USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Ecosystem Health”

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 487 records · Page 27Linked to original sources
USGS2015

Applications of optical sensors for high-frequency water-quality monitoring and research

The recent commercial availability of in-situ optical sensors, together with new techniques for data collection and analysis, provides the opportunity to monitor a wide range of water-quality constituents over time scales during which environmental conditions actually change. Traditional approaches for data collection (daily to monthly discrete samples) are often limited by high sample collection, processing, and analytical costs, difficult site access, and logistical challenges, particularly for long-term sampling at a large number of sites. Optical sensors that continuously measure constituents in the environment by absorbance or fluorescence properties (Figure 1) have had a long history of use in oceanography for measuring highly resolved concentrations and fluxes of organic matter, nutrients, and algal material. However, much of the work using commercially-available optical sensors in rivers and streams has taken place in only the last few years. Figure 1. [NOT SHOWN] Optical sensor technology is now sufficiently developed to warrant broader application for research and monitoring in coastal and freshwater systems, and the United States Geological Survey (a U.S. science agency) is now using these sensors in a variety of research and monitoring programs to better understand water quality in-situ and in real-time. Examples are numerous and range from the applications of nitrate sensors for calculating loads to estuaries susceptible to hypoxia (Pellerin et al., 2014) to the use of fluorometers to estimate methymercury fluxes (Bergamaschi et al., 2011) and disinfection byproduct formation (Carpenter et al., 2013). Transmitting these data in real-time provides information that can be used for early trend detection, help identify monitoring gaps critical for water management, and provide science-based decision support across a range of issues related to water quality, freshwater ecosystems, and human health. Despite the value of these sensors, collecting data that meet high-quality standards requires investment in and adherence to tested and established methods and protocols for sensor operation and data management (Pellerin et al., 2013). For example, optical sensor measurements can be strongly influenced by a variety of matrix effects, including water temperature, inner filtering from highly colored water, and scattering of light by suspended particles (Downing et al., 2012). Characterizing and correcting sensors for these effects – as well as the continued development of common methodologies and protocols for sensor use – will be critical to ensuring comparable measurements across sites and over time. In addition, collaborative efforts such as the Nutrient Sensor Challenge (www.nutrients-challenge.org) will continue to accelerate the development, production and use of affordable, reliable and accurate sensors for a range of environments. REFERENCES Bergamaschi .B.A., Fleck J.A., Downing B.D., Boss E., Pellerin B.A., Ganju N.K., Schoellhamer D.H., Byington A.A., Heim W.A., Stephenson M., Fujii R. (2011), Methyl mercury dynamics in a tidal wetland quantified using in situ optical measurements. Limnology and Oceanography, 56(4): 1355-1371. Carpenter K.D., Kraus T.E.C., Goldman J.H., Saraceno J., Downing B.D., Bergamaschi B.A., McGhee G., Triplett T. (2013), Sources and Characteristics of Organic Matter in the Clackamas River, Oregon, Related to the Formation of Disinfection By-products in Treated Drinking Water: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5001, 78 p. Downing .B.D., Pellerin B.A., Bergamaschi B.A., Saraceno J., Kraus T.E.K. (2012), Seeing the light: The effects of particles, temperature and inner filtering on in situ CDOM fluorescence in rivers and streams. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 10: 767-775. Pellerin B.A., Bergamaschi B.A., Downing B.D., Saraceno J., Garrett J.D., Olsen L.D. (2013), Optical Techniques for the Determination of Nitrate in En

Conference Paper↗
USGS2015

Contrasting fish assemblages in free-flowing and impounded tributaries to the Upper Delaware River: Implications for conserving biodiversity

