Search USGS⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Practitioners’ perceived risks to biodiversity from renewable energy expansion through 2050

Large-scale (e.g., > 1 megawatt capacity) wind and solar energy (hereafter, LSWS) developments are increasing to aid decarbonization. However, LSWS can also negatively affect biodiversity. Planners and other interested parties’ perceptions about the impact of LSWS on biodiversity will thus affect how trade-offs are managed during planning and buildout. We present a survey of professionals (n=116) working at the intersection of LSWS and biodiversity protection across the United States concerning: (1) perceived environmental impacts from LSWS expansion; and (2) how these impacts compare to other land-use and land-cover change drivers. We find that practitioners perceive LSWS to impact biodiversity negatively but less so than other land-cover change drivers, including fossil fuels and agriculture. This highlights the need for increased attention to the role of practitioners in advancing renewable energy and biodiversity conservation.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications↗
USGS2019

Changes in belowground biodiversity during ecosystem development

We do not know how and why belowground biodiversity may change as soils develop over centuries to millennia, hampering our ability to predict the myriad of ecosystem processes regulated by belowground organisms under changing environments. We conducted a global survey of 16 soil chronosequences spanning a wide range of ecosystem types and found that in less productive ecosystems, increases in belowground biodiversity followed increases in plant cover, but in more productive ecosystems, acidification during soil development was often associated with declines in belowground biodiversity. The biodiversity of multiple soil organisms exhibited similar patterns over time, but in contrast to expectations, changes in plant diversity were not associated with corresponding changes in belowground biodiversity.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of↗
USGS2021

Trait-based filtering mediates the effects of realistic biodiversity losses on ecosystem functioning

Biodiversity losses are a major driver of global changes in ecosystem functioning. While most studies of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning have examined randomized species losses, trait-based filtering associated with species-specific vulnerability to drivers of diversity loss can strongly influence how ecosystem functioning responds to declining biodiversity. Moreover, the responses of ecosystem functioning to diversity loss may be mediated by environmental variability interacting with the suite of traits remaining in depauperate communities. We do not yet understand how communities resulting from realistic diversity losses (filtered by response traits) influence ecosystem functioning (via effect traits of the remaining community), especially under variable environmental conditions. Here we directly test how realistic and randomized plant diversity losses influence productivity and invasion resistance across multiple years in a California grassland. Compared with communities based on randomized diversity losses, communities resulting from realistic (drought-driven) species losses had higher invasion resistance under climatic conditions that matched the trait-based filtering they experienced. However, productivity declined more with realistic than with randomized species losses across all years, regardless of climatic conditions. Functional response traits aligned with effect traits for productivity but not for invasion resistance. Our findings illustrate that the effects of biodiversity losses depend not only on the identities of lost species, but also on how the traits of remaining species interact with varying environmental conditions. Understanding the consequences of biodiversity change requires studies that evaluate trait-mediated effects of species losses and incorporate the increasingly variable climatic conditions that future communities are expected to experience.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences↗
USGS2013

Predicting ecosystem stability from community composition and biodiversity

As biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate, an important current scientific challenge is to understand and predict the consequences of biodiversity loss. Here, we develop a theory that predicts the temporal variability of community biomass from the properties of individual component species in monoculture. Our theory shows that biodiversity stabilises ecosystems through three main mechanisms: (1) asynchrony in species’ responses to environmental fluctuations, (2) reduced demographic stochasticity due to overyielding in species mixtures and (3) reduced observation error (including spatial and sampling variability). Parameterised with empirical data from four long-term grassland biodiversity experiments, our prediction explained 22–75% of the observed variability, and captured much of the effect of species richness. Richness stabilised communities mainly by increasing community biomass and reducing the strength of demographic stochasticity. Our approach calls for a re-evaluation of the mechanisms explaining the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem stability.

Ecology Letters↗
USGS2020

Proposed species extinction target fails to capture the diversity in biodiversity

