Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Applied Ecology and Environmental Research”

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

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

113 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2001

Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem

A primary focus of coastal science during the past 3 decades has been the question: How does anthropogenic nutrient enrichment cause change in the structure or function of nearshore coastal ecosystems? This theme of environmental science is recent, so our conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem continues to change rapidly. In this review, I suggest that the early (Phase I) conceptual model was strongly influenced by limnologists, who began intense study of lake eutrophication by the 1960s. The Phase I model emphasized changing nutrient input as a signal, and responses to that signal as increased phytoplankton biomass and primary production, decomposition of phytoplankton-derived organic matter, and enhanced depletion of oxygen from bottom waters. Coastal research in recent decades has identified key differences in the responses of lakes and coastal-estuarine ecosystems to nutrient enrichment. The contemporary (Phase II) conceptual model reflects those differences and includes explicit recognition of (1) system-specific attributes that act as a filter to modulate the responses to enrichment (leading to large differences among estuarine-coastal systems in their sensitivity to nutrient enrichment); and (2) a complex suite of direct and indirect responses including linked changes in: water transparency, distribution of vascular plants and biomass of macroalgae, sediment biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling, nutrient ratios and their regulation of phytoplankton community composition, frequency of toxic/harmful algal blooms, habitat quality for metazoans, reproduction/growth/survival of pelagic and benthic invertebrates, and subtle changes such as shifts in the seasonality of ecosystem functions. Each aspect of the Phase II model is illustrated here with examples from coastal ecosystems around the world. In the last section of this review I present one vision of the next (Phase III) stage in the evolution of our conceptual model, organized around 5 questions that will guide coastal science in the early 21st century: (1) How do system-specific attributes constrain or amplify the responses of coastal ecosystems to nutrient enrichment? (2) How does nutrient enrichment interact with other stressors (toxic contaminants, fishing harvest, aquaculture, nonindigenous species, habitat loss, climate change, hydrologic manipulations) to change coastal ecosystems? (3) How are responses to multiple stressors linked? (4) How does human-induced change in the coastal zone impact the Earth system as habitat for humanity and other species? (5) How can a deeper scientific understanding of the coastal eutrophication problem be applied to develop tools for building strategies at ecosystem restoration or rehabilitation?

Marine Ecology Progress Series↗
USGS1986

This week?s Citation Classic: 'Stickel, L. F. A comparison of certain methods of measuring ranges of small mammals. J. Mammalogy 35: 1-15, 1954.'

During my first employment as a junior biologist conducting food habits analyses at the Patuxent Research Refuge (now Patuxent Wildlife Research Center) of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the first station director, Arnold L. Nelson, gave each staff biologist the opportunity to spend a little time conducting field studies on the 2,600-acre research area. These studies were to help in ecological evaluation of the area, but also, no doubt, functioned as a morale builder for biologists daily engaged in difficult, demanding and confining laboratory work. I undertook to measure the population density of small mammals in different habitats. The state-of-the-art methods recommended to me and prevalent in the literature worried me, especially after preliminary field work. Reading the classic, paper by W.H. Burt [Terrioriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mammalogy 24:346-352, 1943] was a turning point for me in seeing that knowledge of home-range size was the key to measuring population density. My first papers employed these concepts in field evaluations. However, they could give-only limited attention to the question of how home ranges could be measured. Furthermore, the importance of knowledge of the home range to habitat evaluation and to understanding animal behavior was becoming increasingly apparent. Advocacy of many different methods of measuring home ranges appeared in the literature. It did not seem possible to evaluate them objectively. It occurred to me that artificial populations could be used to help in understanding the mechanisms of measuring home ranges. The effects of random trap-visiting, bias toward central traps, trap-spacing, range shape, and other factors could be considered. So grids of traps were inked onto oversize graph paper, and simulated ranges were cut from plastic to be tossed as randomly as possible on the trap-grids. It was a slow, laborious job. Analysis showed that random captures in artificial populations produced patterns that were similar in many ways to those observed in field studies; the necessity of appropriate trap-spacing in relation to range size became obvious. Some commonly used methods of expressing range size proved to be clearly superior to others. However, the artificial populations could not fully simulate actual populations, where use patterns changed as conditions changed and the ?boundaries? of ranges tended to shift continuously or with time. Progress was made, but problems remained. I suspect that the reasons the paper has been cited frequently rest on the continuing interest in home-range behavior and the continuing difficulty in field evaluations, despite the many advances in observational methodology. The sophisticated techniques that became possible with the use of computers [R.I. Jennrich and F.B. Turner. Measurement of non-circular home range. J. Theor. Biol 23:227-237, 1969] also presented new possibilities for analysis and understanding of home-range characteristics and created a resurgence of interest in home-range behavior and its biological significance.

