Geology topics

Laura Martin

Publications and source records attributed to Laura Martin.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Southeastern Utah Federal lands science needs survey

Evidence-based scientific information can help support defensible decision making in the management of public lands. This report sought to identify current (2024–25) Federal agency research needs in southeastern Utah and to synthesize common management challenges and questions across jurisdictional boundaries. We implemented a science needs assessment focused on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS), and National Park Service (NPS) in southeastern Utah—the area delineated by BLM’s Canyon Country District Office, portions of the FS Manti-La Sal National Forest, and Southeast Utah Group NPS units. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers met with and surveyed BLM, NPS, and FS staff in 2024 and 2025 to understand their science needs and preferred modes of information delivery. The USGS’s approach may be unrepresentative in terms of which topic areas were addressed, but the responses nevertheless highlight challenges and high-priority research areas that could contribute positively to agency decision making. Common management challenges and areas where additional research could be beneficial to land managers include the effects of climate change, recreation effects and visitor behavior, hydrology and hydrologic changes due to anthropogenic pressures, and the capacity for inventory and monitoring across essentially all resource types. Research on site-specific restoration techniques and their outcomes was also a common theme. In this report we discuss ways in which researchers can increase the extent to which their work could be actionable for resource managers and provide suggestions for potential priority research areas for the study region.

Utah↗

USGS2016

Global biodiversity monitoring: from data sources to essential biodiversity variables

Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) consolidate information from varied biodiversity observation sources. Here we demonstrate the links between data sources, EBVs and indicators and discuss how different sources of biodiversity observations can be harnessed to inform EBVs. We classify sources of primary observations into four types: extensive and intensive monitoring schemes, ecological field studies and satellite remote sensing. We characterize their geographic, taxonomic and temporal coverage. Ecological field studies and intensive monitoring schemes inform a wide range of EBVs, but the former tend to deliver short-term data, while the geographic coverage of the latter is limited. In contrast, extensive monitoring schemes mostly inform the population abundance EBV, but deliver long-term data across an extensive network of sites. Satellite remote sensing is particularly suited to providing information on ecosystem function and structure EBVs. Biases behind data sources may affect the representativeness of global biodiversity datasets. To improve them, researchers must assess data sources and then develop strategies to compensate for identified gaps. We draw on the population abundance dataset informing the Living Planet Index (LPI) to illustrate the effects of data sources on EBV representativeness. We find that long-term monitoring schemes informing the LPI are still scarce outside of Europe and North America and that ecological field studies play a key role in covering that gap. Achieving representative EBV datasets will depend both on the ability to integrate available data, through data harmonization and modeling efforts, and on the establishment of new monitoring programs to address critical data gaps.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2015

Towards a global terrestrial species monitoring program

Introduction: The Convention for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 envisions that “By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.” Although 193 parties have adopted these goals, there is little infrastructure in place to monitor global biodiversity trends. Recent international conservation policy requires such data to be up-to-date, reliable, comparable among sites, relevant, and understandable; as is becoming obvious from the work plan adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES: www.ipbes.net/; http://tinyurl.com/ohdnknq). In order to meet the five strategic goals of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its 20 accompanying Aichi Targets for 2020 (www.cbd.int/sp/targets/), advances need to be made in coordinating large-scale biodiversity monitoring and linking these with environmental data to develop a comprehensive Global Observation Network, as is the main idea behind GEOSS the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (Christian 2005)...Here we identify ten requirements important for the successful implementation of a global biodiversity monitoring network under the flag of GEO BON and especially a global terrestrial species monitoring program.

Journal for Nature Conservation↗