SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Management Science”

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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

USGS2016

Shifting currents: Progress, setbacks, and shifts in policy and practice

The Wisconsin Academy’s initial Waters of Wisconsin project (WOW I) facilitated a statewide conversation between 2000 and 2003 around one main question: How can we ensure healthy aquatic ecosystems and clean, abundant water supplies for tomorrow’s Wisconsin? Robust participation in this conversation underscored the important role citizens have in the stewardship of our waters, and we found enthusiastic support for farsighted policies—based on sound science—to manage our water legacy. Overall, we found that Wisconsinites cherish water and see our waters as essential to our way of life in Wisconsin. Nationally, our state ranks 25th in land area but has the fourth-highest area covered by water. Wisconsin is 20th in population but is second only to Florida in the number of fishing licenses sold each year. Clean water supports billions of dollars’ worth of economic activity through tourism, agriculture, and industry. From the Northwoods cabin to the Port of Milwaukee to the Wisconsin Dells, water shapes our state’s identity. Our tradition of safeguarding Wisconsin’s waters is grounded in values such as responsibility to family and future generations, respect for land and wildlife, protecting public health and safety, and caring for water as a common good, as articulated in the state’s Public Trust Doctrine (see page 9). These deeply held values have also shaped a conservation ethic, and its legacy has served many generations who depend upon and enjoy the waters of the state. Through WOW I, we identified the need to overcome the institutional and disciplinary separation of science, policy, and management protocols through a more integrated approach to water management. WOW also affirmed that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and other public agencies play a critical role in sound scientific application, citizen participation, and the practical implementation of policy while balancing public and private interests toward the goal of a clean water future. More than a decade has passed since our first statewide WOW conversation and the report that captured recommendations from its participants: Waters of Wisconsin: The Future of Our Aquatic Ecosystems and Resources. Drawing from a diverse and growing set of stakeholders from across the state, the Wisconsin Academy initiated a new conversation in 2012 (known as WOW II) to assess progress in regard to our 2003 recommendations. We also sought to review the status of waters in Wisconsin today. The result of this renewed conversation is Shifting Currents: Progress, Setbacks, and Shifts in Policy and Practice. The new report assesses progress in brief, and explores in greater depth the continuing and emerging challenges to water quality, supply, and aquatic ecosystems in Wisconsin. In this report, we first review the context and frameworks for public decision-making about water and then examine some of the root causes—or “drivers”—and ecological stressors that underlie many of the symptoms we see in the form of pollution or ecosystem degradation in Wisconsin. This is followed by a summary of current water issues, many of which had been identified in the 2003 report and remain relevant today. We examine progress since 2003 but also setbacks, and discuss issues that we are likely to continue to face in the coming decades, including controlling agricultural runoff, mitigating climate change and grappling with its effects on the state’s waters, protecting groundwater from bacterial contamination and other pollutants, and preventing groundwater depletion. We also attempt to anticipate issues on the horizon. We offer a deeper look at some particular challenges, such as phosphorus pollution and groundwater contamination. We then consider the current decision-making framework and how it is shaping our capacity to respond to water challenges in Wisconsin. Finally, we offer recommendations and identify opportunities to safeguard Wisconsin’s waters in the decades ahead. From its inception, the Wisconsin Academy’s Waters of Wisconsin Initiative has brought together a diverse community of experts from across the state and from varied fields and areas of interest, to address challenges and seize opportunities related to our precious waters. We have done so as a matter of both principle and practical reality: the state of our waters reflects the ways we interact not only with them, but also with one another and our institutions. The WOW Initiative has aimed to provide guidance for Wisconsin citizens in sustaining the health of our aquatic ecosystems and the resilience of our water supplies over the long term.