The Neversink River and the Beaver Kill in southeastern New York are major tributaries to the Delaware River, the longest undammed river east of the Mississippi. While the Beaver Kill is free flowing for its entire length, the Neversink River is subdivided by the Neversink Reservoir, which likely affects the diversity of local fish assemblages and health of aquatic ecosystems. The reservoir is an important part of the New York City waster-supply system that provides drinking water to more than 9 million people. Fish population and community data from recent quantitative surveys at comparable sites in both basins were assessed to characterize the differences between free-flowing and impounded rivers and the extent of reservoir effects to improve our capacity to define ecosystems responses that two modified flow-release programs (implemented in 2007 and 2011) should produce in the Neversink River. In general, the continuum of changes in fish assemblages which normally occur between headwaters and mouth was relatively uninterrupted in the Beaver Kill, but disrupted by the mid-basin impoundment in the Neversink River. Fish assemblages were also adversely affected at several acidified sites in the upper Neversink River, but not at most sites assessed herein. The reservoir clearly excluded diadromous species from the upper sub-basin, but it also substantially reduced community richness, diversity, and biomass at several mid-basin sites immediately downstream from the impoundment. There results will aid future attempts to determine if fish assemblages respond to more natural, yet highly regulated, flow regimes in the Neversink River. More important, knowledge gained from this study can help optimize use of valuable water resources while promoting species of special concern, such as American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and conserving biodiversity in Catskill Mountain streams.

Book chapter↗
USGS2002

Research plan for lands administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior in the Interior Columbia Basin and Snake River Plateau

This document presents a long-term research strategy designed to address current and future research needs for management of Department of the Interior-administered ecosystems in the Intermountain West. Although the research plan was developed in the context of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, the plan addresses many high-priority issues facing land managers throughout the Intermountain West. These issues pose management challenges that may be addressed with applied research both currently and in upcoming decades. Possessing a particular focus on semiarid ecosystems, the plan is a collection of research questions under five categories of research emphases: 1) restoration; 2) rangeland health; 3) aquatic-terrestrial connections; 4) development of monitoring and evaluation protocols; and 5) species and habitats at risk. The goal of the research strategy is to provide ideas for integrating emerging scientific understanding into future management in order to restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and ecological integrity; provide consistent management direction over broad spatial and temporal scales; emphasize adaptive management over the long term; restore and maintain habitats for plant and animal species; and support economic and social needs of people, without compromising the above goals. Research questions are prioritized into three categories based on the immediacy of their need, feasibility of addressing the question rigorously under varying funding budgets, and magnitude of risk posed by not addressing the issue. The research strategy is intended to support and integrate with existing management efforts and strategies. As such, it melds observational studies with experimental manipulation, treating management actions as experiments whenever feasible. The research strategy focuses on disturbance processes and events that have been the primary drivers of change, to provide a predictive model for future changes. These drivers include fire, nonnative plants, herbivory, roads and associated human influences, and climate change. Whereas management in the western United States has striven to move from an inefficient species-based approach to a habitat-based approach, the plan focuses on ecosystem function and ecological processes as critical measures of habitat response. Because of the large amount and contiguity of public lands in the western United States, the region presents both a compelling opportunity to implement landscape-level science and a challenge to underst

