SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Agricultural Sciences”

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 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources

USGS2026

What we know about wildlife outcomes of the conservation reserve program: A meta-analysis

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of the most extensive private-land conservation programs in the United States, aimed at mitigating habitat loss and supporting biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Individual studies of CRP effects on wildlife report mixed results, necessitating a comprehensive synthesis. We conducted a meta-analysis and vote-counting assessment of 96 studies (1009 case studies, i.e., individual analyses of a wildlife response to a CRP predictor variable) to evaluate effects on wildlife density, occurrence, reproduction, habitat use, and species diversity. Formal meta-analyses were performed for wildlife density and avian nest success. We found CRP generally benefited wildlife, with vote counting indicating positive effects in 32% of all comparisons (i.e., including comparisons to any type of non-CRP land) and in 64% of comparisons to cropland. Formal meta-analysis indicated avian nest success was significantly higher on CRP lands compared to non-CRP lands, but CRP enrollment did not consistently increase wildlife density, likely due to species-specific and ecological factors we did not account for. The literature was strongly biased toward birds (90% of case studies), with limited research on mammals, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles. High heterogeneity in effect sizes suggests that variation in conservation practices, study methodologies, and ecological contexts plays a critical role in shaping measured wildlife responses to CRP. Our results demonstrate CRP provides important benefits to wildlife, particularly by enhancing avian reproductive success. However, variation in wildlife effects highlights the need for studies that incorporate more detailed information on CRP management practices and increased research on non-avian taxa. Addressing these gaps may provide additional information allowing for the implementation of improved conservation strategies and maximize CRP's ecological benefits in agricultural landscapes.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2021

System characterization report on the Gaofen-1

Executive Summary This report addresses system characterization of Gaofen-1 and is part of a series of system characterization reports produced and delivered by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence in 2020. These reports present the detail methodology and procedures for characterization; present technical and operational information about the specific sensing system being evaluated; and provide a summary of test measurements, data retention practices, data analysis results, and conclusions. Gaofen represents a series of Chinese high-resolution Earth observation satellites. More than 12 satellites have been launched in the Gaofen series, beginning with Gaofen-1 in 2013. Satellites within the series have varying infrared, radar, and optical imaging capabilities. The primary goal for the satellite is to provide near real-time observations for climate change monitoring, geographical mapping, precision agriculture support, environmental and resource surveying, and disaster prevention. More information on Chinese satellites and sensors is available within the “2020 Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation—Remote Sensing Satellite Compendium” and at http://www.cnsageo.com/#/detailIndex?secondIndex=2&id=3&code=8 . The Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence System Characterization team completed data analyses to characterize the geometric (interior and exterior), radiometric, and spatial performances. Results of these analyses indicate that Gaofen-1 has an interior geometric performance of −0.48 meter (m) (−0.03 pixel) northing and 0.42 m (0.03 pixel) easting offset for band 1, −0.99 m (−0.06 pixel) northing and −0.38 m (−0.02 pixel) easting offset for band 2, −0.45 m (−0.03) northing and 0.83 m (0.05 pixel) easting offset for band 3, −3.20 m (−0.20 pixel) northing and 1.44 m (0.09 pixel) easting offset for band 4 in band-to-band registration. Similarly, Gaofen-1 has an exterior geometric performance of 7.50 m (0.48 pixel) easting and 109.50 m (7.30 pixels) northing offset in comparison to the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager; a radiometric performance in the range of −0.014 to 0.149 (absolute reflective difference); and a spatial performance in the range of 1.1 to 2.0 pixels at full width at half maximum, with a modulation transfer function at a Nyquist frequency in the range of 0.040 to 0.250.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2026

The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition—Working collaboratively to understand the geology of the Great Lakes Region

