Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Community Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
USGS2013

Hurricane Sandy science plan: coastal impact assessments

Hurricane Sandy devastated some of the most heavily populated eastern coastal areas of the Nation. With a storm surge peaking at more than 19 feet, the powerful landscape-altering destruction of Hurricane Sandy is a stark reminder of why the Nation must become more resilient to coastal hazards. In response to this natural disaster, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received a total of $41.2 million in supplemental appropriations from the Department of the Interior (DOI) to support response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts. These funds support a science plan that will provide critical scientific information necessary to inform management decisions for recovery of coastal communities, and aid in preparation for future natural hazards. This science plan is designed to coordinate continuing USGS activities with stakeholders and other agencies to improve data collection and analysis that will guide recovery and restoration efforts. The science plan is split into five distinct themes: coastal topography and bathymetry, impacts to coastal beaches and barriers, impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay hydrology, impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures, impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife. This fact sheet focuses assessing impacts to coastal beaches and barriers.

East Coast↗
USGS2013

Hurricane Sandy science plan: impacts of environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposure

Hurricane Sandy devastated some of the most heavily populated eastern coastal areas of the Nation. With a storm surge peaking at more than 19 feet, the powerful landscape-altering destruction of Hurricane Sandy is a stark reminder of why the Nation must become more resilient to coastal hazards. In response to this natural disaster, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received a total of $41.2 million in supplemental appropriations from the Department of the Interior (DOI) to support response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts. These funds support a science plan that will provide critical scientific information necessary to inform management decisions for recovery of coastal communities, and aid in preparation for future natural hazards. This science plan is designed to coordinate continuing USGS activities with stakeholders and other agencies to improve data collection and analysis that will guide recovery and restoration efforts. The science plan is split into five distinct themes: • Coastal topography and bathymetry • Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers • Impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay hydrology • Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures • Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife This fact sheet focuses on assessing impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures.

East Coast↗
USGS2013

Hurricane Sandy science plan: impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay hydrology

Hurricane Sandy devastated some of the most heavily populated eastern coastal areas of the Nation. With a storm surge peaking at more than 19 feet, the powerful landscape-altering destruction of Hurricane Sandy is a stark reminder of why the Nation must become more resilient to coastal hazards. In response to this natural disaster, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received a total of $41.2 million in supplemental appropriations from the Department of the Interior (DOI) to support response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts. These funds support a science plan that will provide critical scientific information necessary to inform management decisions for recovery of coastal communities, and aid in preparation for future natural hazards. This science plan is designed to coordinate continuing USGS activities with stakeholders and other agencies to improve data collection and analysis that will guide recovery and restoration efforts. The science plan is split into five distinct themes: • Coastal topography and bathymetry • Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers • Impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay hydrology • Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures • Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife This fact sheet focuses on assessing impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay hydrology.

Gulf Coast and eastern states↗
USGS2013

Hurricane Sandy science plan: impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife

Hurricane Sandy devastated some of the most heavily populated eastern coastal areas of the Nation. With a storm surge peaking at more than 19 feet, the powerful landscape-altering destruction of Hurricane Sandy is a stark reminder of why the Nation must become more resilient to coastal hazards. In response to this natural disaster, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received a total of $41.2 million in supplemental appropriations from the Department of the Interior (DOI) to support response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts. These funds support a science plan that will provide critical scientific information necessary to inform management decisions for recovery of coastal communities, and aid in preparation for future natural hazards. This science plan is designed to coordinate continuing USGS activities with stakeholders and other agencies to improve data collection and analysis that will guide recovery and restoration efforts. The science plan is split into five distinct themes: • Coastal topography and bathymetry • Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers • Impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay hydrology • Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures • Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife This fact sheet focuses on impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2013

Hurricane Sandy science plan: coastal topographic and bathymetric data to support hurricane impact assessment and response

