Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “The Earth Scientist”

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

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

At least 379 records · Page 21Linked to original sources
USGS1985

New horizons in remote sensing for forest and range resource management

Forest and range resource scientists were among the first to recognize the potential of aircraft and satellite remote sensing for management of timber, forage, water, and wildlife resource. Today, data from a variety of sensor systems are being put to practical use for inventorying, monitoring, and assessing forest and range resources. In the future, improved sensor systems providing new kinds of data will be available. Likewise, new types of data handling and processing systems can be anticipated. Among the new or anticipated aircraft and satellite systems and/or data are National High-Altitude Photograph II, U. S. Geological Survey-acquired Side-Looking Airborne Radar, the Landsat thematic mapper, the National Oceanic Resolution Radiometer, the French Systeme Probatoire d'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) satellite, the European Space Agency Earth Resources Satellite, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Large Format Camera and Shuttle Imaging Radar (SIR-A, -B, and -C), and a variety of other systems in existence or planned by the Soviets, Japanese, Canadians, Chinese, Brazilians, Indonesians, and other. Application examples are presented that illustrate uses of 1-kilometer-resolution AVHRR data, 80-meter Landsat multispectral scanner data, 30-meter Landsat thematic mapper data, and 10-meter SPOT-simulator data. These examples address fire fuel monitoring, land cover mapping, rangeland assessment, and soils landscape mapping.

Conference Paper↗
USGS1975

The scientific referee

In the May 1973 issue of EOS, I criticized tendencies in earth science periodicals to discourage referee anonymity. I stressed that exposing referees to unnecessary personal and subjective influences tended to degrade standards of quality and promoted cliques, fragmentation, superspecialization, and proliferation of scientific literature. Generally speaking, division of opinion on this question, based on letters and personal contacts since 1973, has tended (with notable exceptions) to divide along two lines: the “wise old heads” favor anonymity, whereas many young idealists favor openness. Referees can help keep literature standards high (there is no evidence that they can or do thwart new ideas, determinedly pushed). but they can do little to stop literature proliferation, If individuals do scientific work, they may as well publish of not do it at all. The only real solutions to literature proliferation are fewer scientists or a drastic paper shortage, as experienced in Bulgaria.

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication↗
USGS2018

Response to comment by Walker et al. on “From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments”

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). The comment by Walker et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000750 ) illustrates several points made by Glynn et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000487 ) and many other articles. Namely, biases and beliefs often drive scientific reasoning, and scientists, just like other humans, are intimately attached to their values and heuristics. Scientists, just like many other people, also tend to read and interpret text in ways that best match their individual perceptions of a problem or issue: in many cases paraphrasing and changing the meaning of what they read to better match their initial ideas. Walker et al. are doing interesting and important research on uncertainty. Nonetheless, they misinterpret the work, assumptions, and conclusions brought forth by Glynn et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000487 ).

Earth's Future↗
USGS2014

Review of the work of W. J. McGee on ground‐water levels

W J McGee was a scientist of broad‐interests, large vision, and unbounded enthusiasm for science and its application to human welfare. He was one of the earliest champions of the conservation of our natural resources. He rose from humble origin, by rigorous self‐discipline, to outstanding national leadership. He was absorbed by zeal for service to mankind. His life had a heroic quality, as is well portrayed in the sympathetic and interesting memoir by F. H. Knowlton (Geol. Soc Amer. Bull., v. 24, pp. 18–29, 1913).

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2020

Focus areas for data acquisition for potential domestic resources of 11 critical minerals in the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico—Aluminum, cobalt, graphite, lithium, niobium, platinum-group elements, rare earth elements, tantalum, tin, titanium, and tungsten

