The Biological Survey Unit (BSU) is administered by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and located in the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2]). Since 1889, the BSU has managed the North American collections of non-fish vertebrates. The proposed

Guidelines for use of wild mammal species in research are updated from Sikes et al. (2011). These guidelines cover current professional techniques and regulations involving the use of mammals in research and teaching; they also incorporate new resources, procedural summaries, and reporting requirements. Included are details on capturing, marking, housing, and humanely killing wild mammals. It is recommended that Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), regulatory agencies, and investigators use these guidelines as a resource for protocols involving wild mammals, whether studied in the field or in captivity. These guidelines were prepared and approved by the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM), in consultation with professional veterinarians experienced in wildlife research and IACUCs, whose collective expertise provides a broad and comprehensive understanding of the biology of nondomesticated mammals. The current version of these guidelines and any subsequent modifications are available online on the Animal Care and Use Committee page of the ASM website (http://mammalogy.org/uploads/committee_files/CurrentGuidelines.pdf). Additional resources pertaining to the use of wild animals in research are available at: http://www.mammalsociety.org/committees/animal-care-and-use#tab3.

Ethical and effective oversight of the use of wildlife species in research and education requires consideration of issues and methods not relevant to work with traditional laboratory or domesticated animals, just as the effective oversight of biomedical research requires consideration of issues and methods not germane to wildlife research. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees or other institutional review committees can meet their responsibilities in these disparate types of animal activities only by using resources tailored to the animals and situations encountered. Here we review the issues and the resources that facilitate effective oversight of such activities in the wildlife research arena available to researchers, institutional review committees, regulatory bodies, and accrediting bodies. Issues covered include an understanding of the fundamental differences between wildlife research and biomedical research; the profound differences between wildlife species and traditional laboratory subjects, most of which are domesticated animals; and the unique issues presented when the research subjects are members of wild populations and communities. We review the resources available for effective oversight of wildlife projects and emphasize that competent oversight of wildlife research demands the use of appropriate resources. These resources include guidelines designed for the use of wild species (taxon-specific guidelines) and protocol forms tailored for the species and situations encountered.

The language and subject matter offered in this issue of the ILAR Journal represent a departure from standard discourse on research animal welfare. Although the overall character of such a departure will become evident, the contributions herein reinforce and expand upon the shared, established tenets of research animal welfare. Through the work and experience of contributing wildlife research professionals, this issue of the ILAR Journal offers a diverse consortium of wildlife topics ranging from policy to conservation to disease investigation, all against the backdrop of the complexities of effective compliance and oversight when the research subjects are wild. The articles provide insights into the complex dynamic that is animal welfare in the framework of wildlife research from diverse perspectives. Material presented in this issue contributes to our existing philosophies on research animal welfare while simultaneously introducing the research animal professional to new perspectives, hopefully allowing us all to walk a familiar, well-trodden path with new eyes. The express aim of the issue is to introduce traditional oversight personnel to a deeper understanding of the topics covered herein.

The use of vertebrate animals in research and education in the United States is subject to a number of regulations, policies, and guidelines under the immediate oversight of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), which are charged with ensuring the ethical and appropriate use of the animal subjects. In almost all instances, this regulatory and oversight landscape of animal use has been developed around domesticated animals in biomedical research environments. When the research activities involve wild species, especially in their natural habitat rather than a laboratory, oversight personnel and investigators alike struggle with determining what constitutes ethical and appropriate activities. These difficulties stem from fundamental differences in biology between wild and domesticated animals and from the differences in research objectives and methods in wildlife compared with biomedical research. Here we discuss the various policies, regulations, and guidance documents for animal use in the context of wildlife research. We compare the expectations of the various oversight agencies and how these expectations are met when working with wild vertebrates. We make recommendations for how IACUCs can use available resources to ensure that activities involving wild species are conducted in compliance with existing regulations and policies and in ways that are biologically appropriate for these nondomesticated species.

Non-human animals have starred in countless productions of biological research. Whether they play the lead or supporting role depends on the nature of the investigation. These differences in the roles of animals affect nearly every facet of animal involvement, including: the choice of species, the sample size, the source of individuals, and the settings in which the animals are used. These roles establish different baselines for animal use that require substantially different ethical considerations. Efficient and appropriate oversight of wildlife research benefits the animals and their investigators. Toward that end, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUCs) must appreciate the profound differences between biomedical and wildlife research and recognize the value of the state and federal permitting processes required for wildlife studies. These processes assure us that potential impacts beyond the level of the individual are minimal or are justified. Most importantly, IACUCs must recognize that they, and their investigators, have an obligation to use appropriate guidelines for evaluating wildlife research.

