Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Community Science”

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

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

At least 415 records · Page 23Linked to original sources
USGS1996

National Biological Service Research Supports Watershed Planning

The National Biological Service's Leetown Science Center is investigating how human impacts on watershed, riparian, and in-stream habitats affect fish communities. The research will provide the basis for a Ridge and Valley model that will allow resource managers to accurately predict and effectively mitigate human impacts on water quality. The study takes place in the Opequon Creek drainage basin of West Virginia. A fourth-order tributary of the Potomac, the basin falls within the Ridge and Valley. The study will identify biological components sensitive to land use patterns and the condition of the riparian zone; the effect of stream size, location, and other characteristics on fish communities; the extent to which remote sensing can reliable measure the riparian zone; and the relationship between the rate of landscape change and the structure of fish communities.

West Virginia↗
USGS2010

Vegetation classification and distribution mapping report: Canyon de Chelly National Monument

Executive Summary: The classification and distribution mapping of the vegetation of Canyon de Chelly National Monument (CACH) and surrounding environment was accomplished through a multi-agency effort between 2003 and 2007. The National Park Service’s Southern Colorado Plateau Network facilitated the team that conducted the work, which comprised the U.S. Geological Survey’s Southwest Biological Science Center and Fort Collins Science Center, Navajo Natural Heritage Program, Northern Arizona University, and NatureServe. The project team described 48 plant communities for CACH—35 of which were described from quantitative classification based on field-relevé data collected in 2004. Five additional plant communities were based on field relevés collected in a previous study. The team derived four additional plant communities from field observations during the photointerpretation phase of the project, and field documented them during accuracy assessment. The National Vegetation Classification Standard served as a conceptual framework for assigning these plant communities to the alliance and association level. Ten of the 48 plant communities were designated “park specials”, that is, plant communities with insufficient data to describe them as new alliances or associations. The project team also developed a spatial vegetation map database representing CACH, with three different map-class schemas: base, group, and management map classes. The base map classes represented the finest level of spatial detail. Photointerpreters delineated initial polygons through manual interpretation of 2003/2004 1:12,000-scale true color aerial photography supplemented by occasional computer screen digitizing on a mosaic of digitized aerial photos. These polygons were labeled with base map classes during photointerpretation. Field visits verified interpretation concepts. The vegetation map database includes • ? 53 base map classes, which consist of associations and park specials classified with the quantitative analysis • ? additional associations noted during photointerpretation • ? non-vegetated land cover, such as infrastructure, land use, and geological land cover. The base map classes consist of 4,718 polygons in the project area. A field-based accuracy assessment of the base map classes showed the overall accuracy to be 50.8% The group map classes represent aggregations of the base map classes, approximating the group level of the National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2 (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2008). Terrestrial ecological systems, as described by NatureServe (Comer et al. 2003), were used as a first approximation of the group level. The project team identified 16 group map classes in this project. The overall accuracy of the group map classes was determined using the same accuracy assessment data as for the base map classes. The overall accuracy of the group representation of vegetation was 79.9%. In consultation with park staff, the team developed management map classes that consisted of park-defined groupings of base map classes and were intended to represent a balance between maintaining required accuracy and providing a focus on vegetation of particular interest or import to park managers. The 28 management map classes have an overall accuracy of 77.1%. While the main products of this project are the vegetation classification and the vegetation map database, a number of ancillary geographic information system and digital database products were also produced that can be used independently, or to augment the main products. These products include shapefiles of the location of field-collected data and relational databases of field-collected data.

Report↗
USGS2016

Arctic Research Plan: FY2017-2021

The United States is an Arctic nation—Americans depend on the Arctic for biodiversity and climate regulation and for natural resources. America’s Arctic—Alaska—is at the forefront of rapid climate, environmental, and socio-economic changes that are testing the resilience and sustainability of communities and ecosystems. Research to increase fundamental understanding of these changes is needed to inform sound, science-based decision- and policy-making and to develop appropriate solutions for Alaska and the Arctic region as a whole. Created by an Act of Congress in 1984, and since 2010 a subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in the Executive Office of the President, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) plays a critical role in advancing scientific knowledge and understanding of the changing Arctic and its impacts far beyond the boundaries of the Arctic. Comprising 14 Federal agencies, offices, and departments, IARPC is responsible for the implementation of a 5-year Arctic Research Plan in consultation with the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, the Governor of the State of Alaska, residents of the Arctic, the private sector, and public interest groups.

