Geology topics

John M. Morton

Publications and source records attributed to John M. Morton.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Reimagining large river management using the Resist–Accept–Direct (RAD) framework in the Upper Mississippi River

Background Large-river decision-makers are charged with maintaining diverse ecosystem services through unprecedented social-ecological transformations as climate change and other global stressors intensify. The interconnected, dendritic habitats of rivers, which often demarcate jurisdictional boundaries, generate complex management challenges. Here, we explore how the Resist–Accept–Direct (RAD) framework may enhance large-river management by promoting coordinated and deliberate responses to social-ecological trajectories of change. The RAD framework identifies the full decision space of potential management approaches, wherein managers may resist change to maintain historical conditions, accept change toward different conditions, or direct change to a specified future with novel conditions. In the Upper Mississippi River System, managers are facing social-ecological transformations from more frequent and extreme high-water events. We illustrate how RAD-informed basin-, reach-, and site-scale decisions could: (1) provide cross-spatial scale framing; (2) open the entire decision space of potential management approaches; and (3) enhance coordinated inter-jurisdictional management in response to the trajectory of the Upper Mississippi River hydrograph. Results The RAD framework helps identify plausible long-term trajectories in different reaches (or subbasins) of the river and how the associated social-ecological transformations could be managed by altering site-scale conditions. Strategic reach-scale objectives may reprioritize how, where, and when site conditions could be altered to contribute to the basin goal, given the basin’s plausible trajectories of change (e.g., by coordinating action across sites to alter habitat connectivity, diversity, and redundancy in the river mosaic). Conclusions When faced with long-term systemic transformations (e.g., > 50 years), the RAD framework helps explicitly consider whether or when the basin vision or goals may no longer be achievable, and direct options may open yet unconsidered potential for the basin. Embedding the RAD framework in hierarchical decision-making clarifies that the selection of actions in space and time should be derived from basin-wide goals and reach-scale objectives to ensure that site-scale actions contribute effectively to the larger river habitat mosaic. Embedding the RAD framework in large-river decisions can provide the necessary conduit to link flexibility and innovation at the site scale with stability at larger scales for adaptive governance of changing social-ecological systems.

Upper Mississippi River↗

USGS2022

A RADical approach to conservation in Alaska: Rapid climate change requires a new perspective

In Alaska, conservation areas are managed to promote the persistence of wild species, habitats, cultural resources, visitor experiences, and ecosystem services. Many conservation areas are managed by federal or state agencies, and have specific boundaries, missions, and legislative mandates. Many are also the domains of Indigenous and local people who derive livelihoods and cultural identity from these lands. These areas vary considerably as to whether they are managed solely for conservation versus other additional values. Myriad threats challenge the sustainability of these values, and conservation areas often exist to mitigate such threats. But regardless of jurisdiction, legal contexts, or historical impacts, all these places face challenges, unprecedented during human habitation, from one globally pervasive threat: anthropogenic climate change. Yes, ecosystems, including people who depend on them, have adapted to constant change in Alaska over most of the Holocene if not before (at least the last 18kyr). And this experience has conferred upon its constituents learned adaptive capacity, capabilities, and knowledges among the most flexible on the planet. We discuss the implications of the Resist, Accept, Direct adaptation framework in the context of conservation management in Alaska.

Alaska↗

USGS2021

Navigating ecological transformation: Resist-accept-direct as a path to a new resource management paradigm

Natural resource managers worldwide face a growing challenge: Intensifying global change increasingly propels ecosystems toward irreversible ecological transformations. This nonstationarity challenges traditional conservation goals and human well-being. It also confounds a longstanding management paradigm that assumes a future that reflects the past. As once-familiar ecological conditions disappear, managers need a new approach to guide decision-making. The resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework, designed for and by managers, identifies the options managers have for responding and helps them make informed, purposeful, and strategic choices in this context. Moving beyond the diversity and complexity of myriad emerging frameworks, RAD is a simple, flexible, decision-making tool that encompasses the entire decision space for stewarding transforming ecosystems. Through shared application of a common approach, the RAD framework can help the wider natural resource management and research community build the robust, shared habits of mind necessary for a new, twenty-first-century natural resource management paradigm.

BioScience↗

USGS2021

RAD adaptive management for transforming ecosystems

Intensifying global change is propelling many ecosystems toward irreversible transformations. Natural resource managers face the complex task of conserving these important resources under unprecedented conditions and expanding uncertainty. As once familiar ecological conditions disappear, traditional management approaches that assume the future will reflect the past are becoming increasingly untenable. In the present article, we place adaptive management within the resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework to assist informed risk taking for transforming ecosystems. This approach empowers managers to use familiar techniques associated with adaptive management in the unfamiliar territory of ecosystem transformation. By providing a common lexicon, it gives decision makers agency to revisit objectives, consider new system trajectories, and discuss RAD strategies in relation to current system state and direction of change. Operationalizing RAD adaptive management requires periodic review and update of management actions and objectives; monitoring, experimentation, and pilot studies; and bet hedging to better identify and tolerate associated risks.

