USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Nicholas Wolff

Publications and source records attributed to Nicholas Wolff.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2024

Potential 2050 distributions of World Terrestrial Ecosystems from projections of changes in World Climate Regions and Global Land Cover

The urgency to address ecosystem loss is paramount, as both land use change and climate change will continue to rapidly alter and degrade natural ecosystems and reduce the many services they provide. To support conservation actions that mitigate impacts from these dual threats, we have developed potential World Terrestrial Ecosystem (WTE) distributions for 2050 following IPCC best practice guidelines. This projection of ecosystem distributions builds on the previously released 2015 WTEs, a snapshot of the distribution and conservation status of 431 terrestrial ecosystem types defined as distinct combinations of 18 global climate regions, 4 global landform classes, and 8 global vegetation/land cover classes. Extending that work herein, we modeled the potential 2050 WTE distributions based on projections of five CMIP6 general circulation models (GCMs) and one global land cover change model, determined for three shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenarios. The climate region modeling included projections for 2050 for both mean annual temperature and mean annual aridity. Model agreement for changes to WTEs was generally high, particularly for temperature projections. Widespread changes in ecosystem classes due to shifts in climate settings and/or land cover between 2015 and 2050 were projected, with both the magnitude and specific geography of projected change largely governed by the SSP scenario. For the three SSP scenarios (sustainable development, regional rivalry, and fossil-fueled development), geographic changes in climate setting (temperature, aridity, or both) and/or changes in vegetation/land cover are projected for 29 %, 36 %, and 39 % of Earth’s terrestrial surface, respectively. These changes occur in areas where 31 %, 36 %, and 41 % of the global population lives. Projected changes in ecosystem distributions related to temperature change are approximately an order of magnitude greater than for aridity change. By offering insight into potential ecosystem changes, this new resource is intended to facilitate conservation planning and priority setting aimed at improved conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Global Ecology and Conservation↗
USGS2020

An assessment of the representation of ecosystems in global protected areas using new maps of World Climate Regions and World Ecosystems

Representation of ecosystems in protected area networks and conservation strategies is a core principle of global conservation priority setting approaches and a commitment in Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly call for the conservation of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Accurate ecosystem distribution maps are required to assess representation of ecosystems in protected areas, but standardized, high spatial resolution, and globally comprehensive ecosystem maps have heretofore been lacking. While macroscale global ecoregions maps have been used in global conservation priority setting exercises, they do not identify distinct localized ecosystems at the occurrence (patch) level, and instead describe large ecologically meaningful areas within which additional conservation planning and management are necessary. We describe a new set of maps of globally consistent climate regions and ecosystems at a much finer spatial resolution (250 m) than existing ecological regionalizations. We then describe a global gap analysis of the representation of these ecosystems in protected areas. The new map of terrestrial World Ecosystems was derived from the objective development and integration of 1) global temperature domains, 2) global moisture domains, 3) global landforms, and 4) 2015 global vegetation and land use. These new terrestrial World Ecosystems do not include either freshwater or marine ecosystems, but analog products for the freshwater and marine domains are in development. A total of 431 World Ecosystems were identified, and of these a total of 278 units were natural or semi-natural vegetation/environment combinations, including different kinds of forestlands, shrublands, grasslands, bare areas, and ice/snow regions. The remaining classes were different kinds of croplands and settlements. Of the 278 natural and semi-natural classes, 9 were not represented in global protected areas with a strict biodiversity conservation management objective (IUCN management categories I-IV), and an additional 206 were less than 8.5% protected (half way to the 17% Aichi Target 11 goal). Forty four classes were between 8.5% and 17% protected (more than half way towards the Aichi 17% target), and only 19 classes exceeded the 17% Aichi target. However, when all protected areas (IUCN management categories I-VI plus protected areas with no IUCN designation) were included in a separate global gap analysis, representation of ecosystems increases substantially, with a third of the ecosystems exceeding the 17% Aichi target, and another third between 8.5% and 17%. The overall protection (representation) of global ecosystems in protected areas is considerably less when assessed using only strictly conserved protected areas, and more if all protected areas are included in the analysis. Protected area effectiveness should be included in further evaluations of global ecosystem protection. The ecosystems with the highest representation in protected areas were often bare or sparsely vegetated and found in inhospitable environments (e.g. cold mountains, deserts), and the eight most protected ecosystems were all snow and ice ecosystems. In addition to the global gap analysis of World Ecosystems in protected areas, we report on the representation results for the ecosystems in each biogeographic realm (Neotropical, Nearctic, Afrotropical, Palearctic, Indomalayan, Australasian, and Oceania).

Global Ecology and Conservation↗
USGS2010

An overview of marine biodiversity in United States waters

Marine biodiversity of the United States (U.S.) is extensively documented, but data assembled by the United States National Committee for the Census of Marine Life demonstrate that even the most complete taxonomic inventories are based on records scattered in space and time. The best-known taxa are those of commercial importance. Body size is directly correlated with knowledge of a species, and knowledge also diminishes with distance from shore and depth. Measures of biodiversity other than species diversity, such as ecosystem and genetic diversity, are poorly documented. Threats to marine biodiversity in the U.S. are the same as those for most of the world: overexploitation of living resources; reduced water quality; coastal development; shipping; invasive species; rising temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, and other changes that may be consequences of global change, including shifting currents; increased number and size of hypoxic or anoxic areas; and increased number and duration of harmful algal blooms. More information must be obtained through field and laboratory research and monitoring that involve innovative sampling techniques (such as genetics and acoustics), but data that already exist must be made accessible. And all data must have a temporal component so trends can be identified. As data are compiled, techniques must be developed to make certain that scales are compatible, to combine and reconcile data collected for various purposes with disparate gear, and to automate taxonomic changes. Information on biotic and abiotic elements of the environment must be interactively linked. Impediments to assembling existing data and collecting new data on marine biodiversity include logistical problems as well as shortages in finances and taxonomic expertise.

Arctic Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean↗
USGS1999

Management implications of fish trap effectiveness in adjacent coral reef and gorgonian habitats

A combination of visual census and trap sampling in St. John, USVI indicated that traps performed better in gorgonian habitat than in adjacent coral reef habitat. Although most families were seen more commonly in coral habitat, they were caught more often in gorgonian areas. Traps probably fished more effectively in gorgonian habitats, especially for migrating species, because traps provided shelter in the relatively topographically uniform environment of gorgonian dominated habitats. Recently, trap fishermen on St. John have been moving effort away from traditionally fished nearshore coral reefs and into a variety of more homogeneous habitats such as gorgonian habitat. Consequently, exploitation rates of the already over-harvested reef fish resources may be increasing. Reef fish managers and marine reserve designers should consider limiting trap fishing in gorgonian habitats to slow the decline of reef fisheries.

Environmental Biology of Fishes↗