SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Michigan Conservation”

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.

113 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Fine-scale heterogeneity drives forest use by spring migrant landbirds across a broad, contiguous forest matrix

Much of our understanding of en route landbird habitat use comes from research performed at local scales, ignoring effects at larger spatial scales. We used a multiscale approach to investigate stopover habitat use by landbirds using transect surveys in 68 forested sites in southwestern Michigan, USA, during the springs of 2002 and 2003. We modeled relationships of bird density and arthropod abundance with broad-scale spatiotemporal factors (year, day of year, geographic location) and local landscape (forest composition and structure, presence of open water) as well as site-scale factors (bird density and arthropod abundance, which exchanged roles as predictor and response variables). We found migrant densities to be most influenced by fine-scale factors, such as the abundance of other avian taxa and substrate arthropods, followed by broader-scale factors, such as forest structure and location, within the local and broader surrounding landscape. We found that migrant habitat associations either did not directly match or were weakly associated with the availability of riparian or lacustrine water habitats at a local scale, even though our results suggested that birds using these habitat cues would have encountered more arthropods. Rather than finding indirect measures of food abundance—such as distance to a water source or forest cover at the landscape scale—important, our models best explained bird density by a direct relationship with site-scale food resources. Thus, the scale at which migrants demonstrate habitat selection appears to be influenced by proximate mechanisms such as high-quality habitat availability and the presence of large ecological features within the landscape. Not only do factors operating at multiple scales influence how birds use habitats, but scale also influences how we interpret research findings, in turn influencing conservation decisions.

Michigan↗

USGS2026

Sources and streambed storage of soft sediment and sediment-bound phosphorus in an agricultural Great Lakes tributary

The East River, an agricultural tributary to the Lower Fox River and Lake Michigan in Wisconsin, USA, has excessive phosphorus (P) and suspended-sediment loads that contribute to downstream eutrophication and habitat-related impairments. Spatial variations and connectivity in the sources and streambed storage of soft, fine-grained (silt and clay) sediment and related sediment-bound P (sed-P) were examined, from first-order ephemeral channels to a downstream water-monitoring station. Analysis included field inventories, a channel corridor sediment and sed-P budget applied to an extended channel network, and geochemical fingerprinting. Corridor inventories included mass wasting along valley sides, eroding streambanks, gullying along perennial and ephemeral channels, and streambed storage volumes in perennial reaches; each converted to masses. Erosion results estimate 7400 Mg/yr of fine-grained sediment, similar to the mean annual suspended sediment load of 5400 Mg/yr. Corridor erosion contributed 7200 kg/yr of sed-P, less than the mean annual particulate-P load of 10,000 kg/yr P. Soft sediment storage was 1400 Mg, with 1500 kg sed-P. Apportionment of soft sediment as streambank sourced was spatially variable, contributing ≥95 % in high order reaches with high storage and as little as 20 % in upstream reaches, where gully, crop, and forest provided the remainder. Two nearby tributaries showed similarity in the predominance of streambank-sourced material in stored soft sediment but differences in geomorphic setting affected its spatial distribution. The results of this study show the importance of including corridor erosion as a source of sediment and sed-P in agricultural basins, which can be helpful in decision-making regarding conservation practices.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2022

Kirtland’s Warbler breeding productivity and habitat use in red pine-dominated habitat in Wisconsin, USA

