Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “People and Nature”

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 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2024

How low is too low? Partnering with stakeholders and managers to define ecologically based low-flow thresholds in a perennial temperate river

Managing aquatic ecosystems for people and nature can be improved by collaboration among scientists, managers, decision-makers, and other stakeholders. Many collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches have been developed to address the management of freshwater ecosystems; however, there are still barriers to overcome. We worked as part of a regional stakeholder group comprising municipal water utility operators, conservation organizations, academic partners, and other stakeholders to understand the effects of low-flow and drought on ecological functions of the upper Flint River, Georgia (USA), a free-flowing river important for municipal water supply, recreation, and native biota. We used published literature and locally targeted studies to identify quantitative flow targets that could be used to inform water management and drought planning. Drawing from principles of Translational Ecology, we relied on an iterative process to develop information needs for the group and maintained communication and engagement throughout data collection, analysis, and synthesis. We identified three quantitative flow benchmarks to evaluate the ecological impacts of drought in the river. The results were valuable to both the water utilities represented in the working group and State regional water planning, which is used to guide water management strategies and permitting for the basin. We identified principles that were important for the successful engagement in the working group and helped to overcome the challenge of working across sectors and without direct authority guiding the implementation of our work. Interdisciplinary work and creative solutions are crucial to plan for and adapt to greater pressure on our water resources.

River Research and Applications↗
USGS2014

Panarchy: theory and application

The concept of panarchy provides a framework that characterizes complex systems of people and nature as dynamically organized and structured within and across scales of space and time. It has been more than a decade since the introduction of panarchy. Over this period, its invocation in peer-reviewed literature has been steadily increasing, but its use remains primarily descriptive and abstract. Here, we discuss the use of the concept in the literature to date, highlight where the concept may be useful, and discuss limitations to the broader applicability of panarchy theory for research in the ecological and social sciences. Finally, we forward a set of testable hypotheses to evaluate key propositions that follow from panarchy theory.

Ecosystems↗
USGS2023

Genetic diversity goals and targets have improved, but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Genetic diversity among and within populations of all species is necessary for people and nature to survive and thrive in a changing world. Over the past three years, commitments for conserving genetic diversity have become more ambitious and specific under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF). This Perspective article comments on how goals and targets of the GBF have evolved, the improvements that are still needed, lessons learned from this process, and connections between goals and targets and the actions and reporting that will be needed to maintain, protect, manage and monitor genetic diversity. It is possible and necessary that the GBF strives to maintain genetic diversity within and among populations of all species, to restore genetic connectivity, and to develop national genetic conservation strategies, and to report on these using proposed, feasible indicators.

Conservation Genetics↗
USGS2022

Estimating the pelagic ocean’s benefits to humanity can enhance ocean governance

The human footprint on the global ocean is ever-increasing, particularly with new ways to grow food in the ocean, new technologies in marine energy production as a way to resolve climate change, and transport and commerce expanding across the ocean. Yet, human activities in the ocean have long been managed using a sectoral approach (e.g., fisheries, biodiversity protection, energy production, shipping) rather than a holistic integration of sector interactions, trade-offs, costs, and benefits. Coordination across sectors is now more critical than ever, not only because of the expanding human footprint but also because of climate change impacts on the ocean. Sustainable global ocean use can support the Blue Economy while also reversing negative climate impacts on the ocean. Advancements in science and technology, along with increasing momentum on global commitments to sound ocean governance, and science diplomacy internationally can support sustainable ocean use with accurate and timely information about the status and trends in the ocean’s ecosystem services (benefits) to society. Near-real time information about ecosystem services’ dynamics is critical to policymaking for a sustainable Blue Economy that works for nature and people in an ever-changing ocean. Here, we propose seven principles for ecosystem service assessments, essentially to international science diplomacy, for consideration by global marine policy communities.

