SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Science Advances”

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 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2022

Framework for the development of the Columbia River mainstem fish tissue and water quality monitoring program - Bonneville Dam to Canadian border

The Columbia River provides important cultural, economic, and ecological services to a significant portion of the United States. Anadromous and resident fish species and other wildlife are integrated into the cultural traditions of all Tribes in the Columbia River Basin. Salmon, lamprey, sturgeon, and resident fish are an integral part of Tribal religion, culture, and physical sustenance. Despite concerns about the effect of contaminants on the aquatic ecosystem, the disproportionate effects of contaminants on members of Tribal sovereignties, and the known effects of contaminants on species protected under the Endangered Species Act, efforts to address toxic chemical pollution in the Columbia River have been limited. The lack of a dedicated contaminant monitoring program impedes evaluation and decision making regarding the health of the Columbia River ecosystem, as well as human health for Tribal members and others that consume fish and other biota from the Columbia River. The purpose of this framework is to provide guidance for the development of a long-term program (Program) that provides the basis for assessing the status and trends of contaminants in fish, sediment, water, and invertebrates along the 962-kilometer length of the Columbia River from the Bonneville Dam upriver to the Canadian Border (Figure ES1). This framework will focus on four persistent and bioaccumulative classes of toxic contaminants: • Mercury • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) • Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) Media of interest in this framework include anadromous and resident fish, sediment, invertebrates, biofilm, and surface water. Future consideration of additional contaminants could include pesticides, per or poly-fluoroalkyl substances, 6PPD-quinone, and contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), which comprises a diverse group of anthropogenic chemicals that include thousands of pharmaceuticals, hormones, illicit drugs, new pesticides, personal care products, flame retardants, artificial sweeteners, perfluorinated compounds, disinfection byproducts, ultraviolet filters, and other industrial chemicals. This framework includes the vision, goals, and objectives for the Program. The vision for the Program is that it will provide the basis for assessing the status and trends of contaminants in the Columbia River to guide ecosystem recovery resulting in clean, healthy fish for current and future generations . The goals of the Program are to 1) conduct long-term monitoring to assess the spatial and temporal status and trends of toxics in fish, water, sediment, and other potential media in the Columbia River mainstem, from Bonneville Dam to the Canadian Border in perpetuity, 2) stimulate conversion of science into action by providing information to facilitate future decision making that improves ecosystem function and reduces contaminants in all levels of the food chain, and 3) adaptively manage the Program to address new key questions, incorporate new and emerging science advancements, and respond to community information needs. To facilitate achieving these goals, this framework provides details on technical planning; community outreach and engagement; and adaptive management to promote understanding and improve future decision making over the long-term, including updating the Program with new and emerging science and community needs. Additionally, data associated with the Program will be made available to the public through the EPA Water Quality Exchange (https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/water-quality-data). Documents and other materials associated with the Program can be accessed via a website hosted by Yakama Nation Fisheries (https://yakamafish-nsn.gov/restore/projects/columbia-river-mainstem- water-quality-monitoring-program). Although the Program is limited to the Columbia River upstream of the Bonneville Dam, collaboration with other entities that monitor contaminants in the Columbia River Basin, including the Columbia River estuary below Bonneville Dam, are also an important component of outreach. Our goal is to encourage efforts to ensure data comparability across programs and recognize that the growth and adaptive management of the Program considers basin-wide monitoring developments.

Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

Wetlands in agricultural landscapes—Significant findings and recent advances from CEAP-Wetlands

The Wetlands Component of the USDA's Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP-Wetlands) is a multi-agency effort advancing science related to quantifying and interpreting effects and effectiveness of conservation practices and programs on ecosystem services provided by wetlands in agricultural landscapes. This special section originated from a symposium held at the 73rd Soil and Water Conservation Society's International Annual Conference in Albuquerque New Mexico, July 29 to August 1, 2018. The symposium was jointly organized by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the US Geological Survey. To facilitate CEAP-Wetlands efforts, several regional assessments were conducted across the United States. These regional assessments were designed to address science gaps hindering wetland conservation and to develop tools facilitating conservation assessments. Conservation decisions affect not just agricultural wetlands, but also the services that these complex ecosystems provide to society. Papers in this special section of the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation present key findings and recent advances from several CEAP-Wetlands regional assessments and discuss the significant contributions of each assessment to an ever-increasing understanding of wetland ecosystems and their provisioning of ecosystem services. Modeling efforts using the Agricultural Policy and Environmental eXtender (APEX) and other process-based models are an integral component of CEAP-Wetlands. Results of these modeling efforts are also presented, and conservation implications are discussed.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation↗

USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2013 Annual Report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups. However by 2009, it became apparent that many members of the council had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal grassroots perspective, thus transforming the “Council” into a “Community” for Data Integration (CDI). Today, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas as well as learn new skills and techniques, and grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the Community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical 2 challenges, including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. Today the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that create data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2014 annual report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researches Earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of Earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups; however, by 2009 it became evident that many members of the Council for Data Integration had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal, grassroots manner, which transformed the Council into a Community for Data Integration (CDI). As of 2014, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across the USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to do the following: • advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques, • provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas and learn new skills and techniques, and • grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical challenges including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. As of 2014, the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that creates data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2024

Using citizen scientists to collect oxygen and hydrogen isotope data in southern Nevada

What is Citizen Science? Citizen science programs provide a means for Federal and non-Federal government agencies to make science more engaging, transparent, and accessible by partnering with the public for the purpose of problem solving, data collection, and monitoring. Public volunteers become directly involved in local research, thereby engaging in scientific projects. The public has already been included in existing citizen science programs that cover a broad range of disciplines, such as ecology, hydrology, and tectonics. Citizen science advances research while simultaneously fostering a sense of involvement and interest from the public. Beginning in 2017, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service collaborated with private, non-profit partners to inventory, survey, and rehabilitate springs in Clark County, Nevada. The USGS maintains the National Water Information System (NWIS), a publicly available online database of water-resources data for the Nation, and the agency is interested in using citizen science to add geochemical data from springs in southern Nevada. From 2021 to 2023, the USGS directly worked with citizen science partners, including the Springs Stewardship Institute and the Friends of Nevada Wilderness, to collect stable isotope and tritium samples from southern Nevada springs. The citizen science volunteers were provided the training and supplies for proper sample collection by USGS staff. As the citizen science partners traveled and hiked to the remote spring sites to complete spring surveys and perform restoration activities, they collected stable isotope and tritium samples for the USGS. Samples were shipped to national USGS laboratories for analysis, and the results were uploaded to the NWIS database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2024).

Nevada↗

USGS2006

Natural history, field ecology, conservation biology and wildlife management: Time to connect the dots

Natural history and field ecology are essential building blocks for successful conservation and management of herpetofauna. Thus, natural history and field ecology merit major infusions of funding and increased recognition of their importance in science and management. Others have stated matters well: (1) Academic training in natural history should receive high priority; (2) we need to integrate our work across disciplines (from molecules to communities), and use all of our knowledge toward common goals; (3) natural history is not dead but today is a flourishing enterprise; and (4) mutual respect and collaboration between disciplines best serve our own mental health as well as the future of natural history. We need to merge the best natural history, field ecological data, and biological questions with the latest advances in other fields of inquiry if we are to advance science and solve key environmental issues. It takes a scientific community and many concerned parties to save a species, let alone an ecosystem. We must connect these dots to see the big picture.

Herpetological Conservation and Biology↗

USGS2019

Final Report for Phase 1 - USGS-NE CSC and USFS-NRS Cooperative Research on Climate-Vulnerable Habitats and Species in the Northeast

The US Forest Service (USFS) and Northeast Climate (Adaptation) Science Center (NE CASC) came together to focus research and management cooperation on the topic of the impacts of climate change on forested ecosystems. This work had 3 primary components: 1) modeling headwater stream refugia; 2) investigating resilience and resistance strategies for New England forests; and 3) studying the impact of climate change on forest mammal communities. USFS and NE CASC organizations have complimentary expertise to share in order to improve natural resource management in the critical montane and headwater habitats in the region, and worked together to use this expertise in advancing science and science support for natural resource adaptation to a changing climate. This work resulted in increased understanding of the direct, indirect, and interactive responses of at-risk coldwater, montane and northern species to a changing climate; 2) the development of approaches and strategies for adaptation, including identification of potential climate refugia; and 3) interactive platforms for data, models and forecasts to communicate these and related results to the conservation and management community.

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ke↗

USGS2008

Human-provided waters for desert wildlife: What is the problem?