During the breeding season, Kirtland’s Warblers ( Setophaga kirtlandii ) are strongly associated with young jack pine ( Pinus banksiana ) forests in northern Lower Michigan, USA. Since 2007, the species has been breeding in unusual habitat, red pine ( Pinus resinosa ) dominated plantations, in central Wisconsin, USA. Kirtland’s Warbler productivity and habitat use in red pine is not well understood, and the central Wisconsin population is at a range edge, a situation often associated with lower productivity. To compare range-edge and range-core populations, we estimated reproductive success and characterized habitat use of Kirtland’s Warblers in central Wisconsin red pine-dominated plantations during 2015–2017 using logistic regression models. We also monitored nests and fledgling success, and estimated nest survival using logistic exposure models. Trees were closer together and herbaceous vegetation was taller and denser within territories than at randomly located points outside of territories. Females selected nest sites with deeper dead ground vegetation and live vegetation that was taller and denser than was available at randomly located points within male territories. Nest success was not strongly influenced by within-patch habitat factors. Nest daily survival rate was 0.97 (95% CI = 0.94–0.98). The average number of young fledged per nest was between 2.5 and 2.8. Nest parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) was 22.7%. Overall, reproductive success in the peripheral central Wisconsin breeding population of Kirtland’s Warblers that used red pine-dominated plantations was similar to that of Kirtland’s Warblers breeding in typical jack pine habitat in the range core. Young red pine-dominated habitat appears to approximate young jack pine in habitat quality for Kirtland’s Warblers, and this may provide managers some flexibility in habitat maintenance for this conservation-reliant species.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2017

Nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macrobenthos

Lower trophic levels support the prey fish on which most sport fish depend. Therefore, understanding the production potential of lower trophic levels is integral to the management of Lake Ontario’s fishery resources. Lower trophic-level productivity differs among offshore and nearshore waters. In the offshore, there is concern about the ability of the lake to support Alewife (Table 1) production due to a perceived decline in productivity of phytoplankton and zooplankton whereas, in the nearshore, there is a concern about excessive attached algal production (e.g., Cladophora) associated with higher nutrient concentrations—the oligotrophication of the offshore and the eutrophication of the nearshore (Mills et al. 2003; Holeck et al. 2008; Dove 2009; Koops et al. 2015; Stewart et al. 2016). Even though the collapse of the Alewife population in Lake Huron in 2003 (and the associated decline in the Chinook Salmon fishery) may have been precipitated by a cold winter (Dunlop and Riley 2013), Alewife had not returned to high abundances in Lake Huron as of 2014 (Roseman et al. 2015). Failure of the Alewife population to recover from collapse has been attributed to declines in lower trophic-level production (Barbiero et al. 2011; Bunnell et al. 2014; but see He et al. 2015). In Lake Michigan, concerns of a similar Alewife collapse led to a decrease in the number of Chinook Salmon stocked. If lower trophic-level production declines in Lake Ontario, a similar management action could be considered. On the other hand, in Lake Erie, which supplies most of the water in Lake Ontario, eutrophication is increasing and so are harmful algal blooms. Thus, there is also a concern that nutrient levels and algal blooms could increase in Lake Ontario, especially in the nearshore. Solutions to the two processes of concern—eutrophication in the nearshore and oligotrophication in the offshore—may be mutually exclusive. In either circumstance, fisheries management needs information on the productivity of lower trophic levels in Lake Ontario. In this chapter, we review the status of lower trophic levels in Lake Ontario with special attention to the current (2008-2013) and previous (2003-2007) reporting periods. During the two reporting periods, three whole-lake surveys of lower trophic levels were conducted: the Lower Trophic Level Assessment (LOLA) in 2003 and 2008 (Makarewicz and Howell 2012; Munawar et al. 2015b) and the Cooperative Science and Management Initiative (CSMI) in 2013. Analyses of the CSMI data are ongoing. In addition to the three one-year sources of information on lower trophic levels, several multi-year sources of information are available, including data from the surveillance program conducted since 1965 by Environment Canada (EC) (Dove 2009), monitoring conducted since 1980 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) (Barbiero et al. 2014; Reavie et al. 2014), sampling for a Bioindex Program at two stations, one offshore and one in the Eastern Basin, assessments of Mysis diluviana (formerly Mysis relicta) conducted since 1980 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Johannsson et al. 1998, 2011) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), and monitoring conducted since 1995 by the Biomonitoring Program (BMP) on the New York side of the lake (Holeck et al. 2015b). The BMP is a collaboration of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Cornell University.

