SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Ecological Management & Restoration”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

USGS2017

Estimating the impact of oyster restoration scenarios on transient fish production

Oyster reef restoration projects are increasing in number both to enhance oyster density and to retain valuable ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. Although some oyster restoration projects have demonstrated success by increasing density and biomass of transient fish, it still remains a challenge to quantify the effects of oyster restoration on transient fish communities. We developed a bioenergetics model to assess the impact of selected oyster reef restoration scenarios on associated transient fish species. We used the model to analyze the impact of changes in (1) oyster population carrying capacity; (2) oyster population growth rate; and (3) diet preference of transient fish on oyster reef development and associated transient fish species. Our model results indicate that resident fish biomass is directly affected by oyster restoration and oyster biomass, and oyster restoration can have cascading impacts on transient fish biomass. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of a favorable oyster population growth rate during early restoration years, as it can lead to rapid increases in mean oyster biomass and biomass of transient fish species. The model also revealed that a transient fish's diet solely dependent on oyster reef-derived prey could limit the biomass of transient fish species, emphasizing the importance of habitat connectivity in estuarine areas to enhance transient fish species biomass. Simple bioenergetics models can be developed to understand the dynamics of a system and make qualitative predictions of management and restoration scenarios.

Louisiana↗

USGS2008

Dispersal of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in a Hawaiian rain forest

Introduced mosquito-borne pathogens avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum Grassi and Feletti) and avian pox virus (Avipoxvirus) have been implicated in the past extinctions and declines of Hawaiian avifauna and remain significant obstacles to the recovery and restoration of endemic Hawaiian birds. Effective management of avian disease will require extensive mosquito control efforts that are guided by the local ecology of the vector Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). During October and November 1997 and September through November 1998 five mark-release-recapture experiments with laboratory-reared Cx. quinquefasciatus were conducted in a native rain forest on Hawaii Island. Of the overall 66,047 fluorescent dye-marked and released females, 1,192 (1.8%) were recaptured in 43-52 CO2-baited traps operated for 10-12-d trapping periods. Recaptured mosquitoes were trapped in all directions and at distances up to 3 km from the release site. The cumulative mean distance traveled (MDTs) over the trapping period ranged from a high of 1.89 km after 11 d (September 1998) to a low of 0.81 km after 11 d (November 1998). Released mosquitoes moved predominately in a downwind direction and they seemed to use forestry roads as dispersal corridors. Applying an estimated MDT of 1.6 km to a geographical information system-generated map of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge clearly demonstrated that the effective refuge area could be reduced 60% by mosquitoes infiltrating into managed refuge lands. These findings should have significant implications for the design of future refuges and development of effective mosquito-borne avian disease control strategies.

Journal of Medical Entomology↗

USGS2006

The importance of fluvial hydraulics to fish-habitat restoration in low-gradient alluvial streams

1. A major cause of degradation and loss of stream fish is alteration of physical habitat within and adjacent to the channel. We describe a potentially efficient approach to fish restoration based upon the relationship between fluvial hydraulics, geomorphology, and those habitats important to fish. 2. The aquatic habitat in a low-gradient, alluvial stream in the Ozark Plateaus physiographical province was classified according to location in the channel, patterns of water flow, and structures that control flow. The resulting habitat types were ranked in terms of their temporal stability and ability to be manipulated. 3. Delineation and quantification of discrete physical spaces in a stream, termed hydraulic habitat units, are shown to be useful in stream restoration programmes if the ecological importance of each habitat unit is known, and if habitats are defined by fluvial dynamics so that restoration is aided by natural forces. 4. Examples, using different taxa, are given to illustrate management options.

Missouri↗

USGS2025

Assessing the effect of coral reef restoration location on coastal flood hazard along the San Juan Coastline, Puerto Rico

Coastal resilience has become a pressing global issue due to the growing vulnerability of coastlines to the effects of climate change. Nature-based solutions have emerged as a promising approach to coastal protection to not only enhance coastal resilience, but also restore critical ecosystems. Coral reef restoration has the potential to provide ecosystem services benefits; however, there are still key uncertainties in linking restoration design to reductions in coastal flood hazard under current and future climate conditions. In this study, we applied one-dimensional and two-dimensional numerical coastal engineering models, calibrated and validated using field data, to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration scenarios on coastal waves, water levels, and flooding along the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, U.S.A. Model results indicate a small reduction in maximum water levels under the proposed restoration scenarios. This underscores the importance of these endeavors, not only for ecological preservation but also for preventing further reef deterioration. Such preservation is essential for mitigating the increased coastal risks anticipated in the future. Results from this study provide information to guide policymakers and coastal managers in making informed decisions on viable restoration project design options. By systematically evaluating how restoration location impacts coastal flood hazards, communities can develop and implement proactive strategies to mitigate flood-related risk. In addition, by restoring coral reefs, communities can contribute to environmental preservation while ensuring sustainable development and protection of coastal environments.