Current Contents / Agriculture, Biology & Environm↗
USGS2021

Oyster model inventory: Identifying critical data and modeling approaches to support restoration of oyster reefs in coastal U.S. Gulf of Mexico waters

Executive Summary Along the coast of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, the eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) plays important ecological and economic roles. Commercial landings from this region account for more than 50 percent of all U.S. landings; these oyster reefs also provide varied ecosystem services, including nursery habitat for many fish and macroinvertebrate species, shoreline protection, and water-quality maintenance. Declining trends in both total oyster production and functional reef area across this region have spurred investment in restoration of oyster resources, with specific calls for restoration projects to develop a network of reefs and identify broodstock and sanctuary reef restoration sites. Decision making related to restoration and establishment of a network of oyster reefs in the Gulf of Mexico requires information on both the environment and the effects of the environment on the oyster life cycle (including larval movement, survival, oyster recruitment, reproduction, growth, and mortality). Here, we examined the current state of data and model development in this region with the goal of providing an overview of oyster modeling approaches and an inventory of available data and existing oyster models. This report is meant to provide an overview to managers for understanding existing efforts and identify a path forward to most efficiently inform oyster resource management and restoration planning in moving from a single reef management approach to a reef network management approach. Numerous models related to some aspect of the oyster life cycle have been built, calibrated, and validated for various Gulf of Mexico estuaries over the last few decades (over 30 models identified). These models, which could inform site restoration, can be classified into four approaches: (1) oyster Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models; (2) larval transport models; (3) on-reef oyster models that may include oyster growth, mortality and reproduction, and substrate persistence; and (4) coupled larval transport on-reef metapopulation models that simulate the entire oyster life cycle. The data requirements, model complexity and assumptions, and transferability vary by approach. Specifically, some approaches may offer greater accessibility, flexibility, and transferability spatially or temporally, with minimal data input, but only provide broad information to support site selection. In contrast, other approaches may require significant site-specific data for their construction and validation but may provide more accurate and location-specific data to support site selection for broodstock reefs. Regardless of modeling approach used, data on environmental drivers, such as salinity, water temperature, or water flow impacting oyster metabolism and movement, are required at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. While numerous data collection platforms, environmental models, and research products exist within Gulf of Mexico estuaries to provide important environmental data to use as drivers in the oyster models, significant variability in temporal and spatial coverage of the data, and variation in the availability of future condition models, exists across estuaries. This variation influences the spatial and temporal scales at which oyster models may be developed and impacts the calibration and validation of the oyster models within a given estuary, affecting its potential ability to address specific management or restoration questions. While multiple modeling approaches exist for informing site selection of broodstock or sanctuary oyster reefs, the development, calibration, and validation of a single modeling platform presents the most efficient, transferable, and useful tool for managers across the Gulf of Mexico. The development of a single modeling platform would involve using standardized input variables, governing equations, and assumptions for the modeled oyster processes and outputs, and for standardized calibration and validation procedures that could be applied within each estuary. The differences among estuary applications would require substituting only estuary-specific environmental data, and calibrating and validating the modeling approach with local oyster data. Two modeling approaches likely to be useful include (1) development of a general geospatial HSI modeling framework that could be applied consistently across estuaries and (2) a mechanistic coupled larval transport on-reef metapopulation model requiring only estuarine specific calibration and hydrodynamic models. Both approaches benefit from existing work across multiple Gulf of Mexico estuaries and could provide valuable support for oyster restoration, but may differ in their ability to address specific questions related to oyster restoration. HSI models specifically guide restoration practitioners in determining suitable habitat based on available data. The HSI approach, while currently more widely used and accessible, requires more development of larval suitability and larval input and output components in order to inform reef connectivity. A metapopulation approach considering the full oyster life cycle that simulates both on-reef oyster growth, mortality, reproduction, substrate persistence, and larval transport (ideally with larval growth and mortality) would provide the greatest detail and level of understanding but requires significant up-front investment. The larval oyster model and on-reef oyster model are usually developed independently for systems, although the two approaches can be coupled to represent the entire oyster life cycle in order to characterize and assess a reef metapopulation. This approach may be less accessible and much more data-intensive, however, and it requires some expertise to run and apply to inform oyster resource management. Ultimately, the development of single modeling platforms for each of these approaches would provide flexible tools applicable across all Gulf of Mexico oyster supporting estuaries. By using a single platform for model development, testing, calibrating and validating, and evaluation of modeled future scenarios, oyster restoration scientists and managers would not only be able to examine different scenario outcomes within a single estuary, but could also have comparable modeled results to evaluate potential outcomes, across estuaries and regions, that are not confounded by varying modeled data inputs, governing equations, assumptions, or user judgement.

