SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Special Publications”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

USGS2002

Digital mapping techniques '02, workshop proceedings : May 19-22, 2002, Salt Lake City, Utah

The Digital Mapping Techniques '02 (DMT'02) workshop was attended by 101 technical experts from 43 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 25 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous five meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), and in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001). This year's meeting was hosted by the Utah Geological Survey, from May 19 to 22, 2002, on the University of Utah campus in Salt Lake City. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique on the basis of discussions at the workshop, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/ ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database--and the State and Federal geological surveys--to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2002 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized (1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); (2) techniques for scanning already published maps and managing and delivering them on the Web; (3) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and (4) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model. In addition, special presentations were provided on building a statewide GIS council, incorporating geology as a NSDI Framework layer, and resolving the roles of surveyors and GIS professionals.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2003

Digital mapping techniques '03 - Workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '03 (DMT'03) workshop was attended by nearly 90 technical experts from 36 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 22 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). Although the meeting was slightly smaller than DMT'02 it was, considering the budget deficits in nearly all 50 states, very well attended. This workshop was similar in nature to the previous six meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), and in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002). This year's meeting was hosted by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, from June 1-4, 2003, on the Millersville University campus in Millersville, Pennsylvania. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. This objective was well met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and <http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/ standards/datacapt/>). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database— and the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2003 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) digital cartographic techniques, 3) analytical GIS techniques; 4) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; 5) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language, and 6) the need to archive both the published products and the data and observational data that support it.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2004

Digital mapping techniques '04, workshop proceedings : May 16-19, 2004, Portland, Oregon

The Digital Mapping Techniques ‘04 (DMT’04) workshop was attended by about 100 technical experts from 40 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 22 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous seven meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), and in Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003). This year’s meeting was hosted by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, from May 16–19, 2004, on the Portland State University campus in Portland, Oregon. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. This objective was well met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller, Berg, and Stamm, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/ ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the National database—and for the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2004 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, “publishing” includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 7) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language for the U.S. and for North America.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2005

Digital Mapping Techniques '05--Workshop Proceedings, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 24-27, 2005

Introduction: The Digital Mapping Techniques '05 (DMT'05) workshop was attended by more than 100 technical experts from 47 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 25 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous eight meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), in Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), and in Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004). This year's meeting was hosted by the Louisiana Geological Survey, from April 24-27, 2005, on the Louisiana State University campus in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database?and for the State and Federal geological surveys?to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2005 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 7) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language for the U.S. and for North America.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Digital mapping techniques '06 - Workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '06 (DMT'06) workshop was attended by more than 110 technical experts from 51 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 27 state geological surveys (see Appendix A of these Proceedings). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous nine meetings, which were held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004), and Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Soller, 2005). This year's meeting was hosted by the Ohio Geological Survey, from June 11-14, 2006, on the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, Ohio. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure that I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, the latter of which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database - and for the State and Federal geological surveys - to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2006 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; and 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2002

North Carolina's natural heritage program: A case for public-private cooperation

Voluntary conservation programs are an effective tool for recognizing and preserving the value of special places on private forestlands. We evaluate private landowner participation in the Natural Heritage Program of North Carolina, finding that landowners are more likely to enroll land with high ecological significance in this voluntary program. Voluntary conservation is less likely on lands that are remote from threats such as roads, that have higher value in other uses, and that are near lands already conserved by the public.

Journal of Forestry↗

USGS2021

Racial, ethnic, and social patterns in the recreation specialization of birdwatchers: An analysis of United States eBird registrants

Although birdwatchers comprise a large and growing proportion of the American public, there is a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the birdwatching community. Previous research suggests that this homogeneity is self-perpetuating, as ethno-racial minorities are less likely to pursue activities in which no one they know participates. However, it is unclear whether this trend in birdwatching participation also applies to degree of subsequent participant involvement. Using a national online survey of US birdwatchers, we measured the degree of recreation specialization among birdwatchers along affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. We also determined whether respondents had social connections (acquaintances, close friends, or relatives) who birdwatch. We then used logistic regression to determine which ethno-racial groups were more likely to have birdwatcher social connections, and multiple linear regression to investigate how our measures of recreation specialization varied by ethno-racial group. As expected, the ethno-racial composition of the birdwatchers we studied was significantly less diverse than that of the American public. Of the 29,380 respondents who reported their ethno-racial group, 5.2% were Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color (including Native American, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, or multiracial), while 94.8% were non-Hispanic White. However, we observed no statistically significant ethno-racial patterns in overall degree of recreation specialization, even when controlling for social connection and demographic characteristics. Considering the three dimensions of specialization individually, we found that some ethno-racial predictors were statistically significant, but coefficients were too small to be practically significant. We conclude that while some ethno-racial groups are underrepresented among birdwatchers, there is insufficient evidence that they are also under-specialized.

Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism↗

USGS2021

Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union

The United States and European Union (EU) face common challenges in managing natural capital and balancing conservation and resource use with consumption of other forms of capital. This paper synthesizes findings from 11 individual application papers from a special issue of Ecosystem Services on natural capital accounting (NCA) and their application to the public and private sectors in the EU and U.S. NCA is inherently a data-integration centered exercise, aiming to draw new insights by realigning environmental and economic data into a consistent framework. Drawing primarily on papers from the special issue and other key NCA literature, we identify lessons learned and gaps remaining for NCA’s development and application to decision making. In doing so, we identify eight key similarities and three major differences in NCA development, status, and application between the U.S. and EU. NCA can be highly policy relevant: special issue papers address critical issues including agriculture, water, conservation/land-use planning, climate, and corporate decision making. In both the U.S. and EU, further application is needed to drive demand for the accounts’ production. Based on these experiences, the U.S. and EU can be important leaders in cross-sector, international collaboration toward next-generation environmental economic accounts that advance global NCA practice.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2016

Calorific value and compositional ultimate analysis with a case study of a Texas lignite

Measurements to determine coal quality as fuel include proximate analysis, ultimate analysis and calorific value. The latter is an attribute taking non-negative real values, so a simple transformation is sufficient for its spatial modeling applying geostatistics. The analyses, however, involve proportions that follow the properties of compositional data, thus requiring special preprocessing for an adequate modeling already described in a previous publication for the case of proximate analysis data. 1 Here we model the results of calorific value and ultimate analysis. We propose to use two different binary partitions, one per analysis, map the corresponding isometric logratio transformations, and backtransform the results. The methodology is illustrated using the same coal bed in the previous paper modeling proximate analysis data. Results are summarized using probability maps that, in the case of this deposit, show a prominent channel crossing the deposit and separating the best quality coal from that of lower quality.

International Journal of Coal Geology↗

USGS1989

Earthquakes & Volcanoes, Volume 21, Number 1, 1989: Featuring the U.S. Geological Survey's National Earthquake Information Center in Golden, Colorado, USA

Earthquakes and Volcanoes is published bimonthly by the U.S. Geological Survey to provide current information on earthquakes and seismology, volcanoes, and related natural hazards of interest to both generalized and specialized readers. The Secretary of the Interior has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget through June 30, 1989. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Report↗

USGS1905

Geology of the central Copper River region, Alaska

It is an interesting evidence of the prompt responsiveness of our governmental organization to popular needs that the year 1898, which saw the first rush of argonauts to Alaska as a result of the discovery of the Klondike in 1986, saw also several well-equipped Federal parties at work in the Territory, mapping its great waterways and mountain ranges, investigating the feasible means of transportation within it, laying out routes for future lines of communication, and studying the mineral resources and the plant and animal life. It is true that before that year, in which the general attention of the world was fixed upon our heretofore lightly regarded northern province, fur traders, adventurous travelers, and hardy prospectors had made little-heralded journeys through the interior, and that one or another of the governmental departments had had representatives on special errands within its borders, but the amount of private and public energy expended there in 1898 probably exceeded that of any ten previous years.

Alaska↗

USGS1987

Use of the bottomland hardwoods subset of the wetland values data base

This report documents a bibliographic data base concerning functions and values of bottomland hardwoods and similarly vegetated areas. This data base is being provided for a limited time (until September 30, 1988) as a supplement to the publication entitled "Synopsis of Wetland Functions and Values: Bottomland Hardwoods with Special Emphasis on Eastern Texas and Oklahoma" (Wilkinson et al. 1987). The bottomland hardwoods data base is a subset of a larger bibliographic data base, Wetland Values, developed by the National Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Stuber 1986). The focus of these bibliographic data bases is on functions and values of wetlands; few articles on structure (e.g., phytosociology) are included.

