SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Ecosystems”

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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

USGS2010

Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making - Proceedings of a Workshop

The analytical framework for understanding ecosystem services in conservation, resource management, and development decisions is multidisciplinary, encompassing a combination of the natural and social sciences. This report summarizes a workshop on 'Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' which focused on the analytical process and on identifying research priorities for assessing ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies. Attendees discussed research directions and solutions to key challenges in developing the analytical framework. The discussion was divided into two sessions: (1) the measurement framework: quantities and values, and (2) the spatial framework: mapping and spatial relationships. This workshop was the second of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These three workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can be more effectively incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, 'Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In preconference workshop 1, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services be used more routinely and effectively in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and they identified some key challenges in developing the analytical framework. Preconference workshop 3, 'Developing an Institutional Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on October 30, 2008, in Albuquerque, NM; participants examined the relationship between the institutional framework and the use of ecosystem services in decision making.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Columbia River Estuary ecosystem classification—Concept and application

This document describes the concept, organization, and application of a hierarchical ecosystem classification that integrates saline and tidal freshwater reaches of estuaries in order to characterize the ecosystems of large flood plain rivers that are strongly influenced by riverine and estuarine hydrology. We illustrate the classification by applying it to the Columbia River estuary (Oregon-Washington, USA), a system that extends about 233 river kilometers (rkm) inland from the Pacific Ocean. More than three-quarters of this length is tidal freshwater. The Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification ("Classification") is based on six hierarchical levels, progressing from the coarsest, regional scale to the finest, localized scale: (1) Ecosystem Province; (2) Ecoregion; (3) Hydrogeomorphic Reach; (4) Ecosystem Complex; (5) Geomorphic Catena; and (6) Primary Cover Class. We define and map Levels 1-3 for the entire Columbia River estuary with existing geospatial datasets, and provide examples of Levels 4-6 for one hydrogeomorphic reach. In particular, three levels of the Classification capture the scales and categories of ecosystem structure and processes that are most tractable to estuarine research, monitoring, and management. These three levels are the (1) eight hydrogeomorphic reaches that embody the formative geologic and tectonic processes that created the existing estuarine landscape and encompass the influence of the resulting physiography on interactions between fluvial and tidal hydrology and geomorphology across 230 kilometers (km) of estuary, (2) more than 15 ecosystem complexes composed of broad landforms created predominantly by geologic processes during the Holocene, and (3) more than 25 geomorphic catenae embedded within ecosystem complexes that represent distinct geomorphic landforms, structures, ecosystems, and habitats, and components of the estuarine landscape most likely to change over short time periods.

Columbia River Estuary↗

USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake science strategy, 2015-2025—Informing ecosystem management of America’s largest estuary

