Geology topics

Craig E. Tweedie

Publications and source records attributed to Craig E. Tweedie.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

The Landscape Data Commons: A system for standardizing, accessing, and applying large environmental datasets for agroecosystem research and management

Understanding where, when, and why agroecosystems are changing requires quality information about ecosystems that span land tenure, ecological processes, and spatial scales. Over the past two decades, land management agencies and research groups have adopted a suite of standardized methods for monitoring rangelands, which have been implemented at over 85,000 monitoring locations globally. However, the ability to use these data to understand agroecosystem dynamics and change across scales and across land ownership has been limited because, until now, these data have not been available in a harmonized, accessible format for analyses, modeling, and decision-support tools. We present the Landscape Data Commons, a cyberinfrastructure platform that harmonizes and aggregates standardized agroecosystem data, enables linkages to models, and facilitates analysis and interpretation of data within decision-support tools. The Landscape Data Commons provides a community platform for users to contribute data and develop next-generation tools to support agroecosystem management through the 21st century.

Agricultural & Environmental Letters↗

USGS2022

Nearshore bathymetric changes along the Alaska Beaufort Sea coast and possible physical drivers

Erosion rates along Alaska's Beaufort Sea coast, among the highest in the world, are negatively impacting communities, industrial and military infrastructure, and wildlife habitat. Decreasing maximal winter ice extent and increasing summer open water duration and extent in the Beaufort Sea may be making the coast more vulnerable to destructive storm waves than during recent, colder, icier decades. Previous studies of Beaufort Sea coastal change have been limited to subaerial analyses of the shoreline. Here we describe nearshore seafloor change by comparing post-World War II (WWII) (1945-53) bathymetry data to recently acquired (1985–2018) bathymetry data and relate the observed seafloor change to adjacent shoreline change near Utqiagvik, within Stefansson Sound, and immediately west of Barter Island and Kaktovik. Within the Utqiagvik region, seabed erosion was generally highest (>1.0 m of loss) offshore of Point Barrow and along the eastern end of the Tapkaluk Islands, while there were lesser amounts of deposition (<0.5 m of gain) within the protected waters of Elson Lagoon. Sedimentation was generally highest offshore of Point Barrow, in a region of converging currents, and on the landward side of the barrier islands and spits fronting Elson Lagoon, which is likely related to a regional trend of westerly sediment transport and landward migration of the barrier islands. Within Stefansson Sound, perhaps the most notable changes from post-WWII bathymetry data compared to recent data are a switch from mixed, low erosion and deposition in 1997 to low deposition (<0.5 m) in 2018 east of the Boulder Patch, a switch from low erosion in 1997 to neutral depth change in 2018 in the channel between the north and south Boulder Patch areas, and higher deposition from 1997 to 2018 landward of the rapidly retreating barrier islands along the Sound's northern border. At Barter Island, high erosion near north-facing shorelines and high deposition near west-facing shorelines generally matched shoreline changes. One of our goals is to identify possible processes responsible for the depth changes we quantified. Using simple metrics that relate sediment characteristics with modeled waves and non-wave induced currents, we show that sediment resuspension and transport by both wave and non-wave driven currents likely contribute to the overall patterns of change within the ∼13 m isobath along the open coast, and that the influence of wave action affecting sediment transport is expanding seaward.

Alaska↗

USGS2022

Ten practical questions to improve data quality

High-quality rangeland data are critical to supporting adaptive management. However, concrete, cost-saving steps to ensure data quality are often poorly defined and understood. Data quality is more than data management. Ensuring data quality requires 1) clear communication among team members; 2) appropriate sample design; 3) training of data collectors, data managers, and data users; 4) observer and sensor calibration; and 5) active data management. Quality assurance and quality control are ongoing processes to help rangeland managers and scientists identify, prevent, and correct errors in past, current, and future monitoring data. We present 10 guiding data quality questions to help managers and scientists identify appropriate workflows to improve data quality by 1) describing the data ecosystem, 2) creating a data quality plan, 3) identifying roles and responsibilities, 4) building data collection and data management workflows, 5) training and calibrating data collectors, 6) detecting and correcting errors, and 7) describing sources of variability. Iteratively improving rangeland data quality is a key part of adaptive monitoring and rangeland data collection. All members of the rangeland community are invited to participate in ensuring rangeland data quality.