Report↗

USGS1975

National Cartographic Information Center Newsletter No. 2

The publication of this issue has been delayed due to the siren call of annual leave and the general inertia produced by the langorous, if pollution-ridden stillness of deep summer in Northern Virginia. We are introducing a new, more artistic cover design with this issue, courtesy of the Geological Survey's Visual Services group. The Newsletter's inner format is remaining exactly as it was - relentlessly simple, a decision occasioned by budget limitations as well as a personal preference not to spend more of the taxpayer's money than is strictly necessary. Again, we are actively soliciting material from our readers. NCIC was created as a national center for the collection and dissemination of cartographic information. Our Newsletter's only justification for existence is to aid in NCIC's development by keeping the cartographic community of collectors, compilers, users, etc., informed not only of NCIC's activities but theirs as well. To become a successful medium of information exchange we need to hear from you in terms of whatever special interests, programs, products, or cartographic information in general you would like publicized. We are interested in receiving your news for possible publication whether it's postcard size or in manuscript form. (If it's in manuscript form, however, it had better be either extremely relevant or incomparably good.)

Newsletter↗

USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Activities in the Exploration of Antarctica: Introduction to Antarctica (Including USGS Field Personnel: 1946-59)

INTRODUCTION Antarctica is the planet's fifth largest continent [13.2 million km2 (5.1 million mi2)]; it contains the Earth's largest (of two) remaining ice sheets; it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report is the introduction to a series that covers 60 years of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientific activity in Antarctica. It will concentrate primarily on three major topics: 1) a brief chronological record of the historical search, discovery, and exploration of the southern continent by humans; 2) early USGS scientific activities in Antarctica, listing expeditions, projects, people and resulting professional publications for Operation Highjump, 1946-47; Operation Windmill, 1947-48; USS Atka Reconnaissance Cruise, 1954-55; and Operation Deep Freeze I, II, III, and IV, 1955-59, including IGY; 3) significant changes that have occurred in Antarctic exploration and research since World War II will be discussed at the end of this report. Subsequent Open-File Reports will provide a year-by-year documentation of USGS scientific activities and accomplishments in Antarctica beginning with the post-IGY, 1959-60 research team. One Open-File Report is planned to be written for each field-based season. For an example of the series format, see Open-File Reports 2006-1113 (Meunier, 2007a) and 2006-1114 (Meunier, 2007b). This report is a companion document to Open-File Report 2006-1116 (Meunier, 2007c). The USGS mapping and science programs in Antarctica are among the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The 2005-06 field season is the 56th consecutive U.S. expedition in which USGS scientists have been participants, starting in 1946. USGS and the National Science Foundation (NSF) cooperation began with the establishment by NSF of the U.S. Antarctic (Research) Program [USA(R)P] in 1958-59 under Operation Deep Freeze IV (DF IV) and was given the responsibility for the principal coordination and management of all U.S. scientific activities in Antarctica in Deep Freeze 60 (DF 60) (1959-60). Financial support from NSF, mostly in the form of Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) and Cooperative Agreements, extends back to this period and can be attributed to the need for accurate geologic, geophysical, and topographic base maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was driven by science and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support (Meunier, 1979 [2007], p. 38). The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, has, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, geophysics, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers, scientists, and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958, and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica (Meunier, 1979 [2007], appendix A). Open-File Report 2006-1116 includes scanned facsimiles of postal cachets. It has become an international practice to create postal cachets to commemorate special events and projects in Antarctica. A cachet is defined as a seal or commemorative design printed or stamped on an envelope to mark a philatelic or special event. The inked impression illustrates to the scientist, historian, stamp collector, and general public the multidisciplinary science projects staffed by USGS and collaborating scientists during the field season. Since 1960, philatelic cachets have been created by team members for each USGS field season and, in most cases, these cachets depict the specific geographic areas and field season program objectives. The cachets become a convenient documentation of the people, projects, and geographic places of interest for that year. Because the cachets are representative of USGS activities, each year's cachet is included as a digital facsimile in that year's Open-File Report. In the 1980s, multiple USGS cachets were prepared each year, one for use by the winter team at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and the other for the project work areas of the austral summer field season programs.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

A review of literature for gray and harbor seals

Climate change is impacting marine species, causing shifts in occurrence, distribution, and phenology, which can ultimately effect ecosystem structure and functioning (Parmesan & Yohe 2003; Burrows et al. 2011). The study of the timing of recurring biological events throughout an organism’s life is known as phenology (Parmesan & Yohe 2003). The way organisms respond to climate change through altered timing offers insight into their sensitivity and adaptability (Parmesan & Yohe 2003). To gain an understanding of pinniped vulnerability to climate change, specifically through changes in phenology, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using several online databases (e.g., Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed). Combinations of relevant terms were searched in order to find studies pertaining to the life history of two regionally important pinniped species: the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) and the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Although special attention was given to studies conducted in the Northwestern Atlantic region, publications giving information on populations in other parts of the world provided important proxy information. Keyword searches were conducted in Web of Science and Google Scholar and represent the published literature through 2017. The remainder of the publications found were cited in the literature returned from the two searches. This document provides an annotated bibliography organized by species (gray and harbor seals) and region, with topical sections for important attributes (e.g. foraging). The focus of this search was for the Gulf of Maine region, but other relevant information yielded by the literature search is presented in order of approximate distance from the focal area.