Hurricane Sandy devastated some of the most heavily populated eastern coastal areas of the Nation. With a storm surge peaking at more than 19 feet, the powerful landscape-altering destruction of Hurricane Sandy is a stark reminder of why the Nation must become more resilient to coastal hazards. In response to this natural disaster, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received a total of $41.2 million in supplemental appropriations from the Department of the Interior (DOI) to support response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts. These funds support a science plan that will provide critical scientific information necessary to inform management decisions for recovery of coastal communities, and aid in preparation for future natural hazards. This science plan is designed to coordinate continuing USGS activities with stakeholders and other agencies to improve data collection and analysis that will guide recovery and restoration efforts. The science plan is split into five distinct themes: • Coastal topography and bathymetry • Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers • Impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay hydrology • Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures • Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife This fact sheet focuses on coastal topography and bathymetry. This fact sheet focuses on coastal topography and bathymetry.

Gulf Coast region↗
USGS2017

Reducing risk where tectonic plates collide—U.S. Geological Survey subduction zone science plan

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information and tools to build resilience in communities exposed to subduction zone earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. Improving the application of USGS science to successfully reduce risk from these events relies on whole community efforts, with continuing partnerships among scientists and stakeholders, including researchers from universities, other government labs and private industry, land-use planners, engineers, policy-makers, emergency managers and responders, business owners, insurance providers, the media, and the general public. Motivated by recent technological advances and increased awareness of our growing vulnerability to subduction-zone hazards, the USGS is uniquely positioned to take a major step forward in the science it conducts and products it provides, building on its tradition of using long-term monitoring and research to develop effective products for hazard mitigation. This science plan provides a blueprint both for prioritizing USGS science activities and for delineating USGS interests and potential participation in subduction zone science supported by its partners. The activities in this plan address many USGS stakeholder needs: High-fidelity tools and user-tailored information that facilitate increasingly more targeted, neighborhood-scale decisions to mitigate risks more cost-effectively and ensure post-event operability. Such tools may include maps, tables, and simulated earthquake ground-motion records conveying shaking intensity and frequency. These facilitate the prioritization of retrofitting of vulnerable infrastructure; Information to guide local land-use and response planning to minimize development in likely hazardous zones (for example, databases, maps, and scenario documents to guide evacuation route planning in communities near volcanoes, along coastlines vulnerable to tsunamis, and built on landslide-prone terrain); New tools to assess the potential for cascading hazards, such as landslides, tsunamis, coastal changes, and flooding caused by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions; Geospatial models of permanent, widespread land- and sea-level changes that may occur in the immediate aftermath of great ( M ≥8.0) subduction zone earthquakes; Strong partnerships between scientists and public safety providers for effective decision making during periods of elevated hazard and risk; Accurate forecasts of far-reaching hazards (for example, ash clouds, tsunamis) to avert catastrophes and unnecessary disruptions in air and sea transportation; Aftershock forecasts to guide decisions about when and where to re-enter, repair, or rebuild buildings and infrastructure, for all types of subduction zone earthquakes.

Circular↗
USGS2007

Earth science and public health: Proceedings of the Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to serve the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. As the Nation?s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the USGS can play a significant role in providing scientific knowledge and information that will improve our understanding of the relations of environment and wildlife to human health and disease. USGS human health-related research is unique in the Federal government because it brings together a broad spectrum of natural science expertise and information, including extensive data collection and monitoring on varied landscapes and ecosystems across the Nation. USGS can provide a great service to the public health community by synthesizing the scientific information and knowledge on our natural and living resources that influence human health, and by bringing this science to the public health community in a manner that is most useful. Partnerships with health scientists and managers are essential to the success of these efforts. USGS scientists already are working closely with the public health community to pursue rigorous inquiries into the connections between natural science and public health. Partnering agencies include the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Mine Safety and Health Administration, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Public Health Service, and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Collaborations between public health scientists and earth scientists can lead to improved solutions for existing and emerging environmental health problems. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions held at the Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research, held at the USGS national headquarters in Reston, Virginia. The report presents 68 abstracts of technical presentations made at the conference and summaries of six topical breakout sessions. The abstracts cover a broad range of issues and demonstrate connections between human health and the quality and condition of our environment and wildlife. The summaries of the topical breakout sessions present ideas for advancing interdisciplinary science in areas of earth science and human health.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2019

