SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Conservation and resource management.”

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.

At least 1,207 records · Page 67Linked to original sources

USGS2023

Using fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing in fisheries applications: An example from the Ozark Highlands

Studies of thermal selection by organisms, including fishes, are common and provide data that are useful for conservation and management. Advances in temperature sensing technology have improved these studies; however, the benefits of new technology (e.g., increased accuracy and greater deployment flexibility) should be carefully considered and compared to disadvantages (e.g., higher costs and training requirements). Fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing (FO-DTS) has become more common in aquatic applications and may provide a novel and useful method of relating thermal patchiness to habitat selection by fishes or other aquatic organisms. We present a case study using FO-DTS to conduct a microhabitat-scale resource selection study using stream fishes of the Ozark Highland ecoregion in the south-central United States. We describe the setup and deployment of FO-DTS and how it was integrated into traditional microhabitat survey methods at three stream sites that were repeatedly surveyed over consecutive days. We successfully used FO-DTS to characterize thermal selection by Neosho Bass Micropterus velox at our sites and conclude that the technology would be applicable to similar, microhabitat-scale evaluations. We then compare costs, benefits, and disadvantages of FO-DTS to other sensing methods that could have been used to complete our study. We found that FO-DTS provided accurate measures and greater coverage compared to most alternatives but that equipment costs were far greater. We provide suggestions for additional fisheries applications where FO-DTS may be useful while acknowledging that in some instances, the upfront costs of the technology may outweigh the potential benefits.

Fisheries Research↗

USGS2003

Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: Current knowledge and key questions

Understanding of the effects of wildland fire and fire management on aquatic and riparian ecosystems is an evolving field, with many questions still to be resolved. Limitations of current knowledge, and the certainty that fire management will continue, underscore the need to summarize available information. Integrating fire and fuels management with aquatic ecosystem conservation begins with recognizing that terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are linked and dynamic, and that fire can play a critical role in maintaining aquatic ecological diversity. To protect aquatic ecosystems we argue that it will be important to: (1) accommodate fire-related and other ecological processes that maintain aquatic habitats and biodiversity, and not simply control fires or fuels; (2) prioritize projects according to risks and opportunities for fire control and the protection of aquatic ecosystems; and (3) develop new consistency in the management and regulatory process. Ultimately, all natural resource management is uncertain; the role of science is to apply experimental design and hypothesis testing to management applications that affect fire and aquatic ecosystems. Policy-makers and the public will benefit from an expanded appreciation of fire ecology that enables them to implement watershed management projects as experiments with hypothesized outcomes, adequate controls, and replication.

Forest Ecology and Management↗

USGS2008

Understanding and predicting ecological dynamics: Are major surprises inevitable

Ecological surprises, substantial and unanticipated changes in the abundance of one or more species that result from previously unsuspected processes, are a common outcome of both experiments and observations in community and population ecology. Here, we give examples of such surprises along with the results of a survey of well-established field ecologists, most of whom have encountered one or more surprises over the course of their careers. Truly surprising results are common enough to require their consideration in any reasonable effort to characterize nature and manage natural resources. We classify surprises as dynamic-, pattern-, or intervention-based, and we speculate on the common processes that cause ecological systems to so often surprise us. A long-standing and still growing concern in the ecological literature is how best to make predictions of future population and community dynamics. Although most work on this subject involves statistical aspects of data analysis and modeling, the frequency and nature of ecological surprises imply that uncertainty cannot be easily tamed through improved analytical procedures, and that prudent management of both exploited and conserved communities will require precautionary and adaptive management approaches.