The study of wildlife, whether in the field or in the lab, may start with a hypothesis, a literature search, or a grant proposal, but in many cases, the work will never happen unless the researcher successfully navigates a maze of permit requirements. A single project can involve multiple permits at the national and state levels, and it can take months to obtain any one permit. Therefore, permits may not have been issued at the time of protocol review, but Public Health Service Policy makes accommodations for this situation. Once in hand, however, the permits convey critical information to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC): one or more government agencies have determined that the activity will not be detrimental to the population or that any detriment is justified by the scientific knowledge that will be generated. This paper assumes that IACUCs are reviewing all wildlife protocols involving live vertebrates, regardless of the current, albeit temporary, distinction made by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Care with regard to birds.

Summary The optimality model of thermoregulation predicts that as the cost of thermoregulation increases, thermoregulation effort will decrease. We designed a manipulative experiment to quantify the energetic cost of thermoregulation on growth rates in eastern collared lizards ( Crotaphytus collaris ) by comparing growth of hatchling lizards from high‐ and low energetic cost of thermoregulation treatments. We designed treatments to mimic restricted thermal microenvironments (which require lizards to devote more time and energy to maintain preferred body temperatures) and unrestricted thermal micro‐environments (which minimize time and energy needed to maintain body temperature). Lizards maintained similar body temperature between treatments – contradicting predictions of the optimality model of thermoregulation – but grew more slowly in the high‐cost thermoregulation treatment than in the low‐cost thermoregulation treatment. The reduction in growth rates in the high energetic cost thermoregulation treatment was most consistent with animals diverting energy from growth to locomotion for thermoregulation.

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC 2011) serves as the principal reference for the oversight of most vertebrate use in research and teaching in the United States. The Guide was developed as a reference for biomedical research. Beyond guiding ethical principles, the Guide contains little information useful for the oversight of research involving wild taxa. To fill this breach, and at the behest of the National Science Foundation, taxon-specific societies in the United States developed independent guidelines that held to the principles of ethical use of animals in research and that were specific to wildlife. Recognition of these taxon-specific guidelines by federal grantmaking agencies and the animal welfare community as appropriate standards for wildlife research will facilitate the required oversight of research involving wild taxa and the ethical use of wild animals in research and teaching.

Guidelines for use of wild mammal species are updated from the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) 2007 publication. These revised guidelines cover current professional techniques and regulations involving mammals used in research and teaching. They incorporate additional resources, summaries of procedures, and reporting requirements not contained in earlier publications. Included are details on marking, housing, trapping, and collecting mammals. It is recommended that institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs), regulatory agencies, and investigators use these guidelines as a resource for protocols involving wild mammals. These guidelines were prepared and approved by the ASM, working with experienced professional veterinarians and IACUCs, whose collective expertise provides a broad and comprehensive understanding of the biology of nondomesticated mammals in their natural environments. The most current version of these guidelines and any subsequent modifications are available at the ASM Animal Care and Use Committee page of the ASM Web site (http://mammalsociety.org/committees/index.asp).

Northern grasshopper mice ( Onychomys leucogaster ) are among the most highly carnivorous rodents in North America. Because predatory mammals may have specialization of senses used to detect prey, we investigated the organization of sensory areas within grasshopper mouse neocortex and quantified the number of myelinated axons in grasshopper mouse trigeminal, cochlear, and optic nerves. Multiunit electrophysiological recordings combined with analysis of flattened sections of neocortex processed for cytochrome oxidase were used to determine the topography of primary somatosensory cortex (S1) and the location and size of both the visual and auditory cortex in adult animals. These findings were then related to the distinctive chemoarchitecture of layer IV visible in flattened cortical sections of juvenile grasshopper mice labeled with the serotonin transporter (SERT) antibody, revealing a striking correspondence between electrophysiological maps and cortical anatomy. J. Comp. Neurol. 519:64‐74, 2011. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Endangered giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are bears (Family Ursidae), within the order Carnivora. They specialize on an herbivorous diet of bamboo yet retain a gastrointestinal tract typical of their carnivorous ancestry. The evolutionary constraints of their digestive tract result in a low extraction efficiency from bamboo (<40% in reported studies). The goal of this study was to determine the energy digestibility of bamboo by giant pandas used in digestibility trials and through subsequent analyses with bomb calorimetry. Seven digestibility trials were conducted (three with bamboo-only diets and four with supplemental diets). Energy digestibilities ranged from 7.5-38.9% for mixed diets and 9.2-34.0% for bamboo-only diets. The bamboo-only trials summarized here represent, to our knowledge, the first empirical data available for energy digestibility on a bamboo diet for giant pandas.