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS2015

Global trends in emerging viral diseases of wildlife origin

Fifty years ago, infectious diseases were rarely considered threats to wildlife populations, and the study of wildlife diseases was largely a neglected endeavor. Furthermore, public health leaders at that time had declared that “it is time to close the book on infectious diseases and the war against pestilence won,” a quote attributed to Dr. William H. Stewart in 1967. There is some debate whether he actually said these words; however, they reflect the widespread belief at that time (Spellberg, 2008). Leap forward to today, and the book on infectious diseases has been dusted off. There is general consensus that the global environment favors the emergence of infectious diseases, and in particular, diseases of wildlife origin (Taylor et al., 2001). Examples of drivers of these infectious diseases include climate and landscape changes, human demographic and behavior changes, global travel and trade, microbial adaptation, and lack of appropriate infrastructure for wildlife disease control and prevention (Daszak et al., 2001). The consequences of these emerging diseases are global and profound with increased burden on the public health system, negative impacts on the global economy and food security, declines and extinctions of wildlife species, and subsequent loss of ecosystem integrity. For example, 35 million people are currently living with HIV infection globally (http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en); 400 million poultry have been culled since 2003 as a result of efforts to control highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza (http://www.fao.org/avianflu/en/index.html), and there are increasing biological and ecological consequences. Examples of health threats to biodiversity include the “spillover” of human diseases to great ape populations (Köndgen et al., 2008), the near-extirpation of the black-footed ferret from canine distemper and sylvatic plague (for a review see Abbott et al., 2012), and threats to Hawaiian forest birds from introduced pathogens such as avian malaria and avian pox (van Riper et al., 1986, 2002). There are also newly discovered pathogens or diseases that have resulted in population declines, and global extinctions of several species. Examples include Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which causes a cutaneous fungal infection of amphibians and is linked to declines of amphibians globally (Kriger and Hero, 2009); and recently discovered Pseudogymnoascus (Geomyces) destructans, the etiologic agent of white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has caused precipitous declines of North American bat species (Blehert et al., 2009). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of the subsequent impacts on human and ecosystem health; for example, increasing risk of exposure to Lyme disease as a consequence of decreased biodiversity (LoGiudice et al., 2003) as well as the economic cost of the loss of bats due to decreased insect control services (Boyles et al., 2011). Figure A12-1 is a timeline of important diseases investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey since the 1970s, which illustrates three factors: 1. The unprecedented emergence of new pathogens and geographic spread of known pathogens since the 1990s; 2. Diseases are increasingly causing large-scale, negative impacts on wildlife populations and spreading over larger geographic areas rather than remaining localized; and 3. Diseases are increasingly of concern for multiple sectors, including public health, agriculture and wildlife management agencies. Of increasing concern are these novel diseases such as WNS as they are hard to anticipate, particularly devastating to human health or wildlife populations, challenging to manage, spread over large geographic areas in short time periods, and may result in ecological ripple effects that are difficult to predict. The following article provides examples of recently emerged viral diseases of wildlife origin. The examples have been selected to illustrate the drivers of emerging viral diseases, both novel pathogens and previously known diseases, the impacts of these diseases, as well as the role of wildlife both as “villains” or reservoirs as well as “victims” of these viral diseases. The article also discusses potential management strategies for emerging viral diseases in wildlife populations and future science directions in wildlife health to prevent, prepare, respond to, and recover from these disease events. Finally, the concept of One Health and its potential role in developing solutions to these issues of mutual concern is discussed.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2013

A compilation of U.S. Geological Survey pesticide concentration data for water and sediment in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta region: 1990–2010

Beginning around 2000, abundance indices of four pelagic fishes (delta smelt, striped bass, longfin smelt, and threadfin shad) within the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta began to decline sharply (Sommer and others, 2007). These declines collectively became known as the pelagic organism decline (POD). No single cause has been linked to this decline, and current theories suggest that combinations of multiple stressors are likely to blame. Contaminants (including current-use pesticides) are one potential stressor being investigated for its role in the POD (Anderson, 2007). Pesticide concentration data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at multiple sites in the delta region over the past two decades are critical to understanding the potential effects of current-use pesticides on species of concern as well as the overall health of the delta ecosystem. In April 2010, a compilation of contaminant data for the delta region was published by the State Water Resources Control Board (Johnson and others, 2010). Pesticide occurrence was the major focus of this report, which concluded that “there was insufficient high quality data available to make conclusions about the potential role of specific contaminants in the POD.” The report cited multiple sources; however, data collected by the USGS were not included in the publication even though these data met all criteria listed for inclusion in the report. What follows is a summary of publicly available USGS data for pesticide concentrations in surface water and sediments within the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta region from the years 1990 through 2010. Data were retrieved though the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database, a publicly available online-data repository (U.S. Geological Survey, 1998), and from published USGS reports (also available online at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/). The majority of the data were collected in support of two long term USGS monitoring programs—National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA; http://water.usgs.gov/ nawqa/) and National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN; http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/)—and through projects associated with the USGS Toxics Substances Hydrology Program (http://toxics.usgs.gov/). In addition, data were collected during multiple research projects that were supported by various federal, state, and local agencies. Although these data have been previously published in some form, it is hoped that by focusing on samples collected within the delta region and presenting these data in a concise format, they will be a valuable resource for scientists, resource managers, and members of the public working to understand the role of pesticides in the POD and their potential effects on the overall health of the delta ecosystem.