BioScience↗

USGS2021

Managing for RADical ecosystem change: Applying the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework

Ecosystem transformation involves the emergence of persistent ecological or social–ecological systems that diverge, dramatically and irreversibly, from prior ecosystem structure and function. Such transformations are occurring at increasing rates across the planet in response to changes in climate, land use, and other factors. Consequently, a dynamic view of ecosystem processes that accommodates rapid, irreversible change will be critical for effectively conserving fish, wildlife, and other natural resources, and maintaining ecosystem services. However, managing ecosystems toward states with novel structure and function is an inherently unpredictable and difficult task. Managers navigating ecosystem transformation can benefit from considering broader objectives, beyond a traditional focus on resisting ecosystem change, by also considering whether accepting inevitable change or directing it along some desirable pathway is more feasible (that is, practical and appropriate) under some circumstances (the RAD framework). By explicitly acknowledging transformation and implementing an iterative RAD approach, natural resource managers can be deliberate and strategic in addressing profound ecosystem change.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗

USGS2020

Resist-accept-direct (RAD)-A framework for the 21st-century natural resource manager

An assumption of stationarity—i.e. “the idea that natural systems fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of variability” (Milly et al. 2008)—underlies traditional conservation and natural resource management, as evidenced by widespread reliance on ecological baselines to guide protection, restoration, and other management. Although ecological change certainly occurred under the relatively stable conditions of the recent past, the nature of change under intensifying global change is different; it is unidirectional, and rapidly pushing beyond the bounds of historical variability. In the past, a manager could plausibly work to reverse or mitigate many stressors or their impacts to approximate pre-disturbance ecological conditions, but now accelerated warming, changing disturbance regimes, and extreme events associated with climate change reduce that potential. Indeed, even ‘holding the line’ in the face of inexorable human-caused change is ever more difficult and costly. Thus, the convention of using baseline conditions to define goals for today’s resource management is increasingly untenable, presenting practical and philosophical challenges for managers. As formerly familiar ecological conditions continue to change, bringing novelty, surprise, and uncertainty, natural resource managers require a new, shared approach to make conservation decisions. How, for example, should a manager respond to projections of loss of the Joshua tree from much of its current range, or to the emergence of new and different vegetation communities after a large fire event? The RAD (Resist-Accept-Direct) decision framework has emerged over the past decade as a simple tool that captures the entire decision space for responding to ecosystems facing the potential for rapid, irreversible ecological change. It assists managers in making informed, purposeful choices about how to respond to the trajectory of change, and moreover, provides a straightforward approach to support resource managers in collaborating at larger scales across jurisdictions, which today is more urgent than ever.

Natural Resource Report↗

USGS2020

Responding to ecosystem transformation: Resist, accept, or direct?

Ecosystem transformation can be defined as the emergence of a self‐organizing, self‐sustaining, ecological or social–ecological system that deviates from prior ecosystem structure and function. These transformations are occurring across the globe; consequently, a static view of ecosystem processes is likely no longer sufficient for managing fish, wildlife, and other species. We present a framework that encompasses three strategies for fish and wildlife managers dealing with ecosystems vulnerable to transformation. Specifically, managers can resist change and strive to maintain existing ecosystem composition, structure, and function; accept transformation when it is not feasible to resist change or when changes are deemed socially acceptable; or direct change to a future ecosystem configuration that would yield desirable outcomes. Choice of a particular option likely hinges on anticipating future change, while also acknowledging that temporal and spatial scales, recent history and current state of the system, and magnitude of change can factor into the decision. This suite of management strategies can be implemented using a structured approach of learning and adapting as ecosystems change.

Fisheries↗

USGS2017

Future of Pacific salmon in the face of environmental change: Lessons from one of the world's remaining productive salmon regions

Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. face serious challenges from climate and landscape change, particularly in the southern portion of their native range. Conversely, climate warming appears to be allowing salmon to expand northwards into the Arctic. Between these geographic extremes, in the Gulf of Alaska region, salmon are at historically high abundances but face an uncertain future due to rapid environmental change. We examined changes in climate, hydrology, land cover, salmon populations, and fisheries over the past 30–70 years in this region. We focused on the Kenai River, which supports world-famous fisheries but where Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha populations have declined, raising concerns about their future resilience. The region is warming and experiencing drier summers and wetter autumns. The landscape is also changing, with melting glaciers, wetland loss, wildfires, and human development. This environmental transformation will likely harm some salmon populations while benefiting others. Lowland salmon streams are especially vulnerable, but retreating glaciers may allow production gains in other streams. Some fishing communities harvest a diverse portfolio of fluctuating resources, whereas others have specialized over time, potentially limiting their resilience. Maintaining diverse habitats and salmon runs may allow ecosystems and fisheries to continue to thrive amidst these changes.