Community for Data Integration 2018 annual report

The Community for Data Integration (CDI) is a community of practice whose purpose is to build the U.S. Geological Survey knowledge base in data integration. This annual report describes the various presentations, activities, and outcomes of the CDI monthly forums, working groups, trainings, and other CDI-sponsored events in fiscal year 2018. The report also describes the objectives of the 10 CDI-funded projects for the year. The CDI had a topical theme for fiscal year 2018—Risk assessment and hazards vulnerability in support of integrated predictive science capacity. This report describes how the community coordinated its activities around this theme.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

Contaminant effect endpoints in terrestrial vertebrates at and above the individual level

Use of biochemical, physiological, anatomical, reproductive and behavioral characteristics of wild terrestrial vertebrates to assess contaminant exposure and effects has become commonplace over the past 3 decades. At the level of the individual organism, response patterns have been associated with and sometimes causally linked to contaminant exposure. However, such responses at the organismal level are rarely associated with or causally linked to effects at the population level. Although the ultimate goal of ecotoxicology is the protection of populations, communities, and ecosystems, most of the existing science and regulatory legislation focus on the level of the individual. Consequently, much of this overview concentrates on contaminant effects at the organismal level, with some extrapolation to higher-level effects. In this chapter, we review the state of the science for the evaluation of biotic end-points used to assess contaminant exposure and effects at or above the level of the individual. In addition, we describe extant contaminant concentration thresholds, guidelines, or standards (toxicant criteria) in environmental matrices (e.g., water, soil, sediment, foods) that have been developed to protect wild terrestrial vertebrates. Suggestions are provided to develop and embellish the use and value of such endpoints and criteria for extrapolation of effects to higher levels of biological organization. Increasing focus on populations, communities, and ecosystems is needed to develop biologically meaningful regulatory guidelines that will protect natural resources.

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

Supporting the development and use of native plant materials for restoration on the Colorado Plateau (Fiscal Year 2021 Report)

A primary focus of the Colorado Plateau Native Plant Program (CPNPP) is to identify and develop appropriate native plant materials (NPMs) for current and future restoration projects. Multiple efforts have characterized the myriad challenges inherent in providing appropriate seed resources to enable effective, widespread restoration and have identified a broad suite of research activities to provide the information necessary to overcome those challenges (e.g., Plant Conservation Alliance 2015; Breed et al. 2018; Winkler et al. 2018; McCormick et al. 2021). Many of the most complex information needs relate to identifying the appropriate sources of plant species that can successfully establish in dryland environments, like the Colorado Plateau, where low and highly variable precipitation is standard. Providing this information requires synergistic research efforts in which results from earlier investigations inform the design of subsequent investigations. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Southwest Biological Science Center’s (SBSC’s) research activities to support CPNPP in FY21 followed the FY21 Statement of Work to support a research framework that is continually adapting based on the needs of the restoration community and results from previous investigations; the long-term research framework is outlined in the 2019-2023 5-Year Research Strategy (hereafter referred to as the 5-year plan). This research framework provides support for the National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration (Plant Conservation Alliance 2015), Biden-Harris Administration Executive Order 14008 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad), and Department of Interior Priority #4 (Working to conserve at least 30% each of our lands and waters by the year 2030). Research activities in FY21 centered on landscape genomics, implementing and monitoring a common garden experiment near Vernal, UT, conducting experimental treatments using the GRID (Germination for Restoration Information and Decision-making) framework, and initiating new genetics projects to investigate the impact of production techniques on plant materials and restoration treatments on native plant communities. These activities were supported by four biological science technicians. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic delayed some aspects of the FY21 workplan, especially for outside laboratory services. However, goals were largely met, and the overall progress of research remains on track with respect to the 5-year plan. While Dr. Rob Massatti was the only scientist supported by the SBSC-CPNPP agreement in FY21, other scientists, including Drs. John Bradford, Seth Munson, Mike Duniway, Sasha Reed, and Daniel Winkler, spent a considerable amount of time providing expertise and support for individual projects. Work activities performed in support of each 5-year plan goal are discussed in turn. Products resulting from FY21 research activities are reported in Appendix 1.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah↗
USGS2023

