Introduction to Insights Gained from Wildlife Research in the Context of Global Anthropogenic Change.

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.

Animal Welfare Policy: Implementation in the Context of Wildlife Research--Policy Review and Discussion of Fundamental Issues.

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.

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Considerations for the Use of Wildlife in Research and Education.

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.

2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education.

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 .

Los lineamientos para el uso de especies de mamíferos de vida silvestre en la investigación con base en Sikes et al. (2011) se actualizaron. Dichos lineamientos cubren técnicas y regulaciones profesionales actuales que involucran el uso de mamíferos en la investigación y enseñanza; también incorporan recursos nuevos, resúmenes de procedimientos y requisitos para reportes. Se incluyen detalles acerca de captura, marcaje, manutención en cautiverio y eutanasia de mamíferos de vida silvestre. Se recomienda que los comités institucionales de uso y cuidado animal (cifras en inglés: IACUCs), las agencias reguladoras y los investigadores se adhieran a dichos lineamientos como fuente base de protocolos que involucren mamíferos de vida silvestre, ya sea investigaciones de campo o en cautiverio. Dichos lineamientos fueron preparados y aprobados por la ASM, en consulta con profesionales veterinarios experimentados en investigaciones de vida silvestre y IACUCS, de quienes cuya experiencia colectiva provee un entendimiento amplio y exhaustivo de la biología de mamíferos no-domesticados. La presente versión de los lineamientos y modificaciones posteriores están disponibles en línea en la página web de la ASM, bajo Cuidado Animal y Comité de Uso: ( http://mammalogy.org/uploads/committee_files/CurrentGuidelines.pdf ). Recursos adicionales relacionados con el uso de animales de vida silvestre para la investigación se encuentran disponibles en ( http://www.mammalsociety.org/committees/animal-care-and-use#tab3 ).

Fundamental differences between wildlife and biomedical research.

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.

Wildlife researchers running the permit maze.

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.

Energy digestibility of giant pandas on bamboo-only and on supplemented diets.

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.

Organization of somatosensory cortex in the Northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster), a predatory rodent.

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.

Variation in digestive efficiency of captive North American river otters (Lontra canadensis) on various diets.

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. Zoo Biol 0: 1-10, 2007. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.