USGS ScienceSearch

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Applied Soil Ecology”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

An alternative to soil taxonomy for describing key soil characteristics

We are pleased to see the letter by Schimel and Chadwick (Front Ecol Environ 2013; 11[8]: 405–06), highlighting the importance of soil characterization in ecological and biogeochemical research and explaining the value of soil taxonomy, and we agree with the authors that reporting soil taxonomic classification would greatly increase the interpretive value of many studies. However, in our extensive work with land managers and scientists, we have found that taxonomic classifications are not particularly useful because they are poorly understood. For those unfamiliar with soil taxonomy, deconstructing the meaning of a classification is not a simple task. Furthermore, because the US system of soil taxonomy is not applied universally, its utility as a means for effectively describing soil characteristics to readers in other countries is limited. Finally, and most importantly, even at the finest level of soil classification there are often large within-taxa variations in critical properties that can determine ecosystem responses to drivers such as climate and land-use change.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Effects of surface applications of biosolids on soil, crops, ground water, and streambed sediment near Deer Trail, Colorado, 1999-2003

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Metro Wastewater Reclamation District and North Kiowa Bijou Groundwater Management District, studied natural geochemical effects and the effects of biosolids applications to the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District properties near Deer Trail, Colorado, during 1999 through 2003 because of public concern about potential contamination of soil, crops, ground water, and surface water from biosolids applications. Parameters analyzed for each monitoring component included arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc (the nine trace elements regulated by Colorado for biosolids), gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, and plutonium, as well as other parameters. Concentrations of the nine regulated trace elements in biosolids were relatively uniform and did not exceed applicable regulatory standards. All plutonium concentrations in biosolids were below the minimum detectable level and were near zero. The most soluble elements in biosolids were arsenic, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, and selenium. Elevated concentrations of bismuth, mercury, phosphorus, and silver would be the most likely inorganic biosolids signature to indicate that soil or streambed sediment has been affected by biosolids. Molybdenum and tungsten, and to a lesser degree antimony, cadmium, cobalt, copper, mercury, nickel, phosphorus, and selenium, would be the most likely inorganic 'biosolids signature' to indicate ground water or surface water has been affected by biosolids. Soil data indicate that biosolids have had no measurable effect on the concentration of the constituents monitored. Arsenic concentrations in soil of both Arapahoe and Elbert County monitoring sites (like soil from all parts of Colorado) exceed the Colorado soil remediation objectives and soil cleanup standards, which were determined by back-calculating a soil concentration equivalent to a one-in-a-million cumulative cancer risk. Lead concentrations in soil slightly exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicity-derived ecological soil-screening levels for avian wildlife. Plutonium concentration in the soil was near zero. Wheat-grain data were insufficient to determine any measurable effects from biosolids. Comparison with similar data from other parts of North America where biosolids were not applied indicates similar concentrations. However, the Deer Trail study area had higher nickel concentrations in wheat from both the biosolids-applied fields and the control fields. Plutonium content of the wheat was near zero. Ground-water levels generally declined at most wells during 1999 through 2003. Ground-water quality did not correlate with ground-water levels. Vertical ground-water gradients during 1999 through 2003 indicate that bedrock ground-water resources downgradient from the biosolids-applied areas are not likely to be contaminated by biosolids applications unless the gradients change as a result of pumping. Ground-water quality throughout the study area varied over time at each site and from site to site at the same time, but plutonium concentrations in the ground water always were near zero. Inorganic concentrations at well D6 were relatively high compared to other ground-water sites studied. Ground-water pH and concentrations of fluoride, nitrite, aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, and plutonium in the ground water of the study area met Colorado standards. Concentrations of chloride, sulfate, nitrate, boron, iron, manganese, and selenium exceeded Colorado ground-water standards at one or more wells. Nitrate concentrations at well D6 significantly (alpha = 0.05) exceeded the Colorado regulatory standard. Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc in ground water had no significant (alpha = 0.05) upward trends. During 1999-2003, concentrations of nitrate, copper, molybdenum, and selenium

