Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Science Advances”

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

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

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2015

Aquatics Systems Branch: transdisciplinary research to address water-related environmental problems

The Aquatic Systems Branch at the Fort Collins Science Center is a group of scientists dedicated to advancing interdisciplinary science and providing science support to solve water-related environmental issues. Natural resource managers have an increasing need for scientific information and stakeholders face enormous challenges of increasing and competing demands for water. Our scientists are leaders in ecological flows, riparian ecology, hydroscape ecology, ecosystem management, and contaminant biology. The Aquatic Systems Branch employs and develops state-of-the-science approaches in field investigations, laboratory experiments, remote sensing, simulation and predictive modeling, and decision support tools. We use the aquatic experimental laboratory, the greenhouse, the botanical garden and other advanced facilities to conduct unique research. Our scientists pursue research on the ground, in the rivers, and in the skies, generating and testing hypotheses and collecting quantitative information to support planning and design in natural resource management and aquatic restoration.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2017

Atmospheric rivers emerge as a global science and applications focus

Recent advances in atmospheric sciences and hydrology have identified the key role of atmo-spheric rivers (ARs) in determining the distribution of strong precipitation events in the midlatitudes. The growth of the subject is evident in the increase in scientific publications that discuss ARs (Fig. 1a). Combined with related phenomena, that is, warm conveyor belts (WCBs) and tropical moisture exports (TMEs), the frequency, position, and strength of ARs determine the occurrence of floods, droughts, and water resources in many parts of the world. A conference at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, recently gathered over 100 experts in atmospheric, hydrologic, oceanic, and polar science; ecology; water management; and civil engineering to assess the state of AR science and to explore the need for new information. This first International Atmospheric Rivers Conference (IARC) allowed for much needed introductions and interactions across fields and regions, for example, participants came from five continents, and studies covered ARs in six continents and Greenland (Fig. 1b). IARC also fostered discussions of the status and future of AR science, and attendees strongly supported the idea of holding another IARC at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the summer of 2018.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica: 2002-03 field season

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapping program in Antarctica is one of the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). This is the 53rd U.S. expedition to Antarctica in which USGS scientists have participated. The financial support from the National Science Foundation, which extends back to the time of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1956–57, can be attributed to the need for accurate maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was being driven by science, and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support. The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, had, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958 and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica. The USGS mapping and science programs still play a significant role in the advancement of science in Antarctica today. Antarctica is the planet's 5th largest continent [13.2 million km 2 (5.1 million mi 2 )], it contains the world's largest (of two) remaining ice sheets, and it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report provides documentation of USGS scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica during the 2002–03 field season (Mullins, 2002).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica: 1995-96 field season

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapping program in Antarctica is one of the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). This is the 46th U.S. expedition to Antarctica in which USGS scientists have participated. The financial support from the National Science Foundation, which extends back to the time of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1956-57, can be attributed to the need for accurate maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was being driven by science and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support. The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, had, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958 and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica. The USGS mapping and science programs still play a significant role in the advancement of science in Antarctica today. Antarctica is the planet's 5th largest continent (13.2 million km 2 (5.1 million mi 2 )), it contains the world's largest (of two) remaining ice sheet, and it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report provides documentation of USGS scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica during the 1995-96 field season (Mullins and Meunier, 1995).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey Community for Data Integration 2017 Workshop Proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Community for Data Integration (CDI) Workshop was held May 16–19, 2017 at the Denver Federal Center. There were 183 in-person attendees and 35 virtual attendees over four days. The theme of the workshop was “Enabling Integrated Science,” with the purpose of bringing together the community to discuss current topics, shared challenges, and steps forward to advance integrated science at the USGS. The CDI welcomed several keynote speakers, including Bill Werkheiser, USGS Acting Director; Kevin T. Gallagher, USGS Associate Director of the Core Science Systems Mission Area; Bruce Caron, Earth Science Information Partners Community Architect; and Tim Quinn, Chief of the USGS Office of Enterprise Information. Their presentations focused on the importance of collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and open science and the role of the CDI in identifying and supporting new opportunities in these areas for the USGS and its partners. In addition to the stated theme, the workshop agenda was driven by the needs of the CDI, with topics highlighting current resources and technologies that could help attendees in their daily work. Topical sessions were proposed by CDI members and included subjects such as data citation, information technology architecture, legacy data, real-time data, and many more. Plenary speakers from the community talked about USGS activities in data science, elevation and hydrography data integration, advanced scientific computing solutions, cloud computing, data-management training, and data-sharing agreements. Two panels addressed the role of the CDI in enabling integrated science and examples of CDI-supported projects in action. Breakout discussions focused on the workshop theme of “Enabling Integrated Science” and covered five topics: Data and Data Integration, Modeling, Computing Capacity, Science Data Integration, and User Needs and Experience. Sessions on each topic identified actions that could bring the USGS and the broader Earth science community closer to the goal of making integrated science commonplace. The breakouts produced recommendations with the broad themes of improving communication and connections across the USGS, reducing duplication and increasing knowledge transfer, increasing training and testbed opportunities to learn and experiment, and creating community-supported standards to enable better integration and interoperability. The DataBlast poster and live demonstration session showcased 36 projects from around the CDI and included recent CDI-funded projects as well as other USGS and partner initiatives that were related to data and software integration and discovery. Importantly, the CDI workshop provided a forum for scientists, technologists, data and resource managers, program managers, and others to convene face to face to discuss common methods, interests, challenges, and solutions related to scientific data and technologies. As a result of this rare convergence, new connections were made across disciplines, backgrounds, and geographical locations, seeding future activities and collaborations. Sharing of ideas from all attendees was encouraged through the use of a mobile application to collect real-time questions and feedback from the audience The primary outcomes of the workshop are the recommendations from the breakout sessions titled “Roadmap Discussions on Enabling Integrated Science” and from the topical sessions detailed in these proceedings. These sessions, as well as the plenary discussions, identified new areas of collaboration and learning that the CDI will facilitate, such as data science, software development, scientific modeling practices, and user needs and experience. The CDI will build on the results of the workshop to guide its future topics, events, and funding opportunities to support an integrated science capacity for the USGS.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Climate‐change refugia: Biodiversity in the slow lane

