SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Literature Review”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

841 records · Page 47Linked to original sources

USGS2025

The American black bear (Ursus americanus) as an apex predator: Investigating the ecological role of the world’s most abundant large carnivore

Introduction American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) have been documented to have top-down effects, both consumptive (through predation) and nonconsumptive (through fear effects). However, their behavioural and dietary adaptability has led to uncertainty about the conditions under which these may occur. Objectives We aimed to (1) investigate when, where, and how often black bears influence lower trophic levels, and (2) critically assess the experimental design of such studies to determine trends and biases. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search and used linear mixed-effects models to assess the relationships among prey age class, the presence of other large carnivores, and the percentage of ungulate mortality due to black bears. We also summarised the measured effects of black bears on other carnivores and the results of any experimental studies. Results We found a strong negative relationship between puma presence and the percentage of ungulate mortality due to black bears, but only in areas with at least one other large carnivore (e.g., wolves). Among 16 studies of black bears' impacts on other carnivores, most documented negative behavioural effects. While only 5% of studies had strong experimental design, bear removal consistently increased juvenile ungulate survival. Discussion and Synthesis Our findings highlight black bears' strong top-down effects, resembling or exceeding those of other large carnivores. These effects were greatest when no other large carnivores were present, but as highly effective kleptoparasites, black bears can alter the feeding habits of other large carnivores. Thus, we argue that ‘apex’ is a conditional state, not a species-wide status.

Mammal Review↗

USGS2017

Developing an effective Agassiz's Desert Tortoise monitoring program: Final report to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission

Agassiz’s desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is a conservation-reliant species with populations north and west of the Colorado River protected as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Averill-Murray et al. 2012). Since it was listed under this category in 1990, a great deal has been learned about the natural history of the species, and it is now one of the best-studied turtles in the United States (Lovich and Ennen 2013). However, the accumulated body of scientific data available for the species has not yet been translated into recovery or delisting of the species. Successful conservation of any species requires knowledge of their natural history and how vital rates affect their ability to maintain stable populations in the face of natural and anthropogenic stresses. Agassiz’s desert tortoises occur from southwestern Utah to near the Mexican border in California – a distance of over 450 km – but population densities vary greatly across this immense landscape (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). Tortoises occur in the Sonoran Desert of California, including the eastern and western ends of the Coachella Valley, where it is one of 27 species covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP/NCCP). The southern portion of Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) lies within this 1.1 million acre planning area, and was predicted to be an area of low-density tortoise populations using habitat suitability modeling (Barrows 2011). JTNP is near the southern distributional limit of G. agassizii, yet very little has been published regarding the ecology of tortoises in the Sonoran Desert of California. Reproductive output is an important gross measure of the ability of a population to persist. When integrated with data on fertility and survivorship, this information forms a foundation for assessing population status and formulating effective management strategies (e.g., Congdon et al. 1993, 1994), especially for imperiled species. One aspect of the biology of G. agassizii that has been particularly well-studied is reproductive output. However, most of what we know about this topic comes from research in the Mojave Desert portion of the species’ range (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Comparatively little has been published on the reproductive ecology of populations living in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem of California. Publications by Lovich et al. (1999, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015) constitute the main body of literature on desert tortoise reproductive ecology in the Sonoran Desert of California, with one study population located at the western end of the CVMSHCP/NCCP area. Collecting data on Agassiz’s desert tortoise ecology in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem is important due to significant differences between the two adjacent desert ecosystems, especially the timing and amounts of annual precipitation, and their potential effects on reproductive output (e.g., Lovich et al. 5 2015). There are also differences in the vulnerability of tortoises to the effects of a warming, drying climate between the two deserts (Barrows 2011; Zylstra et al. 2012). The overall goal of this study was to collect data on demography, reproductive output, and genetic affinities at a study site in the Sonoran Desert portion of JTNP in the eastern end of the CVMSHCP/NCCP area. Specific objectives included: 1) Collect data to establish baselines on tortoise populations and/or their habitat suitability in core habitat within the CVNCCP area, including biotic and abiotic variables affecting persistence of tortoise populations; 2) Compare and contrast with data collected on desert tortoises at USGS/BLM study site near Palm Springs over 16 years; 3) Support long-term modeling efforts needed to determine tortoise population viability; 4) Refine modeled relationships with identified threats such as fire, invasive species and climate change; and 5) Prioritize adaptive management needs for the desert tortoise in and beyond the CVNCCP area. The data from this study will aid in determining baseline estimates of the desert tortoise population size within the planning area as well as establish a marked population of Agassiz’s desert tortoises for future monitoring. Data will be integrated with habitat modeling in order to refine model output. Genetic data will be collected on both the north and south sides of Interstate 10 to determine the potential effects of habitat fragmentation and genetic mixing. Analyses are ongoing and results beyond those presented in this report will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals following inclusion of additional data collected on the south side of Shavers Valley in 2017-2018.