Puerto Rico, San Juan coastline↗

USGS2009

Multi-state succession in wetlands: a novel use of state and transition models

The complexity of ecosystems and mechanisms of succession are often simplified by linear and mathematical models used to understand and predict system behavior. Such models often do not incorporate multivariate, nonlinear feedbacks in pattern and process that include multiple scales of organization inherent within real-world systems. Wetlands are ecosystems with unique, nonlinear patterns of succession due to the regular, but often inconstant, presence of water on the landscape. We develop a general, nonspatial state and transition (S and T) succession conceptual model for wetlands and apply the general framework by creating annotated succession/management models and hypotheses for use in impact analysis on a portion of an imperiled wetland. The S and T models for our study area, Water Conservation Area 3A South (WCA3), Florida, USA, included hydrologic and peat depth values from multivariate analyses and classification and regression trees. We used the freeware Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool as an exploratory application to evaluate our S and T models with different management actions (equal chance [a control condition], deeper conditions, dry conditions, and increased hydrologic range) for three communities: slough, sawgrass ( Cladium jamaicense ), and wet prairie. Deeper conditions and increased hydrologic range behaved similarly, with the transition of community states to deeper states, particularly for sawgrass and slough. Hydrology is the primary mechanism for multi-state transitions within our study period, and we show both an immediate and lagged effect on vegetation, depending on community state. We consider these S and T succession models as a fraction of the framework for the Everglades. They are hypotheses for use in adaptive management, represent the community response to hydrology, and illustrate which aspects of hydrologic variability are important to community structure. We intend for these models to act as a foundation for further restoration management and experimentation which will refine transition and threshold concepts.

Florida↗

USGS2003

Vegetation dynamics under fire exclusion and logging in a Rocky Mountain watershed, 1856-1996

How have changes in land management practices affected vegetation patterns in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem? This question led us to develop a deterministic, successional, vegetation model to “turn back the clock” on a study area and assess how patterns in vegetation cover type and structure have changed through different periods of management. Our modeling spanned the closing decades of use by Native Americans, subsequent Euro-American settlement, and associated indirect methods of fire suppression, and more recent practices of fire exclusion and timber harvest. Model results were striking, indicating that the primary forest dynamic in the study area is not fragmentation of conifer forest by logging, but the transition from a fire-driven mosaic of grassland, shrubland, broadleaf forest, and mixed forest communities to a conifer-dominated landscape. Projections for conifer-dominated stands showed an increase in areal coverage from 15% of the study area in the mid-1800s to ∼50% by the mid-1990s. During the same period, projections for aspen-dominated stands showed a decline in coverage from 37% to 8%. Substantial acreage previously occupied by a variety of age classes has given way to extensive tracts of mature forest. Only 4% of the study area is currently covered by young stands, all of which are coniferous. While logging has replaced wildfire as a mechanism for cycling younger stands into the landscape, the locations, species constituents, patch sizes, and ecosystem dynamics associated with logging do not mimic those associated with fire. It is also apparent that the nature of these differences varies among biophysical settings, and that land managers might consider a biophysical class strategy for tailoring management goals and restoration efforts.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2017

Short-term ecological consequences of collaborative restoration treatments in ponderosa pine forests of Colorado

