SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Research”

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

USGS2015

The effect of research activities and winter precipitation on voiding behaviour of Agassiz’s desert tortoises ( Gopherus agassizii )

Context: There is little information available on how research activities might cause stress responses in wildlife, especially responses of threatened species such as the desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ). Aims: The present study aims to detect behavioural effects of researcher handling and winter precipitation on a natural population of desert tortoises in the desert of Southwestern United States, over the period 1997 to 2014, through extensive assessments of capture events during multiple research studies, and capture–mark–recapture survivorship analysis. Methods: Juvenile and adult desert tortoises were repeatedly handled with consistent methodology across 18 years during 10 study seasons. Using a generalised linear mixed-effects model, we assessed the effects of both research manipulation and abiotic conditions on probability of voiding. Additionally, we used a Cormack–Jolly–Seber model to assess the effects of winter precipitation and voiding on long-term apparent survivorship. Key results: Of 1008 total capture events, voiding was recorded on 83 (8.2%) occasions in 42 different individuals. Our top models indicated that increases in handling time led to significantly higher probabilities of voiding for juveniles, females and males. Similarly, increases in precipitation resulted in significantly higher probabilities of voiding for juveniles and females, but not for males. Tortoise capture frequency was negatively correlated with voiding occurrence. Cormack–Jolly–Seber models demonstrated a weak effect of winter precipitation on survivorship, but a negligible effect for both voiding behaviour and sex. Conclusions: Handling-induced voiding by desert tortoises may occur during common research activities and years of above average winter precipitation. Increased likelihood of voiding in individuals with relatively low numbers of recaptures suggested that tortoises may have perceived researchers initially as predators, and therefore voided as a defensive strategy. Voiding does not appear to impact long-term survivorship in desert tortoises at this site. Implications: This study has demonstrated that common handling practices on desert tortoise may cause voiding behaviour. These results suggest that in order to minimise undesirable behavioural responses in studied desert tortoise populations, defined procedures or protocols must be followed by the investigators to reduce contact period to the extent feasible.

Wildlife Research↗

USGS2021

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

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

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys↗

USGS2022

The researcher's lament: Why do they ignore my science?

The researcher's lament is shared by many environmental and conservation scientists who complain about the little support they receive for their research proposals during the review and selection process. Understandably, any hopes of having their anticipated scientific findings applied toward the formulation of environmental management decisions or natural resource policy action are shattered. They attribute this lack of endorsement to shortcomings and limitations among decision makers and proposal selection officials when, in many cases, the rejection of project proposals is often a function of a handful of self-inflicted failures by applied scientists who anchor themselves stubbornly to doomed approaches. Familiar deficiencies in their research proposals perpetuate the disconnect between the enterprise of science and real-world resource management challenges. Researchers themselves can affect conditions that turn up the appetite for their scientific endeavors as a more meaningful component of the decision-making process, namely, to stage and deliver science that is more readily "actionable." Perhaps it is time for them to consider a course correction to improve the viability of their actionable science proposals. A few basic steps may help rejigger the science planning process in this direction and, consequently, help avoid the researcher's lament. The likelihood of gaining support during the proposal review and award adjudication process, and securing practical application of scientific products, increases when the products are (1) the result of active engagement of researchers with decision makers; (2) better connected to social and political priorities; (3) clearly designed to inform specific management decisions; and (4) tailored to fit the needs of targeted end users. These considerations and activities exist beyond the comfort zone of many environmental or conservation scientists. Yet, those who adopt them will spend less time lamenting rejection and become more influential in the production of actionable knowledge.