Special Publication↗

USGS1990

National water summary 1987: Hydrologic events and water supply and use

Water use in the United States, as measured by freshwater withdrawals in 1985, averaged 338,000 Mgal/d (million gallons per day), which is enough water to cover the 48 conterminous States to a depth of about 2.4 inches. Only 92,300 Mgal/d, or 27.3 percent of the water withdrawn, was consumptive use and thus lost to immediate further use; the remainder of the withdrawals (72.7 percent) was return flow available for reuse a number of times as the water flowed to the sea. The 1985 freshwater withdrawals were much less than the average 30 inches of precipitation that falls on the conterminous States each year; consumptive use accounted for only 7 percent of the estimated annual runoff of 1,230,000 Mgal/d. Nonetheless, as the State summaries on water supply and use clearly show, water is not always available when and where it is needed. Balancing water demands with available water supplies constitutes one of the major resource allocation issues that will face the United States in the coming decade. Of the 1985 freshwater withdrawals, 78.3 percent (265,000 Mgal/d) came from surface-water sources (streams and lakes), and 21.7 percent (73,300 Mgal/d) came from ground water. Surface water provided drinking water for about 47 percent of the Nation's total population. It was the source of 59.9 percent of the Nation's public-supply systems. For self-supplied withdrawals, surface water accounted for 1.6 percent of the domestic and commercial uses; 64.0 percent of the industrial and mining use; 99.4 percent of the thermoelectric generation withdrawals, mainly for cooling water; and 65.6 percent of the agricultural withdrawals. Eight States accounted for 43 percent of the surface-water use; California, Colorado, and Idaho used surface water primarily for irrigation, and Dlinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas used surface-water primarily for cooling condensers or reactors in thermoelectric plants. Ground water provided drinking water for 53 percent of the Nation's total population and nearly all the rural population. It was the source of 40.1 percent of the public-supply systems withdrawals. For self-supplied withdrawals, ground water accounted for 11.3 percent of the domestic and commercial use, 17.3 percent of the industrial and mining withdrawals, less than 1 percent of the thermoelectric generation withdrawals, and 34.4 percent of the agricultural withdrawals (irrigation and livestock). Eight States Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas accounted for 66 percent of the ground water used. In each of those States, as in many other States, irrigation was the major use of ground water. Each offstream-use category described in the State summaries public supply, domestic and commercial, industrial and mining, thermoelectric power, and agriculture (irrigation and livestock) followed its own geographic pattern as described below. Consumptive use of water effectively removes the water from immediate further use downstream of the withdrawal point. Of the total amount of consumptive water use in 1985, agricultural use accounted for about 82.5 percent. More than one-half (53 percent) of irrigation water is consumptively used by evapotranspiration or is incorporated into the crop. This is a good indication of the effect that irrigated agriculture can have in a river basin where irrigation is a major activity. The availability of return flows for reuse depends largely on where the water reenters the system. If the return flows are discharged to a stream, they usually can be reused; if they are discharged to a saltwater estuary, they are effectively lost to further use because of water-quality degradation just as if the water had been consumptively used. Similarly, water that recharges a highly transmissive aquifer can be available for reuse either through pumpage from a well or as discharge to a local stream. Thus, much of the water withdrawn for different uses can and does become available for further use although the quality might degrade with each additional use. The allocation and the management of water resources are the responsibilities of the individual States and water institutions within the States. These institutions are evolving in response to the challenges of water management problems. As the individual State summaries indicate, recent State legislation deals with facilitating water transfers within the States as a means of reducing imbalances between water supplies and use, with emphasizing water conservation in times of drought and at places where groundwater depletion is a problem of long standing, and with reducing threats to public health and the environment from water pollution. Most of the State summaries indicate the expectation that water use will continue to increase in the future and that water contamination will continue to be a major water concern. Both issues will require increasingly intensive water management in the future. Whether the water resources under management are considered to be fully appropriated or over appropriated, as in some Western States, or whether the resource could support additional development, as is the situation in most States, improved water-use information will play a key role in future water management efforts.

Water Supply Paper↗