SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Communications Biology”

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.

151 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

USGS2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

Human society has used freshwater from rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands for many different urban, agricultural, and industrial activities, but in doing so has overlooked its value in supporting ecosystems. Freshwater is vital to human life and societal well-being, and thus its utilization for consumption, irrigation, and transport has long taken precedence over other commodities and services provided by freshwater ecosystems. However, there is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life—and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. The purpose of this report is to explain how the integrity of freshwater ecosystems depends upon adequate quantity, quality, timing, and temporal variability of water flow. Defining these requirements in a comprehensive but general manner provides a better foundation for their inclusion in current and future debates about allocation of water resources. In this way the needs of freshwater ecosystems can be legitimately recognized and addressed. We also recommend ways in which freshwater ecosystems can be protected, maintained, and restored. Freshwater ecosystem structure and function are tightly linked to the watershed or catchment of which they are a part. Because riverine networks, lakes, wetlands, and their connecting groundwaters, are literally the “sinks” into which landscapes drain, they are greatly influenced by terrestrial processes, including many human uses or modifications of land and water. Freshwater ecosystems, whether lakes, wetlands, or rivers, have specific requirements in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality of their water supplies. Sustainability normally requires these systems to fluctuate within a natural range of variation. Flow regime, sediment and organic matter inputs, thermal and light characteristics, chemical and nutrient characteristics, and biotic assemblages are fundamental defining attributes of freshwater ecosystems. These attributes impart relatively unique characteristics of productivity and biodiversity to each ecosystem. The natural range of variation in each of these attributes is critical to maintaining the integrity and dynamic potential of aquatic ecosystems; therefore, management should allow for dynamic change. Piecemeal approaches cannot solve the problems confronting freshwater ecosystems. Scientific definitions of the requirements to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems are necessary but insufficient for establishing the appropriate distribution between societal and ecosystem water needs. For scientific knowledge to be implemented science must be connected to a political agenda for sustainable development. We offer these recommendations as a beginning to redress how water is viewed and managed in the United States: (1) Frame national and regional water management policies to explicitly incorporate freshwater ecosystem needs, particularly those related to naturally variable flow regimes and to the linking of water quality with water quantity; (2) Define water resources to include watersheds, so that freshwaters are viewed within a landscape, or systems context; (3) Increase communication and education across disciplines, especially among engineers, hydrologists, economists, and ecologists to facilitate an integrated view of freshwater resources; (4) Increase restoration efforts, using well-grounded ecological principles as guidelines; (5) Maintain and protect the remaining freshwater ecosystems that have high integrity; and (6) Recognize the dependence of human society on naturally functioning ecosystems.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2009

Comparative endocrinology in the 21st century

Hormones coordinate developmental, physiological, and behavioral processes within and between all living organisms. They orchestrate and shape organogenesis from early in development, regulate the acquisition, assimilation, and utilization of nutrients to support growth and metabolism, control gamete production and sexual behavior, mediate organismal responses to environmental change, and allow for communication of information between organisms. Genes that code for hormones; the enzymes that synthesize, metabolize, and transport hormones; and hormone receptors are important targets for natural selection, and variation in their expression and function is a major driving force for the evolution of morphology and life history. Hormones coordinate physiology and behavior of populations of organisms, and thus play key roles in determining the structure of populations, communities, and ecosystems. The field of endocrinology is concerned with the study of hormones and their actions. This field is rooted in the comparative study of hormones in diverse species, which has provided the foundation for the modern fields of evolutionary, environmental, and biomedical endocrinology. Comparative endocrinologists work at the cutting edge of the life sciences. They identify new hormones, hormone receptors and mechanisms of hormone action applicable to diverse species, including humans; study the impact of habitat destruction, pollution, and climatic change on populations of organisms; establish novel model systems for studying hormones and their functions; and develop new genetic strains and husbandry practices for efficient production of animal protein. While the model system approach has dominated biomedical research in recent years, and has provided extraordinary insight into many basic cellular and molecular processes, this approach is limited to investigating a small minority of organisms. Animals exhibit tremendous diversity in form and function, life-history strategies, and responses to the environment. A major challenge for life scientists in the 21st century is to understand how a changing environment impacts all life on earth. A full understanding of the capabilities of organisms to respond to environmental variation, and the resilience of organisms challenged by environmental changes and extremes, is necessary for understanding the impact of pollution and climatic change on the viability of populations. Comparative endocrinologists have a key role to play in these efforts.