Report↗

USGS2010

Further considerations of the Ce/Yb vs. Ba/Ce plot in volcanology and tectonics

A plot of Ce/Yb vs. Ba/Ce, for locality averages, effectively separates mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORB) (Ce/Yb <10, Ba/Ce 1-4.2), oceanic island volcanics (OIV) (Ce/Yb >10, Ba/Ce <6), which are generally hotspot related, and island arc volcanics (IAV) (Ce/Yb <23, Ba/Ce >4.2). The conventional interpretation is that these three types of volcanic environments involve oceanic rift-related, large-volume partial melts (˜20-30%) of a depleted source (MORB), small volume melts (˜5% for alkalic volcanics) of enriched sources related to plumes (OIV), and melts of hydrous-enriched sources during subduction, especially for Ba (IAV). Three OIV sites, however, have average ratios that fall in the MORB field (e.g., Krafla Volcano, Iceland), and these localities also tend to have other geochemical data similar to MORB. Average ratios of Hawaiian tholeiitic shield basalts of Mauna Kea and Koolau volcanoes occupy a restricted field on a plot of Ce/Yb vs. Ba/Ce of 10-18 for Ce/Yb and 2.8-3.1 for Ba/Ce, a field toward which other shield basalts and cone-building volcanics regress. In general, post-shield alkalic rocks have higher values of Ce/Yb than do tholeiites. Peralkalic basalts (basanites, melilitites, and phonolites) have even higher values of Ce/Yb, reflecting smaller degrees of partial melting (perhaps 1-2%) and melting of sources containing phlogopite that were enriched by CO 2 -dominated fluids. The minor post-erosion nephelinitic suites of Hawaii (e.g., the Honolulu Series on Oahu, and the Koloa suite on Kauai) generally have values both greater than IAV for Ce/Yb and greater than other kinds of OIV for Ba/Ce in a part of the plot previously not found to be occupied by data. Alkali basalts of both these nephelinitic series have the lowest and similar ratios (Ce/Yb ˜ 25; Ba/Ce ˜ 10). In the Hawaiian Islands, there are two trends. One (a), where phlogopite has been interpreted to remain in the source, generally has Ba/Ce decrease away from the alkali basalts as Ce/Yb increases. The other (b), where phlogopite has been interpreted to enter the melt, occupies a field that is high in both Ce/Yb (>30) relative to IAV and in Ba/Ce (>8) relative to the OIV field. There are some exceptions, also, for IAV that plot outside the IAV field. The values of Ce/Yb in Mariana Islands samples, for example, are exceptionally low for the IAV (Ce/Yb <5 with many samples <2). Examples of two cross-chain Kasuga Islands, however, have average values of Ce/Yb considerably greater than for any other Mariana Islands data, and individual samples extend from within the IAV field into the OIV field, which