SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Data Science in Science”

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 1,045 records · Page 58Linked to original sources

USGS2017

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves ( Canis lupus ) and dingoes ( Canis lupus dingo ) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science.

Food Webs↗

USGS2011

Proceedings of the 2011 Elwha River Science Symposium

After years of anticipation, volumes of Environmental Impact Statements, multiple mitigation projects, and the multidisciplinary collection of predam removal data, the deconstruction phase of the Elwha River restoration officially began on September 17th, 2011. With their simultaneous decommissioning, the removal of the 64 m tall Glines Canyon Dam and the 33 m tall Elwha Dam represents one of the largest such projects of its kind in North America. It’s also an excellent opportunity to study large-scale ecosystem restoration, as the majority of the reconnected habitat that will become available to recolonizing salmon occurs in the protected wilderness areas of Olympic National Park. As part of a week-long series of ‘Celebrate Elwha’ events, which culminated with a moving ceremony commemorating the official launch of dam removal, I was proud to work with a number of dedicated people, listed below, to organize the two day 2011 Elwha River Science Symposium. Many of the scientists working on the Elwha project have regularly met, since around 2004, for annual meetings. Loosely organized under the auspices of the Elwha Research and Elwha Nearshore consortia, the annual meetings have been informative for many reasons, including the sharing of study plans, field schedules, and preliminary results. It has been a great way for groups of physical scientists and groups of biologists to learn about the questions of interest to each group and to explore areas of overlap. In some cases, these meetings have spawned new collaborations, synergies, and research directions. In planning for the 2011 Elwha River Science Symposium, we sought to retain this espirit de corps, but realized that the start of dam removal heralded an important new phase of the project and called for an event that celebrated this special occasion.

Washington↗

USGS2011

Landsat 8 on-orbit characterization and calibration system

The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) is planning to launch the Landsat 8 satellite in December 2012, which continues an uninterrupted record of consistently calibrated globally acquired multispectral images of the Earth started in 1972. The satellite will carry two imaging sensors: the Operational Land Imager (OLI) and the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS). The OLI will provide visible, near-infrared and short-wave infrared data in nine spectral bands while the TIRS will acquire thermal infrared data in two bands. Both sensors have a pushbroom design and consequently, each has a large number of detectors to be characterized. Image and calibration data downlinked from the satellite will be processed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center using the Landsat 8 Image Assessment System (IAS), a component of the Ground System. In addition to extracting statistics from all Earth images acquired, the IAS will process and trend results from analysis of special calibration acquisitions, such as solar diffuser, lunar, shutter, night, lamp and blackbody data, and preselected calibration sites. The trended data will be systematically processed and analyzed, and calibration and characterization parameters will be updated using both automatic and customized manual tools. This paper describes the analysis tools and the system developed to monitor and characterize on-orbit performance and calibrate the Landsat 8 sensors and image data products.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2011

Thermal profiles for selected river reaches in the Stillaguamish River basin, Washington, August 2011