Introduction The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition (GLGMC), commonly referred to as the “Coalition,” is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and the Canadian province of Ontario. The member States receive funding for geologic mapping work from the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), whereas Ontario participates as a nonfunded partner. The mission of the GLGMC is to produce three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps that depict unconsolidated sediments and near-surface bedrock in the Great Lakes region of North America. Geologic maps are the basis of most earth science investigations and help support resource exploration (energy, minerals, groundwater), natural hazard mitigation, infrastructure development, and land-use planning, all of which can be used to advance economic development and strengthen national security in the Great Lakes region. During the last few million years, the Great Lakes region has experienced repeated glacial advances and retreats, leaving behind extensive sediments, abundant natural resources, and widespread effects on the underlying bedrock geology (Swezey and others, 2022). Linked by shared histories of past glaciations, industrial agriculture, and legacy automotive, coal, steel, and manufacturing industries, the GLGMC member States collaborate to improve the understanding of the 3D distribution of the sediments overlying the region’s bedrock (fig. 1). Developing a comprehensive subsurface 3D framework of this glaciated terrain can provide earth science data to policymakers at all levels. These insights facilitate informed decisions on the exploration, use, and protection of vital resources, such as critical minerals, industrial materials, and aquifers, thereby supporting economic prosperity and the well-being of the citizens of this region. Since its inception in 1998, the Coalition has completed more than 100 geologic mapping projects across the Great Lakes region. Each project aims to deliver geologic maps, 3D datasets, and other information that improves understanding of the geology of the Great Lakes region, with an emphasis on economic and water resources. Key deliverables include 3D geologic maps and models typically portraying sediment thickness, often derived from top-of-bedrock and borehole data. These products are developed through a combination of fieldwork, subsurface modeling, and the collection and analysis of rock and sediment cores. To support Coalition goals, member States collaborate with scientists working on related STATEMAP, EDMAP, and FEDMAP projects. Coalition scientists also engage with Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to ensure that Tribal interests pertaining to Coalition work are addressed. Through this collaboration, the Coalition unites the efforts of State, Federal, and Tribal Nation stakeholders to advance geologic data production and enhance understanding of the geologic resources of the Great Lakes region.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2009

Greater Platte River Basins - Science to sustain ecosystems and communities

The Greater Platte River Basins (GPRB), located in the heartland of the United States, provides a collaborative opportunity for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its partners to understand the sustainability of natural and managed ecosystems under changing climate and resource requirements.The Greater Platte River Basins, an area of about 140,000 square miles, sustains thousands of acres of lakes and wetlands, which provide a staging and resting area for the North American Central Flyway. Part of the GPRB is within the U.S. Corn Belt, one of the most productive agricultural ecosystems on Earth. Changes in water and land use, changing patterns of snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains, drought, and increasing demands for irrigation have reduced flows in the Platte River. These changes raise questions about the sustainability of the region for both wildlife and agriculture.The USGS and partners are developing a science strategy that will help natural-resource managers address and balance the needs of this region.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS1986

Detection of erosion events using 10Be profiles: example of the impact of agriculture on soil erosion in the Chesapeake Bay area (U.S.A.)

10 Be concentration, total carbon and grain-size were measured in cores collected in undisturbed estuarine sediments of three tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. These cores were previously studied by Davis [1] and Brush [2,3] for pollen content, age and sedimentation rate. In this work, we compare the results obtained for these various analyses. In the cores, we observed two increases in 10 Be concentration concomitant with two major changes in the pollen composition of the sediments. These two pollen changes each correspond to well-dated agricultural horizons reflecting different stages in the introduction of European farming techniques [2]. In the Chesapeake Bay area, the agricultural development, associated with forest clearing, appears to have triggered the erosion, transport, and sedimentation into the river mouths of large quantities of 10 Be-rich soils. This phenomenon explains the observed rise in the sedimentation rate associated with increases in agricultural land-use.