Report↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗
USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Building translational ecology communities of practice: insights from the field

Translational ecology (TE) prioritizes the understanding of social systems and decision contexts in order to address complex natural resource management issues. Although many practitioners in applied fields employ translational tactics, the body of literature addressing such approaches is limited. We present several case studies illustrating the principles of TE and the diversity of its applications. We anticipate that these examples will help others develop scientific products that decision makers can use “off the shelf” when solving critical ecological and social challenges. Our collective experience suggests that research of such immediate utility is rare. Long‐term commitment to working directly with partners to develop and reach shared goals is central to successful translation. The examples discussed here highlight the benefits of translational processes, including actionable scientific results, more informed policy making, increased investment in science‐driven solutions, and inspiration for partnerships. We aim to facilitate future TE‐based projects and build momentum for growing this community of practice.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2024

Evolving wildlife management cultures of governance through Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives

Within governance agencies, academia, and communities alike, there are increasing calls to recognize the value and importance of culture within social-ecological systems and to better implement Indigenous sciences in research, policy, and management. Efforts thus far have raised questions about the best ethical practices to do so. Engaging with plural worldviews and perspectives on their own terms reflects cultural evolutionary processes driving paradigm shifts in 3 fundamental areas of natural resource management: conceptualizations of natural resources and ecosystems, processes of public participation and governance, and relationships with Indigenous Peoples and communities with differing worldviews. We broadly describe evolution toward these paradigm shifts in fish and wildlife management. We then use 3 case studies to illustrate the ongoing cultural evolution of relationships between wildlife management and Indigenous practices within specific historical and social-ecological contexts and reflect on common barriers to appropriately engaging with Indigenous paradigms and lifeways. Our case studies highlight 3 priorities that can assist the field of wildlife management in achieving the changes necessary to bridge incommensurable worldviews: acknowledging and reconciling historical legacies and their continued power dynamics as part of social-ecological systems, establishing governance arrangements that move beyond attempts to extract cultural information from communities to integrate Indigenous Knowledges into dominant management paradigms, and engaging in critical reflexivity and reciprocal, accountable relationship building. Implementing these changes will take time and a commitment to processes that may initially feel uncomfortable and unfamiliar but have potential to be transformative. Ethical and culturally appropriate methods to include plural and multivocal perspectives and worldviews on their own terms are needed to transform wildlife management to achieve more effective and just management outcomes for all.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2015

Science from genes to landscapes

Wherever flowering plants flourish, pollinating bees, birds, butterflies, bats, and other animals are at work, providing vital and often unnoticed services. Many of these species are in serious decline, a situation if unabated, threatens agricultural production, maintenance of natural plant communities, and other important services. Responding to this urgent challenge, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is part of efforts to provide scientific information to support pollinator conservation, including the implementation of a national pollinator health strategy ( http://www.usgs.gov/ecosystems/wildlife/pollinators/ .) This science is but one example of how the Ecosystems Science Mission Area of the USGS conducts science to support sound management and conservation of our Nation’s biological resources. It does this through research, technical assistance, and education conducted by Cooperative Research Units and Science Centers located in nearly every State. The quality of life and economic strength in America hinges on healthy ecosystems that support living things and natural processes. Ecosystem science better enables society to understand how and why ecosystems change, to predict and forecast future changes, and to guide actions that can prevent damage to, and restore and sustain ecosystems. It is through this knowledge that informed decisions are made about natural resources that can enhance our Nation's economic and environmental well-being.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2006

USGS science in Menlo Park -- a science strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

In the spring of 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Menlo Park Center Council commissioned an interdisciplinary working group to develop a forward-looking science strategy for the USGS Menlo Park Science Center in California (hereafter also referred to as "the Center"). The Center has been the flagship research center for the USGS in the western United States for more than 50 years, and the Council recognizes that science priorities must be the primary consideration guiding critical decisions made about the future evolution of the Center. In developing this strategy, the working group consulted widely within the USGS and with external clients and collaborators, so that most stakeholders had an opportunity to influence the science goals and operational objectives. The Science Goals are to: Natural Hazards: Conduct natural-hazard research and assessments critical to effective mitigation planning, short-term forecasting, and event response. Ecosystem Change: Develop a predictive understanding of ecosystem change that advances ecosystem restoration and adaptive management. Natural Resources: Advance the understanding of natural resources in a geologic, hydrologic, economic, environmental, and global context. Modeling Earth System Processes: Increase and improve capabilities for quantitative simulation, prediction, and assessment of Earth system processes. The strategy presents seven key Operational Objectives with specific actions to achieve the scientific goals. These Operational Objectives are to: Provide a hub for technology, laboratories, and library services to support science in the Western Region. Increase advanced computing capabilities and promote sharing of these resources. Enhance the intellectual diversity, vibrancy, and capacity of the work force through improved recruitment and retention. Strengthen client and collaborative relationships in the community at an institutional level. Expand monitoring capability by increasing density, sensitivity, and efficiency and reducing costs of instruments and networks. Encourage a breadth of scientific capabilities in Menlo Park to foster interdisciplinary science. Communicate USGS science to a diverse audience.

