Geology topics

Don Faber-Langendoen

Publications and source records attributed to Don Faber-Langendoen.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

Quantifying the representation of plant communities in the protected areas of the U.S.: An analysis based on the U.S. National Vegetation Classification Groups

Plant communities represent the integration of ecological and biological processes and they serve as an important component for the protection of biological diversity. To measure progress towards protection of ecosystems in the United States for various stated conservation targets we need datasets at the appropriate thematic, spatial, and temporal resolution. The recent release of the LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Data Products (2016 Remap) with a legend based on U.S. National Vegetation Classification allowed us to assess the conservation status of plant communities of the U.S. The map legend is based on the Group level of the USNVC, which characterizes the regional differences in plant communities based on dominant and diagnostic plant species. By combining the Group level map with the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US Ver 2.1), we quantified the representation of each Group. If the mapped vegetation is assumed to be 100% accurate, using the Aichi Biodiversity target (17% land in protection by 2020) we found that 159 of the 265 natural Groups have less than 17% in GAP Status 1 & 2 lands and 216 of the 265 Groups fail to meet a 30% representation target. Only four of the twenty ecoregions have >17% of their extent in Status 1 & 2 lands. Sixteen ecoregions are dominated by Groups that are under-represented. Most ecoregions have many hectares of natural or ruderal vegetation that could contribute to future conservation efforts and this analysis helps identify specific targets and opportunities for conservation across the U.S.

Forests↗

USGS2021

Science needs of southeastern grassland species of conservation concern: A framework for species status assessments

The unglaciated southeastern United States is a biodiversity hotspot, with a disproportionate amount of this biodiversity concentrated in grasslands. Like most hotspots, the Southeast is also threatened by human activities, with the total reduction of southeastern grasslands estimated as 90 percent (upwards to 100 percent for some types) and with many threats escalating today. This report summarizes the results of a multistakeholder workshop organized by the Southeastern Grasslands Initiative and the U.S. Geological Survey, held in January 2020 to provide a scientific needs assessment to help inform the Species Status Assessment (SSA) process under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, with a focus on grassland species and communities of conservation concern in the southeastern United States. This report reviews the ecology of southeastern grasslands, including influences on their origin, maintenance, and high species richness and endemism; presents findings from the workshop; and discusses science questions, hypotheses, and possibilities for future research projects to help fill key knowledge gaps. Participants in the January 2020 workshop, representing diverse expertise in various topics in southeastern grassland ecology, were tasked with identifying major threats to grassland species in the Southeast as well as potential ways to make the SSA process more efficient and effective. An underlying assumption and starting place for workshop discussion was that an ecosystem-based approach to the SSA process is more cost-efficient than a species-by-species approach, in large part because many species with similar biological requirements can be addressed by the same actions. Nevertheless, one partner in this effort, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, does require specific attention be given to taxa that have been petitioned for Federal listing, though as often as possible these taxa are considered alongside a larger group of priority taxa with an ecosystem approach. For group discussions, workshop participants followed a modified “World Café” method, a structured conversational approach for knowledge sharing. Group discussions focused on five categories of threats to grassland communities and species: (1) habitat loss, fragmentation, and disruption of functional population connectivity; (2) climate change, especially changes in temperature and precipitation, including intensity and seasonality, and impacts on soil moisture, groundwater levels, and other ecosystem parameters; (3) changes to disturbance regimes, as influenced by climate and land-use change, extinctions, and human attitudes and behaviors; (4) invasive species (not limited to nonnative species); and (5) localized or subregional impacts such as sea-level rise. In addition to group discussions, workshop participants—as well as other grassland experts who were unable to attend the workshop—completed a preworkshop survey concerning challenges and opportunities for grassland conservation. Findings reported here under each of these topics represent ideas, problems, hypotheses, and questions identified by a diverse community of grassland managers and researchers which may be addressed by future research and monitoring in southeastern grassland ecosystems to help guide science-based conservation of grassland-dependent species.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Lou↗

USGS2018

Ecological resilience indicators for mangrove ecosystems

Mangrove ecosystems are coastal wetland ecosystems dominated by mangrove species that are typically found in the intertidal zone, characterized by frequently flooded saline soil conditions. The majority of the approximately 500,000 acres of mangrove ecosystem in the United States occurs in the NGoM, and almost all of that is in Florida, with over 90 percent in the four southern counties of Lee, Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe. Scattered stands and individuals occur north and westward into Louisiana and Texas (Osland et al., 2016). The three common mangrove species are: black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). The mangrove system described in this project includes Tidal Mangrove Shrubland and Tidal Mangrove Forest as classified in CMECS (FGDC, 2012). It is classified as Caribbean Fringe Mangrove (G004) in the USNVC (2016), with a variety of distinct associations, based on species dominance and ecological setting.