Rangelands↗

USGS2020

Coastal permafrost erosion

Highlights • Since the early 2000s, erosion of permafrost coasts in the Arctic has increased at 13 of 14 sites with observational data that extend back to ca. 1960 and ca. 1980, coinciding with warming temperatures, sea ice reduction, and permafrost thaw. • Permafrost coasts along the US and Canadian Beaufort Sea experienced the largest increase in erosion rates in the Arctic, ranging from +80 to +160%, when comparing average rates from the last two decades of the 20th century with the first two decades of the 21st century. • The initiation of several national and international research networks in recent years has enabled closer coordination and collaboration of measurements and a better understanding of pan-Arctic permafrost coastal dynamics.

Arctic Report Card↗

USGS2018

A decade of remotely sensed observations highlight complex processes linked to coastal permafrost bluff erosion in the Arctic

Eroding permafrost coasts are indicators and integrators of changes in the Arctic System as they are susceptible to the combined effects of declining sea ice extent, increases in open water duration, more frequent and impactful storms, sea-level rise, and warming permafrost. However, few observation sites in the Arctic have yet to link decadal-scale erosion rates with changing environmental conditions due to temporal data gaps. This study increases the temporal fidelity of coastal permafrost bluff observations using near-annual high spatial resolution (<1 m) satellite imagery acquired between 2008 and 2017 for a 9-km segment of coastline at Drew Point, Beaufort Sea coast, Alaska. Our results show that mean annual erosion for the 2007 to 2016 decade was 17.2 m yr-1, which is 2.5 times faster than historic rates, indicating that bluff erosion at this site is likely responding to changes in the Arctic System. In spite of a sustained increase in decadal-scale mean annual erosion rates, mean open water season erosion varied from 6.7 m yr-1 in 2010 to more than 22.0 m yr-1 in 2007, 2012, and 2016. This variability provided a range of coastal responses through which we explored the different roles of potential environmental drivers. The lack of significant correlations between mean open water season erosion and the environmental variables compiled in this study indicates that we may not be adequately capturing the environmental forcing factors, that the system is conditioned by long-term transient effects or extreme weather events rather than annual variability, or that other not yet considered factors may be responsible for the increased erosion occurring at Drew Point. Our results highlight an increase in erosion at Drew Point in the 21st century as well as the complexities associated with unraveling the factors responsible for changing coastal permafrost bluffs in the Arctic.

Alaska↗

USGS2014

Polygonal tundra geomorphological change in response to warming alters future CO2 and CH4 flux on the Barrow Peninsula

The landscape of the Barrow Peninsula in northern Alaska is thought to have formed over centuries to millennia, and is now dominated by ice-wedge polygonal tundra that spans drained thaw-lake basins and interstitial tundra. In nearby tundra regions, studies have identified a rapid increase in thermokarst formation (i.e., pits) over recent decades in response to climate warming, facilitating changes in polygonal tundra geomorphology. We assessed the future impact of 100 years of tundra geomorphic change on peak growing season carbon exchange in response to: (i) landscape succession associated with the thaw-lake cycle; and (ii) low, moderate, and extreme scenarios of thermokarst pit formation (10%, 30%, and 50%) reported for Alaskan arctic tundra sites. We developed a 30 × 30 m resolution tundra geomorphology map (overall accuracy:75%; Kappa:0.69) for our ~1800 km² study area composed of ten classes; drained slope, high center polygon, flat-center polygon, low center polygon, coalescent low center polygon, polygon trough, meadow, ponds, rivers, and lakes, to determine their spatial distribution across the Barrow Peninsula. Land-atmosphere CO 2 and CH 4 flux data were collected for the summers of 2006–2010 at eighty-two sites near Barrow, across the mapped classes. The developed geomorphic map was used for the regional assessment of carbon flux. Results indicate (i) at present during peak growing season on the Barrow Peninsula, CO 2 uptake occurs at -902.3 10 6 gC-CO 2 day −1 (uncertainty using 95% CI is between −438.3 and −1366 10 6 gC-CO 2 day −1 ) and CH 4 flux at 28.9 10 6 gC-CH 4 day −1 (uncertainty using 95% CI is between 12.9 and 44.9 10 6 gC-CH 4 day −1 ), (ii) one century of future landscape change associated with the thaw-lake cycle only slightly alter CO 2 and CH 4 exchange, while (iii) moderate increases in thermokarst pits would strengthen both CO 2 uptake (−166.9 10 6 gC-CO 2 day −1 ) and CH 4 flux (2.8 10 6 gC-CH 4 day −1 ) with geomorphic change from low to high center polygons, cumulatively resulting in an estimated negative feedback to warming during peak growing season.

Alaska↗