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the critical role of providing scientific information to improve the understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The USGS works with Federal, State, and academic science partners to provide research and monitoring, and communicate results of these activities to enhance ecosystem management for both the Chesapeake and other National ecosystems. The USGS Chesapeake Science Strategy was prepared to guide science activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2014–2025), to support the Department of the Interior (DOI) involvement in the Bay restoration efforts, and align with the USGS Mission Area (MA) Science strategies. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation’s largest estuary, and provides critical goods and services to the people, fish, and wildlife that use the 64,000-square-mile watershed. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains over 3,600 species of fish, wildlife, and plants and provides spawning grounds for many ecologically and economically important species including striped bass and blue crabs. The Bay watershed lies in the heart of the Atlantic Flyway and has 29 species of waterfowl, about 1 million of which winter in the region. The size of the Chesapeake seafood harvest is third in the Nation, only behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Along with agricultural production, tourism, and recreation, the estimated economic value of the services from the Chesapeake Bay watershed is about $100 billion annually. However, the health of the Bay ecosystem began to decline at the beginning of the 20th century due to overfishing and increasing human population and associated land change. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is the Federal-State cooperative effort that started in 1983 to restore the Bay and watershed. Given the ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake ecosystem, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) in 2009 for increased Federal leadership in the CBP to enhance the pace of restoration, and the supporting strategy was released in 2010. The EO directed the Federal Government, including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and the USGS, to expand its efforts and increase leadership to restore the Bay and its watershed. The USGS and other Federal agencies expanded their activities in 2011 to meet the President’s Chesapeake EO. Since the EO was released, there have been several important changes in the USGS, DOI, and the CBP including: (1) the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, (2) increased DOI leadership in the CBP, and (3) the release of the USGS MA science strategies. The EO strategy served as a foundation for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement that was signed in 2014 by the CBP Partners, and has goals and outcomes to be met by 2025. The USGS developed the Chesapeake Science Strategy to guide our activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, DOI leadership in the CBP, and USGS MA strategies. Improving the understanding of fish and wildlife population and health, and the factors affecting their condition is the emphasis of the Strategy. The science focuses on documenting the critical ecosystem connections in the Chesapeake, and providing implications to enhance decision making for restoration and conservation activities. The revised Strategy has four themes that address 7 of the 10 goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement: Enhance science to support restoration, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and critical habitats. Characterize and explain changes in water quality, and its effect on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Assess and forecast effects of climate and land change on ecosystem conditions. Synthesize and provide information to support ecosystem management. The structure and function of biological communities of the Bay and its watershed are extremely complex and are affected by a variety of stressors and conditions. To better define the issues being addressed, the USGS has developed cross-cutting questions that define some of the most important scientific challenges where multiple disciplines and collaborators are needed to address an issue. The initial questions include: How do land and climate changes affect freshwater fish communities, health, and habitats? What are the relations among land use, water quality, contaminants, and the health of fish and wildlife? How are coastal wetlands and their carrying capacity for waterbirds affected by changing climate and land use? How is the water quality of rivers and estuaries responding to restoration actions, and changing land use? What are some of the best opportunities for management actions to benefit multiple restoration outcomes?

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2018

Indicators of ecosystem structure and function for the Upper Mississippi River System

This report documents the development of quantitative measures (indicators) of ecosystem structure and function for use in a Habitat Needs Assessment (HNA) for the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS). HNAs are led periodically by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) Program, which is the primary habitat restoration program on the UMRS. The UMRR Program helps determine how Federal, State and nongovernmental agencies can best address environmental issues on one of the world’s largest and most diverse river systems. Each indicator in this report represents at least one management objective developed for the river system. These objectives were developed in a previous planning effort using an ecosystem management conceptual framework (USACE, 2011). The objectives represent five essential ecosystem characteristics: hydraulics and hydrology, biogeochemistry, geomorphology, habitat, and biota. Subsequent to the 2011 planning effort, the UMRR increased its focus on improving the health and resilience of the UMRS. The indicators presented here are based on the five essential ecosystem characteristics and four aspects of ecosystems thought to support general ecosystem resilience (the ability of an ecosystem to adapt and respond to disturbances): (1) connectivity, (2) diversity and redundancy, (3) controlling variables, and (4) slow processes. Thus, we developed indicators that quantify both essential ecosystem characteristics and characteristics of a resilient river system. The indicators documented in this report focus on important aspects of river floodplain hydrogeomorphology, given the fundamental role hydrogeomorphology plays in determining habitat conditions and ecosystem health and resilience at broad geographic scales. The information contained within this report provides a broader scale (for example, system-wide) context for management decisions made at finer scales (for example, within river reaches or at project sites) and is designed for use in the formal system-wide Habitat Needs Assessment II (HNA–II) led by the UMRR Program.

Upper Mississippi River System↗

USGS2022

Human and ecosystem health in coastal systems

U.S. coastal economies and communities are facing an unprecedented and growing number of impacts to coastal ecosystems including beach and fishery closures, harmful algal blooms, loss of critical habitat, as well as shoreline damage. This paper synthesizes our present understanding of the dynamics of human and ecosystem health in coastal systems with a focus on the need to better understand nearshore physical process interactions with coastal pollutants and ecosystems (e.g. fate and transport, circulation, depositional environment, climate change). It is organized around two major topical areas and six subtopic areas: 1) Identifying and mitigating coastal pollutants, including fecal pollution, nutrients and harmful algal blooms, and microplastics; and 2) Resilient coastal ecosystems, which focuses on coastal fisheries, shellfish and natural and nature-based features (NNBF). Societal needs and the tools and technologies needed to address them are discussed for each subtopic. Recommendations for scientific research, observations, community engagement, and policies aim to help prioritize future research and investments. A better understanding of coastal physical processes and interactions with coastal pollutants and resilient ecosystems (e.g. fate and transport, circulation, depositional environment, climate change) is a critical need. Other research recommendations include the need to quantify potential threats to human and ecosystem health through accurate risk assessments and to quantify the resulting hazard risk reduction of natural and nature-based features; improve pollutant and ecosystem impacts forecasting by integrating frequent and new data points into existing and novel models; collect environmental data to calibrate and validate models to predict future impacts on coastal ecosystems and their evolution due to anthropogenic stressors (land-based pollution, overfishing, coastal development), climate change, and sea level rise; and develop lower cost and rapid response tools to help coastal managers better respond to pollutant and ecosystem threats.

