Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Names”

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 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources
USGS1924

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory bulletins - 1924

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) Bulletin series was an informal publication issued between the years 1913 to 1929. Individual issues contain information on volcanic and earthquake activity, volcano research, and volcano monitoring in Hawaii, and issues often included photographs, sketches, and data plots. Information on volcanic activity at other locations is also occasionally included. The Bulletin series was published by HVO through the Hawaiian Volcano Research Association. Weekly Bulletins (initially called Reports) were issued between June 28, 1913, and July 1, 1914. Bulletins were issued monthly after July 1, 1914, though they were still named Weekly Bulletins until January 1919. Starting with the February 1919 issue, the Bulletins were named Monthly Bulletins, and they continued to be issued monthly until the series ceased in July 1929. During a single year, 1915, Seismometric Bulletins were also issued quarterly. These four issues contain summaries of seismic observations recorded by the then-nascent Whitney Laboratory of Seismology, located underground in a vault near the summit of Kīlauea. Two of the bulletins are misnumbered: • April 1916 volume IV no. 4 incorrectly says April 1915 volume III no. 4 • September 1916 volume IV no. 9 incorrectly says September 1916 volume VI no. 9

Hawaii↗
USGS1925

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory bulletins - 1925

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) Bulletin series was an informal publication issued between the years 1913 to 1929. Individual issues contain information on volcanic and earthquake activity, volcano research, and volcano monitoring in Hawaii, and issues often included photographs, sketches, and data plots. Information on volcanic activity at other locations is also occasionally included. The Bulletin series was published by HVO through the Hawaiian Volcano Research Association. Weekly Bulletins (initially called Reports) were issued between June 28, 1913, and July 1, 1914. Bulletins were issued monthly after July 1, 1914, though they were still named Weekly Bulletins until January 1919. Starting with the February 1919 issue, the Bulletins were named Monthly Bulletins, and they continued to be issued monthly until the series ceased in July 1929. During a single year, 1915, Seismometric Bulletins were also issued quarterly. These four issues contain summaries of seismic observations recorded by the then-nascent Whitney Laboratory of Seismology, located underground in a vault near the summit of Kīlauea. Two of the bulletins are misnumbered: • April 1916 volume IV no. 4 incorrectly says April 1915 volume III no. 4 • September 1916 volume IV no. 9 incorrectly says September 1916 volume VI no. 9

Hawaii↗
USGS1926

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory bulletins - 1926

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) Bulletin series was an informal publication issued between the years 1913 to 1929. Individual issues contain information on volcanic and earthquake activity, volcano research, and volcano monitoring in Hawaii, and issues often included photographs, sketches, and data plots. Information on volcanic activity at other locations is also occasionally included. The Bulletin series was published by HVO through the Hawaiian Volcano Research Association. Weekly Bulletins (initially called Reports) were issued between June 28, 1913, and July 1, 1914. Bulletins were issued monthly after July 1, 1914, though they were still named Weekly Bulletins until January 1919. Starting with the February 1919 issue, the Bulletins were named Monthly Bulletins, and they continued to be issued monthly until the series ceased in July 1929. During a single year, 1915, Seismometric Bulletins were also issued quarterly. These four issues contain summaries of seismic observations recorded by the then-nascent Whitney Laboratory of Seismology, located underground in a vault near the summit of Kīlauea. Two of the bulletins are misnumbered: • April 1916 volume IV no. 4 incorrectly says April 1915 volume III no. 4 • September 1916 volume IV no. 9 incorrectly says September 1916 volume VI no. 9

Hawaii↗
USGS1927

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory bulletins - 1927

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) Bulletin series was an informal publication issued between the years 1913 to 1929. Individual issues contain information on volcanic and earthquake activity, volcano research, and volcano monitoring in Hawaii, and issues often included photographs, sketches, and data plots. Information on volcanic activity at other locations is also occasionally included. The Bulletin series was published by HVO through the Hawaiian Volcano Research Association. Weekly Bulletins (initially called Reports) were issued between June 28, 1913, and July 1, 1914. Bulletins were issued monthly after July 1, 1914, though they were still named Weekly Bulletins until January 1919. Starting with the February 1919 issue, the Bulletins were named Monthly Bulletins, and they continued to be issued monthly until the series ceased in July 1929. During a single year, 1915, Seismometric Bulletins were also issued quarterly. These four issues contain summaries of seismic observations recorded by the then-nascent Whitney Laboratory of Seismology, located underground in a vault near the summit of Kīlauea. Two of the bulletins are misnumbered: • April 1916 volume IV no. 4 incorrectly says April 1915 volume III no. 4 • September 1916 volume IV no. 9 incorrectly says September 1916 volume VI no. 9

