Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Mary E. Power

Publications and source records attributed to Mary E. Power.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

DRIFteRS: A dataset of drift invertebrate densities in streams and rivers across western North America, 1997–2024

Prey availability is among the most influential and highly variable determinants of fish growth and freshwater habitat carrying capacity, yet it remains understudied compared to physical habitat variables (Ouellet et al., 2025; Rosenfeld et al., 2014; Weber et al., 2017). We often lack a clear understanding of how much food is available to fishes, how it varies spatially and temporally, and how it influences responses to restoration (Ouellet et al., 2025; Rossi et al., 2024; Wipfli et al., 2010). Drift invertebrates—the primary food source for juvenile salmonids and other drift-foraging fishes—play a pivotal role in these dynamics. To better understand the spatiotemporal variability of drift invertebrate abundance and biomass across the freshwater range of drift-feeding salmonids in western North America, we compiled the DRift Invertebrates For salmonids in River Systems (DRIFteRS) dataset. The dataset encompasses 6125 samples of drift invertebrates, and, for a subset of drift samples, associated benthic invertebrate density data, collected from 1360 reaches on 459 unique rivers and streams spanning 55 river basins considered hydrologically independent (i.e., not nested within the same larger watershed) across British Columbia, Canada, and the U.S. states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Sample sites represent a diverse array of river and stream habitats (e.g., headwater, mainstem, side channel), in watersheds with diverse land uses (e.g., urban, wilderness, agricultural), and disturbance histories (e.g., fire, restoration). Collected between 1997 and 2024, the data span the full calendar year and capture daily and seasonal patterns in drift abundance and biomass densities. When paired with water quality and quantity data as well as remotely sensed environmental landscape data, such as land use/land cover, climate, and disturbance history, channel morphology, and riparian vegetation composition, the DRIFteRS dataset can aid in identifying key drivers of drift invertebrate densities and mean body size and support predictive modeling in unsampled locations and times. The dataset may also be used to analyze aquatic-terrestrial resource flows, derive prey-encounter rates and profitability (mean prey size), and inform broader investigations of sit-and-wait foraging ecology, especially when paired with data on drift-foraging predators. For salmonid-focused applications, the dataset can be integrated into habitat evaluation models, including bioenergetic (e.g., Naman et al., 2019) and life cycle models (e.g., Beechie et al., 2023), to improve estimates of habitat capacity and population dynamics for river- and stream-rearing salmonids. Understanding prey availability dynamics is increasingly important, because rising water temperatures increase salmonid metabolic demands (Crozier et al., 2010). Flow regime transitions (i.e., snow or glacier dominated to rain dominated; Beechie et al., 2013), wildfire frequency and intensity (Hessburg et al., 2021), as well as plant community and phenology shifts (Cleland et al., 2007; Franklin et al., 2016) are all predicted to change with rising temperatures and are potential drivers of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate prey quality and availability in lotic systems. These insights can ultimately inform restoration prioritization and design, helping managers consider food resource implications when evaluating restoration priorities and match habitat improvement to food supply. The data are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license and may be reused with attribution.

Alaska, Arizona, British Columbia, California, Col

Earth Stewardship: An initiative by the Ecological Society of America to foster engagement to sustain Planet Earth

The Ecological Society of America (ESA) has responded to the growing commitment among ecologists to make their science relevant to society through a series of concerted efforts, including the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (1991), scientific assessment of ecosystem management (1996), ESA’s vision for the future (2003), Rapid Response Teams that respond to environmental crises (2005), and the Earth Stewardship Initiative (2009). During the past 25 years, ESA launched five new journals, largely reflecting the expansion of scholarship linking ecology with broader societal issues. The goal of the Earth Stewardship Initiative is to raise awareness and to explore ways for ecologists and other scientists to contribute more effectively to the sustainability of our planet. This has occurred through four approaches: (1) articulation of the stewardship concept in ESA publications and Website, (2) selection of meeting themes and symposia, (3) engagement of ESA sections in implementing the initiative, and (4) outreach beyond ecology through collaborations and demonstration projects. Collaborations include societies and groups of Earth and social scientists, practitioners and policy makers, religious and business leaders, federal agencies, and artists and writers. The Earth Stewardship Initiative is a work in progress, so next steps likely include continued nurturing of these emerging collaborations, advancing the development of sustainability and stewardship theory, improving communication of stewardship science, and identifying opportunities for scientists and civil society to take actions that move the Earth toward a more sustainable trajectory.

Book chapter

A classification of ecological boundaries

Ecologists use the term boundary to refer to a wide range of real and conceptual structures. Because imprecise terminology may impede the search for general patterns and theories about ecological boundaries, we present a classification of the attributes of ecological boundaries to aid in communication and theory development. Ecological boundaries may differ in their origin and maintenance, their spatial structure, their function, and their temporal dynamics. A classification system based on these attributes should help ecologists determine whether boundaries are truly comparable. This system can be applied when comparing empirical studies, comparing theories, and testing theoretical predictions against empirical results.

BioScience