Ecosphere↗

USGS2019

Toward sustainable environmental quality: Priority research questions for North America

Anticipating, identifying, and prioritizing strategic needs represent essential activities by research organizations. Decided benefits emerge when these pursuits engage globally important environment and health goals, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, horizon scanning efforts can facilitate identification of specific research needs to address grand challenges. We report and discuss 40 priority research questions following engagement of scientists and engineers in North America. These timely questions identify the importance of stimulating innovation and developing new methods, tools, and concepts in environmental chemistry and toxicology to improve assessment and management of chemical contaminants and other diverse environmental stressors. Grand challenges to achieving sustainable management of the environment are becoming increasingly complex and structured by global megatrends, which collectively challenge existing sustainable environmental quality efforts. Transdisciplinary, systems‐based approaches will be required to define and avoid adverse biological effects across temporal and spatial gradients. Similarly, coordinated research activities among organizations within and among countries are necessary to address the priority research needs reported here. Acquiring answers to these 40 research questions will not be trivial, but doing so promises to advance sustainable environmental quality in the 21st century.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry↗

USGS2023

The invasive plant data landscape: A synthesis of spatial data and applications for research and management in the United States

Context An increase in the number and availability of datasets cataloging invasive plant distributions offers opportunities to expand our understanding, monitoring, and management of invasives across spatial scales. These datasets, created using on-the-ground observations and modeling techniques, are made both for and by researchers and managers. Objectives The large number and variety of data types and associated datasets can be difficult to navigate, require high levels of data literacy, and can overwhelm the intended end-users. By providing a synthesis of available data types and datasets, this work may facilitate data understanding and use among researchers and managers. Methods We synthesize types of invasive plant distribution data sources, highlighting publicly available datasets and their potential applications and limitations for research and management. Results Eight data types and their potential applications for research and management are described. We also describe gaps in current invasive species distribution data usability and outline a path forward for improving the use of invasive plant data in future research and management. Conclusions Accessible and usable invasive plant spatial data are needed for developing landscape scale analysis and management plans. By synthesizing the invasive plant data available, with examples and limitations for application, this work will serve as a guide to facilitate appropriate and efficient data choices in current and future research and management.

Nevada↗

USGS2014

Activities in tectonics of Research Committee of American Association of Petroleum Geologists

During 1945 and 1946, the Research Committee of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, under the chairmanship of Shepard W. Lowman, has been engaged in “a reconnaissance survey of research in petroleum geology and allied sciences with explicit reference to exploration” in order “to formulate a comprehensive research program which the American Association of Petroleum Geologists may adopt as its recommendation for that research most needed to improve our ability to find oil” [see “References” at end of report, Lowman, 1945]. In order to make this survey, the field was divided among a number of subcommittees, including a Subcommittee on Tectonics, of which the writer was chairman. Preliminary reports, discussing the research possibilities in the various fields covered by the subcommittees, were submitted in January, 1946, and concrete recommendations were formulated by the Research Committee at the Chicago meeting of the Association in April 1946 [Lowman, 1946]. Final reports of the subcommittees will be published later in 1946 in the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗

USGS2025

Future of coral bleaching research

Coral bleaching is the largest global threat to coral reef ecosystem persistence this century. Advancing our understanding of coral bleaching and developing solutions to protect corals and the reefs they support are critical. In the present article, we, the US National Science Foundation–funded Coral Bleaching Research Coordination Network, outline future directions for coral bleaching research. Specifically, we address the need for embedded inclusiveness, codevelopment, and capacity building as a foundation for excellence in coral bleaching research and the critical role of coral-bleaching science in shaping policy. We outline a path for research innovation and technology and propose the formation of an international coral bleaching consortium that, in coordination with existing multinational organizations, could be a hub for planning, coordinating, and integrating global-scale coral bleaching research, innovation, and mitigation strategies. This proposed strategy for future coral bleaching research could facilitate a step-function change in how we address the coral bleaching crisis.

BioScience↗

USGS2021

Bridging the research-implementation gap in avian conservation with translational ecology