California↗
USGS2011

Effects of dams in river networks on fish assemblages in non-impoundment sections of rivers in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA

Regional assessment of cumulative impacts of dams on riverine fish assemblages provides resource managers essential information for dam operation, potential dam removal, river health assessment and overall ecosystem management. Such an assessment is challenging because characteristics of fish assemblages are not only affected by dams, but also influenced by natural variation and human-induced modification (in addition to dams) in thermal and flow regimes, physicochemical habitats and biological assemblages. This study evaluated the impacts of dams on river fish assemblages in the non-impoundment sections of rivers in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin using multiple fish assemblage indicators and multiple approaches to distinguish the influences of dams from those of other natural and human-induced factors. We found that environmental factors that influence fish assemblages in addition to dams should be incorporated when evaluating regional effects of dams on fish assemblages. Without considering such co-influential factors, the evaluation is inadequate and potentially misleading. The role of dams alone in determining fish assemblages at a regional spatial scale is relatively small (explained less than 20% of variance) compared with the other environmental factors, such as river size, flow and thermal regimes and land uses jointly. However, our results do demonstrate that downstream and upstream dams can substantially modify fish assemblages in the non-impoundment sections of rivers. After excluding river size and land-use influences, our results clearly demonstrate that dams have significant impacts on fish biotic-integrity and habitat-and-social-preference indicators. The influences of the upstream dams, downstream dams, distance to dams, and dam density differ among the fish indicators, which have different implications for maintaining river biotic integrity, protecting biodiversity and managing fisheries.

Wisconsin and Michigan↗
USGS2012

The structure of Mediterranean rocky reef ecosystems across environmental and human gradients, and conservation implications

Historical exploitation of the Mediterranean Sea and the absence of rigorous baselines makes it difficult to evaluate the current health of the marine ecosystems and the efficacy of conservation actions at the ecosystem level. Here we establish the first current baseline and gradient of ecosystem structure of nearshore rocky reefs at the Mediterranean scale. We conducted underwater surveys in 14 marine protected areas and 18 open access sites across the Mediterranean, and across a 31-fold range of fish biomass (from 3.8 to 118 g m-2). Our data showed remarkable variation in the structure of rocky reef ecosystems. Multivariate analysis showed three alternative community states: (1) large fish biomass and reefs dominated by non-canopy algae, (2) lower fish biomass but abundant native algal canopies and suspension feeders, and (3) low fish biomass and extensive barrens, with areas covered by turf algae. Our results suggest that the healthiest shallow rocky reef ecosystems in the Mediterranean have both large fish and algal biomass. Protection level and primary production were the only variables significantly correlated to community biomass structure. Fish biomass was significantly larger in well-enforced no-take marine reserves, but there were no significant differences between multi-use marine protected areas (which allow some fishing) and open access areas at the regional scale. The gradients reported here represent a trajectory of degradation that can be used to assess the health of any similar habitat in the Mediterranean, and to evaluate the efficacy of marine protected areas.

PLoS ONE↗
USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Assessing potential health risks to fish and humans using mercury concentrations in inland fish from across western Canada and the United States