Report↗

USGS1986

Management of the life and death of an earth-science database: some examples from geotherm

Productive earth-science databases require managers who are familiar with and skilled at using available software developed specifically for database management. There also should be a primary user with a clearly understood mission. The geologic phenomenon addressed by the database must be sufficiently understood, and adequate appropriate data must be available to construct a useful database. The database manager, in concert with the primary user, must ensure that data of adequate quality are available in the database, as well as prepare for mechanisms of releasing the data when the database is terminated. The primary user needs to be held accountable along with the database manager to ensure that a useful database will be created. Quality of data and maintenance of database relevancy to the user's mission are important issues during the database's lifetime. Products prepared at termination may be used more than the operational database and thus are of critical importance. These concepts are based, in part, on both the shortcomings and successes of GEOTHERM, a comprehensive system of databases and software used to store, locate, and evaluate the geology, geochemistry, and hydrology of geothermal systems. ?? 1986.

Computers & Geosciences↗

USGS2024

Wildlife stewardship on Tribal lands: Our place is in our soul By Serra J. Hoagland and Steven Albert (Eds.), Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2023. pp. 432. $59.95 (hardcover). ISBN 978-1-4214-4657-8

Despite thousands of years of land stewardship by Indigenous Peoples, Western ideology and science predominantly influences wildlife management in North America today. Indigenous science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) extend beyond the scope of Western science and ecological understanding to include knowledge derived from generations of people living as part of ecosystems (Rinkevich 2008 ). Historically, Western science and TEK have operated separately, resulting in the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples and TEK in wildlife science and management, which has led to significant knowledge gaps in Western science. Today, many practitioners are seeking ways to study and manage wildlife in more inclusive ways that integrate multiple perspectives, including those from Indigenous communities, wildlife managers, researchers, and academics.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2023

Assessing the value and usage of data management planning and data management plans within the U.S. Geological Survey

As of 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fundamental Science Practices require data management plans (DMPs) for all USGS and USGS-funded research. The USGS Science Data Management Branch of the Science Analytics and Synthesis Program has been working to help the USGS (Bureau) meet this requirement. However, USGS researchers still encounter common data management-related challenges that may be reduced or eliminated by better planning. In 2021, USGS staff were given a series of surveys aimed to better understand current data management planning practices, perceptions, and needs. The survey results indicated that adoption and integration of data management planning and DMPs into USGS research project workflows are broad, if inconsistent, across USGS Science Centers and programs. The USGS Science Data Management Branch can help improve clarity and guidance on the purpose, intended audience, content, workflows, and evaluation processes for DMPs. It would also be beneficial to provide additional supporting cyberinfrastructure to support DMP activities. Survey responses indicated it would be beneficial for the Science Data Management Branch to develop a strategy, other than through DMPs, for teaching and encouraging good data management practices. Although these surveys were an opportunity for USGS staff to provide feedback on their experiences, the surveys may also have revealed the desire for more frequent evaluations, cross-disciplinary communication, and training on research data management and DMP development and integration, in the context of USGS policy, Fundamental Science Practices requirements, and overall Bureau expectations. Data management-related roles such as data manager or steward, information technologist, and repository manager may need to be formally recognized as skilled professional career positions within the Bureau. At a minimum, the best practice for USGS would be to create and maintain DMPs as living documents, integrated with existing systems that are broadly accessible to all stakeholders, and include quantitatively measurable benefits tied directly to a clearly defined purpose.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Prepublication communication of research results

Publishing of scientific findings is central to the scientific process, and it is traditional to consider findings “provisional” until accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. Until publication, communication of provisional findings beyond participants in the study is typically limited. This practice helps assure scientific integrity. However, a dilemma arises when a provisional finding has urgent societal consequences that may be exacerbated by delay. This dilemma may be particularly pronounced when a discovery concerns wildlife health, which could have implications for conservation, public health (i.e., zoonoses), or domestic animal health (e.g., avian influenza). A scientist may see a need for prepublication communication but consider such communication to be problematic. We suggest that common concerns about directed prepublication communication are generally misplaced. Our perspective comes from natural resources science and management, but we suspect that this situation could arise in any branch of science and that discussing these issues will help scientists who may not routinely work with public officials navigate an unfamiliar situation.

