Code switching vampire bats mimic their closest friends

December 17, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

Vampire bats may be the only mammals that feed exclusively on blood but they are known for their strong social ties. New research reveals they change the way they talk depending on their relationships. Researchers placed female common vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus) in cages with bats they had met before as well as complete strangers. They monitored the bats’ ultrasonic vocalizations as they got to know each other over a few years. Through analyzing nearly 700,000 calls made by 95 bats, the researchers found that those in new social groups made up of unfamiliar bats changed their calls to match those of the bats around them. The researchers also found that more closely-tied individuals—those who shared blood meals with each other when one couldn’t leave the roost—had more similar calls. “This means females are learning their calls by listening to each other as they interact, rather than simply making the sounds they’re genetically predisposed to make,” said co-author Grace Smith-Vidaurre, a behavioral ecologist at Michigan State University. The bats could be cuing into the sounds they hear most often and producing a regional “accent” that helps them differentiate one another or build social bonds. The researchers are now looking into whether bats repeatedly use specific calls to address certain friends, which could be a form of names.

Read more at Nautilus.

Freeze-proof frogs think winter is coming—but is it?

December 16, 2025 by Olivia Milloway

Eastern gray treefrogs use the length of days, not dipping temperatures, as a cue to ramp up their body’s production of antifreeze. But as winters start later and later, this mismatch might put them in an ecological trap.

“The changes in the seasons that are historically tied to changes in temperature are increasingly becoming mismatched,” said Troy Neptune, an ecologist at the Cleveland Institute of Art. And these changes may put some animals in danger.

Certain species of frogs, fish and insects use natural antifreeze chemicals to protect their cells from freezing solid. Eastern gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor) use sugar to accomplish this feat, storing it in their livers in the form of glycogen as winter nears.

But a study published recently in Journal of Animal Ecology testing the frogs’ production of glycogen reveals that sunlight influences their winter prep. Even though the frogs were kept at room temperature—around 68 degrees Fahrenheit—they accumulated up to 14 times as much glycogen in their livers. With their biological clocks tied to sunlight, treefrogs may be at risk as climate change brings later, milder winters.

Where creativity meets science

Neptune, who is also a visual artist, brought creative skills to the project, building a custom outdoor experimental setup to manipulate photoperiod, or the length of daylight, as treefrog tadpoles matured into frogs. Neptune, who uses the pronoun they, used mesocosms, which are large tanks kept outside that serve as an in-between for lab- and field-based experiments, allowing scientists to keep as close to a natural setting as possible. The tanks also had snails, aquatic insects, decomposing leaves and water chemistry similar to natural ponds. “The biological realism that comes from working in the field is super important,” they said.

But the tanks also allowed Neptune, who uses the pronouns he/they, to manipulate the amount of light reaching the growing tadpoles. They went to the field each evening and covered the tanks with opaque plastic to mimic sunset, moving the time up a few minutes every day to coincide with the shortening days. They used three light treatments reflecting early, mid- and late season day lengths.

Once the treefrogs began to develop limbs, Neptune transported the adept climbers into the lab for the remainder of the trial, where they continued to expose the amphibians to the light treatments—around late June, late September and early November. At the end of the experiment, Neptune dissected the frogs and analyzed their livers for glycogen levels at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo.

Troy Neptune went into the field every day to manipulate the light exposed to developing tadpoles. Courtesy of Troy Neptune

Under the late season photoperiod, the tadpoles developed more quickly but were smaller. The differences didn’t stop once the frogs finished developing. The frogs exposed to the shortest days had livers three to four times the size of the other frogs, storing up to 14 times as much glycogen. “The frogs that were in the late October to November photoperiod were putting on massive amounts of glycogen in the liver,” Neptune said. This group of frogs was also able to withstand colder temperatures compared to the other two groups. “Every time we looked at something, photoperiod was having an impact.”

An ecological trap

While climate change is altering many parts of the environment, photoperiod depends on the rotation of the Earth around the sun. Because of how predictable the seasons have been in the past, using photoperiod to prepare for winter used to be a smart strategy. But Neptune said this might be leading the treefrogs into an ecological trap: a situation when an environmental change tricks an animal into acting in a certain way that’s damaging to its survival or reproduction.

“If any organism has a strong response to photoperiod that isn’t being overridden by temperature, that can be maladaptive when photoperiod and temperature are no longer well aligned,” Neptune said.

Photo 3: Exploring light and the natural world as a studio artist, Troy Neptune created a cyanotype, or sun print, of an American toad (Bufo americanus). Credit: Troy Neptune

As the frogs are packing on more glycogen while temperatures remain high, they could instead be putting that energy towards muscle development or bone growth, both factors that make them stronger and more likely to survive.