Scientific Investigations Report

Fire rehabilitation effectiveness: a chronosequence approach for the Great Basin

Federal land management agencies have invested heavily in seeding vegetation for emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R) of non-forested lands. ES&R projects are implemented to reduce post-fire dominance of non-native annual grasses, minimize probability of recurrent fire, quickly recover lost habitat for sensitive species, and ultimately result in plant communities with desirable characteristics including resistance to invasive species and resilience or ability to recover following disturbance. Land managers lack scientific evidence to verify whether seeding non-forested lands achieves their desired long-term ES&R objectives. The overall objective of our investigation is to determine if ES&R projects increase perennial plant cover, improve community composition, decrease invasive annual plant cover and result in a more desirable fuel structure relative to no treatment following fires while potentially providing habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, a species of management concern. In addition, we provide the locations and baseline vegetation data for further studies relating to ES&R project impacts. We examined effects of seeding treatments (drill and broadcast) vs. no seeding on biotic and abiotic (bare ground and litter) variables for the dominant climate regimes and ecological types within the Great Basin. We attempted to determine seeding effectiveness to provide desired plant species cover while restricting non-native annual grass cover relative to post-treatment precipitation, post-treatment grazing level and time-since-seeding. Seedings were randomly sampled from all known post-fire seedings that occurred in the four-state area of Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. Sampling locations were stratified by major land resource area, precipitation, and loam-dominated soils to ensure an adequate spread of locations to provide inference of our findings to similar lands throughout the Great Basin. Nearly 100 sites were located that contained an ES&R project. Of these sites, 61 were seeded by using a drill, 27 were broadcast aerially, and 12 had a combination of both. We randomly sampled three burned and seeded, burned and unseeded, and unburned and unseeded locations in the vicinity of the fire, each within the same ecological site. We measured foliar cover of all plant functional groups (perennial or annual, shrub, grass, forb, native or introduced), biological soil crusts, and abiotic (bare soil and litter) variables using the line-point intercept protocol. Fuel loads and horizontal fuel continuity were measured. We applied linear mixed models to response variables (cover and density of plant groups) relative to the dependent variables (seeding treatments and precipitation/temperature relationships. Post-fire strengths with native perennial grasses or shrubs in mixes did not increase density or cover of these groups significantly relative to unseeded, burned areas. Seeded non-native perennial grasses and the shrub Bassia prostrata were effective in providing more cover in aerial and drill seedings. Seeded non-native perennial grass cover increased with increased annual precipitation regardless of seeding type. Seeding native shrubs, particularly Artemisia tridentata, did not significantly increase shrub cover in burned areas. Cover of undesirable non-native annual grasses was lower in drill seedings relative to unseeded areas but only at higher elevations. Seeding effectiveness after wildfire is unpredictable in drier, low elevation environments, and our findings indicate management objectives are more likely met when focusing efforts on higher elevation or higher precipitation locations where establishment of perennial grasses is more likely. On sites where potential for invasion and dominance of non-native annuals is high, such as lower and drier sites, intensive methods of restoration that include invasive plant control before seeding may be required. Where establishment of native perennial plants is the goal, managers might consider using native-only seed mixtures, because we found that the non-native perennials typically used in Great Basin restoration efforts are selected for their competitive nature and may reduce establishment of less competitive native species. Although we attempted to include information on livestock grazing history after seedings, we were unable to extract sufficient data from files to address this topic that may play an additional role in understanding native plant abundance post-fire seeding. Evaluation of drill and aerial seeding effects on fuel characteristics focused on two metrics that are standard inputs for fire behavior models, fuel load and fuel continuity. Fuel loads were evaluated separately for total fuel load biomass, and the individual components that sum to total biomass, namely herbaceous, shrub, shrub:herbaceous ratio, litter, 10-hour, and 100-hour fuel biomasses. Fuel continuity was evaluated using the following cover categories, total, annual grass, annual forb, perennial forb perennial grass, shrub, litter, vegetative interspace, and perennial interspace. Drill seeding did not affect fuel loads, except to reduce 10-hour fuels, probably due to mechanical destruction of dead and down fuels by the drill seeding equipment. Drill seeding did affect fuel continuity, specifically decreasing total plant cover by increasing perennial grass cover which suppressed annual grass and litter production resulting in a net decrease in continuity, but only at the elevations above approximately 1500m. Aerial seeding had no effect on any fuel load or fuel continuity category. For the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat study, we developed multi-scale empirical models of sage-grouse occupancy in 211 randomly located plots within a 40 million ha portion of the species’ range. We then used these models to predict sage-grouse habitat quality at 101 ES&R seeding projects. We compared conditions at restoration sites to published habitat guidelines. Sage-grouse occupancy was positively related to plot- and landscape-level dwarf sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula, A. nova, A. tripartita) and big sagebrush steppe, and negatively associated with non-native grass and human development. The predicted probability of sage-grouse occupancy at treated plots was low on average (0.07–0.09) and was not significantly different from burned areas that had not been treated. Restoration was more often successful at higher elevation sites with low annual temperatures, high spring precipitation, and high plant diversity. No plots seeded after fire (n=313) met all overstory guidelines for breeding habitats, but approximately 50% met understory guidelines, particularly for perennial grasses. This trend was similar for summer habitat. Ninety-eight percent of treated plots did not meet winter habitat guidelines. Restoration actions in burned areas did not increase the probability of meeting most guideline criteria. The probability of meeting guidelines was influenced by a latitudinal gradient, local climate, and topography. Post-fire seeding treatments in Great Basin sagebrush shrublands generally have not created high quality habitat for sage-grouse. Understory conditions are more likely to be adequate than those of overstory, but in unfavorable climates, establishing forbs and reducing cheatgrass dominance is unlikely. Reestablishing sagebrush cover will require more than 20 years using the restoration methods of the past two decades. Given current fire frequencies and restoration capabilities, protection of landscapes containing a mix of dwarf sagebrush and big sagebrush steppe, minimal human development, and low non-native plant cover may provide the best opportunity for conservation of sage-grouse habitats. Our database of ES&R locations has used the Land Treatment Digital Library to archive data and location information regarding our study (see Pilliod and Welty 2013). This has contributed to two additional studies. One examined the potential spread of Bassia prostrata (aka Kochia prostrata; forage kochia) from ES&R project locations (Gray and Muir 2013). The second used remote sensing to determine the phenology of vegetation green-up on post-fire seeded sites (Sankey et al. 2013).

