SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Biodiversity”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2013

Beaver dams maintain fish biodiversity by increasing habitat heterogeneity throughout a low-gradient stream network

Understanding the relationship between heterogeneity and biodiversity is an active focus of ecological research. Although habitat heterogeneity is conceptually linked to biodiversity, the amount and configuration of heterogeneity that maintains biodiversity within ecosystems is not well understood, especially for an entire stream network. Here, we tested alternative outcomes about how habitat alterations caused by beaver dams affected native fish biodiversity. Specifically, we quantified in-stream habitat and fish assemblages above and below all beaver dams ( n = 15) and selected control sites ( n = 9), adjacent to beaver dams, within an entire, low-gradient stream network (Fish Brook, MA, U.S.A.). Beaver dams altered habitat within streams in four ways based on upstream versus downstream differences in stream width, depth, velocity and substratum. In general, habitat heterogeneity, measured using two indices, was greater at beaver dams than control sites. The diversity and abundance of fish around beaver dams were positively related to habitat heterogeneity. Faster water and the coarser substratum below beaver dams increased the amount of fluvial habitat available to native fish. This alteration can be critical for fish with life histories that depend on flowing water and hard substrata. In summary, within a stream network, beaver dams maintained fish biodiversity by altering in-stream habitat and increasing habitat heterogeneity. Understanding the relationship between habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity can advance basic freshwater ecology and provide science-based support for applied aquatic conservation

Massachusetts↗

USGS2017

A mosaic-based approach is needed to conserve biodiversity in disturbed freshwater ecosystems

Conserving native biodiversity in the face of human‐ and climate‐related impacts is a challenging and globally important ecological problem that requires an understanding of spatially connected, organismal‐habitat relationships. Globally, a suite of disturbances (e.g., agriculture, urbanization, climate change) degrades habitats and threatens biodiversity. A mosaic approach (in which connected, interacting collections of juxtaposed habitat patches are examined) provides a scientific foundation for addressing many disturbance‐related, ecologically based conservation problems. For example, if specific habitat types disproportionately increase biodiversity, these keystones should be incorporated into research and management plans. Our sampling of fish biodiversity and aquatic habitat along ten 3‐km sites within the Upper Neosho River subdrainage, KS, from June‐August 2013 yielded three generalizable ecological insights. First, specific types of mesohabitat patches (i.e., pool, riffle, run, and glide) were physically distinct and created unique mosaics of mesohabitats that varied across sites. Second, species richness was higher in riffle mesohabitats when mesohabitat size reflected field availability. Furthermore, habitat mosaics that included more riffles had greater habitat diversity and more fish species. Thus, riffles (<5% of sampled area) acted as keystone habitats. Third, additional conceptual development, which we initiate here, can broaden the identification of keystone habitats across ecosystems and further operationalize this concept for research and conservation. Thus, adopting a mosaic approach can increase scientific understanding of organismal‐habitat relationships, maintain natural biodiversity, advance spatial ecology, and facilitate effective conservation of native biodiversity in human‐altered ecosystems.

Kansas↗

USGS2011

Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines

In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species’ population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.

Science↗

USGS2013

Essential biodiversity variables

Reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and averting dangerous biodiversity change are international goals, reasserted by the Aichi Targets for 2020 by Parties to the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) after failure to meet the 2010 target (1, 2). However, there is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering regular, timely data on biodiversity change (3). With the first plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) soon under way, partners from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) (4) are developing—and seeking consensus around—Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) that could form the basis of monitoring programs worldwide.

Science↗

USGS2016

Insular ecosystems of the southeastern United States—A regional synthesis to support biodiversity conservation in a changing climate

