Geology topics

Sarah E. McCord

Publications and source records attributed to Sarah E. McCord.

16 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Sentinel-2 based estimates of rangeland fractional cover and canopy gap class for the western United States

Rangelands are extensive ecosystems, providing important ecosystem services while undergoing continuous change. As a result, improved monitoring technologies can help better characterize vegetation change. Satellite remote sensing has proven effective in this regard, tracking vegetation dynamics at broad and fine scales. We leveraged the spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution of Sentinel-2 satellites to estimate fractional cover and canopy gap across rangelands of the western United States. We produced annual, 10 m spatial resolution estimates of fractional cover and canopy gap size class for years 2018 to 2024. Fractional cover estimates include that of common plant functional types (annual forb and grass, bareground, littler, perennial forb and grass, shrub, tree) and select genera (including invasive annual grass species, pinyon-juniper species, and sagebrush species); canopy gap size classes include gap sizes 25 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and greater than 200 cm. We make these data available as Cloud Optimized GeoTIFFs, organized as 75 × 75 km tiles covering the 17 western states of the United States.

western United States↗

USGS2025

Optimizing sampling across transect-based methods improves the power of agroecological monitoring data

Transect-based monitoring has long been a valuable tool in ecosystem monitoring to measure multiple ecosystem attributes. The line-point intercept (LPI), vegetation height, and canopy gap intercept methods comprise a set of core methods, which provide indicators of ecosystem condition. However, users often struggle to design a sampling strategy that optimizes the ability to detect ecological change using transect-based methods. We assessed the sensitivity of each of these core methods to transect length, number, and sampling interval in 1-ha plots to determine: (1) minimum sampling required to describe ecosystem characteristics and detect change; and (2) optimal transect length and number to make recommendations for future analyses and monitoring efforts. We used data from 13 National Wind Erosion Research Network locations, including five LTAR sites, spanning the western United States, which included 151 plot sampling events over time across five biomes. We found that longer and increased replicates of transects were more important for reducing sampling error than increased sample intensity along fewer transects per plot. For all methods and indicators across biomes plots, three 100-m transects reduced sampling error such that indicator estimates fell within a 95% confidence interval of ±5% for canopy gap intercept and LPI-total foliar cover, ±5 cm for height, and ±2 species for LPI-species counts. For the same criteria at 80% confidence intervals, two 100-m transects are needed. Site-scale inference was strongly affected by sample design, consequently our understanding of ecological dynamics may be influenced by sampling decisions.

western United States↗

USGS2025

Quantifying regional ecological dynamics using agency monitoring data, ecological site descriptions, and ecological site groups

Information about what ecological conditions are likely, causes or drivers of degradation, and potential management actions to restore degraded lands may support land conservation and restoration decisions. State-and-transition models (STMs) describe persistent plant and ecological conditions that are possible (the “state”) within a given abiotic setting and drivers or actions that can cause shifts between states (the “transitions”). These primarily conceptual models are widely used to inform resource and conservation decisions. Data-driven STMs have been developed for some lands, but not at regional or national scales. Here, we demonstrate a new repeatable workflow for developing data-driven STMs in the United States (US). The approach leverages predictive maps of Ecological Site Groups (ESGs), extensive field-based Federal monitoring databases, information from Ecological Site Description (ESD) STMs, soil erosion models, remotely sensed productivity, and other available spatial information (fire, land protection, and drought) to provide context and descriptions of the data-driven states, including likely drivers of transitions. Results of this workflow applied to one dryland ESG in the Upper Colorado River Basin in the southwestern US suggest that an Invaded state (16% of 1352 plots) and some occurrences of a Grassland state (30% of plots) are in a degraded or at-risk condition with reduced ecosystem services. The most common drivers of state transitions in the associated ESDs ( n = 26) are related to livestock grazing and fire. The Invaded state in the ESG has evidence of degraded habitat quality and accelerated run-off while the Grassland state occurrences show reduced richness, productivity, and elevated erosion risk by wind. Areas subject to wildfire and with lower protection status had greater probability of Invaded state occurrence, generally supporting drivers in ESDs. The workflow presented here can serve as a template for describing ecological dynamics at regional scales, and support prioritization of land for conservation and climate adaptation activities.