may indicate a mixture of IAV and OIV sources (rather than involvement of a hotspot, these island volcanics have been interpreted as magma of OIV entrapped "plums" in an IAV "pudding" by Stern et al., 1993). Not surprisingly, continental arc volcanics (CAV) are generally similar to IAV, but with somewhat greater dispersion in Ce/Yb, perhaps representing a larger contribution of continental materials to the volcanics. Continental rift volcanics (CRV) are complex. The Antarctic rift data fall in the OIV field, and clearly define a hotspot origin for the rift with little contamination in the continental lithosphere, but most CRV data fall in the IAV field (Rio Grande rift tholeiites, Yellowstone Plateau basalts, Columbia River basalts, East African rift basalts). The Yellowstone basalt samples judged to be least crustally contaminated from other considerations (e.g., through Pb and Sr isotopes) approach closest to the OIV or hotspot field in the Ce/Yb vs. Ba/Ce plot, compatible with a hotspot origin with variable continental lithosphere interactions. The data from the Rio Grande rift have no such trend in Ce/Yb vs. Ba/Ce. Other trace element and isotopic data are suggestive of a different kind of origin, perhaps melting in the continental lithosphere from pressure release or other causes as suggested in the literature. Carbonatites, kimberlites, and ultrapotassic rocks form extreme end members for the peralkalic rocks on the continents with Ce/Yb values in the hundreds and even exceeding 1,000 in natrocarbonatite. Carbonatites and kimberlite type I, however, have Ba/Ce <8 with few exceptions. Ultrapo tassic rocks and kimberlite type II also have Ce/Yb values in the hundreds but with Ba/Ce >9. These rocks, although rare in the ocean basins (e.g., carbonatite on São Vicente Island in the Cape Verdes archipelago, Indian Ocean) plot similarly to their continental cousins. For Hawaii, the nephelinitic suites of both the Honolulu and Koloa series trend from alkali and alkali olivine basalt ratios toward higher signatures for Ce/Yb for other rock types. The Honolulu series, however, progresses towards smaller values of Ba/Ce for nephelinite-melilitite (Ce/Yb ˜ 85; Ba/Ce ˜ 5-7) near the low end of Ce/Yb found in carbonatite/kimberlite type I, whereas the Koloa series progresses toward higher Ba/Ce (Ce/Yb ˜ 65; Ba/Ce ˜ 14-15) for nephelinite-melilitite with Ce/Yb values near the lower end of kimberlite type II/ultrapotassic rocks. Carbonated phlogopitic sources have been proposed for peralkalic rocks of both oceans and continents. Carbonatites and/or kimberlites are suggested to possibly be present at depth under the Hawaiian nephelinitic series and in other OIV environments containing peralkalic suites.