We believe the 20 species extinction metric is a retrograde proposal, which does not adequately consider the lessons learnt from the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Whilst having a single simple overarching target is appealing, we believe a positively-framed target will garner support, rather than one that aims to, at best, limit negative impacts. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s zero draft states that future targets should be clear, consistent and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timely). Extinction is problematic as a standalone target: it can take decades to demonstrate and therefore cannot be measured over a relevant time-period, and is biased towards terrestrial vertebrates. The proposal is not scalable across nations, nor is it equitable,one of the key aspirations of the zero draft. Many industrialised countries are unlikely to find the targets challenging because their most vulnerable species have largely gone extinct; tropical species-rich countries, where much biodiversity is yet to be catalogued, will find the targets demanding and unachievable in the short- or medium-term. Despite the authors’ statement to the contrary, species extinction is not necessarily relevant to other aspects of biodiversity, such as ecosystems or genetic diversity. A species may be reduced to a small fraction of its former extent without going extinct. However, its ecosystem will be altered, and its contribution to ecosystem functions and the socio-economic benefits it provided will be lost. The focus on extinction is not novel and has not been particularly successful to date, as demonstrated by the decline of emblematic species such as rhinoceroses. Alternatively, composite indicators can be used to capture biodiversity’s three fundamental components (ecosystems, species and genetic diversity). In conclusion, we cannot support a target that fails to represent the diversity in biodiversity and, in the authors’ words, could be met despite “wholesale and damaging changes to life on Earth.”

Science↗
USGS2023

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

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

Environmental Reviews↗
USGS2012

Interbasin water transfer, riverine connectivity, and spatial controls on fish biodiversity

Background Large-scale inter-basin water transfer (IBWT) projects are commonly proposed as solutions to water distribution and supply problems. These problems are likely to intensify under future population growth and climate change scenarios. Scarce data on the distribution of freshwater fishes frequently limits the ability to assess the potential implications of an IBWT project on freshwater fish communities. Because connectivity in habitat networks is expected to be critical to species' biogeography, consideration of changes in the relative isolation of riverine networks may provide a strategy for controlling impacts of IBWTs on freshwater fish communities Methods/Principal Findings Using empirical data on the current patterns of freshwater fish biodiversity for rivers of peninsular India, we show here how the spatial changes alone under an archetypal IBWT project will (1) reduce freshwater fish biodiversity system-wide, (2) alter patterns of local species richness, (3) expand distributions of widespread species throughout peninsular rivers, and (4) decrease community richness by increasing inter-basin similarity (a mechanism for the observed decrease in biodiversity). Given the complexity of the IBWT, many paths to partial or full completion of the project are possible. We evaluate two strategies for step-wise implementation of the 11 canals, based on economic or ecological considerations. We find that for each step in the project, the impacts on freshwater fish communities are sensitive to which canal is added to the network. Conclusions/Significance Importantly, ecological impacts can be reduced by associating the sequence in which canals are added to characteristics of the links, except for the case when all 11 canals are implemented simultaneously (at which point the sequence of canal addition is inconsequential). By identifying the fundamental relationship between the geometry of riverine networks and freshwater fish biodiversity, our results will aid in assessing impacts of IBWT projects and balancing ecosystem and societal demands for freshwater, even in cases where biodiversity data are limited.

PLoS ONE↗
USGS2021

Applying biodiversity metrics as surrogates to a habitat conservation plan

Unabated urbanization has led to environmental degradation and subsequent biodiversity loss across the globe. As an outcome of unmitigated land use, multi-jurisdictional agencies have developed land use plans that attempt to protect threatened or endangered species across selected areas by which some trade-offs between harm to species and additional conservation approaches are allowed among the partnering organizations. Typical conservation plans can be created to focus on single or multiple species, and although they may protect a species or groups of species, they may not account for biodiversity or its protection across the given area. We applied an approach that clustered deductive habitat models for terrestrial vertebrates into metrics that serve as surrogates for biodiversity and relate to ecosystem services. In order to evaluate this process, we collaborated with the partnering agencies who are creating a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan in southern California and compared it to the entire Mojave Desert Ecoregion. We focused on total terrestrial vertebrate species richness and taxon groupings representing amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles, and two special status species using the Normalized Index of Biodiversity (NIB). The conservation planning area had a lower NIB and was less species rich than the Mojave Desert Ecoregion, but the Mojave River riparian corridor had a higher NIB and was more species-rich, and while taxon analysis varied across the geographies, this pattern generally held. Additionally, we analyzed desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ) and desert kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis arsipus ) as umbrella species and determined that both species are associated with increased NIB and large numbers of species for the conservation area. Our process provided the ability to incorporate value-added surrogate information into a formal land use planning process and used a metric, NIB, which allowed comparison of the various planning areas and geographic units. Although this process has been applied to Apple Valley, CA, and other geographies within the U.S., the approach has practical application for other global biodiversity initiatives.