In response to a need for information on potential domestic sources of critical minerals, the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) was established to identify and prioritize areas for acquisition of new geologic mapping, geophysical data, and elevation data to improve our knowledge of the geologic framework of the United States. Phase 1 of Earth MRI concentrated on those geologic terranes favorable for hosting the rare earth elements (REEs). Phase 2 continued to address the REEs and also identified focus areas for potential domestic sources of 10 more of the 35 critical minerals on the U.S. critical minerals list (aluminum, cobalt, graphite, lithium, niobium, platinum-group elements, tantalum, tin, titanium, tungsten). This report describes the methodology, data sources, and summary results for mineral systems that host these 11 critical minerals in the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico; Alaska is covered in a separate report. The mineral systems framework adopted for this study links critical mineral commodities to families of genetically related mineral deposit types. The mineral systems approach is an efficient approach, providing a simultaneous evaluation of geologic terranes through aggregation of genetically related mineral deposit types that are much larger than individual ore deposits. Geologic, geochemical, topographic, and geophysical mapping provided by Earth MRI will document geologic features that reflect the extent of individual mineral systems and provide information about critical mineral deposits that may not have been recognized previously. Each critical mineral commodity is discussed in terms of importance to the Nation’s economy, modes of occurrence, mineral systems, and deposit types along with maps and tables listing examples of focus areas for each critical mineral. Important mineral systems for these critical minerals include chemical weathering systems for aluminum (bauxite); placer systems for titanium and REEs; metamorphic systems for graphite; mafic magmatic systems for platinum-group elements and cobalt; lacustrine evaporite and porphyry tin systems for lithium; and copper-molybdenum-gold (Cu-Mo-Au) systems for tungsten. REEs occur in many different mineral systems. Focus areas were developed by scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey in collaboration with scientists from State geological surveys and other institutions. This first national-scale compilation of focus areas represents an initial step in addressing the Nation’s critical mineral needs by screening areas for acquisition of new data to provide the geologic framework necessary for identifying domestic sources of critical minerals.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2014

Interagency collaboration on an active volcano: A case study at Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park

Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park (HAVO) includes two active Hawai‘i shield volcanoes – Mauna Loa, the largest active volcano on earth that most recently erupted for three weeks in 1984, and Kīlauea, which has been erupting continuously for more than 31 years. Unlike the steep-sided volcanoes around the rim of the Pacific Ocean, all Hawaiian volcanoes have gentle-sloped flanks that result from copious eruptions of fluid lavas with infrequent interludes of explosive activity. Each of the Hawaiian volcanoes erupts from its summit area – Kīlauea and Mauna Loa both have summit calderas (large subsided craters)—and from one or more rift zones (a sequence of vents aligned radially away from the summit). Because Kilauea and Mauna Loa are included within the National Park, there is a natural intersection of missions for the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). HAVO staff and the USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory scientists have worked closely together to monitor and forecast multiple eruptions from each of these volcanoes since HAVO’s founding in 1916.

Hawaii↗
USGS2020

Planetary cave exploration progresses

Planetary caves have been identified on the Moon and on Mars, and are likely to occur across the Solar System. They present a new frontier for planetary science, subsurface astrobiology, geology and human exploration. The fourth in a series of scientific meetings focusing on the science and exploration of planetary caves brought together 55 terrestrial and planetary scientists, robotics and instrumentation engineers, and students (16 including 1 undergraduate). Conference participants discussed the state of the art of relevant sciences and current engineering capabilities as applied to planetary cave exploration and research. Specifically, they considered cave formation mechanisms, preserved geological records, cave micro-climate and astrobiological potential, engineering challenges of subsurface exploration, and potential robotic mission concepts to explore the subsurface of other worlds, especially the Moon and Mars.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2026

Landsat 8–9 geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization

The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val (Calibration and Validation) Center of Excellence is a global leader in improving the accuracy, precision, and quality of remote-sensing data. Calibration is the process of quantitatively defining a system’s response to known and controlled signal inputs. Validation is the process of assessing, by independent means, the quality of the calibrated data products derived from system outputs. The Landsat Cal/Val team, comanaged by the Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Landsat Science Project, continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level, ensuring its reliability for scientific research. Landsat data quality is often referred to as the “gold standard” and gives other civil and commercial satellite programs a trusted reference point for measuring their own data quality. The Landsat program started more than 50 years ago. Since then, Landsat missions have gone through multiple technological advances, which, together with improved calibration and validation techniques, have led to higher data quality over time. The Cal/Val team also maintains consistency in data calibration across the multiple generations of sensors, which is vital to many scientists for time-series analysis.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives: Fiscal Year 2005