Ecology↗

USGS2011

Summary of the Georgia Agricultural Water Conservation and Metering Program and evaluation of methods used to collect and analyze irrigation data in the middle and lower Chattahoochee and Flint River basins, 2004-2010

Since receiving jurisdiction from the State Legislature in June 2003 to implement the Georgia Agricultural Water Conservation and Metering Program, the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (Commission) by year-end 2010 installed more than 10,000 annually read water meters and nearly 200 daily reporting, satellite-transmitted, telemetry sites on irrigation systems located primarily in southern Georgia. More than 3,000 annually reported meters and 50 telemetry sites were installed during 2010 alone. The Commission monitored rates and volumes of agricultural irrigation supplied by groundwater, surface-water, and well-to-pond sources to inform water managers on the patterns and amounts of such water use and to determine effective and efficient resource utilization. Summary analyses of 4 complete years of irrigation data collected from annually read water meters in the middle and lower Chattahoochee and Flint River basins during 2007-2010 indicated that groundwater-supplied fields received slightly more irrigation depth per acre than surface-water-supplied fields. Year 2007 yielded the largest disparity between irrigation depth supplied by groundwater and surface-water sources as farmers responded to severe-to-exceptional drought conditions with increased irrigation. Groundwater sources (wells and well-to-pond systems) outnumbered surface-water sources by a factor of five; each groundwater source applied a third more irrigation volume than surface water; and, total irrigation volume from groundwater exceeded that of surface water by a factor of 6.7. Metered irrigation volume indicated a pattern of low-to-high water use from northwest to southeast that could point to relations between agricultural water use, water-resource potential and availability, soil type, and crop patterns. Normalizing metered irrigation-volume data by factoring out irrigated acres allowed irrigation water use to be expressed as an irrigation depth and nearly eliminated the disparity between volumes of applied irrigation derived from groundwater and surface water. Analysis of per-acre irrigation depths provided a commonality for comparing irrigation practices across the entire range of field sizes in southern Georgia and indicated underreporting of irrigated acres for some systems. Well-to-pond systems supplied irrigation at depths similar to groundwater and can be combined with groundwater irrigation data for subsequent analyses. Average irrigation depths during 2010 indicated an increase from average irrigation depths during 2008 and 2009, most likely the result of relatively dry conditions during 2010 compared to conditions in 2008 and 2009. Geostatistical models facilitated estimation of irrigation water use for unmetered systems and demonstrated usefulness in redesigning the telemetry network. Geospatial analysis evaluated the ability of the telemetry network to represent annually reported water-meter data and presented an objective, unbiased method for revising the network.

Georgia↗

USGS2024

Greater sage-grouse habitat of Nevada and northeastern California—Integrating space use, habitat selection, and survival indices to guide areas for habitat management

Executive Summary Greater sage-grouse populations ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter sage-grouse) are threatened by a suite of disturbances and anthropogenic factors that have contributed to a net loss of sagebrush-dominant shrub cover in recent decades. Declines in sage-grouse populations are largely linked to habitat loss across their range. A key component of conservation and land use planning efforts for sage-grouse involves the continued monitoring and modeling of habitat requirements and suitability across its range. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is addressing the management of sage-grouse habitats on BLM-authorized public lands throughout the western United States through a land use planning amendment and associated environmental impact statement (86 FR 66331). More than 25 percent of the range-wide distribution of sage-grouse is within Nevada and northeastern California, and information on sage-grouse distribution and habitat requirements is important to guide appropriate management decisions. Therefore, the BLM has identified the need for updated spatially explicit information on sage-grouse habitat in Nevada and northeastern California to guide the land use planning amendment and associated management decisions. To address this need, researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, in close cooperation with multiple State and Federal resource agency partners, including BLM, Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), sought to map sage-grouse distribution and produce example habitat designations in these states. Herein, we report results of our primary study objective, which was to map sage-grouse habitat and create example habitat management areas, based on more than a decade of location and survival data collected from marked sage-grouse across the study region coupled with lek count survey data managed by the NDOW and the CDFW. We expanded on previously developed methodology to incorporate information on habitat selection and survival during reproductive life stages and specific seasons with updated sage-grouse location and known fate datasets, while also including brood-rearing areas that are understood to be threatened and important for population persistence. We combined predictive habitat map surfaces for each life stage and season with updated information on current occupancy patterns to classify habitat based on its suitability and probability of occupancy. We carried out additional steps to delineate specific example habitat management areas, specifically (1) incorporated corridors connecting key nesting and brood-rearing habitat, (2) corrected outputs for pre-wildfire habitat conditions within areas burned in the last 16 years, and (3) masked out areas of anthropogenic development. Our methodological example of deriving habitat management areas was intended to help inform decisions by BLM and other land managers regarding conservation and management of sage-grouse. Associated data products in the form of habitat maps provide updated, detailed, and comprehensive information about the status of habitats and can be useful to partner agencies in their efforts to designate and rank habitats for this species of high conservation concern in Nevada and California, with full recognition that on-the-ground field data and local sources of information and expertise should be used in conjunction with inferences from these models.