Integrative and Comparative Biology↗

USGS2015

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

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

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2000

Field guide to malformations of frogs and toads: with radiographic interpretations

In 1995, students found numerous malformed frogs on a field trip to a Minnesota pond. Since that time, reports of malformed frogs have increased dramatically. Malformed frogs have now been reported in 44 states in 38 species of frogs, and 19 species of toads. Estimates as high as 60% of the newly metamorphosed frog populations have had malformations at some ponds (NARCAM, ’99). The wide geographic distribution of malformed frogs and the variety of malformations are a concern to resource managers, research scientists and public health officials. The potential for malformations to serve as a signal of ecosystem disruption, and the affect this potential disruption might have on other organisms that share those ecosystems, has not been resolved. Malformations represent an error that occurred early in development. The event that caused the developmental error is temporally distant from the malformation we see in the fully developed animal. Knowledge of normal developmental principles is necessary to design thoughtful investigations that will define the events involved in abnormal development in wild frog populations. Development begins at the time an egg is fertilized and progresses by chemical communication between cells and cell layers. This communication is programmed through gene expression. Malformations represent primary errors in development, errors in chemical communication or translation of genetic information. Deformations arise later in development and usually result from the influence of mechanical factors (such as amputation) that alter shape or anatomy of a structure that has developed normally. The occurrence and the type of malformations are influenced by the type of error or insult as well as the timing of the error (the developmental stage at which the error occurred). The appearance of the malformation can therefore provide clues that suggest when the error may have occurred. If the malformation is an incomplete organ, such as an incomplete limb, the factor or insult acted during a susceptible period prior to organ completion. Although defining the anatomy of the malformed metamorphosed frog can give us an idea of the approximate window during which the developmental insult was initiated, and might even suggest the type of insult that may have occurred, the morphology of the malformation does not define the cause. To define causes and mechanisms of frog malformations we need to use well designed investigations that are different from traditional tests used in acute toxicity or disease pathogenicity studies. When investigating malformations in metamorphosed frogs, we are looking at the affect of exposure to an agent that occurred early in tadpole development. Therefore investigations to determine causes of malformations need to look at agents that are present in the tadpoles or their environments at these early developmental times. Laboratory experiments need to expose embryos and tadpoles to suspect agents at appropriate developmental stages and look at acute results, such as toxicity and death, as well as following the developmental process to completion to determine the impact of the agent on the developing tadpole and the fully developed frog. This means holding animals past metamorphic climax to assure that the anatomy and physiology of the adult have developed normally. As we look at field collections of abnormal frogs, we need to keep in mind that these collections reflect survivors only. We are looking at malformations that were not fatal to tadpoles. We cannot assume that because we do not collect other malformations, they did not exist. More work needs to be done on the developing tadpole, in the field and in the laboratory, to better elucidate the range, frequency, character and causes of anuran malformations.

Biological Science Report↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group proceedings, Nashville, Tennessee, October 22-24, 2024

Karst hydrogeologic systems represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists studying groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Karst terrains are characterized by distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs, and many of the exceptional karst areas are designated as national or state parks. The range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than any other aquifer type. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Karst Interest Group (KIG), formed in 2000, is a loosely knit, grassroots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst aquifers. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops. To date (2024), nine KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The abstracts and extended abstracts provide a snapshot in time of past and current karst related studies. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the workshop and proceedings. The planning committee for the ninth workshop includes Thomas D. Byl (USGS and Tennessee State University), Allan K. Clark (USGS), Laura M. DeMott (USGS), Eve L. Kuniansky (USGS, Emeritus), Benjamin V. Miller (USGS), and Lawrence E. Spangler (USGS, Emeritus). The workshop proceedings are edited by Eve L. Kuniansky and Lawrence E. Spangler. The field trip guide was produced by Benjamin V. Miller and Brian Ham (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and included in the proceedings from the KIG’s 2021 virtual workshop to be used on the optional field trip held on Thursday, October 24, 2024.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Strategic Plan for the North American Breeding Bird Survey: 2006-2010