California↗
USGS2016

Circumpolar biodiversity monitoring program (CBMP): Coastal expert workshop meeting report

The Coastal Expert Workshop, which took place in Ottawa, Canada from March 1 to 3, 2016, initiated the development of the Arctic Coastal Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (Coastal Plan). Meeting participants, including northern residents, representatives from industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academia, and government regulators and agencies from across the circumpolar Arctic, discussed current biodiversity monitoring efforts, key issues facing biodiversity in Arctic coastal areas, and collectively identified monitoring indicators, or Focal Ecosystem Components (FECs). On February 29, the day before the workshop, a full day was allocated to Traditional Knowledge (TK) holders to meet and elucidate how this important knowledge can be included in the process of building the Coastal Plan and monitoring biodiversity in Arctic coastal areas, along with scientific data and variables. This document provides 1) background information about the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme and the Coastal Expert Monitoring Group, 2) overviews on workshop presentations and breakout sessions, and 3) details regarding outcomes of the workshop that will inform the drafting of the Coastal Plan.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2023

A pilot biodiversity inventory and monitoring protocol in support of coastal adaptation projects in tidal and nearshore subtidal habitats of Boston Harbor Islands

The Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area (BOHA) is at high risk to the impacts of sealevel rise (SLR) and erosion from coastal storms. In June 2021, the National Trust for Historic Preservation listed the islands as one of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places due to climate change. BOHA partners have been working to find climate adaptive solutions to protect and sustain critical ecological and cultural resources on the islands. A range of coastal adaptation efforts are currently under consideration including increased shoreline armoring and nature-based adaptation solutions. Any action taken in the coastal zone will require an assessment of environmental and ecological communities that could potentially be impacted by disturbance caused by restoration or adaptation projects. The primary goals of the initial phase of this project were to: 1) synthesize occurrence and distribution records of biodiversity living in and using mixed coarse substrate habitats of the intertidal zone of the Boston Harbor Islands; and 2) identify and compile potential methods to develop a standard and repeatable monitoring protocol to track changes (natural or anthropogenic) in intertidal biodiversity over time and across locations; and 3) conduct preliminary site scoping of target islands to identify locations for collecting new baseline data. A biodiversity inventory list was compiled, showing a total of 451 unique species were observed in BOHA between 1861-2020. Of this list, 55 species (invertebrates: 47; algae: 8) were considered nonindigenous species; a watchlist was also developed to help BOHA partners identify potential future invaders that could colonize and impact intertidal communities due to ongoing climate change or disturbance events. Native species observed in BOHA were evaluated using existing conservation frameworks and climate vulnerability information to prioritize species at greatest risk from anthropogenic and environmental stressors for future actions. Lastly, site scoping activities during 2021 identified three types of sites for future intertidal monitoring initiatives: (1) sites with relatively high biodiversity and foundational species, (2) erosional sites near cultural areas of importance to NPS, and (3) sites with generic (common across islands) biodiversity. Overall results are anticipated to help the NPS and BOHA partners identify a suite of species and sites for future monitoring given anticipated adaptation projects and ongoing changes due to SLR, coastal storms and other stressors.

Massachusetts↗
USGS2023

Final report: A novel monitoring framework to assess intertidal biodiversity in mixed coarse substrate habitats across the Boston Harbor Islands

The Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area (BOHA) is at high risk to the impacts of sea-level rise (SLR) and erosion from coastal storms. In June 2021, the National Trust for Historic Preservation listed the islands as one of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places due to climate change. BOHA partners have been working to find climate adaptive solutions to protect and sustain critical ecological and cultural resources on the islands. A range of coastal adaptation efforts are currently under consideration including increased shoreline armoring and nature-based adaptation solutions. Any action taken in the coastal zone will require an assessment of environmental and ecological communities that could potentially be impacted by disturbance caused by restoration or adaptation projects. The primary goals of the initial phase of this project were to: 1) synthesize occurrence and distribution records of biodiversity living in and using mixed coarse substrate habitats of the intertidal zone of the Boston Harbor Islands; and 2) identify and compile potential methods to develop a standard and repeatable monitoring protocol to track changes (natural or anthropogenic) in intertidal biodiversity over time and across locations; and 3) conduct preliminary site scoping of target islands to identify locations for collecting new baseline data. A biodiversity inventory list was compiled, showing a total of 451 unique species were observed in BOHA between 1861-2020. Of this list, 55 species (invertebrates: 47; algae: 8) were considered nonindigenous species; a watchlist was also developed to help BOHA partners identify potential future invaders that could colonize and impact intertidal communities due to ongoing climate change or disturbance events. Native species observed in BOHA were evaluated using existing conservation frameworks and climate vulnerability information to prioritize species at greatest risk from anthropogenic and environmental stressors for future actions. Lastly, site scoping activities during 2021 identified three types of sites for future intertidal monitoring initiatives: (1) sites with relatively high biodiversity and foundational species, (2) erosional sites near cultural areas of importance to NPS, and (3) sites with generic (common across islands) biodiversity. Overall results are anticipated to help the NPS and BOHA partners identify a suite of species and sites for future monitoring given anticipated adaptation projects and ongoing changes due to SLR, coastal storms and other stressors.