Hawaii↗
USGS1928

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory bulletins - 1928

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) Bulletin series was an informal publication issued between the years 1913 to 1929. Individual issues contain information on volcanic and earthquake activity, volcano research, and volcano monitoring in Hawaii, and issues often included photographs, sketches, and data plots. Information on volcanic activity at other locations is also occasionally included. The Bulletin series was published by HVO through the Hawaiian Volcano Research Association. Weekly Bulletins (initially called Reports) were issued between June 28, 1913, and July 1, 1914. Bulletins were issued monthly after July 1, 1914, though they were still named Weekly Bulletins until January 1919. Starting with the February 1919 issue, the Bulletins were named Monthly Bulletins, and they continued to be issued monthly until the series ceased in July 1929. During a single year, 1915, Seismometric Bulletins were also issued quarterly. These four issues contain summaries of seismic observations recorded by the then-nascent Whitney Laboratory of Seismology, located underground in a vault near the summit of Kīlauea. Two of the bulletins are misnumbered: • April 1916 volume IV no. 4 incorrectly says April 1915 volume III no. 4 • September 1916 volume IV no. 9 incorrectly says September 1916 volume VI no. 9

Hawaii↗
USGS1929

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory bulletins - 1929

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) Bulletin series was an informal publication issued between the years 1913 to 1929. Individual issues contain information on volcanic and earthquake activity, volcano research, and volcano monitoring in Hawaii, and issues often included photographs, sketches, and data plots. Information on volcanic activity at other locations is also occasionally included. The Bulletin series was published by HVO through the Hawaiian Volcano Research Association. Weekly Bulletins (initially called Reports) were issued between June 28, 1913, and July 1, 1914. Bulletins were issued monthly after July 1, 1914, though they were still named Weekly Bulletins until January 1919. Starting with the February 1919 issue, the Bulletins were named Monthly Bulletins, and they continued to be issued monthly until the series ceased in July 1929. During a single year, 1915, Seismometric Bulletins were also issued quarterly. These four issues contain summaries of seismic observations recorded by the then-nascent Whitney Laboratory of Seismology, located underground in a vault near the summit of Kīlauea. Two of the bulletins are misnumbered: • April 1916 volume IV no. 4 incorrectly says April 1915 volume III no. 4 • September 1916 volume IV no. 9 incorrectly says September 1916 volume VI no. 9

Hawaii↗
USGS1915

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory seismometric bulletins - 1915

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) Bulletin series was an informal publication issued between the years 1913 to 1929. Individual issues contain information on volcanic and earthquake activity, volcano research, and volcano monitoring in Hawaii, and issues often included photographs, sketches, and data plots. Information on volcanic activity at other locations is also occasionally included. The Bulletin series was published by HVO through the Hawaiian Volcano Research Association. Weekly Bulletins (initially called Reports) were issued between June 28, 1913, and July 1, 1914. Bulletins were issued monthly after July 1, 1914, though they were still named Weekly Bulletins until January 1919. Starting with the February 1919 issue, the Bulletins were named Monthly Bulletins, and they continued to be issued monthly until the series ceased in July 1929. During a single year, 1915, Seismometric Bulletins were also issued quarterly. These four issues contain summaries of seismic observations recorded by the then-nascent Whitney Laboratory of Seismology, located underground in a vault near the summit of Kīlauea. Two of the bulletins are misnumbered: • April 1916 volume IV no. 4 incorrectly says April 1915 volume III no. 4 • September 1916 volume IV no. 9 incorrectly says September 1916 volume VI no. 9

