Geology topics

Amy M. Villamagna

Publications and source records attributed to Amy M. Villamagna.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Deposited sediment influences occurrence of functional traits of stream fishes

To better understand stream-fish sensitivity to fine sediment, we documented assemblage-wide responses by selected traits along a sedimentation gradient. We then discuss the management implications of these ‘dose–response’ relations in the contexts of biotic assessments and conservation of sediment-sensitive species. We identified a spatial gradient in sediment deposition among streams within the upper Piedmont of the Roanoke River basin in North Carolina and Virginia. We assessed fine-sediment sensitivity of 81 species based on eight species traits stratified by four attributes: food preference, feeding location, spawning substrate and spawning behaviour. We then ranked each trait and scored each species with respect to its sediment sensitivity. Using data from electrofishing surveys during 2018–2019, we calculated proportional abundances of traits observed at 30 sites throughout the study area and grouped species by their aggregate sensitivity scores. We assessed relations between embeddedness and silt cover and occurrences of species and traits using a combination of regression and ordination approaches. All traits tested responded to embeddedness or silt cover, or both. Feeding traits exhibited the strongest responses to embeddedness, while reproductive traits exhibited the strongest responses to silt cover. Our findings indicate that negative responses of the probability of presence for high-sensitivity traits to embeddedness and silt cover were linear, with no apparent thresholds. Additionally, proportional abundances of species with multiple high-sensitivity traits were inversely related to embeddedness and silt cover. Overall, our findings regarding population-level responses to sedimentation were consistent with our findings for trait-specific responses. Our analysis of species sensitivity to fine sediment corroborated the patterns we saw in our trait-specific analyses, indicating that population responses to sedimentation can be predicted from combinations of species traits. The ‘dose–response’ relations we documented may be applicable to managing sediment impacts on fishes, especially in the contexts of biotic assessments and conservation of sediment-sensitive species.

North Carolina, Virginia↗

USGS2018

A new modeling approach to prioritize riparian restoration to reduce sediment loading in two Virginia river basins

Human impact, particularly land cover changes (e.g., agriculture, construction) increase erosion and sediment loading into streams. Benthic species are negatively affected by silt deposition that coats and embeds stream substrate. Given that riparian buffers are effective sediment filters, riparian restoration is increasingly implemented by conservation groups to protect stream habitats. Limited funding and a multitude of impaired streams warrant the need for cost-effective prioritization of potential restoration actions. We created a decision-support framework for conservation agencies and aquatic resource managers to prioritize riparian restoration efforts. Our framework integrates GIS data and field surveys into a statistical model to predict instream silt from estimates of upland soil loss and riparian filtration capacity. We focus specifically on prioritizing sites in upper sections of the Roanoke and Nottoway river basins (Virginia, US) based on observed records of Roanoke logperch ( Percina rex ), an imperiled sediment-sensitive species. Our statistical approach examines soil characteristics, land cover, precipitation, topography, and annual soil loss estimates from the empirically derived Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, combined with land cover-based riparian filtration capacity as potential stream habitat predictors. We found riparian filtration capacity to be a significant predictor of silt cover, while precipitation was a significant predictor of embeddedness. Spatial scale was also a factor, in that spatial variance in silt cover and embeddedness was more accurately predicted at smaller spatial extents. Ultimately, our model can be used as a prioritization tool for mitigating high siltation areas, or for protecting low soil erosion areas.