The mismatch isn’t just a lost opportunity to grow bigger and stronger. As cold-blooded creatures whose metabolisms are tied to temperature—warmer weather means a faster metabolism and more energy needed to survive—the chill of late fall is usually a time for “behaviorally chilling out,” Neptune said. But when the temperature stays high, frog metabolisms are still running on the late-summer clock, potentially burning through the energy reserves they need to weather a cold winter ahead. “Do they burn out of resources before the winter even hits?” If these trends continue, Neptune worries the frogs may not have the sugar reserves to make it through the winter.

Just the start

This is just the first step in understanding more about the relationship between frogs and daylight. “This is the strongest evidence of the impacts of photoperiod of frogs, ever,” Neptune said.

There’s still the question of how. Other animals, like humans, use the hormone melatonin to respond to changing photoperiods, which Neptune said might play a role in frogs as well. But there’s a lot of research that needs to be done to understand exactly what’s going on.

For Neptune, it’s an important question to resolve, especially as amphibians across the world are under threat. They’re less concerned about eastern gray treefrogs, which are widely distributed across North America. But other species have smaller ranges and are being affected by additional stressors like habitat loss and disease. Many species are also shifting their breeding timelines due to climate change. “They’re now developing under new photoperiods than what they’ve evolved under,” Neptune said.

CITES votes to limit African hornbill trade

December 16, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

The exploitation of African hornbills is rising far faster than the birds can recover—a serious concern given that these giant-beaked birds play a significant role in forest health. Seed-dispersing hornbills breed slowly, take years to reach sexual maturity and produce few chicks, making them vulnerable to overharvesting.

In response to the growing concerns, countries participating in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) unanimously agreed to list two hornbill genera, Ceratogymna and Bycanistes, on Appendix II. The listing will cover nine species and strengthen international trade monitoring.

The CITES listing comes as hunters across West and Central Africa say demand for hornbill heads has surged from both domestic and foreign buyers, a trend conservationists only began noticing in recent years. Some of this pressure comes from the demand for hornbill heads in traditional West African vodun ritual.

Overseas demand is also growing—U.S. import records show a sharp rise in African hornbill shipments since 2023, and online marketplaces in the U.S. and Europe advertise hornbill skulls as “legal” or “sustainable.”  

Read more about the African hornbill trade in the Yale Environment 360.

How will ESA rollback impact threatened species?

December 15, 2025 by Kaylyn Zipp

Federal wildlife agencies have rolled out a four-rule regulatory package that would revise species protections and habitat designations for endangered species.

The proposals stem from the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order and recent Supreme Court decisions, which collectively directed agencies to reassess rules that could hinder domestic energy development. If finalized, the rulemaking would reshape implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

In Part 1 of a three-part series, we outlined how two of the proposed rules would reinstate earlier frameworks for habitat definitions, consultation standards, and critical habitat designations. In an episode of the new podcast, “Our Wild Lives” published on Friday, The Wildlife Society’ policy experts discuss these rule changes. This follow-up dives into proposed changes in protections for threatened species.

Pulling back the protective blanket

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposes to eliminate the “blanket rule” (50 C.F.R. § 17.31), which automatically extends the same protections afforded to endangered species to all threatened species when listed.

Instead, the agency would issue species-specific rules tailored to the conservation needs of each species at the time of listing, mirroring the National Marine Fisheries Services’ (NMFS) long-standing approach. In the past, USFWS has said that either approach, using one blanket rule for all threatened species or creating species-specific rules are permissible under the ESA. This shift reflects the narrower interpretive standard created by the Supreme Court’s decision ending Chevron deference. Chevron deference historically has allowed agencies latitude to interpret ambiguous statutory provisions but was overturned by the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo decision.

Eliminating the “blanket rule” option would not immediately change protections for currently listed threatened species that already benefit from it. But for every species newly listed as a threatened species and those reclassified in the future, USFWS would develop individualized protective regulations. Each species-specific rule would evaluate conservation needs, consider economic impacts and be subject to public comment. While species-specific rules could better align regulations with conservation needs, the anticipated increase in workload combined with ongoing loss of agency capacity raises concerns about the feasibility of developing and implementing such rules effectively.

Calling on wildlife professionals to weigh in

The Wildlife Society (TWS) in its Issue Statement on the U.S. Endangered Species Act supports consistent interpretations that prevent extinctions and recover species.

