SEARCH · Geology Reports
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.
Effect of newer insecticides on survival and reproduction of birds, especially quail and pheasants. According to author (who disclaims responsibility for title of paper), material here is essentially the same as that presented by him in Atlantic Naturalist 11(3), 1956 and Agr. & Food Chem. 4(10), 1956.
The importance of wintering areas for Neotropical migrants is well established. The wintering range of the eastern population of Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) is described in detail and presented in maps. The paper also discusses extralimital records from islands in the Caribbean Basin as well as scattered wintering individuals outside the winter range. The possibility of eastern birds wintering on the Yucatan Peninsula and adjacent Central America is considered. An extensive treatment of the protected areas of Peninsular Florida, the northern Bahamas, and Cuba describes the importance of upland habitats within these protected areas for wintering buntings. This information should be useful to land management agencies, conservation organizations, and private landholders for the welfare of the bunting and biodiversity in general and may also be of interest to ornithologists, other biological disciplines, naturalists, and birders.
Species of the family of Salmonidae occur naturally in Northern Hemisphere waters that remain clear and cool to cold in summer. For purposes of reproduction, salmonids generally behaviorally respond to the currents of streams and lakes in recently glaciated areas. For feeding and maturation, many larger species migrate into existing systems of large lakes, seas, and oceans. The subfamilies include Salmoninae, Coregoninae, and Thymallinae. In many locales and regions of the hemisphere, numerous species of these subfamilies evolved and self-organized into species flocks or taxocenes of bewildering complexity. For example, any individual species may play different or unique ecological roles in different taxocenes. The northern Pacific and Atlantic Ocean ecosystems, with their seas and tributaries, each contained a metacomplex of such taxocenes that, in their natural state some centuries ago, resembled each other but differed in many ways. Humans have valued all species of this family for subsistence, ceremonial, naturalist, gustatory, angling, and commercial reasons for centuries. Modern progressive humans (MPHs), whose industrial and commercial enterprises have gradually spread over this hemisphere in recent time, now affect aquatic ecosystems at all scales from local to global. These human effects mingle in complex ways that together induce uniquely natural salmonid taxocenes to disintegrate with the loss of species, including those groups least tolerant to human manipulations, but extending more recently to those taxa more adapted to anthropogenic change. As we leave the modern era, dominated by MPHs, will we find ways to live sustainably with salmonid taxocenes that still exhibit self-organizational integrity, or will only individual, isolated populations of salmonid species, derived from those most tolerant of MPHs, survive? To achieve future sustainability of salmonids, we suggest implementation of a search for intuitive knowledge based on faith in the wisdom of nature and a caring-sharing, behavioral structure based on "survival of the wisest" for both humans and salmonids.
The 5th International Geological Congress (IGC), the initial meeting in North America, was the first of the three IGCs that have been held in the United States of America (USA). Of the 538 registrants alive when the 5th IGC convened in Washington, 251 persons, representing fifteen countries, actually attended the meeting. These participants included 173 people from the USA, of whom forty-two represented the US Geological Survey (USGS). Fourteen of the US State geological surveys sent representatives to Washington. Eight participants came from other countries in the Western Hemisphere - Canada (3), Chile (1), Mexico (3), and Peru (1). The sixty-six European geologists and naturalists at the 5th IGC represented Austro-Hungary (3), Belgium (3), Britain (12), France (7), Germany (23), Norway (1), Romania (3), Russia (8), Sweden (4), and Switzerland (2). The USGS and the Columbian College (now the George Washington University) acted as the principal hosts. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and then the Geological Society of America (GSA) met in the Capital immediately before the Congress convened (26 August-1 September 1891). The 5th IGC's formal discussions treated the genetic classification of Pleistocene rocks, the chronological correlation of clastic rocks, and the international standardization of colors, symbols, and names used on geologic maps. The third of those topics continued key debates at the 1st through 4th IGCs. The GSA, the Korean Embassy, the Smithsonian Institution's US National Museum, the USGS, and one of the two Secretaries-General hosted evening receptions. Field excursions examined Paleozoic exposures in New York (18-25 August), Cretaceous-Pleistocene localities along the Potomac River south of Washington (30 August), and classic Precambrian-Pleistocene sequences and structures in the Great Plains, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountains, and Great Basin (2-26 September), with optional trips to the Grand Canyon (19-28 September) and Lake Superior (23 September-2 October). The single-volume report of the 5th IGC was published in Washington in 1893.