Climate‐change adaptation focuses on conducting and translating research to minimize the dire impacts of anthropogenic climate change, including threats to biodiversity and human welfare. One adaptation strategy is to focus conservation on climate‐change refugia (that is, areas relatively buffered from contemporary climate change over time that enable persistence of valued physical, ecological, and sociocultural resources). In this Special Issue, recent methodological and conceptual advances in refugia science will be highlighted. Advances in this emerging subdiscipline are improving scientific understanding and conservation in the face of climate change by considering scale and ecosystem dynamics, and looking beyond climate exposure to sensitivity and adaptive capacity. We propose considering refugia in the context of a multifaceted, long‐term, network‐based approach, as temporal and spatial gradients of ecological persistence that can act as “slow lanes” rather than areas of stasis. After years of discussion confined primarily to the scientific literature, researchers and resource managers are now working together to put refugia conservation into practice.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2023

Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology (ASIST)

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is initiating a study approach focused on building cross-disciplinary connections to weave together the scientific knowledge related to drought conditions and effects in the Colorado River Basin. The basin is experiencing the worst drought in recorded history, posing unprecedented new challenges in the basin and in areas relying on water from the basin. Science is continually advancing, and there is an increasing need to interpret the connections between studies to predict the effects of drought and other changes affecting the Earth system. The USGS primarily works in independent disciplines and science centers to provide cutting-edge science to advance research and science applications worldwide. The complexity and volume of research that has been conducted related to drought in the Colorado River Basin is difficult to quantify. To complicate matters, studies, models, and datasets are cataloged and may be available in multiple, unrelated locations, across various internal systems, data repositories, and local offices. Furthermore, there are limited interactions and interfaces between scientists and partners working in different science disciplines; in many cases, individual science products require stakeholders to integrate complex interdisciplinary data across geographical and topical extents. The diverse array of interdisciplinary science and science products produced by the USGS highlights the need for a wide ranging collaborative support structure.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2014