Fish represent high quality protein and nutrient sources, but Hg contamination is ubiquitous in aquatic ecosystems and can pose health risks to fish and their consumers. Potential health risks posed to fish and humans by Hg contamination in fish were assessed in western Canada and the United States. A large compilation of inland fish Hg concentrations was evaluated in terms of potential health risk to the fish themselves, health risk to predatory fish that consume Hg contaminated fish, and to humans that consume Hg contaminated fish. The probability that a fish collected from a given location would exceed a Hg concentration benchmark relevant to a health risk was calculated. These exceedance probabilities and their associated uncertainties were characterized for fish of multiple size classes at multiple health-relevant benchmarks. The approach was novel and allowed for the assessment of the potential for deleterious health effects in fish and humans associated with Hg contamination in fish across this broad study area. Exceedance probabilities were relatively common at low Hg concentration benchmarks, particularly for fish in larger size classes. Specifically, median exceedances for the largest size classes of fish evaluated at the lowest Hg concentration benchmarks were 0.73 (potential health risks to fish themselves), 0.90 (potential health risk to predatory fish that consume Hg contaminated fish), and 0.97 (potential for restricted fish consumption by humans), but diminished to essentially zero at the highest benchmarks and smallest fish size classes. Exceedances of benchmarks are likely to have deleterious health effects on fish and limit recommended amounts of fish humans consume in western Canada and the United States. Results presented here are not intended to subvert or replace local fish Hg data or consumption advice, but provide a basis for identifying areas of potential health risk and developing more focused future research and monitoring efforts.

Science of the Total Environment↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address chronic wasting disease and cervid health in 2024–2028

Chronic wasting disease (CWD), a neurological disease similar to scrapie in goats and sheep, has been spreading since the 1960s throughout cervid populations in the United States. It is currently detected in 30 States and now also extends to Canada, Korea, and Scandinavia. CWD is a fatal disease caused by an infectious abnormally folded prion protein. Population-level effects of CWD on localized subpopulations of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), and elk ( Cervus elaphus ) have been documented. While susceptible to CWD, free-ranging moose ( Alces alces ) and reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ) populations do not currently appear to be as severely affected. The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Chronic Wasting Disease and Cervid Health Science Team is to deliver integrated science to build resiliency into free-ranging cervid populations through more effective management of CWD, build capacity for ungulate health science, and enhance cervid health information sharing across USGS science centers and cooperative research units as well as with stakeholders. The USGS can play an important role in supporting regional and (or) national capacity building by providing resources and guidance to local, State, and Tribal management entities and by providing tools to enhance disease management. The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area’s Biological Threats and Invasive Species Research Program (BTRP) is the lead Federal program for free-ranging wildlife disease research and surveillance. The BTRP is relied upon by Congress, as well as local, State, and Tribal partners, to provide quality science that allows for informed decisions to be made about wildlife disease policy, planning, and management. The information provided by our research gives policy makers and the public the understanding needed to improve management preparedness and response. This document describes the U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy To Address Chronic Wasting Disease and Cervid Health. It lays out a 5-year science strategy (2024–2028) for continued USGS research to study CWD in free-ranging cervids and their environments. The strategy includes improving detection methods, advancing our understanding of the mechanisms of transmission, incorporating the human dimensions and socio-economic effects of CWD in scientific studies, developing tools for decision making, and understanding potential effects of this disease on ecosystem health.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Principles of riverscape health

Riverscapes are the integration of terrestrial and aquatic systems from headwaters to estuaries that provide habitat and ecosystem benefits when in good health. However, current riverscape degradation is pervasive, impairing the function and resulting benefits of these systems. Healthy riverscapes are adaptive and some can ‘heal’ after disturbance with minimal to no human assistance. As riverscape health is threatened, a need exists to address current degradation and understand the potential for riverscape restoration—concisely communicating what comprises healthy riverscapes is essential to direct limited resources and increase efficacy of restoration and conservation efforts. Healthy riverscapes have (i) space to interact within their valley bottom; (ii) natural flow, sediment, and vegetation regimes appropriate to the biophysical setting and river type; and (iii) structural forcing to support diversity and that creates varied residence times for water, sediment, and vegetation. These three principles are grounded in interdisciplinary science and lessons from riverscape scientists and restoration practitioners across the world. Understanding the context, anthropogenic influences, boundary conditions, and legacy effects influencing riverscapes is essential for the appropriate application of these principles in pursuit of achieving riverscape health. Emphasizing a holistic, biogeomorphic view of riverscapes through these principles can guide policies, restoration actions, and monitoring frameworks that ensure that riverscapes remain capable of accommodating and adjusting to disturbances while continuing to support biodiversity and human benefits.