Rangeland Ecology & Management↗

USGS2025

An accuracy assessment of satellite-derived rangeland fractional cover

Satellite-derived maps of vegetation cover provide detailed information about vegetation spatiotemporal patterns and are increasingly used to better understand and manage rangelands. Despite their utility, questions remain regarding the regional and site level accuracy for these maps, especially compared to field-collected data. We conducted an accuracy assessment of the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP), using over 17,000 field plots sampled through nationwide rangeland vegetation monitoring programs in the continental U.S. We observed higher overall nationwide map error compared to previous validations of RAP, and absolute error (Mean Absolute Error [MAE] and Root Mean Square Error [RMSE]) was highest for perennial herbaceous and bare ground and lowest for trees (MAE range = 2.98 –10.22 %). There were also differences in map agreement with field data across ecoregions. Generally, map agreement was highest in the Great Basin and lowest in the Great Plains and Desert Southwest. Additionally, we assessed the suitability of using RAP in riparian and wetland areas, which are absent in the current version’s training. Errors for bare ground in riparian areas were lower than errors of upland accuracy assessments (upland MAE = 10.22 %, riparian MAE = 7.22 %), but for all other functional groups, riparian error was higher (ΔMAE range: 0.21 – 20.49 %). We examine how our results could inform regional applications of fractional cover data while considering error and uncertainty and identify areas for potential model improvement. Our findings inform the use of RAP regionally and provide a technique for evaluating other vegetation mapping products for use in rangeland management.

Ecological Indicators↗

USGS2025

Evaluation of the gap intercept method to measure rangeland connectivity

Characterizing the connectivity of materials, organisms, and energy on rangelands is critical to understanding and managing ecosystem response to disturbances. For over twenty years, scientists and rangeland managers have used the gap intercept method to monitor connectivity. However, using gap intercept measurements to infer ecosystem processes or inform management actions and conservation practices on rangelands has been limited because there are few tools and syntheses to help managers pragmatically interpret gap measurements. In this synthesis, we review the different ways the gap intercept method is conducted and highlight considerations when collecting and using gap intercept data. We discuss what is known about how gap intercept data can be used to assess wind and water erosion, biocrust abundance and composition, soil fertility, plant community dynamics, wildlife habitat characteristics, and fuel connectivity and fire behavior. Finally, we identify emerging opportunities regarding the collection and use of gap intercept data to assess rangeland connectivity, ecosystem function, and ecological processes. Through this synthesis we demonstrate the value of the gap intercept method, particularly “all-plant” (i.e., whole-community) canopy gap, in supporting assessments of rangeland condition and vulnerability, and in planning future management actions.

Rangeland Ecology & Management↗

USGS2025

Spatial scale dependence of error in fractional component cover maps

Geospatial products such as fractional vegetation cover maps often report overall, pixel-wise accuracy, but decision-making with these products often occurs at coarser scales. As such, data users often desire guidance on the appropriate spatial scale to apply these data. We worked toward establishing this guidance by assessing RCMAP (Rangeland Condition Monitoring Assessment and Projection) accuracy relative to a series of high-resolution predictions of component cover. We scale the 2-m and RCMAP predictions to various focal window sizes scales ranging from 30 to 1 500 m using focal averaging. We also evaluated variation in scaling effects on error at ecoregion and pasture (mean area of 1 050 ha) scales. Our results demonstrate increased accuracy at broader windows, across all components, and most increases in accuracy level off at ∼200–600 m scales. At the scale with highest accuracy, cross-component average correlation ( r ) increased by 6.5%, and root mean square error (RMSE) was reduced 46.4% relative to 30-m scale data. Scaling-related improvements to accuracy were greatest in components such as shrub and tree with more spatially heterogeneous cover and in ecoregions with more spatially heterogenous cover. When components were aggregated at the pasture scale, r increased 10% and RMSE decreased 34.3% on average relative to the 30-m scale. Our results provide empirical data on the scale dependence of error, which fractional cover data users may consider alongside their needs when using these data. Although the general principle remains that remotely sensed products are intended to address landscape-scale questions, our analysis indicates that applying data at finer than landscape spatial scales and grouping even a handful of pixels resulted in lowered error compared to pixel-level comparisons. Our results quantify the trade-offs between data granularity and error related to scale for fractional vegetation cover.

western United States↗

USGS2025

Sentinel-2 based estimates of rangeland fractional cover and canopy gap class for the western United States

Rangelands are extensive ecosystems, providing important ecosystem services while undergoing continuous change. As a result, improved monitoring technologies can help better characterize vegetation change. Satellite remote sensing has proven effective in this regard, tracking vegetation dynamics at broad and fine scales. We leveraged the spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution of Sentinel-2 satellites to estimate fractional cover and canopy gap across rangelands of the western United States. We produced annual, 10 m spatial resolution estimates of fractional cover and canopy gap size class for years 2018 to 2024. Fractional cover estimates include that of common plant functional types (annual forb and grass, bareground, littler, perennial forb and grass, shrub, tree) and select genera (including invasive annual grass species, pinyon-juniper species, and sagebrush species); canopy gap size classes include gap sizes 25 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and greater than 200 cm. We make these data available as Cloud Optimized GeoTIFFs, organized as 75×75 km tiles covering the 17 western states of the United States.