Species-specific rules can allow for protective regulations that address unique biological needs and are necessary for the conservation of that species. However, moving exclusively to individualized rules will require significant staff capacity and funding. The work of USFWS has long been impacted by funding and personnel cuts that may limit its ability to develop timely and effective species-specific rules for every threatened species. TWS strongly supports adequate federal funding and agency staffing to ensure efficiency in ESA listing and recovery planning and implementation. 

The comment period for this proposed change opened November 21, 2025 and will close Dec 22, 2025. 

Jungle cats take to trees to avoid food fights

December 15, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

Felids in the Central American jungle have a pecking order when it comes to food, but the top cats mostly predate animals on the forest floor while their smaller cousins are stuck up in trees. Researchers used trail cameras in the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Mexico and Belize and Guatemala to spy on predator eating habits. They also used conservation detection dogs to sniff out cat feces, which contained DNA clues about what the felines had recently eaten. The researchers found that the cats divide up hunting in the jungle based on different vertical zones. Big jaguars (Panthera onca) ate mostly peccaries and nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) on the forest floor. Medium-sized ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) ate opossums and Gaumer’s spiny pocket mice (Heteromys gaumeri), whereas margays (Leopardus wiedii), which are smaller and more acrobatic, fed on small arboreal mammals like mice, rats and opossums. Surprisingly, pumas (Puma concolor) in the area also stuck up in the trees, primarily eating black howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya) and Central American spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). Researchers think that pumas are lighter than jaguars, allowing them to move through the lower canopy and ambush prey from above ground level. Ellen Dymit, a doctoral researcher at Oregon State University, said that understanding predator-prey dynamics will be especially important as humans push predators into smaller areas, increasing competition. “As habitat loss and climate change reshape ecosystems, understanding how predators partition resources will be critical for conservation,” Dymit said.

Read more at Discover Wildlife.

LISTEN: ESA rule changes, explained

December 12, 2025 by Katie Perkins

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed four rule changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

This episode of “Our Wild Lives” unpacks the four-rule proposal that could narrow ESA consultations, limit critical habitat, remove automatic protections for threatened species and elevate economic considerations. The episode is part of a coverage package looking at the ways these rules may change management of endangered species. The first part of this series examining listing decision impacts was published yesterday.

TWS staff members Cameron Kovach, Kaylyn Zipp and Kelly O’Connor explain why these changes are happening, how they affect wildlife professionals and communities and how to submit substantive public comments, which can be submitted until December 22, 2025.

“Our Wild Lives” is The Wildlife Society’s weekly podcast, sharing compelling stories from wildlife professionals doing critical work around the world. Your hosts, Katie Perkins and Ed Arnett, of The Wildlife Society, bring you thought-provoking conversations with leading experts and emerging voices.

New episodes are released weekly wherever you get your podcasts. Please email comms@wildlife.org with feedback or future episode suggestions.

Changes to national park fee structure and attendance passes

December 12, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

The U.S. Department of Interior has announced that non-U.S. residents will pay a higher rate to enter national parks, which they say will help support care and maintenance. The agency said revenue generated from the new fee structure will support “upgrades to visitor facilities, essential maintenance, and improved services nationwide.” Several resident-only fee-free days were also announced as well as a modernization of the pass. Visitors will now be able to purchase and use their passes instantly, store them on their phones and link them to credit cards.

The new fee structure will be implemented January 1, 2026. The Annual Pass will cost $80 for U.S. residents and $250 for nonresidents. Nonresident visitors without annual passes will also pay a $100 per person fee at certain parks like Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite and Acadia national parks.

“These policies ensure that U.S. taxpayers, who already support the National Park system, continue to enjoy affordable access, while international visitors contribute their fair share to maintaining and improving our parks for future generations,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.

Read more at the National Park Service.

Wildlife investments boost economy, jobs

December 11, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

When agencies and nonprofits spend money to restore wildlife and open land for the public, the payoff reaches far beyond the woods and wetlands—it also boosts state economies.

A new economic analysis from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation calculated the direct spending on conservation, restoration, and management of fish and wildlife across all 50 states, as well as the derived economic benefits. The economic analysis included funds directly spent on conservation by nonprofits and federal, state and local agencies, including land purchases to protect habitat, habitat restoration and efforts to maintain public access for hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing. National spending estimates came from government reports. The analysis estimated state-level spending by allocating federal and nonprofit investments across states based on conservation program spending. The model determined the economic ripple effects of that spending; it determined how many jobs were supported, how much it added to the nation’s gross domestic product, and the tax revenue it generated for federal, state and local governments.