International Geology Review↗

USGS2009

Research in thermal biology: Burning questions for coldwater stream fishes

With the increasing appreciation of global warming impacts on ecological systems, in addition to the myriad of land management effects on water quality, the number of literature citations dealing with the effects of water temperature on freshwater fish has escalated in the past decade. Given the many biological scales at which water temperature effects have been studied, and the growing need to integrate knowledge from multiple disciplines of thermal biology to fully protect beneficial uses, we held that a survey of the most promising recent developments and an expression of some of the remaining unanswered questions with significant management implications would best be approached collectively by a diverse research community. We have identified five specific topic areas of renewed research where new techniques and critical thought could benefit coldwater stream fishes (particularly salmonids): molecular, organism, population/species, community and ecosystem, and policy issues in water quality. Our hope is that information gained through examination of recent research fronts linking knowledge at various scales will prove useful in managing water quality at a basin level to protect fish populations and whole ecosystems. Standards of the past were based largely on incipient lethal and optimum growth rate temperatures for fish species, while future standards should consider all integrated thermal impacts to the organism and ecosystem. ?? Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Reviews in Fisheries Science↗

USGS2013

A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 14: plants of conservation concern

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are located in the California Floristic Province, which has been named one of world‘s hotspots of endemic biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000). The California Floristic Province is the largest and most important geographic floristic unit in California and extends from the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon to the northwestern portion of Baja California (Hickman 1993). The Sierra Nevada, one of six regions that make up the California Floristic Province, covers nearly 20% of the land in California yet contains over 50% of its flora. Within the Sierra Nevada, the southern Sierra supports more Sierran endemic and rare plant taxa than the central and northern portions of the region (Shevock 1996). Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI) encompass roughly 20% of the southern Sierra Nevada region. The parks overlap three floristic subregions (central Sierra Nevada High, southern Sierra Nevada High, and southern Sierra Nevada Foothills), and border the Great Basin Floristic Province. The parks support a rich and diverse vascular flora composed of over 1,560 taxa. Of these, 150 taxa are identified as having special status. The term special status is applied here to include taxa that are state or federally listed, rare in California, or at risk because they have a limited distribution. Only one species from these parks is listed under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts ( Carex tompkinsii , Tompkins‘ sedge, is listed as a rare species under the California Endangered Species Act), and one species is under review for federal endangered listing ( Pinus albicaulis , whitebark pine). However, an absence of threatened and endangered species recognized by Endangered Species Acts is not equivalent to an absence of species at risk. There are 83 plant taxa documented as occurring in SEKI that are considered imperiled or vulnerable in the state by the California Department of Fish and Game‘s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2010a). There are an additional 66 taxa not formally listed by CNDDB that are recognized as having special status because their distribution is restricted to the Sierra Nevada. Special status plants are distributed throughout the two parks and inhabit a wide range of environments along the length of the elevation gradient that characterizes these parks. Ideally, we would assess the condition (status and trends) of each of the taxa on the SEKI special status plant list, documenting current population sizes, demographic rates and demographic trends. We would also hope to quantify the effects of individual stressors on each species based on existing monitoring and research. However, no data are available for most of the species on the special status plant list. For those few species (12 herbaceous species and two tree species) for which we possess some change over time information, the data are not adequate to make a competent assessment. Note that we have not explored the tree demographic information in any detail, as is covered in the NRCA Intact Forest/Five Needle Pines and Sequoia chapters. In general, we are unable to present an ‗integrity‘ metric for special status species in the parks, since the data to quantify the condition of each species in such a manner is not available. In contrast, the park does possess substantial data describing biodiversity in the parks. Therefore, our analysis focuses on describing the distribution and rarity of special status plants within the parks, with a particular focus on assessing the spatial distribution of species richness. We hope that such information will prove useful to park managers in determining which areas in the parks merit the most attention (for example in developing monitoring protocols). We also assess potential vulnerability of special status species to the stressors chosen by the NRCA working group, using both park data and available literature. As a first step, we spent considerable effort updating and refining the criteria for the special status plant list, as this list defines which taxa are considered in our assessment. Observation data of these species was then compiled from all known sources in order to provide a comprehensive view of where special status plants have been documented and, ultimately, to enable the most informed determinations of areas in the parks that potentially support the highest number of rare and endemic taxa. These ‗hot spot‘ analyses are presented by geographic region, vegetation type and elevation. For these and other analyses presented in this report, we place more focus on summarizing findings for the herbaceous and shrub special status taxa than on special status trees. The trees which qualify as special status are the focus of other NRCA chapters, including Giant Sequoia and Intact Forests/Five-needle Pines. We do, however, present their mapped distributions and provide overviews of research related to the special status tree taxa in the Stressors section of this report.

California↗

USGS2007

Natural gases in ground water near Tioga Junction, Tioga County, north-central Pennsylvania: Occurrence and use of isotopes to determine origins, 2005

