SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Environmental Research: Ecology”

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 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

USGS2008

Landsat still contributing to environmental research

Landsat data have enabled continuous global monitoring of both human-caused and other land cover disturbances since 1972. Recently degraded performance and intermittent service of the Landsat 7 and Landsat 5 sensors, respectively, have raised concerns about the condition of global Earth observation programs. However, Landsat imagery is still useful for landscape change detection and this capability should continue into the foreseeable future.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

FORUM: Effective management of ecological resilience – are we there yet?

Ecological resilience is developing into a credible paradigm for policy development and environmental management for preserving natural capital in a rapidly changing world. However, resilience emerges from complex interactions, limiting the translation of theory into practice. Main limitations include the following: (i) difficulty in quantification and detection of changes in ecological resilience, (ii) a lack of empirical evidence to support preventative or proactive management and (iii) difficulties in managing processes operating across socio-ecological systems that vary in space and time. We highlight recent research with the potential to address these limitations including new and/or improved indicators of resilience and tools to assess scale as a driver of resilience. Synthesis and applications . Effective resilience-based management must be adaptive in nature. To support this, we propose an operational model using resilience-based iterative management actions operating across scales.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗

USGS2011

Dose-Response Calculator for ArcGIS

The Dose-Response Calculator for ArcGIS is a tool that extends the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS 10 Desktop application to aid with the visualization of relationships between two raster GIS datasets. A dose-response curve is a line graph commonly used in medical research to examine the effects of different dosage rates of a drug or chemical (for example, carcinogen) on an outcome of interest (for example, cell mutations) (Russell and others, 1982). Dose-response curves have recently been used in ecological studies to examine the influence of an explanatory dose variable (for example, percentage of habitat cover, distance to disturbance) on a predicted response (for example, survival, probability of occurrence, abundance) (Aldridge and others, 2008). These dose curves have been created by calculating the predicted response value from a statistical model at different levels of the explanatory dose variable while holding values of other explanatory variables constant. Curves (plots) developed using the Dose-Response Calculator overcome the need to hold variables constant by using values extracted from the predicted response surface of a spatially explicit statistical model fit in a GIS, which include the variation of all explanatory variables, to visualize the univariate response to the dose variable. Application of the Dose-Response Calculator can be extended beyond the assessment of statistical model predictions and may be used to visualize the relationship between any two raster GIS datasets (see example in tool instructions). This tool generates tabular data for use in further exploration of dose-response relationships and a graph of the dose-response curve.

Data Series↗

USGS1998

Choosing indicators of natural resource condition: A case study in Arches National Park, Utah, USA

Heavy visitor use in many areas of the world have necessitated development of ways to assess visitation impacts. Arches National Park recently completed a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) plan. Integral to this plan was developing a method to identify biological indicators that would both measure visitor impacts and response to management actions. The process used in Arches for indicator selection is outlined here as a model applicable to many areas facing similar challenges. The steps were: (1) Vegetation types most used by visitors were identified. Impacted and unimpacted areas in these types were sampled, comparing vegetation and soil factors. (2) Variables found to differ significantly between compared sites were used as potential indicators. (3) Site-specific criteria for indicators were developed, and potential indicators evaluated using these criteria. (4) Chosen indicators were further researched for ecological relevancy. (5) Final indicators were chosen, field tested, and monitoring sites designated. In Arches, indicators were chosen for monitoring annually (soil crust index, soil compaction, number of used social trails and soil aggregate stability) and every five years (vegetation cover and frequency; ground cover; soil chemistry; and plant tissue chemistry).

Environmental Management↗

USGS2012

The Midwest Stream Quality Assessment

In 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC) will be collaborating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA) to assess stream quality across the Midwestern United States. The sites selected for this study are a subset of the larger NRSA, implemented by the EPA, States and Tribes to sample flowing waters across the United States ( http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/index.cfm ). The goals are to characterize water-quality stressors—contaminants, nutrients, and sediment—and ecological conditions in streams throughout the Midwest and to determine the relative effects of these stressors on aquatic organisms in the streams. Findings will contribute useful information for communities and policymakers by identifying which human and environmental factors are the most critical in controlling stream quality. This collaborative study enhances information provided to the public and policymakers and minimizes costs by leveraging and sharing data gathered under existing programs. In the spring and early summer, NAWQA will sample streams weekly for contaminants, nutrients, and sediment. During the same time period, CERC will test sediment and water samples for toxicity, deploy time-integrating samplers, and measure reproductive effects and biomarkers of contaminant exposure in fish or amphibians. NRSA will sample sites once during the summer to assess ecological and habitat conditions in the streams by collecting data on algal, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities and collecting detailed physical-habitat measurements. Study-team members from all three programs will work in collaboration with USGS Water Science Centers and State agencies on study design, execution of sampling and analysis, and reporting.