This it the 9th status report since the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) was founded in 1995 was the data arm of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) to document the ecological condition or corral reefs, strengthen monitoring efforts, and link existing organizations and people working on reefs worldwide. The US Government provided the initial funding to help set up a global network of coral reef workers and has continued to provide core support. Since then, the series of reports have aimed to present the current status of coral reefs of the world or particular regions, the major threats to reefs and their consequences, and any initiative undertaken under the auspices of ICRI or other bodies to arrest or reverse the decline of coral reefs. IUCN assumed responsibility for hosting the global coordination of the GCRMN in 2010 under the scientific direction of Jeremy Jackson with the following objectives: 1. Document quantitatively the global status and trends for corals, macroalgae, sea urchins, and fishes based on available data from individual scientists as well as the peer reviewed scientific literature, monitoring programs, and report. 2. Bring together regional experts in a series of workshops to involve them in data compilation, analysis, and synthesis. 3. Integrate coral reef status and trends with independent environmental, management, and socioeconomic data to better understand the primary factors responsible for coral reef decline, the possible synergies among factors that may further magnify their impacts, and how these stresses may be more effectively alleviated. Work with GCRMN partners to establish simple and practical standardized protocols for future monitoring and assessment. Disseminate information and results to help guide member state policy and actions. The overarching objective is to understand why some reefs are much healthier than others, to identify what kinds of actions have been particularly beneficial or harmful, and to vigorously communicate results in simple and straightforward terms to foster more effective conservation and management. This and subsequent reports will focus on separate biogeographic regions in a stepwise fashion and combine all of the results for a global synthesis in the coming years. We began in the wide Caribbean region because the historical data are so extensive and to refine methods of analysis before moving on to other regions. This report documents quantitative trends for Caribbean reef corals, macroalgae, sea urchins, and fishes based on data from 90 reef locations over the past 43 tears. This is the first report to combine all these disparate kinds of data in a single place to explore how the different major components of coral reef ecosystems interact on a broadly regional oceanic scale. We obtained data from more than 35,000 ecological surveys carried out by 78 principal investigators (PIs) and some 200 colleagues working in 34 countries, states, and territories throughout the wide Caribbean region. We conducted two workshops in Panama and Brisbane, Australia to bring together people who provided the data to assist in data quality control, analysis, and synthesis. The first workshop at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in the Republic of Panama 29 April to 5 May, 2012 included scientists from 18 countries and territories to verify and expand the database and to conduct exploratory analyses of status and trends. Preliminary results based on the Panama workshop were presented to the DC Marine Community and Smithsonian Institution Senate of Scientists in May 2012 and at the International Coral Reef Symposium (ICRS) and annual ICRI meeting in Cairns, Australia in July 2012. The second workshop in Brisbane, Australia in December 2012 brought together eight coral reef scientists for more detailed data analysis and organization of results for this report and subsequent publications. Subsequent presentations to solicit comments while the report was being finalized were made in 2013-2014 at the ICRI General meeting in Belize, the biennial meeting of the Association of Island Marine Laboratories in Jamaica, the Panamerican Coral Reef Congress in Merida, Mexico, the annual meeting of he Western Society of Naturalists, and numerous universities in Costa Rica, the USA and Europe. The main body of the report is in two sections. Part I provides an overview of overall status and trends and detailed analyses of the multiple factors responsible for the decline of reef corals throughout the entire wider Caribbean region. The editors are grateful to all the people who have so generously provided data and expertise, but we assume responsibility for the many statements, conclusions and recommendations and final wording of the text. Part II provides a more detailed analysis of the status and trends of coral reef ecosystems in the 32 countries, states, and territories for which we have data. The format includes maps indicating all locations sampled, a detailed table of data sources and sites surveyed, timelines of ecologically important evens, and relevant references. Each of these reports was compiled in consultation with local experts and all those who provided data and advice are listed as authors of each country report.