The recognized gap between research and implementation in avian conservation can be overcome with translational ecology, an intentional approach in which science producers and users from multiple disciplines work collaboratively to co-develop and deliver ecological research that addresses management and conservation issues. Avian conservation naturally lends itself to translational ecology because birds are well studied, typically widespread, often exhibit migratory behaviors transcending geopolitical boundaries, and necessitate coordinated conservation efforts to accommodate resource and habitat needs across the full annual cycle. In this perspective, we highlight several case studies from bird conservation practitioners and the ornithological and conservation social sciences exemplifying the 6 core translational ecology principles introduced in previous studies: collaboration, engagement, commitment, communication, process, and decision-framing. We demonstrate that following translational approaches can lead to improved conservation decision-making and delivery of outcomes via co-development of research and products that are accessible to broader audiences and applicable to specific management decisions (e.g., policy briefs and decision-support tools). We also identify key challenges faced during scientific producer–user engagement, potential tactics for overcoming these challenges, and lessons learned for overcoming the research-implementation gap. Finally, we recommend strategies for building a stronger translational ecology culture to further improve the integration of these principles into avian conservation decisions. By embracing translational ecology, avian conservationists and ornithologists can be well positioned to ensure that future management decisions are scientifically informed and that scientific research is sufficiently relevant to managers. Ultimately, such teamwork can help close the research-implementation gap in the conservation sciences during a time when environmental issues are threatening avian communities and their habitats at exceptional rates and at broadening spatial scales worldwide.

Ornithological Applications↗

USGS2024

Facilitating comparable research in seedling functional ecology

Ecologists have worked to ascribe function to the variation found in plant populations, communities and ecosystems across environments for at least the past century. The vast body of research in functional ecology has drastically improved understanding of how individuals respond to their environment, communities are assembled and ecosystems function. However, with limited exceptions, few studies have quantified differences in plant function during the earliest stages of the plant life cycle, and fewer have tested how this early variability shapes populations, communities and ecosystems. Drawing from the literature and our collective experience, we describe the current state of knowledge in seedling functional ecology and provide examples of how this subdiscipline can enrich our fundamental understanding of plant function across levels of organisation. To inspire progressive work in this area, we also outline key considerations involved in seedling functional research (who, what, when, where and how to measure seedling traits) and identify remaining challenges and gaps in understanding around methodological approaches. Within this conceptual synthesis, we highlight three critical areas in seedling ecology for future research to target. First, given wide variation in the definition of a ‘seedling’, we provide a standard definition based on seed reserve dependence while emphasising the need to measure ontogenetic variation more clearly both within and following the seedling stage. Second, studies demonstrate that seedlings can be studied in multiple media (e.g. soil, agar, filter paper) and conditions (e.g. field, greenhouse, laboratory). We recommend that researchers select methods based on explicit goals, yet follow standard guidelines to reduce methodological noise across studies. Third, research is critically needed to assess the implications of different methodologies on trait measurement and compatibility across studies. By highlighting the importance of seedling functional ecology and suggesting pathways to address key challenges, we aim to inspire future research that generates useful and comparable data on seedling functional ecology. This work is critical to explain variation within and among populations, communities and ecosystems and integrate this most vulnerable stage of plant life into ecological frameworks.

Methods in Ecology & Evolution↗

USGS2016

U.S. Geological Survey collections—Preserving the past to inform the future: Tour three federal repositories—Core Research Center, Paleontological Collection, and the NSF National Ice Core Laboratory

This 2016 Geological Society of America (GSA) Annual Meeting trip will explore the Core Research Center, Paleontological Collection, and National Science Foundation National Ice Core Laboratory—three collections of major national signifi cance managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Since its inception in 1879, USGS has collected, preserved, and managed physical collections for scientifi c investigations of Earth’s systems. The Core Research Center is the largest federal core repository in the United States, where over 74 million meters (242 million feet) of the subsurface are represented by the collection of rock cores and well cuttings, available for use by researchers investigating resource potential, tectonics, structures, aquifers, and more. The USGS has conducted paleontological research for more than 110 years to inform geological mapping, biostratigraphy, paleoecology, paleoclimate, and other research. Most of these paleontological samples are at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) and USGS Denver facilities. The USGS Denver paleontological collection includes ~1.2 million samples. Ancillary materials consisting of handwritten ledgers, index cards, fi eld reports, maps, and other information produced by USGS investigators provide profound knowledge about the specimens and associated geological systems. The USGS is working with NMNH to systematically digitize the collection to preserve and expose samples and data to research. The National Science Foundation (NSF) National Ice Core Laboratory (NICL) is the nation’s repository for preserving, archiving, and sampling meteoric ice cores collected from the world’s ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers, mostly from Antarctica and Greenland. NICL’s primary mission is to store and curate ice cores, primarily collected during NSF-sponsored projects, for present and future sample investigations.

