USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “American Economic Review”

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.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decision making. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The "One Health" paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

It’s complicated and it depends: A review of the effects of ecosystem changes on Walleye and Yellow Perch populations in North America

Walleye Sander vitreus and Yellow Perch Perca flavescens are culturally, economically, and ecologically significant fish species in North America that are affected by drivers of global change. Here, we review and synthesize the published literature documenting the effects of ecosystem changes on Walleye and Yellow Perch. We focus on four drivers: climate (including temperature and precipitation), aquatic invasive species, land use and nutrient loading, and water clarity. We identified 1,232 tests from 370 papers, split evenly between Walleye ( n = 613) and Yellow Perch ( n = 619). Climate was the most frequently studied driver ( n = 572), and growth or condition was the most frequently studied response ( n = 297). The most commonly reported relationship was “no effect” (42% of analyses), usually because multiple variables were tested and only a few were found to be significant. Overall responses varied among studies for most species-response–driver combinations. For example, the influence of invasive species on growth of both Walleye and Yellow Perch was approximately equally likely to be positive, negative, or have no effect. Even when results were variable, important patterns emerged; for example, growth responses of both species to temperature were variable, but very few negative responses were observed. A few relationships were relatively consistent across studies. Invasive species were negatively associated with Walleye recruitment and abundance, and higher water clarity was negatively associated with Walleye abundance, biomass, and production. Some variability in responses may be due to differences in methodology or the range of variables studied; others represent true context dependence, where the effect of a driver depends on the influence of other variables. Using common metrics of impact, publishing negative results, and robust analytical approaches could facilitate comparisons among systems and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the responses of Walleye and Yellow Perch to ecosystem change.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management↗
USGS2007

Assessment and management of dead-wood habitat

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is in the process of revising its resource management plans for six districts in western and southern Oregon as the result of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the American Forest Resource Council. A range of management alternatives is being considered and evaluated including at least one that will minimize reserves on O&C lands. In order to develop the bases for evaluating management alternatives, the agency needs to derive a reasonable range of objectives for key issues and resources. Dead-wood habitat for wildlife has been identified as a key resource for which decision-making tools and techniques need to be refined and clarified. Under the Northwest Forest Plan, reserves were to play an important role in providing habitat for species associated with dead wood (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, 1994). Thus, the BLM needs to: 1) address the question of how dead wood will be provided if reserves are not included as a management strategy in the revised Resource Management Plan, and 2) be able to evaluate the effects of alternative land management approaches. Dead wood has become an increasingly important conservation issue in managed forests, as awareness of its function in providing wildlife habitat and in basic ecological processes has dramatically increased over the last several decades (Laudenslayer et al., 2002). A major concern of forest managers is providing dead wood habitat for terrestrial wildlife. Wildlife in Pacific Northwest forests have evolved with disturbances that create large amounts of dead wood; so, it is not surprising that many species are closely associated with standing (snags) or down, dead wood. In general, the occurrence or abundance of one-quarter to one-third of forest-dwelling vertebrate wildlife species, is strongly associated with availability of suitable dead-wood habitat (Bunnell et al., 1999; Rose et al., 2001). In Oregon and Washington, approximately 150 species of wildlife are reported to use dead wood in forests (O’Neil et al., 2001). Forty-seven sensitive and special-status species are associated with dead wood (Appendix A). These are key species for management consideration because concern over small or declining populations is often related to loss of suitable dead-wood habitat (Marshall et al., 1996). Primary excavators (woodpeckers) also are often the focus of dead-wood management, because they perform keystone functions in forest ecosystems by creating cavities for secondary cavity-nesters (Martin and Eadie, 1999; Aubry and Raley, 2002). A diverse guild of secondary cavity-users (including swallows, bluebirds, several species of ducks and owls, ash-throated flycatcher, flying squirrel, bats, and many other species) is unable to excavate dead wood, and therefore relies on cavities created by woodpeckers for nesting sites. Suitable nest cavities are essential for reproduction, and their availability limits population size (Newton, 1994). Thus, populations of secondary cavity-nesters are tightly linked to the habitat requirements of primary excavators. Although managers often focus on decaying wood as habitat for wildlife, the integral role dead wood plays in ecological processes is an equally important consideration for management. Rose et al. (2001) provide a thorough review of the ecological functions of dead wood in Pacific Northwest forests, briefly summarized here. Decaying wood functions in: soil development and productivity, nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, and carbon storage. From ridge tops, to headwater streams, to estuaries and coastal marine ecosystems, decaying wood is fundamental to diverse terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Wildlife species that use dead wood for cover or feeding are linked to these ecosystem processes through a broad array of functional roles, including facilitation of decay and trophic interactions with other organisms (Marcot, 2002; Marcot, 2003). For example, by puncturing bark and fragmenting sapwood, woodpeckers create sites favorable for wood-decaying organisms (Farris et al., 2004), which in turn create habitat for other species and facilitate nutrient cycling. Small mammals that use down wood for cover function in the dispersal of plant seeds and fungal spores (Carey et al., 1999). Resident cavitynesting birds may regulate insect populations by preying on overwintering arthropods (Jackson, 1979; Kroll and Fleet, 1979). These examples illustrate how dead wood not only directly provides habitat for a large number of wildlife species, but also forms the foundation of functional webs that critically influence forest ecosystems (Marcot, 2002; Marcot, 2003). The important and far-reaching implications of management of decaying wood highlight the need for conservation of dead-wood resources in managed forests. Consideration of the key ecological functions of species associated with dead wood can help guide management of dead wood in a framework consistent with the paradigm of ecosystem management (Marcot and Vander Heyden, 2001; Marcot, 2002.) As more information is revealed about the ecological and habitat values of decaying wood, concern has increased over a reduction in the current amounts of dead wood relative to historic levels (Ohmann and Waddell, 2002). Past management practices have tended to severely reduce amounts of dead wood throughout all stages of forest development (Hansen et al., 1991). The large amounts of legacy wood that characterize young post-disturbance forests are not realized in managed stands, because most of the wood volume is removed at harvest for economic and safety reasons. Mid-rotation thinning is used to “salvage” some mortality that might otherwise occur due to suppression, so fewer snags are recruited in mid-seral stages. Harvest rotations of 80 years or less truncate tree size in managed stands, and thus limit the production of large-diameter wood. As a consequence of these practices, dead wood has been reduced by as much as 90% after two rotations of managed Douglas-fir (Rose et al., 2001). Large legacy deadwood is becoming a scarce, critical habitat that will take decades to centuries to replace. Furthermore, management continues to have important direct and indirect effects on the amount and distribution of dead wood in forests. Current guidelines for managing dead wood may be inadequate to maintain habitat for all associated species because they largely focus on a single use of dead wood (nesting habitat) by a small suite of species (cavity-nesting birds), and may under represent the sizes and amounts of dead wood used by many wildlife species (Rose et al., 2001, Wilhere, 2003).

Open-File Report↗