Geology topics

John Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to John Thompson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2018

Climate change science and modeling

This chapter provides a brief background on climate change science, climate simulation models, and models that project the impacts of changes in climate on tree species and ecosystems. Throughout the chapter, boxes list resources for more information on each topic. A more detailed scientific review of climate change science, trends, and modeling can be found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014), and the Fourth National Climate Assessment (U.S. Global Climate Research Program [USGCRP] 2017).

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylv↗

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↗

USGS2006

Association between wetland disturbance and biological attributes in floodplain wetlands

We quantified the influence of agricultural activities on environmental and biological conditions of floodplain wetlands in the upper Missouri River basin. Seasonally-flooded wetlands were characterized as low impact (non-disturbed) or high impact (disturbed) based on local land use. Biological data collected from these wetlands were used to develop a wetland condition index (WCI). Fourteen additional wetlands were sampled to evaluate the general condition of seasonally-flooded floodplain wetlands. Structural and functional attributes of macrophyte, algae, and macroinvertebrate communities were tested as candidate metrics for assessing biotic responses. The WCI we developed used six biological metrics to discriminate between disturbed and non-disturbed wetlands: 1) biomass of Culicidae larvae, 2) abundance of Chironomidae larvae, 3) macroinvertebrate diversity, 4) total number of plant species, 5) the proportion of exotic plant species, and 6) total number of sensitive diatom species. Disturbed wetlands had less taxa richness and species diversity and more exotic and nuisance (e.g., mosquitoes) species. Environmental differences between low and high impact wetlands included measures of total potassium, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, alkalinity, conductance, and sediment phosphorus concentration. Canonical analyses showed that WCI scores were weakly correlated (P = 0.057) with environmental variables in randomly selected wetlands. In addition, mean WCI score for random wetlands was higher than that for high impact wetlands, implying that floodplain wetlands were less impacted by the types of agricultural activities affecting high impact sites. Inter-year sampling of some wetlands revealed that WCI metrics were correlated in 2000 and 2001, implying that biological metrics provided useful indicators of disturbance in floodplain wetlands. ?? 2006, The Society of Wetland Scientists.

Wetlands↗