Chesapeake Bay area↗

USGS2020

Pesticides and their degradates in groundwater reflect past use and current management strategies, Long Island, New York, USA

Long Island, New York, has a mix of urban/suburban to agricultural/horticultural land use and nearly 3 million residents that rely on a sole-source aquifer for drinking water. The analysis of shallow groundwater (<40 m below land surface) collected from 54 monitoring wells across Long Island detected 53 pesticides or pesticide degradates. Maximum concentrations for individual pesticides or pesticide degradates ranged from 3 to 368,000 ng/L. The highest concentrations and most frequent pesticide detections occurred in samples collected from the pesticide management (PM) network, set in an agricultural/horticultural area in eastern Long Island with coordinated pesticide management by state and local agencies. The other two networks (Suffolk and Nassau/Queens) were set in suburban and urban areas, respectively, and had less frequent detections and lower pesticide concentrations than the PM network. Pesticide detections and concentration patterns (herbicide, insecticide, or fungicide) differed among the three networks revealing broad differences in land use. The predominance of fungicides metalaxyl, 1 H -1,2,4-triazole (propiconazole/myclobutanil degradate), and 4-hydroxychlorothalonil (HCTL, chlorothalonil degradate) in samples from the PM network reflects their intensive use in agricultural settings. Total fungicide concentrations in the PM network ranged from <10 to >300,000 ng/L. The widespread detection of imidacloprid and triazine herbicides, simazine and atrazine, reveal a mixture of current and past use pesticides across the Long Island region. Low concentrations (<200 ng/L) of the triazines in the Suffolk and Nassau/Queens networks may reflect a change in land use and application. Acetanilide herbicides and aldicarb have been discontinued for 20 and 40 years, respectively, yet the concentrations of their degradates were among the highest observed in this study. Acetanilide (total concentrations up to 10,000 ng/L) and aldicarb degradates (up to 270 ng/L) are present in the PM network at much lower concentrations than previous Long Island studies and reflect changes in agricultural practices and pesticide management.

New York↗

USGS2021

Concentrations, loads, and associated trends of nutrients entering the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California

Statistical modeling of water-quality data collected at the Sacramento River at Freeport and San Joaquin River near Vernalis, California, USA, was used to examine trends in concentrations and loads of various forms of dissolved and particulate nitrogen and phosphorus that entered the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) from upstream sources between 1970 and 2019. Ammonium concentrations and loads decreased at the Sacramento River site from the mid-1970s through 1990 because of the consolidation of wastewater treatment and continuously reduced from the mid-1970s to 2019 at the San Joaquin River site. Current ammonium concentrations are mostly below 4 µM (0.056 mg N L –1 ) at both sites, a concentration above which reductions in phytoplankton productivity or changes in algal species composition may occur. The Sacramento River at Freeport site is located upstream of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District’s treatment facility’s discharge point; nutrient water quality there is representative of upstream sources. Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate plus ammonium) concentrations and loading differed at both sites. At the Sacramento River location, concentrations decrease in the summer agricultural season, reducing the molar ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus. In contrast, inorganic nitrogen concentrations increase in the San Joaquin River during the agricultural season as a result of irrigation runoff, increasing the molar ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus. This increase suggests a possible nitrogen limitation in the northern Delta and a phosphorus limitation in the southern Delta, as indicated by the molar ratios of bioavailable nitrogen to bioavailable phosphorus. Planned upgrades to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) will reduce inorganic nitrogen inputs to the northern Delta. Consequently, the supply of bioavailable nitrogen throughout the upper estuary should diminish. Source modeling of nitrogen and phosphorus identifies agriculture, atmospheric deposition, and wastewater effluent as sources of total nitrogen in the Central Valley. In contrast, geologic sources, agriculture, and wastewater discharge are the primary sources of phosphorus.

California↗

USGS2018

Navigating the field of decision analysis

Managers, policy makers, and decision makers with responsibility for environmental decisions have an extraordinarily difficult job. The systems they manage are complex (coupled human-natural systems), with many dimensions and complicated dynamics. Our knowledge of how those systems respond to management actions is often limited, so many of the decisions have to be made in the face of uncertainty. The field of decision analysis provides a comprehensive set of tools for structuring, analyzing, and making decisions. Arising initially as a way to understand and manage risk, the field has expanded in the last 80 years to cover such topics as multipleobjective trade-offs, time-dependent linked decisions, the value of information, and competition among multiple decision makers. At the same time, cognitive psychologists and behavioural economists have studied human decisions to understand when our innate processes work and when they fail. Formal decision analysis is increasingly being used in many sectors, including economic, industrial, manufacturing, agricultural, transportation, and medical sectors, by individuals, corporations, non-profits, and government agencies. Occasional application of decision analysis to environmental decisions began in the mid-1970s, but the environmental science and management world was largely unaware of decision analysis until the late 1990s and early 2000s. (A major aim of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions – CEED – was to better connect decision analysis and environmental management). Today, the field of environmental decision analysis is coming of age with the maturation of a rich set of tools to help decision makers frame, analyze, and implement decisions. Sometimes the wealth of tools is daunting, but there are core principles that tie decision analysis together. To help the reader navigate this complexity, we summarize the field of decision analysis in four key messages.