EcoHealth↗

USGS1989

Management of fish populations in large rivers: a review of tools and approaches

In common with most branches of science, the management of riverine fish populations is characterised by reductionist and isolationist philosophies. Traditional fish management focuses on stocking and controls on fishing. This paper presents a consensus of scientists involved in the LARS workshop on the management of fish populations in large rivers. A move towards a more holistic philosophy is advocated, with fish management forming an integral part of sustainable river development. Based upon a questionnaire survey of LARS members, with wide-ranging expertise and experience from all parts of the world, lists of management tools currently in use are presented. Four categories of tools are described: flow, water-quality, habitat, and biological. The potential applications of tools for fish management in large rivers is discussed and research needs are identified. The lack of scientific evaluations of the different tools remains the major constraint to their wider application.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2018

Climate Assessments and Scenario Planning (CLASP)

The NE CASC boasts an interdisciplinary array of scientists, from ecologists to biologists, hydrologists to climatologists, each contributing new, original academic research to advance our understanding of the impacts of climate change on wildlife and other natural resources in the Northeast. Needed was an outreach specialist who would interface directly with the management agencies who benefited from this research to aid the integration of this research into their management planning as part of adapting to climate change. A climatologist was preferred to address queries about climate modeling, climate change uncertainties, and other areas of climate science outside the expertise of NE CASC ecologists, biologists, and hydrologists. This person’s activities would include responding to inquiries, presenting climate science concepts at management workshops, gathering managers’ climate science needs, contributing to the climate portion of synthesis reports and other resources for managers, and collaborating with ecologists on interdisciplinary studies of climate change by providing climate data and guidance on interpretation. The objective was to relay and interpret the scientific findings most relevant to managers’ resources of concern and management activities around those resources to guide adjustments to their activities toward better protecting their resources of concern. As an outcome, managers often relied on synthesized climate science to be able to consider how climate trends affect their work, especially those thinking about climate change for the first time in the context of their work. This lays the groundwork for more detailed management-driven science delivery that can aid eventual implementation. Management groups reached by this project include land managers with the National Park Service, state fish and game departments and DNRs, and tribal environmental coordinators.

Report↗

USGS2022

U.S. Geological Survey Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology (ASIST)—Information Management Technology Plan

Introduction More than 840 publications, 575 data releases, and 330 project web pages from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) pertain to the Colorado River Basin. Limited interconnections between Colorado River Basin publications, data, and web pages restrict the ability to synthesize and interpret scientific resources. Currently, these pieces are spread across multiple isolated locations, internal systems, data repositories, and local offices. The increasing size, complexity, and diversity of Colorado River Basin data creates additional need for integration. These different data types—including discrete, continuous, aerial, remote sensing, geophysical, geospatial, and other types in varied formats—are collected over numerous time and space scales and require data-intensive science and technology to integrate. Information management technology (IMT) resources are enterprise capabilities that the USGS workforce can leverage at multiple scales with consistent interoperable solutions to better facilitate integrated science. The USGS 21st Century Science Strategy directs the USGS to establish enterprise IMT capabilities that support integrated work through interoperable software and database solutions at multiple scales. This Information Management Technology Plan identifies nine steps to leverage new and existing technologies, data, models, and scientific knowledge to support integrated science projects conducted across the Colorado River Basin. These steps are transferable to integrated-science studies in other locations.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS2006

Advances in recreational water quality monitoring at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

Indiana Dunes has improved its ability to protect the health of swimmers through better science-based management and increased understanding of contaminants. Most research has focused on Escherichia coli and its nature, sources, and distribution because it is widely accepted as an indicator of potential pathogens. Though research on E. coli and recreational water quality is continually generating new information, public beach managers may gain valuable insight into this management issue from our experience at Indiana Dunes. This article reviews one of the longest maintained indicator bacteria monitoring programs in the National Park System, highlights lessons learned, and summarizes research findings that may be of interest to public beach managers.