Circular↗
USGS2006

Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of Planetary Geologic Mappers, Nampa, Idaho 2006

Approximately 18 people attended this year's mappers meeting, and many more submitted abstracts and maps in absentia. The meeting was held on the campus of Northwest Nazarene University (NNU), and was graciously hosted by NNU's School of Health and Science. Planetary mapper Dr. Jim Zimbelman is an alumnus of NNU, and he was pivotal in organizing the meeting at this location. Oral and poster presentations were given on Friday, June 30. Drs. Bill Bonnichsen and Marty Godchaux led field excursions on July 1 and 2. USGS Astrogeology Team Chief Scientist Lisa Gaddis led the meeting with a brief discussion of the status of the planetary mapping program at USGS, and a more detailed description of the Lunar Mapping Program. She indicated that there is now a functioning website (http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/PlanetaryMapping/Lunar/) which shows which lunar quadrangles are available to be mapped. Like other USGS-published maps, proposals to complete a lunar geologic map must be submitted to the regular Planetary Geology & Geophysics (PGG) program for peer review. Jim Skinner (USGS) later presented the progress of the 1:2.5M-scale map of the lunar Copernicus quadrangle, and demonstrated the wide range of data that are available to support these maps. Gaddis and Skinner encouraged the community to submit proposals for generating lunar geologic maps, and reminded us that, as for all planetary maps, the project must be science-driven. Venus mapper Jim Zimbelman of the Smithsonian Institution (SI) presented the progress for his V-15 and V-16 quadrangles; Vicki Hansen (University of Minnesota Duluth) showed her preliminary work on V-45. Zimbelman addressed an issue that has been plaguing the community: 'delinquent Venus mappers'. In short, there were a number of Venus maps funded in the early 1990s under the Venus Data Analysis Program (VDAP). Unfortunately, funding for this program was cut before many Venus maps could be completed, resulting in about 10 Venus maps that were initially assigned but have shown little or no progress in many years. Zimbelman announced that he was not going to be able to complete quadrangle V-27 that he was assigned under VDAP, and was therefore returning that quadrangle to the community; he invited people to propose to PGG to map this quadrangle. Dave Williams of Arizona State University (ASU) reported on the progress of his global Io map. His mapping team recently received the completed, controlled global mosaic (using Voyager and Galileo images) from the USGS; this will be the basemap for their geologic mapping. Furthermore, the three team members (Laszlo Keszthelyi, David Crown and Dave Williams) have calibrated their individual mapping techniques by each mapping the same region for comparison. Thomas Doggett (ASU) showed progress on the global Europa map that was awarded to Ron Greeley. There was some consternation expressed on the methodology for determining relative ages of the lineaments; it was suggested that Vicki Hansen contact Patricio Figueredo (Exxon) directly, because Figueredo is the one who has been developing the lineament mapping techniques. Mars remains the most popular planet to map. Kevin Williams (SI) and Corey Fortezzo (SI) presented progress on their 1:500K maps in the Margaritifer Terra region of Mars. Jim Zimbelman described his 1:1M Medusae Fossae map, which is nearing completion. Peter Mouginis-Mark (University of Hawai'i) reported progress on his 1:200K maps of Tooting crater and of the Olympus Mons summit caldera. Jim Skinner discussed the progress of his and Ken Herkenhoff?s (USGS) map (1:500K) on the Olympia Cavi region of Mars? north pole, and Eric Kolb (USGS) presented work that he and Ken Tanaka (USGS) are completing on the Martian south pole. David Crown of the Planetary Science Institute (PSI) reported on numerous 1:500K and 1:1M maps in the Hellas and Hesperia regions of Mars. Frank Chuang (PSI) discussed progress on mapping the Deuteronilus Mensae reg

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Detroit River becoming a crucible for boundary organization experimentation