California, Idaho, Nevada↗

USGS2021

Uncertainty in critical source area predictions from watershed-scale hydrologic models

Watershed-scale hydrologic models are frequently used to inform conservation and restoration efforts by identifying critical source areas (CSAs; alternatively 'hotspots'), defined as areas that export relatively greater quantities of nutrients and sediment. The CSAs can then be prioritized or ‘targeted’ for conservation and restoration to ensure efficient use of limited resources. However, CSA simulations from watershed-scale hydrologic models may be uncertain and it is critical that the extent and implications of this uncertainty be conveyed to stakeholders and decision makers. We used an ensemble of four independently developed Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) models and a SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model to simulate CSA locations for flow, phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment within the ~17,000-km 2 Maumee River watershed at the HUC-12 scale. We then assessed uncertainty in CSA simulations determined as the variation in CSA locations across the models. Our application of an ensemble of models - differing with respect to inputs, structure, and parameterization - facilitated an improved accounting of CSA prediction uncertainty. We found that the models agreed on the location of a subset of CSAs, and that these locations may be targeted with relative confidence. However, models more often disagreed on CSA locations. On average, only 16%–46% of HUC-12 subwatersheds simulated as a CSA by one model were also simulated as a CSA by a different model. Our work shows that simulated CSA locations are highly uncertain and may vary substantially across models. Hence, while models may be useful in informing conservation and restoration planning, their application to identify CSA locations would benefit from comprehensive uncertainty analyses to avoid inefficient use of limited resources.

Ohio↗

USGS2026

Characterization and modeling approach for planning restoration strategies in a complex basin affected by acid mine drainage

The management of acid mine drainage (AMD) impacted catchments, such as the Odiel River basin, in southwestern Spain, prioritizes reclamation to meet water resources needs. Assessing water composition across its watercourses is needed to identify major AMD contributors and potentially guide remediation efforts. An equilibrium-based mixing model was developed to simulate AMD pollutant load reductions and estimate the impact of selective restorations on water quality in the Odiel River, particularly at the planned Alcolea Reservoir near its outlet. Sampling under varying flow conditions (average vs. high flow) showed a reduction in acidity transport (from 54.0 to 42.5 ton/day), attributed to greater neutralization effects during high flows. Over 90 % of metal-fluxes originate alone from the Riotinto (73.6 %), Tharsis (14.5 %), and San Telmo (5.00 %) mining districts, among many other mines. While geochemical model estimates fit well with observed data (R 2 = 0.99), some deviations in non-conservative constituents (i.e. pH, Fe and Al) were observed (R 2 = 0.73–0.99), likely due to uncertainties in solubility constants and redox/Fe speciation. After evaluating model reliability, two reduction scenarios (50 % and 100 %) were applied to the three primary sources. Full removal of contamination could subtantially improve impounded reservoir water quality, with pH values of 4.93 and 7.64, and a net acidity between 8.75 and 4.63 mg/L eq. CaCO 3 in both average and high flows, respectively. Such differences may be related to flow regime effects on water quality. However, a 50 % reduction is insufficient to meet drinking or irrigation standards, highlighting the need for full and appropriate reclamation. The model offers a management tool for decision-making in the restoration of the Odiel River basin and could be transferable to similar AMD-affected basins worldwide.