Midwest↗

USGS2008

The Colorado Plateau III: integrating research and resources management for effective conservation

Roughly centered on the Four Corners region of the southwestern United States, the Colorado Plateau covers an area of 130,000 square miles. The relatively high semi-arid province boasts nine national parks, sixteen national monuments, many state parks, and dozens of wilderness areas. With the highest concentration of parklands in North America and unique geological and ecological features, the area is of particular interest to researchers. Derived from the Eighth Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau, this third volume in a series of research on the Colorado Plateau expands upon the previous two books. This volume focuses on the integration of science into resource management issues, summarizes what criteria make a successful collaborative effort, outlines land management concerns about drought, provides summaries of current biological, sociological, and archaeological research, and highlights current environmental issues in the Four Corner States of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. With broad coverage that touches on topics as diverse as historical aspects of pronghorn antelope movement patterns through calculating watershed prescriptions to the role of wind-blown sand in preserving archaeological sites on the Colorado River, this volume stands as a compendium of cuttingedge management-oriented research on the Colorado Plateau. The book also introduces, for the first time, tools that can be used to assist with collaboration efforts among landowners and managers who wish to work together toward preserving resources on the Colorado Plateau and offers a wealth of insights into land management questions for many readers, especially people interested in the natural history, biology, anthropology, wildlife, and cultural management issues of the region.

Utah;Arizona;Colorado;New Mexico↗

USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Southeast Climate Science Center

In 2008, the U.S. Congress authorized the establishment of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Housed administratively within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NCCWSC is part of the DOI’s ongoing mission to meet the challenges of climate change and its effects on wildlife and aquatic resources. From 2010 through 2012, NCCWSC established eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs). Each of these regional CSCs operated with the mission to “synthesize and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources” (Salazar 2009). The model developed by NCCWSC for the regional CSCs employed a dual approach of a federal USGS-staffed component and a parallel host-university component established competitively through a 5-year cooperative agreement with NCCWSC. At the conclusion of this 5-year agreement, a review of each CSC was undertaken, with the Southeast Climate Science Center (SE CSC) review in February 2016. The SE CSC is hosted by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is physically housed within the NCSU Department of Applied Ecology along with the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CFWRU), and the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southeast Regional Climate Hub is based at NCSU as is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Climate Center, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NOAA National Weather Service, the State Climate Office of North Carolina, and the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. This creates a strong core of organizations operating in close proximity focused on climate issues. The geographic area covered by the SE CSC represents all or part of 16 states and the Caribbean Islands and has overlapping boundaries with seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): Appalachian LCC, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, Gulf Coast Prairie LCC, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, South Atlantic LCC, and Caribbean LCC. The SE CSC region also encompasses 134 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and 89 National Park Service (NPS) units and is home to 11 federally recognized and 54 state recognized tribes.

Report↗

USGS2020

Drones provide a better method to find nests and estimate nest survival for colonial waterbirds: A demonstration with Western Grebes

Drone use in wildlife biology has greatly increased as they become cheaper and easier to deploy in the field. In this paper we describe a less invasive method of using drones and exploring their limitations for studying colonial nesting waterbirds. Western Grebes, like most colonial nesting waterbirds, can be very sensitive to human interaction. Using a 3DR Solo quad copter equipped with a high-resolution digital camera we were able to effectively map and monitor a Western Grebe breeding colony throughout the nesting period with a series of 6 flights. We were able to use drone collected aerial imagery to model nest survival while minimizing disturbance to the birds. However, we were not able to deploy the drone at all of our study sites. Our ability to effectively deploy the drone was hindered by the environmental and vegetation characteristics of a site. Drone technology can be a useful tool, especially when studying a species sensitive to human interaction. However, there researchers should carefully consider their species and study site to evaluate if a drone is the proper tool to meet their objectives.