Guidelines for use of wild mammal species

The goals of this study were to determine digestibility of a bamboo diet by giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoletica) and to evaluate potential internal markers (naturally occurring markers in their diet) for their ability to estimate fecal output and digestibility. Digestibility predictions using internal markers were based on either feed offered or feed consumed. Two giant pandas were used in 1-, 2-, and 3-day digestibility trials with total collection of feces. In the 3-day trial, animals were fed 100% bamboo with no dietary supplements. In all other trials, supplements were included in addition to bamboo. The 3 internal markers chosen for evaluation were acid insoluble ash (AIA), acid detergent lignin (ADL), and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen (ADIN). Results from digestibility trials indicated that apparent nutrient digestibility could be determined with no differences (P > 0.05) between pandas. Six apparent dry matter (DM) digestibility values ranged from 6.9 to 38.5%. Apparent DM digestibility for the male and female panda in the unsupplemented (3-day) trial were 6.9 and 12.4%, respectively. Among the 3 potential internal markers evaluated, AIA more accurately predicted fecal output (r = 0.99; P < 0.01) than ADL (r = 0.84; P < 0.02) or ADIN (r = 0.85; P < 0.02). Calculations using AIA and feed consumed more accurately predicted nutrient digestibility than did feed offered calculations for all 3 internal markers. Apparent crude protein (CP) digestibility was 33.8% and was predicted by AIA and feed consumed calculations to be 35.5% (r = 0.88; P = 0.009). Acid insoluble ash and feed consumed calculations predicted fiber digestibility to be 35. 1 % compared to apparent fiber digestibility (31.8%; r = 0.97, P < 0.001). Methods and data presented in this study may be used to predict. nutrient digestibility in wild pandas in their native habitat.

A growing body of evidence shows that lactation is energetically costly for mammals. Although lactation costs are positively correlated with litter size, the shape of this relationship remains largely unexplored. Understanding physiological efficiencies of metabolic investment in reproduction should provide valuable insight concerning trade-offs between number and size of offspring and limits to litter size. I used data from northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster) to explore these constraints. The relationship between litter size and cost of lactation was best described by a non-linear regression such that intermediate litter sizes were the most cost-effective. Lactation costs at the upper range of natural litters for this species required mothers to ingest more than twice as much food as non-reproductive females. Young at 15 d of age from the largest litters were smaller than same-age young from smaller litters. In contrast, young from litters at the lower end of the species range were larger than average. These data suggest that the distribution of litter sizes within this species is selected against at the lower end by inefficient conversion of energy into viable offspring and at the upper end by simple limits on digestive efficiency or capacity.

Energy content, proximate nutrient values, passage rate, and digestive efficiency associated with various diet types and factors affecting these parameters have not been quantified for the North American river otter (Lontra canadensis). We measured energy digestive efficiency (DEff) and intestinal passage rate of three captive river otters on their regular diet (a combination of polar bear diet, cat food, and feline diet) and on test diets consisting of the constituent components of their regular diet. Gross energy, crude protein, crude fat, and crude fiber varied appreciably among diet components. Caloric DEff values were high (cat food and polar bear diet combination: 83.11%; regular diet: 86.62%; feline diet: 90.22%) indicating diets high in fat and protein permit greater energy absorption. Passage rates ranged from 167-188 minutes and were influenced by level of activity such that passage rate was more rapid at higher levels of activity. Coefficients of variation (CV) from DEff (CV = 1.51) and digesta passage rates (CV = 7.35) were dissimilar, indicating that a direct measure may yield a more precise estimate of absorption over digesta passage rates. To further understand energy handling by river otters on diets used in zoologic institutions and to better provide the nutrient dense diets this active species requires, additional studies quantifying energetic parameters for captive otters of various genders, ages, and reproductive conditions on other diet types are needed.

This datasheet on Phyllotis xanthopygus covers Identity, Distribution.

Assemblages of plants were studied at 14 sites in northern Patagonia corresponding to localities at which we (Monjeau et al. 1997) earlier studied the relationship between small mammal assemblages and landscape classifications. This allowed us to test predictions that both plants and small mammals correspond to the more inclusive hierarchical landscape divisions but that plants track better than small mammals the less inclusive divisions. Species presence or absence of plants at each locality was used in a series of multivariate analyses and compared by correlation analysis with those generated from small mammal species data. Assemblages of both plants and small mammals corresponded to the upper divisions, which are based on climatic and geomorphological features, but small mammal assemblages did not correspond to the lower divisions of the landscape classifications. Three factors are considered as explanations for the observed differences between plants and small mammals: a) small mammal habitat is determined more by plant growth form than by plant species; b) trophic level differences between the two groups; and c) species pool size affects the resolution of microhabitat correspondence. Our data indicate that both plant assemblages and small mammal assemblages respond to climatic and geomorphological features, which is in contrast to the paradigm that mammal assemblages simply follow plant assemblages. We also attempted to reconcile classification systems in Patagonia by proposing a nomenclatural system based on a hierarchical classification. In the system proposed, ecoregion is the lowest division small mammal assemblages can recognize in Patagonia. Finally, we conclude that the hierarchical nature of landscapes based on a holistic view of environments reflects real entities that are not just the perceptions of landscape ecologists.