California;Idaho;Oregon;Utah

Drought resistance and resilience: The role of soil moisture–plant interactions and legacies in a dryland ecosystem

In many regions of the world, climate change is projected to reduce water availability through changes in the hydrological cycle, including more frequent and intense droughts, as well as seasonal shifts in precipitation. In water-limited ecosystems, such as drylands, lower soil water availability may exceed the adaptive capacity of many organisms, leading to cascading ecological effects during (concurrent effects) and after drought (legacy effects). The magnitude and duration of concurrent and legacy effects depends on drought intensity, duration and timing as well as the resistance and resilience of the ecosystem. Here, we investigated the effects of drought seasonality and plant community composition on two dominant perennial grasses, Achnatherum hymenoides (C 3 photosynthesis) and Pleuraphis jamesii (C 4 photosynthesis), in a dryland ecosystem. The experiment consisted of three precipitation treatments: control (ambient precipitation), cool-season drought (−66% ambient precipitation November–April) and warm-season drought (−66% ambient precipitation May–October), applied in two plant communities (perennial grasses with or without a large shrub, Ephedra viridis ) over a 3-year period. We examined the concurrent and legacy effects of seasonal drought on soil moisture, phenology and biomass. Drought treatments had strong concurrent and legacy effects on soil moisture, which impacted the phenology and biomass of the two grasses. Drought reduced growing season length by delaying green-up (cool-season drought) or advancing senescence (warm-season drought) and reduced biomass for both species. Biomass and phenology legacy effects from drought emerged in the second and third years of the experiment. While we observed differential sensitivity to drought legacies between the two grasses, we found limited evidence that shrub presence had interactive effects with the drought treatment. Synthesis . The results from this study highlight how abiotic and biotic legacies can develop and influence a community's resistance and resilience to subsequent droughts. When the frequency of repeated extreme events, such as recurring seasonal droughts, exceeds the capacity of organisms or ecosystems to recover (i.e. resilience), persistent drought legacies can reduce the resistance to subsequent drought events. Overall, these results highlight how drought legacies are a product of ecological resistance and resilience to past drought and can influence ecosystem vulnerability to future droughts.

Utah

Does restoration of plant diversity trigger concomitant soil microbiome changes in dryland ecosystems?

