USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Illinois;Iowa;Minnesota;Missouri;Wisconsin

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Illinois;Iowa;Minnesota;Missouri;Wisconsin.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2011

Past and predicted future changes in the land cover of the Upper Mississippi River floodplain, USA

This study provides one historical and two alternative future contexts for evaluating land cover modifications within the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) floodplain. Given previously documented changes in land use, river engineering, restoration efforts and hydro-climatic changes within the UMR basin and floodplain, we wanted to know which of these changes are the most important determinants of current and projected future floodplain land cover. We used Geographic Information System data covering approximately 37% of the UMR floodplain (3232 km 2 ) for ca 1890 (pre-lock and dam) and three contemporary periods (1975, 1989 and 2000) across which river restoration actions have increased and hydro-climatic changes have occurred. We further developed two 50-year future scenarios from the spatially dependent land cover transitions that occurred from 1975 to 1989 (scenario A) and from 1989 to 2000 (scenario B) using Markov models.Land cover composition of the UMR did not change significantly from 1975 to 2000, indicating that current land cover continues to reflect historical modifications that support agricultural production and commercial navigation despite some floodplain restoration efforts and variation in river discharge. Projected future land cover composition based on scenario A was not significantly different from the land cover for 1975, 1989 or 2000 but was different from the land cover of scenario B, which was also different from all other periods. Scenario B forecasts transition of some forest and marsh habitat to open water by the year 2050 for some portions of the northern river and projects that some agricultural lands will transition to open water in the southern portion of the river. Future floodplain management and restoration planning efforts in the UMR should consider the potential consequences of continued shifts in hydro-climatic conditions that may occur as a result of climate change and the potential effects on floodplain land cover.

Illinois;Iowa;Minnesota;Missouri;Wisconsin↗
USGS2011

Treating floodplain lakes of large rivers as study units for variables that vary within lakes; an evaluation using chlorophyll a and inorganic suspended solids data from floodplain lakes of the Upper Mississippi River

Contiguous floodplain lakes ('lakes') have historically been used as study units for comparative studies of limnological variables that vary within lakes. The hierarchical nature of these studies implies that study variables may be correlated within lakes and that covariate associations may differ not only among lakes but also by spatial scale. We evaluated the utility of treating lakes as study units for limnological variables that vary within lakes based on the criteria of important levels of among-lake variation in study variables and the observation of covariate associations that vary among lakes. These concerns were selected, respectively, to ensure that lake signatures were distinguishable from within-lake variation and that lake-scale effects on covariate associations might provide inferences not available by ignoring those effects. Study data represented chlorophyll a (CHL) and inorganic suspended solids (ISS) data from lakes within three reaches of the Upper Mississippi River. Sampling occurred in summer from 1993 through 2005 (except 2003); numbers of lakes per reach varied from 7 to 19, and median lake area varied from 53 to 101 ha. CHL and ISS levels were modelled linearly, with lake, year and lake x year effects treated as random. For all reaches, the proportions of variation in CHL and ISS attributable to differences among lakes (including lake and lake x year effects) were substantial (range: 18%-73%). Finally, among-lake variation in CHL and ISS was strongly associated with covariates and covariate effects that varied by lakes or lake-years (including with vegetation levels and, for CHL, log(ISS)). These findings demonstrate the utility of treating floodplain lakes as study units for the study of limnological variables and the importance of addressing hierarchy within study designs when making inferences from data collected within floodplain lakes.

Illinois;Iowa;Minnesota;Missouri;Wisconsin↗
USGS2011

Are two systemic fish assemblage sampling programmes on the upper Mississippi River telling us the same thing?

We applied an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) used on Wisconsin/Minnesota waters of the upper Mississippi River (UMR) to compare data from two systemic sampling programmes. Ability to use data from multiple sampling programmes could extend spatial and temporal coverage of river assessment and monitoring efforts. We normalized for effort and tested fish community data collected by the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Great Rivers Ecosystems (EMAP-GRE) 2004–2006 and the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) 1993–2006. Each programme used daytime electrofishing along main channel borders but with some methodological and design differences. EMAP-GRE, designed for baseline and, eventually, compliance monitoring, used a probabilistic, continuous design. LTRMP, designed primarily for baseline and trend monitoring, used a stratified random design in five discrete study reaches. Analysis of similarity indicated no significant difference between EMAP-GRE and LTRMP IBI scores ( n =238; Global R = 0.052; significance level=0.972). Both datasets distinguished clear differences only between 'Fair' and 'Poor' condition categories, potentially supporting a 'pass–fail' assessment strategy. Thirteen years of LTRMP data demonstrated stable IBI scores through time in four of five reaches sampled. LTRMP and EMAPGRE IBI scores correlated along the UMR's upstream to downstream gradient (df [3, 25]; F =1.61; p =0.22). A decline in IBI scores from upstream to downstream was consistent with UMR fish community studies and a previous, empirically modelled human disturbance gradient. Comparability between EMAP-GRE (best upstream to downstream coverage) and LTRMP data (best coverage over time and across the floodplain) supports a next step of developing and testing a systemic, multi-metric fish index on the UMR that both approaches could inform.