Colorado↗

USGS2011

The U.S. Geological Survey cartographic and geographic information science research activities 2006-2010

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produces geospatial databases and topographic maps for the United States of America. A part of that mission includes conducting research in geographic information science (GIScience) and cartography to support mapping and improve the design, quality, delivery, and use of geospatial data and topographic maps. The Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS) was established by the USGS in January 2006 as a part of the National Geospatial Program Office. CEGIS (http://cegis.usgs.gov) evolved from a team of cartographic researchers at the Mid-Continent Mapping Center. The team became known as the Cartographic Research group and was supported by the Cooperative Topographic Mapping, Geographic Analysis and Monitoring, and Land Remote Sensing programs of the Geography Discipline of the USGS from 1999-2005. In 2006, the Cartographic Research group and its projects (http://carto-research.er.usgs.gov/) became the core of CEGIS staff and research. In 2006, CEGIS research became focused on The National Map (http://nationalmap.gov).

Cartography and Geographic Information Science↗

USGS2017

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center—Celebrating 50 years of science

The Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) celebrated its 50-year anniversary in 2015. This report is written in support of that observance. We document why and how the NPWRC came to be and describe some of its many accomplishments and the influence the Center’s research program has had on natural resource management. The history is organized by major research themes, proceeds somewhat chronologically within each theme, and covers the Center’s first 50 years of research. During that period, Center scientists authored more than 1,700 publications and reports. More than 1,000 seasonal or temporary field personnel, and more than 100 graduate students, contributed to the Center’s success; many went on to have exemplary careers in natural resource management, conservation, and education. The mission of the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center today remains true to the original vision: to provide the knowledge needed to understand, conserve, and manage the Nation’s natural resources for current and future generations, with an emphasis on species and ecosystems of the northern Great Plains. The Center’s first 50 years of applied biological research provides a deep scientific foundation on which to address emerging issues for the natural resources in the northern Great Plains and beyond.

Circular↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey climate science plan—Future research directions

Executive Summary Climate is the primary driver of environmental change and is a key consideration in defining science priorities conducted across all mission areas in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Recognizing the importance of climate change to its future research agenda, the USGS’s Climate Science Steering Committee requested the development of a Climate Science Plan to identify future research directions. Subject matter experts from across the Bureau formed the USGS Climate Science Plan Writing Team, which convened in September 2022 to identify and outline the major climate science topics of future concern and develop an integrated approach to conducting climate science in support of the USGS and U.S. Department of the Interior missions. The resulting USGS Climate Science Plan identifies three major priorities under which USGS climate science proceeds: (1) characterize climate change and associated impacts, (2) assess climate change risks and develop approaches to mitigate climate change, and (3) provide climate science tools and support. The Climate Science Plan identifies 12 specific goals to achieve the outcomes of the three priorities. Conduct long-term, broad-scale, and multidisciplinary measurements and monitoring and research activities to define, quantify, and predict the impacts of climate change on natural and human systems; Provide leadership to standardize measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions, lateral carbon fluxes, and carbon sinks across lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI); Provide science capacity, training, tools, and infrastructure to Tribal partners; support Tribal-led science initiatives; Conduct climate change research in partnership with the broader climate science community; Develop improved data synthesis methods through collaborative and open science across mission areas and between the USGS and agency partners; Translate climate change impacts into risk assessments in support of risk management strategies; Develop new and improved risk assessments, models, and approaches for mitigating climate change, adapting to its impacts, and reducing uncertainties; design early warning systems for risk mitigation; Investigate climate change mitigation strategies and create decision science support tools to inform climate change mitigation and adaptation; Provide a framework that facilitates knowledge co-production needed to inform policy decisions; Provide access to USGS data and information through novel integration and visualization approaches; Build capacity within USGS and DOI through development of scientific training curricula; and Coordinate science and capacity building efforts broadly across the Federal Government. To achieve these goals, the USGS Climate Science Plan also outlines climate science guidelines—key elements for conducting climate-based research—as well as emerging opportunities to support successful climate science. The USGS Climate Science Plan provided in this circular will guide future research priorities and science-support investments, as well as continued development of the climate workforce for decades to come, ensuring that the USGS continues to serve as one of the Nation’s leading climate science agencies.