Decision Point Online↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗

USGS2018

Anthropogenic impact in the Mayan Lowlands of Petén, Guatemala, during the last 5500 years

Trace and rare earth elements from a Lake Peten Itzá (Guatemala) sediment core depict the geochemical dynamics affecting the lake from ~5500 y BP to the present. This timing encompasses the Preclassic (4000 to 1700 y BP) and Classic Periods (1700-1000 y BP) when thriving Maya societies extensively cleared land for agriculture. We demonstrate that this land use occurred during times of increased precipitation, where both processes resulted in increased erosion. Rare earth element ratios depict high precipitation rates between 3000 to 1000 y BP, correlating with an increase in allocthonous silicate input and low organic carbon in the “Maya Clay” stratigraphic section, where this layer is ascribed to intensive anthropogenic land use. Cesium anomalies provide additional evidence for runoff due to high rainfalls and amplified by anthropogenic impacts. The Peten Itzá core contains anomalous spikes of arsenic and mercury, where these peaks correspond to documented volcanic eruptions, and therefore are likely due to natural causes. The geochemical composition of sediments and palynological records indicate a re-growth of the forest after ~900 y BP. This increased forest vegetation coincides with the timing of the decline in Maya agriculture.

Journal of Quaternary Science↗

USGS2024

System characterization report on Vision-1

Executive Summary This report addresses system characterization of the Airbus Vision-1 satellite and is part of a series of system characterization reports produced and delivered by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence. These reports present and detail the methodology and procedures for characterization; present technical and operational information about the specific sensing system being evaluated; and provide a summary of test measurements, data retention practices, data analysis results, and conclusions. Vision-1 is a high-resolution Earth observation satellite launched in September 2018 as a collaborative effort between Airbus and Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. It features a Newtonian telescope with a refractive relay, capturing images in panchromatic and multispectral bands. Operating in a Sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 583 kilometers, Vision-1 ensures consistent illumination conditions during image acquisition. It has a revisit time of 1 to 8 days depending on latitude and viewing angle, and it features an off-pointing agility of plus or minus 45 degrees, allowing for multiple target captures in a single pass using spot, strip, and mosaic imaging modes. The panchromatic band offers a resolution of 0.87 meter (m), whereas the multispectral bands (blue, green, red, and near infrared) provide a resolution of 3.48 m. These capabilities support a variety of applications including urban planning, agricultural monitoring, land classification, natural resource management, and disaster response. More information on the Vision-1 satellite and sensors is available in the “2022 Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation—Remote Sensing Satellite Compendium.” The Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence system characterization team completed data analyses to characterize the geometric (interior and exterior), radiometric, and spatial performances. Results of these analyses indicate that the Vision-1 satellite has an interior geometric performance in the range of 0 to 0.02 m in easting and −0.01 to 0.03 m in northing in band-to-band registration, an exterior geometric performance of 1.7 to 2.2 m in easting and −1.1 to −0.7 m in northing offset with a 90-percent circular error of 3.4 to 3.7 m, a radiometric performance in the range of −0.029 to 0.017 in offset and 0.884 to 0.984 in slope, and a spatial performance in the range of 0.992 to 1.092 pixels for multispectral full width at half maximum and 1.895 pixels for the panchromatic band full width at half maximum, with a modulation transfer function at a Nyquist frequency in the range of 0.29 to 0.36 for the multispectral bands and 0.05 for the panchromatic band.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Pesticide concentrations in frog tissue and wetland habitats in alandscape dominated by agriculture