BioRxiv↗

USGS2024

The LTAR Grazing Land Common Experiment at the Jornada Experimental Range: Old genetics, new precision technologies, and adaptive value chains

Rangelands and the supply chains connected to them are central to the agrifood systems of the Southwestern United States. Local ranchers are simultaneously arid lands managers, herd managers, and marketing managers. To stay in business, they must constantly adapt to unpredictable forage resources and markets while conserving soils and vegetation resources for the long term. As climate warming and drying exacerbate the complexity and difficulty of day-to-day production, producers and policy-makers are seeking alternatives to “business as usual”. To meet this need, the LTAR-Jornada team has developed a package of strategies to help producers adapt to the local and inter-regional challenges. The package includes heritage cattle, precision ranching systems, and adaptive value chains. Five ranches across the Southwest have adopted different combinations of the strategies and are partnering to measure their benefits and drawbacks in real-world conditions. Opportunities for controlled experimentation differ among the ranches, so we use LTAR’s indicator system to assess and compare results. Even as we invest in co-producing knowledge about these three strategies, we recognize that progressive aridification and urbanization of Southwestern rangelands create challenges for which a single “silver bullet” agricultural innovation is unlikely to provide durable solutions. We are learning from our customers and stakeholders about ways to adjust the development of new options.

New Mexico↗

USGS2024

Establishing quantitative benchmarks for soil erosion and ecological monitoring, assessment, and management

Soil erosion can have a multitude of negative impacts on agroecosystems and society and there remains an urgent need for tools to support its management. Quantitative benchmarks based on holistic understanding of erosion processes, ecosystem function, and land use objectives can be used with monitoring data and models to inform assessments and make objective and actionable decisions about erosion management. However, managers currently lack a framework for establishing benchmarks. Here, we present a framework and evaluation of different approaches to establishing quantitative benchmarks for soil erosion and ecological monitoring and assessment that can inform land management decisions. We use monitoring data collected across Chihuahuan Desert ecosystems in the United States and an aeolian sediment transport model to illustrate how benchmarks can be established. Approaches include establishing benchmarks from relationships between soil erosion indicators, reference states and land potential, including state-and-transition models, and desired conditions from existing monitoring data. We discuss the benefits and caveats of the different approaches and show how combining different benchmarking approaches can help users ensure that benchmarks appropriately reflect thresholds for soil erosion and achievable management outcomes. We finish by identifying future research needs to support establishment and application of erosion benchmarks across agroecosystems and recognize the opportunity to extend the benchmarking approaches to management of other agroecosystem processes and services.

Ecological Indicators↗

USGS2024

Closing the conservation gap in the sagebrush biome: Spatial targeting and coordination are needed for conservation to keep pace with sagebrush losses

Core sagebrush areas (CSAs), patches of high sagebrush ecological integrity, continue to decline despite significant conservation and restoration investments across the sagebrush biome. Historically, conservation decisions in the biome have been driven by wildlife species-specific demands, but increasing recognition of the scale of threats and the pace of ecosystem degradation has compelled a shift towards threat-based ecosystem management. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the scale of conservation implementation relative to the rate of degradation or loss from specific threats to the biome to assess whether a conservation deficit exists. To this end, we: 1) quantified and compared the average hectares of conservation practices implemented annually relative to the hectares of CSA loss attributed to each threat; 2) evaluated the relative amount of conservation actions in core sagebrush areas, growth opportunity areas, and other rangeland areas; and 3) assessed how much additional conservation may be needed to stop CSA declines. We then quantified how better spatial targeting and enhanced coordination might reduce the total additional amount of future conservation needed, and evaluated how an influx of resources can close the conservation gap, or the deficit between the conservation needed to offset annual loss and degradation and the capacity for conservation implementation. We found that current rates of conservation (e.g., hectares treated annually) are markedly lower than rates of CSA loss (∼10% of average annual loss). Furthermore, most conservation actions, ∼90% for some treatment types, occurred outside of CSAs likely reducing the efficacy of these conservation actions at retaining and restoring intact sagebrush rangelands. Additionally, we found that conservation efforts will need to increase by more than an order of magnitude (at least 10x) annually to halt CSA declines. However, through better spatial targeting of conservation actions, the increase in conservation needed to stop CSA loss could be reduced by 70% or more. This analysis demonstrates the divergent futures that may await the sagebrush biome pending key decisions regarding conservation targeting, stakeholder cooperation, and the strategic addition of resources.

