Geology topics

Anthony D. McGuire

Publications and source records attributed to Anthony D. McGuire.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Historical and projected trends in landscape drivers affecting carbon dynamics in Alaska

Modern climate change in Alaska has resulted in widespread thawing of permafrost, increased fire activity, and extensive changes in vegetation characteristics that have significant consequences for socioecological systems. Despite observations of the heightened sensitivity of these systems to change, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of factors that drive ecosystem changes throughout Alaska. Here we present research that improves our understanding of the main drivers of the spatiotemporal patterns of carbon dynamics using in situ observations, remote sensing data, and an array of modeling techniques. In the last 60 yr, Alaska has seen a large increase in mean annual air temperature (1.7°C), with the greatest warming occurring over winter and spring. Warming trends are projected to continue throughout the 21st century and will likely result in landscape-level changes to ecosystem structure and function. Wetlands, mainly bogs and fens, which are currently estimated to cover 12.5% of the landscape, strongly influence exchange of methane between Alaska's ecosystems and the atmosphere and are expected to be affected by thawing permafrost and shifts in hydrology. Simulations suggest the current proportion of near-surface (within 1 m) and deep (within 5 m) permafrost extent will be reduced by 9–74% and 33–55% by the end of the 21st century, respectively. Since 2000, an average of 678 595 ha/yr was burned, more than twice the annual average during 1950–1999. The largest increase in fire activity is projected for the boreal forest, which could result in a reduction in late-successional spruce forest (8–44%) and an increase in early-successional deciduous forest (25–113%) that would mediate future fire activity and weaken permafrost stability in the region. Climate warming will also affect vegetation communities across arctic regions, where the coverage of deciduous forest could increase (223–620%), shrub tundra may increase (4–21%), and graminoid tundra might decrease (10–24%). This study sheds light on the sensitivity of Alaska's ecosystems to change that has the potential to significantly affect local and regional carbon balance, but more research is needed to improve estimates of land-surface and subsurface properties, and to better account for ecosystem dynamics affected by a myriad of biophysical factors and interactions.

Alaska↗

USGS2016

Estimating heterotrophic respiration at large scales: Challenges, approaches, and next steps

Heterotrophic respiration (HR), the aerobic and anaerobic processes mineralizing organic matter, is a key carbon flux but one impossible to measure at scales significantly larger than small experimental plots. This impedes our ability to understand carbon and nutrient cycles, benchmark models, or reliably upscale point measurements. Given that a new generation of highly mechanistic, genomic-specific global models is not imminent, we suggest that a useful step to improve this situation would be the development of “Decomposition Functional Types” (DFTs). Analogous to plant functional types (PFTs), DFTs would abstract and capture important differences in HR metabolism and flux dynamics, allowing modelers and experimentalists to efficiently group and vary these characteristics across space and time. We argue that DFTs should be initially informed by top-down expert opinion, but ultimately developed using bottom-up, data-driven analyses, and provide specific examples of potential dependent and independent variables that could be used. We present an example clustering analysis to show how annual HR can be broken into distinct groups associated with global variability in biotic and abiotic factors, and demonstrate that these groups are distinct from (but complementary to) already-existing PFTs. A similar analysis incorporating observational data could form the basis for future DFTs. Finally, we suggest next steps and critical priorities: collection and synthesis of existing data; more in-depth analyses combining open data with rigorous testing of analytical results; using point measurements and realistic forcing variables to constrain process-based models; and planning by the global modeling community for decoupling decomposition from fixed site data. These are all critical steps to build a foundation for DFTs in global models, thus providing the ecological and climate change communities with robust, scalable estimates of HR.

Ecosphere↗

USGS2016

Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests

The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem productivity has been explored in detail in herbaceous vegetation, but patterns in forests are far less well understood. Liang et al. have amassed a global forest data set from >770,000 sample plots in 44 countries. A positive and consistent relationship can be discerned between tree diversity and ecosystem productivity at landscape, country, and ecoregion scales. On average, a 10% loss in biodiversity leads to a 3% loss in productivity. This means that the economic value of maintaining biodiversity for the sake of global forest productivity is more than fivefold greater than global conservation costs.