The development of reliable habitat suitability criteria is critical to the successful implementation of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), or any other habitat based evaluation technology. It is also a fascinating topic of research, for several reasons. First, the “science” of habitat quantification is relatively young. Descriptions of habitat use and partitioning can be traced back to Darwin, if not further. Attempts to actually quantify habitat use can be found predominantly during the last two decades, with most of the activity occurring in about the last five years. Second, this work is challenging because we are usually working with fish or some other organism that lives out of sight in an environment that is foreign to humans. Most of the data collection techniques that have been developed for standard fisheries work are unsuited, without modification, for criteria development. These factors make anyone involved in this type of research a pioneer, of sorts. Pioneers often make new and wonderful discoveries, but they also sometimes get lost. In our opinion, however, there is an even more rewarding aspect to criteria development research. It seems that the field of biology has tended to become increasingly clinical over the years. Criteria development demands the unobtrusive observation of organisms in their natural environment, a fact that allows the biological to be a naturalist and still get paid for it. The relative youth and importance of habitat quantification have resulted in rapid advancements in the state of the art. The expansion of methods is vividly demonstrated simply by comparing the two Instream Flow Information Papers written on the subject in 1978 and in 1986. One of the missions of the Aquatic Systems Branch (formerly the Instream Flow Group) is to serve as a clearinghouse for new techniques and methods. In keeping with this role, a workshop was conducted during December 1986 to discuss current and newly evolving methods for developing and evaluating habitat suitability criteria. Participation in this workshop was largely by invitation only. The objective was to obtain insights into problems and possible solutions to criteria development, from the perspective of professionals closely involved with the subject. These proceedings of that workshop are intended to supplement the information contained in Instream Flow Information Paper 21, "Development and Evaluation of Habitat Suitability Criteria for Use in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology." The workshop was closely arranged in five sessions, roughly following the outline of Information Paper 21. The first session dealt with various aspects of study design and how they can influence the outcome of a study. Session two investigated techniques for developing criteria from professional judgment, and some of the problems encountered when personal or agency prejudice enters the picture. Session three concentrated on field data collection procedures, whereas session four examined methods of converting field data into curves. Field verification studies were discussed in session five. Each presentation in the workshop was followed by a question and answer period of 15 to 30 minutes. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and appended to the end of each paper in these proceedings. We have attempted to capture the essence of these discussions as accurately as possible, but hope that the reader can appreciate the difficulty in translating a free-ranging discussion (from a barely audible tape) to something that makes sense in print. These question and answer sessions constitute the peer review for each of the papers. This provides the reader with the unique opportunity to review the interactions between authors and reviewers.
The subject of this biography, identified in the subtitle “Florence Merriam Bailey, Pioneer Naturalist,” was truly a remarkable ornithologist. The bibliography of her writings, included in the book, lists more than 130 articles, a major portion of which were based on her own field work in what was then the wild and unsettled west. Among the titles are the acclaimed “Handbook of Birds of the Western united States,” published in 1902, and the monumental “Birds of New Mexico,” which appeared in 1928. Her contributions were recognized by her colleagues who elected her as a “Fellow” of the American Ornithologists’ Union in 1929 and three years later awarded her its prestigious Brewster Medal.
Changes in sea level have long been used as a measure of local uplift and subsidence associated with large earthquakes. For instance, in 1835, the British naturalist Charles Darwin observed that sea level dropped by 2.7 meters during the large earthquake in Concepcion, CHile. From this piece of evidence and the terraces along the beach that he saw, Darwin concluded that the Andes had grown to their present height through earthquakes. Much more recently, George Plafker and James C. Savage of the U.S Geological Survey have shown, from barnacle lines, that the great 1960 Chile and the 1964 Alaska earthquakes caused several meters of vertical displacement of the shoreline.
On a stormy night in October 1836, H.M.S Beagle hove to and dropped anchor at Falmouth, a remote harbor in southwest England. Charles Darwin, the ship's naturalist, came ashore to take the mail coach to Shrewsbury. This was inauspicious end to an epic 5-year voyage around the coast of South America, the results of which were to have a tumultuous impact on scientific thought that has lasted to this day.
This long-anticipated reference and sourcebook for California’s remarkable ecological abundance provides an integrated assessment of each major ecosystem type—its distribution, structure, function, and management. A comprehensive synthesis of our knowledge about this biologically diverse state, Ecosystems of California covers the state from oceans to mountaintops using multiple lenses: past and present, flora and fauna, aquatic and terrestrial, natural and managed. Each chapter evaluates natural processes for a specific ecosystem, describes drivers of change, and discusses how that ecosystem may be altered in the future. This book also explores the drivers of California’s ecological patterns and the history of the state’s various ecosystems, outlining how the challenges of climate change and invasive species and opportunities for regulation and stewardship could potentially affect the state’s ecosystems. The text explicitly incorporates both human impacts and conservation and restoration efforts and shows how ecosystems support human well-being. Edited by two esteemed ecosystem ecologists and with overviews by leading experts on each ecosystem, this definitive work will be indispensable for natural resource management and conservation professionals as well as for undergraduate or graduate students of California’s environment and curious naturalists.
