Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Research”

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 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
USGS2026

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice↗
USGS2018

Research frontiers for improving our understanding of drought‐induced tree and forest mortality

Accumulating evidence highlights increased mortality risks for trees during severe drought, particularly under warmer temperatures and increasing vapour pressure deficit (VPD). Resulting forest die‐off events have severe consequences for ecosystem services, biophysical and biogeochemical land–atmosphere processes. Despite advances in monitoring, modelling and experimental studies of the causes and consequences of tree death from individual tree to ecosystem and global scale, a general mechanistic understanding and realistic predictions of drought mortality under future climate conditions are still lacking. We update a global tree mortality map and present a roadmap to a more holistic understanding of forest mortality across scales. We highlight priority research frontiers that promote: (1) new avenues for research on key tree ecophysiological responses to drought; (2) scaling from the tree/plot level to the ecosystem and region; (3) improvements of mortality risk predictions based on both empirical and mechanistic insights; and (4) a global monitoring network of forest mortality. In light of recent and anticipated large forest die‐off events such a research agenda is timely and needed to achieve scientific understanding for realistic predictions of drought‐induced tree mortality. The implementation of a sustainable network will require support by stakeholders and political authorities at the international level.

New Phytologist↗
USGS2021

Paths to computational fluency for natural resource educators, researchers, and managers

Natural resource management and supporting research teams need computational fluency in the data and model-rich 21st century. Computational fluency describes the ability of practitioners and scientists to conduct research and represent natural systems within the computer's environment. Advancement in information synthesis for natural resource management requires more sophisticated computational approaches, as well as reproducible, reusable, extensible, and transferable methods. Despite this importance, many new and current natural resource practitioners lack computational fluency and no common set of recommended resources and practices exist for learning these skills. Broadly, attaining computational fluency entails moving beyond the simple use of computers to applying sound computational principles and methods and including computational experts (such as computer scientists) on research teams. Our path for computational fluency includes using open-source tools when possible; reproducible data management, statistics, and modeling; understanding and applying the benefits of basic computer programming to carry out more complex procedures; tracking code with version control; working in controlled computer environments; and using advanced computing resources.

Natural Resource Modelling↗
USGS2003

Comparative hydraulics of two fishery research circular tanks and recommendations for control of experimental bias

Hydraulic characteristics inside two research circular tanks (1.5-m and 1.2-m diameter) with the same volume of water were studied to understand how they might affect experimental bias by influencing the behavior and development of juvenile fish. Water velocities inside each tank were documented extensively and flow behavior studied. Surface inflow to the 1.5-m tank created a highly turbulent and aerated surface, and produced unevenly distributed velocities within the tank. A low-flow velocity, or "dead" zone, persisted just upstream of the surface inflow. A single submerged nozzle in the 1.2-m tank created uniform flow and did not cause undue turbulence or introduce air. Flow behavior in the 1.5-m tank is believed to have negatively affected the feeding behavior and physiological development of a group of juvenile fall chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. A new inflow nozzle design provided comparable flow behavior regardless of tank size and water depth. Maintaining similar hydraulic conditions inside tanks used for various biological purposes, including fish research, would minimize experimental bias caused by differences in flow behavior. Other sources of experimental bias are discussed and recommendations given for reporting and control of experimental conditions in fishery research tank experiments.

Journal of Applied Aquaculture↗
USGS1999

Proceedings of the fourth biennial conference of research on the Colorado Plateau

The 13 chapters in this book were selected from the 75 research papers presented at the Fourth Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau. The theme of this meeting centered around research, inventory, and monitoring on lands over the Colorado Plateau, with a focus on the newly created BLM Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The conference, held on 15-18 September 1997 in Flagstaff, Arizona, was hosted by the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Colorado Plateau Field Station (CPFS) and Northern Arizona University.

Colorado↗
USGS1980

Water resources thesaurus: A vocabulary for indexing and retrieving the literature of water resources research and development

This Water Resources Thesaurus encompasses such broad research areas as the hydrologic cycle, supply of and demand for water, conservation and best use of available supplies of water, methods of increasing supplies, and the economic, legal, social, engineering, recreational, biological, geographical, ecological, and qualitative aspects of water resources. This volume represents a major revision of the previous edition of the Thesaurus, published in 1971. The principal source of terms for this edition has been the indexing used in Selected Water Resources Abstracts (SWRA). Since its inception in 1968, SWRA has indexed tens of thousands of publications. Its indexing terminology has been developed by expert abstracters and researchers, and represents the range of disciplines related to research, development, and management of water resources.

