

151 ating the potential mercury risk to fish and wildlife in aquatic ecosystems and provides a framework

152 e trade in China has posed serious threat to wildlife in China and throughout the world, while leadin

153 Notably, the role of wildlife in PPR epidemiology is still not clearly unders

154 use these data to examine the role of urban wildlife in the spread of clinically relevant antimicrob

155 Salmonella spp. are frequently shed by wildlife including turtles, but S. enterica subsp. enter

156 les on organochlorine accumulation in Arctic wildlife, including seabirds, and associated time scale

157 Close human-wildlife interactions are rapidly growing, particularly

158 Although the nature of human-wildlife interactions has been well documented across a

159 ations, thus broadening our picture of human-wildlife interactions in urban environments.

160 Wildlife interactions with livestock, acquiring associat

161 Growing urbanization is increasing human-wildlife interactions, including attacks towards humans

162 ddress conservation issues relating to human-wildlife interactions.

163 nd NHPI and to inform management about human-wildlife interactions.

164 individual wild animals may influence human-wildlife interactions.

165 Despite increasing conflict at human-wildlife interfaces, there exists little research on how

166 edge degradation has effectively "squeezed" wildlife into the core protected area and has altered th

167 the environment, low phenotypic diversity in wildlife is consistent with the hypothesis that wildlife

168 owledge of the negative effects of debris on wildlife is largely based on consequences that are readi

169 multidrug-resistant E coli carriage in urban wildlife is linked to variation in ecological traits, su

170 ed concern for PFAS exposure of high trophic wildlife is still warranted, even in the northern enviro

171 Hazing, i.e., scaring wildlife, is frequently promoted as an important non-let

172 ens, leaving our understanding of the GMB in wildlife limited.

173 The structure of sympatric wildlife, livestock and human populations are characteri

174 diversity, density and species assemblage of wildlife, livestock and humans.

175 hat may expose nontarget organisms including wildlife, livestock, and humans to health risks.

176 c methods using field samples collected at a wildlife-livestock interface in Africa.

177 protection of habitats, and reduction of the wildlife-livestock-human interface.

178 Massive wildlife losses over the past 50 y have brought new urge

179 A critical element in effective wildlife management is monitoring the status of wildlife

180 ions for amendment of the laws and reform of wildlife management system.

181 st popular tools in fisheries, forestry, and wildlife management, and introgression of hatchery-reare

182 l health and encourage onward application to wildlife management.

183 e abundance in Russia well, which can inform wildlife managers on the long-term patterns of habitat u

184 We advocate for wildlife managers to adopt a landscape-based approach an

185 logy and provides practical applications for wildlife medicine and management.

186 of photographic tourism's potential role in wildlife monitoring has been lacking, but is essential f

187 strate that tourist-contributed data can aid wildlife monitoring in protected areas by providing popu

188 Although a range of wildlife monitoring methods exist, considerable focused

189 we conduct a natural field experiment using wildlife monitoring technology to test variation in the

190 Approaches for quantifying wildlife mortality due to endemic infections have histor

191 limited by an inability to directly observe wildlife mortality in nature.

192 nmental citizen science projects, collecting wildlife observations, measures of water quality and muc

193 exceeded high or severe benchmarks of fish, wildlife, or human health risk.

194 with the emergence of infectious diseases of wildlife origins in human populations.

195 Roads and their traffic can affect wildlife over large areas and, in regions with dense roa

196 It is important to monitor PCBs in wildlife, particularly in highly exposed populations to

197 Wildlife, particularly those that use urban environments

198 could capitalize upon the immense number of wildlife photographs being taken daily as part of the gl

199 leading to inaccurate conclusions regarding wildlife physiological stress.

200 rime cases epitomize the serious threat that wildlife poisoning poses to biodiversity.

201 uch of the evidence on population effects of wildlife poisoning rests on assessments conducted at an

202 ion, and veterinary drugs have caused severe wildlife poisoning, pushing the populations of several a

203 portant implications for the conservation of wildlife population and confirm the validity of importan

204 atially explicit tracking and forecasting of wildlife population dynamics at scales that are relevant

205 density limits are needed to predict future wildlife population responses to anthropogenic threats.

206 t describing parasite prevalence across 7346 wildlife populations and 2021 host-parasite combinations

207 factors shaping the spatial organization of wildlife populations and assess the impact of epizootics

208 f effects that endemic parasites can have on wildlife populations and our theoretical framework for i

209 e populations; however, resources to monitor wildlife populations are typically limited.

210 ous diseases are responsible for declines in wildlife populations around the globe.

211 both positive and negative impacts on native wildlife populations at different scales of space and ti

212 graphic, and phylogenetic studies of dog and wildlife populations in the Russian Far East to show tha

213 microbial communities are structured across wildlife populations is poor.

214 ates has rarely been explored empirically in wildlife populations with long-term demographic data.

215 persistent are the post-war consequences on wildlife populations within and outside conflict zones?

216 For wildlife populations, disease-induced mortality is likel

217 anding the effects of infectious diseases on wildlife populations.

218 require vaccination of domestic dogs and/or wildlife populations.

219 trol infectious diseases within inaccessible wildlife populations.

220 rsity loss could negatively impact human and wildlife populations.

221 dlife management is monitoring the status of wildlife populations; however, resources to monitor wild

222 However, how do civil wars affect wildlife populations?

223 instead preyed on naturally occurring local wildlife prey in the CHs.