Conflict persists in southwestern deserts of the United States over management of human-constructed devices to provide wildlife with water. We appraised decision processes in this case relative to the goal of human dignity and by the standards of civility and common interest outcomes. Our analysis suggested that conflict was scientized, rooted in worldviews, and aggravated by use of inflammatory symbols such as "wilderness" and "bighorn sheep." Contested problem definitions, framed as matters of science, advanced factional interests largely by allocating the burden of proof and failing to disclose private concerns about well-being, affection, respect, skill and power. Decision processes were shaped by precepts of scientific management, and thus largely failed to foster civility, common ground, and a focus on common interests, and instead tended to exacerbate deprivations of dignity and respect. If the status quo continues, we foresee further erosion of human dignity because there are likely to be increases in system stressors, such as climate change and human population growth. The prognosis would be more hopeful if alternatives were adopted that entailed authoritative, equitable, and collaborative public decision-making processes that took into consideration national-level common interests such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act. ?? Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008.

Policy Sciences↗

USGS2017

The blind men meet the elephant at the dam: Alternative spatial and taxonomic components reveal different insights about how low-head dams impact fish biodiversity

Dams are ubiquitous environmental impacts that threaten aquatic ecosystems. The ability to compare across research studies is essential to conserve the native biodiversity that is impacted by the millions of low‐head dams that currently fragment streams and rivers. Here, we identify a previously unaddressed obstacle that impedes this generalization. Specifically, divergent spatial and taxonomic approaches that result from different conceptualizations of the dam‐biodiversity problem can produce conflicting science‐based conclusions about the same dam impact. In this research, using the same dammed and undammed sites, we evaluated the scientific generality of different conceptualizations of the dam‐biodiversity problem. We compared two different but commonly used spatial approaches—(1) above dam–below dam vs. (2) undammed–dammed comparisons—and 11 different, commonly used taxonomic approaches (three assemblage summaries, eight guilds). Sites above the dam structure had less diverse fish assemblages than sites below dams, whereas sites below the dam structure were similar to undammed sites. Thus, spatial approach 1 detected a large dam effect and spatial approach 2 detected a small dam effect. Similarly, some taxonomic responses (species richness, diversity, abundance, and number of guilds) detected large dam effects; other responses detected small (riffle specialist guild) or no dam effects (pool generalists). In summary, our results showed that how the problem was framed altered scientific conclusions and created different dam realities. The metaphor of how individual blind men disagree about the structure of an elephant, based on examinations of different body parts, reinforces the need for a coordinated, holistic perspective on dam research. Although no single approach is adequate for all problems, identifying the form, consequences of, and relationships among different research conceptualizations will set the stage for future syntheses of dam‐biodiversity research to advance science‐based conservation.

Ecosphere↗

USGS2021

Preface to book: Wetland carbon and environmental management

The idea for this book, including its organization and contents, has its origin in the latest environmental and climate policy requirements in the United States, as well as science advances. In 2007, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), from which Section 712 required U.S. Federal agencies to provide a better understanding of carbon and greenhouse gas fluxes across the United States. As a result, largescale and coordinated efforts were launched to assess carbon storage, carbon fluxes, and greenhouse gas fluxes including CO2, CH4, and N2O from all major terrestrial and freshwater aquatic ecosystems, including forest, grassland/shrub, agricultural lands, wetlands, and rivers, streams, lakes, and impoundments. The EISA assessment produced major results (Selmants et al., 2017; Zhu, 2011; Zhu & McGuire, 2016; Zhu & Reed, 2012, 2014), but recognized that wetlands remained a significant source of uncertainty, especially for those wetlands that were being actively managed. The more recent Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which devoted two separate chapters to inland and coastal wetlands, respectively, noted that large knowledge gaps still remain, ranging from inadequate analysis of restored and managed wetlands, and consequences of management decisions, to future wetland responses to climate change (USGCRP, 2018). In recent literature, wetland management is suggested as a potential natural solution to mitigate climate change (Fargione et al., 2018, Kroeger et al., 2017) and help offset direct losses of wetlands from sea level rise, subsidence, and coastal erosion (Wang et al., 2017). The recognition that a synthesis of wetland carbon management was urgently needed was the genesis of Wetland Carbon and Environmental Management; discerning the relationships between wetland management and carbon flux (loss or gain) is an international goal.