Ten ways remote sensing can contribute to conservation

In an effort to increase conservation effectiveness through the use of Earth observation technologies, a group of remote sensing scientists affiliated with government and academic institutions and conservation organizations identified 10 questions in conservation for which the potential to be answered would be greatly increased by use of remotely sensed data and analyses of those data. Our goals were to increase conservation practitioners’ use of remote sensing to support their work, increase collaboration between the conservation science and remote sensing communities, identify and develop new and innovative uses of remote sensing for advancing conservation science, provide guidance to space agencies on how future satellite missions can support conservation science, and generate support from the public and private sector in the use of remote sensing data to address the 10 conservation questions. We identified a broad initial list of questions on the basis of an email chain-referral survey. We then used a workshop-based iterative and collaborative approach to whittle the list down to these final questions (which represent 10 major themes in conservation): How can global Earth observation data be used to model species distributions and abundances? How can remote sensing improve the understanding of animal movements? How can remotely sensed ecosystem variables be used to understand, monitor, and predict ecosystem response and resilience to multiple stressors? How can remote sensing be used to monitor the effects of climate on ecosystems? How can near real-time ecosystem monitoring catalyze threat reduction, governance and regulation compliance, and resource management decisions? How can remote sensing inform configuration of protected area networks at spatial extents relevant to populations of target species and ecosystem services? How can remote sensing-derived products be used to value and monitor changes in ecosystem services? How can remote sensing be used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation efforts? How does the expansion and intensification of agriculture and aquaculture alter ecosystems and the services they provide? How can remote sensing be used to determine the degree to which ecosystems are being disturbed or degraded and the effects of these changes on species and ecosystem functions?

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗
USGS2004

Fort Collins Science Center: Ecosystem Dynamics

Many challenging natural resource management issues require consideration of a web of interactions among ecosystem components. The spatial and temporal complexity of these ecosystem problems demands an interdisciplinary approach integrating biotic and abiotic processes. The goals of the Ecosystem Dynamics Branch are to provide sound science to aid federal resource managers and use long-term, place-focused research and monitoring on federal lands to advance ecosystem science. Current studies fall into five general areas. Herbivore-Ecosystem Interactions examines the efficacy of multiple controls on selected herbivore populations and cascading effects through predator-herbivore-plant-soil linkages. Riparian Ecology is concerned with interactions among streamflow, fluvial geomorphology, and riparian vegetation. Integrated Fire Science focuses on the effects of fire on plant and animal communities at multiple scales, and on the interactions between post-fire plant, runoff, and erosion processes. Reference Ecosystems comprises long-term, place-based studies of ecosystem biogeochemistry. Finally, Integrated Assessments is investigating how to synthesize multiple ecosystem stressors and responses over complex landscapes in ways that are useful for management and planning.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2009

NASA and USGS invest in invasive species modeling to evaluate habitat for Africanized Honey Bees

Invasive non-native species, such as plants, animals, and pathogens, have long been an interest to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NASA. Invasive species cause harm to our economy (around $120 B/year), the environment (e.g., replacing native biodiversity, forest pathogens negatively affecting carbon storage), and human health (e.g., plague, West Nile virus). Five years ago, the USGS and NASA formed a partnership to improve ecological forecasting capabilities for the early detection and containment of the highest priority invasive species. Scientists from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the Fort Collins Science Center developed a longterm strategy to integrate remote sensing capabilities, high-performance computing capabilities and new spatial modeling techniques to advance the science of ecological invasions [Schnase et al., 2002].

The Earth Observer↗
USGS2023

A conceptual workflow for projecting future riverine and coastal flood hazards to support the federal flood risk management standard

In 2021, the reinstatement of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) required federally funded projects to recognize potential increases in flood hazards over their service lives due to climate change or local anthropogenic perturbations. Recognizing that the state of the science had advanced since the implementation guidelines for this standard were published in 2015 (WRC, 2015, Appendix H), an interagency state-of-the-science review committee conceptualized a workflow to guide the mapping and risk communication of projected future flood hazards in both riverine and coastal settings. This five-element workflow connects climate, hydrologic, and hydraulic models, incorporates land and water management impacts and ongoing geomorphic changes, and can be tailored to the unique nature of different agency needs and resources. These conceptual workflows also provide a basis for a Climate-Informed Science Approach (CISA) implementation roadmap that identifies incremental steps for addressing the research and data gaps elucidated in our review. Many of these incremental steps present opportunities for interagency collaboration that would facilitate the rollout of the FFRMS in diverse riverine and coastal settings of the United States. We conduct case-study thought experiments to evaluate the implementation of the riverine and coastal workflows at three different locations in the United States: central Indiana, Galveston, Texas, and a small coastal community in western Alaska (Shaktoolik). Our thought experiments consider different project horizons, data availability, failure consequences, technical training requirements, and computational resources.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2013

Insights for undergraduates seeking an advanced degree in wildlife and fisheries sciences

In today's job market, having a successful career in the fisheries and wildlife sciences is becoming more dependent on obtaining an advanced degree. As a result, competition for getting accepted into a graduate program is fierce. Our objective for this study was to provide prospective graduate students some insights as to what qualifications or attributes would best prepare them for obtaining a graduate position (M.S.) and to excel once they are enrolled in a graduate program. A survey was sent to 50 universities within the National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs (NAUFWP) where both faculty and undergraduate students were asked questions relating to graduate school. Faculty rated the importance of various criteria and attributes of graduate school, and students answered the questions according to how they believed faculty members would respond. Overall, undergraduate students shared many of the same graduate school viewpoints as those held by faculty members. However, viewpoints differed on some topics related to admittance and the most important accomplishment of a graduate student while enrolled in a graduate program. These results indicate that undergraduate students may be better prepared for graduate school—and they may understand how to be successful once they are enrolled in a program—than was initially thought.