Science↗

USGS2014

Changes in the structure and function of northern Alaskan ecosystems when considering variable leaf-out times across groupings of species in a dynamic vegetation model

The phenology of arctic ecosystems is driven primarily by abiotic forces, with temperature acting as the main determinant of growing season onset and leaf budburst in the spring. However, while the plant species in arctic ecosystems require differing amounts of accumulated heat for leaf-out, dynamic vegetation models simulated over regional to global scales typically assume some average leaf-out for all of the species within an ecosystem. Here, we make use of air temperature records and observations of spring leaf phenology collected across dominant groupings of species (dwarf birch shrubs, willow shrubs, other deciduous shrubs, grasses, sedges, and forbs) in arctic and boreal ecosystems in Alaska. We then parameterize a dynamic vegetation model based on these data for four types of tundra ecosystems (heath tundra, shrub tundra, wet sedge tundra, and tussock tundra), as well as ecotonal boreal white spruce forest, and perform model simulations for the years 1970 -2100. Over the course of the model simulations, we found changes in ecosystem composition under this new phenology algorithm compared to simulations with the previous phenology algorithm. These changes were the result of the differential timing of leaf-out, as well as the ability for the groupings of species to compete for nitrogen and light availability. Regionally, there were differences in the trends of the carbon pools and fluxes between the new phenology algorithm and the previous phenology algorithm, although these differences depended on the future climate scenario. These findings indicate the importance of leaf phenology data collection by species and across the various ecosystem types within the highly heterogeneous Arctic landscape, and that dynamic vegetation models should consider variation in leaf-out by groupings of species within these ecosystems to make more accurate projections of future plant distributions and carbon cycling in Arctic regions.

Global Change Biology↗

USGS2014

USGS ecosystem research for the next decade: advancing discovery and application in parks and protected areas through collaboration

Ecosystems within parks and protected areas in the United States and throughout the world are being transformed at an unprecedented rate. Changes associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, food, land, energy and mineral resources are placing urgency on sound decision making that will help sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In recognition of the importance of science in making these decisions, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2007 identified ecosystem science as one of six science directions included in a comprehensive decadal strategy (USGS 2007). The Ecosystems Mission Area was identified as essential for integrating activity within the USGS and as a key to enhanced integration with other Federal and private sector research and management organizations (Myers at al., 2007). This paper focuses on benefits to parks and protected areas from the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area plan that expanded the scope of the original 2007 science strategy, to identify the Bureau’s work in ecosystem science over the next decade (Williams et al., 2013). The plan describes a framework that encompasses both basic and applied science and allows the USGS to continue to contribute meaningfully to conservation and management issues related to the Nation’s parks and ecological resources. This framework relies on maintaining long-standing, collaborative relationships with partners in both conducting science and applying scientific results. Here we summarize the major components of the USGS Ecosystems Science Strategy, articulating the vision, goals and strategic approaches, then outlining some of the proposed actions that will ultimately prove useful to those managing parks and protected areas. We end with a discussion on the future of ecosystem science for the USGS and how it can be used to evaluate ecosystem change and the associated consequences to management of our Nation’s natural resources.

The George Wright Forum↗

USGS2013

Modeling the effects of fire severity and climate warming on active layer and soil carbon dynamics of black spruce forests across the landscape in interior Alaska

