Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Kenneth A Rose

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth A Rose.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Incorporating metapopulation dynamics to inform invasive species management: Evaluating bighead and silver carp control strategies in the Illinois River

1. Invasive species management can benefit from predictive models that incorporate spatially explicit demographics and dispersal to guide resource allocation decisions. 2. We used invasive bigheaded carps ( Hypophthalmichthys spp.) in the Illinois River, USA as a case study to create a spatially explicit model to evaluate the allocation of future management efforts. Specifically, we compared additional harvest (e.g. near the invasion front vs. source populations) and enhanced movement deterrents to meet the management goal of reducing abundance at the invasion front. 3. We found additional harvest in lower river pools (i.e. targeting source populations) more effectively limited population sizes upriver at the invasion front compared to allocating the same harvest levels near the invasion front. Likewise, decreasing passage (i.e. lock and dam structures) at the farthest, feasible downriver location limited invasion front population size more than placing movement deterrents farther upriver. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our work highlights the benefits of adopting a multipronged approach for invasive species management, combining suppression of source populations with disrupting movement between source and sink populations thereby producing compounding benefits for control. Our results also demonstrate the importance of considering metapopulation dynamics for invasive species control programs when achieving long-term management goals.

Illinois

The Chesapeake Bay program modeling system: Overview and recommendations for future development

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest, most productive, and most biologically diverse estuary in the continental United States providing crucial habitat and natural resources for culturally and economically important species. Pressures from human population growth and associated development and agricultural intensification have led to excessive nutrient and sediment inputs entering the Bay, negatively affecting the health of the Bay ecosystem and the economic services it provides. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique program formally created in 1983 as a multi-stakeholder partnership to guide and foster restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Since its inception, the CBP Partnership has been developing, updating, and applying a complex linked modeling system of watershed, airshed, and estuary models as a planning tool to inform strategic management decisions and Bay restoration efforts. This paper provides a description of the 2017 CBP Modeling System and the higher trophic level models developed by the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, along with specific recommendations that emerged from a 2018 workshop designed to inform future model development. Recommendations highlight the need for simulation of watershed inputs, conditions, processes, and practices at higher resolution to provide improved information to guide local nutrient and sediment management plans. More explicit and extensive modeling of connectivity between watershed landforms and estuary sub-areas, estuarine hydrodynamics, watershed and estuarine water quality, the estuarine-watershed socioecological system, and living resources will be important to broaden and improve characterization of responses to targeted nutrient and sediment load reductions. Finally, the value and importance of maintaining effective collaborations among jurisdictional managers, scientists, modelers, support staff, and stakeholder communities is emphasized. An open collaborative and transparent process has been a key element of successes to date and is vitally important as the CBP Partnership moves forward with modeling system improvements that help stakeholders evolve new knowledge, improve management strategies, and better communicate outcomes.