Massachusetts↗
USGS2024

Sea level rise threatens Florida’s insular vertebrate biodiversity

Islands are some of the most biodiverse places on earth, but they are also hotspots of biodiversity loss. The coastline of Florida, U.S.A., is surrounded by thousands of islands, many of which are home to species that occur nowhere else. A rapidly emerging threat to these low-lying islands is inundation as sea levels rise. The capacity of island-dwelling species to adapt to climate change and sea level rise may be limited because many species do not have the ability to shift their distribution off the island to track favorable conditions. We assessed the vulnerability of Florida’s islands to inundation from sea level rise and estimated the terrestrial biodiversity on Florida’s islands that could be lost. Our models predicted that by 2100, over 80% and up to 90% of Florida’s islands could be completely inundated from sea level rise, depending on the sea level rise projection (1.2 m or 2.2 m). Of the 85 mammalian, reptilian, and amphibian species on our subset list of Florida’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need, over half occur on Florida’s islands for at least part of their range, highlighting the importance of these islands for housing Florida’s rich biodiversity. Notably, at least 12 mammal species and 7 reptile species have their entire distribution on Florida’s islands, and this count is likely an underestimate. Projections of future sea level rise mean that these island-endemic species face the threat of extinction in the wild if their island habitat is submerged.

Florida↗
USGS2026

Practitioners perceptions of biodiversity-relevant criteria for solar suitability analyses in the United States

Acceleration of large-scale solar energy deployment can pose competition for land with biodiversity conservation areas. Solar suitability analyses (SSAs) help identify low-conflict zones for solar development, yet limited work defines which biodiversity-relevant criteria (BRCs) are essential for SSAs or whether supporting data are available. We convened a United States-based Delphi panel of practitioners with expertise in biodiversity and renewable energy to identify BRCs that are essential across SSAs (‘core’) and data- or scale-limited (‘peripheral’). Practitioners identified 16 core and 13 peripheral BRCs. Core criteria primarily aligned with regulatory frameworks, while peripheral BRCs reflected context-dependent ecological attributes lacking consistent and scalable data. Open-access data were available for 14 core criteria across 10 databases. Our assessment of US-based SSAs revealed that 10 included core BRCs. Our findings indicate a need for improved access to fine-scale biodiversity data and coordination with agencies to improve SSAs.

npj Biodiversity↗
USGS2013

Fish biodiversity sampling in stream ecosystems: a process for evaluating the appropriate types and amount of gear

Because human impacts and climate change threaten aquatic ecosystems, a need exists to quantify catchment-scale biodiversity patterns and identify conservation actions that can mitigate adverse human impacts on aquatic biota. Whereas many traditional aquatic resource questions can be answered by repeatedly sampling a few target species with limited types of gear in the same habitats, sampling fish biodiversity patterns at larger scales requires a different approach. Researchers and managers need to determine the types of sampling gear and amount of effort that provide a representative estimate of biodiversity in a range of habitats across a catchment. Using a randomized block design within a 90-m stream reach that contained the same habitats as the scientific study area, fish assemblages were compared using three different types of gear (minnow traps, backpack electrofishing, and hoop nets) at three levels of effort (one, two, and three mixed-gear units) over four replicate days. A mixture of gear types best quantified fish assemblages. A combination of 10 minnow traps, 20-m of backpack electrofishing, and two hoop nets caught the most species. Additional gear added few new species. Resampling confirmed these results. When researchers and managers initiate sampling on a new stream or river system, they do not know how effective each gear type is and whether their sampling effort is adequate. Although the types and amount of gear may be different for other studies, systems, and research questions, the five-step process described here for making sampling decisions and evaluating sampling efficiency can be applied widely to any system to restore, manage, and conserve aquatic ecosystems. It is believed that incorporating this gear-evaluation process into a wide variety of studies and ecosystems will increase rigour within and across aquatic biodiversity studies.