The Detroit River has a long history of human use and abuse, resulting in public outcry over water pollution and resource degradation. This public outcry helped catalyze the enactment of many laws and the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which led to enhanced research, monitoring, and water pollution control. As pollution from industries and municipal wastewater treatment plants came under control and progress was made in management of single species, the focus shifted to a more comprehensive ecosystem approach that accounted for all the sources of pollution and targeted restoring ecosystem health with resilience. Over time, the Detroit River became a “proving ground” or crucible for experimenting with boundary organizations to overcome geographical, political, institutional, and disciplinary boundaries and strengthen science-policy-management linkages for ecosystem-based management. This study identified 15 boundary organizations functioning in the Detroit River watershed and evaluated two case studies – St. Clair-Detroit River System Initiative and State of the Strait Conferences. Key lessons learned from this study include: 1) establishing boundary organizations, promoting cooperative learning, and building capacity for boundary-spanning are essential for use of an ecosystem approach; 2) boundary spanning requires specific skills, experience, and improved linkages between research and practice; 3) the 15 boundary organizations provide a unique opportunity to collaborate in a community of practice to share knowledge, foster cooperative learning, enhance problem-solving, build trust, and demonstrate leadership; and 4) continued actionable science, investment in capacity building, and cooperative learning are essential to meet long-term goals of sustainability.

Detroit River↗
USGS2021

Community for Data Integration 2019 annual report

The Community for Data Integration is a community of practice whose purpose is to advance the U.S. Geological Survey’s data integration capabilities. In fiscal year 2019, the Community for Data Integration held 9 monthly forums, facilitated 11 collaboration areas, held several workshops and training events, and funded 14 projects. The activities supported the U.S. Geological Survey priorities of enabling integrated predictive science, producing FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data, building modular and reusable tools, building authoritative national datasets for hazards or assets, and developing tools and methods for biosurveillance of emerging invasive species and health threats. Through these efforts, community members were informed of new and emerging technologies and data topics that helped them in their professional responsibilities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

Challenges and solutions for automated avian recognition in aerial imagery

Remote aerial sensing provides a non-invasive, large geographical-scale technology for avian monitoring, but the manual processing of images limits its development and applications. Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods can be used to mitigate this manual image processing requirement. The implementation of AI methods, however, has several challenges: (1) imbalanced (i.e., long-tailed) data distribution, (2) annotation uncertainty in categorization, and (3) dataset discrepancies across different study sites. Here we use aerial imagery data of waterbirds around Cape Cod and Lake Michigan in the United States to examine how these challenges limit avian recognition performance. We review existing solutions and demonstrate as use cases how methods like Label Distribution Aware Marginal Loss with Deferred Re-Weighting, hierarchical classification, and FixMatch address the three challenges. We also present a new approach to tackle the annotation uncertainty challenge using a Soft-fine Pseudo-Label methodology. Finally, we aim with this paper to increase awareness in the ecological remote sensing community of these challenges and bridge the gap between ecological applications and state-of-the-art computer science, thereby opening new doors to future research.

Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation↗
USGS2009

Impact of biological soil crusts and desert plants on soil microfaunal community composition

Carbon and nitrogen are supplied by a variety of sources in the desert food web; both vascular and non-vascular plants and cyanobacteria supply carbon, and cyanobacteria and plant-associated rhizosphere bacteria are sources of biological nitrogen fixation. The objective of this study was to compare the relative influence of vascular plants and biological soil crusts on desert soil nematode and protozoan abundance and community composition. In the first experiment, biological soil crusts were removed by physical trampling. Treatments with crust removed had fewer nematodes and a greater relative ratio of bacterivores to microphytophages than treatments with intact crust. However, protozoa composition was similar with or without the presence of crusts. In a second experiment, nematode community composition was characterized along a spatial gradient away from stems of grasses or shrubs. Although nematodes generally occurred in increasing abundance nearer to plant stems, some genera (such as the enrichment-type Panagrolaimus) increased disproportionately more than others (such as the stress-tolerant Acromoldavicus). We propose that the impact of biological soil crusts and desert plants on soil microfauna, as reflected in the community composition of microbivorous nematodes, is a combination of carbon input, microclimate amelioration, and altered soil hydrology. ?? Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009.