Circular↗

USGS1986

USGS research on energy resources, 1986; program and abstracts

The extended abstracts in this volume are summaries of the papers presented orally and as posters in the second V. E. McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy Resources, entitled "USGS Research on Energy Resources-1986." The Forum has been established to improve communication between the USGS and the earth science community by presenting the results of current USGS research on nonrenewable resources in a timely fashion and by providing an opportunity for individuals from other organizations to meet informally with USGS scientists and managers. It is our hope that the McKelvey Forum will help to make USGS programs more responsive to the needs of the earth science community, particularly the mining and petroleum industries, and Win foster closer cooperation between organizations and individuals. The Forum was named after former Director Vincent E. McKelvey in recognition of his lifelong contributions to research, development, and administration in mineral and energy resources, as a scientist, as Chief Geologist, and as Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Forum will be an annual event, and its subject matter will alternate between mineral and energy resources. We expect that the format will change somewhat from year to year as various approaches are tried, but its primary purpose will remain the same: to encourage direct communication between USGS scientists and the representatives of other earth-science related organizations. Energy programs of the USGS include oil and gas, coal, geothermal, uranium-thorium, and oil shale; work in these programs spans the national domain, including surveys of the offshore Exclusive Economic Zone. The topics selected for presentation at this McKelvey Forum represent an overview of the scientific breadth of USGS research on energy resources. They include aspects of petroleum occurrence in Eastern United States rift basins, the origin of magnetic anomalies over oil fields, accreted terranes and energy-resource implications, coal quality, geothermal energy sources, integrated geology and chemistry in uranium-deposit studies, and interpretations of sea-floor geology seen in reconnaissance-scale sidescan-sonar mosaics of the Gulf of Mexico and west coast Exclusive Economic Zone. Data are presented that are being used in building models of geothermal energy settings, basin histories, and the occurrence of energy resources. In addition to the technical sessions presenting the results of USGS research, each congressionally mandated USGS Mineral Resource Program has a display outlining plans and progress. We are all excited about this continuing opportunity to disseminate and discuss our research with our colleagues in industry and academia, and we welcome your suggestions on improving this series of Forums.

Circular↗

USGS2009

Environmental Impact of the Helen, Research, and Chicago Mercury Mines on Water, Sediment, and Biota in the Upper Dry Creek Watershed, Lake County, California

The Helen, Research, and Chicago mercury (Hg) deposits are among the youngest Hg deposits in the Coast Range Hg mineral belt and are located in the southwestern part of the Clear Lake volcanic field in Lake County, California. The mine workings and tailings are located in the headwaters of Dry Creek. The Helen Hg mine is the largest mine in the watershed having produced about 7,600 flasks of Hg. The Chicago and Research Hg mines produced only a small amount of Hg, less than 30 flasks. Waste rock and tailings have eroded from the mines, and mine drainage from the Helen and Research mines contributes Hg-enriched mine wastes to the headwaters of Dry Creek and contaminate the creek further downstream. The mines are located on federal land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (USBLM). The USBLM requested that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measure and characterize Hg and geochemical constituents in tailings, sediment, water, and biota at the Helen, Research, and Chicago mines and in Dry Creek. This report is made in response to the USBLM request to conduct a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA - Removal Site Investigation (RSI). The RSI applies to removal of Hg-contaminated mine waste from the Helen, Research, and Chicago mines as a means of reducing Hg transport to Dry Creek. This report summarizes data obtained from field sampling of mine tailings, waste rock, sediment, and water at the Helen, Research, and Chicago mines on April 19, 2001, during a storm event. Further sampling of water, sediment, and biota at the Helen mine area and the upper part of Dry Creek was completed on July 15, 2003, during low-flow conditions. Our results permit a preliminary assessment of the mining sources of Hg and associated chemical constituents that could elevate levels of monomethyl Hg (MMeHg) in the water, sediment, and biota that are impacted by historic mining.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Proceedings of the 9th U.S.-Japan natural resources panel for earthquake research