Introduction This report describes the activities that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year (FY) 2005. Most of these USGS activities were collaborations with Tribes, Tribal organizations, or professional societies. Others were conducted cooperatively with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or other Federal entities. The USGS is the earth and natural science bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The USGS does not have regulatory or land management responsibilities. As described in this report, there are many USGS activities that are directly relevant to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and to Native lands. A USGS website, dedicated to making USGS more accessible to American Indians, Alaska Natives, their governments, and institutions, is available at www.usgs.gov/indian. This website includes information on how to contact USGS American Indian/Alaska Native Liaisons, training opportunities, and links to other information resources. This report and previous editions are also available through the website. The USGS realizes that Native knowledge and cultural traditions of living in harmony with nature result in unique Native perspectives that enrich USGS studies. USGS seeks to increase the sensitivity and openness of its scientists to the breadth of Native knowledge, expanding the information on which their research is based. USGS scientific studies include data collection, mapping, natural resource modeling, and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although some are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded cooperatively, with USGS funds matched or supplemented by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. These projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Some USGS activities described in this report are conducted as collateral tasks that result from USGS employees identifying and responding to perceived needs. These endeavors are usually prompted by employee interests and frequently involve educational activities. The education is often a reciprocal learning and teaching experience for USGS employees and for Native participants. Through these activities, USGS employees help to fulfill a mission of the USGS - to demonstrate scientific relevance - while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees also take initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives by participating in several organizations that promote awareness of science career opportunities among Native peoples and help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. The studies briefly described in this report span subsistence issues, wildlife health, water quality, mineral resources, monitoring and modeling to gather information and predict what may happen in the future. Although each project description relates to Native Americans in some way, the projects vary widely, including who conducted the work, the goals and products, the duration of the study, and whether it was local or covered a broad area. Each major organizational unit of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central,

Circular↗
USGS2004

Geology of the National Capital Region: Field trip guidebook

The 2004 Joint Northeast-Southeast Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America is the fourth such meeting and the third to be held in or near Washington, D.C. This guidebook and the field trips presented herein are intended to provide meeting participants, as well as other interested readers, a means to understand and enjoy the rich geological and historical legacy of the National Capital Region. The field trips cover all of the major physiographic and geologic provinces of the central Appalachians in the Mid-Atlantic region. Trip 1 outlines the tectonic history of northern Virginia along an east-to-west transect from the Coastal Plain province to the Blue Ridge province, whereas the other field trips each focus on a specific province. From west to east, these excursions investigate the paleoclimate controls on the stratigraphy of the Paleozoic rocks of the Allegheny Plateau and Valley and Ridge province in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland (Trip 3); Eocene volcanic rocks that intrude Paleozoic rocks in the westernmost Valley and Ridge province in Virginia and West Virginia (Trip 4); age, petrology, and structure of Mesoproterozoic gneisses and granitoids located in the Blue Ridge province within and near Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (Trip 2); the use of argon data to unravel the complex structural and thermal history of the metamorphic rocks of the eastern Piedmont province in Maryland and Virginia (Trip 5); the use of cosmogenic isotopes to understand the timing of bedrock incision and formation of terraces along the Potomac River in the eastern Piedmont province near Great Falls, Virginia and Maryland (Trip 6); the nature of the boundary between rocks of the Goochland and Chopawamsic terranes in the eastern Piedmont of Virginia (Trip 7); the role of bluffs and fluvial terraces of the Coastal Plain in the Civil War Battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia (Trip 8); and the Tertiary lithology and paleontology of Coastal Plain strata around the Chesapeake Bay of Virginia and Maryland (Trip 9). Some of the field trips present new geochronological research that uses isotopic techniques to unravel Earth history and processes, including U-Pb dating to determine the timing of metamorphism and igneous activity associated with the Mesoproterozoic Grenville orogeny (Trip 2); argon (4DAr/39Ar) analysis to understand the complex Paleozoic history of deformation and metamorphism in the Piedmont (Trip 5); and cosmogenic beryllium-10 data to derive exposure ages of landforms and deposits of the Potomac River valley (Trip 6). Several trips shed insight on significant or enigmatic geologic features of the region. Trip 3 presents evidence for global paleoclimate controls on the Paleozoic stratigraphy of the Appalachian basin, including evidence for Late Devonian glacial deposits. Trip 4 investigates unusual Eocene igneous rocks in the Eastern United States, and Trip 2 visits several local ductile high-strain zones, offering geologists opportunities to consider the importance of such structures relative to the poorly understood Rockfish Valley fault zone in the Blue Ridge province. In the Piedmont province, Trip 7 focuses on a controversial terrane boundary, whereas Trip 5 crosses several lithologic belts with distinct thermotectonic histories that suggest terrane boundaries. Trip 6 sheds new light on the erosional history of a major river gorge cut into crystalline rocks in the Fall Zone. Four trips are recommended for Earth science teachers and are cosponsored by the National Association of Geologic Teachers (NAGT). These trips focus on the tectonic history of northern Virginia (Trip 1), terraces of the Potomac River at Great Falls and cosmogenic isotope analysis to date the terraces and the incision history (Trip 6), and Tertiary lithology and paleontology of the Chesapeake Bay region (Trip 9). Trip 8 takes advantage of the rich Civil War history of this region to look at the role that geology played in the strategies and outcome of the Battle of Fredericksburg. This guidebook is the result of much hard work by many individuals. The editors wish to thank the field trip leaders and authors, the technical reviewers, and Nancy Stamm of ths USGS Geologic Names Committee. We also owe a very special thanks to Linda Gundersen, Chief Scientist, Geologic Discipline, USGS, who provided funding for the guidebook.

Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC↗
USGS2021

NASA's surface biology and geology designated observable: A perspective on surface imaging algorithms

The 2017–2027 National Academies' Decadal Survey, Thriving on Our Changing Planet , recommended Surface Biology and Geology (SBG) as a “Designated Targeted Observable” (DO). The SBG DO is based on the need for capabilities to acquire global, high spatial resolution, visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR; 380–2500 nm; ~30 m pixel resolution) hyperspectral (imaging spectroscopy) and multispectral midwave and thermal infrared (MWIR: 3–5 μm; TIR: 8–12 μm; ~60 m pixel resolution) measurements with sub-monthly temporal revisits over terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal marine habitats. To address the various mission design needs, an SBG Algorithms Working Group of multidisciplinary researchers has been formed to review and evaluate the algorithms applicable to the SBG DO across a wide range of Earth science disciplines, including terrestrial and aquatic ecology, atmospheric science, geology, and hydrology. Here, we summarize current state-of-the-practice VSWIR and TIR algorithms that use airborne or orbital spectral imaging observations to address the SBG DO priorities identified by the Decadal Survey: (i) terrestrial vegetation physiology, functional traits, and health; (ii) inland and coastal aquatic ecosystems physiology, functional traits, and health; (iii) snow and ice accumulation, melting, and albedo; (iv) active surface composition (eruptions, landslides, evolving landscapes, hazard risks); (v) effects of changing land use on surface energy, water, momentum, and carbon fluxes; and (vi) managing agriculture, natural habitats, water use/quality, and urban development. We review existing algorithms in the following categories: snow/ice, aquatic environments, geology, and terrestrial vegetation, and summarize the community-state-of-practice in each category. This effort synthesizes the findings of more than 130 scientists.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗
USGS2026

Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units

Introduction The reports and maps of our Nation’s geological surveys inform and benefit the public, private industry, government officials, and scientists. The use of clear and consistent nomenclature and classifications can improve communication of data and interpretations. Since 1899, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Names Committee (GNC) has been responsible for defining standards that promote uniform geologic nomenclature and classifications among geoscientists. The GNC periodically publishes a geologic time scale, the “Divisions of Geologic Time,” that serves as the national standard for USGS publications (for example, refer to Orndorff and others, 2023). Authors may use other published geologic time scales, such as those of the Geological Society of America (GSA) or the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), provided that they are clearly specified and referenced. Access to the USGS, GSA, and ICS geologic time scales is also available from the U.S. Geologic Names Lexicon (Geolex) website https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/stratres/timescales. The geologic time scale serves a dual purpose by enabling authors to distinguish earth material units by position (chronostratigraphic) and time (geochronologic), as outlined in order of decreasing rank.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2012