Massachusetts↗
USGS2017

The blind men meet the elephant at the dam: Alternative spatial and taxonomic components reveal different insights about how low-head dams impact fish biodiversity

Dams are ubiquitous environmental impacts that threaten aquatic ecosystems. The ability to compare across research studies is essential to conserve the native biodiversity that is impacted by the millions of low‐head dams that currently fragment streams and rivers. Here, we identify a previously unaddressed obstacle that impedes this generalization. Specifically, divergent spatial and taxonomic approaches that result from different conceptualizations of the dam‐biodiversity problem can produce conflicting science‐based conclusions about the same dam impact. In this research, using the same dammed and undammed sites, we evaluated the scientific generality of different conceptualizations of the dam‐biodiversity problem. We compared two different but commonly used spatial approaches—(1) above dam–below dam vs. (2) undammed–dammed comparisons—and 11 different, commonly used taxonomic approaches (three assemblage summaries, eight guilds). Sites above the dam structure had less diverse fish assemblages than sites below dams, whereas sites below the dam structure were similar to undammed sites. Thus, spatial approach 1 detected a large dam effect and spatial approach 2 detected a small dam effect. Similarly, some taxonomic responses (species richness, diversity, abundance, and number of guilds) detected large dam effects; other responses detected small (riffle specialist guild) or no dam effects (pool generalists). In summary, our results showed that how the problem was framed altered scientific conclusions and created different dam realities. The metaphor of how individual blind men disagree about the structure of an elephant, based on examinations of different body parts, reinforces the need for a coordinated, holistic perspective on dam research. Although no single approach is adequate for all problems, identifying the form, consequences of, and relationships among different research conceptualizations will set the stage for future syntheses of dam‐biodiversity research to advance science‐based conservation.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2020

A graphical causal model for resolving species identity effects and biodiversity–ecosystem function correlations

Identifying and clearly communicating the drivers of ecosystem function is a crucially important goal for both basic and applied ecology. This has proven difficult because the putative causes (e.g., environment, species identity, biodiversity, and functional traits) are numerous and correlated. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of a formal framework for unambiguously relating theoretical language to precise, quantitative expressions of that language. Using a formal framework for the graphical expression of complex causal hypotheses, we developed a causal diagram of the concepts required to comprehensively test whether hypothesized sets of functional traits mediate the relationship between community structure and ecosystem function. We then used causal analysis, simulations, and field data to develop and test analytical strategies for understanding how community structure influences ecosystem functions via functional traits. Formal causal analysis showed that biodiversity–ecosystem function correlations are non‐causal associations. Using simulations, we showed how biodiversity correlations and species identity effects can arise from misspecification or incomplete mediation by functional trait composites. We also found that different types of model misspecification result in different patterns of residuals, which may be used to diagnose gaps in functional trait hypotheses. Treating the model misspecifications eliminated associations between species identity or biodiversity and ecosystem function. Finally, we provide an example of the analysis of field data to demonstrate how to use these insights to conduct a research program that has the goal of understanding the mechanistic trait relationships that link community structure to ecosystem function.

Ecology↗
USGS2023

People need freshwater biodiversity

Freshwater biodiversity, from fish to frogs and microbes to macrophytes, provides a vast array of services to people. Mounting concerns focus on the accelerating pace of biodiversity loss and declining ecological function within freshwater ecosystems that continue to threaten these natural benefits. Here, we catalog nine fundamental ecosystem services that the biotic components of indigenous freshwater biodiversity provide to people, organized into three categories: material (food; health and genetic resources; material goods), non-material (culture; education and science; recreation), and regulating (catchment integrity; climate regulation; water purification and nutrient cycling). If freshwater biodiversity is protected, conserved, and restored in an integrated manner, as well as more broadly appreciated by humanity, it will continue to contribute to human well-being and our sustainable future via this wide range of services and associated nature-based solutions to our sustainable future.

WIREs Water↗
USGS2014

The effects of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity

This chapter reports the findings of a Working Group on how atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition affects both terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity. Regional and global scale impacts on biodiversity are addressed, together with potential indicators. Key conclusions are that: the rates of loss in biodiversity are greatest at the lowest and initial stages of N deposition increase; changes in species compositions are related to the relative amounts of N, carbon (C) and phosphorus (P) in the plant soil system; enhanced N inputs have implications for C cycling; N deposition is known to be having adverse effects on European and North American vegetation composition; very little is known about tropical ecosystem responses, while tropical ecosystems are major biodiversity hotspots and are increasingly recipients of very high N deposition rates; N deposition alters forest fungi and mycorrhyzal relations with plants; the rapid response of forest fungi and arthropods makes them good indicators of change; predictive tools (models) that address ecosystem scale processes are necessary to address complex drivers and responses, including the integration of N deposition, climate change and land use effects; criteria can be identified for projecting sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to N deposition. Future research and policy-relevant recommendations are identified.

Book chapter↗