North Carolina, Virginia↗

USGS2017

Inequity in ecosystem service delivery: Socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network

Conservation areas, both public and private, are critical tools to protect biodiversity and deliver important ecosystem services (ES) to society. Although societal benefits from such ES are increasingly used to promote public support of conservation, the number of beneficiaries, their identity, and the magnitude of benefits are largely unknown for the vast majority of conservation areas in the United States public-private conservation network. The location of conservation areas in relation to people strongly influences the direction and magnitude of ES flows as well as the identity of beneficiaries. We analyzed benefit zones, the areas to which selected ES could be conveyed to beneficiaries, to assess who benefits from a typical conservation network. Better knowledge of ES flows and beneficiaries will help land conservationists make a stronger case for the broad collateral benefits of conservation and help to address issues of social-environmental justice. To evaluate who benefits the most from the current public-private conservation network, we delineated the benefit zones for local ES (within 16 km) that are conveyed along hydrological paths from public (federal and state) and private (easements) conservation lands in the states of North Carolina and Virginia, USA. We also discuss the challenges and demonstrate an approach for delineating nonhydrological benefits that are passively conveyed to beneficiaries. We mapped and compared the geographic distribution of benefit zones within and among conservation area types. We further compared beneficiary demographics across benefit zones of the conservation area types and found that hydrological benefit zones of federal protected areas encompass disproportionately fewer minority beneficiaries compared to statewide demographic patterns. In contrast, benefit zones of state protected areas and private easements encompassed a much greater proportion of minority beneficiaries (~22–25%). Benefit zones associated with private conservation lands included beneficiaries of significantly greater household income than benefit zones of other types of conservation areas. Our analysis of ES flows revealed significant socioeconomic gaps in how the current public-private conservation network benefits the public. These gaps warrant consideration in regional conservation plans and suggest that private conservation initiatives may be best suited for responding to the equity challenge. Enhancing the ecosystem benefits and the equity of benefit delivery from private conservation networks could build public and political support for long-term conservation strategies and ultimately enhance conservation efficacy.

North Carolina, Virginia↗

USGS2016

Mapping technological and biophysical capacities of watersheds to regulate floods

Flood regulation is a widely valued and studied service provided by watersheds. Flood regulation benefits people directly by decreasing the socio-economic costs of flooding and indirectly by its positive impacts on cultural (e.g., fishing) and provisioning (e.g., water supply) ecosystem services. Like other regulating ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, water purification), flood regulation is often enhanced or replaced by technology, but the relative efficacy of natural versus technological features in controlling floods has scarcely been examined. In an effort to assess flood regulation capacity for selected urban watersheds in the southeastern United States, we: (1) used long-term flood records to assess relative influence of technological and biophysical indicators on flood magnitude and duration, (2) compared the widely used runoff curve number (RCN) approach for assessing the biophysical capacity to regulate floods to an alternative approach that acknowledges land cover and soil properties separately, and (3) mapped technological and biophysical flood regulation capacities based on indicator importance-values derived for flood magnitude and duration. We found that watersheds with high biophysical (via the alternative approach) and technological capacities lengthened the duration and lowered the peak of floods. We found the RCN approach yielded results opposite that expected, possibly because it confounds soil and land cover processes, particularly in urban landscapes, while our alternative approach coherently separates these processes. Mapping biophysical (via the alternative approach) and technological capacities revealed great differences among watersheds. Our study improves on previous mapping of flood regulation by (1) incorporating technological capacity, (2) providing high spatial resolution (i.e., 10-m pixel) maps of watershed capacities, and (3) deriving importance-values for selected landscape indicators. By accounting for technology that enhances or replaces natural flood regulation, our approach enables watershed managers to make more informed choices in their flood-control investments.

Ecological Indicators↗

USGS2015

Regulating services as measures of ecological resilience on DoD lands

Knowledge of the capacity and flow of ecosystem services can help DoD land managers make decisions that enhance cost-effectiveness, minimize environmental damage, and maximize resources available for military missions. We demonstrated a methodology to quantify and map selected regulating services (RS), which helps land managers envision tradeoffs. Our objectives were to 1) estimate current capacity of and demand for selected RS within DoD lands, 2) examine the effects of future DoD land management and climate changes on the capacity and flow of these RS, and 3) project how land-use and climate changes in nearby lands affect future demand for RS. Our approach incorporates widely accepted models and equations, remote sensing, GIS analysis, and stakeholder involvement. Required data include land cover/use, soil type, precipitation, and air temperature. We integrated data into the a) Surface Curve Number Method and b) Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation to estimate capacity of sediment, nitrogen (N) and surface-water regulation. Capacities and flows of RS vary greatly across landscapes and are likely to vary as climate changes or development occurs. Analyses of RS capacity and flow can help managers and planners prioritize actions in the context of best management practices and compatible use buffers. Staff surveys indicated that our approach was informative and easy to use. Implementation may be most limited by on-installation personnel time.