Overall, the findings show that conservation dollars are hard at work. The $55.3 billion invested directly in fish and wildlife efforts generated $115.8 billion in total economic activity. That spending supported more than 575,000 jobs, put $48.8 billion into people’s pockets, added $76.6 billion to the U.S. economy, and returned $16.3 billion in tax revenue. The economic analysis did not include indirect effects such as cleaner water, ecosystem services or healthier ecosystems. The findings highlight that investing in nature pays off.

Read more in the Conservation Economy report.

Endangered species rules rollback to 2019

December 11, 2025 by Kaylyn Zipp

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced four proposed rule changes that will narrow the definitions of critical habitat and alter criteria for listing or delisting a species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The revision package would largely reinstate earlier standards enacted by the first Trump administration.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also states that rule changes are in line with the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, the court ruling which overturned Chevron deference. Chevron deference was the prior established legal principle from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., stating that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law that the agency is responsible for administering, rather than substituting the court’s own judgment. Since the Chevron deference was overturned, courts must now look to the plain text of the law and exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.

Together, the four proposed changes would reshape critical habitat designation, review of federal projects, and threatened species protection.

During the first Trump Administration, TWS expressed concerns about many of these proposed changes, highlighting the “potential negative impact on wildlife professionals’ ability to advance the conservation of species listed under the ESA through science-based management and conservation.” Conversely, USFWS Director Brian Nesvik said the proposals “reaffirm our commitment to science-based conservation that works hand in hand with America’s energy, agricultural and infrastructure priorities.”

Listing and delisting species
The USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes changes to regulatory text governing how species are listed, delisted, or reclassified under the ESA that mimic text from 2019. The changes in the ESA text will also alter designation of critical habitat and interpretation of the term “foreseeable future.”

The delisting standard would return to the 2019 definition, which removed explicit references to “recovery” as a basis for delisting. Under the proposed rule, delisting would require one of the three circumstances:  

  1. The species is extinct 
  2. The species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened
  3. The listed population doesn’t meet the ESA’s definition of a “species” 

Currently, listing, delisting and reclassification must rely on the best scientific and commercial data available “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.” The proposed rule change would remove “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination,” signaling that agencies may acknowledge or discuss economic impacts when presenting listing decisions, although the ESA still prohibits economic factors from influencing the determination itself.

Critical habitat designations

Critical habitat is the land or water a species currently occupies and, in some cases, areas it does not currently occupy but that are essential for the species’ conservation. The ESA mandates that a federal agency must avoid destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat. The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated to the “maximum extent prudent and determinable.” The proposed rule would expand the circumstances under which the USFWS and NMFS could conclude that designating critical habitat for a species is not prudent. This could make it more likely that listed species will receive no critical habitat designation in some circumstances.

The proposal would also restore a two-step process for designating and protecting unoccupied critical habitat, areas where a species does not currently live but would be beneficial for the species recovery. To designate such areas, the USFWS and NMFS must first determine that occupied habitat is insufficient for recovery. Secondly, they must demonstrate that unoccupied areas are essential for that recovery. In the proposed rule change, the agencies state “Congress has also made clear that it intended for designation of unoccupied areas as critical habitat to meet a higher standard than designating occupied areas.” 

Critical habitat exclusions

A separate proposed rule in this package outlines how economic, national security, and other impacts are weighed when considering whether to exclude areas from a critical habitat designation. Under the ESA (Section 4(b(2))), the agency may choose not to include an area if the costs of designation outweigh the conservation benefits “unless the Secretary determines that the exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.” 

The proposed rule states that exclusion analysis will be performed either when a proponent of excluding the area has presented credible information in support of the request or when the Secretary exercises his or her discretion to evaluate any area for potential exclusion. The ESA does not define how impacts must be weighed. As long as the exclusion analysis considers all relevant impacts consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), which dictates how agencies make decisions, the ESA affords the Secretary broad discretion in deciding whether exclusion is appropriate.

Reinstating the definition of “foreseeable future” 

The agencies propose returning to an earlier interpretation of “foreseeable future,” based on a 2009 memorandum opinion from the U.S. Department of the Interior. Under the proposal, foreseeable future would extend only as far as scientists can reasonably determine that future threats and species’ responses to those threats are likely. 

Because many climate-driven impacts occur over long time frames, this narrower definition may limit the extent to which climate change and shifting species distributions can be incorporated into listing decisions for threatened species.

Calling on wildlife professionals to weigh in

The Wildlife Society (TWS), in its Issue Statement on the U.S. Endangered Species Act, supports listing decisions and critical habitat designations based solely on the status of the species in question, as supported by best-available knowledge, and opposes listing justifications influenced by economic and political consideration. TWS supports clear, transparent rules that ensure critical habitat is designated where needed. 