Park Science↗

USGS2020

Bridging the research-management gap: Landscape ecology in practice on public lands in the western United States

The field of landscape ecology has grown and matured in recent decades, but incorporating landscape science into land management decisions remains challenging. Many lands in the western United States are federally owned and managed for multiple uses, including recreation, conservation, and energy development. We argue for stronger integration of landscape science into the management of these public lands. We open by outlining the relevance of landscape science for public land planning, management, and environmental effects analysis, including pertinent laws and policies. We identify challenges to integrating landscape science into public land management, including the multijurisdictional nature and complicated spatial pattern of public lands, the capacity of agencies to identify and fill landscape science needs, and public perceptions about the meaning of landscape approaches to management. We provide several recent examples related to landscape monitoring, restoration, reclamation, and conservation in which landscape science products were developed specifically to support decision-making. We close by highlighting three actions - elevating the importance of science-management partnerships dedicated to coproducing actionable landscape science products, identifying where landscape science could foster efficiencies in the land-use planning process, and developing scenario-based landscape models for shrublands - that could improve landscape science support for public land planners and managers.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New↗

USGS2017

Cooperative science to inform Lake Ontario management: Research from the 2013 Lake Ontario CSMI program

Since the mid-1970s, successful Lake Ontario management actions including nutrient load and pollution reductions, habitat restoration, and fish stocking have improved Lake Ontario. However, several new obstacles to maintenance and restoration have emerged. This special issue presents management-relevant research from multiple agency surveys in 2011 and 2012 and the 2013 Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI), that span diverse lake habitats, species, and trophic levels. This research focused on themes of nutrient loading and fate; vertical dynamics of primary and secondary production; fish abundance and behavior; and food web structure. Together these papers identify the status of many of the key drivers of the Lake Ontario ecosystem and contribute to addressing lake-scale questions and management information needs in Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes and connecting water bodies.

Lake Ontario↗

USGS2021

SMaRT: A science-based tiered framework for common ravens

Large-scale increases and expansion of common raven ( Corvus corax ; raven) populations are occurring across much of North America, leading to increased negative consequences for livestock and agriculture, human health and safety, and sensitive species conservation. We describe a science-based adaptive management framework that incorporates recent quantitative analyses and mapping products for addressing areas with elevated raven numbers and minimizing potential adverse impacts to sensitive species, agricultural damage, and human safety. The framework comprises 5 steps: (1) desktop analysis; (2) field assessments; (3) comparison of raven density estimates to an ecological threshold (in terms of either density or density plus distance to nearest active or previous nest); (4) prescribing management options using a 3-tiered process (i.e., habitat improvements, subsidy reductions, and direct actions using StallPOPd.V4 software); and (5) post-management monitoring. The framework is integrated within the Science-based Management of Ravens Tool (SMaRT), a web-based application outfitted with a user-friendly interface that guides managers through each step to develop a fully customized adaptive plan for raven management. In the SMaRT interface, users can: (1) interact with pre-loaded maps of raven occurrence and density and define their own areas of interest within the Great Basin to delineate proposed survey or treatment sites; (2) enter site-level density estimates from distance sampling methods or perform estimation of raven densities using the rapid assessment protocol that we provide; (3) compare site-level density estimates to an identified ecological threshold; and (4) produce a list of potential management options for their consideration. The SMaRT supports decision-making by operationalizing scientific products for raven management and facilitates realization of diverse management goals including sensitive species conservation, protection of livestock and agriculture, safeguarding human health, and addressing raven overabundance and expansion. We illustrate the use of the framework through SMaRT using an example of greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) conservation efforts within the Great Basin, USA.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗

USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗

USGS2016

Managing water and riparian habitats on the Bill Williams River with scientific benefit for other desert river systems

This report details modeling to: 1) codify flow-ecology relationships for riparian species of the Bill Williams River as operational guidance for water managers, 2) test the guidance under different climate scenarios, and 3) revise the operational guidance as needed to address the effects of climate change. Model applications detailed herein include the River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) and the Ecosystem Functions Model (HEC-EFM), which was used to generate more than three million estimates of local seedling recruitment areas. Areas were aggregated and compared to determine which scenarios generated the most seedling area per unit volume of water. Scenarios that maximized seedling area were grouped into a family of curves that serve as guidance for water managers. This work has direct connections to water management decision-making and builds upon and adds to the rich history of science-based management for the Bill Williams River, Arizona, USA.