Illinois;Iowa;Minnesota;Missouri;Wisconsin↗
USGS2011

Habits and Habitats of Fishes in the Upper Mississippi River

The Upper Mississippi River consists of 26 navigation pools that provide abundant habitat for a host of natural resources, such as fish, migratory waterfowl, non-game birds, deer, beaver, muskrats, snakes, reptiles, frogs, toads, salamanders, and many others. Of all the many different types of animals that depend on the river, fish are the most diverse with over 140 different species. The sport fishery is very diverse with at least 25 species commonly harvested. Fish species, such as walleyes, largemouth bass, bluegills, and crappies are favorites of sport anglers. Others such as common carp, buffalos, and channel catfish, are harvested by commercial anglers and end up on the tables of families all over the country. Still other fishes are important because they provide food for sport or commercial species. The fishery resources in these waters contribute millions of dollars to the economy annually. Overall, the estimate impact of anglers and other recreational users exceeds $1.2 billion on the Upper Mississippi River. The fisheries in the various reaches of the river of often are adversely affected by pollution, urbanization, non-native fishes, navigation, recreational boating, fishing, dredging, and siltation. However, state and federal agencies expend considerable effort and resources to manage fisheries and restore river habitats. This pamphlet was prepared to help you better understand what fishery resources exist, what the requirements of each pecies are, and how man-induced changes that are roposed or might occur could affect them.

Illinois;Iowa;Minnesota;Missouri;Wisconsin↗
USGS2010

An Adaptive Management Approach for Summer Water Level Reductions on the Upper Mississippi River System

The primary purpose of this report is to provide an adaptive management approach for learning more about summer water level reductions (drawdowns) as a management tool, including where and how drawdowns can be applied most effectively within the Upper Mississippi River System. The report reviews previous drawdowns conducted within the system and provides specific recommendations for learning more about the lesser known effects of drawdowns and how the outcomes can be influenced by different implementation strategies and local conditions. The knowledge gained can be used by managers to determine how best to implement drawdowns in different parts of the UMRS to help achieve management goals. The information and recommendations contained in the report are derived from results of previous drawdown projects, insights from regional disciplinary experts, and the experience of the authors in experimental design, modeling, and monitoring. Modeling is a critical part of adaptive management and can involve conceptual models, simulation models, and empirical models. In this report we present conceptual models that express current understanding regarding functioning of the UMRS as related to drawdowns and highlight interactions among key ecological components of the system. The models were developed within the constraints of drawdown timing, magnitude (depth), and spatial differences in effects (longitudinal and lateral) with attention to ecological processes affected by drawdowns. With input from regional experts we focused on the responses of vegetation, fish, mussels, other invertebrates, and birds. The conceptual models reflect current understanding about relations and interactions among system components, the expected strength of those interactions, potential responses of system components to drawdowns, likelihood of the response occurring, and key uncertainties that limit our ability to make accurate predictions of effects (Table 1, Fig. 4-10). Based on this current understanding, the main questions still associated with drawdowns include (1) the effects of frequency of drawdowns (from once every few years to multiple years in succession); (2) timing of the beginning of drawdowns (follow the descending arm of the flood pulse versus always beginning in early summer); (3) long-term benefits (greater than 5-6 years), especially as compared to known short-term loses (e.g., mortality of mussels in exposed areas, loss of submersed vegetation in exposed areas, cost of advanced dredging); and (4) the effects in northern (above pool 14) versus southern pools (pool 14 and below, and the Illinois River). An adaptive management design should address these questions to reduce uncertainty in predictions of drawdown effects and help determine if different implementation strategies are needed in different parts of the system. Given that drawdowns will continue to be used as a management tool on the UMRS, we suggest that some drawdowns be conducted in an adaptive management context that helps meet management objectives, but also provides efficient learning about the questions listed above. We propose two different, but interrelated, experimental designs to address these questions. Both designs call for conducting multiple drawdowns in multiple pools (2-4 pools) to allow direct comparison of results and produce rapid learning. However, the report does not provide a detailed scope of work for carrying out the designs. If managers choose to implement one of the experimental designs, specifics of choosing appropriate pools and developing a monitoring plan will need to be determined through collaboration among managers, researchers, and statisticians. We suggest characteristics to consider in selecting treatment and reference pools (study sites) and also provide guidance for developing a monitoring plan. Some aspects of these two designs could be implemented individually, but by implementing individual elements, direct comparisons of some design features

Illinois;Iowa;Minnesota;Missouri;Wisconsin↗