Book chapter↗

USGS2018

Ecological resilience indicators for salt marsh ecosystems

Salt marshes are coastal ecosystems within the intertidal zone, characterized by hypoxic, saline, soil conditions and low biodiversity. Low diversity arises from frequent disturbance and stressful conditions (i.e., high salinity and hypoxia), where vegetative reproduction and low competition result in mostly monotypic stands, with some differences in plant community influenced by flooding regime (described below). While there are several types of salt marshes in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGoM), ranging from low to high salt marshes and salt flats (Tiner, 2013), Spartina alterniflora–dominated salt marshes in the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) Low and Intermediate Salt Marsh Biotic Group (FGDC, 2012) are the most extensive and are the focus of this project. These salt marshes are classified as “Gulf Coast Cordgrass Salt Marsh” (CEGL004190; USNVC, 2016). Within the NGoM region, some salt marsh areas are dominated by other species such as Spartina patens and Juncus roemerianus, which both occupy higher elevations in high-precipitation zones (e.g., Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida). In lower precipitation regions (southern Texas), hypersaline conditions often develop yielding communities of succulent salt marsh plants (Batis and Salicornia spp.). In climatic zones with warmer winter temperatures, temperate salt marshes naturally transition to mangrove (generally in the southern Gulf of Mexico range) or, in areas with lower precipitation, to salt flats (generally in western part of the study area).

Gulf of Mexico↗

USGS2015

How a national vegetation classification can help ecological research and management

The elegance of classification lies in its ability to compile and systematize various terminological conventions and masses of information that are unattainable during typical research projects. Imagine a discipline without standards for collection, analysis, and interpretation; unfortunately, that describes much of 20th-century vegetation ecology. With differing methods, how do we assess community dynamics over decades, much less centuries? How do we compare plant communities from different areas? The need for a widely applied vegetation classification has long been clear. Now imagine a multi-decade effort to assimilate hundreds of disparate vegetation classifications into one common classification for the US. In this letter, we introduce the US National Vegetation Classification (USNVC; www.usnvc.org) as a powerful tool for research and conservation, analogous to the argument made by Schimel and Chadwick (2013) for soils. The USNVC provides a national framework to classify and describe vegetation; here we describe the USNVC and offer brief examples of its efficacy.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗

USGS2014

Getting the message across: using ecological integrity to communicate with resource managers

This chapter describes and illustrates how concepts of ecological integrity, thresholds, and reference conditions can be integrated into a research and monitoring framework for natural resource management. Ecological integrity has been defined as a measure of the composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem in relation to the system’s natural or historical range of variation, as well as perturbations caused by natural or anthropogenic agents of change. Using ecological integrity to communicate with managers requires five steps, often implemented iteratively: (1) document the scale of the project and the current conceptual understanding and reference conditions of the ecosystem, (2) select appropriate metrics representing integrity, (3) define externally verified assessment points (metric values that signify an ecological change or need for management action) for the metrics, (4) collect data and calculate metric scores, and (5) summarize the status of the ecosystem using a variety of reporting methods. While we present the steps linearly for conceptual clarity, actual implementation of this approach may require addressing the steps in a different order or revisiting steps (such as metric selection) multiple times as data are collected. Knowledge of relevant ecological thresholds is important when metrics are selected, because thresholds identify where small changes in an environmental driver produce large responses in the ecosystem. Metrics with thresholds at or just beyond the limits of a system’s range of natural variability can be excellent, since moving beyond the normal range produces a marked change in their values. Alternatively, metrics with thresholds within but near the edge of the range of natural variability can serve as harbingers of potential change. Identifying thresholds also contributes to decisions about selection of assessment points. In particular, if there is a significant resistance to perturbation in an ecosystem, with threshold behavior not occurring until well beyond the historical range of variation, this may provide a scientific basis for shifting an ecological assessment point beyond the historical range. We present two case studies using ongoing monitoring by the US National Park Service Vital Signs program that illustrate the use of an ecological integrity approach to communicate ecosystem status to resource managers. The Wetland Ecological Integrity in Rocky Mountain National Park case study uses an analytical approach that specifically incorporates threshold detection into the process of establishing assessment points. The Forest Ecological Integrity of Northeastern National Parks case study describes a method for reporting ecological integrity to resource managers and other decision makers. We believe our approach has the potential for wide applicability for natural resource management.

Book chapter↗

USGS2007

Field Guide to the Plant Community Types of Voyageurs National Park

INTRODUCTION The objective of the U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program is to classify, describe, and map vegetation for most of the park units within the National Park Service (NPS). The program was created in response to the NPS Natural Resources Inventory and Monitoring Guidelines issued in 1992. Products for each park include digital files of the vegetation map and field data, keys and descriptions to the plant communities, reports, metadata, map accuracy verification summaries, and aerial photographs. Interagency teams work in each park and, following standardized mapping and field sampling protocols, develop products and vegetation classification standards that document the various vegetation types found in a given park. The use of a standard national vegetation classification system and mapping protocol facilitate effective resource stewardship by ensuring compatibility and widespread use of the information throughout the NPS as well as by other Federal and state agencies. These vegetation classifications and maps and associated information support a wide variety of resource assessment, park management, and planning needs, and provide a structure for framing and answering critical scientific questions about plant communities and their relation to environmental processes across the landscape. This field guide is intended to make the classification accessible to park visitors and researchers at Voyageurs National Park, allowing them to identify any stand of natural vegetation and showing how the classification can be used in conjunction with the vegetation map (Hop and others, 2001).

Techniques and Methods↗