Odiel River basin, southwestern Spain↗

USGS2018

Extending the habitat concept to the airspace

Habitat is one of the most familiar and fundamental concepts in the fields of ecology, animal behavior, and wildlife conservation and management. Humans interact with habitats through their senses and experiences and education to such a degree that their perceptions of habitat have become second nature. For this reason, it may be difficult at first to accept the airspace as habitat, an area that is invisible, untouchable, highly dynamic, and its occupants difficult to see. Nonetheless, the habitat concept, by definition and in practice, applies readily to the airspace. Some ecological and behavioral processes including habitat selection, foraging, and reproduction are operational in the airspace, while others, particularly those mediated by resource limitation such as territoriality, are likely uncommon if present at all. The behaviors of flying animals increasingly expose them to anthropogenic hazards as development of the airspace accelerates. This exacerbates the need to identify approaches for managing these human–wildlife conflicts in aerial habitats, especially where human safety or at-risk populations are concerned. The habitat concept has proven useful in shaping environmental law and policy to help mitigate these conflicts. It remains to be seen whether current law can bend to include a more expansive concept of habitat that includes the airspace.

Book chapter↗

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↗

USGS2015

Collaborative decision-analytic framework to maximize resilience of tidal marshes to climate change

Decision makers that are responsible for stewardship of natural resources face many challenges, which are complicated by uncertainty about impacts from climate change, expanding human development, and intensifying land uses. A systematic process for evaluating the social and ecological risks, trade-offs, and cobenefits associated with future changes is critical to maximize resilience and conserve ecosystem services. This is particularly true in coastal areas where human populations and landscape conversion are increasing, and where intensifying storms and sea-level rise pose unprecedented threats to coastal ecosystems. We applied collaborative decision analysis with a diverse team of stakeholders who preserve, manage, or restore tidal marshes across the San Francisco Bay estuary, California, USA, as a case study. Specifically, we followed a structured decision-making approach, and we using expert judgment developed alternative management strategies to increase the capacity and adaptability to manage tidal marsh resilience while considering uncertainties through 2050. Because sea-level rise projections are relatively confident to 2050, we focused on uncertainties regarding intensity and frequency of storms and funding. Elicitation methods allowed us to make predictions in the absence of fully compatible models and to assess short- and long-term trade-offs. Specifically we addressed two questions. (1) Can collaborative decision analysis lead to consensus among a diverse set of decision makers responsible for environmental stewardship and faced with uncertainties about climate change, funding, and stakeholder values? (2) What is an optimal strategy for the conservation of tidal marshes, and what strategy is robust to the aforementioned uncertainties? We found that when taking this approach, consensus was reached among the stakeholders about the best management strategies to maintain tidal marsh integrity. A Bayesian decision network revealed that a strategy considering sea-level rise and storms explicitly in wetland restoration planning and designs was optimal, and it was robust to uncertainties about management effectiveness and budgets. We found that strategies that avoided explicitly accounting for future climate change had the lowest expected performance based on input from the team. Our decision-analytic framework is sufficiently general to offer an adaptable template, which can be modified for use in other areas that include a diverse and engaged stakeholder group.

California↗

USGS2019

Identifying characteristics of actionable science for drought planning and adaptation: Final report to the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center

Changing climate conditions can make water management planning and drought preparedness decisions more complicated than ever before. Resource managers can no longer rely solely on historical data and trends to base their actions, and are in need of science that is relevant to their specific needs and can directly inform important planning decisions. Questions remain, however, regarding the most effective and efficient methods for extending scientific knowledge and products into management and decision-making. This study analyzed two unique cases of water management to better understand how science can be translated into resource management actions and decision-making. In particular, this project sought to understand 1) the characteristics that make science actionable and useful for water resource management and drought preparedness, and 2) the ideal types of scientific knowledge or science products that facilitate the use of science in management and decision-making. The first case study focused on beaver mimicry, an emerging nature-based solution that increases the presence of wood and woody debris in rivers and streams to mimic the actions of beavers. This technique has been rapidly adopted by natural resource managers as a way to restore riparian areas, increase groundwater infiltration, and slow surface water flow so that more water is available later in the year during hotter and dryer months. The second case study focused on an established research program, Colorado Dust on Snow, that provides water managers with scientific information explaining how the movement of dust particles from the Colorado Plateau influences hydrology and the timing and intensity of snow melt and water runoff into critical water sources. This program has support from and is being used by several water conservation districts in the state. Understanding how scientific knowledge translates into action and decision-making in these cases is expected to strengthen our knowledge of actionable science in the context of drought and its impacts on ecosystems. The project team gathered qualitative data through stakeholder interviews and will conduct an extensive literature review. Findings from these efforts will also be incorporated into a broader Intermountain West synthesis effort to determine and assess commonalities and differences among socio-ecological aspects of drought adaptation and planning.