In January 2001, State oil and gas inspectors noted bubbles of natural gas in well water during a complaint investigation near Tioga Junction, Tioga County, north-central Pa. By 2004, the gas occurrence in ground water and accumulation in homes was a safety concern; inspectors were taking action to plug abandoned gas wells and collect gas samples. The origins of the natural-gas problems in ground water were investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, in wells throughout an area of about 50 mi2, using compositional and isotopic characteristics of methane and ethane in gas and water wells. This report presents the results for gas-well and water-well samples collected from October 2004 to September 2005. Ground water for rural-domestic supply and other uses near Tioga Junction is from two aquifer systems in and adjacent to the Tioga River valley. An unconsolidated aquifer of outwash sand and gravel of Quaternary age underlies the main river valley and extends into the valleys of tributaries. Fine-grained lacustrine sediments separate shallow and deep water-bearing zones of the outwash. Outwash-aquifer wells are seldom deeper than 100 ft. The river-valley sediments and uplands adjacent to the valley are underlain by a fractured-bedrock aquifer in siliciclastic rocks of Paleozoic age. Most bedrock-aquifer wells produce water from the Lock Haven Formation at depths of 250 ft or less. A review of previous geologic investigations was used to establish the structural framework and identify four plausible origins for natural gas. The Sabinsville Anticline, trending southwest to northeast, is the major structural feature in the Devonian bedrock. The anticline, a structural trap for a reservoir of deep native gas in the Oriskany Sandstone (Devonian) (origin 1) at depths of about 3,900 ft, was explored and tapped by numerous wells from 1930-60. The gas reservoir in the vicinity of Tioga Junction, depleted of native gas, was converted to the Tioga gas-storage field for injection and withdrawal of non-native gases (origin 2). Devonian shale gas (shallow native gas) also has been reported in the area (origin 3). Gas might also originate from microbial degradation of buried organic material in the outwash deposits (origin 4). An inventory of combustible-gas concentrations in headspaces of water samples from 91 wells showed 49 wells had water containing combustible gases at volume fractions of 0.1 percent or more. Well depth was a factor in the observed occurrence of combustible gas for the 62 bedrock wells inventoried. As well-depth range increased from less than 50 ft to 51-150 ft to greater than 151 ft, the percentage of bedrock-aquifer wells with combustible gas increased. Wells with high concentrations of combustible gas occurred in clusters; the largest cluster was near the eastern boundary of the gas-storage field. A subsequent detailed gas-sampling effort focused on 39 water wells with the highest concentrations of combustible gas (12 representing the outwash aquifer and 27 from the bedrock aquifer) and 8 selected gas wells. Three wells producing native gas from the Oriskany Sandstone and five wells (two observation wells and three injection/withdrawal wells) with non-native gas from the gas-storage field were sampled twice. Chemical composition, stable carbon and hydrogen isotopes of methane (13CCH4 and DCH4), and stable carbon isotopes of ethane (13CC2H6) were analyzed. No samples could be collected to document the composition of microbial gas originating in the outwash deposits (outwash or 'drift' gas) or of native natural gas originating solely in Devonian shale at depths shallower than the Oriskany Sandstone, although two of the storage-field observation wells sampled reportedly yielded some Devonian shale gas. Literature values for outwash or 'drift' gas and Devonian shale gases were used to supplement the data collection. Non-native gases fr

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2021

Riverscape approaches in practice: Perspectives and applications

Landscape perspectives in riverine ecology have been undertaken increasingly in the last 30 years, leading aquatic ecologists to develop a diverse set of approaches for conceptualizing, mapping and understanding ‘riverscapes’. Spatiotemporally explicit perspectives of rivers and their biota nested within the socio-ecological landscape now provide guiding principles and approaches in inland fisheries and watershed management. During the last two decades, scientific literature on riverscapes has increased rapidly, indicating that the term and associated approaches are serving an important purpose in freshwater science and management. We trace the origins and theoretical foundations of riverscape perspectives and approaches and examine trends in the published literature to assess the state of the science and demonstrate how they are being applied to address recent challenges in the management of riverine ecosystems. We focus on approaches for studying and visualizing rivers and streams with remote sensing, modelling and sampling designs that enable pattern detection as seen from above (e.g. river channel, floodplain, and riparian areas) but also into the water itself (e.g. aquatic organisms and the aqueous environment). Key concepts from landscape ecology that are central to riverscape approaches are heterogeneity, scale (resolution, extent and scope) and connectivity (structural and functional), which underpin spatial and temporal aspects of study design, data collection and analysis. Mapping of physical and biological characteristics of rivers and floodplains with high-resolution, spatially intensive techniques improves understanding of the causes and ecological consequences of spatial patterns at multiple scales. This information is crucial for managing river ecosystems, especially for the successful implementation of conservation, restoration and monitoring programs. Recent advances in remote sensing, field-sampling approaches and geospatial technology are making it increasingly feasible to collect high-resolution data over larger scales in space and time. We highlight challenges and opportunities and discuss future avenues of research with emerging tools that can potentially help to overcome obstacles to collecting, analysing and displaying these data. This synthesis is intended to help researchers and resource managers understand and apply these concepts and approaches to address real-world problems in freshwater management.