These proposed rules expand circumstances where designations of species status and critical habitat are more discretionary and can be circumvented. Affording this increased discretion introduces uncertainty into conservation decision making and risks allowing non-scientific consideration to overshadow rigorous biological analysis. Weakening critical habitat provisions and deemphasizing recovery plans indeed may slow recovery and hinder eventual delisting. 

Comments on listing, delisting and general critical habitat designation can be made here. Comments on critical habitat exclusions can be made here. The comment period opened November 21, 2025, and will close Dec 22, 2025. 

This story kicks off a series breaking down each proposed change, outlining how it will impact species and managers. 

How do Yellowstone’s large mammals beat the heat?

December 10, 2025 by Olivia Milloway

When scorching summer temperatures hit, humans crank up the air conditioning, go for a swim or visit their favorite ice cream shop.

Large mammals in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem don’t have the same luxuries, but they take a similar strategy: visiting different places. As climate change brings increasing summer temperatures, new research shows that an animal’s environment—more than their physiology—influences how they respond.

“These behavioral changes are a potential first line of defense that these populations have against increasing temperatures, which is encouraging,” said Justine Becker, a TWS member and researcher at Montana State University.

In a new study published in Ecosphere, Becker and her colleagues analyzed nearly two decades of GPS location data from nine species of animals in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and surrounding areas to see if large mammals change their behavior in response to increasing temperatures—and if they do, what factors enable them to do so.

A female elk in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Credit: Alex Becker

Avoiding the doldrums of summer

Becker and her team analyzed the data from nine species and subspecies of both herbivores and carnivores, including Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis), American bison (Bison bison), North American cougar (Puma concolor cougar), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni), Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus), American pronghorn (Antilocapra americana americana) and gray wolf (Canis lupus).

The team wanted to know how three different factors influenced the animals’ abilities to change their behavior to adjust to heat: species-level life history traits like body size and diet, the intensity of the temperature changes and the animal’s environment.

Becker didn’t find any significant link between life history traits or intensity of temperature change and behavioral changes. Rather, what explained a species’ ability to alter its behavior was the type of environment it was in. How many different types of habitats available to an animal was the best predictor of how much they changed their behavior in response to increasing temperatures.

A pronghorn in a diverse landscape near the mountain foothills in southern Wyoming. Credit: Alex Becker

It’s all about how much the animals are moving regularly in their day-to-day compared to their movements during times of high temperatures. When an animal lives in an environment with lots of different habitat types, their daily routine likely includes moving between these patches. But for animals who live in habitats with less variation, they tend to stay in the same environment during normal temperatures. “That’s where we saw a larger change in their behavior,” Becker said.

One population where Becker saw this clearly were the pronghorn in Wyoming’s Shirley Basin, a sagebrush prairie landscape. Trees and running water are few and far between. For the most part, pronghorn stick to the open areas, munching on forbs and sagebrush. But when it gets too hot, Becker said “they may have to seek out those areas in the landscape like creek beds where there are larger trees and shrubs to find relief in the shade.”

Cougars, on the other hand, showed the least amount of behavioral plasticity. “While they changed their behavior, it was to the smallest extent,” Becker said. Because they’re large carnivores, it’s likely they’re less sensitive to higher temperatures than the herbivores, who generate a lot of heat when digesting plants. They also typically prefer varied environments that likely provide relief when the weather gets hot.

While cougars didn’t alter their behavior much in the heat, gray wolves did. Credit: Alex Becker

A climate resilient future

Some species like moose (A. alces) have developed unique behavioral adaptations to regulate their temperatures. Unlike other species of ungulates, moose aren’t able to sweat, so they typically spend a lot of time standing in water or wet areas to cool down.

But evolution happens over eons and the climate is changing quickly. “Our study suggests that one thing managers can do for not just one species, but the whole guild of large mammals in the Rocky Mountains, is protect and promote habitats where there are options for these animals to shift between different habitat types depending on the environmental conditions,” Becker said.

While the temperature changes weren’t catastrophic, each of the study populations showed a response to increasing temperatures. “These results suggested an optimistic message that [the animals] do have the ability to adjust their behavior and can do so across a diverse group of species,” Becker said.

But the animals also need access to varied habitats, year-round. Wildlife crossings, fence mitigation and public-private partnerships are all important strategies to improve habitat quality and connectivity.

Bison cool off near a creek in Yellowstone’s Lamar Valley. Credit: Alex Becker