Report↗

USGS2014

A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing

Despite recent interest, ecosystem services are not yet fully incorporated into private and public decisions about natural resource management. Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are among the most challenging of services to include because they comprise complex ecological and social properties and processes that make them difficult to measure, map or monetize. Like others, CES are vulnerable to landscape changes and unsustainable use. To date, the sustainability of services has not been adequately addressed and few studies have considered measures of service capacity and demand simultaneously. To facilitate sustainability assessments and management of CES, our study objectives were to (1) develop a spatially explicit framework for mapping the capacity of ecosystems to provide freshwater recreational fishing, an important cultural service, (2) map societal demand for freshwater recreational fishing based on license data and identify areas of potential overuse, and (3) demonstrate how maps of relative capacity and relative demand could be interfaced to estimate sustainability of a CES. We mapped freshwater recreational fishing capacity at the 12-digit hydrologic unit-scale in North Carolina and Virginia using a multi-indicator service framework incorporating biophysical and social landscape metrics and mapped demand based on fishing license data. Mapping of capacity revealed a gradual decrease in capacity eastward from the mountains to the coastal plain and that fishing demand was greatest in urban areas. When comparing standardized relative measures of capacity and demand for freshwater recreational fishing, we found that ranks of capacity exceeded ranks of demand in most hydrologic units, except in 17% of North Carolina and 5% of Virginia. Our GIS-based approach to view freshwater recreational fishing through an ecosystem service lens will enable scientists and managers to examine (1) biophysical and social factors that foster or diminish cultural ecosystem services delivery, (2) demand for cultural ecosystem services relative to their capacity, and (3) ecological pressures like potential overuse that affect service sustainability. Ultimately, we expect such analyses to inform decision-making for freshwater recreational fisheries and other cultural ecosystem services.

Ecological Indicators↗

USGS2013

Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery

Ecosystem services provide an instinctive way to understand the trade-offs associated with natural resource management. However, despite their apparent usefulness, several hurdles have prevented ecosystem services from becoming deeply embedded in environmental decision-making. Ecosystem service studies vary widely in focal services, geographic extent, and in methods for defining and measuring services. Dissent among scientists on basic terminology and approaches to evaluating ecosystem services create difficulties for those trying to incorporate ecosystem services into decision-making. To facilitate clearer comparison among recent studies, we provide a synthesis of common terminology and explain a rationale and framework for distinguishing among the components of ecosystem service delivery, including: an ecosystem's capacity to produce services; ecological pressures that interfere with an ecosystem's ability to provide the service; societal demand for the service; and flow of the service to people. We discuss how interpretation and measurement of these four components can differ among provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. Our flexible framework treats service capacity, ecological pressure, demand, and flow as separate but interactive entities to improve our ability to evaluate the sustainability of service provision and to help guide management decisions. We consider ecosystem service provision to be sustainable when demand is met without decreasing capacity for future provision of that service or causing undesirable declines in other services. When ecosystem service demand exceeds ecosystem capacity to provide services, society can choose to enhance natural capacity, decrease demand and/or ecological pressure, or invest in a technological substitute. Because regulating services are frequently overlooked in environmental assessments, we provide a more detailed examination of regulating services and propose a novel method for quantifying the flow of regulating services based on estimates of ecological work. We anticipate that our synthesis and framework will reduce inconsistency and facilitate coherence across analyses of ecosystem services, thereby increasing their utility in environmental decision-making.

Ecological Complexity↗