Executive Summary The mission of the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is to provide scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales to inform biologically sound conservation and management actions. Determining population trends, relative abundance, and distributions of North American avifauna is critical for identifying conservation priorities, determining appropriate conservation actions, and evaluating those actions. The BBS program, jointly coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service, provides the U.S. and Canadian Federal governments, state and provincial agencies, other conservation practitioners, and the general public with science-based avian population trend estimates and other information for regional and national species’ population assessments. Despite the demonstrated value of the BBS for furthering avian conservation across North America, its importance is often underappreciated, and it is underfunded compared with many other government-supported programs that report on status of the environment. Today, BBS resources, adjusted for inflation, are below the amount allocated in the 1970s and are still only sufficient to support two biologists. Yet the number of routes, participants, data, and data requests has quadrupled. Data and information management and delivery requirements and security concerns, non-existent in 1966, impose further demands on BBS resources. In addition, the Mexican expansion of the BBS offers new hope for a truly continental approach to avian conservation, but also brings additional challenges. Meeting the goals of this plan will take cooperation among myriad stakeholders; yet, even with collaboration, most objectives of this plan will be unattainable if BBS program support is not increased. The BBS developed this strategic plan to help set priorities and identify resources required for the program to continue to meet the evolving needs of the conservation community for information on bird population change. By setting clear goals, strategies, and measures of success, this plan provides a cohesive framework and vision for maintenance and development of the BBS. The plan identifies two major goals for the BBS, with a number of strategies and objectives to achieve these goals. Over the next 5 years, progress made in addressing each long-term goal and its associated 5-year strategies and objectives will gage the plan’s success. Specific actions, projected outcomes, and measures of success related to accomplishing these are outlined in Table 1, with a timeline in Table 2. The two main goals for the program, with a summary of the strategies to achieve them, are: Goal 1: Collect scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales. The North American Breeding Bird Survey will continue to support North American natural resource conservation through the collection of scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of continental bird populations. While doing this, the BBS will work to improve the science behind the program to better meet its mission and the changing needs of the avian conservation community. In partnership with collaborators, the BBS will address detection probability bias and habitat bias, improve analytical methods, and more fully assess and account for observer quality. Moreover, the BBS will improve the quality and breadth of avian population data through strategic increases in route density and the establishment of a Mexican BBS program. Goal 2: Ensure BBS data and analytical results are widely available and easily accessible for use by the avian conservation and management communities. At the heart of the BBS lies a four-million-record database containing more than 40 years of data on more than 600 bird species. These data are of no value if not well maintained, appropriately analyzed, and widely and easily accessible. The USGS has greatly improved data management and accessibility in recent years. Trend estimates were first made available via the Internet in the mid-1990s, followed closely by the raw data with baseline metadata and standard operating procedures. Nevertheless, numerous enhancements to data management and the usability of BBS results will greatly improve the ability of the BBS to serve avian conservation goals. The BBS needs to ensure that BBS data and results presented on the web site use the best data-management practices and statistical methods, with adequate documentation for users to understand them and any differences between different trend estimates. Moreover, the BBS needs to increase communication with BBS partners and stakeholders to ensure that it continues to meet the avian population status and trends needs of the conservation community and to encourage the development of new products. Working with collaborators, the BBS will develop tools for integrating environmental parameters like habitat change into the analyses, and for integrating BBS data with other avian survey results. In addition, the BBS will continue to improve data and database management through the incorporation of additional data and data fields, such as georeferenced stop locations and more complete metadata for the raw data and results, thus enhancing the uses that can be made of the data.