Idaho↗

USGS2026

Restoring dryland water cycles for precipitation feedback and climate stability; a review

Drylands across the globe are experiencing intensifying water scarcity, land degradation, and hydroclimatic extremes. This review integrates evidence from multidecadal field studies, hydrologic monitoring, geomorphic and ecological assessments, remote sensing, and land–atmosphere science to evaluate how restoration influences key components of the terrestrial water cycle. Low-tech natural infrastructure in dryland streams (NIDS)—including check dams, leaky weirs, one-rock dams, and gabions—has emerged as a promising but under-synthesized nature-based solution for restoring hydrologic function in these environments. We describe the mechanisms through which these interventions modify runoff detention, infiltration, sediment and alluvial storage, shallow-groundwater recharge, vegetation recovery, and surface-energy partitioning, and we summarize outcomes across diverse dryland settings. Findings consistently show increased water residence time, enhanced soil-moisture storage, expanded riparian vegetation, extended flow duration, and shifts toward greater latent-heat flux—producing localized cooling and strengthened ecohydrological feedbacks. Building on these localized effects, we articulate a hypothesis that links the spatial extent of restoration, the density of NIDS per unit drainage area, and the magnitude of the latent-to-sensible-heat contrast generated by wetter post-rainfall conditions. Specifically, we hypothesize that when NIDS are implemented at densities permitted by topography and across areas large enough to maintain elevated soil moisture after storm events, the resulting increases in latent heat flux, surface cooling, and boundary-layer moistening may enhance moisture convergence and boundary-layer development, potentially increasing the likelihood or stability of convective precipitation, analogous to how reductions in these processes have contributed to regional drought intensification. These land–atmosphere feedbacks remain untested at scale but represent an important research Frontier. By integrating hydrologic, geomorphic, ecological, and atmospheric perspectives, this review provides a comprehensive framework for considering how low-tech, landscape-scale interventions can strengthen watershed resilience and contribute to climate-relevant nature-based solutions.

Arizona↗

USGS2019

Understanding the central Great Plains as a coupled climatic-hydrological-human system: Lessons learned in operationalizing interdisciplinary collaboration

This chapter discusses an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary project to understand the interactions of agriculture, climate, and water resources in the Central Great Plains as a coupled natural-human system. We focus on the Smoky Hills Watershed in Kansas, where we gathered socioeconomic, hydrological, and climatic data, along with ecological data on fish species. The project involved substantial stakeholder engagement, which was complicated by post-truth attitudes about climate science and environmental regulation by some groups. We discuss the challenges of team management, stakeholder engagement, and data integration for modeling, notably the incorporation of stakeholder support for environmental policy in the context of extreme climatic events. We conclude by offering a framework for good collaborative practice to manage the complications of crossing boundaries in transdisciplinary research and outreach.

Kansas↗

USGS2016

Landscape ecology of the Upper Mississippi River System: Lessons learned, challenges and opportunities

The Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) is a mosaic of river channels, backwater lakes, floodplain forests, and emergent marshes. This complex mosaic supports diverse aquatic and terrestrial plant communities, over 150 fish species; 40 freshwater mussel species; 50 amphibian and reptile species; and over 360 bird species, many of which use the UMRS as a critical migratory route. The river and floodplain are also hotspots for biogeochemical activity as the river-floodplain collects and processes nutrients derived from the UMR basin. These features qualify the UMRS as a Ramsar wetland of international significance. Two centuries of land-use change, including construction for navigation and conversion of large areas to agriculture, has altered the broad-scale structure of the river and changed local environmental conditions in many areas. Such changes have affected rates of nutrient processing and transport, as well as the abundance of various fish, mussel, plant, and bird species. However, the magnitude and spatial scale of these effects are not well quantified, especially in regards to the best methods and locations for restoring various aspects of the river ecosystem. The U.S. Congress declared the navigable portions of the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) a “nationally significant ecosystem and nationally significant commercial navigation system” in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) and launched the Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) Program, the first comprehensive program for ecosystem restoration, monitoring, and research on a large river system. This fact sheet focuses on landscape ecological studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey to support decision making by the UMRR with respect to ecosystem restoration.