Geophysical Monograph Series↗

USGS2026

Action in uncertainty: Data-driven decisions that acknowledge emotional responses and transcendental connections

The increasing uncertainty with global change often stifles action and results in calls for more data before moving beyond status quo environmental decisions (Mahapatra & Ratha 2017; Ripple et al. 2017; Montefalcone et al. 2025). Advancing science and collecting more data is crucial; however, science alone (i.e., “western” or “positivist” science, as described in Fuller, 2001; Reid et al. 2020) may be insufficient to reduce uncertainty to a comfortable level for decision making. Therefore, increasing personal and collective capacity to make proactive decisions may require decision makers to recognize that their own understanding of the world, and therefore interpretation of scientific data, is influenced by all Four Realms of human perception: Physical, Mental, Emotional, and Transcendental (Wolf 2017; Dukes et al. 2021; Clifford et al. 2022). In the ESA Special Session, Action in Uncertainty, we introduced four questions to help participants increase cognitive awareness of how all Four Realms may affect their understanding in uncertain environmental decision contexts: 1. Physical: How do I observe uncertainty through the five senses (feel, see, hear, taste, smell)? The physical realm is what people observe, including ecological data observations and experimentation. 2. Mental: How do I think about uncertainty using logic, reason, and language-based understanding? The mental realm is how people think about the world, including scientific theory, modeling, and decision frameworks. 3. Emotional: How do I feel in uncertainty? The emotional realm is a person’s subjective emotional state, such as fear, curiosity, defensiveness, and awe. 4. Transcendental: How do I connect to something greater than myself in uncertainty? The transcendental realm includes people’s sense of purpose, responsibility for others, or moral code.

ESA Bulletin↗

USGS2018

Wanted: Future leaders for ESA

A scientific society like ESA is not just an office, nor an annual meeting, nor one or more journals, and it cannot operate without volunteer leadership. ESA is its members. It is the collective efforts of many individuals that create a vibrant organization. Members step forward in service to the society and to the community review journal articles, organize symposia and field trips at the Annual Meeting, serve on standing program committees and as Section Officers, and make strategic and financial decisions for the society as members of the Governing Board. With a small headquarters staff, much of the work accomplished by ESA rests on the shoulders of volunteer members and leaders. The combined efforts of hundreds of individuals allow ESA to develop and advance programs and maximize the society’s impact in advancing science and engaging communities. ESA is committed to being a leader in communicating ecological science among scientists and to promoting its use in our threatened world. ESA can only achieve these goals however, if its members make it happen.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗

USGS2012

Dealing with incomplete and variable detectability in multi-year, multi-site monitoring of ecological populations

An ecological monitoring program should be viewed as a component of a larger framework designed to advance science and/or management, rather than as a stand-alone activity. Monitoring targets (the ecological variables of interest; e.g. abundance or occurrence of a species) should be set based on the needs of that framework (Nichols and Williams 2006; e.g. Chapters 2–4). Once such monitoring targets are set, the subsequent step in monitoring design involves consideration of the field and analytical methods that will be used to measure monitoring targets with adequate accuracy and precision. Long-term monitoring programs will involve replication of measurements over time, and possibly over space; that is, one location or each of multiple locations will be monitored multiple times, producing a collection of site visits (replicates). Clearly this replication is important for addressing spatial and temporal variability in the ecological resources of interest (Chapters 7–10), but it is worth considering how this replication can further be exploited to increase the effectiveness of monitoring. In particular, defensible monitoring of the majority of animal, and to a lesser degree plant, populations and communities will generally require investigators to account for imperfect detection (Chapters 4, 18). Raw indices of population state variables, such as abundance or occupancy (sensu MacKenzie et al. 2002), are rarely defensible when detection probabilities are < 1, because in those cases detection may vary over time and space in unpredictable ways. Myriad authors have discussed the risks inherent in making inference from monitoring data while failing to correct for differences in detection, resulting in indices that have an unknown relationship to the parameters of interest (e.g. Nichols 1992, Anderson 2001, MacKenzie et al. 2002, Williams et al. 2002, Anderson 2003, White 2005, Kéry and Schmidt 2008). While others have argued that indices may be preferable in some cases due to the challenges associated with estimating detection probabilities (e.g. McKelvey and Pearson 2001, Johnson 2008), we do not attempt to resolve this debate here. Rather, we are more apt to agree with MacKenzie and Kendall (2002) that the burden of proof ought to be on the assertion that detection probabilities are constant. Furthermore, given the wide variety of field methods available for estimating detection probabilities and the inability for an investigator to know, a priori, if detection probabilities will be constant over time and space, we believe that development of monitoring programs ought to include field and analytical methods to account for the imperfect detection of organisms.