Introduction The UJNR Panel on Earthquake Research promotes advanced study toward a more fundamental understanding of the earthquake process and hazard estimation. The Ninth Joint meeting was extremely beneficial in furthering cooperation and deepening understanding of problems common to both the U.S. and Japan. The meeting included productive exchanges of information on approaches to systematic observation and modeling of earthquake processes. Regarding the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku, the Panel recognizes that further efforts are necessary to achieve our common goal of reducing earthquake risk through close collaboration and focused discussions at the 10th UJNR meeting. We look forward to continued cooperation on issues involving the densification of observation networks and the open exchange of data among scientific communities. We recognize the importance of making information publicly available in a timely manner. We also recognize the importance of information exchange on research policy and strategies, including the frameworks of research organizations. Areas of Cooperation –Specific areas of earthquake research where cooperative research between the U.S. and Japan may lead to significant advancement include, but are not limited to: –Probabilistic earthquake and tsunami hazard estimation, including extraordinarily large earthquakes, both in our respective countries and worldwide, incorporating knowledge of current and past behavior, and physics based computational models; –Real-time information from seismic, geodetic and strain measurements, including borehole strainmeters and seafloor observations using offshore cabled networks; –Technologies for measuring crustal deformation; –Early warning technologies for earthquakes and tsunamis; Studies of recurrence of large and extraordinary large earthquakes using paleoseismic, paleotsunami, geodetic and seismic methods; –Laboratory, theoretical and in situ studies of fault-zone processes; –Studies of episodic tremor and slow slip events using seismic, geodetic, and borehole strain measurements, and simulation techniques; –Systematic studies of earthquake predictability through rigorously evaluated scientific prediction experiments and robust databases; –Studies of near-source ground motions, geological effects and the response of engineered structures. The Panel strongly urges that the appropriate agencies in the U.S. and Japan that are represented on this panel work together with the academic sector to support and coordinate scientific work in these areas of cooperation. The Panel recognizes the importance of promoting the exchange of scientific personnel, exchange of data, and fundamental studies to advance progress in earthquake research. The U.S. and Japan should promote these exchanges throughout the world. The Panel endorses continuation of these activities.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Salamander chytrid fungus ( Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans ) in the United States—Developing research, monitoring, and management strategies

The recently (2013) identified pathogenic chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivoran s ( Bsal ), poses a severe threat to the distribution and abundance of salamanders within the United States and Europe. Development of a response strategy for the potential, and likely, invasion of Bsal into the United States is crucial to protect global salamander biodiversity. A formal working group, led by Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins Science Center, and Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, was held at the USGS Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis in Fort Collins, Colorado, United States from June 23 to June 25, 2015, to identify crucial Bsal research and monitoring needs that could inform conservation and management strategies for salamanders in the United States. Key findings of the workshop included the following: (1) the introduction of Bsal into the United States is highly probable, if not inevitable, thus requiring development of immediate short-term and long-term intervention strategies to prevent Bsal establishment and biodiversity decline; (2) management actions targeted towards pathogen containment may be ineffective in reducing the long-term spread of Bsal throughout the United States; and (3) early detection of Bsal through surveillance at key amphibian import locations, among high-risk wild populations, and through analysis of archived samples is necessary for developing management responses. Top research priorities during the preinvasion stage included the following: (1) deployment of qualified diagnostic methods for Bsal and establishment of standardized laboratory practices, (2) assessment of susceptibility for amphibian hosts (including anurans), and (3) development and evaluation of short- and long-term pathogen intervention and management strategies. Several outcomes were achieved during the workshop, including development of an organizational structure with working groups for a Bsal Task Force, creation of an initial influence diagram to aid in identifying effective management actions in the face of uncertainty, and production of a list of potential management actions and key research uncertainties. Additional products under development include a Bsal Strategic Action plan, an emergency response plan, a monitoring and surveillance program, a standardized diagnostic approach, decision models for natural resource agencies, and a reporting database for salamander mortalities. This workshop was the first international meeting to address the threat of Bsal to salamander populations in the United States, with more than 30 participants from U.S. conservation and resource management agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. National Park Service, and Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) and academic research institutions in Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2023

Ecological effects of pinyon-juniper removal in the Western United States—A synthesis of scientific research, January 2014–March 2021