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,↗

USGS2025

Dusky grouse seasonal resource selection in the Great Basin isolated mountain ranges of Nevada, USA

Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus are a montane forest grouse species with a paucity of information regarding their temporal and spatial resource use during critical times of high mortality and reproductive output. This lack of vital data may leave dusky grouse at risk of sub-optimal management in many areas of their distribution, especially in the isolated ‘sky island' mountain ranges of the Great Basin, where high elevation habitats are surrounded by sagebrush and salt desert shrubland flats. Many of these high elevation habitats are being altered and lost rapidly from increasing disturbance events and effects of climate change. Our objective was to evaluate dusky grouse resource selection in the Schell Creek, Duck Creek, and Egan ranges of White Pine County, Nevada, USA, during breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and over winter to identify habitats of importance for concentrating conservation actions. We found that breeding male dusky grouse selected for aspen stands, nearness to water, and nearness to forest edges, while breeding female dusky grouse selected for mountain mahogany, aspen, and mountain shrub communities (i.e. sagebrush), and areas with high predicted probability of males. Nesting female dusky grouse selected for mountain shrub communities, intermediate elevation, low ruggedness, and high percent shrub cover. Brooding female dusky grouse selected for aspen and mountain shrub communities, nearness to water, high percent shrub cover, and intermediate elevation and ruggedness. Finally, wintering female dusky grouse selected for spruce–fir and pine conifer types, high elevation and ruggedness, and farther distances from forest edges, while selecting against high percent tree canopy cover. Our results suggest that dusky grouse presence may indicate aspen and conifer community health in the Great Basin mountain ranges. Conservation priority could be placed on these limited vegetation communities, especially given the slow regeneration and growth in the region due to the arid climate and xeric soils.

Nevada↗

USGS2011

Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of western Washington

The wildland-urban interface lies at the confluence of human-dominated and wild landscapes, creating a number of management and conservation challenges. Because wildlife ecology, behavior, and evolution at this interface are shaped by both natural and human phenomena, this requires greater understanding of how diverse factors affect ecosystem and population processes. We illustrate the challenge of understanding and managing a frequent and often undesired inhabitant of the wildland-urban landscape, the cougar (Puma concolor). In wildland and residential areas of western Washington State, USA, we captured and radiotracked 27 cougars to model space use and understand the role of landscape features in interactions (sightings, encounters, and depredations) between cougars and humans. Resource utilization functions (RUFs) identified cougar use of areas with features that were probably attractive to prey, influential on prey vulnerability, and associated with limited or no residential development. Early-successional forest (+), conifer forest (+), distance to road (-), residential density (-), and elevation (-) were significant positive and negative predictors of use for the population, whereas use of other landscape features was highly variable. Space use and movement rates in wildland and residential areas were similar because cougars used wildland-like forest patches, reserves, and corridors in residential portions of their home range. The population RUF was a good predictor of confirmed cougar interactions, with 72% of confirmed reports occurring in the 50% of the landscape predicted to be medium-high and high cougar use areas. We believe that there is a threshold residential density at which the level of development modifies the habitat but maintains enough wildland characteristics to encourage moderate levels of cougar use and maximize the probability of interaction. Wildlife managers trying to reduce interactions between cougars and people should incorporate information on spatial ecology and landscape characteristics to identify areas with the highest overlap of human and cougar use to focus management, education, and landscape planning. Resource utilization functions provide a proactive tool to guide these activities for improved coexistence with wildlife using both wildland and residential portions of the landscape. ??2011 by the Ecological Society of America.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2011

Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers

What is a Climate Science Center? On September 14, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior signed a Secretarial Order (No. 3289) entitled, "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources." The Order effectively established the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs), which will integrate DOI science and management expertise with similar contributions from our partners to provide information to support adaptation and mitigation efforts on both public and private lands, across the United States and internationally.The Southeast CSC, hosted by NC State University (NCSU), will collaborate with a number of other universities, State and Federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with interest and expertise in climate science. The primary partner for the Southeast CSC will be the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) in the Southeast, including the Appalachian, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks, Gulf Coast Prairie, Peninsular Florida, and the South Atlantic. CSC collaborations are focused on common science priorities, addressing priority partner needs, minimizing redundancies in science, sharing scientific findings, and expanding understanding of climate change impacts in the Southeast.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2015

Using Landsat imagery to detect, monitor, and project net landscape change

Detailed landscape information is a necessary component to bird habitat conservation planning. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center has been providing information on the Earth’s surface for over 40 years via the continuous series of Landsat satellites. In addition to operating, processing, and disseminating satellite images, EROS is the home to nationwide and global landscape mapping, monitoring, and projection products, including: National Land Cover Database (NLCD) – the definitive land cover dataset for the U.S., with updates occurring at five-year intervals; Global Land Cover Monitoring – producing 30m resolution global land cover; LANDFIRE – Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools–EROS is a partner in this joint program between U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior that produces consistent, comprehensive, geospatial data and databases that describe vegetation, wildland fuel, and fire regimes across the U.S.; Land Cover Trends – a landscape monitoring and assessment effort to understand the rates, trends, causes, and consequences of contemporary U.S. land use and land cover change; and Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) Modeling – a project extending contemporary databases of landscape change forward and backward in time through moderate-resolution land cover projections.

All Bird Bulletin↗

USGS2015

Habitats of North American sea ducks.

Breeding, molting, fall and spring staging, and wintering habitats of the sea duck tribe Mergini are described based on geographic locations and distribution in North America, geomorphology, vegetation and soil types, and fresh water and marine characteristics. The dynamics of habitats are discussed in light of natural and anthropogenic events that shape areas important to sea ducks. Strategies for sea duck habitat management are outlined and recommendations for international collaboration to preserve key terrestrial and aquatic habitats are advanced. We follow the definition of habitat advanced by Odum (1971), which is the place or space where an organism lives. Weller (1999) emphasized that habitats for waterbirds required presence of sufficient resources (i.e., food, water, cover, space) for maintenance during a portion of their annual cycle. Habitats exploited by North American sea ducks are diverse, widespread across the continent and adjacent marine waters and until recently, most were only superficially known. A 15-year-long effort funded research on sea duck habitats through the Sea Duck Joint Venture and the Endangered or Threatened Species programs of the United States and Canada. Nevertheless, important gaps remain in our understanding of key elements required by some species during various life stages. Many significant habitats, especially staging and wintering sites, have been and continue to be destroyed or altered by anthropogenic activities. The goal of this chapter is to develop a comprehensive summary of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats and their characteristics by considering sea duck species with similar needs as groups within the tribe Mergini. Additionally, we examine threats and changes to sea duck habitats from human-caused and natural events. Last, we evaluate conservation and management programs underway or available for maintenance and enhancement of habitats critical for sea ducks.

Book chapter↗

USGS2016

Analyses of historical and projected climates to support climate adaptation in the northern Rocky Mountains: Chapter 4

Most of the western United States is experiencing the effects of rapid and directional climate change (Garfin et al. 2013). These effects, along with forecasts of profound changes in the future, provide strong motivation for resource managers to learn about and prepare for future changes. Climate adaptation plans are based on an understanding of historic climate variation and their effects on ecosystems and on forecasts of future climate trends. Frameworks for climate adaptation thus universally identify the importance of a summary of historical, current, and projected climates (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011; Cross et al. 2013; Stein et al. 2014). Trends in physical climate variables are usually the basis for evaluating the exposure component in vulnerability assessments. Thus, this chapter focuses on step 2 of the Climate-Smart Conservation framework (chap. 2): vulnerability assessment. We present analyses of historical and current observations of temperature, precipitation, and other key climate measurements to provide context and a baseline for interpreting the ecological impacts of projected climate changes.