Future scenarios of land-use and land-cover change in the United States--the Marine West Coast Forests Ecoregion

Detecting, quantifying, and projecting historical and future changes in land use and land cover (LULC) has emerged as a core research area for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Changes in LULC are important drivers of changes to biogeochemical cycles, the exchange of energy between the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, biodiversity, water quality, and climate change. To quantify the rates of recent historical LULC change, the USGS Land Cover Trends project recently completed a unique ecoregion-based assessment of late 20th century LULC change for the western United States. To characterize present LULC, the USGS and partners have created the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for the years 1992, 2001, and 2006. Both Land Cover Trends and NLCD projects continue to evolve in an effort to better characterize historical and present LULC conditions and are the foundation of the data presented in this report. Projecting future changes in LULC requires an understanding of the rates and patterns of change, the major driving forces, and the socioeconomic and biophysical determinants and capacities of regions. The data presented in this report is the result of an effort by USGS scientists to downscale the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) to ecoregions of the conterminous United States as part of the USGS Biological Carbon Sequestration Assessment. The USGS biological carbon assessment was mandated by Section 712 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. As part of the legislative mandate, the USGS is required to publish a methodology describing, in detail, the approach to be used for the assessment. The development of future LULC scenarios is described in chapter 3.2 and appendix A. Spatial modeling is described in chapter 3.3.2 and appendix B and in Sohl and others (2011). In this report, we briefly summarize the major components and methods used to downscale IPCC-SRES scenarios to ecoregions of the conterminous United States, followed by a description of the Marine West Coast Forests Ecoregion, and lastly a description of the data being published as part of this report.

California;Oregon;Washington↗
USGS2020

Implementation of a surface water extent model in Cambodia using cloud-based remote sensing

Mapping surface water over time provides the spatially explicit information essential for hydroclimatic research focused on droughts and flooding. Hazard risk assessments and water management planning also rely on accurate, long-term measurements describing hydrologic fluctuations. Stream gages are a common measurement tool used to better understand flow and inundation dynamics, but gage networks are incomplete or non-existent in many parts of the world. In such instances, satellite imagery may provide the only data available to monitor surface water changes over time. Here, we describe an effort to extend the applicability of the USGS Dynamic Surface Water Extent (DSWE) model to non-US regions. We leverage the multi-decadal archive of the Landsat satellite in the Google Earth Engine (GEE) cloud-based computing platform to produce and analyze 372 monthly composite maps and 31 annual maps (January 1988–December 2018) in Cambodia, a flood-prone country in Southeast Asia that lacks a comprehensive stream gage network. DSWE relies on a series of spectral water indices and elevation data to classify water into four categories of water inundation. We compared model outputs to existing surface water maps and independently assessed DSWE accuracy at discrete dates across the time series. Despite considerable cloud obstruction and missing imagery across the monthly time series, the overall accuracy exceeded 85% for all annual tests. The DSWE model consistently mapped open water with high accuracy, and areas classified as “high confidence” water correlate well to other available maps at the country scale. Results in Cambodia suggest that extending DSWE globally using a cloud computing framework may benefit scientists, managers, and planners in a wide array of applications across the globe.