Ecological restoration treatments are being implemented at an increasing rate in ponderosa pine and other dry conifer forests across the western United States, via the USDA Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) program. In this program, collaborative stakeholder groups work with National Forests (NFs) to adaptively implement and monitor ecological restoration treatments intended to offset the effects of many decades of anthropogenic stressors. We initiated a novel study to expand the scope of treatment effectiveness monitoring efforts in one of the first CFLR landscapes, Colorado’s Front Range. We used a Before/After/Control/Impact framework to evaluate the short-term consequences of treatments on numerous ecological properties. We collected pre-treatment and one year post-treatment data on NF and partner agencies’ lands, in 66 plots distributed across seven treatment units and nearby untreated areas. Our results reflected progress toward several treatment objectives: treated areas had lower tree density and basal area, greater openness, no increase in exotic understory plants, no decrease in native understory plants, and no decrease in use by tree squirrels and ungulates. However, some findings suggested the need for adaptive modification of both treatment prescriptions and monitoring protocols: treatments did not promote heterogeneity of stand structure, and monitoring methods may not have been robust enough to detect changes in surface fuels. Our study highlights both the effective aspects of these restoration treatments, and the importance of initiating and continuing collaborative science-based monitoring to improve the outcomes of broad-scale forest restoration efforts.

Colorado↗

USGS2017

Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 3. Site level restoration decisions

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently (2016) occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) depends on large landscapes of intact habitat of sagebrush and perennial grasses for their existence. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals, livestock, and wild horses, and to provide ecosystem services for humans now and for future generations. When a decision is made on where restoration treatments should be applied, there are a number of site-specific decisions managers face before selecting the appropriate type of restoration. This site-level decision tool for restoration of sagebrush steppe ecosystems is organized in nine steps. Step 1 describes the process of defining site-level restoration objectives. Step 2 describes the ecological site characteristics of the restoration site. This covers soil chemistry and texture, soil moisture and temperature regimes, and the vegetation communities the site is capable of supporting. Step 3 compares the current vegetation to the plant communities associated with the site State and Transition models. Step 4 takes the manager through the process of current land uses and past disturbances that may influence restoration success. Step 5 is a brief discussion of how weather before and after treatments may impact restoration success. Step 6 addresses restoration treatment types and their potential positive and negative impacts on the ecosystem and on habitats, especially for greater sage-grouse. We discuss when passive restoration options may be sufficient and when active restoration may be necessary to achieve restoration objectives. Step 7 addresses decisions regarding post-restoration livestock grazing management. Step 8 addresses monitoring of the restoration; we discuss important aspects associated with implementation monitoring as well as effectiveness monitoring. Step 9 takes the information learned from monitoring to determine how restoration actions in the future might be adapted to improve restoration success.

Circular↗

USGS2015

Trust Species and Habitat Branch: using the innovative approaches of today to conserve biodiversity for tomorrow

Some of the biggest challenges facing wildlife today are changes to their environment from both natural and anthropogenic causes. Natural resource managers, planners, policy makers, industry and private landowners must make informed decisions and policies regarding management, conservation, and restoration of species, habitats, and ecosystem function in response to these changes. Specific needs include (1) a better understanding of population status and trends; (2) understanding of species’ habitat needs and roles in supporting ecosystem functions; (3) the ability to assess species’ responses to environmental changes and predict future responses; and (4) the development of innovative techniques and tools to better understand, minimize or prevent any unintended consequences of environmental change. The Trust Species and Habitats Branch of the Fort Collins Science Center includes a diverse group of scientists encompassing both traditional and specialized expertise in wildlife biology, ecosystem ecology, quantitative ecology, disease ecology, molecular genetics, and stable isotope geochemistry. Using our expertise and collaborating with others around the world, our goal is to provide the information, tools, and technologies that our partners need to support conservation, management, and restoration of terrestrial vertebrate populations, habitats, and ecosystem function in a changing world.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2022

Biological assessments of aquatic ecosystems

The aim of biological assessments (or bioassessments) is to provide decision makers and managers the scientific information and tools needed to protect and restore aquatic life. Biological assessments typically include several critical elements, including development of ecological indicators, indices of ecological status, benchmarks by which to gauge impairment, ways to identify the stressors causing ecological impairment, and biological criteria and standards to protect aquatic life. New scientific tools are emerging that should improve the accuracy and precision of biological assessments, but the major challenges to effective protection and restoration of aquatic life are political and economic rather than scientific.