Monograph↗
USGS1978

Cartographic research 1977

Two major subjects of the current research of the Topographic Division as reported here are related to policy decisions affecting the National Mapping Program of the Geological Survey. The adoption of a metric mapping policy has resulted in new cartographic products with associated changes in map design that require new looks in graphics and new equipment. The increasing use of digitized cartographic information has led to developments in data acquisition, processing, and storage and consequent changes in equipment and techniques. This report summarizes the activities in cartographic research and development for the 12-month period ending June 1977 and covers work done at the several facilities of the Topographic Division: the Western Mapping Center at Menlo Park, Calif., the Rocky Mountain Mapping Center at Denver, Colo., the Mid-Continent Mapping Center at Rolla, Mo., and the Eastern Mapping Center, the Special Mapping Center, the Office of Plans and Program Development, and the Office of Research and Technical Standards all at Reston, Va.

Report↗
USGS2002

History of pronghorn population monitoring, research, and management in Yellowstone National Park

Pronghorn antelope in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) persist in a small population that historically has experienced recurrent, sometimes dramatic declines. They apparently are isolated from other pronghorns, depend partly on private lands for winter range, experience heavy predation of fawns, and concentrate during winter in a relatively small area, thereby increasing their vulnerability to factors like disease or locally extreme weather. Overall, the situation raises serious concerns about the long-term viability of this population. Although such concerns are not new, evidence of a dramatic population decline since 1991 and continued poor recruitment has created a renewed sense of urgency. Recent efforts to revitalize pronghorn research in YNP began with fawn recruitment and habitat use studies, initiated in 1999 and 2000. With those studies drawing to a close, YNP is reviewing the status and direction of its pronghorn program. The Yellowstone Pronghorn Conservation Assessment Workshop was convened in YNP in January, 2002, to appraise the current state of knowledge about this pronghorn population and make recommendations about future management and research needs. A review of pronghorn population change, management, and research in YNP was commissioned in May, 2001, to provide historical background for workshop participants. Following is a written summary of that review. The process of locating materials for this review was limited to 3 months. Not all relevant materials were discovered or reviewed in that time. In particular, it was not possible to find and review all original sources of information. Also, except for occasional anecdotal accounts, weather records were not reviewed, leaving a potentially serious gap in our understanding of the forces driving changes in pronghorn population counts and estimates 2 over time. Despite these deficiencies, considerable information was reviewed, earlier summaries of population classification and count data were updated, and previously uncited sources of information were identified that challenge important aspects of previous interpretations of the history of pronghorns and pronghorn management in YNP. Information is grouped into 4 major subject areas: distribution and habitat use, demographics and management, genetics, and disease.

Wyoming↗
USGS2000

U.S. Geological Survey coastal and marine geology research; recent highlights and achievements

The USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program has large-scale national and regional research projects that focus on environmental quality, geologic hazards, natural resources, and information transfer. This Circular highlights recent scientific findings of the program, which play a vital role in the USGS endeavor to understand human interactions with the natural environment and to determine how the fundamental geologic processes controlling the Earth work. The scientific knowledge acquired through USGS research and monitoring is critically needed by planners, government agencies, and the public. Effective communication of the results of this research will enable the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program to play an integral part in assisting the Nation in responding the pressing Earth science challenges of the 21st century.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗
USGS2020

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2019 year in review

Acting Chief’s Message Dear Cooperators: Members of the Cooperative Research Units are pleased to provide you with the “2019 Year in Review” report for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs). You will first note that this report looks a little different than those published in the past few years, as we opted for a shorter, more concise format this year. Inside you will find brief descriptions of just a few highlighted activities of unit scientists, students, and cooperators in support of our joint mission. Because of the shorter format, we are not able to include activities from every unit or State, but rest assured that we continue to value the great work that all of you do across the country and around the world. In fiscal year 2019, the CRU program was very productive despite challenging conditions, including budget uncertainty, a month-long furlough, and hiring delays. John Organ, Chief of the CRU program, retired in January 2019. The process to replace John was delayed several times, but as I write this, the position has been announced on the Federal Government recruitment site. I am hopeful that by the time you read this, we will have a new permanent chief. Congress provided an increase of $1 million in our allocation for the express purpose of filling some of the vacancies in our scientific workforce. Since receiving that increase, the management team has been working to fill vacancies. The program is fortunate to have excellent research scientists, dedicated leadership, and an outstanding administrative staff. However, our accomplishments depend on the tremendous support from all of you. We look forward to a productive 2020. John D. Thompson