Fisheries↗
USGS1980

Minerals, lands, and geology for the common defence and general welfare, Volume 2, 1879-1904 : A history of geology in relation to the development of public-land, federal-science, and mapping policies and the development of mineral resources in the United States during the first 25 years of the U.S. Geological Survey

In the traditional view of the Survey's first 25 years, which are the subject of much of this volume, John Wesley Powell, with his broad view of science and advanced ideas of land and water in the West, is the heroic figure. Clarence King is dismissed as brilliant but with a limited view of science as mining geology, and Charles D. Walcott is regarded primarily as a brilliant paleontologist chosen by Powell to succeed him. The Survey's first quarter century, however, spanned a watershed in American history that separated a primarily rural and agrarian nation and a primarily urban and industrial nation, a nation intent on conquering the continent and isolated from the Old World and a nation involved in world politics, a nation that believed in the virtues of competition and limited government and a nation that saw the virtue of cooperation and insisted on reform and regulation to ensure equal opportunities to all. Science itself changed during this period. The age of instruments was just beginning when the Survey was established; by the turn of the century, instruments had almost revolutionized science and the era of the lone investigator had to give way to an era of organized effort in the solution of problems.

Book↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment: Invasives topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed six needs (hereinafter “Needs”) identified under the Invasives topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs related to the control of invasive plant species in sagebrush rangelands, with a special emphasis on invasive annual grasses. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (“Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed, or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 198 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Invasives topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: studies of natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the distribution and spread; methods of preventing, eradicating and controlling invasive plant species; development of mapping techniques that provide regularly updated annual grass and fine fuel projections; and assessment of the efficacy of potential cheatgrass biocontrol agents. Needs that were addressed poorly included (1) investigations of livestock grazing as a tool for managing invasive plants and (2) investigations of cheatgrass die-offs and identification and subsequent study of potential biocontrol agents associated with those die-offs. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment: Restoration topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are substantial management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions, and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed 10 needs (hereinafter “Needs”) identified under the Restoration topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs for improving restoration success in degraded sagebrush rangelands. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (“Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 371 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Restoration topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: the development of methods to improve seeding success of native plants after fire; evaluation of short- and long-term plant responses relative to biotic and abiotic factors following restoration treatments; assessments of long-term effects on ecosystem processes following conifer removal treatments and development of decision support tools to aid in conifer management; determination of the costs of restoration treatments relative to the benefits to sage-grouse occupancy, survival, and populations; and assessments of the factors which contribute to soil degradation and development of soil enhancement methods that enhance seed germination and seedling survival while resisting nonnative plants. Needs that were not addressed well included: the development of methods for the rapid recovery of sagebrush and native herbaceous plants following wildfire and determination of whether treatments benefit sage-grouse and mitigate impacts from fires; determination of thresholds for successful restoration across a range of environmental conditions and development of decision support tools to assist with restoration effectiveness monitoring; and development and evaluation of the utility of seed transfer zones. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment—Fire topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed eight needs (hereinafter known as “Needs”) identified under the Fire topic in the Plan, defined as any non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation or natural fuels, including wildfires and prescribed fires. The topic outlined research Needs broadly focused on understanding the mechanisms and management of threats posed to the maintenance of large, contiguous sagebrush rangelands by fire. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (‘Next Steps’) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (in other words., addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 156 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Fire topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: studies of relationships between fire and the sagebrush ecosystem (Need 1) investigations of the responses of sage-grouse to burned area characteristics (Need 2); spatial modeling of fire risk (Need 3); studies of the effects of fuels management treatments (Need 4); sagebrush reduction treatments on multiple characteristics of the sagebrush ecosystem (Need 6); and assessments of the role of fire in maintaining healthy sagebrush communities (Need 7). Needs addressed poorly included: assessments of the effects of fuel breaks on sage-grouse (Need 5); and investigations of characteristics associated with the effectiveness of fuel breaks (Need 8). The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