Remote Sensing↗
USGS2026

The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition—Working collaboratively to understand the geology of the Great Lakes Region

Introduction The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition (GLGMC), commonly referred to as the “Coalition,” is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and the Canadian province of Ontario. The member States receive funding for geologic mapping work from the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), whereas Ontario participates as a nonfunded partner. The mission of the GLGMC is to produce three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps that depict unconsolidated sediments and near-surface bedrock in the Great Lakes region of North America. Geologic maps are the basis of most earth science investigations and help support resource exploration (energy, minerals, groundwater), natural hazard mitigation, infrastructure development, and land-use planning, all of which can be used to advance economic development and strengthen national security in the Great Lakes region. During the last few million years, the Great Lakes region has experienced repeated glacial advances and retreats, leaving behind extensive sediments, abundant natural resources, and widespread effects on the underlying bedrock geology (Swezey and others, 2022). Linked by shared histories of past glaciations, industrial agriculture, and legacy automotive, coal, steel, and manufacturing industries, the GLGMC member States collaborate to improve the understanding of the 3D distribution of the sediments overlying the region’s bedrock (fig. 1). Developing a comprehensive subsurface 3D framework of this glaciated terrain can provide earth science data to policymakers at all levels. These insights facilitate informed decisions on the exploration, use, and protection of vital resources, such as critical minerals, industrial materials, and aquifers, thereby supporting economic prosperity and the well-being of the citizens of this region. Since its inception in 1998, the Coalition has completed more than 100 geologic mapping projects across the Great Lakes region. Each project aims to deliver geologic maps, 3D datasets, and other information that improves understanding of the geology of the Great Lakes region, with an emphasis on economic and water resources. Key deliverables include 3D geologic maps and models typically portraying sediment thickness, often derived from top-of-bedrock and borehole data. These products are developed through a combination of fieldwork, subsurface modeling, and the collection and analysis of rock and sediment cores. To support Coalition goals, member States collaborate with scientists working on related STATEMAP, EDMAP, and FEDMAP projects. Coalition scientists also engage with Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to ensure that Tribal interests pertaining to Coalition work are addressed. Through this collaboration, the Coalition unites the efforts of State, Federal, and Tribal Nation stakeholders to advance geologic data production and enhance understanding of the geologic resources of the Great Lakes region.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗
USGS2026

Adaptation and response in drylands: A dryland research agenda and campaign strategy

Dryland ecosystems cover 41% of Earth's land surfaces, account for 44% of cultivated lands and 60% of food sources, and make large contributions to the global water and carbon cycles. However, these ecosystems are experiencing unprecedented extremes including heatwaves, floods, and droughts as well as hotter temperatures and often declining water resource availability. These ecosystems are some of the most challenging to monitor given their high temporal variability with rapid response to their environment as well as vast spatial variability with intermixing of different plant species and life forms amongst bare soil coverage. The Adaptation and Response in Drylands (ARID) campaign was selected by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a scoping study to develop a research agenda for a dryland field campaign. Here, we detail our ARID science research agenda and implementation plan that were developed based on an extensive community engagement effort in over 160 events with over a thousand scientists, land managers, and Tribal communities between 2023 and 2024. The selected science themes cover drought and climate variability, ecosystem structure, function, and biodiversity, carbon cycle interannual variability and trends, and social ecological systems (land management and adaptation). We then detail our remote sensing, modeling, and field-based strategies to capture high temporal and high spatial resolution processes. Finally, our implementation strategy is presented which includes focus area selections in a core intensive western U.S. domain and distributed international domains. This strategy includes our overarching guiding principles of using multi-temporal airborne acquisitions and super sites as well as enhancing land management in co-development with end-user partners. While originally developed for NASA, our ARID report creates a blueprint for any future dryland field campaign, at any scale, that can be implemented widely for foundational and applied science objectives.