Executive Summary Increasing density of pinyon ( Pinus spp. ) and juniper ( Juniperus spp. ) woodlands (hereinafter “pinyon-juniper”), as well as expansion of these woodlands into adjacent shrublands and grasslands, has altered ecosystem function and wildlife habitat across large areas of the interior western United States. Although there are many natural and human-caused drivers of woodland infilling and expansion, restoration of sagebrush ( Artemisia spp. ) habitat through removal of pinyon-juniper is considered an urgent management objective in many locations, particularly in support of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species of conservation concern. In December 2020, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) established the Pinyon-Juniper Management Categorical Exclusion (PJCX) to expedite the regulatory process for pinyon-juniper removal projects on public lands, largely intended to benefit mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) habitats. During final preparation of this report, the BLM discontinued use of the PJCX (as of November, 2022), but the pinyon-juniper tree removal techniques assessed in this report are commonly used and understanding their effects remains relevant to land use planning. To address areas of uncertainty relative to potential ecological effects of the PJCX, we conducted a review of the peer-reviewed science literature to better understand the likely responses of vegetation, environmental (for example, soils), and wildlife variables to specific tree removal techniques permitted by the PJCX. In brief, the PJCX permitted removal of trees by either manual cutting, mechanical cutting, or mastication; allowed certain methods to redistribute or remove resulting tree biomass after treatment; and prohibited broadcast burning, roadbuilding, removal of old-growth, and seeding of non-native species. Specifically, we conducted our review to address the following questions: How will PJCX removal techniques affect plant communities, soils, and abiotic resources? How do these pinyon-juniper removal techniques affect wildlife communities, including both woodland- and sagebrush-dependent species? What are the potential ecological implications of different pinyon-juniper removal treatment types and implementation strategies (for example, treatment sizes) over time? What are the most important gaps in our scientific understanding of how treatments might affect targeted ecosystems over space and time (for example, potential effects of climate change)? To answer these questions, we considered studies related to pinyon-juniper ecosystems, focusing on research that occurred over a large portion of the interior western United States that is the primary focus of the PJCX. We also focused on papers published from 2014 onward, to avoid excessive overlap with other recent reviews on pinyon-juniper management effects. Using strict criteria, including only considering research that tested responses for statistical significance, we identified 48 papers that primarily examined treatment effects on vegetation and other environmental variables (1,709 responses), and 11 papers that addressed effects on wildlife (132 responses). Responses to the PJCX-permitted treatments were summarized as either positive (that is, a significant increase), negative (that is, a significant decrease), or non-significant (that is, no significant difference). Responses were assigned to categories (for example, Native Annual Grass/Forb Abundance) and hierarchical treatment levels. We found that there were large proportions of non-significant responses among all categories combined, with roughly half or more of all responses non-significant (48 percent for wildlife, 60 percent for vegetation-environmental), comparable to other recent systematic reviews of pinyon-juniper treatment effects. However, we also found that when there were significant responses, some important trends potentially emerged. Important undesirable outcomes included far more positive than negative responses of exotic grass and forb abundance among nearly all treatment types. Cutting treatments were also more likely to decrease biocrust cover and microbial activity. Potentially beneficial outcomes included mostly positive responses among sagebrush obligate species, including more positive than negative responses for mule deer and sage-grouse. Some treatment types (for example, mastication) also resulted in more positive than negative responses for native grasses and forbs (although, non-significant responses were the majority). We also highlighted many limitations of this review, including how responses often come from few studies, and how some response-treatment category combinations lack adequate response data. Moreover, the existing research is often insufficient to address many key questions about treatment effects, largely owing to short time-scales and limited spatial extents of observations, which do not match the size of treatments being implemented by land managers, nor capture long-term, post-treatment ecological dynamics. We also identify a lack of research that addresses key interactions that could undermine restoration objectives, including potential effects of climate change and grazing on post-treatment environments. Thus, we emphasize the importance of integrating these factors into future pinyon-juniper treatment research, and we stress the need for use of monitoring programs and research studies that partake in data collection and analysis over long durations and broad spatial scales.

Open-File Report↗