Drylands are highly vulnerable to land degradation, and despite increasing efforts, restoration success remains low. Although often ignored in the design and deployment of management strategies, soil microbial communities might be critical for dryland restoration due to their central role in promoting soil stability, nutrient cycling and plant establishment. We collected soil samples from eight dryland restoration sites within RestoreNet, a restoration field trial network, and determined their soil microbiome using 16S rRNA (bacteria and archaea) and ITS (fungi) amplicon sequencing. Each previously degraded site was treated with monoculture (single species) and polyculture (multiple species) seedling plantings. Contrary to our initial expectations, we found that these different revegetation interventions did not trigger changes in microbial diversity, composition or relative abundance of functional groups across sites after 1 year of revegetation. Synthesis and applications . Considering the crucial role of soil micro-organisms in dryland ecosystem functions, our results suggest that site-specific targeted microbiome restoration should be considered to accelerate the establishment of desired microbial communities. Plant community-based restoration practices such as revegetation have a limited impact on soil micro-organisms in the short term.

Journal of Applied Ecology

Assessment of the role of bottomland hardwoods in sediment and erosion control

Drainage and clearing of bottomland hardwoods have long been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as important impacts of Federal water projects in the lower Mississippi River Valley. More recently, the water quality impacts of such projects (e.g., increases in sediments, nutrients, and pesticides) have also become of concern. In 1984, in an effort to better define problems concerning wetland losses and water degradation, EPA initiated a cooperative project with the Western Energy and Land Use Team (now the National Ecology Research Center) of the Service. Three phases of the project were identified: 1. To collect existing literature and data; 2. To select, develop, and test the utility of methods to quantify the relationships between land use, cover types, soils, hydrology, and water quality (as represented by sediment); and 3. To apply selected methodologies to several sites within the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi to determine the, potential effectiveness of various management alternatives to reduce sediment yield, increase sediment deposition, and improve water quality. Methods development focused on linking a simulation of water and sediment movement to a computerized geographic information system. We had several objectives for the resulting model. We desired that it should: 1. Estimate the importance of bottomland and hardwoods as a cover type that performs the functions of erosion and sediment control, 2. Simulate effects of proportions of ' various cover types and their specific spatial configurations, 3. Be applicable to moderately large spatial areas with minimal site-specific calibration, 4. Simulate spatial patterns of sediment loss-gain over time, and 5. Represent both sediment detachment and transport. While it was recognized that impacts and management alternatives could be sorted roughly into landscape measures and channel measures, the decision was made to focus study efforts mainly on landscape measures. Landscape measures include altered drainage and flooding patterns, altered cover types (e.g., conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agricultural crops, reforestation of cropland to bottomland hardwoods, and creation of riparian buffer strips), altered cropping and tillage patterns, altered routing of water, and creation of buffer strips along wetlands and channel margins. Channel measures include vegetative bank stabilization, grade control structures, and regulation of channel water volume and velocity. During the first year of the study, EPA decided not to fund the third phase of the project. This required considerable rescoping of the project with the result that application of the sediment mobilization, routing, and deposition models to various management alternatives and portions of the Yazoo Basin was somewhat restricted. We believe, however, that this report will provide a good understanding of the various modes of sediment mobilization, transport, and deposition within the Yazoo Basin, as well as of the role of bottomland hardwoods. The model developed in this study could be applied to a variety of management or mitigation alternatives prior to implementation to determine their relative effectiveness. Policy, political, and socio-economic consequences of any proposed management/mitigation practice, however, must ultimately be taken into consideration by those charged with management of water resources within the Yazoo Basin before any practice is implemented. This study makes no effort to judge the feasibility of management alternatives in this regard.