Datums Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Abstract Longitudinal profiles of near-streambed temperature were collected for eight river reaches in the Stillaguamish River basin, Washington, during August 2011, to provide information about areas of groundwater discharge to streams. During summer, groundwater discharge can be a source of cold water to streams that regulates warm stream temperatures creating cold-water thermal refugia for native stream biota including salmon and trout. To assess areas of groundwater discharge to streams, temperature was measured using a probe with an internal datalogger towed behind a watercraft moving downstream at ambient stream velocity. The data were referenced to location, concurrently surveyed with a Global Positioning System, during collection of the water temperature data. Data are presented as Microsoft Excel® files consisting of date and time, near-streambed water temperature, and latitude and longitude. Introduction Longitudinal profiles of near-streambed temperatures surveyed at ambient river velocity in a Lagrangian framework provide information about potential areas of groundwater discharge as well as salmonid habitat and thermal refugia (Vaccaro and Maloy, 2006). Longitudinal thermal profiles have previously been surveyed in several rivers in Washington, including the Yakima River and tributaries (Vaccaro and others, 2008) and the Nooksack River (Cox and others, 2005). This report presents eight thermal profiles within the Stillaguamish River basin including parts of the North Fork Stillaguamish River, South Fork Stillaguamish River, Jim Creek, and Pilchuck Creek (fig. 1). This data augments previous investigations of longitudinal temperature variations within the Stillaguamish River and tributaries by thermal infrared radar by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Watershed Sciences, 2002), and may be used as a tool to develop a better understanding of groundwater/surface-water interactions within the Stillaguamish River basin. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to present longitudinal thermal profiles of stream temperature of streams within the Stillaguamish River basin including the North Fork Stillaguamish River, the South Fork Stillaguamish River, Pilchuck Creek, and Jim Creek. This data may be used to determine zones of groundwater discharge and improve understanding of the relation between the groundwater and surface water systems of the Stillaguamish River basin. Description of Study Area The Stillaguamish River basin is in northwestern Washington and is bounded to the east by the Cascade Mountains, to the west by Puget Sound, to the north by the Skagit River basin, and to the south by the Snohomish River basin (fig. 1). The Stillaguamish River basin is characterized by cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Mean annual discharge of the North Fork Stillaguamish River (North Fork Stillaguamish River near Arlington, Washington, USGS gaging station 12167000) for water years 1929-2010 is 1,898 ft 3 /s and mean annual discharge of the South Fork Stillaguamish River (South Fork Stillaguamish River near Granite Falls, Washington gaging station 12161000) for water years 1929-1980 is 1,071 ft 3 /s. Jim Creek is a tributary of the South Fork Stillaguamish River and Pilchuck Creek is a tributary of the mainstem Stillaguamish River. Thermal Profile Survey Continuous water temperature and Global Positioning System (GPS) data were collected at 3-second intervals while drifting downstream at ambient stream velocity in a Lagrangian framework following the method of Vaccaro and Maloy (2006) for Pilchuck Creek between river mile (RM) 0.0 and 3.7 (table 1); the North Fork Stillaguamish River between RM 0.0 and 34.2 (tables 2-5); South Fork Stillaguamish River between RM 17.7 and 33.4 (tables 6-7); and Jim Creek between RM 0.0 and 7.0 (table 8). Profiling at ambient stream velocity in a Lagrangian framework tracks a parcel of water as it moves downstream during the day; departures from the diurnal heating cycle may be due to groundwater input, surface-water inflows, or riparian shading. Continuous temperature was measured using a Solinst® Levelogger LT temperature probe verified by a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified thermistor and position data was measured using a Garmin® GPSmap® 60Csx for the eight surveys during August 15-26, 2011. The temperature probe was towed behind a watercraft following the stream thalweg and dragged along the streambed except when in-stream obstacles prevented probe movement downstream. The location of each temperature measurement was determined by relating the time stamp of the GPS data to the temperature data. If a GPS location was not recorded at the same time as a temperature measurement, the location of the temperature measurement was determined by linear interpolation of the two GPS known locations that bracket the time of the temperature measurement. A 0.5-mi gap exists between the beginning of the North Fork Stillaguamish datasets collected on August 18 (table 4) and August 22 (table 5) because of inadequate equilibration of the temperature probe to ambient stream temperature during the initial 0.5 mi of the August 22 survey. Distribution of Information An Excel file of tables 1-8 that include the thermal-profile data for each longitudinal thermal profile is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/654/ds654_tables.xls. Table 1. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for the Pilchuck Creek (RM 0.0-3.7), August 15, 2011. Table 2. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for the North Fork Stillaguamish River (RM 30.0-34.2), August 16, 2011. Table 3. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for the North Fork Stillaguamish River (RM 17.6-30.0), August 17, 2011. Table 4. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for the North Fork Stillaguamish River (RM 9.5-17.6), August 18, 2011. Table 5. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for the North Fork Stillaguamish River (RM 0.0-9.0), August 22, 2011. Table 6. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for the South Fork Stillaguamish River (RM 25.9-33.4), August 24, 2011. Table 7. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for the South Fork Stillaguamish River (RM 17.7-25.9), August 26, 2011. Table 8. Temperature and Global Positioning System location data for Jim Creek (RM 0.0-7.0), August 25, 2011. References Cited Cox, S.E., Simonds, F.W., Doremus, L., Huffman, R.L., and Defawe, R.M., 2005, Ground water/surface water interactions and quality of discharging ground water in streams of the lower Nooksack River Basin, Whatcom County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5255, 46 p Vaccaro, J.J., Keys, M.E., Julich, R.J., and Welch, W.B., 2008, Thermal profiles for selected river reaches in the Yakima River basin, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 342 (Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/342/). Vaccaro, J.J., and Maloy, K.J., 2006, A thermal profile method to identify potential ground-water discharge areas and preferred salmonid habitats for long river reaches: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5136, 16 p. Watershed Sciences, LLC, 2002, Aerial surveys in the Stillaguamish and Skagit River Basins-Thermal infrared and color videography: Corvallis, Oreg., Water Sciences, for Washington Department of Ecology, 28 p.