Hawaii↗
USGS1998

Rheological equations in asymptotic regimes of granular flow

This paper assesses the validity of the generalized viscoplastic fluid (GVF) model in light of the established constitutive relations in two asymptotic flow regimes, namely, the macroviscous and grain-inertia regimes. A comprehensive review of the literature on constitutive relations in both regimes reveals that except for some material constants, such as the coefficient of restitution, the normalized shear stress in both regimes varies only with the grain concentration, C . It is found that Krieger-Dougherty's relative viscosity, μ * ( C ), is sufficiently coherent among the monotonically nondecreasing functions of C used in describing the variation of the shear stress with C in both regimes. It not only accurately represents the C -dependent relative viscosity of a suspension in the macroviscous regime, but also plays a role of the radial distribution function that describes the statistics of particle collisions in the grain-inertia regime. Use of μ * ( C ) alone, however, cannot link the two regimes. Another parameter, the shear-rate number, N , is needed in modeling the rheology of neutrally buoyant granular flows in transition between the two asymptotic regimes. The GVF model proves compatible with most established relations in both regimes.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics↗
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↗
USGS2019

Plot Locator: An app for locating plots in the field

PREMISE: One of the challenges in field biology is locating previously sampled plots. The Plot Locator app was developed to assist field biologists with plot identification and location, with or without GPS or online connectivity. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Plot Locator Android app helps users locate field plots by creating a searchable database that stores study area information, such as site/plot names and numbers, distances from landmarks, optional cardinal directions and GPS coordinates, and field notes. A GPS assist and Google Maps can also be used with the app when connectivity is available. All study location data and field notes are stored in a downloadable CSV file on the user’s device. CONCLUSIONS: The Plot Locator app provides a comprehensive searchable database of study area information, plot location information, and location aids, which are easily accessed in the field.

Applications in Plant Science↗
USGS1990

Identification of isopropylbiphenyl, alkyl diphenylmethanes, diisopropylnaphthalene, linear alkyl benzenes and other polychlorinated biphenyl replacement compounds in effluents, sediments and fish in the Fox River System, Wisconsin

Five polychlorinated biphenyl replacement dye solvents and a diluent present in carbonless copy paper were identified by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in the following matrices: effluents from a de-inking–recycling paper mill and a municipal wastewater treatment plant receiving wastewaters from a carbonless copy paper manufacturing plant; sediments; and fish collected near both discharges in the Fox River System, Wisconsin. An isopropylbiphenyl dye solvent mixture included mono-, di- and triisopropylbiphenyls. Also identified were two dye solvent mixtures marketed under the trade name Santosol. Santosol 100 comprised ethyl-diphenylmethanes (DPMs), benzyl-ethyl-DPMs, and dibenzyl-ethyl-DPMs. Similarly, Santosol 150 comprised dimethyl-DPMs, benzyl-dimethyl-DPMs, and dibenzyl-dimethyl-DPMs. Diisopropylnaphthalenes, widely used as a dye solvent in Japan, were identified for the first time in the US environment. sec -Butylbiphenyls and di- sec -butylbiphenyls, likely constituents of a sec -butylbiphenyl dye solvent mixture, were tentatively identified. Linear alkyl benzenes (C 10 to C 13 -LABs) constituted the Alkylate 215 diluent mixture. Although known to occur as minor constituents in linear alkyl sulfonate detergents, LAB residues have not been previously attributed to commercial use of LABs.

Wisconsin↗
USGS2021

Experimental evaluation of spatial capture–recapture study design

A principal challenge impeding strong inference in analyses of wild populations is the lack of robust and long-term data sets. Recent advancements in analytical tools used in wildlife science may increase our ability to integrate smaller data sets and enhance the statistical power of population estimates. One such advancement, the development of spatial capture–recapture (SCR) methods, explicitly accounts for differences in spatial study designs, making it possible to equate multiple study designs in one analysis. SCR has been shown to be robust to variation in design as long as minimal sampling guidance is adhered to. However, these expectations are based on simulation and have yet to be evaluated in wild populations. Here we conduct a rigorously designed field experiment by manipulating the arrangement of artificial cover objects (ACOs) used to collect data on red-backed salamanders ( Plethodon cinereus ) to empirically evaluate the effects of design configuration on inference made using SCR. Our results suggest that, using SCR, estimates of space use and detectability are sensitive to study design configuration, namely the spacing and extent of the array, and that caution is warranted when assigning biological interpretation to these parameters. However, estimates of population density remain robust to design except when the configuration of detectors grossly violates existing recommendations.