Report

Ecoregions of California

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across Federal agencies, State agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources in the same geographical areas (Omernik and others, 2000). The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions are hierarchical and can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, map revised 2006). At level III, the continental United States contains 105 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 85 ecoregions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). Level IV, depicted here for California, is a further refinement of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define these ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Omernik and others (2000), and Omernik and Griffith (2014). California has great ecological and biological diversity. The State contains offshore islands and coastal lowlands, large alluvial valleys, forested mountain ranges, deserts, and various aquatic habitats. There are 13 level III ecoregions and 177 level IV ecoregions in California and most continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent States of the United States or Mexico (Bryce and others, 2003; Thorson and others, 2003; Griffith and others, 2014). The California ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. It revises and subdivides an earlier national ecoregion map that was originally compiled at a smaller scale (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). This poster is the result of a collaborative project primarily between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of the Interior–Geological Survey (USGS), and other State of California agencies and universities. The project is associated with interagency efforts to develop a common framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USDA–Forest Service (Bailey and others, 1994; Miles and Goudy, 1997; Cleland and others, 2007), the USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service, 1981; U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are becoming less discernible. Regional collaborative projects such as this one in California, where some agreement has been reached among multiple resource-management agencies, are a step toward attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.

California

Assessing rangeland health under climate variability and change

RANGELAND HEALTH IN A CHANGING WORLD Rangeland health is an integrated metric that describes a complex suite of ecosystem properties and processes as applied to resource management. While the concept of “healthy” landscapes has a long history, the term “rangeland health” was codified in the US in 1994 as part of an effort to move towards a national, data driven, rangeland condition assessment (National Research Council 1994). Rangeland health encompasses the status of both soils and ecological processes as well as the condition of those ecosystems relative to ecological thresholds (e.g. “healthy”, “at-risk”, or “unhealthy"; National Research Council 1994). This latter application ensures that rangeland health assessments not only evaluate the conditions of plants and soils, but also gauge those conditions with respect to known or hypothesized ecological dynamics (Bestelmeyer et al. 2013) for a given set of abiotic constraints (climate, soil, and topographic setting). Thus, an assessment of rangeland health should identify the “degree to which the integrity of the soil and the ecological processes are sustained” (National Research Council 1994, Us Department of Agriculture 1997). Rangeland health attributes and assessment procedures have become widely utilized tools for measuring and monitoring dryland ecosystems, and they may provide valuable perspectives on rangeland response to climate change, although long-term directional change in environmental conditions represents a challenge for traditional rangeland health assessment frameworks.

Book chapter

Tidal freshwater forested wetlands: Future research needs and an overview of restoration: Chapter 17

Studies of tidal freshwater forested wetlands are few in contrast to the diversity of conditions and information needs that exist for this ecosystem type. Basic information is lacking on the physiological ecology of major wetland tree species under natural settings, the structure and dynamics of pure and mixed species communities, soil-plant interactions, biogeochemistry, hydrology, soils, wildlife habitat, primary biotic and abiotic functions, and the response of these systems to natural and human-caused disruptions. Existing information is often not in a form that can be applied to ecosystem problems, especially those related to management, restoration, or creation of tidal swamps. Accordingly, there is a critical need for research on fundamental biotic and abiotic processes and functions in tidal forested wetland landscapes on a local and regional scale. In this chapter, we detail those research needs, and we highlight some restoration ideas for tidal freshwater forested wetlands with the hope that much additional research will follow.

Book chapter

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

Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 3. Site level restoration decisions

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently (2016) occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) depends on large landscapes of intact habitat of sagebrush and perennial grasses for their existence. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals, livestock, and wild horses, and to provide ecosystem services for humans now and for future generations. When a decision is made on where restoration treatments should be applied, there are a number of site-specific decisions managers face before selecting the appropriate type of restoration. This site-level decision tool for restoration of sagebrush steppe ecosystems is organized in nine steps. Step 1 describes the process of defining site-level restoration objectives. Step 2 describes the ecological site characteristics of the restoration site. This covers soil chemistry and texture, soil moisture and temperature regimes, and the vegetation communities the site is capable of supporting. Step 3 compares the current vegetation to the plant communities associated with the site State and Transition models. Step 4 takes the manager through the process of current land uses and past disturbances that may influence restoration success. Step 5 is a brief discussion of how weather before and after treatments may impact restoration success. Step 6 addresses restoration treatment types and their potential positive and negative impacts on the ecosystem and on habitats, especially for greater sage-grouse. We discuss when passive restoration options may be sufficient and when active restoration may be necessary to achieve restoration objectives. Step 7 addresses decisions regarding post-restoration livestock grazing management. Step 8 addresses monitoring of the restoration; we discuss important aspects associated with implementation monitoring as well as effectiveness monitoring. Step 9 takes the information learned from monitoring to determine how restoration actions in the future might be adapted to improve restoration success.