Shore and Beach↗

USGS2016

Decadal and long-term boreal soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration rates across a variety of ecosystems

Boreal soils play a critical role in the global carbon (C) cycle; therefore, it is important to understand the mechanisms that control soil C accumulation and loss for this region. Examining C & nitrogen (N) accumulation rates over decades to centuries may provide additional understanding of the dominant mechanisms for their storage, which can be masked by seasonal and interannual variability when investigated over the short term. We examined longer-term accumulation rates, using 210 Pb and 14 C to date soil layers, for a wide variety of boreal ecosystems: a black spruce forest, a shrub ecosystem, a tussock grass ecosystem, a sedge-dominated ecosystem, and a rich fen. All ecosystems had similar decadal C accumulation rates, averaging 84 ± 42 gC m −2 yr −1 . Long-term (century) C accumulation rates were slower than decadal rates, averaging 14 ± 5 gC m −2 yr −1 for all ecosystems except the rich fen, for which the long-term C accumulation rates was more similar to decadal rates (44 ± 5 and 76 ± 9 gC m −2 yr −1 , respectively). The rich fen also had the highest long-term N accumulation rates (2.7 gN m −2 yr −1 ). The lowest N accumulation rate, on both a decadal and long-term basis, was found in the black spruce forest (0.2 and 1.4 gN m −2 yr −1 , respectively). Our results suggest that the controls on long-term C and N cycling at the rich fen is fundamentally different from the other ecosystems, likely due to differences in the predominant drivers of nutrient cycling (oxygen availability, for C) and reduced amounts of disturbance by fire (for C and N). This result implies that most shifts in ecosystem vegetation across the boreal region, driven by either climate or succession, will not significantly impact regional C or N dynamics over years to decades. However, ecosystem transitions to or from a rich fen will promote significant shifts in soil C and N storage.

Biogeosciences↗

USGS2013

A new map of standardized terrestrial ecosystems of Africa

Terrestrial ecosystems and vegetation of Africa were classified and mapped as part of a larger effort and global protocol (GEOSS – the Global Earth Observation System of Systems), which includes an activity to map terrestrial ecosystems of the earth in a standardized, robust, and practical manner, and at the finest possible spatial resolution. To model the potential distribution of ecosystems, new continental datasets for several key physical environment datalayers (including coastline, landforms, surficial lithology, and bioclimates) were developed at spatial and classification resolutions finer than existing similar datalayers. A hierarchical vegetation classification was developed by African ecosystem scientists and vegetation geographers, who also provided sample locations of the newly classified vegetation units. The vegetation types and ecosystems were then mapped across the continent using a classification and regression tree (CART) inductive model, which predicted the potential distribution of vegetation types from a suite of biophysical environmental attributes including bioclimate region, biogeographic region, surficial lithology, landform, elevation and land cover. Multi-scale ecosystems were classified and mapped in an increasingly detailed hierarchical framework using vegetation-based concepts of class, subclass, formation, division, and macrogroup levels. The finest vegetation units (macrogroups) classified and mapped in this effort are defined using diagnostic plant species and diagnostic growth forms that reflect biogeographic differences in composition and sub-continental to regional differences in mesoclimate, geology, substrates, hydrology, and disturbance regimes (FGDC, 2008). The macrogroups are regarded as meso-scale (100s to 10,000s of hectares) ecosystems. A total of 126 macrogroup types were mapped, each with multiple, repeating occurrences on the landscape. The modeling effort was implemented at a base spatial resolution of 90 m. In addition to creating several rich, new continent-wide biophysical datalayers describing African vegetation and ecosystems, our intention was to explore feasible approaches to rapidly moving this type of standardized, continent-wide, ecosystem classification and mapping effort forward.