Biological Reviews↗

USGS1982

Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency: Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee

In December 1967, Bulletin No. 15, "A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies," was issued by the Hydrology Committee of the Water Resources Council. The report recommended use of the Pearson Type III distribution with log transformation of the data (log-Pearson Type III distribution) as a base method for flood flow frequency studies. As pointed out in that report, further studies were needed covering various aspects of flow frequency determinations. In March 1976, Bulletin 17, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency" was issued by the Water Resources Council. The guide was an extension and update of Bulletin No. 15. It provided a more complete guide for flood flow frequency analysis incorporating currently accepted technical methods with sufficient detail to promote uniform application. It was limited to defining flood potentials in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability at locations where a systematic record of peak flood flows is available. The recommended set of procedures was selected from those used or described in the literature prior to 1976, based on studies conducted for this purpose at the Center for Research in Water Resources of the University of Texas at Austin (summarized in Appendix 14) and on studies by the Work Group on Flood Flow Frequency. The "Guidelines" were revised and reissued in June 1977 as Bulletin 17A. Bulletin 17B is the latest effort to improve and expand upon the earlier publications. Bulletin 17B provides revised procedures for weighting a station skew value with the results from a generalized skew study, detecting and treating outliers, making two station comparisons, and computing confidence limits about a frequency curve. The Work Group that prepared this revision did not address the suitability of the original distribution or the generalized skew map. Major problems are encountered when developing guides for flood flow frequency determinations. There is no procedure or set of procedures that can be adopted which, when rigidly applied to the available data, will accurately define the flood potential of any given watershed. Statistical analysis alone will not resolve all flood frequency problems. As discussed in subsequent sections of this guide, elements of risk and uncertainty are inherent in any flood frequency analysis. User decisions must be based on properly applied procedures and proper interpretation of results considering risk and uncertainty. Therefore, the judgment of a professional experienced in hydrologic analysis will enhance the usefulness of a flood frequency analysis and promote appropriate application. It is possible to standarize many elements of flood frequency analysis. This guide describes each major element of the process of defining the flood potential at a specific location in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability. Use is confined to stations where available records are adequate to warrant statistical analysis of the data. Special situations may require other approaches. In those cases where the procedures of this guide are not followed, deviations must be supported by appropriate study and accompanied by a comparison of results using the recommended procedures. As a further means of achieving consistency and improving results, the Work Group recommends that studies be coordinated when more than one analyst is working currently on data for the same location. This recommendation holds particularly when defining exceedance probabilities for rare events, where this guide allows more latitude. Flood records are limited. As more years of record become available at each location, the determination of flood potential may change. Thus, an estimate may be outdated a few years after it is made. Additional flood data alone may be sufficient reason for a fresh assessment of the flood potential. When making a new assessment, the analyst should incorporate in his study a review of earlier estimates. Where differences appear, they should be acknowledged and explained.

Bulletin↗

USGS2017

A suite of standard post-tagging evaluation metrics can help assess tag retention for field-based fish telemetry research