Data Series↗

USGS2020

Catalogue of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternal den locations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and nearby areas, 1910–2018

This report presents data on the approximate locations and methods of discovery of 530 polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) maternal dens observed in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and neighboring areas from 1910 to 2018, and archived partly by the U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, and partly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, in Anchorage, Alaska. A description of data collection methods and their associated biases, primary data collection time periods, and estimated position uncertainty are provided. Polar bears in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas den on sea ice and land. Standardized very high frequency (VHF) aircraft surveys and satellite radio telemetry data provide a general understanding of where polar bears have denned in this region over the past 3 decades. Den observations made during other research activities and anecdotal reports from other government agencies, coastal residents, and industry personnel also are reported. These data on past polar bear maternal den locations are provided to inform decision making by natural resource agencies and for public use.

Alaska↗

USGS2012

Landsat's international partners

Since the launch of the first Landsat satellite 40 years ago, International Cooperators (ICs) have formed a key strategic alliance with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to not only engage in Landsat data downlink services but also to enable a foundation for scientific and technical collaboration. The map below shows the locations of all ground stations operated by the United States and IC ground station network for the direct downlink and distribution of Landsat 5 (L5) and Landsat 7 (L7) image data. The circles show the approximate area over which each station has the capability for direct reception of Landsat data. The red circles show the components of the L5 ground station network, the green circles show components of the L7 station network, and the dashed circles show stations with dual (L5 and L7) status. The yellow circles show L5 short-term ("campaign") stations that contribute to the USGS Landsat archive. Ground stations in South Dakota and Australia currently serve as the primary data capture facilities for the USGS Landsat Ground Network (LGN). The Landsat Ground Station (LGS) is located at the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Alice Springs (ASN) ground station is located at the Geoscience Australia facility in Alice Springs, Australia. These sites receive the image data, via X-band Radio Frequency (RF) link, and the spacecraft housekeeping data, via S-band RF link. LGS also provides tracking services and a command link to the spacecrafts.

Argentina;Australia;Brazil;Canada;China;Germany;In↗

USGS1998

Science for watershed decisions on abandoned mine lands; review of preliminary results, Denver, Colorado, February 4-5, 1998

From the Preface: There are thousands of abandoned or inactive mines on or adjacent to public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Mine wastes from many of these abandoned mines adversely affect resources on public lands. In 1995, an interdepartmental work group within the Federal government developed a strategy to address remediation of the many abandoned mines on public lands. This strategy is based on using a watershed approach to address the abandoned mine lands (AML) problem. The USGS, working closely with the Federal land-management agencies (FLMAs), is key for the success of this watershed approach. In support of this watershed approach, the USGS developed an AML Initiative with pilot studies in the Boulder River in Montana and the Animas River in Colorado. The goal of these studies is to design and implement a reliable strategy that will supply the scientific information to the FLMAs so that land managers can develop efficient and cost-effective remediation of AML. The symposium 'Science for Watershed Decisions on Abandoned Mine Lands: Review of Preliminary Results' held in Denver, Colorado, on February 4-5, 1998, provided the FLMAs a first look at the techniques, data, and interpretations being generated by the USGS pilot studies. This multidisciplined effort already is proving very valuable to land managers in making science-based AML cleanup decisions and will continue to be of increasing value as additional and more complete information is obtained. Ongoing interaction between scientists and land managers is essential to insure the efficient continuation and success of AML cleanup efforts.