Plant and Soil↗
USGS2019

Flow alteration-ecology relationships in Ozark Highland streams: Consequences for fish, crayfish and macroinvertebrate assemblages

We examined flow alteration-ecology relationships in benthic macroinvertebrate , fish, and crayfish assemblages in Ozark Highland streams, USA, over two years with contrasting environmental conditions, a drought year (2012) and a flood year (2013). We hypothesized that: 1) there would be temporal variation in flow alteration-ecology relationships between the two years, 2) flow alteration-ecology relationships would be stronger during the drought year vs the flood year, and 3) fish assemblages would show the strongest relationships with flow alteration. We used a quantitative richest-targeted habitat (RTH) method and a qualitative multi-habitat (QMH) method to collect macroinvertebrates at 16 USGS gaged sites during both years. We used backpack electrofishing to sample fish and crayfish at 17 sites in 2012 and 11 sites in 2013. We used redundancy analysis to relate biological response metrics, including richness, diversity, density, and community-based metrics, to flow alteration. We found temporal variation in flow alteration-ecology relationships for all taxa, and that relationships differed greatly between assemblages. We found relationships were stronger for macroinvertebrates during the drought year but not for other assemblages, and that fish assemblage relationships were not stronger than the invertebrate taxa. Magnitude of average flow, frequency of high flow, magnitude of high flow, and duration of high flow were the most important categories of flow alteration metrics across taxa. Alteration of high and average flows was more important than alteration of low flows. Of 32 important flow alteration metrics across years and assemblages, 19 were significantly altered relative to expected values. Ecological responses differed substantially between drought and flood years, and this is likely to be exacerbated with predicted climate change scenarios. Differences in flow alteration-ecology relationships among taxonomic groups and temporal variation in relationships illustrate that a complex suite of variables should be considered for effective conservation of stream communities related to flow alteration.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma↗
USGS2003

Timing of autumn bird migration under climate change: advances in long–distance migrants, delays in short–distance migrants

As a response to increasing spring temperature in temperate regions in recent years, populations of many plant and animal species, including migratory birds, have advanced the seasonal start of their reproduction or growth. However, the effects of climate changes on subsequent events of the annual cycle remain poorly understood. We investigated long–term changes in the timing of autumn migration in birds, a key event in the annual cycle limiting the reproductive period. Using data spanning a 42–year period, we analysed long–term changes in the passage of 65 species of migratory birds through Western Europe. The autumn passage of migrants wintering south of the Sahara has advanced in recent years, presumably as a result of selection pressure to cross the Sahel before its seasonal dry period. In contrast, migrants wintering north of the Sahara have delayed autumn passage. In addition, species with a variable rather than a fixed number of broods per year have delayed passage, possibly because they are free to attempt more broods. Recent climate changes seem to have a simple unidirectional effect on the seasonal onset of reproduction, but complex and opposing effects on the timing of subsequent events in the annual cycle, depending on the ecology and life history of a species. This complicates predictions of overall effects of global warming on avian communities.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci↗
USGS2017

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) affects vegetation more than seed banks in mixed-grass prairies of the Northern Great Plains

Exotic plants have the ability to modify soil seed banks in habitats they invade, but little is known about the legacy of invasion on seed banks once an exotic plant has successfully been controlled. Natural areas previously invaded by leafy spurge in the northern Great Plains typically have one of two fates following its removal: a return of native plants, or a secondary invasion of other exotic plants. It is unknown, however, if this difference in plant communities following leafy spurge control is due to seed bank differences. To answer this question, we monitored seed banks and standing vegetation for 2 yr in mixed-grass prairies that were previously invaded by leafy spurge but controlled within 5 yr of our study. We found that native plant seed banks were largely intact in areas previously invaded by leafy spurge, regardless of the current living plant community, and leafy spurge invasion history had a larger impact on cover and diversity of the vegetation than on the seed banks. Differences in plant communities following leafy spurge control do not appear to be related to the seed banks, and soil conditions may be more important in determining trajectories of these postinvasion communities.

North Dakota↗
USGS2009

Distribution and conservation status of coastal sage scrub in southwestern California

A landscape-based characterization of vegetation has been developed for southwestern California using satellite imagery, air photos, existing vegetation maps, and field data. Distribution maps of nine dominant coastal scrub species and 13 species assemblages that were identified by divisive information analysis have been analyzed to quantify spatial patterns of species co-occurrence. Three general distribution patterns are identified that suggest the Diegan, Ventaran and Riversidian Associations identified by other workers. Vegetation data have also been related to land ownership and management to assess the conservation status of upland plant communities. A large proportion of the mapped distribution of species and vegetation types is on private land, and several taxa show less than 4 % of mapped distribution in nature reserves. The analysis highlights the need to extend current conservation planning efforts into the northern part of the region to encompass areas where Salvia leucophylla is a frequent community dominant.

Journal of Vegetation Science↗