Arizona↗

USGS2017

Strengthening links between waterfowl research and management

Waterfowl monitoring, research, regulation, and adaptive planning are leading the way in supporting science-informed wildlife management. However, increasing societal demands on natural resources have created a greater need for adaptable and successful linkages between waterfowl science and management. We presented a special session at the 2016 North American Duck Symposium, Annapolis, Maryland, USA on the successes and challenges of linking research and management in waterfowl conservation, and we summarize those thoughts in this commentary. North American waterfowl management includes a diversity of actions including management of harvest and habitat. Decisions for waterfowl management are structured using decision analysis by incorporating stakeholder values into formal objectives, identifying research relevant to objectives, integrating scientific knowledge, and choosing an optimal strategy with respect to objectives. Recently, the consideration of the value of information has been proposed as a means to evaluate the utility of research designed to meet objectives. Despite these advances, the ability to conduct waterfowl research with direct management application may be increasingly difficult in research institutions for several reasons including reduced funding for applied research and the lower perceived value of applied versus theoretical research by some university academics. In addition, coordination between researchers and managers may be logistically constrained, and communication may be ineffective between the 2 groups. Strengthening these links would help develop stronger and more coordinated approaches for the conservation of waterfowl and the wetlands upon which they depend.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2013

Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 2013-23: Part 2: Science plan for improved water-quality information and management

This report presents a science strategy for the third decade of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, which since 1991, has been responsible for providing nationally consistent information on the quality of the Nation's streams and groundwater; how water quality is changing over time; and the major natural and human factors that affect current water quality conditions and trends. The strategy is based on an extensive evaluation of the accomplishments of NAWQA over its first two decades, the current status of water-quality monitoring activities by USGS and its partners, and an updated analysis of stakeholder priorities. The plan is designed to address priority issues and national needs identified by NAWQA stakeholders and the National Research Council (2012) irrespective of budget constraints. This plan describes four major goals for the third decade (Cycle 3), the approaches for monitoring, modeling, and scientific studies, key partnerships required to achieve these goals, and products and outcomes that will result from planned assessment activities. The science plan for 2013–2023 is a comprehensive approach to meet stakeholder priorities for: (1) rebuilding NAWQA monitoring networks for streams, rivers, and groundwater, and (2) upgrading models used to extrapolate and forecast changes in water-quality and stream ecosystem condition in response to changing climate and land use. The Cycle 3 plan continues approaches that have been central to the Program’s long-term success, but adjusts monitoring intensities and study designs to address critical information needs and identified data gaps. Restoration of diminished monitoring networks and new directions in modeling and interpretative studies address growing and evolving public and stakeholder needs for water-quality information and improved management, particularly in the face of increasing challenges related to population growth, increasing demands for water, and changing land use and climate. However, a combination of funding growth and extensive collaboration with other USGS programs and other Federal, State, and local agencies, public interest groups, professional and trade associations, academia, and private industry will be needed to fully realize the monitoring and modeling goals laid out in this plan (USGS Fact Sheet 2013-3008).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2020

Aquatic invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay drainage—Research-based needs and priorities of U.S. Geological Survey partners and collaborators