Book chapter↗

USGS2017

Widespread legacy brine contamination from oil production reduces survival of chorus frog larvae

Advances in drilling techniques have facilitated a rapid increase in hydrocarbon extraction from energy shales, including the Williston Basin in central North America. This area overlaps with the Prairie Pothole Region, a region densely populated with wetlands that provide numerous ecosystem services. Historical (legacy) disposal practices often released saline co-produced waters (brines) with high chloride concentrations, affecting wetland water quality directly or persisting in sediments. Despite the potential threat of brine contamination to aquatic habitats, there has been little research into its ecological effects. We capitalized on a gradient of legacy brine-contaminated wetlands in northeast Montana to conduct laboratory experiments to assess variation in survival of larval Boreal Chorus Frogs ( Pseudacris maculata ) reared on sediments from 3 local wetlands and a control source. To help provide environmental context for the experiment, we also measured chloride concentrations in 6 brine-contaminated wetlands in our study area, including the 2 contaminated sites used for sediment exposures. Survival of frog larvae during 46- and 55-day experiments differed by up to 88% among sediment sources (Site Model) and was negatively correlated with potential chloride exposure (Chloride Model). Five of the 6 contaminated wetlands exceeded the U.S. EPA acute benchmark for chloride in freshwater (860 mg/L) and all exceeded the chronic benchmark (230 mg/L). However, the Wetland Site model explained more variation in survival than the Chloride Model, suggesting that chloride concentration alone does not fully reflect the threat of contamination to aquatic species. Because the profiles of brine-contaminated sediments are complex, further surveys and experiments are needed across a broad range of conditions, especially where restoration or remediation actions have reduced brine-contamination. Information provided by this study can help quantify potential ecological threats and help land managers prioritize conservation strategies as part of responsible and sustainable energy development.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗

USGS2021

Riverscape approaches in practice: Perspectives and applications

Landscape perspectives in riverine ecology have been undertaken increasingly in the last 30 years, leading aquatic ecologists to develop a diverse set of approaches for conceptualizing, mapping and understanding ‘riverscapes’. Spatiotemporally explicit perspectives of rivers and their biota nested within the socio-ecological landscape now provide guiding principles and approaches in inland fisheries and watershed management. During the last two decades, scientific literature on riverscapes has increased rapidly, indicating that the term and associated approaches are serving an important purpose in freshwater science and management. We trace the origins and theoretical foundations of riverscape perspectives and approaches and examine trends in the published literature to assess the state of the science and demonstrate how they are being applied to address recent challenges in the management of riverine ecosystems. We focus on approaches for studying and visualizing rivers and streams with remote sensing, modelling and sampling designs that enable pattern detection as seen from above (e.g. river channel, floodplain, and riparian areas) but also into the water itself (e.g. aquatic organisms and the aqueous environment). Key concepts from landscape ecology that are central to riverscape approaches are heterogeneity, scale (resolution, extent and scope) and connectivity (structural and functional), which underpin spatial and temporal aspects of study design, data collection and analysis. Mapping of physical and biological characteristics of rivers and floodplains with high-resolution, spatially intensive techniques improves understanding of the causes and ecological consequences of spatial patterns at multiple scales. This information is crucial for managing river ecosystems, especially for the successful implementation of conservation, restoration and monitoring programs. Recent advances in remote sensing, field-sampling approaches and geospatial technology are making it increasingly feasible to collect high-resolution data over larger scales in space and time. We highlight challenges and opportunities and discuss future avenues of research with emerging tools that can potentially help to overcome obstacles to collecting, analysing and displaying these data. This synthesis is intended to help researchers and resource managers understand and apply these concepts and approaches to address real-world problems in freshwater management.

Biological Reviews↗

USGS2023

Preventing and controlling nonnative species invasions to bend the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss

The Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity recognizes that addressing nonnative species is one of six principal actions needed to bend the curve in freshwater biodiversity loss. This is because introduction rates of nonnative species continue to accelerate globally and where these species develop invasive populations, they can have severe impacts on freshwater biodiversity. The most effective management measure to protect freshwater biodiversity is to prevent introductions of nonnative species. Should a nonnative species be introduced, however, then its early detection and the implementation of rapid reaction measures can avoid it establishing and dispersing. If these measures are unsuccessful and the species becomes invasive, then control and containment measures can minimize its further spread and impact. Minimizing further spread and impact includes control methods to reduce invader abundance and containment methods such as screening of invaded sites and strict biosecurity to avoid the invader dispersing to neighbouring basins. These management actions have benefitted from developments in invasion risk assessment that can prioritize species according to their invasion risk and, for species already invasive, ensure that management actions are commensurate with assessed risk. The successful management of freshwater nonnative species still requires the overcoming of some implementation challenges, including nonnative species often being a symptom of degraded habitats rather than the main driver of ecological change, and eradication methods often being nonspecies specific. Given the multiple anthropogenic stressors in freshwaters, nonnative species management must work with other restoration strategies if it is to deliver the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity.