Colorado↗

USGS2018

Unmanned aerial systems capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center

Unmanned aerial system (UAS) technology provides a rapid and low-cost solution for mapping coastal environments and assessing short- and long-term changes. The interdisciplinary nature of the data collected and the breadth of applications make UAS technology applicable to multiple scientific investigations. The Aerial Imaging and Mapping (AIM) group at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center provides UAS services to scientists to advance the science mission of the Coastal-Marine Hazards and Resources Program. Scientists at the Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center use UASs to acquire imagery of coastal and wetland environments, which is then used to produce detailed topographic and visual reflectance datasets. UAS technology supports the work of geologists, engineers, physical scientists, geographers, and geochemists who study coastal erosion, sediment transport, storm impacts, habitats, biomass, and marsh stability.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2012

Archive of digital boomer subbottom data collected during USGS cruise 05FGS01 offshore east-central Florida, July 17-29, 2005

In July of 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Florida Geological Survey (FGS), conducted a geophysical survey of the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Florida's east coast from Flagler Beach to Daytona Beach. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital boomer subbottom data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System (GIS) files, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Filtered and gained (showing a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Acronyms page for expansions of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. The USGS Saint Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, 05FGS01 tells us the data were collected in 2005 for cooperative work with the FGS and the data were collected during the first field activity for that project in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity ID. The boomer subbottom processing system consists of an acoustic energy source that is made up of capacitors charged to a high voltage and discharged through a transducer in the water. The transducer is towed on a sled floating on the water surface and when discharged emits a short acoustic pulse, or shot, which propagates through the water column and shallow stratrigraphy below. The acoustic energy is reflected at density boundaries (such as the seafloor or sediment layers beneath the seafloor), detected by the receiver (a hydrophone streamer), and recorded by a PC-based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at timed intervals (for example, 0.5 s) and recorded for specific intervals of time (for example, 100 ms). In this way, a two-dimensional (2-D) vertical image of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship track is produced. Figure 1 displays the acquisition geometry. Refer to table 1 for a summary of acquisition parameters and table 2 for trackline statistics. The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG Y format (Barry and others, 1975), except an ASCII format is used for the first 3,200 bytes of the card image header instead of the standard EBCDIC format. For a detailed description about the recorded trace headers, refer to the SEG Y Format page. The SEG Y files may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (Cohen and Stockwell, 2005). See the How To Download SEG Y Data page for download instructions. The printable profiles provided here are GIF images that were processed and gained using SU software; refer to the Software page for links to example SU processing scripts. The processed SEG Y data were also exported to Chesapeake Technology, Inc. (CTI) SonarWeb software to produce a geospatially interactive version of the profile that allows the user to obtain a geographic location and depth from the profile for a given cursor position; this information is displayed in the status bar of the browser. Please note that clicking on the profile image switches it to "Expanded View" (a compressed image of the entire line) and cursor tracking is not available in this mode.

Florida↗

USGS2012

Archive of digital boomer subbottom profile data collected in the Atlantic Ocean offshore northeast Florida during USGS cruises 03FGS01 and 03FGS02 in September and October of 2003

In September and October of 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Florida Geological Survey, conducted geophysical surveys of the Atlantic Ocean offshore northeast Florida from St. Augustine, Florida, to the Florida-Georgia border. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital boomer subbottom profile data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System (GIS) files, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Filtered and gained (a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Acronyms page for expansions of all acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, 03FGS01 tells us the data were collected in 2003 as part of cooperative work with the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) and that the data were collected during the first field activity for that project in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity identification (ID). The naming convention used for each seismic line is as follows: yye##a, where 'yy' are the last two digits of the year in which the data were collected, 'e' is a 1-letter abbreviation for the equipment type (for example, b for boomer), '##' is a 2-digit number representing a specific track, and 'a' is a letter representing the section of a line if recording was prematurely terminated or rerun for quality or acquisition problems. The boomer plate is an acoustic energy source that consists of capacitors charged to a high voltage and discharged through a transducer in the water. The transducer is towed on a sled floating on the water surface and when discharged emits a short acoustic pulse, or shot, which propagates through the water, sediment column, or rock beneath. The acoustic energy is reflected at density boundaries (such as the seafloor, sediment, or rock layers beneath the seafloor), detected by hydrophone receivers, and recorded by a PC-based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at timed intervals (for example, 0.5 seconds) and recorded for specific intervals of time (for example, 100 milliseconds). In this way, a two-dimensional (2-D) vertical profile of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship track is produced. Refer to the handwritten FACS operation log (PDF, 442 KB) for diagrams and descriptions of acquisition geometry, which varied throughout the cruises. Table 1 displays a summary of acquisition parameters. See the digital FACS equipment logs (PDF, 9-13 KB each) for details about the acquisition equipment used. The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG Y (Barry and others, 1975) format (rev. 0), except for the first 3,200 bytes of the card image header, which are stored in ASCII format instead of the standard EBCDIC format. The SEG Y files may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (SU) (Cohen and Stockwell, 2005). See the How To Download SEG Y Data page for download instructions. The printable profiles provided here are Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) images that were filtered and gained using SU software. Refer to the Software page for details about the processing and links to example SU processing scripts and USGS software for viewing the SEG Y files (Zihlman, 1992).