Marine Policy↗
USGS2020

The IPBES global assessment: Pathways to action

The first Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services found widespread, accelerating declines in Earth’s biodiversity and associated benefits to people from nature. Addressing these trends will require science-based policy responses to reduce impacts, especially at national to local scales. Effective scaling of science-policy efforts driven by global and national assessments is a major challenge for turning assessment into action, and will require unprecedented commitments on the part of scientists to engage with communities of policy and practice. Fulfillment of science’s social contract with society, and with nature, will require strong institutional support for scientists’ participation in activities that transcend conventional research and publication.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2020

How to identify win–win interventions that benefit human health and conservation

To reach the Sustainable Development Goals, we may need to act on synergies between some targets while mediating trade-offs between other targets. But what, exactly, are synergies and trade-offs, and how are they related to other outcomes, such as ‘win–win’ solutions? Finding limited guidance in the existing literature, we developed an operational method for distinguishing win–wins from eight other possible dual outcomes (lose–lose, lose–neutral and so on). Using examples related to human health and conservation, we illustrate how interdisciplinary problem-solvers can use this framework to assess relationships among targets and compare multi-target interventions that affect people and nature.

Nature Sustainability↗
USGS2021

Native American fire management at an ancient wildland–urban interface in the Southwest United States

The intersection of expanding human development and wildland landscapes—the “wildland–urban interface” or WUI—is one of the most vexing contexts for fire management because it involves complex interacting systems of people and nature. Here, we document the dynamism and stability of an ancient WUI that was apparently sustainable for more than 500 y. We combine ethnography, archaeology, paleoecology, and ecological modeling to infer intensive wood and fire use by Native American ancestors of Jemez Pueblo and the consequences on fire size, fire–climate relationships, and fire intensity. Initial settlement of northern New Mexico by Jemez farmers increased fire activity within an already dynamic landscape that experienced frequent fires. Wood harvesting for domestic fuel and architectural uses and abundant, small, patchy fires created a landscape that burned often but only rarely burned extensively. Depopulation of the forested landscape due to Spanish colonial impacts resulted in a rebound of fuels accompanied by the return of widely spreading, frequent surface fires. The sequence of more than 500 y of perennial small fires and wood collecting followed by frequent “free-range” wildland surface fires made the landscape resistant to extreme fire behavior, even when climate was conducive and surface fires were large. The ancient Jemez WUI offers an alternative model for fire management in modern WUI in the western United States, and possibly other settings where local management of woody fuels through use (domestic wood collecting) coupled with small prescribed fires may make these communities both self-reliant and more resilient to wildfire hazards.

Arizona, New Mexico↗
USGS2015

Rafinesque’s names for western American mammals, including the earliest scientific name for the coyote ( Canis latrans Say, 1822), based on the apocryphal journal of Charles Le Raye

In 1817, the naturalist Constantine S. Rafinesque named nine new species of mammals from the American West, indicating the recently published journal of Charles Le Raye as the primary source for his descriptions. Le Raye was purported to be a French Canadian fur trader who, as a captive of the Sioux, had traveled across broad portions of the Missouri and Yellowstone river drainages a few years before the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804-1806) traversed much of the same region. Le Raye's journal was relied upon by generations of scholars as a valuable source documenting the native peoples and natural history of the Upper Missouri river in the era just prior to European settlement. Subsequent research, however, has shown that Le Raye never existed, and his purported journal is fraudulent. Despite this, Rafinesque's creation of the names followed conventional and accepted practice at the time, and they are porentially available. Fortunately, much of the Le Raye journal was based on verifiable sources, such as Patrick Gass's published account of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Identification of the original source materials makes it possible to establish the correct application of Rafinesque's names and to determine their current status. This process reveals that the earliest scientific name for the coyote ( Canis latrans Say, 1822) was Canis chlorops Rafinesque, 1817; this name is now a nomen oblitum , however, and is no longer available.

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washingto↗
USGS2024

What the cliffs near America’s earliest settlements tell us about climate change

Climate change is a big problem for natural habitats, people, and the systems that support society, including roads, water supply, electrical grids, and phone and internet connections. It’s an important theme in politics, economics, and culture. Scientists make computer models to show what the climate might be like in the future, and it looks very different from what we are used to. Scientists can also learn about the future climate by looking at geological records from the past. About 3 million years ago, most of the US east coast was under water. Sediments that collected on the ocean floor show what the ocean environment was like back then. Some of these sediments are now exposed above water as bluffs along the James River near colonial Jamestown in southeastern Virginia, and they hold many clues as to what Earth may look like in the future.