Chesapeake Bay estuary and watershed

Toward improved decision-support tools for Delta Smelt management actions

The Collaborative Science and Adaptive Management Program (CSAMP) has endorsed a goal of reversing the recent downward trajectory of the Delta Smelt population within 5-10 generations, with the long-term aim of establishing a self-sustaining population. An ambitious agenda of management actions is planned, and more management actions are being considered. This White Paper furthers one of the recommendations in the 2019 Delta Smelt Science Plan – the need to predict the potential ecological effects of taking a management action. Existing statistical models can be highly informative in assessing the response of Delta Smelt to changing system conditions and management actions. However, management actions can shift or alter conditions in ways that models based on analysis of historical data may not be able to represent, and short-term or localized effects may be missed with models designed to assess effects at the population level. Decision support tools (DSTs) are computer-based tools developed to assist decision-making, often combining computationally intensive analysis and spatial mapping of environmental relationships. DSTs can be used in planning processes that evaluate an array of actions, such as in Structured Decision Making (SDM), where DSTs are needed to compare among alternatives. DSTs can also be used to explore the potential effects of different approaches to implementing management actions. The goal of this White Paper is to identify plausible options for DSTs that could be developed for future use to evaluate management actions that seek to either reverse the decline of Delta Smelt or minimize or mitigate the effects of other water management actions. Different types of management actions lead to different needs for DSTs. This White Paper was developed using three types of actions currently being considered to enhance the Delta Smelt population: Supplementation with Hatchery Fish, Summer-Fall Habitat, and Food Enhancement actions. These three management actions target different parts of the estuary and different processes, with a variety of possible metrics to gauge performance. Three DSTs are proposed that collectively address management questions related to the management actions considered, with each requiring a slightly different set of processes to be included and producing an array of outputs at varying spatial and temporal scales: DST 1. Modeling Fish Movement, Survival, and Reproduction Across Their Range. This DST can address management questions that require information about Delta Smelt spatial distribution and movement. • DST 1 could be used to compare conditions with and without management actions in place, how the management action performs among different types of water years (with varied flow and associated abiotic conditions), and to assess relative change with different variations and strategies of the management actions. • DST 2. Changes in Habitat Conditions and Delta Smelt Response. This DST is intended to evaluate combinations of conditions that are considered to provide suitable habitat for Delta Smelt, and Delta Smelt response. Delta Smelt habitat is generally described as open water with low salinity (0 to 6), turbidity of at least 12 NTU, suitable temperature conditions, and sufficient food availability to support growth. • DST 3. Regional Effects of Food Subsidy. This DSTs seeks to evaluate effectiveness of food enhancement actions by providing information on responses of the immediate targets of the action (i.e., phytoplankton or zooplankton) and tracing those to projected growth responses of Delta Smelt. There is not a single DST that adequately addresses management questions relevant to all management actions, although there is some overlap in the management questions each of the three DSTs can address. For each of the DSTs a substantial foundation of models and approaches already exists and modeling has already been applied to several of the management actions described. However, a number of outstanding issues remain for further development of the proposed DSTs. These are summarized in this White Paper together with potential approaches that could be applied or tested. Some components for the DSTs are already available and thus development could be relatively easy. However, for several of the topics identified there are gaps in knowledge that currently limit formulation of model structure and process representations. This presents challenges to readily incorporate some needed mechanisms into the models. Eleven next steps, aligned with relevant DSTs, are outlined. The next steps vary in their complexity or technical ‘lift’ required. Many build on existing work, or methods and approaches that have already been developed or are underway, while others require additional thinking to establish a viable approach. Some interim utility for decisions could be gained during initial development of the DSTs with further features added over time. Development of a DST requires engagement of both managers and scientists. Identifying the outputs and resolution needed for management purposes early in development of any DST is essential for effective pursuit of next steps and suitable approaches to address challenges. Dialog between managers and technical experts also informs what process-based simulation can do, and what tradeoffs are acceptable to meet a given purpose. To further develop the DSTs outlined here for application in the estuary requires: - Engagement of a committed group of technical experts with appropriate expertise. - The development of a coordinated workplan including appropriate project management and tracking. - Dialog between potential users (i.e., managers and policy makers) and technical experts. - Resources to pursue DST development including personnel and computational resources. This White Paper demonstrates the potential for moving toward DSTs for a variety of management actions in support of Delta Smelt that include mechanistic representations of physical and biological processes. Through focused effort from technical experts, managers and policy makers, DSTs can be developed to provide quantitative predictions of management effects on the ecosystem, targeting the changes the management actions seek to achieve, how these effects compare to ambient conditions, and how the effects vary among water year types or with timing and location of actions. Importantly, solid foundations exist which can be leveraged, refined, and built upon to specifically inform current and future management decisions.

White Paper

Proposed best modeling practices for assessing the effects of ecosystem restoration on fish

Large-scale aquatic ecosystem restoration is increasing and is often controversial because of the economic costs involved, with the focus of the controversies gravitating to the modeling of fish responses. We present a scheme for best practices in selecting, implementing, interpreting, and reporting of fish modeling designed to assess the effects of restoration actions on fish populations and aquatic food webs. Previous best practice schemes that tended to be more general are summarized, and they form the foundation for our scheme that is specifically tailored for fish and restoration. We then present a 31-step scheme, with supporting text and narrative for each step, which goes from understanding how the results will be used through post-auditing to ensure the approach is used effectively in subsequent applications. We also describe 13 concepts that need to be considered in parallel to these best practice steps. Examples of these concepts include: life cycles and strategies; variability and uncertainty; nonequilibrium theory; biological, temporal, and spatial scaling; explicit versus implicit representation of processes; and model validation. These concepts are often not considered or not explicitly stated and casual treatment of them leads to mis-communication and mis-understandings, which in turn, often underlie the resulting controversies. We illustrate a subset of these steps, and their associated concepts, using the three case studies of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, the wetlands of coastal Louisiana, and the Everglades. Use of our proposed scheme will require investment of additional time and effort (and dollars) to be done effectively. We argue that such an investment is well worth it and will more than pay back in the long run in effective and efficient restoration actions and likely avoided controversies and legal proceedings.

Ecological Modelling