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is revising the Chesapeake Bay-based science plan to align it with recent U.S. Department of Interior and USGS science priorities that include, as stated in the plan, providing “an integrated understanding of the factors affecting fish habitat, fish health, and landscape conditions” in Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. A report of partner agencies’ needs and priorities related to aquatic invasive species (AIS) science was identified as an informational gap; a report would help to further development of the science program related to aquatic animal health and habitat. This objective was addressed through review of pertinent documentation and conversations with representatives of State, Federal, and regional agencies with vested interests in AIS management in Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay drainage area, and this document was produced to summarize the related findings. All agencies and organizations (13) reported that AIS are of general concern, with most stakeholder groups reporting AIS-related issues to be of high priority, including invasive fishes and invertebrates, invasive plants, and microbes including aquatic animal pathogens. Invasive fishes are of great concern to all partner agencies. Channa argus (northern snakehead) and Ictalurus furcatus (blue catfish) are high priority and represent the two most named AIS of concern for these agencies. Nine of 10 stakeholder groups listed northern snakehead as a high priority species, and 6 listed blue catfish as a high priority species as well. Pylodictis olivaris (flathead catfish), invasive crayfish species , and dressenid mussels were also prioritized by multiple partner groups, each receiving specific mention by at least 3 of the 10 stakeholder groups in discussions or documents. Invasive carp, such as Hypophthalmichthys molatrix (silver carp), also received mention by multiple agencies (3 of the 10 stakeholder groups) because these fish represent priority AIS in nearby watersheds and a threat for introduction and dissemination within the Chesapeake Bay watershed from these neighboring regions. Invasive plants are among priority species, and Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) topped the list. Hydrilla was reported as a priority species by 5 of the stakeholder groups queried. Trapa natans and T. bispinosa (water chestnut), Phragmites australis (common reed), and Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) were also among the aquatic invasive plants that were prioritized by multiple partner agencies. Multiple stakeholder groups (5 of the 10 groups) also considered Didymosphenia geminata (didymo) and various aquatic animal pathogens among their priority AIS for management considerations. Science needs that were recurrently indicated by stakeholders to support management of invasive species include Technology to enhance biosurveillance capability, such as reliable environmental DNA based detection methodology; Risk assessment modeling to forewarn of and prioritize AIS-related threats; Increased information and intervention methods related to vectors and pathways of AIS introductions; Increased information about the biology and life history of AIS, including information related to trophic interactions, health and disease, and distribution and abundance; and Potential applications of mitigation strategies, including genetically based biocontrol mechanisms. Potential next steps to address the science needs include Development of biosurveillance and risk assessment tools for identification of AIS in proactive management; Development of proactive management techniques to prevent AIS introductions through recognized vectors and pathways; Development of interagency biosurveillance programs to best utilize personnel, funds, and other resources among interested agencies and organizations; Investigations to address life history, consequences, and movement/dissemination of top priority invasive species in the region; Investigations to determine the potential for novel mitigation technologies, such as the application of synthetic biological (genetic) control methods; and Investigations with focus on emerging and high priority AIS in the region, including fishes (blue catfish, flathead catfish, northern snakehead), invertebrates (invasive crayfish and mollusks) and plants (hydrilla, water chestnut, phragmites).

Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Penns↗

USGS2021

Riverscape approaches in practice: Perspectives and applications

Landscape perspectives in riverine ecology have been undertaken increasingly in the last 30 years, leading aquatic ecologists to develop a diverse set of approaches for conceptualizing, mapping and understanding ‘riverscapes’. Spatiotemporally explicit perspectives of rivers and their biota nested within the socio-ecological landscape now provide guiding principles and approaches in inland fisheries and watershed management. During the last two decades, scientific literature on riverscapes has increased rapidly, indicating that the term and associated approaches are serving an important purpose in freshwater science and management. We trace the origins and theoretical foundations of riverscape perspectives and approaches and examine trends in the published literature to assess the state of the science and demonstrate how they are being applied to address recent challenges in the management of riverine ecosystems. We focus on approaches for studying and visualizing rivers and streams with remote sensing, modelling and sampling designs that enable pattern detection as seen from above (e.g. river channel, floodplain, and riparian areas) but also into the water itself (e.g. aquatic organisms and the aqueous environment). Key concepts from landscape ecology that are central to riverscape approaches are heterogeneity, scale (resolution, extent and scope) and connectivity (structural and functional), which underpin spatial and temporal aspects of study design, data collection and analysis. Mapping of physical and biological characteristics of rivers and floodplains with high-resolution, spatially intensive techniques improves understanding of the causes and ecological consequences of spatial patterns at multiple scales. This information is crucial for managing river ecosystems, especially for the successful implementation of conservation, restoration and monitoring programs. Recent advances in remote sensing, field-sampling approaches and geospatial technology are making it increasingly feasible to collect high-resolution data over larger scales in space and time. We highlight challenges and opportunities and discuss future avenues of research with emerging tools that can potentially help to overcome obstacles to collecting, analysing and displaying these data. This synthesis is intended to help researchers and resource managers understand and apply these concepts and approaches to address real-world problems in freshwater management.

Biological Reviews↗