Circular

Mapping hotspots of potential ecosystem fragility using commonly available spatial data

Effective conservation requires prioritizing areas that are vulnerable to large, irreversible changes. Unfortunately, rigorously documenting these changes with experiments and long-term monitoring is not only costly, but may provide evidence that is too late to facilitate proactive decisions. We use a simple model to illustrate that commonly available short-term spatial, “snapshot”, data from a given ecosystem along an environmental gradient can be used to identify environmental conditions under which different ecosystem states (e.g. different species compositions) co-occur in space. These environmental conditions are those under which future perturbations have the potential for discontinuous large, sometimes irreversible, effects; and can be mapped in space to predict potential spatial hotspots of ecosystem fragility. We apply these insights to ecologically important high-elevation subalpine meadows of the Sierra Nevada (California). Our analysis reveals specific areas within meadows that may be more vulnerable than others because their plant communities have the potential to shift to a different state. These shifts can be mechanistically explained by interactions between the vegetation and the local water regimes and/or the upper soil conditions. Our study provides a simple workflow using commonly available data to help prioritize conservation areas based on their potential sensitivity to upcoming perturbations. Such an approach could be very valuable to make most efficient use of conservation and management resources in the context of ongoing global changes.

California

Amendments fail to hasten biocrust recovery or soil stability at a disturbed dryland sandy site

In most drylands, biological soil crusts (biocrusts), an assemblage of lichens, bryophytes, fungi, green algae, and cyanobacteria, are critical to healthy ecosystem function. However, they are extremely sensitive to disturbance and attempts to facilitate their recovery have had variable success. In this study, we applied soil amendments designed to improve soil surface stability and accelerate biocrust recovery on an area disturbed by oil/gas exploration vehicles. Treatments included: 1) Control (one time water only); 2) Biocrust‐only: biocrust inoculum + nutrients in water; 3) Polyacrylamide gels (PAM; which are known to stabilize soils) + biocrust inoculum + nutrients in water; 4) Gypsum + biocrust inoculum + nutrients in water; and 5) Saline (NaCl) solution + biocrust inoculum + nutrients in water. Only the NaCl treatment showed any effects on soil properties and these were only short‐term. These effects included an increase in soil strength and a reduction in soil aggregate stability, unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (K h ), and cyanobacterial biomass. The inoculated biocrust material failed to develop and even after 10 years, there was only a very low natural recolonization of the plots. These results show that inoculating soils or applying these levels of soil amendments does not guarantee recovery of soil stability or biocrust, and that some sites are unlikely to recover without assistance. Thus, there is a need for more research into ways to enhance soil stability and identify the factors limiting biocrust establishment.

Restoration Ecology

Forest thinning in the seaward fringe speeds up surface elevation increment and carbon accumulation in managed mangrove forests

Mangroves are significant carbon (C) sinks and ecological engineers as they accumulate sediments and increase soil surface elevation. Thus, the forest management practice of thinning may not only alter forest structure, but also facilitate new biogeomorphological processes that affect soil development. Thinning may create additional opportunity for understorey species, such as the light-demanding Acanthus ilicifolius , to become a more prominent vegetation component of mangroves, which may further alter soil surface elevation trajectories. Forest structure and soil surface elevation change (SEC) were monitored along transects from the landward edge (upper intertidal) to seaward fringe before and after thinning of non-native Sonneratia apetala plantations along the seaward edge of a mangrove site in China. Soil C accumulation was also evaluated. Acanthus individuals colonized the forest gaps created by Sonneratia thinning in the seaward forest edge of the intertidal zones. In the absence of other pioneer species or other mangrove propagules/seeds, Acanthus pioneers occupied the areas rapidly (from 33.6 to 72.6 stems/m 2 ), and were successful opportunists. Newly colonizing Acanthus vegetation significantly increased SEC from 25.1 mm/year before Sonneratia was thinned to 46.5 mm/year after thinning-induced Acanthus occupation. Furthermore, Acanthus occupation enhanced soil C accumulation at the seaward edge to 49.9 MgC ha −1 year −1 ; a rate twofold higher than in the Sonneratia plantation before thinning. Synthesis and applications . Prolific Acanthus growth formed small elevation mounds on the seaward forest edge, which was suspected as a positive effect induced by thinning Sonneratia plantations that further facilitated colonization of Acanthus clones. Thinning non-native Sonneratia disturbed the established zonation, altered SEC, and is facilitating further succession of these mangrove forests into un-occupied aquatic areas. Higher elevations created by Acanthus expansion (vertically and horizontally) may further promote a greater percentage of landward edge mangrove species to colonize at these more favourable intertidal elevations yielding at least short-term gains in soil carbon accumulation by altering ecosystem function. Silvicultural activity should consider unintended influences on sedimentation patterns both in situ and in adjacent habitats in tidal forests, where small elevation changes affect mangrove species habitat preferences.