Rocky Mountains↗

USGS2018

Agriculture

Agricultural production is a fundamental activity conducted on 45% of the U.S. land area, 55% of Mexico’s land area, and 7% of Canada’s land area (World Bank 2016). Because of this vast spatial extent and the strong role that land management plays in how agricultural ecosystems function, agricultural lands and activities represent a large portion of the North American carbon budget. Accordingly, improved quantification of the agricultural carbon cycle, new trends in agriculture, and added opportunities for emissions reductions provide a critical foundation for considering the relationships between agriculture and carbon cycling at local, regional, continental, and global scales. More than 145 countries have specifically included agriculture in their targets and actions for mitigating climate change (FAO 2016), and agriculture has featured particularly prominently in recent target and action commitments made by developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Richards et al., 2015). Conversion of vast native forest and prairie to agriculture across North America between 1860 and 1960 resulted in carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes to the atmosphere from biota and soils that exceeded those from fossil fuel emissions over the same period (Houghton et al., 1983). Correspondingly, soil organic carbon (SOC) declined in many soils during the 50 years following conversion from native ecosystems to production agriculture (Huggins et al., 1998; Janzen et al., 1998; Slobodian et al., 2002). Crop yields and corresponding above- and belowground biomass have steadily increased since the 1930s due to genetic and management innovations, which provide more organic input from which to build SOC ( Johnson et al., 2006; Hatfield and Walthall 2015). This, coupled with improved input-use efficiencies may reduce GHG-emissions per unit yield (GHG intensity), with additional improvements possible through management optimization (Grassini and Cassman 2012; Pittelkow et al., 2015). Options include reducing tillage, integrating perennials onto the landscape, reducing or eliminating bare-fallow land (i.e., land without living plants), adding cover crops, and enrolling lands in conservation easement programs. These options, originally proposed to control erosion, have potential co-benefits in terms of increased soil health, plant productivity, and soil carbon stabilization (Lehman et al., 2015). Conversely, returning lands previously enrolled in conservation easements (e.g., the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] and other land set-aside efforts) to row-crop production, tillage, or aggressive harvesting of crop residues all risk degrading soil quality and exacerbating SOC loss. Of note is that the net results of land use and land management practices in an agricultural setting vary according to many factors, such as crop or production system type, soil type, climate, and the collection of practices at any given site. For example, many traditional practices followed by Indigenous people on tribal lands are based on an integrated approach to natural resource management and response to environmental change that may provide agricultural options uniquely suited to varied environmental settings (see Ch. 7: Tribal Lands, p. 303). Agricultural land in the United States totaled 408.2 million hectares (ha) in 2014, of which 251 million ha were in permanent meadows and pastures, 152.2 million ha were in arable land, and 2.6 million ha were in permanent crops (FAOSTAT 2016). Compared with the distribution in 2007, these numbers reflect a 4.7 million ha decline in total agricultural lands, driven by declines in arable land and permanent crops but partially offset by a modest increase in permanent meadows and pastures. Although arable lands have been declining, the combined acreage of the four major crops (corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton) has risen slightly, with increases in land planted in corn and soybeans and decreases in cotton and wheat (see Figure 5.1, p. 232). Despite the overall slight decline in agricultural land area, the value of U.S. agricultural production rose over the past decade as a result of increased production efficiency and higher prices (USDA 2017a; see also www.ers.usda.gov). Canada has about 65 million ha of agricultural land, of which about 46 million ha are arable, accounting for only about 7% of the country’s total land area (FAOSTAT 2017). Prominent crops on Canada’s arable lands include cereals (e.g., wheat, barley, and maize), oilseeds (e.g., canola and soybeans), and pulses (e.g., peas and lentils). Natural and seeded pastures available for grazing in Canada make up about 20 million ha (Legesse et al., 2016). Agricultural land in Mexico makes up 107 million ha, of which 23 million ha are arable land, 2.7 million ha are permanent crops, and 81 million ha are permanent meadows and pastures (FAOSTAT 2017). Mexico’s major crops are fruits, corn, grains, vegetables, and sugarcane.

Report↗