Circular↗
USGS2020

U.S. Geological Survey sagebrush ecosystem research annual report for 2020

The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across 251,473 square miles over portions of 13 western States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, invasive plants, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and ensure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for more than 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as an iconic species of this ecosystem. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States, and 2 Canadian Provinces and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat; however, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, rely on various parts of the sagebrush ecosystem but only for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem, wildlife species within the ecosystem, and the species’ response to stressors and management actions. The program provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. By providing the science to inform these decisions, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards the goal of sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. This information can inform planning and management conducted by nongovernmental organizations as well. USGS research is tailored specifically to inform adaptive management, improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush, and restoring degraded landscapes. Examples of research support for partners include providing information for actions such as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans and land use. The USGS continues to provide foundational science to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev↗
USGS2021

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2020 Year in review

Established in 1935, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program (CRU program) is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and the necessity for trained professionals in the growing field of wildlife management, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units located on university campuses in 38 States. The partnerships that form each unit are some of the USGS’s strongest links to Federal and State land and natural resource agencies as mandated by the Cooperative Research and Training Units Act of 1960 (P.L. 86–686). This report highlights the activities and accomplishments of the program and its cooperators for calendar year 2020.

Circular↗
USGS2022

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program — 2021 year in review

Established in 1935, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and the necessity for trained professionals in the growing field of wildlife management, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 41 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units located on university campuses in 39 States. The partnerships that form each unit are some of the USGS’s strongest links to Federal and State land and natural resource agencies as mandated by the Cooperative Research and Training Units Act of 1960 (P.L. 86–686). This report highlights the activities and accomplishments of the program and its cooperators for 2021.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Engineering and risk research—A strategic vision for extending USGS earthquake science to risk assessment and mitigation

As a part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area, the Engineering and Risk Project (ERP) of the Geologic Hazards Science Center conducts civil engineering research to extend natural hazards science to risk assessments. The ERP includes predominantly, but not exclusively, staff funded by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. A major focus of the ERP is to deliver actionable information to decisionmakers that helps promote the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The report discusses briefly the ERP’s evolution and scope, its organization structure, describes key products and deliverables, their efforts to engage with external partners, and its strategy and vision in conducting range of engineering and risk research. The research topics outlined in this report, as developed by the ERP, may be used to facilitate project planning activities during the next 10 years and serve as a longer-term planning resource for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and Geologic Hazards Science Center.

Circular↗
USGS1982

U.S. Geological Survey research in radioactive waste disposal - Fiscal year 1979

The report summarizes progress on geologic and hydrologic research related to the disposal of radioactive wastes. The research is described according to whether it is related most directly to: (1) high-level and transuranic wastes; (2) low-level wastes, or (3) uranium mill tailings. Included is research applicable to the identification and geohydrologic characterization of waste-disposal sites, investigations of specific sites where wastes have been stored, and studies of regions or environments where waste-disposal sites might be located. A significant part of the activity is concerned with techniques and methods for characterizing disposal sites and studies of geologic and hydrologic processes related to the transport and(or) retention of waste radionuclides. (USGS)

Circular↗
USGS2006

Genetics/Genomics Research in the Central Region

Genetics-based research within the Biological Resources Discipline (BRD) Science Centers in the Central Region incorporates many aspects of the field of genetics. Research activities range from documenting patterns of genetic variation in order to investigate relationships among species, populations and individuals to investigating the structure, function and expression of genes and their response to environmental stressors. Research in the broad areas of genetics requires multidisciplinary expertise and specialized equipment and instrumentation. Brief summaries of the capabilities of the five BRD Centers are given below.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2007

Research Furthers Conservation of Grand Canyon Sandbars

Grand Canyon National Park lies approximately 25 km (15 mi) down-river from Glen Canyon Dam, which was built on the Colorado River just south of the Arizona-Utah border in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Before the dam began to regulate the Colorado River in 1963, the river carried such large quantities of red sediment, for which the Southwest is famous, that the Spanish named the river the Rio Colorado, or 'red river'. Today, the Colorado River usually runs clear below Glen Canyon Dam because the dam nearly eliminates the main-channel sand supply. The daily and seasonal flows of the river were also altered by the dam. These changes have disrupted the sedimentary processes that create and maintain Grand Canyon sandbars. Throughout Grand Canyon, sandbars create habitat for native plants and animals, supply camping beaches for river runners and hikers, and provide sediment needed to protect archaeological resources from weathering and erosion. Maintenance of sandbars in the Colorado River ecosystem, the river corridor that stretches from the dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park, is a goal of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. The program is a federally authorized initiative to ensure that the mandates of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 are met through advances in information and resource management. The U.S. Geological Survey's Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center has responsibility for scientific monitoring and research efforts for the program. Extensive research and monitoring during the past decade have resulted in the identification of possible alternatives for operating Glen Canyon Dam that hold new potential for the conservation of sand resources.

Fact Sheet↗