Telemetry can inform many scientific and research questions if a context exists for integrating individual studies into the larger body of literature. Creating cumulative distributions of post-tagging evaluation metrics would allow individual researchers to relate their telemetry data to other studies. Widespread reporting of standard metrics is a precursor to the calculation of benchmarks for these distributions (e.g., mean, SD, 95% CI). Here we illustrate five types of standard post-tagging evaluation metrics using acoustically tagged Blue Catfish ( Ictalurus furcatus ) released into a Kansas reservoir. These metrics included: (1) percent of tagged fish detected overall, (2) percent of tagged fish detected daily using abacus plot data, (3) average number of (and percent of available) receiver sites visited, (4) date of last movement between receiver sites (and percent of tagged fish moving during that time period), and (5) number (and percent) of fish that egressed through exit gates. These metrics were calculated for one to three time periods: early (<10 d), during (weekly), and at the end of the study (5 months). Over three-quarters of our tagged fish were detected early (85%) and at the end (85%) of the study. Using abacus plot data, all tagged fish (100%) were detected at least one day and 96% were detected for > 5 days early in the study. On average, tagged Blue Catfish visited 9 (50%) and 13 (72%) of 18 within-reservoir receivers early and at the end of the study, respectively. At the end of the study, 73% of all tagged fish were detected moving between receivers. Creating statistical benchmarks for individual metrics can provide useful reference points. In addition, combining multiple metrics can inform ecology and research design. Consequently, individual researchers and the field of telemetry research can benefit from widespread, detailed, and standard reporting of post-tagging detection metrics.

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries↗

USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2015

Crocodylus acutus (American Crocodile). Long distance juvenile movement

Crocodylus acutus (American Crocodile) is the most widely distributed New World crocodilian species with its range extending from Peru in the south to the southern tip of peninsular Florida in the north. Crocodylus acutus occupies primarily coastal brackish water habitat, however it also occurs in freshwater to hypersaline habitats (Thorbjarnarson 2010. In Crocodiles. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. [Third Edition], American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus, pp. 46–53 S.C. Manolis and C. Stevenson. Crocodile Specialist Group, Darwin). There is limited literature on long distance movements of juvenile crocodilians worldwide and no literature on juvenile crocodiles in Florida. However, adult C. acutus in Florida have been documented to make seasonal movements of 5–15 km from preferred foraging habitat to nesting beaches (Mazzotti 1983. The Ecology of Crocodylus acutus in Florida. PhD Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 161pp), and one adult was documented making a 35 km trip from her nest site to preferred foraging habitat (Cherkiss et. al. 2006. Herpetol. Rev. 38:72–73). Rodda (1984. Herpetologica 40:444–451) reported on juvenile C. acutus movement in Gatun Lake, Panama, and found that juveniles stayed within 1 km of their nest site for the first month. Movements of juvenile Crocodylus porosus (Saltwater Crocodile) in a river system in Northern Australia showed a maximum movement of 38.9 km from a known nest site, with the majority of the crocodiles staying within 15.6 km downstream to 6.8 km upstream (Webb and Messel 1978. Aust. Wildlife Res. 5:263–283). Juvenile movement of Crocodylus niloticus (Nile Crocodile) in Lake Ngezi, Zimbabwe showed crocodiles restricted their movements from 1.0 km up to 4.5 km through the wet and dry seasons (Hutton 1989. Am. Zool. 29:1033–1049). Long distance movements of alligators were recorded for sizes ranging from 28 cm to 361 cm in a coastal refuge in Louisiana, where the distance traveled ranged from 0.3 km to 90.2 km. The data showed that the smaller alligators moved greater distance than larger ones (Lance et al. 2011. Southeast Nat. 10:389–398). An ongoing 30 year mark and recapture study for Crocodylus acutus in Florida allowed us to look at long distance movement (>30 km) of juveniles (30km). Initial and most recent captures as a juvenile were used to analyze distances moved (Fig. 1). These distances were measured linearly between capture locations. Maximum linear distances of 76.3 km and 69.6 km were recorded for animals 4838 and 6662. All crocodiles moved from nesting habitat through potentially optimal nursery habitat prior to reaching their recapture locations. These juvenile long distance movements could be due to larger crocodiles facilitating their dispersal from the nest location (Lance et al. 2011. op. cit.). These data (Table 1.) support that there is exchange of individuals among the nesting colonies and our ongoing efforts to monitor this threatened species allow us to make observations of how juvenile crocodiles are moving throughout the landscape in an ecosystem currently undergoing restoration.

Herpetological Review↗

USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2007

Scale-dependent approaches to modeling spatial epidemiology of chronic wasting disease.