Upper Mississippi River System↗

USGS2024

New uses for ancient middens: Bridging ecological and evolutionary perspectives

Rodent middens provide a fine-scale spatiotemporal record of plant and animal communities over the late Quaternary. In the Americas, middens have offered insight into biotic responses to past environmental changes and historical factors influencing the distribution and diversity of species. However, few studies have used middens to investigate genetic or ecosystem level responses. Integrating midden studies with neoecology and experimental evolution can help address these gaps and test mechanisms underlying eco-evolutionary patterns across biological and spatiotemporal scales. Fully realizing the potential of middens to answer cross-cutting ecological and evolutionary questions and inform conservation goals in the Anthropocene will require a collaborative research community to exploit existing midden archives and mount new campaigns to leverage midden records globally.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2016

Cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms and U.S. Geological Survey science capabilities

Cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (CyanoHABs) are increasingly a global concern because CyanoHABs pose a threat to human and aquatic ecosystem health and cause economic damages. Despite advances in scientific understanding of cyanobacteria and associated compounds, many unanswered questions remain about occurrence, environmental triggers for toxicity, and the ability to predict the timing, duration, and toxicity of CyanoHABs. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists are leading a diverse range of studies to address CyanoHAB issues in water bodies throughout the United States, using a combination of traditional methods and emerging technologies, and in collaboration with numerous partners. By providing practical applications of cutting edge CyanoHAB research, USGS studies have advanced scientific understanding, enabling the development of approaches to help protect ecological and human health.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1989

Assessing the relationship between Section 404 and wetland losses: a feasibility study

The primary objective of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251) is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Section 404 of the Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands and represents the primary Federal authority for regulation of wetland alterations. Since its inception, the Section 404 program has been controversial in regard to the extent to which it was intended to provide wetlands regulation. Section 404 requires those who wish to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which include many wetlands, to first obtain a Federal permit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has overall responsibility for administration of the Section 404 program and promulgates guidelines that must be followed in issuing permits. In addition, EPA has the final authority to prohibit specific discharges if the environmental impacts are unacceptable. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues Section 404 permits, which can be of two types. Individual Permits are issued following case-by-case reviews of proposed discharges. General Permits, which can be either nationwide or regional in scope, are authorized by the Corps for categories of activities that are similar in nature and that have only minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental impacts. EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and State natural resource agencies review and comment on permit applications and offer recommendations on appropriate mitigation measures. Although comments from the Service and other natural resource agencies are advisory in nature (EPA's veto authority excepted), they can serve as the basis for modifying, conditioning, or denying a Section 404 permit. In 1986, in a survey conducted by the National Ecology Research Center, Service personnel indicated interest in additional information concerning both wetland trends and the impacts of activities authorized by the Corps under Section 404 (Roelle 1986). Although there is some information concerning wetland losses for certain geographic areas and for the Nation as a whole (Frayer et al. 1983; Tiner 1984), there appears to be little information on how these losses relate to the Section 404 permitting process. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of estimating wetland losses in relationship to Individual and General Permits issued under Section 404. A secondary objective was to assemble data on acceptance and implementation of specific mitigation recommendations offered by the Service and other natural resource agencies in connection with development activities on wetlands examined. At present, 26 categories of Nationwide permits have been authorized by the Corps. Nationwide permit 26 was of particular interest in this study because it specifically authorizes discharges into wetlands under certain circumstances (see Figure 1 and related text for a more complete discussion of circumstances under which Nationwide Permit 26 is applicable). All subsequent references to Nationwide or General permits pertain to Nationwide Permit 26.

Report↗

USGS2010

Integrated Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data Offshore of New London and Niantic, Connecticut

Nearshore areas within Long Island Sound are of great interest to the Connecticut and New York research and resource management communities because of their ecological, recreational, and commercial importance. Although advances in multibeam echosounder technology permit the construction of high-resolution representations of sea-floor topography in deeper waters, limitations inherent in collecting fixed-angle multibeam data make using this technology in shallower waters (less than 10 meters deep) difficult and expensive. These limitations have often resulted in data gaps between areas for which multibeam bathymetric datasets are available and the adjacent shoreline. To address this problem, the geospatial data sets released in this report seamlessly integrate complete-coverage multibeam bathymetric data acquired off New London and Niantic Bay, Connecticut, with hydrographic Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data acquired along the nearshore. The result is a more continuous sea floor representation and a much smaller gap between the digital bathymetric data and the shoreline than previously available. These data sets are provided online and on CD-ROM in Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) raster-grid and GeoTIFF formats in order to facilitate access, compatibility, and utility.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1988