Habitat loss and exposure to pesticides are likely primary factors contributing to amphibian decline in agricultural landscapes. Conservation efforts have attempted to restore wetlands lost through landscape modifications to reduce contaminant loads in surface waters and providing quality habitat to wildlife. The benefits of this increased wetland area, perhaps especially for amphibians, may be negated if habitat quality is insufficient to support persistent populations. We examined the presence of pesticides and nutrients in water and sediment as indicators of habitat quality and assessed the bioaccumulation of pesticides in the tissue of two native amphibian species Pseudacris maculata (chorus frogs) and Lithobates pipiens (leopard frogs) at six wetlands (3 restored and 3 reference) in Iowa, USA. Restored wetlands are positioned on the landscape to receive subsurface tile drainage water while reference wetlands receive water from overland run-off and shallow groundwater sources. Concentrations of the pesticides frequently detected in water and sediment samples were not different between wetland types. The median concentration of atrazine in surface water was 0.2 μg/L. Reproductive abnormalities in leopard frogs have been observed in other studies at these concentrations. Nutrient concentrations were higher in the restored wetlands but lower than concentrations thought lethal to frogs. Complex mixtures of pesticides including up to 8 fungicides, some previously unreported in tissue, were detected with concentrations ranging from 0.08 to 1500 μg/kg wet weight. No significant differences in pesticide concentrations were observed between species, although concentrations tended to be higher in leopard frogs compared to chorus frogs, possibly because of differences in life histories. Our results provide information on habitat quality in restored wetlands that will assist state and federal agencies, landowners, and resource managers in identifying and implementing conservation and management actions for these and similar wetlands in agriculturally dominated landscapes.

Iowa↗

USGS2003

Pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls in transport in two Atlantic coastal plain tributaries and loadings to Chesapeake Bay

Concentrations of current-use pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and organochlorine (OC) insecticides were determined above the reach of tide in the Chesterville Branch and Nanticoke River on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay during base-flow and storm-flow hydrologic regimes to evaluate mass transport to Chesapeake Bay. The two rivers monitored showed relatively high concentrations of atrazine, simazine, alachlor, and metolachlor in comparison to previously investigated western shore tributaries, and reflected the predominant agricultural land use in the eastern shore watersheds. The four current use pesticides showed the greatest seasonal contribution to annual loadings to tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay from the two rivers, and the relative order of annual loadings for the other contaminant classes was PAHs > PCBs > OC insecticides. Annual loadings normalized to the landscape areas of selected Chesapeake Bay watersheds showed correlations to identifiable source areas, with the highest pesticide yields (g/km2/yr) occurring in eastern shore agricultural landscapes, and the highest PAH yields derived from urban regions.

Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part↗

USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage network in the Upper Colorado River Basin—Recording the hydrologic history of the Western United States

Introduction Water supply in the Western United States is an essential resource, and the collection of accurate and timely water information is fundamental to effectively managing water resources in the region. Efforts to document the hydrology in the Colorado River Basin are vital to life in the Western United States. These efforts began as far back as the initial John Wesley Powell exploration of the Colorado River and its tributaries in the summer of 1869. Shortly after, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was created in 1879, and the first USGS systematic measurement of streamflow began at the first streamgage, 08279500 Rio Grande at Embudo, New Mexico, in 1889. During its 146-year existence, the USGS has served the citizens of the United States in many roles, notably through long-standing stewardship in water science. For example, the USGS has collected hydrologic information at strategic locations within the Western United States to support water resource management, flood forecasting and response, interbasin water transfers, hydropower generation, municipal and agricultural water supplies, food security, recreation, habitat preservation, international treaty obligations and river compact compliance, and the operation of major water-storage projects, including Lake Powell and Lake Mead bordering Utah and Arizona, and Nevada and Arizona, respectively.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗

USGS2003

A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands

A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contractees was completed to obtain information about Abstract environmental and social effects of the program on participants, farms, and communities. Of interest were observations concerning wildlife, attitudes about long-term management of program lands, and effectiveness of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assistance in relation to these issues. Surveys were delivered to 2,189 CRP participants with a resultant response rate of 64.5%. Retired farmers represented the largest category of respondents (52%). Enhanced control of soil erosion was the leading benefit of the CRP reported. Over 73% of respondents observed increased numbers of wildlife associated with lands enrolled in the program. The majority of respondents reported CRP benefits, including increased quality of surface and ground waters, improved air quality, control of drifting snow, and elevated opportunities to hunt or simply observe wildlife as part of daily activities. Income stability, improved scenic quality of farms and landscapes, and potential increases in property values and future incomes also were seen as program benefits. Negative aspects, reported by a smaller number of respondents, included seeing the CRP as a source of weeds, fire hazard, and attracting unwanted requests for trespass. Over 75% of respondents believed CRP benefits to wildlife were important. A majority of respondents (82%) believed the amount of assistance furnished by USDA related to planning and maintaining wildlife habitat associated with CRP lands was appropriate. Nearly 51% of respondents would accept incorporation of periodic management of vegetation into long-term management of CRP lands to maintain quality of wildlife habitats. Provision of funds to address additional costs and changes in CRP regulations would be required to maximize long-term management of program lands. Additional, on-ground assistance related to management of CRP, and other agricultural lands, to maintain wildlife habitats was commonly identified as a need by survey respondents.

Biological Science Report↗

USGS2014

Great Lakes restoration success through science: U.S. Geological Survey accomplishments 2010 through 2013

The Great Lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) are the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth and serve as an important source of drinking water, transportation, power, and recreational opportunities for the United States and Canada. They also support an abundant commercial and recreational fishery, are crucial for agriculture, and are essential to the economic vitality of the region. The Great Lakes support a wealth of biological diversity, including over 200 globally rare plants and animals and more than 40 species that are found nowhere else in the world. However, more than a century of environmental degradation has taken a substantial toll on the Great Lakes. To stimulate and promote the goal of a healthy Great Lakes region, President Obama and Congress created the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in 2009. The GLRI is an interagency collaboration that seeks to address the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The GLRI is composed of five focus areas that address these issues: Cleaning up toxic substances and Areas of Concern, Preventing and controlling invasive species, Promoting nearshore health, Protecting and restoring habitat and wildlife, Tracking progress and working with partners. As of August 2013, the GLRI had funded more than 1,500 projects and programs of the highest priority to meet immediate cleanup, restoration, and protection needs. These projects use scientific analyses as the basis for identifying the restoration needs and priorities for the GLRI. Results from the science, monitoring, and other on-the-ground actions by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provide the scientific information needed to help guide the Great Lakes restoration efforts. This document highlights a selection of USGS projects for each of the five focus areas through 2013, demonstrating the importance of science for restoration success. Additional information for these and other USGS projects that are important for Great Lakes restoration is available at http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/glri-catalog/ .

Great Lakes↗

USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Users and uses of Landsat 8 satellite imagery—2014 survey results