African Geographical Review↗

USGS2014

USGS ecosystem research for the next decade: advancing discovery and application in parks and protected areas through collaboration

Ecosystems within parks and protected areas in the United States and throughout the world are being transformed at an unprecedented rate. Changes associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, food, land, energy and mineral resources are placing urgency on sound decision making that will help sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In recognition of the importance of science in making these decisions, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2007 identified ecosystem science as one of six science directions included in a comprehensive decadal strategy (USGS 2007). The Ecosystems Mission Area was identified as essential for integrating activity within the USGS and as a key to enhanced integration with other Federal and private sector research and management organizations (Myers at al., 2007). This paper focuses on benefits to parks and protected areas from the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area plan that expanded the scope of the original 2007 science strategy, to identify the Bureau’s work in ecosystem science over the next decade (Williams et al., 2013). The plan describes a framework that encompasses both basic and applied science and allows the USGS to continue to contribute meaningfully to conservation and management issues related to the Nation’s parks and ecological resources. This framework relies on maintaining long-standing, collaborative relationships with partners in both conducting science and applying scientific results. Here we summarize the major components of the USGS Ecosystems Science Strategy, articulating the vision, goals and strategic approaches, then outlining some of the proposed actions that will ultimately prove useful to those managing parks and protected areas. We end with a discussion on the future of ecosystem science for the USGS and how it can be used to evaluate ecosystem change and the associated consequences to management of our Nation’s natural resources.

The George Wright Forum↗

USGS2005

Assessing climate change effects on mountain ecosystems using integrated models: A case study

Mountain systems are characterized by strong environmental gradients, rugged topography and extreme spatial heterogeneity in ecosystem structure and composition. Consequently, most mountainous areas have relatively high rates of endemism and biodiversity, and function as species refugia in many areas of the world. Mountains have long been recognized as critical entities in regional climatic and hydrological dynamics but their importance as terrestrial carbon stores has only been recently underscored (Schimel et al. 2002; this volume). Mountain ecosystems, therefore, are globally important as well as unusually complex. These ecosystems challenge our ability to understand their dynamics and predict their response to climatic variability and global-scale environmental change. To meet this challenge, mountain scientists increasingly are modeling the vast array of relationships that comprise ecosystem dynamics. Dynamic modeling can examine the interactions between land management strategies and climatic change to develop appropriate responses to future human demands on mountain systems. Modeling provides spatially and temporally explicit, quantified results that can be validated in the field, thus providing feedback to our understanding of ecosystem dynamics. Modeling results, particularly maps and other visual tools, also give a concrete dimension to our understanding of the scale and magnitude of potential future changes. Modeling alerts scientists and land managers to apparently counter-intuitive outcomes of ecosystem responses to climate change or management decisions. For instance, in an early modeling exercise for northwest Montana, USA, Running and Nemani (1991) found that streamflow in a warmer future climate decreased by 30% in the Swan Range even when precipitation was increased by 10% in a particular climate change scenario. This unexpected response was due to enhanced forest growth, and increased evapotranspiration, resulting from the earlier snowmelt and extended growing season. There is a rich legacy of models that address climate and weather, hydrology, forest growth (e.g. gap dynamics and succession), forest fires (e.g. fuel loading) and land cover change (cf. Bugmann et al., this volume). Much less common, however, are attempts to fully integrate models from various disciplines to create a robust system that adequately addresses the entire range of ecosystem dynamics. In addition, fine-resolution modeling of entire mountain ranges (i.e. regional ecosystem scale) is not as common as global or continental scale modeling or watershed/catchment scale modeling. However, this is the scale that is germane to policy decisions such as in the western US and Canada, i.e. in those areas that contain most of the mountainous terrain of North America. This paper describes our efforts to implement an integrated regional modeling approach while characterizing potential future responses of a mountain ecosystem to climate change. Our study area was Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana, USA. Glacier Park is a 4082 km” mountain wilderness that straddles the continental divide and contains over 150 summits of up to 3150 m elevation in the Lewis and Livingston mountain ranges.