Environmental Reviews↗

USGS2016

Historical dominance of low-severity fire in dry and wet mixed-conifer forest habitats of the endangered terrestrial Jemez Mountains salamander ( Plethodon neomexicanus )

Anthropogenic alteration of ecosystem processes confounds forest management and conservation of rare, declining species. Restoration of forest structure and fire hazard reduction are central goals of forest management policy in the western United States, but restoration priorities and treatments have become increasingly contentious. Numerous studies have documented changes in fire regimes, forest stand structure and species composition following a century of fire exclusion in dry, frequent-fire forests of the western U.S. (e.g., ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer). In contrast, wet mixed-conifer forests are thought to have historically burned infrequently with mixed- or high-severity fire—resulting in reduced impacts from fire exclusion and low restoration need—but data are limited. In this study we quantified the current forest habitat of the federally endangered, terrestrial Jemez Mountains salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) and compared it to dendroecological reconstructions of historical habitat (e.g., stand structure and composition), and fire regime parameters along a gradient from upper ponderosa pine to wet mixed-conifer forests. We found that current fire-free intervals in Jemez Mountains salamander habitat (116–165 years) are significantly longer than historical intervals, even in wet mixed-conifer forests. Historical mean fire intervals ranged from 10 to 42 years along the forest gradient. Low-severity fires were historically dominant across all forest types (92 of 102 fires). Although some mixed- or highseverity fire historically occurred at 67% of the plots over the last four centuries, complete mortality within 1.0 ha plots was rare, and asynchronous within and among sites. Climate was an important driver of temporal variability in fire severity, such that mixed- and high-severity fires were associated with more extreme drought than low-severity fires. Tree density in dry conifer forests historically ranged from open (90 trees/ha) to moderately dense (400 trees/ha), but has doubled on average since fire exclusion. Infill of fire-sensitive tree species has contributed to the conversion of historically dry mixedconifer to wet mixed-conifer forest. We conclude that low-severity fire, which has been absent for over a century, was a critical ecosystem process across the forest gradient in Jemez Mountains salamander habitat, and thus is an important element of ecosystem restoration, resilience, and rare species recovery.