Massachusetts↗
USGS2019

Knowing your limits: Estimating range boundaries and co-occurrence zones for two competing plethodontid salamanders

Understanding threats to species persistence requires knowledge of where species currently occur. We explore methods for estimating two important facets of species distributions, namely where the range limit occurs and how species interactions structure distributions. Accurate understanding of range limits is crucial for predicting range dynamics and shifts in response to interspecific interactions and climate change. Additionally, species interactions are increasingly recognized as an important but not well‐understood predictor of range shifts. Our objective was to predict range limits and contact zones for two plethodontid salamanders, the highly range‐restricted Shenandoah salamander ( Plethodon shenandoah ) and the wide‐ranging red‐backed salamander ( Plethodon cinereus ). Using detection/non‐detection data, we assess four methodological decisions when estimating species’ distributions: (1) accounting for imperfect detection, (2) covariates to predict species occurrences, (3) accounting for species interactions, and (4) the inclusion of spatial autocorrelation. We found that Shenandoah salamander and red‐backed salamander co‐occurrence would have been underestimated and the range edge misidentified had we not accounted for incomplete detection. Covariates related to habitat were not sufficient to explain species’ range boundaries. Models that included spatial autocorrelation (i.e., a conditional autoregressive random effect) performed better than models that included just species interactions (i.e., detection and occurrence were conditional on the other species being present) and models that included both spatial autocorrelation and species interactions. Further, we found that the breadth of primary contact zones was typically 60–170 m, which is greater on average than previous estimates. In addition, we frequently observed secondary, disjunct contact zones along the range boundary. Understanding the extent to which species co‐occur and how the range boundaries are shaped is crucial to conservation efforts. Our work indicates that accounting for detection is crucial for accurately characterizing range edges and that spatial models may be especially effective in modeling distributions at the boundary.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2022

Woody plant encroachment of grassland and the reversibility of shrub dominance: Erosion, fire, and feedback processes

Many grass-dominated ecosystems in dryland regions have experienced increasing woody plant density and abundance during the past century. In many cases, this process has led to land degradation and declines in ecosystem functions. An example is the Chihuahuan Desert in the southwestern United States, which experienced different stages of shrub encroachment in the past 150 years. Among a wide variety of mechanisms to explain the grass–shrub transitions in this dryland system, soil erosion (both wind and water) and fire are particularly well studied. Here, we synthesize recent developments on the drivers and feedback in the process of shrub encroachment in the Chihuahuan Desert through the intercomparison of two Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites, namely Jornada and Sevilleta. Experimental and modeling studies support a conceptual framework, which underscores the important roles of erosion and fire in woody plant encroachment. Collectively, research at the Jornada LTER provided complementary, quantitative support to the well-known fertile-islands framework. Studies at the Sevilleta LTER expanded the framework, adding fire as a major disturbance to woody plants. Conceptual models derived from the synthesis represent the general understanding of shrub encroachment that emerged from research at these two sites, and can guide management interventions aimed at reducing or mitigating undesirable ecosystem state change in many other drylands worldwide.

New Mexico↗
USGS2022

The researcher's lament: Why do they ignore my science?

The researcher's lament is shared by many environmental and conservation scientists who complain about the little support they receive for their research proposals during the review and selection process. Understandably, any hopes of having their anticipated scientific findings applied toward the formulation of environmental management decisions or natural resource policy action are shattered. They attribute this lack of endorsement to shortcomings and limitations among decision makers and proposal selection officials when, in many cases, the rejection of project proposals is often a function of a handful of self-inflicted failures by applied scientists who anchor themselves stubbornly to doomed approaches. Familiar deficiencies in their research proposals perpetuate the disconnect between the enterprise of science and real-world resource management challenges. Researchers themselves can affect conditions that turn up the appetite for their scientific endeavors as a more meaningful component of the decision-making process, namely, to stage and deliver science that is more readily "actionable." Perhaps it is time for them to consider a course correction to improve the viability of their actionable science proposals. A few basic steps may help rejigger the science planning process in this direction and, consequently, help avoid the researcher's lament. The likelihood of gaining support during the proposal review and award adjudication process, and securing practical application of scientific products, increases when the products are (1) the result of active engagement of researchers with decision makers; (2) better connected to social and political priorities; (3) clearly designed to inform specific management decisions; and (4) tailored to fit the needs of targeted end users. These considerations and activities exist beyond the comfort zone of many environmental or conservation scientists. Yet, those who adopt them will spend less time lamenting rejection and become more influential in the production of actionable knowledge.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2025

Using imaging spectroscopy and elevation in machine learning to estimate soil salinity in intermittently tidal wetlands