Circular↗

USGS2005

Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge

Humans are altering the composition of biological communities through a variety of activities that increase rates of species invasions and species extinctions, at all scales, from local to global. These changes in components of the Earth's biodiversity cause concern for ethical and aesthetic reasons, but they also have a strong potential to alter ecosystem properties and the goods and services they provide to humanity. Ecological experiments, observations, and theoretical developments show that ecosystem properties depend greatly on biodiversity in terms of the functional characteristics of organisms present in the ecosystem and the distribution and abundance of those organisms over space and time. Species effects act in concert with the effects of climate, resource availability, and disturbance regimes in influencing ecosystem properties. Human activities can modify all of the above factors; here we focus on modification of these biotic controls. The scientific community has come to a broad consensus on many aspects of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, including many points relevant to management of ecosystems. Further progress will require integration of knowledge about biotic and abiotic controls on ecosystem properties, how ecological communities are structured, and the forces driving species extinctions and invasions. To strengthen links to policy and management, we also need to integrate our ecological knowledge with understanding of the social and economic constraints of potential management practices. Understanding this complexity, while taking strong steps to minimize current losses of species, is necessary for responsible management of Earth's ecosystems and the diverse biota they contain. Based on our review of the scientific literature, we are certain of the following conclusions: 1) Species' functional characteristics strongly influence ecosystem properties. Functional characteristics operate in a variety of contexts, including effects of dominant species, keystone species, ecological engineers, and interactions among species (e.g., competition, facilitation, mutualism, disease, and predation). Relative abundance alone is not always a good predictor of the ecosystem-level importance of a species, as even relatively rare species (e.g., a keystone predator) can strongly influence pathways of energy and material flows. 2) Alteration of biota in ecosystems via species invasions and extinctions caused by human activities has altered ecosystem goods and services in many well-documented cases. Many of these changes are difficult, expensive, or impossible to reverse or fix with technological solutions. 3) The effects of species loss or changes in composition, and the mechanisms by which the effects manifest themselves, can differ among ecosystem properties, ecosystem types, and pathways of potential community change. 4) Some ecosystem properties are initially insensitive to species loss because (a) ecosystems may have multiple species that carry out similar functional roles, (b) some species may contribute relatively little to ecosystem properties, or (c) properties may be primarily controlled by abiotic environmental conditions. 5) More species are needed to insure a stable supply of ecosystem goods and services as spatial and temporal variability increases, which typically occurs as longer time periods and larger areas are considered. We have high confidence in the following conclusions: 1) Certain combinations of species are complementary in their patterns of resource use and can increase average rates of productivity and nutrient retention. At the same time, environmental conditions can influence the importance of complementarity in structuring communities. Identification of which and how many species act in a complementary way in complex communities is just beginning. 2) Susceptibility to invasion by exotic species is strongly influenced by species composition and, under similar environmental conditions, generally decreases with increasing species richness. However, several other factors, such as propagule pressure, disturbance regime, and resource availability also strongly influence invasion success and often override effects of species richness in comparisons across different sites or ecosystems. 3) Having a range of species that respond differently to different environmental perturbations can stabilize ecosystem process rates in response to disturbances and variation in abiotic conditions. Using practices that maintain a diversity of organisms of different functional effect and functional response types will help preserve a range of management options. Uncertainties remain and further research is necessary in the following areas: 1) Further resolution of the relationships among taxonomic diversity, functional diversity, and community structure is important for identifying mechanisms of biodiversity effects. 2) Multiple trophic levels are common to ecosystems but have been understudied in biodiversity/ecosystem functioning research. The response of ecosystem properties to varying composition and diversity of consumer organisms is much more complex than responses seen in experiments that vary only the diversity of primary producers. 3) Theoretical work on stability has outpaced experimental work, especially field research. We need long-term experiments to be able to assess temporal stability, as well as experimental perturbations to assess response to and recovery from a variety of disturbances. Design and analysis of such experiments must account for several factors that covary with species diversity. 4) Because biodiversity both responds to and influences ecosystem properties, understanding the feedbacks involved is necessary to integrate results from experimental communities with patterns seen at broader scales. Likely patterns of extinction and invasion need to be linked to different drivers of global change, the forces that structure communities, and controls on ecosystem properties for the development of effective management and conservation strategies. 5) This paper focuses primarily on terrestrial systems, with some coverage of freshwater systems, because that is where most empirical and theoretical study has focused. While the fundamental principles described here should apply to marine systems, further study of that realm is necessary. Despite some uncertainties about the mechanisms and circumstances under which diversity influences ecosystem properties, incorporating diversity effects into policy and management is essential, especially in making decisions involving large temporal and spatial scales. Sacrificing those aspects of ecosystems that are difficult or impossible to reconstruct, such as diversity, simply because we are not yet certain about the extent and mechanisms by which they affect ecosystem properties, will restrict future management options even further. It is incumbent upon ecologists to communicate this need, and the values that can derive from such a perspective, to those charged with economic and policy decision-making.

Ecological Monographs↗