In the southeastern United States, insular ecosystems—such as rock outcrops, depression wetlands, high-elevation balds, flood-scoured riparian corridors, and insular prairies and barrens—occupy a small fraction of land area but constitute an important source of regional and global biodiversity, including concentrations of rare and endemic plant taxa. Maintenance of this biodiversity depends upon regimes of abiotic stress and disturbance, incorporating factors such as soil surface temperature, widely fluctuating hydrologic conditions, fires, flood scouring, and episodic droughts that may be subject to alteration by climate change. Over several decades, numerous localized, site-level investigations have yielded important information about the floristics, physical environments, and ecological dynamics of these insular ecosystems; however, the literature from these investigations has generally remained fragmented. This report consists of literature syntheses for eight categories of insular ecosystems of the southeastern United States, concerning (1) physical geography, (2) ecological determinants of community structures including vegetation dynamics and regimes of abiotic stress and disturbance, (3) contributions to regional and global biodiversity, (4) historical and current anthropogenic threats and conservation approaches, and (5) key knowledge gaps relevant to conservation, particularly in terms of climate-change effects on biodiversity. This regional synthesis was undertaken to discern patterns across ecosystems, identify knowledge gaps, and lay the groundwork for future analyses of climate-change vulnerability. Findings from this synthesis indicate that, despite their importance to regional and global biodiversity, insular ecosystems of the southeastern United States have been subjected to a variety of direct and indirect human alterations. In many cases, important questions remain concerning key determinants of ecosystem function. In particular, few empirical investigations in these ecosystems have focused on possible climate-change effects, despite the well-documented ecological effects of climate change at a global level. Long-term management of these ecosystems could benefit from increased scientific effort to characterize and quantify the linkages between changing environmental conditions and the ecological processes that sustain biodiversity.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Lou↗

USGS2024

Evaluating spatial coverage of the greater sage-grouse umbrella to conserve sagebrush-dependent species biodiversity within the Wyoming basins

Biodiversity is threatened due to land-use change, overexploitation, pollution, and anthropogenic climate change, altering ecosystem functioning around the globe. Protecting areas rich in biodiversity is often difficult without fully understanding and mapping species’ ecological niche requirements. As a result, the umbrella species concept is often applied, whereby conservation of a surrogate species is used to indirectly protect species that occupy similar ecological communities. One such species is the greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ), which has been used as an umbrella to conserve other species within the sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem. Sagebrush-steppe ecosystems within the United States have experienced drastic loss, fragmentation, and degradation of remaining habitat, threatening sagebrush-dependent fauna, resulting in west-wide conservation efforts to protect sage-grouse habitats, and presumably other sagebrush wildlife. We evaluated the effectiveness of the greater sage-grouse umbrella to conserve biodiversity using data-driven spatial occupancy and abundance models for seven sagebrush-dependent (obligate or associated) species across the greater Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment (WBEA) area (345,300 km 2 ) and assessed overlap with predicted sage-grouse occurrence. Predicted sage-grouse habitat from empirical models only partially (39–58%) captured habitats identified by predicted occurrence models for three sagebrush-obligate songbirds and 60% of biodiversity hotspots (richness of 4–6 species). Sage-grouse priority areas for conservation only captured 59% of model-predicted sage-grouse habitat, and only slightly fewer (56%) biodiversity hotspots. We suggest that the greater sage-grouse habitats may be partially effective as an umbrella for the conservation of sagebrush-dependent species within the sagebrush biome, and management actions aiming to conserve biodiversity should directly consider the explicit mapping of resource requirements for other taxonomic groups.

Land↗

USGS2018

Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity

Biodiversity —the variety of life on Earth—provides vital services that support and improve human health and well-being. Ecosystems, which are composed of living things that interact with the physical environment, provide numerous essential benefits to people. These benefits, termed ecosystem services, encompass four primary functions: provisioning materials, such as food and fiber; regulating critical parts of the environment, such as water quality and erosion control; providing cultural services, such as recreational opportunities and aesthetic value; and providing supporting services, such as nutrient cycling. Climate change poses many threats and potential disruptions to ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as to the ecosystem services on which people depend. Building on the findings of the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3), this chapter provides additional evidence that climate change is significantly impacting ecosystems and biodiversity in the United States. Mounting evidence also demonstrates that climate change is increasingly compromising the ecosystem services that sustain human communities, economies, and well-being. Both human and natural systems respond to change, but their ability to respond and thrive under new conditions is determined by their adaptive capacity, which may be inadequate to keep pace with rapid change. Our understanding of climate change impacts and the responses of biodiversity and ecosystems has improved since NCA3. The expected consequences of climate change will vary by region, species, and ecosystem type. Management responses are evolving as new tools and approaches are developed and implemented; however, they may not be able to overcome the negative impacts of climate change. Although efforts have been made since NCA3 to incorporate climate adaptation strategies into natural resource management, significant work remains to comprehensively implement climate-informed planning. This chapter presents additional evidence for climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services, reflecting increased confidence in the findings reported in NCA3. The chapter also illustrates the complex and interrelated nature of climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they provide.