Assessment of the role of bottomland hardwoods in sediment and erosion control

Drainage and clearing of bottomland hardwoods have long been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as important impacts of Federal water projects in the lower Mississippi River Valley. More recently, the water quality impacts of such projects (e.g., increases in sediments, nutrients, and pesticides) have also become of concern. In 1984, in an effort to better define problems concerning wetland losses and water degradation, EPA initiated a cooperative project with the Western Energy and Land Use Team (now the National Ecology Research Center) of the Service. Three phases of the project were identified: 1. To collect existing literature and data; 2. To select, develop, and test the utility of methods to quantify the relationships between land use, cover types, soils, hydrology, and water quality (as represented by sediment); and 3. To apply selected methodologies to several sites within the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi to determine the, potential effectiveness of various management alternatives to reduce sediment yield, increase sediment deposition, and improve water quality. Methods development focused on linking a simulation of water and sediment movement to a computerized geographic information system. We had several objectives for the resulting model. We desired that it should: 1. Estimate the importance of bottomland and hardwoods as a cover type that performs the functions of erosion and sediment control, 2. Simulate effects of proportions of ' various cover types and their specific spatial configurations, 3. Be applicable to moderately large spatial areas with minimal site-specific calibration, 4. Simulate spatial patterns of sediment loss-gain over time, and 5. Represent both sediment detachment and transport. While it was recognized that impacts and management alternatives could be sorted roughly into landscape measures and channel measures, the decision was made to focus study efforts mainly on landscape measures. Landscape measures include altered drainage and flooding patterns, altered cover types (e.g., conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agricultural crops, reforestation of cropland to bottomland hardwoods, and creation of riparian buffer strips), altered cropping and tillage patterns, altered routing of water, and creation of buffer strips along wetlands and channel margins. Channel measures include vegetative bank stabilization, grade control structures, and regulation of channel water volume and velocity. During the first year of the study, EPA decided not to fund the third phase of the project. This required considerable rescoping of the project with the result that application of the sediment mobilization, routing, and deposition models to various management alternatives and portions of the Yazoo Basin was somewhat restricted. We believe, however, that this report will provide a good understanding of the various modes of sediment mobilization, transport, and deposition within the Yazoo Basin, as well as of the role of bottomland hardwoods. The model developed in this study could be applied to a variety of management or mitigation alternatives prior to implementation to determine their relative effectiveness. Policy, political, and socio-economic consequences of any proposed management/mitigation practice, however, must ultimately be taken into consideration by those charged with management of water resources within the Yazoo Basin before any practice is implemented. This study makes no effort to judge the feasibility of management alternatives in this regard.

Report↗

USGS2012

Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services: technical input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment

Ecosystems, and the biodiversity and services they support, are intrinsically dependent on climate. During the twentieth century, climate change has had documented impacts on ecological systems, and impacts are expected to increase as climate change continues and perhaps even accelerates. This technical input to the National Climate Assessment synthesizes our scientific understanding of the way climate change is affecting biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and what strategies might be employed to decrease current and future risks. Building on past assessments of how climate change and other stressors are affecting ecosystems in the United States and around the world, we approach the subject from several different perspectives. First, we review the observed and projected impacts on biodiversity, with a focus on genes, species, and assemblages of species. Next, we examine how climate change is affecting ecosystem structural elements—such as biomass, architecture, and heterogeneity—and functions—specifically, as related to the fluxes of energy and matter. People experience climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems as changes in ecosystem services; people depend on ecosystems for resources that are harvested, their role in regulating the movement of materials and disturbances, and their recreational, cultural, and aesthetic value. Thus, we review newly emerging research to determine how human activities and a changing climate are likely to alter the delivery of these ecosystem services. This technical input also examines two cross-cutting topics. First, we recognize that climate change is happening against the backdrop of a wide range of other environmental and anthropogenic stressors, many of which have caused dramatic ecosystem degradation already. This broader range of stressors interacts with climate change, and complicates our abilities to predict and manage the impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they support. The second cross-cutting topic is the rapidly advancing field of climate adaptation, where there has been significant progress in developing the conceptual framework, planning approaches, and strategies for safeguarding biodiversity and other ecological resources. At the same time, ecosystem-based adaptation is becoming more prominent as a way to utilize ecosystem services to help human systems adapt to climate change. In this summary, we present key findings of the technical input, focusing on themes that can be found throughout the report. Thus, this summary takes a more integrated look at the question of how climate change is affecting our ecological resources, the implications for humans, and possible response strategies. This integrated approach better reflects the impacts of climate in the real world, where changes in ecosystem structure or function will alter the viability of different species and the efficacy of ecosystem services. Likewise, adaptation to climate change will simultaneously address a range of conservation goals. Case studies are used to illustrate this complete picture throughout the report; a snapshot of one case study, 2011 Las Conchas, New Mexico Fire , is included in this summary.

Report↗