224 The insatiable human appetite for wildlife products drives species to extinction, spreads

225 that are common in the East African illegal wildlife products trade based on their unique high-resol

226 ical for the prosecution of illegally-traded wildlife products, conservation-based biodiversity resea

227 Although the Wildlife Protection Law of China was revised in 2016, th

228 strative resources, and serious obstacles to wildlife protection.

229 Vaccination of endangered wildlife provides a valuable component of conservation s

230 nality among sites at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge (NM, USA) that represent three dryland e

231 However, vaccination of endangered wildlife remains controversial, which has led to a focus

232 ve analysis to date of the gene responses in wildlife reproductive system to radiation.

233 ng used recreationally, commercially and for wildlife research, but very few studies have quantified

234 Human movement into insect vector and wildlife reservoir habitats determines zoonotic disease

235 upus) that prey on wild boar (Sus scrofa), a wildlife reservoir of tuberculosis, to examine how preda

236 atiotemporal patterns of NiV dynamics in its wildlife reservoir, Pteropus medius bats, in Bangladesh.

237 populations worldwide, often where potential wildlife reservoirs exist.

238 ow host life history traits can help predict wildlife reservoirs of zoonoses and the vulnerability of

239 ous interfaces between people, livestock and wildlife reservoirs of zoonotic disease.

240 quence human and animal pathogens persist in wildlife reservoirs.

241 Wildlife respond to human presence by adjusting their te

242 Evidence approach to demonstrate effects on wildlife resulting from its field exposure to ionizing r

243 Wildlife road mortality is well documented and extensive

244 iring associated AMR bacteria and genes, and wildlife's subsequent dispersal across the landscape are

245 48%) being overall better than their matched Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLSs; PAs with lower protection).

246 nd diversity of actinobacteria from Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary and Kaziranga National Park of Assam,

247 y between individuals in the Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary and the Maya Forest Corridor.

248 jaguar movement between the Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary and the Maya Forest Corridor.

249 s forest fragments of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary, Sabah.

250 jaguar dispersal from and to Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary.

251 acterize them, including in water, sediment, wildlife, seafood, and drinking water samples.

252 efore, because CDV circulates among multiple wildlife sources, dog vaccination alone would not be eff

253 m bovis infection has been described in many wildlife species across Africa.

254 e effects of current separated management of wildlife species and outdated protected species lists, a

255 he Russian Far East to show that a number of wildlife species are more important than dogs, both in m

256 of applying cutting edge methods to classify wildlife species from camera-trap data, we shed light on

257 ield assessments of other Chondrichthyes and wildlife species in the future.

258 n=2102) were collected from the faeces of 75 wildlife species inhabiting household compounds (ie, the

259 approach to differentiate 10 domestic and 24 wildlife species that are common in the East African ill

260 ommon practice, especially when dealing with wildlife species that are difficult to track or capture.

261 fire threatens the persistence of specialist wildlife species through direct loss of habitat and indi

262 ned in training a CNN to classify 20 African wildlife species with an overall accuracy of 87.5% from

263 Bushmeat, the meat and organs derived from wildlife species, is a common source of animal protein i

264 Regardless of wildlife species, sample condition, season, or region, t

265 China has about 11% of the world's total wildlife species, so strengthening China's wildlife cons

266 he potential effects of changing climates on wildlife species.

267 n of MTBC in various sample types from other wildlife species.

268 ovis-infection, as shown in numerous African wildlife species.

269 and conservation in even the most iconic of wildlife species.

270 onmental pollution is a threat to humans and wildlife species.

271 ls and surface water in humans as well as in wildlife species.

272 a potential shortcoming inherent in previous wildlife studies that relied solely on a multi-tube appr

273 logistical constraints that are magnified in wildlife, such as poor control and substantial trait var

274 Wildlife surveys indicate, however, that bats may abando

275 ypical of many alternate flame retardants in wildlife, TBBPA-BDBPE levels in the gull samples were lo

276 to infect companion animals, livestock, and wildlife that could act as viral reservoirs.

277 d contaminant of concern for both people and wildlife that has been a focus of environmental remediat

278 Wildlife that interact closely with humans, livestock, a

279 future changes of disease risk in migratory wildlife that may arise from shifting migratory patterns

280 tock for sustenance, and the conservation of wildlife that often depend on livestock-dominated landsc

281 We detected parvovirus DNA in several wildlife tissues.

282 Urbanisation exposes wildlife to new challenging conditions and environmental

283 ons are rapidly growing, particularly due to wildlife tourism popularity.

284 Wildlife tourists and guides are especially focussed on

285 The booming wildlife trade in China has posed serious threat to wild

286 Wildlife trade is a multibillion dollar industry that is

287 As a major transnational enterprise, illegal wildlife trade is valued between eight and 26.5 billion

288 of conserving habitat and regulating unsafe wildlife trade practices to reduce the risk of future pa

289 atural world, protect habitats, and regulate wildlife trade, including live animals and non-sustenanc

290 t establish effective legislation addressing wildlife trade, protection of habitats, and reduction of

291 disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, linked to wildlife trade.

292 future in situ efforts to combat the illegal wildlife trade.

293 te and fair priority is critical scrutiny of wildlife trade.

294 od for manipulating CEC exposures in aquatic wildlife using two fat-based carriers (coconut oil and v

295 safety to address these concerns and bolster wildlife vaccination campaigns.

296 Wildlife vaccination is of urgent interest to reduce dis

297 restoration or conservation, based on their wildlife value, remains a significant challenge.

298 versity of antimicrobial-resistant E coli in wildlife was lower than in livestock, humans, and the en

299 rarely be answered for endemic pathogens of wildlife: what are the population- and landscape-level e

300 Urbanization impacts wildlife, yet research has been limited to few taxa.