Supporting the development and use of native plant materials for restoration on the Colorado Plateau (Fiscal Year 2022 Report)

A primary focus of the Colorado Plateau Native Plant Program (CPNPP) is to identify and develop appropriate native plant materials (NPMs) for current and future restoration projects. Multiple efforts have characterized the myriad challenges inherent in providing appropriate seed resources to enable effective, widespread restoration and have identified a broad suite of research activities to provide the information necessary to overcome those challenges (e.g., Plant Conservation Alliance, 2015; Breed et al., 2018; Winkler et al., 2018; NASEM, 2023). Many of the most complex information needs relate to identifying the appropriate sources of plant species that can successfully establish in dryland environments, like the Colorado Plateau, where low and highly variable precipitation is standard. Providing this information requires synergistic research efforts in which results from earlier investigations inform the design of subsequent investigations. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Southwest Biological Science Center’s (SBSC’s) research activities to support CPNPP in FY22 followed the FY22 Statement of Work to support a research framework that is continually adapting based on the needs of the restoration community and results from previous investigations; the long-term research framework is outlined in the 2019-2023 5-Year Research Strategy (hereafter referred to as the 5-year plan). This research framework provides support for the National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration (Plant Conservation Alliance, 2015), Biden-Harris Administration Executive Order 14008 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad), and Department of Interior Priority #4 (Working to conserve at least 30% each of our lands and waters by the year 2030). Research activities in FY22 centered on landscape genomics, monitoring common garden and seeding experiments near Vernal and Moab, UT, conducting experimental treatments using the GRID (Germination for Restoration Information and Decision-making) framework, and continuing newer genetics projects to investigate the impact of productions techniques on plant materials and restoration treatments on native plant communities. These activities were supported by two biological science technicians. The effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were less visible in FY22, allowing SBSC to catch up on backlogged laboratory work. The overall progress of SBSC’s research remains on track with respect to the 5-year plan. While Dr. Rob Massatti was the only scientist supported by the SBSC-CPNPP agreement in FY22, other scientists, including Drs. John Bradford, Seth Munson, Mike Duniway, Sasha Reed, and Daniel Winkler, spent a considerable amount of time providing expertise and support for individual projects. Work activities performed in support of each 5-year plan goal are discussed in turn.

Colorado Plateau↗
USGS1995

Non-native animals on public lands

Non-native plants and animals have become part of our surroundings, in cities, agricultural areas, and wildlands. While there are many beneficial purposes for non-native animals, such as for food and sport hunting and as agricultural animals, the introduction of some has had major negative economic consequences (Palmer 1899), and adverse effects on native wildlife, plants, and habitats. The British ecologist Charles Elton, in a major review of introduced species, described the increasing number of invasions as constituting "one of the great historical convulsions in the world's flora and fauna" (Elton 1958, p. 31). Non-native species are significant problems on large areas of state and federal public lands, and areas set aside to protect native plant and animal communities are not immune to such harm. Science and conservation journals have devoted entire issues to the threats posed by non-native plants and animals in nature reserves (e.g., Usher et al. 1988). In a compilation of threats to U.S. national parks, non-native plants and animals were the most often reported threat, and were reported by the most areas; feral cats ( Felis catus ), feral dogs ( Canis familiaris ), and wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ) were the non-native animals cited most often (NPCA 1977). Non-native species present serious threats, but at the same time, coordinated efforts on public lands offer the best possibility for controlling some harmful non-native species, and protecting both native plant and animal communities and human interests and needs. We compiled information on non-native animals on public and private land-management areas by conducting a mail survey to assess their occurrence and management status in land-management areas. Survey results represent contributions from 937 national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management field areas, and state and private land-management areas. The results reflect those species that land managers considered of greatest concern, and their general distribution on public lands. Non-native invertebrate animals, particularly forest insects and agricultural pests, cause severe economic and environmental damage as well (OTA 1993), but were not the focus of this survey.