Florida;Georgia↗

USGS2007

Design and implementation of estimation-based monitoring programs for flora and fauna: A case study on the Cherokee National Forest

Science-based monitoring of biological resources is important for a greater understanding of ecological systems and for assessment of the target population using theoretic-based management approaches. When selecting variables to monitor, managers first need to carefully consider their objectives, the geographic and temporal scale at which they will operate, and the effort needed to implement the program. Generally, monitoring can be divided into two categories: index and inferential. Although index monitoring is usually easier to implement, analysis of index data requires strong assumptions about consistency in detection rates over time and space, and parameters are often biasednot accounting for detectability and spatial variation. In most cases, individuals are not always available for detection during sampling periods, and the entire area of interest cannot be sampled. Conversely, inferential monitoring is more rigorous because it is based on nearly unbiased estimators of spatial distribution. Thus, we recommend that detectability and spatial variation be considered for all monitoring programs that intend to make inferences about the target population or the area of interest. Application of these techniques is especially important for the monitoring of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species because it is critical to determine if population size is increasing or decreasing with some level of certainty. Use of estimation-based methods and probability sampling will reduce many of the biases inherently associated with index data and provide meaningful information with respect to changes that occur in target populations. We incorporated inferential monitoring into protocols for T&E species spanning a wide range of taxa on the Cherokee National Forest in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. We review the various approaches employed for different taxa and discuss design issues, sampling strategies, data analysis, and the details of estimating detectability using site occupancy. These techniques provide a science-based approach for monitoring and can be of value to all resource managers responsible for management of T&E species.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southe↗

USGS2020

Meeting the challenge: U.S. Geological Survey North Atlantic and Appalachian Region fiscal year 2020 in review

The utilization, preservation, and conservation of the Nation’s resources requires well-informed management decisions. The North Atlantic and Appalachian Region (NAAR) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) supports science-based decision making for Federal, State, and local policymakers to meet the challenges of today and into the future. The science centers in the NAAR have well-deserved reputations as world leaders in delivering unbiased science. We help protect the lives and property of our families, friends, neighbors, and the Nation by providing the data and scientific interpretation that decision makers need to make informed choices on a myriad of topics. Many of our jobs include inherent risk. When others are moving themselves and their families to higher ground during storms, NAAR employees can be found heading toward high water to ensure that accurate streamflow and storm-tide data continue to be collected and delivered to the public and first responders. In March 2020, the world changed, and the NAAR staff adapted to it. Despite the challenges, the NAAR has had an incredibly productive year. I am not just citing publications (with our labs and field offices closed in the spring, centers increased annual publications by 10 to 40 percent compared with 2019) or partnerships (new science initiatives and partnerships are up significantly as well). Leaders at the center level created the right environments for their teams to be safe but still meet and exceed their program goals. Our vast data collection networks were maintained and enhanced. Our laboratories met holding times and quality-control objectives. When folks asked for help, our staff provided. Some solutions were not perfect at first, but they just kept trying. What started as a short-term inconvenience may now have become the new normal, but in quickly adapting, the NAAR staff showed dedication and wisdom, made the region a little safer, and just might change the world. This general information product highlights just a few of the many accomplishments of the NAAR staff during these challenging times and offers a taste of all the great work being done by the USGS community.

Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, ↗

USGS1978

Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations

The estimation of animal abundance is an important problem in both the theoretical and applied biological sciences. Serious work to develop estimation methods began during the 1950s, with a few attempts before that time. The literature on estimation methods has increased tremendously during the past 25 years (Cormack 1968, Seber 1973). However, in large part, the problem remains unsolved. Past efforts toward comprehensive and systematic estimation of density (D) or population size (N) have been inadequate, in general. While more than 200 papers have been published on the subject, one is generally left without a unified approach to the estimation of abundance of an animal population This situation is unfortunate because a number of pressing research problems require such information. In addition, a wide array of environmental assessment studies and biological inventory programs require the estimation of animal abundance. These needs have been further emphasized by the requirement for the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements imposed by the National Environmental Protection Act in 1970. This publication treats inference procedures for certain types of capture data on closed animal populations. This includes multiple capture-recapture studies (variously called capture-mark-recapture, mark-recapture, or tag-recapture studies) involving livetrapping techniques and removal studies involving kill traps or at least temporary removal of captured individuals during the study. Animals do not necessarily need to be physically trapped; visual sightings of marked animals and electrofishing studies also produce data suitable for the methods described in this monograph. To provide a frame of reference for what follows, we give an exampled of a capture-recapture experiment to estimate population size of small animals using live traps. The general field experiment is similar for all capture-recapture studies (a removal study is, of course, slightly different). A typical field experiment is the following: a number of traps are positioned in the area to be studied, say 144 traps in a 12 X 12 grid, 7 m apart. At the beginning of the study (j=1) a sample size of n 1 is taken from the population, the animals are tagged and marked for future identification, and then returned to the population, usually at the same point where they were trapped. After allowing time of the marked and unmarked animals to mix, a second sample (j=2, often the following day) or n 2 animals is then taken.the second sample normally contains both marked and unmarked animals. The unmarked animals are marked and all captured animals are released back into the population. This procedure continues for t periods where t ≥ 2. The animals should be marked in such a way that the capture-recapture history of each animal caught during the study is known. In practice, toes are often clipped to uniquely identify individual animals (Taber and Cowan 1969) or serially numbered tags are sometimes used on larger animals. Such capture studies are classified by 2 schemes that are directly related to what class of models are appropriate and what parameters can be estimated. The first classification addresses the subject of closure. Closure usually means the size of the population is constant over the priod of investigation, i.e., no recruitment (birth or immigration) or losses (death or emigration). This is a strong assumption and, of course, never completely true in a natural biological population. For greater generality, we define closure to mean there are no unknown changes to the initial population. In practice, this means known losses (trap death), or deliberate removals) do not violate our definition of closure. If the study is properly designed, closure can be met at least approximately. Open or nonclosed populations explicitly allow for one or more types of recruitment or losses to operate during the course of the experiment (Jolly 1965, Seber 1965, Robson 1969, Pollock 1975). Only closed populations will be considered in this monograph. The second classification depends on the type of data collected with 2 possibilities occurring (Pollock 1974, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York): (1) only information on the recovery of marked animals is available for each sampling occasion, j, j=1, 2, ... t. (2) information on both marked and unmarked animals is available for each sampling occasion, j, j=1, 2, ... t. In case (1), population size (N) is not identifiable, however, other parameters can be estimated (Brownie et al. 1978). In case (2), N can be estimated using a wide variety of approaches depending upon what we wish to assume. Only case (2) will be dealt with here.

Wildlife Monographs↗

USGS2017

Coastal single-beam bathymetry data collected in 2015 from the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana

As part of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring Program, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center conducted a single-beam bathymetry survey around the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, in June 2015. The goal of the program is to provide long-term data on Louisiana’s barrier islands and use this data to plan, design, evaluate, and maintain current and future barrier island restoration projects. The data described in this report, along with (1) USGS bathymetry data collected in 2013 as a part of the Barrier Island Evolution Research project covering the northern Chandeleur Islands, and (2) data collected in 2014 in collaboration with the Louisiana CPRA Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring Program around Breton Island, will be used to assess bathymetric change since 2006‒2007 as well as serve as a bathymetric control in supporting modeling of future changes in response to restoration and storm impacts. The survey area encompasses approximately 435 square kilometers of nearshore and back-barrier environments around Hewes Point, the Chandeleur Islands, and Curlew and Grand Gosier Shoals. This Data Series serves as an archive of processed single-beam bathymetry data, collected in the nearshore of the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, from June 17‒24, 2015, during USGS Field Activity Number 2015-317-FA. Geographic information system data products include a 200-meter-cell-size interpolated bathymetry grid, trackline maps, and xyz point data files. Additional files include error analysis maps, Field Activity Collection System logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee metadata.