Virginia↗
USGS2016

Ecological resilience

Resilience is the capacity of complex systems of people and nature to withstand disturbance without shifting into an alternate regime, or a different type of system organized around different processes and structures (Holling, 1973). Resilience theory was developed to explain the non-linear dynamics of complex adaptive systems, like social-ecological systems (SES) (Walker & Salt, 2006). It is often apparent when the resilience of a SES has been exceeded as the system discernibly changes, such as when a thriving city shifts into a poverty trap, but it is difficult to predict when that shift might occur because of the non-linear dynamics of complex systems. Ecological resilience should not be confused with engineering resilience (Angeler & Allen, 2016), which emphasizes the ability of a SES to perform a specific task consistently and predictably, and to re-establish performance quickly should a disturbance occur. Engineering resilience assumes that complex systems are characterized by a single equilibrium state, and this assumption is not appropriate for complex adaptive systems such as SES. In the risk governance context this means that compounded perturbations derived from hazards or global change can have unexpected and highly uncertain effects on natural resources, humans and societies. These effects can manifest in regime shifts, potentially spurring environmental degradation that might lock SES in an undesirable system state that can be difficult to reverse, and as a consequence economic crises, conflict, human health problems.

Book chapter↗
USGS2020

Coerced regimes: Management challenges in the Anthropocene

Management frequently creates system conditions that poorly mimic the conditions of a desirable self-organizing regime. Such management is ubiquitous across complex systems of people and nature and will likely intensify as these systems face rapid change. However, it is highly uncertain whether the costs (unintended consequences, including negative side effects) of management but also social dynamics can eventually outweigh benefits in the long term. We introduce the term “coerced regime” to conceptualize this management form and tie it into resilience theory. The concept encompasses proactive and reactive management to maintain desirable and mitigate undesirable regime conditions, respectively. A coerced regime can be quantified through a measure of the amount of management required to artificially maintain its desirable conditions. Coerced regimes comprise “ghosts” of self-sustaining desirable system regimes but ultimately become “dead regimes walking” when these regimes collapse as soon as management is discontinued. We demonstrate the broad application of coerced regimes using distinct complex systems of humans and nature (human subjects, aquatic and terrestrial environments, agriculture, and global climate). We discuss commonalities and differences between these examples to identify trade-offs between benefits and harms of management. The concept of coerced regimes can spur thinking and inform management about the duality of what we know and can envision versus what we do not know and therefore cannot envision: a pervasive sustainability conundrum as planet Earth swiftly moves toward a future without historical analogue

Ecology and Society↗
USGS2019

Natural resource management decision-making under climate uncertainty: Building social-ecological resilience in southwestern Colorado

The goal of this project was to facilitate climate change adaptation that contributes to social-ecological resilience, ecosystem and species conservation, and sustainable human communities in southwestern Colorado. The team developed and piloted integrated adaptation planning tools and principles that merge the strengths of the iterative scenario process, the Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) planning framework, institutional analysis, and climate modeling. These tools and principles generated practical strategies and scientific knowledge to advance climate change adaptation in both the Gunnison River Basin and San Juan River Basin and, potentially, other landscapes. A key objective of this project was to work with decision-makers to develop social-ecological adaptation strategies and coordinate actions to reduce the impacts of a changing climate on nature and people. To accomplish this, the project blended science (biophysical and social) and participatory approaches to integrate expert knowledge, land management decision making, and local needs. These adaptation strategies and their creation process were documented by the project team to assist communities and scientists elsewhere who are grappling with the challenges posed by climate change.

Colorado↗
USGS2025

Participatory modelling to support evaluation of management actions for recreational fisheries

Participatory modelling (PM) is a collaborative problem-solving approach that involves shared learning through the development of a model or multiple models with a group of participants and a modelling team. PM has the potential to be used more frequently to address recreational fisheries problems. We focus on our experience working with small groups (usually <40 people) to address natural resource issues. This chapter focuses on building a PM team and the communications that occur before, during, and after a PM process. The participants usually include people like recreational and commercial fishers, members of environmental non-governmental organizations, and fishery managers or other decision makers. Ground rules, expectations, and end goals should be established early in the PM process. We emphasize that benefits arise from including the participants in the development and validation of the models in a process that includes feedback between the modellers and participants. Although participants are ideally involved in all stages, their inclusion during model development and testing can be critical for buy-in within the group. When the modellers listen carefully to participant concerns and respond to those concerns during model development, we have experienced favourable process outcomes such as improved participant engagement and building of trust.