Journal of Applied Ecology

Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems

1. Ecosystem invasibility is determined by combinations of environmental variables, invader attributes, disturbance regimes, competitive abilities of resident species and evolutionary history between residents and disturbance regimes. Understanding the relative importance of each factor is critical to limiting future invasions and restoring ecosystems. 2. We investigated factors potentially controlling Bromus tectorum invasions into Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis communities across 75 sites in the Great Basin. We measured soil texture, cattle grazing intensity, gaps among perennial plants and plant cover including B. tectorum, biological soil crusts (BSCs) and bare soil. Using a priori knowledge, we developed a multivariate hypothesis of the susceptibility of Artemisia ecosystems to B. tectorum invasion and used the model to assess the relative importance of the factors driving the magnitude of such invasions. 3. Model results imply that bunchgrass community structure, abundance and composition, along with BSC cover, play important roles in controlling B. tectorum dominance. Evidence suggests abundant bunchgrasses limit invasions by limiting the size and connectivity of gaps between vegetation, and BSCs appear to limit invasions within gaps. Results also suggest that cattle grazing reduces invasion resistance by decreasing bunchgrass abundance, shifting bunchgrass composition, and thereby increasing connectivity of gaps between perennial plants while trampling further reduces resistance by reducing BSC. 4. Synthesis and applications. Grazing exacerbates Bromus tectorum dominance in one of North America's most endangered ecosystems by adversely impacting key mechanisms mediating resistance to invasion. If the goal is to conserve and restore resistance of these systems, managers should consider maintaining or restoring: (i) high bunchgrass cover and structure characterized by spatially dispersed bunchgrasses and small gaps between them; (ii) a diverse assemblage of bunchgrass species to maximize competitive interactions with B. tectorum in time and space; and (iii) biological soil crusts to limit B. tectorum establishment. Passive restoration by reducing cumulative cattle grazing may be one of the most effective means of achieving these three goals.

Journal of Applied Ecology

An overview of the NASA Adaptation and Response in Drylands field experiment scoping study

Drylands cover 41% of Earth’s land surface, support 36% of the global population, and contribute 60% of global food production. Despite these ecosystems’ importance and high vulnerability to droughts and heatwaves, drylands remain some of the most understudied systems on Earth. Monitoring drylands is challenging due to their complex ecosystem structure of visible soil mixed with diverse plant species that respond rapidly to weather and climate. In 2023 and 2024, a NASA scoping study was conducted for a proposed dryland terrestrial ecology field campaign called Adaptation and Response in Drylands (ARID). Thereafter, the NASA ARID scoping team submitted their campaign proposal to NASA Headquarters, providing a study design for how field, aircraft, and satellite measurements, as well as modeling, would address the most critical fundamental and applied science questions in drylands. The extensive study plan was created by and for the drylands research community – including remote sensors, modelers, experimentalists, and ecologists from across the world – and the overall approach can be further utilized and changed for different uses and data information needs. Here, we summarize the ARID research road map, including its main objectives, field campaign strategy, data end-user support strategy, and U.S. and global community engagement.