Forest Ecology and Management↗

USGS1995

Pinyon-juniper woodlands

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are one of the largest ecosystems in the Southwest and in the Middle Rio Grande Basin (Fig. 1). The woodlands have been important to the region's inhabitants since prehistoric times for a variety of natural resources and amenities. The ecosystems have not been static; their distributions, stand characteristics, and site conditions have been altered by changes in climatic patterns and human use and, often, abuse. Management of these lands since European settlement has varied from light exploitation and benign neglect, to attempts to remove the trees in favor of forage for livestock, and then to a realization that these lands contain useful resources and should be managed accordingly. Land management agencies are committed to ecosystem management. While there are several definitions of ecosystem management, the goal is to use ecological approaches to create and maintain diverse, productive, and healthy ecosystems (Kaufmann et al. 1994). Ecosystem management recognizes that people are an integral part of the system and that their needs must be considered. Ecological approaches are central to the concept, but our understanding of basic woodland ecology is incomplete, and there are different opinions and interpretations of existing information (Gottfried and Severson 1993). There are many questions concerning proper ecosystem management of the pinyon-juniper woodlands and how managers can achieve these goals (Gottfried and Severson 1993). While the broad concept of ecosystem management generally is accepted, the USDA Forest Service, other public land management agencies, American Indian tribes, and private landowners may have differing definitions of what constitutes desired conditions. Key questions about the pinyon-juniper ecosystems remain unanswered. Some concern the basic dynamics of biological and physical components of the pinyon-juniper ecosystems. Others concern the distribution of woodlands prior to European settlement and changes since the introduction of livestock and fire control. This relates to whether tree densities have been increasing or whether trees are invading grasslands and, to a lesser extent, drier ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. In areas where woodlands were heavily used by American Indians for fuelwood prior to European contact, the advance of pinyon and juniper could represent the slow recovery from intensive use (Samuels and Betancourt 1982). There are numerous questions regarding declines in watershed condition related to changes in pinyon-juniper tree stand densities and to the density and composition of understory vegetation. There are different opinions about proper management of woodland ecosystems. Should these lands be managed for a single resource, such as forage for livestock production, or managed for sustained production of multiple resource products and amenities? Depending on site and stand conditions, the woodlands can produce variable quantities of fuelwood, pinyon nuts, wildlife habitat, forage for livestock, and cover for watershed protection. Management must also consider increasing recreational demands, threatened and endangered species, and protection of archeological sites. Many pinyon-juniper woodland watersheds in New Mexico have unsatisfactory soil and watershed conditions (USDA Forest Service 1993); managers must develop restoration procedures that recognize the value of woodland ecosystems. The concerns, questions, and conflicts surrounding management of pinyon-juniper lands, as well as the ecological foundations of ecosystem management, require that all interested parties reevaluate attitudes toward the woodlands. Ecosystem management goals and concepts recognize diversity. Pinyonjuniper woodlands are diverse, and stand characteristics and site productivities vary. Management objectives and prescriptions must evaluate the potential of each site, and decisions must be based on sound scientific information. This information is often unavailable. Therefore, this paper describes what we do know about the characteristics, distribution, and ecology of pinyon-juniper woodlands, including the effects of natural and human factors, within the southwestern United States and particularly the Middle Rio Grande Basin. It also reviews some past and present management options in this widespread and important vegetation type. The review draws on research and management information from the Rio Grande Basin and from similar areas in the Southwest and adjacent regions. It does not attempt to review all of the relevant literature; additional sources can be found within the articles cited in the References.

General Technical Report↗

USGS2018

Great Lakes coastal fish habitat classification and assessment

Basin-scale assessment of fish habitat in Great Lakes coastal ecosystems would increase our ability to prioritize fish habitat management and restoration actions. As a first step in this direction, we identified key habitat factors associated with highest probability of occurrence for several societally and ecologically important coastal fish species as well as community metrics, using data from the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Framework (GLAHF), Great Lakes Environmental Indicators (GLEI) and Coastal Wetland Monitoring Program (CWMP). Secondly, we assessed whether species-specific habitat was threatened by watershed-level anthropogenic stressors. In the southern Great Lakes, key habitat factors for determining presence/absence of several species of coastal fish were chlorophyll concentrations, turbidity, and wave height, whereas in the northern ecoprovince temperature was the major habitat driver for most of the species modeled. Habitat factors best explaining fish richness and diversity were bottom slope and chlorophyll a . These models could likely be further improved with addition of high-resolution submerged macrophytecomplexity data which are currently unavailable at the basin-wide scale. Proportion of invasive species was correlated primarily with increasing maximum observed inorganic turbidity and chlorophyll a . We also demonstrate that preferred habitat for several coastal species and high-diversity areas overlap with areas of high watershed stress. Great Lakes coastal wetland fish are a large contributor to ecosystem services as well as commercial and recreational fishery harvest, and scalable basin-wide habitat models developed in this study may be useful for informing management actions targeting specific species or overall coastal fish biodiversity.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2018

Beyond traditional ecological restoration on the Colorado Plateau

The Colorado Plateau is one of North America's five major deserts, encompassing 340,000 km 2 of the western U.S., and offering many opportunities for restoration relevant to researchers and land managers in drylands around the globe. The Colorado Plateau is comprised of vast tracts of public land managed by local, state, and federal agencies that oversee a wide range of activities (e.g., mineral and energy extraction, livestock grazing, and recreation). About 75% of the Plateau is managed by federal and tribal agencies and tens of millions of people visit the Plateau's public lands each year. However, even in the face of this diverse use, our knowledge of effective ways to restore Plateau ecosystems remains relatively poor. Further, the multiple agencies on the Plateau have mandates that differ greatly in allowable practices, restoration needs, and desired outcomes. The Colorado Plateau is also expected to undergo ecosystem shifts in the face of climate change, further complicating management decisions and potentially limiting some options while creating others. Here we explore the current state of Colorado Plateau restoration science and underscore key challenges and opportunities for improving our capacity to maintain the myriad of services provided by these desert ecosystems. We highlight past research efforts and future needs related to restoration concepts, including consideration and design of novel ecosystems, mitigation for and adaptation to climate change, use of genetically diverse seed adapted for current and future conditions, and the value of strong multi‐agency and stakeholder collaborations in restoring systems on the Colorado Plateau and beyond.