Book chapter↗
USGS2013

Seventy-five years of science—The U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center

As of January 2010, 75 years have elapsed since Dr. Frederic Fish initiated the pioneering research program that would evolve into today’s Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC). Fish began his research working alone in the basement of the recently opened Fisheries Biological Laboratory on Lake Union in Seattle, Washington. WFRC’s research began under the aegis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ends its first 75 years as part of the U.S. Geological Survey with a staff of more than 150 biologists and support personnel and a heritage of fundamental research that has made important contributions to our understanding of the biology and ecology of the economically important fish and fish populations of the Nation. Although the current staff may rarely stop to think about it, WFRC’s antecedents extend many years into the past and are intimately involved with the history of fisheries conservation in the Western United States. Thus, WFRC Director Lyman Thorsteinson asked me to write the story of this laboratory “while there are still a few of you around who were here for some of the earlier years” to document the rich history and culture of WFRC by recognizing its many famous scientists and their achievements. This historyalso would help document WFRC’s research ‘footprint’ in the Western United States and its strategic directions. Center Director Thorsteinson concluded that WFRC’s heritage told by an emeritus scientist also would add a texture of legitimacy based on personal knowledge that will all-to-soon be lost to the WFRC and to the USGS. The WFRC story is important for the future as well as for historical reasons. It describes how we got to the place we are today by documenting the origin, original mission, and our evolving role in response to the constantly changing technical information requirements of new environmental legislation and organizational decision-making. The WFRC research program owes its existence to the policy requirements of Federal conservation legislation originating with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1933. The research program was shaped by laws enacted in subsequent years such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), National Environmental Policy Act (1973), Endangered Species Act (1974), and Northwest Power Planning Act (1980), to name only a few. The WFRC has not been constrained by direct management or regulatory responsibility for a particular fishery (such as providing sustainable catch limits data to a resource management structure). Thus, WFRC has been able to concentrate on scientific pursuits and information needs required by contemporary environmental legislation. Over the years, we have pioneered in several important areas of fisheries research including the diagnoses and control of diseases in economically important fish, effects of environmental alterations on the physiological quality and survival of Pacific salmon released from federal mitigation hatcheries, applications in biotelemetry, and the bioenergetics of predator-prey interactions in the Columbia River. The WFRC of today is a widely distributed organization in the Western United States. Knowledge of the historical connections and accomplishments of our predecessors is important beyond the sense of pride and unity it instills in the WFRC family of today. For example, a discerning reader will note the evolution of WFRC’s research from a single disciplinary focus (early era—hatchery disease problems), to multiple disciplines (middle to late era—species, populations, habitats; threatened and endangered species), to the present era (multidisciplinary and with increasing process focus). For the benefit of the current WFRC staff, more emphasis has been placed on the early years rather than on the present day because people are quite naturally more familiar with the recent past than with the research done during the first decades of WFRC’s existence. By every rational measure, the WFRC has evolved into a fisheries research organization well positioned to provide the biological information needed to support the continued conservation and management of our Nation’s living aquatic natural resources. The high standard of excellence that connects WFRC’s past to our present research program provides a firm foundation on which to base the work yet to be done. In another 75 years, WFRC will undoubtedly be a very different place than it is today, but its evolution will be forever rooted in the story of the research and of the people related here. More about the diverse fisheries research projects WFRC scientists are conducting today is available at WFRC’s website: http://wfrc.usgs.gov/.