Report↗

USGS2012

Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services: technical input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment

Ecosystems, and the biodiversity and services they support, are intrinsically dependent on climate. During the twentieth century, climate change has had documented impacts on ecological systems, and impacts are expected to increase as climate change continues and perhaps even accelerates. This technical input to the National Climate Assessment synthesizes our scientific understanding of the way climate change is affecting biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and what strategies might be employed to decrease current and future risks. Building on past assessments of how climate change and other stressors are affecting ecosystems in the United States and around the world, we approach the subject from several different perspectives. First, we review the observed and projected impacts on biodiversity, with a focus on genes, species, and assemblages of species. Next, we examine how climate change is affecting ecosystem structural elements—such as biomass, architecture, and heterogeneity—and functions—specifically, as related to the fluxes of energy and matter. People experience climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems as changes in ecosystem services; people depend on ecosystems for resources that are harvested, their role in regulating the movement of materials and disturbances, and their recreational, cultural, and aesthetic value. Thus, we review newly emerging research to determine how human activities and a changing climate are likely to alter the delivery of these ecosystem services. This technical input also examines two cross-cutting topics. First, we recognize that climate change is happening against the backdrop of a wide range of other environmental and anthropogenic stressors, many of which have caused dramatic ecosystem degradation already. This broader range of stressors interacts with climate change, and complicates our abilities to predict and manage the impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they support. The second cross-cutting topic is the rapidly advancing field of climate adaptation, where there has been significant progress in developing the conceptual framework, planning approaches, and strategies for safeguarding biodiversity and other ecological resources. At the same time, ecosystem-based adaptation is becoming more prominent as a way to utilize ecosystem services to help human systems adapt to climate change. In this summary, we present key findings of the technical input, focusing on themes that can be found throughout the report. Thus, this summary takes a more integrated look at the question of how climate change is affecting our ecological resources, the implications for humans, and possible response strategies. This integrated approach better reflects the impacts of climate in the real world, where changes in ecosystem structure or function will alter the viability of different species and the efficacy of ecosystem services. Likewise, adaptation to climate change will simultaneously address a range of conservation goals. Case studies are used to illustrate this complete picture throughout the report; a snapshot of one case study, 2011 Las Conchas, New Mexico Fire , is included in this summary.

Report↗

USGS2019

Rapid broad-scale ecosystem changes and their consequences for biodiversity

Biodiversity contributes to and depends on ecosystem structure and associated function. Ecosystem structure, such as the amount and type of tree cover, influences fundamental abiotic variables such as near-ground incoming solar radiation (e.g., Royer et al. 2011), which in turn affects species and associated biodiversity (e.g., Trotter et al. 2008). In many systems, foundational, dominant, or keystone species (or species groups) are important in determining biodiversity, often because of their role in determining ecosystem structure. At spatial scales ranging from ecosystems to regions and larger, structural characteristics of vegetation or other structurally dominant organisms such as corals can influence species diversity, whether focused on alpha diversity (mean species diversity at the habitat level), beta diversity (differentiation among habitats), or gamma diversity (total species diversity across a landscape; Whittaker 1960). Climate change is projected to alter ecosystems at broad scales. In many cases, this will be due to extreme climate events such as droughts, floods and hurricanes, the effects of which can be rapid (IPCC 2012). Consequently, rapid broad-scale changes in ecosystems are of increasing concern. Climate change can directly affect species physiology, phenology, and distribution, as highlighted throughout this book (e.g. Citations to chapters in this volume to be added). Changes in one species can also affect other species (Cahill et al. 2013), particularly when dominant or co-dominant species that collectively provide habitat for other species are impacted (e.g. tree canopy architecture in many forest ecosystems; coral species via their reefs). Several rapid ecological changes have occurred at spatial scales that are sufficiently broad enough to represent biome changes (Gonzalez et al. 2010, Settele et al. 2014; Fig. 1 A). Rapid broad-scale changes differ from other patterns of vegetation dynamics in that they result in a “crash” in one or more populations (Breshears et al. 2008) over large areas of the affected region. Rapid broad-scale changes triggered by climate can include mega-fires; drought-triggered tree die-off and associated pest and pathogen outbreaks (Breshears et al. 2005, Safranyik et al. 2007); and hurricanes and wind-throw events (IPCC 2012, 2014). These rapid broad-scale changes can rapidly alter other factors such as resultant microclimate, which in turn can affect numerous other species and associated biodiversity (Royer et al. 2011; Fig. 1B). Many examples of broad-scale changes are documented in the paleoecology literature (Settele et al. 2014), although the temporal resolution at which those events can be resolved is relatively coarse (often centuries or longer). Such broad-scale changes documented in the paleoecology literature provide examples of types of change are likely to be of increasing concern in the future (Settele et al. 2014). Contemporary events have highlighted that broad-scale changes can occur rapidly (years or less; Breshears et al. 2005, Gonzalez et al. 2010, Settele et al. 2014). These rapid broad-scale changes will have important consequences for biodiversity beyond the direct impacts of climate change through the cascading effects associated with ecosystem structural and functional changes. The objective of this chapter is to alert readers to recent and projected rapid ecosystem changes and their potential consequences for biodiversity at ecosystem, landscape and regional scales.