Alaska↗

USGS2017

Rapid response for invasive waterweeds at the arctic invasion front: Assessment of collateral impacts from herbicide treatments

The remoteness of subarctic and arctic ecosystems no longer protects against invasive species introductions. Rather, the mix of urban hubs surrounded by undeveloped expanses creates a ratchet process whereby anthropogenic activity is sufficient to introduce and spread invaders, but for which the costs of monitoring and managing remote ecosystems is prohibitive. Elodea spp. is the first aquatic invasive plant to become established in Alaska and has potential for widespread deleterious ecological and economic impacts. A rapid eradication response with herbicides has been identified as a priority invasion control strategy. We condu cted a multi-lake monitoring effort to assess collateral impacts from herbicide treatment for Elodea in high latitude systems. Variability in data was driven by seasonal dynamics and natural lake-to-lake differences typical of high latitude waterbodies, indicating lack of evidence for systematic impacts to water quality or plankton communities associated with herbicide treatment of Elodea . Impacts on native macrophytes were benign with the exception of some evidence for earlier onset of leaf senescence for lily pads( Nuphar spp.) in treated lakes. We observed a substantial increase in detected native flora richness after Elodea was eradicated from the most heavily infested lake, indicating potential for retention of native macrophyte communities if infestations are addressed quickly. While avoiding introductions through prevention may be the most desirable outcome, these applications indicated low risks of non-target impacts associated with herbicide treatment as a rapid response option for Elodea in high latitude systems.

Alaska↗

USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Alaska Climate Science Center

This report primarily addresses the first two purposes of the review while providing comments on the third as identified by the science review team (SRT). A separate report of recommendations for the recompetition, based upon compiled observation from all three reviews conducted in 2016, was submitted to NCCWSC on April 15, 2016 to assist with the development of recompetition documents. To further address host-university administrative competencies and efficiencies, separate interviews of host-university faculty and administrators were conducted by NCCWSC staff in conjunction with the on-site component of the reviews.

Alaska↗

USGS2012

A national geographic framework for guiding conservation on a landscape scale

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the global conservation community, has recognized that the conservation challenges of the 21st century far exceed the responsibilities and footprint of any individual agency or program. The ecological effects of climate change and other anthropogenic stressors do not recognize geopolitical boundaries and, as such, demand a national geographic framework to provide structure for cross-jurisdictional and landscape-scale conservation strategies. In 2009, a new map of ecologically based conservation regions in which to organize capacity and implement strategic habitat conservation was developed using rapid prototyping and expert elicitation by an interagency team of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey scientists and conservation professionals. Incorporating Bird Conservation Regions, Freshwater Ecoregions, and U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic unit codes, the new geographic framework provides a spatial template for building conservation capacity and focusing biological planning and conservation design efforts. The Department of Interior's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are being organized in these new conservation regions as multi-stakeholder collaborations for improved conservation science and management.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗

USGS1982

Mitigation and enhancement techniques for the Upper Mississippi River system and other large river systems

Extensive information is provided on techniques that can reduce or eliminate the negative impact of man's activities (particularly those related to navigation) on large river systems, with special reference to the Upper Mississippi River. These techniques should help resource managers who are concerned with such river systems to establish sound environmental programs. Discussion of each technique or group of techniques include (1) situation to be mitigated or enhanced; (2) description of technique; (3) impacts on the environment; (4) costs; and (5) evaluation for use on the Upper Mississippi River Systems. The techniques are divided into four primary categories: Bank Stabilization Techniques, Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material, Fishery Management Techniques, and Wildlife Management Techniques. Because techniques have been grouped by function, rather than by structure, some structures are discussed in several contexts. For example, gabions are discussed for use in revetments, river training structures, and breakwaters. The measures covered under Bank Stabilization Techniques include the use of riprap revetments, other revetments, bulkheads, river training structures, breakwater structures, chemical soil stabilizers, erosion-control mattings, and filter fabrics; the planting of vegetation; the creation of islands; the creation of berms or enrichment of beaches; and the control of water level and boat traffic. The discussions of Dredging and the Disposal of Dredged Material consider dredges, dredging methods, and disposal of dredged material. The following subjects are considered under Fishery Management Techniques: fish attractors; spawning structures; nursery ponds, coves, and marshes; fish screens and barriers; fish passage; water control structures; management of water levels and flows; wing dam modification; side channel modification; aeration techniques; control of nuisance aquatic plants; and manipulated of fish populations. Wildlife Management Techniques include treatments of artificial nest structures, island creation or development, marsh creation or development, greentree reservoirs and mast management, vegetation control, water level control, and revegetation.

Upper Mississippi River↗