Louisiana↗

USGS2006

Comment on "Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance"

Bascompte et al . (Reports, 21 April 2006, p. 431) used network asymmetries to explain mathematical conditions necessary for stability in historic models of mutualism. The Lotka-Volterra equations they used artificially created conditions in which some factor, such as asymmetric interaction strengths, is necessary for community coexistence. We show that a more realistic model incorporating nonlinear functional responses requires no such condition and is consistent with their data.

Science↗

USGS1997

A new approach for analyzing bird densities from variable circular-plot counts

An approach for calculating bird densities from variable circular-plot counts is described. The approach differs from previous methods in that data from several surveys are pooled and detection distances are adjusted as if all distances were recorded by a single observer under a given set of field conditions. Adjustments for covariates that affect detection distances such as observer, weather, time of day, and vegetation type are made using coefficients calculated by multiple linear regression. The effective area surveyed under standard conditions is calculated from the pooled data set and then used to determine the effective area surveyed at each sampling station under the actual conditions when the station was sampled. The method was validated in two field studies where the density of birds could be determined by independent methods. Computer software for entering and analyzing data by this method is described.

Pacific Science↗

USGS2001

International collaboration: The cornerstone of satellite land remote sensing in the 21st century

Satellite land remotely sensed data are used by scientists and resource managers world-wide to study similar multidisciplinary earth science problems. Most of their information requirements can be met by a small number of satellite sensor types. Moderate-resolution resource satellites and low-resolution environmental satellites are the most prominent of these, and they are the focus of this paper. Building, launching, and operating satellite systems are very expensive endeavors. Consequently, nations should change the current pattern of independently launching and operating similar, largely redundant resource and environmental satellite systems in favor of true and full collaboration in developing, launching, operating, and sharing the data from such systems of the future. The past decade has seen encouraging signs of increasing international collaboration in earth remote sensing, but full collaboration has not yet been attempted. A general strategy to achieve such international collaboration is presented here, including discussion of potential obstacles, ideas for organizing and overseeing the long-term process toward collaboration, and short-term objectives whereby early successes critical to accomplishing long-term goals can be achieved.

Space Policy↗

USGS2014

Review and bibliometric analysis of published literature citing data produced by the Gap Analysis Program (GAP)

The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produces geospatial datasets providing information on land cover, predicted species distributions, stewardship (ownership and conservation status), and an analysis dataset which synthesizes the other three datasets. The intent in providing these datasets is to support the conservation of biodiversity. The datasets are made available at no cost. The initial datasets were created at the state level. More recent datasets have been assembled at regional and national levels. GAP entered an agreement with the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance branch of the USGS to conduct an evaluation to describe the effect that using GAP data has on those who utilize the datasets (GAP users). The evaluation project included multiple components: a discussion regarding use of GAP data conducted with participants at a GAP conference, a literature review of publications that cited use of GAP data, and a survey of GAP users. The findings of the published literature search were used to identify topics to include on the survey. This report summarizes the literature search, the characteristics of the resulting set of publications, the emergent themes from statements made regarding GAP data, and a bibliometric analysis of the publications. We cannot claim that this list includes all publications that have used GAP data. Given the time lapse that is common in the publishing process, more recent datasets may be cited less frequently in this list of publications. Reports or products that used GAP data may be produced but never published in print or released online. In that case, our search strategies would not have located those reports. Authors may have used GAP data but failed to cite it in such a way that the search strategies we used would have located those publications. These are common issues when using a literature search as part of an evaluation project. Although the final list of publications we identified is not comprehensive, this set of publications can be considered a sufficient sample of those citing GAP data and suitable for the descriptive analyses we conducted.

Open-File Report↗