Book chapter↗

USGS2016

Aquatic biodiversity in forests: A weak link in ecosystem services resilience

The diversity of aquatic ecosystems is being quickly reduced on many continents, warranting a closer examination of the consequences for ecological integrity and ecosystem services. Here we describe intermediate and final ecosystem services derived from aquatic biodiversity in forests. We include a summary of the factors framing the assembly of aquatic biodiversity in forests in natural systems and how they change with a variety of natural disturbances and human-derived stressors. We consider forested aquatic ecosystems as a multi-state portfolio, with diverse assemblages and life-history strategies occurring at local scales as a consequence of a mosaic of habitat conditions and past disturbances and stressors. Maintaining this multi-state portfolio of assemblages requires a broad perspective of ecosystem structure, various functions, services, and management implications relative to contemporary stressors. Because aquatic biodiversity provides multiple ecosystem services to forests, activities that compromise aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity could be an issue for maintaining forest ecosystem integrity. We illustrate these concepts with examples of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services in forests of northwestern North America, also known as Northeast Pacific Rim. Encouraging management planning at broad as well as local spatial scales to recognize multi-state ecosystem management goals has promise for maintaining valuable ecosystem services. Ultimately, integration of information from socio-ecological ecosystems will be needed to maintain ecosystem services derived directly and indirectly from forest aquatic biota.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2021

Twenty-five essential research questions to inform the protection and restoration of freshwater biodiversity

Freshwater biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate. Freshwater conservationists and environmental managers have enough evidence to demonstrate that action must not be delayed but have insufficient evidence to identify those actions that will be most effective in reversing the current trend. Here, the focus is on identifying essential research topics that, if addressed, will contribute directly to restoring freshwater biodiversity through supporting ‘bending the curve’ actions (i.e. those actions leading to the recovery of freshwater biodiversity, not simply deceleration of the current downward trend). The global freshwater research and management community was asked to identify unanswered research questions that could address knowledge gaps and barriers associated with ‘bending the curve’ actions. The resulting list was refined into six themes and 25 questions. Although context-dependent and potentially limited in global reach, six overarching themes were identified: (i) learning from successes and failures; (ii) improving current practices; (iii) balancing resource needs; (iv) rethinking built environments; (v) reforming policy and investments; and (vi) enabling transformative change. Bold, efficient, science-based actions are necessary to reverse biodiversity loss. We believe that conservation actions will be most effective when supported by sound evidence, and that research and action must complement one another. These questions are intended to guide global freshwater researchers and conservation practitioners, identify key projects and signal research needs to funders and governments. Our questions can act as springboards for multidisciplinary and multisectoral collaborations that will improve the management and restoration of freshwater biodiversity.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys↗

USGS2022

Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people

Despite substantial progress in understanding global biodiversity loss, major taxonomic and geographic knowledge gaps remain. Decision makers often rely on expert judgement to fill knowledge gaps, but are rarely able to engage with sufficiently large and diverse groups of specialists. To improve understanding of the perspectives of thousands of biodiversity experts worldwide, we conducted a survey and asked experts to focus on the taxa and freshwater, terrestrial, or marine ecosystem with which they are most familiar. We found several points of overwhelming consensus (for instance, multiple drivers of biodiversity loss interact synergistically) and important demographic and geographic differences in specialists’ perspectives and estimates. Experts from groups that are underrepresented in biodiversity science, including women and those from the Global South, recommended different priorities for conservation solutions, with less emphasis on acquiring new protected areas, and provided higher estimates of biodiversity loss and its impacts. This may in part be because they disproportionately study the most highly threatened taxa and habitats.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗

USGS2011

Species traits and environmental conditions govern the relationship between biodiversity effects across trophic levels

Changing environments can have divergent effects on biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships at alternating trophic levels. Freshwater mussels fertilize stream foodwebs through nutrient excretion, and mussel species-specific excretion rates depend on environmental conditions. We asked how differences in mussel diversity in varying environments influence the dynamics between primary producers and consumers. We conducted field experiments manipulating mussel richness under summer (low flow, high temperature) and fall (moderate flow and temperature) conditions, measured nutrient limitation, algal biomass and grazing chironomid abundance, and analyzed the data with non-transgressive overyielding and tripartite biodiversity partitioning analyses. Algal biomass and chironomid abundance were best explained by trait-independent complementarity among mussel species, but the relationship between biodiversity effects across trophic levels (algae and grazers) depended on seasonal differences in mussel species’ trait expression (nutrient excretion and activity level). Both species identity and overall diversity effects were related to the magnitude of nutrient limitation. Our results demonstrate that biodiversity of a resource-provisioning (nutrients and habitat) group of species influences foodweb dynamics and that understanding species traits and environmental context are important for interpreting biodiversity experiments.

Oecologia↗

USGS2023

Diversification of forest management can mitigate wind damage risk and maintain biodiversity

Mitigating future forest risks, safeguarding timber revenues and improving biodiversity are key considerations for current boreal forest management. Alternatives to rotation forestry likely have an important role, but how they will perform under a changing climate remains unclear. We used a boreal forest growth simulator to explore how variations on traditional clear-cutting, in rotation length, thinning intensity, and increasing number of remaining trees after final harvest (green tree retention), and on extent of continuous cover forestry will affect stand-level probability of wind damage, timber production, deadwood volume, and habitats for forest species. We used business-as-usual rotation forestry as a baseline and compared alternative management adaptations under the reference and two climate change scenarios. Climate change increased overall timber production and had lower impacts on biodiversity compared to management adaptations. Shortening the rotation length reduced the probability of wind damage compared to business-as-usual, but also decreased both deadwood volume and suitable habitats for our focal species. Continuous cover forestry, and management with refraining from thinnings, and extension of rotation length represent complementary approaches benefiting biodiversity, with respective effects of improving timber revenues, reducing wind damage risk, and benefiting old-growth forest structures. However, extensive application of rotation length shortening to mitigate wind damage risk may be detrimental for forest biodiversity. To safeguard forest biodiversity over the landscape, shortening of the rotation length could be complemented with widespread application of regimes promoting old-growth forest structures.

European Journal of Forest Research↗

USGS2025

Climate and land use drivers of freshwater fish biodiversity in the northeastern United States

Freshwater habitats can sustain high biodiversity, but habitat degradation, species invasion, and overexploitation have imperiled freshwater species. The multiple threats to freshwater habitats and changing stream characteristics due to climate change make it challenging to identify the drivers of fish vulnerability, especially given that the importance of drivers may vary by the biodiversity endpoint. The goals of this study were to 1) describe freshwater (lotic) fish biodiversity across northeastern states in the United States, and 2) identify geographic, climate, and land use drivers of fish biodiversity, toward improving freshwater fish conservation. We predicted habitat suitability for 53 fish species using survey data and corresponding geographic, climate, and land use data. After model fitting, we grouped species using a traditional approach based on traits and a new approach using modeled streamflow and stream temperature to create clusters. We found that climate and land use vulnerable groups did not always have similar geographic patterns or relationships to the climate or land use variables, suggesting that biota vulnerable to changing conditions may be overlooked by reliance on predefined guilds to set conservation goals. Biodiversity groups that were vulnerable to climate variables were also related to land use variables that can be used to identify restoration opportunities. This approach may be useful for managers interested in holistic freshwater management under changing stream conditions.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, ↗

USGS2026

Sustainability trade-offs at the nexus of solar energy, agriculture, and biodiversity