Coastal soil salinization patterns are changing due to drought, sea level rise (SLR), and changing freshwater inflow. These changes are expected to impact coastal wetland plant health and ecosystem function, such as changes to biomass and productivity. These impacts have led to greater interest in how we monitor soil salinization across spatial and temporal scales. Remote sensing is a promising tool for estimating soil salinity at the spatial scales required for decision making by land managers. However, the development of a remote sensing estimation approach for wetland soil salinity must account for two factors: (1) the high spatial and temporal heterogeneity of coastal wetlands and (2) the fact that soil salinity is the result of multiple historical land use, hydrological, and geomorphic processes. In spring 2022, a combined airborne-field campaign, known as SHIFT, collected a weekly time series of airborne visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) image spectroscopy data. This dataset provides a unique opportunity to assess the application of fine spatial (5 m) and temporal (weekly) resolution VSWIR data to estimate root zone soil salinity; when combined with environmental variables such as elevation, these data can account for some of these factors. In this study, we utilized VSWIR and elevation datasets in a random forest regression to predict and map soil salinity in an intermittently tidal estuary, Devereux Slough, located in Santa Barbara County, California. The final model combined spectral indices with elevation to better capture soil salinity dynamics despite lower correlation ( r = 0.85) than solely using elevation ( r = 0.92). This research demonstrates the utility of remote sensing datasets, namely, elevation and the modified Anthocyanin Reflectance Index (mARI), for predicting root zone soil salinity in intermittently tidal coastal wetlands. These findings are an important step in advancing coastal remote sensing by creating a gridded salinity dataset that can be used for salinity monitoring and other coastal applications, such as modeling change in vegetation communities or ecosystems facing the impacts of climatic variability and change.

California↗
USGS2024

How, what, and where you sample environmental DNA affects diversity estimates and species detection

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a complex mixture of DNA, varying in particle sizes and distributed heterogeneously in aquatic systems. Optimizing eDNA sampling is crucial for maximizing species detection, particularly in high-risk scenarios like invasive species management. In this study, we compare two eDNA sampling methods - namely tow net and grab sample, where the tow nets process large volumes of water (3500–7000 L) through a 64 μm pore size and the grab samples process 1 L sample at a single point through 0.45–1.2 μm pore size membranes. We compared these methods to ascertain what most influences (1) the detection of invasive species ( Dreissena mussels and Burmese pythons) using qPCR or ddPCR and (2) total diversity monitoring of metazoan, protist, and fungi community using a COI marker and plant communities using the ITS marker. Sampling was conducted across a wide geography and diverse aquatic environments in Minnesota and Florida, USA, and Switzerland. The tow net samples had significantly higher eDNA yield compared to grab samples; however, they exhibited equal or lower alpha diversity of OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Units). The two sampling methods measured different beta diversity of communities detected with the COI marker across all three regions, highlighting the impact of the sampling method on the diversity of eDNA captured. In comparison, the beta diversity of plant eDNA was less impacted by the sampling method. We found no clear difference in detection for the invasive species targets based on the eDNA sampling method. These results underscore the need for pilot studies before conducting biodiversity inventory and monitoring, and a need for a greater understanding of not just how much, but also what, eDNA is captured depending on method choice, considering both spatial and particle size heterogeneity.

Florida, Minnesota↗
USGS2017

Group inverse sampling: An economical approach to inverse sampling

Inverse sampling is an adaptive design in the sense that the final sampling effort during a search for rare events will depend on what is found during the survey. Conventional inverse sampling (CIS) designs successively select individual sampling units to find, for example, the k th rare event. In real sampling situations, use of successive one‐by‐one sampling can be cost prohibitive. Here, we introduce an inverse sampling design that uses successive selection of groups instead of individuals, named group inverse sampling (GIS). An unbiased estimator and its variance estimator of the population mean are derived based on the Murthy estimator. CIS is a special case of the generalized design with group size equal to one. We simulate the GIS design to evaluate its efficiency using populations of rare freshwater mussels in West Virginia, USA. For cost consideration, we calculate distance traveled among the sampling units. Results show that GIS was more cost efficient than CIS in all cases. The group size for successive sampling (d ) was the most influential design parameter for reducing cost and increasing precision. Also, GIS found more rare units with greater consistency compared to simple random sampling without replacement (SRS). An important characteristic of the GIS design is that sampling stops when the target number of rare units is found, which prevents unnecessary sampling and contrasts favorably with other adaptive designs such as adaptive cluster sampling.

Environmetrics↗