Book chapter↗
USGS2006

Research opportunities in interdisciplinary ground-water science in the U.S. Geological Survey

This report is written for the scientifically literate reader but is not limited to those who are involved in ground-water science. The report is intended to encourage U.S. Geological Survey scientists to develop a sense of excitement about ground-water science in the agency, to inform scientists about existing and potential ground-water science opportunities, and to engage scientists and managers in interdisciplinary discussions and collaboration. The report is intended for use by U.S. Geological Survey and Department of the Interior management to formulate long-term ground-water science programs and to continue sustained support of ground-water monitoring and research, some of which may not have an immediate impact. Finally, the report can be used to communicate the U.S. Geological Survey's vision of ground-water science to Congress, partners, other agencies, and the research community at large with the goals of enhancing collaborative opportunities, sharing information, and maintaining dialogue regarding the directions of U.S. Geological Survey ground-water science.

Circular↗
USGS2004

Third U.S. Geological Survey Wildland Fire-Science Workshop : Denver, Colorado, November 12-15, 2002

Executive Summary -- The historically significant wildland fire events that occurred in the United States during 2000 and 2002, together with the associated recognition of the need for a different national policy of forest management, has led to an increased awareness of the need for cooperative effort among all Federal agencies in planning for and managing the risks and consequences of wildland fire. The expertise and capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are significant resources in this regard, and the agency is becoming increasingly involved in fire-science activities in support of the various land-management agencies that are dealing directly with this issue. The First USGS Wildland Fire Workshop was held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in 1997 and helped to establish the direction of USGS in sharing its expertise with the fire-management agencies. The Second USGS Wildland Fire Workshop was held in Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 2000 and brought together all the agencies involved in the management of wildland fires in order to determine their needs, to demonstrate USGS capabilities to meet those needs, and to establish methods for the USGS to distribute data and tools useful in fire management. It enhanced the relationships developed during the 1997 workshop and helped to define USGS' role in the fire-management community. The Third USGS Wildland Fire-Science Workshop, held in Denver, Colorado, November 12?15, 2002, was an opportunity for exchange of information on recent progress in the area of fire science and to determine the gaps in fire-science research that could be addressed by the USGS. In addition to more than 90 USGS scientists engaged in fire-related research and managers of organizational units involved in some aspect of wildland fire activities, the workshop was attended by about 30 representatives of 11 other Federal agencies. There also were a number of attendees affiliated with several universities, private companies, and State and local agencies. The 4-day meeting consisted of a pre-workshop field trip to the Hayman Fire area, several keynote presentations, five panel discussions, presentation and 'breakout' discussion of four 'white paper' topics, and a poster session with more than 30 presentations.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica: 2002-03 field season

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapping program in Antarctica is one of the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). This is the 53rd U.S. expedition to Antarctica in which USGS scientists have participated. The financial support from the National Science Foundation, which extends back to the time of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1956–57, can be attributed to the need for accurate maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was being driven by science, and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support. The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, had, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958 and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica. The USGS mapping and science programs still play a significant role in the advancement of science in Antarctica today. Antarctica is the planet's 5th largest continent [13.2 million km 2 (5.1 million mi 2 )], it contains the world's largest (of two) remaining ice sheets, and it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report provides documentation of USGS scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica during the 2002–03 field season (Mullins, 2002).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica: 1995-96 field season