Executive Summary In 2013, Landsat 8 began adding high quality, global, moderate-resolution imagery to the more than 40-year archive of Landsat imagery. To assess the potential effects of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on users and their work, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Land Remote Sensing Program (LRS) initiated a survey of Landsat users. The objectives of the survey were to 1. Characterize various Landsat user groups, such as United States (U.S.) and international users and Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users; 2. Identify any differences among user groups in uses and preferences; 3. Measure the importance of and satisfaction with Landsat 8 attributes; 4. Assess the importance to users of the frequency of usable imagery; and 5. Determine any challenges in using Landsat 8. The online survey was sent to 51,617 Landsat users registered with USGS in May 2014. Almost 13,000 people responded to the survey for a response rate of 25 percent (n = 12,966). Current Landsat users (users who had used Landsat in their work in the year prior to the survey) composed 89 percent of the sample (n = 11,549) and past Landsat users composed 11 percent (n = 1,417). The results reported here apply to current Landsat users registered with the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Users from 161 countries responded to the survey. Of those, 19 percent were citizens or permanent residents of the United States and 81 percent resided in other countries. More than 70 percent of current users had used Landsat 8 in the year prior to the survey. The majority of Landsat 8 users (65 percent) were established users who used Landsat imagery regularly both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available. The average current Landsat user was male, 36 years old, and highly educated, with 9 years of experience using satellite imagery or geographic information system (GIS) software. Landsat 8 users had, on average, two more years of experience than non-Landsat 8 users. Users were employed predominantly by academic institutions (65 percent), followed by private businesses (13 percent), Federal governments (10 percent), State and local governments (6 percent), and nonprofit organizations (6 percent). Of the Landsat imagery obtained in the past year by current users, on average 31 percent came from a Landsat 8 sensor. An equivalent amount came from the Landsat 7 ETM+ sensor (33 percent); slightly less came from Landsats 4 and 5 TM sensors (27 percent). Much less came from Landsats 1 through 5 MSS sensors (5 percent). Overall, more than a third of users’ work used Landsat imagery (38 percent). Of this work, on average, 37 percent of the work was operational. Landsat 8 users considered a greater proportion of their work operational than non-Landsat 8 users (39 percent compared with 29 percent). Environmental sciences and management were the most commonly selected primary applications (selected by 42 percent of users). Land use/land cover (23 percent) was the second most commonly selected primary application, followed by education (12 percent), agriculture (9 percent), and planning and development (6 percent). Landsat 8 users were asked to rank the importance of certain attributes in determining whether to use Landsat 8 imagery in their work. The archive was ranked most important, followed by cost, spatial resolution, extent of coverage, data quality, and frequency of revisit. Users were asked how satisfied they were with these same attributes as they currently apply to Landsat 8 imagery. On average, users were most satisfied with lack of cost, extent of coverage, data quality, and the archive, but they were satisfied with all attributes. Users were asked how often they needed Landsat imagery to meet various requirements for their primary application. The survey question specifically asked how often users needed usable imagery, which differs from how often they would like the Landsat satellites to acquire an image. Users were asked to identify their needed frequency of usable imagery for the following levels: 1. Threshold level—the minimum frequency of usable imagery needed to be of any value to their primary application. 2. Breakthrough level—the frequency of usable imagery that would result in a significant improvement for their primary application of the imagery. 3. Target level—the frequency of usable imagery that would only provide a limited additional increase in the expected performance for their primary application. To meet the threshold level, three-quarters of users needed usable imagery every 17 days or less frequently. At the breakthrough level, two-thirds of users (64 percent) needed a usable image every 5–16 days. The current constellation of two satellites (Landsat 7 and 8) is capable of meeting the threshold and breakthrough needs of most users at least some of the time, but a single satellite would be highly unlikely to do so. Two-fifths of users (40 percent) felt that usable imagery provided every 4 days or more frequently would meet their target level which the current Landsat constellation cannot provide. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than non-Landsat 8 users to need usable imagery more frequently to meet their target levels. Additionally, U.S. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than other Landsat users to need usable imagery more frequently in order meet both their breakthrough and target levels. To explore the effect of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on Landsat imagery use in general, established users (those who had consistently used Landsat imagery both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available) using Landsat 8 imagery were asked about changes in the amount of Landsat imagery they used. The majority of established users using Landsat 8 imagery (60 percent) reported an average increase of 51 percent in the number of scenes obtained after Landsat 8 imagery became available. Landsat 8 users were asked if they had encountered challenges in using Landsat 8 whereas non-Landsat 8 users were asked if such challenges had played a role in why they were not using Landsat 8 imagery. Although many users did not encounter challenges when using or trying to use Landsat 8 data, slightly less than 30 percent did encounter issues with processing the data to a usable point. The most common issue reported was not being able to create or have access to a surface reflectance corrected product. Other challenges were related to the file sizes of images being too large to download, store, or analyze. There were no statistically significant differences between Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users in terms of challenges encountered when using or trying to use the imagery, which indicates that users were not unduly discouraged by the challenges they may have encountered. When asked about potential consequences of not using Landsat 8, more than half of the non-Landsat 8 users did not report detrimental effects on their work from not using the imagery. Of those who did report detrimental effects, decreased quality of work, decreased scope of work, and increased time spent on work were the most common.

Open-File Report↗