Book chapter↗

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↗

USGS2017

Meeting the challenge of interacting threats in freshwater ecosystems: A call to scientists and managers

Human activities create threats that have consequences for freshwater ecosystems and, in most watersheds, observed ecological responses are the result of complex interactions among multiple threats and their associated ecological alterations. Here we discuss the value of considering multiple threats in research and management, offer suggestions for filling knowledge gaps, and provide guidance for addressing the urgent management challenges posed by multiple threats in freshwater ecosystems. There is a growing literature assessing responses to multiple alterations, and we build off this background to identify three areas that require greater attention: linking observed alterations to threats, understanding when and where threats overlap, and choosing metrics that best quantify the effects of multiple threats. Advancing science in these areas will help us understand existing ecosystem conditions and predict future risk from multiple threats. Because addressing the complex issues and novel ecosystems that arise from the interaction of multiple threats in freshwater ecosystems represents a significant management challenge, and the risks of management failure include loss of biodiversity, ecological goods, and ecosystem services, we also identify actions that could improve decision-making and management outcomes. These actions include drawing insights from management of individual threats, using threat attributes (e.g., causes and spatio-temporal dynamics) to identify suitable management approaches, testing management strategies that are likely to be successful despite uncertainties about the nature of interactions among threats, avoiding unintended consequences, and maximizing conservation benefits. We also acknowledge the broadly applicable challenges of decision-making within a socio-political and economic framework, and suggest that multidisciplinary teams will be needed to innovate solutions to meet the current and future challenge of interacting threats in freshwater ecosystems.

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene↗

USGS2017

USA National Phenology Network gridded products documentation

The goals of the USA National Phenology Network ( USA-NPN, www.usanpn.org ) are to advance science, inform decisions, and communicate and connect with the public regarding phenology and species’ responses to environmental variation and climate change. The USA-NPN seeks to facilitate informed ecosystem stewardship and management by providing phenological information freely and openly. One way the USA-NPN is endeavoring to accomplish these goals is by providing data and data products in a wide range of formats, including gridded real-time, short-term forecasted, and historical maps of phenological events, patterns and trends. This document describes the suite of gridded phenologically relevant data products produced and provided by the USA National Phenology Network, which can be accessed at www.usanpn.org/data/phenology_maps and also through web services at geoserver.usanpn.org/geoserver/wms?request=GetCapabilities .

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Community for Data Integration 2016 annual report

The Community for Data Integration (CDI) represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the U.S. Geological Survey and the CDI community. This annual report describes the various presentations, activities, and outcomes of the CDI monthly forums, working groups, virtual training series, and other CDI-sponsored events in fiscal year 2016. The report also describes the objectives and accomplishments of the 13 CDI-funded projects in fiscal year 2016.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1995

Journal news

Statistical power (and conversely, Type II error) is often ignored by biologists. Power is important to consider in the design of studies, to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to address a hypothesis under examination. Deter- mining appropriate sample size when designing experiments or calculating power for a statistical test requires an investigator to consider the importance of making incorrect conclusions about the experimental hypothesis and the biological importance of the alternative hypothesis (or the biological effect size researchers are attempting to measure). Poorly designed studies frequently provide results that are at best equivocal, and do little to advance science or assist in decision making. Completed studies that fail to reject Ho should consider power and the related probability of a Type II error in the interpretation of results, particularly when implicit or explicit acceptance of Ho is used to support a biological hypothesis or management decision. Investigators must consider the biological question they wish to answer (Tacha et al. 1982) and assess power on the basis of biologically significant differences (Taylor and Gerrodette 1993). Power calculations are somewhat subjective, because the author must specify either f or the minimum difference that is biologically important. Biologists may have different ideas about what values are appropriate. While determining biological significance is of central importance in power analysis, it is also an issue of importance in wildlife science. Procedures, references, and computer software to compute power are accessible; therefore, authors should consider power. We welcome comments or suggestions on this subject.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