This long-anticipated reference and sourcebook for California’s remarkable ecological abundance provides an integrated assessment of each major ecosystem type—its distribution, structure, function, and management. A comprehensive synthesis of our knowledge about this biologically diverse state, Ecosystems of California covers the state from oceans to mountaintops using multiple lenses: past and present, flora and fauna, aquatic and terrestrial, natural and managed. Each chapter evaluates natural processes for a specific ecosystem, describes drivers of change, and discusses how that ecosystem may be altered in the future. This book also explores the drivers of California’s ecological patterns and the history of the state’s various ecosystems, outlining how the challenges of climate change and invasive species and opportunities for regulation and stewardship could potentially affect the state’s ecosystems. The text explicitly incorporates both human impacts and conservation and restoration efforts and shows how ecosystems support human well-being. Edited by two esteemed ecosystem ecologists and with overviews by leading experts on each ecosystem, this definitive work will be indispensable for natural resource management and conservation professionals as well as for undergraduate or graduate students of California’s environment and curious naturalists.
This long-anticipated reference and sourcebook for California’s remarkable ecological abundance provides an integrated assessment of each major ecosystem type—its distribution, structure, function, and management. A comprehensive synthesis of our knowledge about this biologically diverse state, Ecosystems of California covers the state from oceans to mountaintops using multiple lenses: past and present, flora and fauna, aquatic and terrestrial, natural and managed. Each chapter evaluates natural processes for a specific ecosystem, describes drivers of change, and discusses how that ecosystem may be altered in the future. This book also explores the drivers of California’s ecological patterns and the history of the state’s various ecosystems, outlining how the challenges of climate change and invasive species and opportunities for regulation and stewardship could potentially affect the state’s ecosystems. The text explicitly incorporates both human impacts and conservation and restoration efforts and shows how ecosystems support human well-being. Edited by two esteemed ecosystem ecologists and with overviews by leading experts on each ecosystem, this definitive work will be indispensable for natural resource management and conservation professionals as well as for undergraduate or graduate students of California’s environment and curious naturalists.
Ornithology in Alaska formally began with the observations of Georg Wilhelm Steller during Vitus Bering's voyage of discovery in 1741. Steller's journal makes brief mention of various seabird species he encountered during his travels in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Frost and Engel 1988). For more than 100 years following Steller, the Russian-American Company was active in commercial fur harvesting throughout southern coastal Alaska, but this period saw little contribution to a scientific understanding of the region's avifauna. With the purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867, a period of American exploration began that included significant work by pioneering naturalists such as Dall (1873, 1874), Elliot (1881), Nelson (1883), and Turner (1885, 1886). While this activity established a comprehensive list and general knowledge of the distribution of seabird species occurring in Alaska, early observers provided no quantitative estimates of abundance for any colony or region. The observations of Heath (1915) and Willett (1912, 1915, 1917) at two locations in southeastern Alaska are notable for including the first numerical estimates of any seabird populations for comparison with recent data. Willett's (1912, 1915) estimates of 13 species are given in Table 1 with results from a 1976 Survey at Forrester Island (DeGange et al. 1977) and a 1981 survey at St. Lazaria Island (Nelson et al 1982). In the aggregate, seabird numbers appeared to increase dramatically at both sites, but the differences may be largely artificial. Because Willett (1915) did not employ rigorous sampling methods, DeGange et al. (1977) surmised that he grossly underestimated the populations of burrowing species such as storm-petrels, Cassin's Auklets. and Rhinoceros Aulkets. Nelson et al. (1982) offered a similar interpretation of total storm-petrel numbers at St. Lazaria, but felt that a shift in the species ratio of Leach's and Fork-tailed Storm-Petrels had likely occurred. It seems reasonably certain that real changes in some of the open-nesters like Common Murres (down at Forrester Island, up at St. Lazaria) and Glaucous-winged and Herring Gulls (absent or down at both sites) have occurred since Willet's time.
The GRBA draft General Management Plan proposes development in several locations in Kious Spring and Lehman Caves 1:24,000 topographic quadrangles, and these proposed developments need geologic evaluation before construction. Brown will act as project manager to coordinate the IA with time frames, budget constraints, and the timely preparation of required maps, reports, and GIS data sets. In addition to having been an interpretive Ranger-Naturalist in two National Parks, Brown has published USGS interpretive geologic maps and USGS bulletins. Her research includes sedimentologic, stratigraphic, and structural analyses of Laramide intermontane basins in the Westem Interior.