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapping program in Antarctica is one of the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). This is the 46th U.S. expedition to Antarctica in which USGS scientists have participated. The financial support from the National Science Foundation, which extends back to the time of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1956-57, can be attributed to the need for accurate maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was being driven by science and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support. The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, had, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958 and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica. The USGS mapping and science programs still play a significant role in the advancement of science in Antarctica today. Antarctica is the planet's 5th largest continent (13.2 million km 2 (5.1 million mi 2 )), it contains the world's largest (of two) remaining ice sheet, and it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report provides documentation of USGS scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica during the 1995-96 field season (Mullins and Meunier, 1995).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Synthesis centers as critical research infrastructure

Demand for the opportunity to participate in a synthesis-center activity has increased in the years since the US National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) opened its doors in 1995 and as more scientists across a diversity of scientific disciplines have become aware of what synthesis centers provide. The NSF has funded four synthesis centers, and more than a dozen new synthesis centers have been established around the world, some following the NSF model and others following different models suited to their national funding environment ( http://synthesis-consortium.org ). Scientific synthesis integrates diverse data and knowledge to increase the scope and applicability of results and yield novel insights or explanations within and across disciplines (Pickett et al. 2007 , Carpenter et al. 2009 ). The demand for synthesis comes from the pressing societal need to address grand challenges related to global change and other issues that cut across multiple societal sectors and disciplines and from recognition that substantial added scientific value can be achieved through the synthesis-based analysis of existing data. Demand also comes from groups of scientists who see exciting opportunities to generate new knowledge from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, often capitalizing on the increasingly large volume and variety of available data (Kelling et al. 2009 , Bishop et al. 2014 , Specht et al. 2015b ). The ever-changing nature of societal challenges and the availability of data with which to address them suggest there will be an expanding need for synthesis. However, we are now entering a phase in which government support for some existing synthesis centers has ended or will be ending soon, forcing those centers to close or develop new operational models, approaches, and funding streams. We argue here that synthesis centers play such a unique role in science that continued long-term public investment to maximize benefits to science and society is justified. In particular, we argue that synthesis centers represent community infrastructure more akin to research vessels than to term-funded centers of science and technology (e.g., NSF Science and Technology Centers). Through our experience running synthesis centers and, in some cases, developing postfederal funding models, we offer our perspective on the purpose and value of synthesis centers. We present case studies of different outcomes of transition plans and argue for a fundamental shift in the conception of synthesis science and the strategic funding of these centers by government funding agencies.

BioScience↗
USGS2016

A science of integration: frameworks, processes, and products in a place-based, integrative study

Integrative research is increasingly a priority within the scientific community and is a central goal for the evolving field of sustainability science. While it is conceptually attractive, its successful implementation has been challenging and recent work suggests that the move towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in sustainability science is being only partially realized. To address this from the perspective of social-ecological systems (SES) research, we examine the process of conducting a science of integration within the Southcentral Alaska Test Case (SCTC) of Alaska-EPSCoR as a test-bed for this approach. The SCTC is part of a large, 5 year, interdisciplinary study investigating changing environments and adaptations to those changes in Alaska. In this paper, we review progress toward a science of integration and present our efforts to confront the practical issues of applying proposed integration frameworks. We: (1) define our integration framework; (2) describe the collaborative processes, including the co-development of science through stakeholder engagement and partnerships; and (3) illustrate potential products of integrative, social-ecological systems research. The approaches we use can also be applied outside of this particular framework. We highlight challenges and propose improvements for integration in sustainability science by addressing the need for common frameworks and improved contextual understanding. These insights may be useful for capacity-building for interdisciplinary projects that address complex real-world social and environmental problems.

Sustainability Science↗