Book chapter↗

USGS2016

Managed island ecosystems

This long-anticipated reference and sourcebook for California’s remarkable ecological abundance provides an integrated assessment of each major ecosystem type—its distribution, structure, function, and management. A comprehensive synthesis of our knowledge about this biologically diverse state, Ecosystems of California covers the state from oceans to mountaintops using multiple lenses: past and present, flora and fauna, aquatic and terrestrial, natural and managed. Each chapter evaluates natural processes for a specific ecosystem, describes drivers of change, and discusses how that ecosystem may be altered in the future. This book also explores the drivers of California’s ecological patterns and the history of the state’s various ecosystems, outlining how the challenges of climate change and invasive species and opportunities for regulation and stewardship could potentially affect the state’s ecosystems. The text explicitly incorporates both human impacts and conservation and restoration efforts and shows how ecosystems support human well-being. Edited by two esteemed ecosystem ecologists and with overviews by leading experts on each ecosystem, this definitive work will be indispensable for natural resource management and conservation professionals as well as for undergraduate or graduate students of California’s environment and curious naturalists.

Book chapter↗

USGS2021

Stewardship and management of freshwater ecosystems: From Leopold's land ethic to a freshwater ethic

In 1949, Aldo Leopold formalized the concept of the ‘land ethic’, in what emerged as a foundational and transformational way of thinking about natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, and stewardship in terrestrial systems. Yet, the land ethic has inherent linkages to aquatic ecosystems; Leopold himself conducted research on rivers and lakes, and freshwater ecosystems figured widely in his writing. We reflect on the land ethic and other aspects of Leopold's scholarship to identify key messages that provide insight into the stewardship and management of freshwater ecosystems around the globe. We also frame what we call the ‘freshwater ethic’ around Leopold's legacy. Although Leopold could not have envisaged the stressors affecting modern aquatic ecosystems, his core principles remain salient. These apply not only to ecosystem protection, but also to the ethics of modern conservation economics, sustainability, and the protection of natural capital, in which lakes, rivers, and wetlands now figure prominently. We identify key ‘Aldo-inspired’ recommendations for protecting and restoring freshwater ecosystems in the Anthropocene that emanate directly from his writings (e.g. adopt an ecosystem approach, identify win–win–win scenarios, recognize the irreplaceability of wild waters, and strive for freshwater optimism). In an epoch where links between people and nature are becoming more explicit in environmental management, policy, and governance, we suggest that Aldo Leopold's work illustrates how inspirational, seminal thinkers have offered leadership in this domain. We contend that today there is still much that can be learned from Leopold, especially by the next generation of environmental practitioners, to ensure the effective stewardship of our aquatic ecosystems. We submit that the adoption of a freshwater ethic in parallel with Leopold's land ethic will enhance the stewardship of the world's increasingly threatened fresh waters by raising the profile of the plight of fresh waters and identifying enduring actions that, if embraced, will help conserve and restore biodiversity.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys↗

USGS2013

Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona

Although the number of ecosystem service modeling tools has grown in recent years, quantitative comparative studies of these tools have been lacking. In this study, we applied two leading open-source, spatially explicit ecosystem services modeling tools – Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) – to the San Pedro River watershed in southeast Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico. We modeled locally important services that both modeling systems could address – carbon, water, and scenic viewsheds. We then applied managerially relevant scenarios for urban growth and mesquite management to quantify ecosystem service changes. InVEST and ARIES use different modeling approaches and ecosystem services metrics; for carbon, metrics were more similar and results were more easily comparable than for viewsheds or water. However, findings demonstrate similar gains and losses of ecosystem services and conclusions when comparing effects across our scenarios. Results were more closely aligned for landscape-scale urban-growth scenarios and more divergent for a site-scale mesquite-management scenario. Follow-up studies, including testing in different geographic contexts, can improve our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these and other ecosystem services modeling tools as they move closer to readiness for supporting day-to-day resource management.