A rapid transition to renewable energy is necessary for achieving global decarbonization targets, but siting conflicts, particularly beyond the built environment, remain a key barrier to sustainable development. At the same time, climate-induced pressures on biodiversity intensify the socio-ecological trade-offs within the energy-agriculture-biodiversity nexus. Using New York State as a case study, we assess the geographic implications of utility-scale solar energy development under competing land-use priorities. We apply a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) optimization model to evaluate solar buildout across three distinct scenarios: minimizing cost, prioritizing agricultural preservation, and conserving biodiversity, employing a lexicographic hierarchy to enforce a strict ordering of stakeholder priorities. Results indicate that New York can meet its mid-century decarbonization goals by deploying 46,216 MW dc of solar energy, however, achieving this goal involves considerable land-use trade-offs. A cost-minimizing scenario disproportionately targets pasture and hay lands (>40,000 ha), nearly half of which overlap with grassland bird habitat and broader biodiversity areas. Prioritizing agriculture spares ∼80 % of farmland but creates potential for deforestation of over 41,000 ha. Biodiversity-conscious siting avoids ecologically sensitive areas and increases the annualized total costs by 0.17 %, indicating economic feasibility. Our findings highlight the need for spatially informed, integrative land-use strategies that reconcile climate goals with ecological and agricultural values. By linking geospatial optimization with socio-ecological criteria, this work contributes a transferable framework to inform just and ecologically responsible energy transitions in multifunctional landscapes, offering new insights into how geography can advance sustainable development.

New York↗

USGS2000

Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool

Habitat alteration, in the form of land-use development, is a leading cause of biodiversity loss in the U.S. and elsewhere. Although statutes in the U.S. may require consideration of biodiversity in local land-use planning and regulation, local governments lack the data, resources, and expertise to routinely consider biotic impacts that result from permitted land uses. We hypothesized that decision support systems could aid solution of this problem. We developed a pilot biodiversity expert systems tool (BEST) to test that hypothesis and learn what additional scientific and technological advancements are required for broad implementation of such a system. BEST uses data from the U.S. Geological Survey's Gap Analysis Program (GAP) and other data in a desktop GIS environment. The system provides predictions of conflict between proposed land uses and biotic elements and is intended for use at the start of the development review process. Key challenges were the development of categorization systems that relate named land-use types to ecological impacts, and relate sensitivities of biota to ecological impact levels. Although the advent of GAP and sophisticated desktop GIS make such a system feasible for broad implementation, considerable ongoing research is required to make the results of such a system scientifically sound, informative, and reliable for the regulatory process. We define a role for local government involvement in biodiversity impact assessment, the need for a biodiversity decision support system, the development of a prototype system, and scientific needs for broad implementation of a robust and reliable system.

Landscape Ecology↗

USGS2025

Diverging fish biodiversity trends in cold and warm rivers and streams

Worldwide, freshwater systems contain more than 18,000 fish species 1,2,3 , which are critical to the functioning of these ecosystems 4 and are vital cultural and economic resources to humans 5,6,7 ; despite this value, fish biodiversity is at risk globally 8,9 . In the USA, leading threats to fish communities in rivers and streams include climate change and invasive fish introductions and game fish stocking by humans 10,11,12,13,14 . Here we harmonized US federal biomonitoring datasets with 389 species spanning 27 years (1993–2019) and 2,992 sites to analyse trends in fish biodiversity. In cold streams (past summer stream temperatures below 15.4 °C), fish abundance and richness declined by 53.4% and 32% over 27 years, respectively, and uniqueness increased. Periodic (large-bodied, late-maturing) fishes increased, and opportunists (small-bodied, short generation time, ‘r-selected’) decreased, possibly due to proliferation of native or introduced game fishes. In warm streams (stream temperatures greater than 23.8 °C), fish abundance and richness increased by 70.5% and 15.6% over 27 years, respectively, and communities homogenized. Small opportunistic fishes replaced large periodic fishes. Intermediate streams (stream temperatures 15.4–23.8 °C), representing the average stream, had minimal changes in fish biodiversity through time. Interactions between warming and introduced fish were associated with increased rates of degradation to local fish biodiversity. Given the magnitude of these changes in a relatively short time span, there is an urgent need to curb degradation of fish biodiversity caused by fish introductions and warming water temperatures.

continental United States↗