Global Change Biology↗
USGS1985

Description and preliminary testing of the CDSN Seismic Sensor Systems

The China Digital Seismograph Network (CDSN) is being designed and installed to provide the People's Republic of China with the facilities needed to create a national digital database for earthquake research. The CDSN, which is being developed jointly by the PRC State Seismological Bureau and the U.S. Geological Survey, will consist initially of nine digitally-recording seismograph stations, a data management system to be used for compiling network-day tapes, and a depot maintenance center. Data produced by the network will be shared with research scientists throughout the world. A national seismograph network must be designed to support a variety of research objectives. From this standpoint, the choices and tradeoffs involved in specifying signal bandwidth, resolution, and dynamic range are the most important decisions in system design. As in the case of the CDSN, these decisions are made during the selection and design of the seismic sensor system and encoder components. The purpose of this report is to describe the CDSN sensor systems, their important signal characteristics, and the results of preliminary tests that have been performed on the instruments. Four overlapping data bands will be recorded at each station: short period (SP), broadband (BB), long period (LP), and very long period (VLP). Amplitude response curves are illustrated in Figure I. Vertical and horizontal components will be recorded for each data band. The SP and LP channels will be recorded with sufficient sensitivities to resolve earth background noise at seismically quiet sites. The BB channels will have a lower sensitivity and are intended for broadband recording of moderate-to-large body-wave signals and for increasing the effective amplitude range in the short- and long-period bands. The VLP channel does not provide additional spectral coverage at long periods; its purpose is to make use of on-site filtration and decimation to reduce post processing requirements for VLP studies. Early plans also included a triaxial set of low-sensitivity accelerometers for recording strong signals from large local and regional earthquakes. The accelerometers are not being installed; however, they may be added in the future. The short-period signals will be derived from a three-component set of PRC-supplied Model DJ-I SP seismometers and US-supplied SP amplifiers. The seismometers will be installed in surface or shallow subsurface vaults, except at two of the stations where they will be installed in boreholes. The BB, LP, and VLP signals will be derived from Streckeisen STS-1 broadband sensor systems installed in vaults, except at one site where the LP signals only will-be derived from a KS-36000 borehole seismometer installed at a depth of 100 meters. Analog signals will be sampled and quantized by an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) that is part of the recording system. Sampling rates chosen for the CDSN are as follows: * SP 40 samples/second * BB 20 samples/second * LP 1 sample/second * VLP 6 samples/minute The ADC 16-bit data word format makes use of 14 bits to quantize the signal and 2 bits to specify an automatically ranged gain of 1, 8, 32, or 128. This will provide 84 dB of resolution and up to 42 dB of gain ranging for a total opera- ting range of 126 dB peak to peak. Magnetic tape cartridges, each having a capacity of 67 megabytes, will be used for recording the digital data. LP and VLP data will be recorded continu- ously. SP and BB data will be processed through an automatic signal detector of the type described by Murdock and Hutt (1983), and only detected events will be stored on tape. Detection parameters, such as turn-on sensitivity and mini- mum recording duration for the SP and BB channels, will be fully programmable and easily changed. One or more of the data channels may also be recorded on analog recorders. A CDSN recording system was not available at the time that the preliminary tests were performed on the CDSN sensor systems. This did not interfere with the principal goals of the testing which were to determine the best sensor installation techniques and to demonstrate the operational performance of the sensor systems, especially with regard to instrument noise and detection capability. When the CDSN recording system is available, additional tests will be performed to measure distortion levels in the full system and components. Distortion tests have been performed on the Streckeisen STS-1 broadband seismometers, the most critical component from the standpoint of linearity, and the results of the tests are reported by Wielandt and Streckeisen (1982). Calibration accuracy and stability are also important sensor system characteristics that cannot be defined without additional testing. These tests will be performed as the instruments are installed at the stations and periodically during operation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Acid rain and its environmental effects: Recent scientific advances

The term ‘acid rain’ refers to atmospheric deposition of acidic constituents that impact the earth as rain, snow, particulates, gases, and vapor. Acid rain was first recognized by Ducros (1845) and subsequently described by the English chemist Robert Angus Smith (Smith, 1852) whose pioneering studies linked the sources to industrial emissions and included early observations of deleterious environmental effects (Smith, 1872). Smith's work was largely forgotten until the mid-20th century when observations began to link air pollution to the deposition of atmospheric sulfate (SO 4 2− ) and other chemical constituents, first near the metal smelter at Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, and later at locations in Europe, North America, and Australia (Gorham, 1961). Our modern understanding of acid rain as an environmental problem caused largely by regional emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) stems from observations in the 1960s and early 1970s in Sweden by Svante Odén (Odén, 1976), and in North America by Gene Likens and colleagues (Likens and Bormann, 1974). These scientists and many who followed showed the link to emissions from coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources, and documented the environmental effects of acid rain such as the acidification of surface waters and toxic effects on vegetation, fish, and other biota.

Atmospheric Environment↗