This e-book is the product of a second workshop that was funded and promoted by the United States Geological Survey to enhance cooperation between states for the management of chronic wasting disease (CWD). The first workshop addressed issues surrounding the statistical design and collection of surveillance data for CWD. The second workshop, from which this document arose, followed logically from the first workshop and focused on appropriate methods for analysis, interpretation, and use of CWD surveillance and related epidemiology data. Consequently, the emphasis of this e-book is on modeling approaches to describe and gain insight of the spatial epidemiology of CWD. We designed this e-book for wildlife managers and biologists who are responsible for the surveillance of CWD in their state or agency. We chose spatial methods that are popular or common in the spatial epidemiology literature and evaluated them for their relevance to modeling CWD. Our opinion of the usefulness and relevance of each method was based on the type of field data commonly collected as part of CWD surveillance programs and what we know about CWD biology, ecology, and epidemiology. Specifically, we expected the field data to consist primarily of the infection status of a harvested or culled sample along with its date of collection (not date of infection), location, and demographic status. We evaluated methods in light of the fact that CWD does not appear to spread rapidly through wild populations, relative to more highly contagious viruses, and can be spread directly from animal to animal or indirectly through environmental contamination. We discovered that many of the wellpublished methods were developed for fast-spreading human diseases, such as influenza and measles. While these methods are applicable to fast spreading wildlife diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease or West Nile virus, many are not likely to work well for CWD. Only limited data exist to evaluate geographic and spatial spread because many locations where we find CWD tend to be locations where samples have just been taken or sample sizes have just become large enough to have a high probability of detecting a low prevalence. Consequently, methods that work well to describe or predict the spread of foot-and-mouth disease throughout England, which occurred within a year, do not work well for describing or predicting CWD spread. We did not exclude methods that we regarded as inappropriate; rather, we included methods that are commonly used for disease epidemiology and then discussed their applicability for modeling the spatial epidemiology of CWD. We hope including inappropriate methods with an explanation of why they are ill-suited for CWD will make it easier to drop them from consideration and explain to others why they were not recommended for spatial modeling of CWD. We organized the three chapters by scale and extent for which each method was developed or best suited. The first chapter covers methods appropriate to multi-jurisdictional or multi-state modeling, which we call “regional” scale. The second chapter covers methods appropriate for within state areas such as wildlife management units or metapopulations, which we call “landscape” scale. The third chapter covers methods appropriate for population or individual-based modeling, which we call “fine” scale. We know this rubric is somewhat artificial because many methods work at multiple scales. We hope, however, that this structure addresses some of the challenges faced by managers that work at local, regional, state, and national scales. Further, the resolution of empirical data often changes with spatial scale, which affects the utility of different modeling approaches. For example, individual-based models work best at modeling spread within populations, while risk analysis is most useful for summarizing data over larger scales such as a region. Because some methods are applicable at several scales, however, we included a graphic at the beginning of each method that indicates the range of scales for which it applies. For example, the graphic to the right indicates that the method is most applicable for regional-scale modeling. There is also a question of resolution as well as scale and extent for each method. CWD surveillance data have been collected over large areas, such as a wildlife management unit or state, but the resolution of the data may be fine scale with GPS locations for many samples. For each method, we described the required resolution of the data and describe the type of data required, as well as what questions the method could answer and how useful the method is, given typical CWD data. For each scale, we presented a focal approach that would be useful for understanding the spatial pattern and epidemiology of CWD, as well as being a useful tool for CWD management. The focal approaches include risk analysis and micromaps for the regional scale, cluster analysis for the landscape scale, and individual based modeling for the fine scale of within population. For each of these methods, we used simulated data and walked through the method step by step to fully illustrate the “how to”, with specifics about what is input and output, as well as what questions the method addresses. We also provided a summary table to, at a glance, describe the scale, questions that can be addressed, and general data required for each method described in this e-book. We hope that this review will be helpful to biologists and managers by increasing the utility of their surveillance data, and ultimately be useful for increasing our understanding of CWD and allowing wildlife biologists and managers to move beyond retroactive fire-fighting to proactive preventative action.

Book↗