There is a substantial amount of carbon stored in the permafrost soils of boreal forest ecosystems, where it is currently protected from decomposition. The surface organic horizons insulate the deeper soil from variations in atmospheric temperature. The removal of these insulating horizons through consumption by fire increases the vulnerability of permafrost to thaw, and the carbon stored in permafrost to decomposition. In this study we ask how warming and fire regime may influence spatial and temporal changes in active layer and carbon dynamics across a boreal forest landscape in interior Alaska. To address this question, we (1) developed and tested a predictive model of the effect of fire severity on soil organic horizons that depends on landscape-level conditions and (2) used this model to evaluate the long-term consequences of warming and changes in fire regime on active layer and soil carbon dynamics of black spruce forests across interior Alaska. The predictive model of fire severity, designed from the analysis of field observations, reproduces the effect of local topography (landform category, the slope angle and aspect and flow accumulation), weather conditions (drought index, soil moisture) and fire characteristics (day of year and size of the fire) on the reduction of the organic layer caused by fire. The integration of the fire severity model into an ecosystem process-based model allowed us to document the relative importance and interactions among local topography, fire regime and climate warming on active layer and soil carbon dynamics. Lowlands were more resistant to severe fires and climate warming, showing smaller increases in active layer thickness and soil carbon loss compared to drier flat uplands and slopes. In simulations that included the effects of both warming and fire at the regional scale, fire was primarily responsible for a reduction in organic layer thickness of 0.06 m on average by 2100 that led to an increase in active layer thickness of 1.1 m on average by 2100. The combination of warming and fire led to a simulated cumulative loss of 9.6 kgC m −2 on average by 2100. Our analysis suggests that ecosystem carbon storage in boreal forests in interior Alaska is particularly vulnerable, primarily due to the combustion of organic layer thickness in fire and the related increase in active layer thickness that exposes previously protected permafrost soil carbon to decomposition.

Alaska↗

USGS2013

Effects of fire on the thermal stability of permafrost in lowland and upland black spruce forests of interior Alaska in a changing climate

Fire is an important factor controlling the composition and thickness of the organic layer in the black spruce forest ecosystems of interior Alaska. Fire that burns the organic layer can trigger dramatic changes in the underlying permafrost, leading to accelerated ground thawing within a relatively short time. In this study, we addressed the following questions. (1) Which factors determine post-fire ground temperature dynamics in lowland and upland black spruce forests? (2) What levels of burn severity will cause irreversible permafrost degradation in these ecosystems? We evaluated these questions in a transient modeling–sensitivity analysis framework to assess the sensitivity of permafrost to climate, burn severity, soil organic layer thickness, and soil moisture content in lowland (with thick organic layers, ~80 cm) and upland (with thin organic layers, ~30 cm) black spruce ecosystems. The results indicate that climate warming accompanied by fire disturbance could significantly accelerate permafrost degradation. In upland black spruce forest, permafrost could completely degrade in an 18 m soil column within 120 years of a severe fire in an unchanging climate. In contrast, in a lowland black spruce forest, permafrost is more resilient to disturbance and can persist under a combination of moderate burn severity and climate warming.

Alaska↗

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↗

USGS2013

Trajectory of the arctic as an integrated system

Although much remains to be learned about the Arctic and its component processes, many of the most urgent scientific, engineering, and social questions can only be approached through a broader system perspective. Here, we address interactions between components of the Arctic System and assess feedbacks and the extent to which feedbacks (1) are now underway in the Arctic; and (2) will shape the future trajectory of the Arctic system. We examine interdependent connections among atmospheric processes, oceanic processes, sea-ice dynamics, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, land surface stocks of carbon and water, glaciers and ice caps, and the Greenland ice sheet. Our emphasis on the interactions between components, both historical and anticipated, is targeted on the feedbacks, pathways, and processes that link these different components of the Arctic system. We present evidence that the physical components of the Arctic climate system are currently in extreme states, and that there is no indication that the system will deviate from this anomalous trajectory in the foreseeable future. The feedback for which the evidence of ongoing changes is most compelling is the surface albedo-temperature feedback, which is amplifying temperature changes over land (primarily in spring) and ocean (primarily in autumn-winter). Other feedbacks likely to emerge are those in which key processes include surface fluxes of trace gases, changes in the distribution of vegetation, changes in surface soil moisture, changes in atmospheric water vapor arising from higher temperatures and greater areas of open ocean, impacts of Arctic freshwater fluxes on the meridional overturning circulation of the ocean, and changes in Arctic clouds resulting from changes in water vapor content.

Ecological Applications↗

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↗