Drylands

Synthesizing models useful for ecohydrology and ecohydraulic approaches: An emphasis on integrating models to address complex research questions

Ecohydrology combines empiricism, data analytics, and the integration of models to characterize linkages between ecological and hydrological processes. A challenge for practitioners is determining which models best generalizes heterogeneity in hydrological behaviour, including water fluxes across spatial and temporal scales, integrating environmental and socio‐economic activities to determine best watershed management practices and data requirements. We conducted a literature review and synthesis of hydrologic, hydraulic, water quality, and ecological models designed for solving interdisciplinary questions. We reviewed 1,275 papers and identified 178 models that have the capacity to answer an array of research questions about ecohydrology or ecohydraulics. Of these models, 43 were commonly applied due to their versatility, accessibility, user‐friendliness, and excellent user‐support. Forty‐one of 43 reviewed models were linked to at least 1 other model especially: Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (linked to 21 other models), Soil and Water Assessment Tool (19), and Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (15). However, model integration was still relatively infrequent. There was substantial variation in model applications, possibly an artefact of the regional focus of research questions, simplicity of use, quality of user‐support efforts, or a limited understanding of model applicability. Simply increasing the interoperability of model platforms, transformation of models to user‐friendly forms, increasing user‐support, defining the reliability and risk associated with model results, and increasing awareness of model applicability may promote increased use of models across subdisciplines. Nonetheless, the current availability of models allows an array of interdisciplinary questions to be addressed, and model choice relates to several factors including research objective, model complexity, ability to link to other models, and interface choice.

Ecohydrology

Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States

This classification, to be used in a new inventory of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States, is intended to describe ecological taxa, arrange them in a system useful to resource managers, furnish units for mapping, and provide uniformity of concepts and terms. Wetlands are defined by plants (hydrophytes), soils (hydric soils), and frequency of flooding. Ecologically related areas of deep water, traditionally not considered wetlands, are included in the classification as deepwater habitats.Systems form the highest level of the classification hierarchy; five are defined--Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine. Marine and Estuarine systems each have two subsystems, Subtidal and Intertidal; the Riverine system has four subsystems, Tidal, Lower Perennial, Upper Perennial, and Intermittent; the Lacustrine has two, Littoral and Limnetic; and the Palustrine has no subsystem.Within the subsystems, classes are based on substrate material and flooding regime, or on vegetative life form. The same classes may appear under one or more of the systems or subsystems. Six classes are based on substrate and flooding regime: (1) Rock Bottom with a substrate of bedrock, boulders, or stones; (2) Unconsolidated Bottom with a substrate of cobbles, gravel, sand, mud, or organic material; (3) Rocky Shore with the same substrate as Rock Bottom; (4) Unconsolidated Shore with the same substrate as Unconsolidated Bottom; (5) Streambed with any of the substrates; and (6) Reef with a substrate composed of the living and dead remains of invertebrates (corals, mollusks, or worms). The bottom classes, (1) and (2) above, are flooded all or most of the time and the shore classes, (3) and (4), are exposed most of the time. The class Streambed is restricted to channels of intermittent streams and tidal channels that are dewatered at low tide. The life form of the dominant vegetation defines the five classes based on vegetative form: (1) Aquatic Bed, dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the surface of the water; (2) Moss-Lichen Wetland, dominated by mosses or lichens; (3) Emergent Wetland, dominated by emergent herbaceous angiosperms; (4) Scrub-Shrub Wetland, dominated by shrubs or small trees; and (5) Forested Wetland, dominated by large trees.The dominance type, which is named for the dominant plant or animal forms, is the lowest level of the classification hierarchy. Only examples are provided for this level; dominance types must be developed by individual users of the classification.Modifying terms applied to the classes or subclasses are essential for use of the system. In tidal areas, the type and duration of flooding are described by four water regime modifiers: subtidal, irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, and irregularly flooded. In nontidal areas, six regimes are used: permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, semipermanently flooded, seasonally flooded, saturated, temporarily flooded, intermittently flooded, and artificially flooded. A hierarchical system of water chemistry modifiers, adapted from the Venice System, is used to describe the salinity of the water. Fresh waters are further divided on the basis of pH. Use of a hierarchical system of soil modifiers taken directly from U.S. soil taxonomy is also required. Special modifiers are used where appropriate: excavated, impounded, diked, partly drained, farmed, and artificial.Regional differences important to wetland ecology are described through a regionalization that combines a system developed for inland areas by R. G. Bailey in 1976 with our Marine and Estuarine provinces.The structure of the classification allows it to be used at any of several hierarchical levels. Special data required for detailed application of the system are frequently unavailable, and thus data gathering may be prerequisite to classification. Development of rules by the user will be required for specific map scales. Dominance types and relationships of plant and animal co

FWS/OBS