Arizona;Sonora↗

USGS2020

Rapid peat development beneath created, maturing mangrove forests: Ecosystem changes across a 25-year chronosequence

Mangrove forests are among the world’s most productive and carbon‐rich ecosystems. Despite growing understanding of factors controlling mangrove forest soil carbon stocks, there is a need to advance understanding of the speed of peat development beneath maturing mangrove forests— especially in created and restored mangrove forests that are intended to compensate for ecosystem functions lost during mangrove forest conversion to other land uses. To better quantify the rate of soil organic matter development beneath created, maturing mangrove forests, we measured ecosystem changes across a 25‐year chronosequence. We compared ecosystem properties in created, maturing mangrove forests to adjacent natural mangrove forests. We also quantified site‐specific changes that occurred between 2010 and 2016. Soil organic matter accumulated rapidly beneath maturing mangrove forests as sandy soils transitioned to organic‐rich soils (peat). Within 25 years, a 20‐cm deep peat layer developed. The time required for created mangrove forests to reach equivalency with natural mangrove forests was estimated as: (1) < 15 years for herbaceous and juvenile vegetation; (2) ~55 years for adult trees; (3) ~25 years for the upper soil layer (0‐10 cm); and (4) ~45‐80 years for the lower soil layer (10‐30 cm). For soil elevation change, the created mangrove forests were equivalent to or surpassed natural mangrove forests within the first five years. A comparison to chronosequence studies from other ecosystems indicates that the rate of soil organic matter accumulation beneath maturing mangrove forests may be among the fastest globally. In most peatland ecosystems, soil organic matter formation occurs slowly (centuries, millennia); however, these results show that mangrove peat formation can occur within decades. Peat development, primarily due to sub‐surface root accumulation, enables mangrove forests to sequester carbon, adjust their elevation relative to sea level, and adapt to changing conditions at the dynamic land‐ocean interface. In the face of climate change and rising sea levels, coastal managers are increasingly concerned with the longevity and functionality of coastal restoration efforts. Our results advance understanding of the pace of ecosystem development in created, maturing mangrove forests, which can improve predictions of mangrove forest responses to global change and ecosystem restoration.

Florida↗

USGS2021

Managing for RADical ecosystem change: Applying the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework

Ecosystem transformation involves the emergence of persistent ecological or social–ecological systems that diverge, dramatically and irreversibly, from prior ecosystem structure and function. Such transformations are occurring at increasing rates across the planet in response to changes in climate, land use, and other factors. Consequently, a dynamic view of ecosystem processes that accommodates rapid, irreversible change will be critical for effectively conserving fish, wildlife, and other natural resources, and maintaining ecosystem services. However, managing ecosystems toward states with novel structure and function is an inherently unpredictable and difficult task. Managers navigating ecosystem transformation can benefit from considering broader objectives, beyond a traditional focus on resisting ecosystem change, by also considering whether accepting inevitable change or directing it along some desirable pathway is more feasible (that is, practical and appropriate) under some circumstances (the RAD framework). By explicitly acknowledging transformation and implementing an iterative RAD approach, natural resource managers can be deliberate and strategic in addressing profound ecosystem change.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗

USGS2015

Transforming ecosystems: When, where, and how to restore contaminated sites

Chemical contamination has impaired ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and the provisioning of functions and services. This has spurred a movement to restore contaminated ecosystems and develop and implement national and international regulations that require it. Nevertheless, ecological restoration remains a young and rapidly growing discipline and its intersection with toxicology is even more nascent and underdeveloped. Consequently, we provide guidance to scientists and practitioners on when, where, and how to restore contaminated ecosystems. Although restoration has many benefits, it also can be expensive, and in many cases systems can recover without human intervention. Hence, the first question we address is: “When should we restore contaminated ecosystems?” Second, we provide suggestions on what to restore—biodiversity, functions, services, all 3, or something else—and where to restore given expected changes to habitats driven by global climate change. Finally, we provide guidance on how to restore contaminated ecosystems. To do this, we analyze critical aspects of the literature dealing with the ecology of restoring contaminated ecosystems. Additionally, we review approaches for translating the science of restoration to on-the-ground actions, which includes discussions of market incentives and the finances of restoration, stakeholder outreach and governance models for ecosystem restoration, and working with contractors to implement restoration plans. By explicitly considering the mechanisms and strategies that maximize the success of the restoration of contaminated sites, we hope that our synthesis serves to increase and improve collaborations between restoration ecologists and ecotoxicologists and set a roadmap for the restoration of contaminated ecosystems.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management↗