Report↗

USGS2011

Inference for occupancy and occupancy dynamics

This chapter deals with the estimation of occupancy as a state variable to assess the status of, and track changes in, species distributions when sampling with camera traps. Much of the recent interest in occupancy estimation and modeling originated from the models developed by MacKenzie et al. (2002, 2003), although similar methods were developed independently (Azuma et al. 1990; Bayley and Petersen 2001; Nichols and Karanth, 2002; Tyre et al. 2003), all of which deal with species occurrence information and imperfect detection. Less than a decade after these publications, the modeling and estimation of species occurrence and occupancy dynamics have increased significantly. Special features of scientific journals have explored innovative uses of detection–nondetection data with occupancy models (Vojta 2005), and an entire volume has synthesized the use and application of occupancy estimation methods (MacKenzie et al. 2006). Reviews of the topical concepts, philosophical considerations, and various sampling designs that can be used for occupancy estimation are now readily available for a range of audiences (MacKenzie and Royle 2005; MacKenzie et al. 2006; Bailey et al. 2007; Royle and Dorazio 2008; Conroy and Carroll 2009; Kendall and White 2009; Hines et al. 2010; Link and Barker 2010). As a result, it would be pointless here to recast all that these publications have so eloquently articulated, but that said, a review of any scientific topic requires sufficient context and relevant background information, especially when relatively new methodologies and techniques such as occupancy estimation and camera traps are involved. This is especially critical in a digital age where new information is published at warp speed, making it increasingly difficult to stay abreast of theoretical advances and research developments.

Book chapter↗

USGS2013

Location-only and use-availability data: analysis methods converge

This Special Feature arose from a session on a topic of the same name that took place during The Wildlife Society meeting in Kona, Hawaii, from 5 to 10 November, 2011. The purpose of that session and this Special Feature is to compare methods for predictive modelling of species geographical distributions and the modelling of habitat (resource) selection by animals. The predictive modelling of species geographical distributions and the modelling of habitat selection based on the environmental conditions at sites where animals are known to occur are essentially the same problem. Presence-only and used-available data both consist of a sample of locations with known presence of a species or an individual. A separate sample of locations from a study area, with unknown presence (pseudo-absence), is also assumed to exist. The probability or relative probability of presence of a species or individual is modelled and estimated across a certain time implicitly defined by the sampling mechanism, for example, by the time period during which museum specimens or radiotelemetry data were collected. A number of modelling methods have appeared in the literature over the last couple of decades. Many of these methods were made feasible by the availability of geographical information systems (GIS), global positioning system (GPS) radiotelemetry and public online data access initiatives (e.g. global biodiversity information facility). The papers in this Special Feature are intended to present the state of the methodological art in their subject area, with particular attention paid to contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of alternative methods of analysis for data.

Journal of Animal Ecology↗

USGS2014

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center annual report for 2013

In 2008, Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The center was formed to respond to the demands of natural resource managers for rigorous scientific information and effective tools for assessing and responding to climate change. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Va., the NCCWSC has invested more than $93 million (through FY13) in cutting-edge climate change research and, in response to Secretarial Order No. 3289, established and is managing eight regional Department of Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs). In 2013: The DOI CSCs awarded nearly $7 million in funding to universities and other partners for climate and land-use change research. The scientific work of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise moved toward projects that focus on ‘Science Infrastructure and Capacity Building’ and ‘Thematic Science’. A permanent director, David Helweg, Ph.D., was hired for the Pacific Islands CSC (PI CSC), completing the CSC leadership team. Staff scientists were hired at the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) CSCs. Each of the eight CSCs completed the formation of regional Stakeholder Advisory Committees (SACs) and a national advisory committee (ACCCNRS) was created to oversee the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise. NCCWSC staff worked on creating a searchable public database on climate change vulnerability assessments. NCCWSC scientists authored articles in a special issue of the Ecological Society of America’s journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which was devoted to an assessment of climate change effects on biodiversity and ecosystems, and the consequences for people. Learn more about these achievements in The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center Annual Report for 2013 .

Circular↗