Nearly 70 years ago a young ranger naturalist working in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), Frederick B. Turner, became fascinated with the abundance of frogs next to his cabin at “Soldier Creek” (known as Lodge Creek today). This interest blossomed into Turner’s PhD research and his publication in 1960 about the local population of Columbia spotted frogs (shown to right) became a classic for herpetologists. Unfortunately, the frog population Turner studied had a less positive future in store. Research by Idaho State University biologists in the 1990s revealed the Lodge Creek population had dwindled by 80%. Now, most of Turner’s study area is bereft of spotted frogs, and the remnant population near Yellowstone Lake is affected by a steep decline in reproduction and frequent disease outbreaks. Meanwhile, amphibian population declines documented worldwide, including in national parks of the western U.S., have become common. In YNP and neighboring Grand Teton National Park, we face the important questions of whether widespread amphibian declines are occurring here and if so, what do they portend. Can amphibians inform us about the health and changing conditions of wetlands in YNP? What are the implications of diminishing wetlands for other water-dependent species? And, more broadly, can amphibian and other living organisms serve as reliable indicators or vital signs for park health? In this issue of Yellowstone Science, we discuss how ecosystem science is taking cues from the medical field by relying on vital sign monitoring programs to assess ecosystem health.
The endemic landbirds of Hawaii, particularly the Hawaiian honeycreepers, an endemic subfamily of the cardueline finches, are one of the world's most dramatic examples of adaptive radiation and speciation (see glossary) in island ecosystems (Freed et al. 1987; Scott et al. 1988). From what is believed to have been a single successful colonization of the Hawaiian Archipelago by an ancestral species from North America, the honeycreepers evolved into a diverse array of species and subspecies of birds with bills ranging from thick, seed-eating beaks of the palila ( Loxioides bailleui ), to small insectivorous bills as seen on the `amakihi ( Hemignathus virens ), woodpecker-like adaptations of the `akiapola`au ( H. munroi ), and large, decurved nectar-feeding bills of the `i`iwi ( Vestiaria coccinea ). In addition to the honeycreepers, the historically documented endemic Hawaiian avifauna included three seabirds, several waterfowl, two raptors, and perching birds that include a species of crow, and representatives of Old World flycatchers, honeyeaters, and thrushes. In all, at least 71 endemic species and subspecies of Hawaiian birds existed at the time of Captain Cook's arrival in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. Now, however, 76% of the Hawaiian birds are either extinct or endangered, and several of the remaining unlisted species are showing significant population declines. The arrival of humans to the Hawaiian Islands--starting with the Polynesians more than 1,500 years ago and continuing following European contact--drastically changed many natural ecosystems, leading not only to the extinction of many plant and animal species, but also to a significant reduction in both range and abundance for many other taxa. Originally, the Hawaiian birds were found in all habitat zones on each island, but today few native forest birds are found below 610-m (2,000-ft) elevation, and many of the wetland areas that once provided abundant habitat for waterbirds have been destroyed. Of the historically documented 71 taxa of endemic Hawaiian birds, 23 are now extinct, and 30 of the remaining 48 species and subspecies are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1992), many with few or only single populations remaining (Fig. 1; Table 1; Table 2). Studies of recently discovered fossil bird bones have further identified nearly 40 additional species of Hawaiian birds never seen alive by the post-Cook naturalists; many of these became extinct after the Polynesians arrived (Olson and James 1982; H. James, Smithsonian Institution, personal communication).
White-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) were videotaped depredating four songbird nests in grassland habitats in southeastern and northcentral North Dakota, 1996–1999. Deer ate two Savannah sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis ), two grasshopper sparrow ( Ammodramus savannarum ), one clay-colored sparrow ( Spizella pallida ), one red-winged blackbird ( Agelaius phoeniceus ) and three brown-headed cowbird ( Molothrus ater ) nestlings. Deer removed nestlings quickly (5–19 sec/nest) at night (22:00 to 05:17 Central Daylight Time) and left no evidence of predation. Although probably opportunistic, deer predations clearly were deliberate and likely are more common than generally believed.
We used locations of 6 wolves ( Canis lupus ) in Minnesota from Global Positioning System (GPS) collars to compare day-versus-night locations to estimate territory size and location during summer. We employed both minimum convex polygon (MCP) and fixed kernel (FK) methods. We used two methods to partition GPS locations for day-versus-night home-range comparisons: (1) daytime = 0800–2000 h; nighttime = 2000–0800 h; and (2) sunup versus sundown. Regardless of location-partitioning method, mean area of daytime MCPs did not differ significantly from nighttime MCPs. Similarly, mean area of daytime FKs (95% probability contour) were not significantly different from nightime FKs. FK core use areas (50% probability contour) did not differ between daytime and nighttime nor between sunup and sundown locations. We conclude that in areas similar to our study area day-only locations are adequate for describing the location, extent and core use areas of summer wolf territories by both MCP and FK methods.