USGS2009

Top 10 principles for designing healthy coastal ecosystems like the Salish Sea

Like other coastal zones around the world, the inland sea ecosystem of Washington (USA) and British Columbia (Canada), an area known as the Salish Sea, is changing under pressure from a growing human population, conversion of native forest and shoreline habitat to urban development, toxic contamination of sediments and species, and overharvest of resources. While billions of dollars have been spent trying to restore other coastal ecosystems around the world, there still is no successful model for restoring estuarine or marine ecosystems like the Salish Sea. Despite the lack of a guiding model, major ecological principles do exist that should be applied as people work to design the Salish Sea and other large marine ecosystems for the future. We suggest that the following 10 ecological principles serve as a foundation for educating the public and for designing a healthy Salish Sea and other coastal ecosystems for future generations: (1) Think ecosystem: political boundaries are arbitrary; (2) Account for ecosystem connectivity; (3) Understand the food web; (4) Avoid fragmentation; (5) Respect ecosystem integrity; (6) Support nature's resilience; (7) Value nature: it's money in your pocket; (8) Watch wildlife health; (9) Plan for extremes; and (10) Share the knowledge.

British Columbia, Washington↗

USGS2011

A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services

As human pressures on ecosystems continue to increase, research involving the effective incorporation of social values information into the context of comprehensive ecosystem services assessments is becoming more important. Including quantified, spatially explicit social value metrics in such assessments will improve the analysis of relative tradeoffs among ecosystem services. This paper describes a GIS application, So cia l V alues for E cosystem S ervices (SolVES), developed to assess, map, and quantify the perceived social values of ecosystem services by deriving a non-monetary Value Index from responses to a public attitude and preference survey. SolVES calculates and maps the Value Index for social values held by various survey subgroups, as distinguished by their attitudes regarding ecosystem use. Index values can be compared within and among survey subgroups to explore the effect of social contexts on the valuation of ecosystem services. Index values can also be correlated and regressed against landscape metrics SolVES calculates from various environmental data layers. Coefficients derived through these analyses were applied to their corresponding data layers to generate a predicted social value map. This map compared favorably with other SolVES output and led to the addition of a predictive mapping function to SolVES for value transfer to areas where survey data are unavailable. A more robust application is being developed as a public domain tool for decision makers and researchers to map social values of ecosystem services and to facilitate discussions among diverse stakeholders involving relative tradeoffs among different ecosystem services in a variety of physical and social contexts.

Applied Geography↗

USGS2006

Early Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems in East Asia based on food-web and energy-flow models

In recent years, there has been global interest in the environments and ecosystems around the world. It is helpful to reconstruct past environments and ecosystems to help understand them in the present and the future. The present environments and ecosystems are an evolving continuum with those of the past and the future. This paper demonstrates the contribution of geology and paleontology to such continua. Using fossils, we can make an estimation of past population density as an ecosystem index based on food-web and energy-flow models. Late Mesozoic nonmarine deposits are distributed widely on the eastern Asian continent and contain various kinds of fossils such as fishes, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, bivalves, gastropods, insects, ostracodes, conchostracans, terrestrial plants, and others. These fossil organisms are useful for late Mesozoic terrestrial ecosystem reconstruction using food-web and energy-flow models. We chose Early Cretaceous fluvio-lacustrine basins in the Choyr area, southeastern Mongolia, and the Tetori area, Japan, for these analyses and as a potential model for reconstruction of other similar basins in East Asia. The food-web models are restored based on taxa that occurred in these basins. They form four or five trophic levels in an energy pyramid consisting of rich primary producers at its base and smaller biotas higher in the food web. This is the general energy pyramid of a typical ecosystem. Concerning the population densities of vertebrate taxa in 1 km2 in these basins, some differences are recognized between Early Cretaceous and the present. For example, Cretaceous estimates suggest 2.3 to 4.8 times as many herbivores and 26.0 to 105.5 times the carnivore population. These differences are useful for the evaluation of past population densities of vertebrate taxa. Such differences may also be caused by the different metabolism of different taxa. Preservation may also be a factor, and we recognize that various problems occur in past ecosystem reconstructions. Counts of small numbers of confirmed species and estimates of maximum numbers of species present in the basin are used for the analysis and estimation of energy flow. This approach applies the methods of modern ecosystem analysis. ?? 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cretaceous Research↗