Colorado Plateau↗

USGS1989

Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration: a literature summary

Riparian ecosystems generally compose a minor proportion of surrounding areas, but typically are more structurally diverse and more productive in plant and animal biomass than adjacent upland areas. Riparian areas supply food, cover, and water (especially important in the arid West) for a large diversity of animals, and serve as migration routes and forest connectors between habitats for a variety of wildlife, particularly ungulates and birds. Because riparian ecosystems often are relatively small areas and occur in conjunction with waterways, they are vulnerable to severe alteration. Riparian ecosystems throughout the U.S. have been heavily impacted by man's activities. Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration have been used as mitigation for project impacts from highway, bridge, and pipeline construction; water development; flood control channel modifications; industrial and residential development; agriculture; irrigation; livestock grazing; mining; and accidental habitat loss. Creation of a riparian ecosystem in| a more mesic upland area (e.g., ‘grassland or cropland) adjacent to a river requires appropriate water supply and grading the topography to suitable elevations to support plantings of riparian vegetation. Restoration involves returning the ecosystem to pre disturbance conditions and typically implies revegetation. Removing exotic vegetation or restoring water supplies to pre disturbance level also may be involved. Enhancement of riparian ecosystems commonly refers to improving existing conditions to increase habitat value, usually by increasing plant or community diversity to increase value for wildlife. Managing a riparian ecosystem typically involves enhancement techniques. However, creation and restoration projects often involve use of techniques considered more management-oriented (e.g., fencing to prevent cattle grazing until planted vegetation of a created or restored wetland is established). Protection of an existing riparian ecosystem from impact should be of utmost importance during planning and construction phases of development projects. If loss or damage is unavoidable, wetland creation or restoration can be used as mitigation. Compared to other wetland types (e.g., coastal wetlands), projects and techniques involving creation or restoration of riparian ecosystems are not well documented. For example, only 8% of the records in the WCR Data Base contained information on riparian ecosystems, whereas 31% of the records contained information on coastal emergent or forested ecosystems. To provide a source of currently available literature, riparian information from 92 records (primarily published papers or reports) in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Wetland Creation-Restoration (WCR) Data Base (Schneller-McDonald et al. 1988) was used to develop a literature summary of creation and restoration of riparian ecosystems. The summary provides an overview of the status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., a discussion of several riparian functions, and a review of some techniques used for planning, implementing, monitoring, and measuring project success of creation-restoration efforts. Case studies of various creation or restoration projects are used to demonstrate these techniques and to report some results of their use. Several well-documented case studies are discussed in detail to illustrate more extensive efforts to plan, implement, or monitor riparian ecosystem creation-restoration projects. For the purpose of this report, riparian ecosystems are defined as landscapes adjacent to drainageways of floodplains that exhibit vegetation, soil, and hydrologic mosaics along topographic and moisture gradients that are distinct from the predominant landscape surface types. Major plant communities are described under palustrine system in Cowardin et al. (1979). Literature from the WCR Data Base was used to provide a summary of riparian ecosystem creation-restoration literature. Thus, information concerning natural systems is not included unless discussed in these articles. This focus allows the reader to compare relative information available on riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts. However, this focus also results in limited information in some sections of the report (e.g., Status of Riparian Ecosystems in the U.S.). Individuals involved in riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts are encouraged to thoroughly examine available literature on natural and altered systems. Brinson et al. (1981) provide a comprehensive review and synthesis of the ecology and status of riparian ecosystems. Over 500 articles are cited in their 124-page report. Chapters include the following topics: status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., ecological functions and properties of riparian ecosystems (e.g., geomorphology, primary productivity, nutrient cycling, hydrology), importance of riparian ecosystems to fish and wildlife, and considerations in valuation (ecologic and economic) of riparian ecosystems. Brinson et al. (1981) also discuss management of riparian ecosystems. Riparian ecosystem management literature was not included in the WCR Data Base, unless the article also discussed creation or restoration.

Report↗