Rangeland Ecology and Management↗

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

Adaptive monitoring in support of adaptive management in rangelands

Monitoring supports iterative learning about the effectiveness of management actions, information that can help managers plan future actions, facilitate decision-making, and improve outcomes. Adaptive monitoring is the evolution of a monitoring program in response to new management questions; new or changing environmental or socioeconomic conditions, improved monitoring methods, models, and tools; and experience implementing the monitoring program. Adaptive monitoring is connected to research and management through the exchange of data; analytical, methodological, and technological developments; information; and understanding. We review recent advances in adaptive monitoring and discuss new opportunities for both the research and management communities to improve monitoring in the years ahead.

Rangelands↗

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↗

USGS2021

Improving Landsat predictions of rangeland fractional cover with multitask learning and uncertainty

Operational satellite remote sensing products are transforming rangeland management and science. Advancements in computation, data storage and processing have removed barriers that previously blocked or hindered the development and use of remote sensing products. When combined with local data and knowledge, remote sensing products can inform decision‐making at multiple scales. We used temporal convolutional networks to produce a fractional cover product that spans western United States rangelands. We trained the model with 52,012 on‐the‐ground vegetation plots to simultaneously predict fractional cover for annual forbs and grasses, perennial forbs and grasses, shrubs, trees, litter and bare ground. To assist interpretation and to provide a measure of prediction confidence, we also produced spatiotemporal‐explicit, pixel‐level estimates of uncertainty. We evaluated the model with 5,780 on‐the‐ground vegetation plots removed from the training data. Model evaluation averaged 6.3% mean absolute error and 9.6% root mean squared error. Evaluation with additional datasets that were not part of the training dataset, and that varied in geographic range, method of collection, scope and size, revealed similar metrics. Model performance increased across all functional groups compared to the previously produced fractional product. The advancements achieved with the new rangeland fractional cover product expand the management toolbox with improved predictions of fractional cover and pixel‐level uncertainty. The new product is available on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app/), an interactive web application that tracks rangeland vegetation through time. This product is intended to be used alongside local on‐the‐ground data, expert knowledge, land use history, scientific literature and other sources of information when making interpretations. When being used to inform decision‐making, remotely sensed products should be evaluated and utilized according to the context of the decision and not be used in isolation.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2019

Reducing sampling uncertainty in aeolian research to improve change detection

Measurements of aeolian sediment transport support our understanding of mineral dust impacts on Earth and human systems and assessments of aeolian process sensitivities to global environmental change. However, sample design principles are often overlooked in aeolian research. Here, we use high‐density field measurements of sediment mass flux across land use and land cover types to examine sample size and power effects on detecting change in aeolian transport. Temporal variances were 1.6 to 10.1 times the magnitude of spatial variances in aeolian transport for six study sites. Differences in transport were detectable for >67% of comparisons among sites using ~27 samples. Failure to detect change with smaller sample sizes suggests that aeolian transport measurements and monitoring are much more uncertain than recognized. We show how small and selective sampling, common in aeolian research, gives the false impression that differences in aeolian transport can be detected, potentially undermining inferences about process and impacting reproducibility of aeolian research.

Journal of Geophysical Research F: Earth Surface↗

USGS2017

Enhancing wind erosion monitoring and assessment for U.S. rangelands

On the Ground Wind erosion is a major resource concern for rangeland managers because it can impact soil health, ecosystem structure and function, hydrologic processes, agricultural production, and air quality. Despite its significance, little is known about which landscapes are eroding, by how much, and when. The National Wind Erosion Research Network was established in 2014 to develop tools for monitoring and assessing wind erosion and dust emissions across the United States. The Network, currently consisting of 13 sites, creates opportunities to enhance existing rangeland soil, vegetation, and air quality monitoring programs. Decision-support tools developed by the Network will improve the prediction and management of wind erosion across rangeland ecosystems.

Rangelands↗