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas↗
USGS2023

Multi-level thresholds of residential and agricultural land use for elk avoidance across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

1. Conversion of land for settlements and agriculture is increasing globally and can influence wildlife space use. However, there is limited research to identify the thresholds of land-use change that incur wildlife avoidance and how these thresh-olds might vary across levels of selection. 2. We evaluated multi-level avoidance thresholds of elk Cervus canadensis impacted by residential development and irrigated agriculture across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Using GPS data from765 elk in 21 herds, we estimated habitat selection in relation to development and agriculture at three levels (home range selection, within home range selection and movement path selection). Next, using individual selection covariates and as-sociated measures of land-use availability, we used functional-response models to evaluate how selection varied based on availability, and in turn, to estimate avoidance thresholds. 3. We found individual and level-specific variation in elk responses to environmental factors. Elk exhibited stronger responses (either selection or avoidance) when selecting home range locations (i.e. second-order selection) than when selecting areas within home ranges (i.e. third-order selection) or selecting movement paths (i.e. fourth-order selection). Importantly, elk avoidance of development and agriculture changed as the amount of land in these categories changed. Across all levels of selection elk exhibited neutral selection for human development at low levels of availability (<1.1%–2.2% developed) but avoided areas that were >1.1%–2.2% developed. Conversely, elk selected positively for irrigated agriculture at low to moderate levels of availability (<52.0%–66.2% agriculture) but exhibited neutral selection in areas that were >52.0%–66.2% agriculture. 4. Synthesis and applications . Elk avoidance of low levels of human development suggests conservation efforts such as restrictions on future development or conservation easements could focus on areas that are still below 2% developed. Additionally, because elk selection was strongest at the landscape scale, conservation actions that are based on information about the overall landscape structure may be most impactful. Our results highlight the importance of under-standing variability in wildlife habitat selection at multiple levels, particularly in relation to land-use change, and highlight how functional response modelling can help inform landscape conservation.

Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2010

Grassland birds wintering at U.S. Navy facilities in southern Texas

Grassland birds have undergone widespread decline throughout North America during the past several decades. Causes of this decline include habitat loss and fragmentation because of conversion of grasslands to cropland, afforestation in the East, brush and shrub invasion in the Southwest and western United States, and planting of exotic grass species to enhance forage production. A large number of exotic plant species, including grasses, have been introduced in North America, but most research on the effects of these invasions on birds has been limited to breeding birds, primarily those in northern latitudes. Research on the effects of exotic grasses on birds in winter has been extremely limited. This is the first study in southern Texas to examine and compare winter bird responses to native and exotic grasslands. This study was conducted during a period of six years (2003–2009) on United States Navy facilities in southern Texas including Naval Air Station–Corpus Christi, Naval Air Station–Kingsville, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Waldron, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Orange Grove, and Escondido Ranch, all of which contained examples of native grasslands, exotic grasslands, or both. Data from native and exotic grasslands were collected and compared for bird abundance and diversity; ground cover, vegetation density, and floristic diversity; bird and vegetation relationships; diversity of insects and arachnids; and seed abundance and diversity. Effects of management treatments in exotic grasslands were evaluated by comparing numbers and diversity of birds and small mammals in mowed, burned, and control areas. To determine bird abundance and bird species richness, birds were surveyed monthly (December–February) during the winters of 2003–2008 in transects (100 meter × 20 meter) located in native and exotic grasslands distributed at all five U.S. Navy facilities. To compare vegetation in native and exotic grasslands, vegetation characteristics were measured during 2003–2008 in the same transects used for bird surveys and included five measures of ground cover, plus estimates of plant species richness, vegetation density (visual obstruction) at two different heights, and shrub numbers. These data, plus seasonal rainfall, were then used to evaluate components of variation in native and exotic grasslands. Relations between total bird numbers and bird species richness with environmental variation in native and exotic grasslands were compared. To compare diversity of arthropods in native and exotic grasslands, insects and arachnids were collected using three different methodologies (standardized sweep-net, random sweep-net, and pitfall traps) during four seasons, (2005–2006), at Naval Air Station–Corpus Christi, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Waldron, and Naval Air Station–Kingsville. To compare seed abundance and diversity between native and exotic grasslands, seeds were collected for two winters (2004–2006) at Naval Air Station–Corpus Christi and Naval Air Station–Kingsville. To evaluate effects of management on grassland vertebrates, abundance and diversity of birds and small mammals were estimated and compared in exotic grasses subjected to mowing, burning, or no active management (control) for one full year (2008–2009). Observations were made of 1,044 birds of 30 species in grassland transects during five winters. The Savannah Sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis ) was the most common bird, which, with 644 detections, accounted for 63 percent of all individuals identified to species. Meadowlarks ( Sturnella spp. ) and Le Conte’s Sparrows ( Ammodramus leconteii ) were the second (10 percent) and third (7 percent) most abundant bird species, respectively. Six of the seven most abundant species detected in grasslands were grassland species, and their numbers accounted for 87 percent of all birds, but 20 of the 30 species (67 percent) that used grasslands were not grassland species. Seven species observed in grassland transects during the study were Species of Conservation Concern: Le Conte’s Sparrow, Sedge Wren ( Cistothorus platensis ), Grasshopper Sparrow ( Ammodramus savannarum ), Long-billed Curlew ( Numenius americanus ), Sprague’s Pipit ( Anthus spragueii ), Cassin’s Sparrow ( Aimophila cassinii ), and Loggerhead Shrike ( Lanius ludovicianus ). Native grasslands consistently supported greater bird species richness than exotic grasslands. In one winter, exotic grasslands supported more birds than native grasslands. Native grasslands were determined to have more forb cover, more bare ground, and greater plant species richness than exotic grasslands, whereas exotic grasslands were characterized by more grass cover and relatively greater vegetation density during dry years. Not only did these individual measures differ between native and exotic grasslands, but components of variation also differed. In native grasslands, grass density and cover contributed more to variation, whereas in exotic grasslands, non-grass vegetation was a greater component of variation. Total bird numbers and bird species richness in native grasslands were related to the principal component that contained a measure of litter cover. Total bird numbers and bird species richness in exotic grasslands indicated no significant relationships with any of the principal components of variation. The two most common insect orders in native grasslands were Hymenoptera and Coleoptera, which accounted for 42 percent of all insects. The two most common insect orders in exotic grasslands were Hemiptera and Homoptera, which accounted for about 80 percent of all insects. Insect family richness was greater in exotic grasslands than in native grasslands in two of four seasons. Proportions of arachnid families were similar in native and exotic grasslands, but arachnid family richness was greater in exotic grasslands than in native grasslands. Abundance of seeds was greater in exotic than in native grasslands. However, seed diversity was greater in native grasslands than in exotic grasslands. Among the three types of management (mowed, burned, and control) applied to exotic grasses, birds were most abundant in the mowed area. Sedge Wrens, however, were never encountered in mowed sites. Meadowlarks were similarly abundant in all treatments, but Le Conte’s Sparrows were detected only in the control (unmanaged) area. Hispid cotton rats ( Sigmodon hispidus ) accounted for 93 percent of all rodent captures, with the number of captures peaking December through February. Hispid cotton rat numbers and total rodent numbers were greatest in control and pre-burn areas, and lowest in the mowed area. Mammal diversity, however, was greatest in the mowed habitat. Native and exotic grasslands differed essentially in all categories (bird numbers and diversity, vegetation characteristics, components of variation, diversity of insects and arachnids, and seed abundance and diversity) used to measure and compare them. This indicates that fundamental ecosystem processes have been altered after native grasslands have undergone invasion and ultimate domination by exotic grass species. Future research in Texas grassland ecosystems is essential because: 1) Texas sustains more area in grasslands than any other state or province in the Central Flyway; 2) Texas serves as the winter destination or migration pathway for hundreds of species of birds, including winter residents and Neotropical migrants; 3) ecology, distribution, and numbers of grassland birds wintering in southern latitudes of the United States remains poorly understood; and 4) climate change threatens to further accelerate advances of invading grass species.

Open-File Report↗