Washington↗
USGS2021

Ecosystem service co-benefits provided through wetland carbon management

What is the role of wetland carbon management in providing ecosystem services? Ecosystem services are the benefits that nature provides to people, and they are often categorized as: provisioning (e.g., food and water), regulating (e.g., climate mitigation and flood protection), cultural (e.g., cultural and recreational), and supporting (e.g., nutrient cycling) services ( www.millenniumassessment.org/ ). Ecosystem services are a function of the quantity and quality of the ecosystem. External factors such as land development, pollution, fragmentation, resource overuse, and climate change can negatively influence an ecosystem's capacity to provide ecosystem services; conversely, management actions to conserve and restore systems can increase ecosystem services (Pindilli, 2019). Wetland carbon management is a set of preservation, conservation, or restoration actions used to preserve ecosystem function that protects or enhances stored carbon or biologic carbon sequestration, with the intent to regulate climate (see Moomaw et al., 2018). By managing for wetland carbon resources, there is often a co-benefit of the preservation or enhancement of other ecosystem services; it may also increase ecosystem disservices (such as mosquito production). This chapter provides an overview of the types of ecosystem service co-benefits provided by wetland carbon management, with specific examples from the literature.

Book chapter↗
USGS2020

Themes of contemporary inland fisheries goals

Goals are important for the effective execution of public trust responsibilities by state inland fisheries bureaus, but formulating meaningful goals is not simple. Often bureaus look to their past and to their sister bureaus in neighboring states when crafting goals for their own freshwater resources. Herein, we review the goal themes of fisheries bureaus using publicly available documents and guided by previous literature. We test whether goals exhibit geographic patterns presuming that differences and similarities in climate, natural resources, and people determine, to various degrees, the goal themes across the U.S. We identified nine distinct goal themes but found that they do not form clear geographic patterns, which contrasts with a similar analysis conducted in the 1970s. Since the 1970s, fisheries bureau goals have expanded and regionalism in goals has vanished. We suggest that changes in perspectives and communication technology, as well as provisions within nationwide funding mechanisms have led to goals becoming more homogenous across the U.S. and more diverse within each bureau.

Fisheries Magazine↗
USGS2015

Climate change impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the United States: Process and prospects for sustained assessment

The third United States National Climate Assessment emphasized an evaluation of not just the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems, but also the impacts of climate change on the benefits that people derive from nature, known as ecosystem services. The ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services component of the assessment largely drew upon the findings of a transdisciplinary workshop aimed at developing technical input for the assessment, involving participants from diverse sectors. A small author team distilled and synthesized this and hundreds of other technical input to develop the key findings of the assessment. The process of developing and ranking key findings hinged on identifying impacts that had particular, demonstrable effects on the U.S. public via changes in national ecosystem services. Findings showed that ecosystem services are threatened by the impacts of climate change on water supplies, species distributions and phenology, as well as multiple assaults on ecosystem integrity that, when compounded by climate change, reduce the capacity of ecosystems to buffer against extreme events. As ecosystems change, such benefits as water sustainability and protection from storms that are afforded by intact ecosystems are projected to decline across the continent due to climate change. An ongoing, sustained assessment that focuses on the co-production of actionable climate science will allow scientists from a range of disciplines to ascertain the capability of their forecasting models to project environmental and ecological change and link it to ecosystem services; additionally, an iterative process of evaluation, development of management strategies, monitoring, and reevaluation will increase the applicability and usability of the science by the U.S. public.

Climatic Change↗
USGS2019

Reimagining the potential of Earth observations for ecosystem service assessments

The benefits nature provides to people, called ecosystem services, are increasingly recognized and accounted for in assessments of infrastructure development, agricultural management , conservation prioritization, and sustainable sourcing. These assessments are often limited by data, however, a gap with tremendous potential to be filled through Earth observations (EO), which produce a variety of data across spatial and temporal extents and resolutions. Despite widespread recognition of this potential, in practice few ecosystem service studies use EO. Here, we identify challenges and opportunities to using EO in ecosystem service modeling and assessment. Some challenges are technical, related to data awareness, processing, and access. These challenges require systematic investment in model platforms and data management. Other challenges are more conceptual but still systemic; they are byproducts of the structure of existing ecosystem service models and addressing them requires scientific investment in solutions and tools applicable to a wide range of models and approaches. We also highlight new ways in which EO can be leveraged for ecosystem service assessments, identifying promising new areas of research. More widespread use of EO for ecosystem service assessment will only be achieved if all of these types of challenges are addressed. This will require non-traditional funding and partnering opportunities from private and public agencies to promote data exploration, sharing, and archiving. Investing in this integration will be reflected in better and more accurate ecosystem service assessments worldwide.

Science of the Total Environment↗