WIREsWATER (Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Primer↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address highly pathogenic avian influenza and its effects on wildlife health 2025–29

Executive Summary Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an ecologically and economically important animal disease that can also directly affect humans (a “zoonotic” disease). HPAI was once limited almost exclusively to domestic poultry but has rapidly adapted to diverse animal hosts. Viruses causing HPAI now appear to be maintained and dispersed by wild birds largely independent of poultry, though HPAI continues to cause considerable economic losses and supply chain disruptions in the domestic poultry trade. Coincident with the adaptation of HPAI viruses to wild birds, particularly waterfowl and gulls, increasingly diverse wild bird hosts are becoming exposed to HPAI, often resulting in disease and death. More sporadically, HPAI has caused mass mortality events, particularly among seabirds. Furthermore, viral spillover to wild and domestic mammals has become more common. Spillover to wild mammals has resulted in mortality among diverse terrestrial and marine taxa, including episodic losses of such scale as to represent potential conservation challenges. Since approximately March 2024, HPAI has also affected dairy cows, which represents a new threat to the agricultural economy. Lastly, HPAI has increasingly affected humans through domestic animal exposures, exemplifying the considerable implications of this disease beyond animal health. Rapid changes in the ecology of HPAI are currently outpacing research efforts. For example, it is not entirely clear which newly established hosts may become reservoirs for HPAI viruses (in other words, capable of maintaining HPAI viruses within a broad population indefinitely) and how this may influence viral evolution and dissemination. As a result, there are considerable information gaps regarding HPAI in wildlife that, if filled, would improve the ability of scientists, managers, agricultural industry representatives, and healthcare professionals to understand and to anticipate the effects of HPAI on wild animal, domestic animal, environmental, and human health (“One Health”). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead Federal agency providing scientific research on avian influenza viruses (AIVs), including HPAI viruses, that affect wildlife for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has management authority. States have jurisdiction over wildlife on Federal lands within their borders (43 CFR § 24.3), so the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area (EMA) coordinates with State natural resource management agencies. The EMA focuses its research on HPAI through priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team ( app. 1 ). Priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team are based on Administration priorities, Congressional direction, and discussions with State, Federal, and Tribal natural resource management agencies that identify specific scientific gaps that need to be filled to inform sound wildlife management decisions. Notable non-DOI Federal partners include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the lead for the HPAI regulatory response in poultry and livestock, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the lead agency for the HPAI response pertaining to human health. The USGS offers unique expertise and capacity pertaining to research on diseases affecting free-ranging wildlife populations. This expertise has been critical to interjurisdictional surveillance and capacity-building efforts, including programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the CDC. The USGS also provides resources, guidance, and tools to inform surveillance and interventions conducted by natural resource management agencies. More specifically, the USGS EMA provides objective and rigorous scientific data for inferring (1) the utility of new methods to detect and characterize AIVs, including those maintained in wildlife and the environment; (2) effects of HPAI on wildlife; (3) spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife host and AIV dispersal; (4) the presence and persistence of AIVs in the environment; (5) how HPAI in wildlife influences consumptive and nonconsumptive utilization of wildlife; (6) how new tools and scientific methods may promote sound management decisions for HPAI-affected wildlife, particularly species of conservation concern; and (7) the combined effects of HPAI and other stressors on ecosystem health and resiliency. This science strategy builds upon research outlined in a previous USGS science strategy for HPAI (2016–20) by Harris and others (2016) . This strategy also details research priorities identified by the Administration (for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2025 ) and others based on USGS Avian Influenza Science Team discussions with natural resource management agencies to address HPAI and wildlife health over the next 5 years (2025–29). This strategy presents 7 goals and 26 objectives that focus USGS and partner efforts on priorities that will fill data gaps regarding the effects of HPAI on wildlife managed by or co-managed with the U.S. Department of the Interior such that agencies and partners might anticipate or limit adverse effects on public resources. This strategy also identifies research priorities intended to address HPAI in wildlife and wildlife habitat that are anticipated to support interjurisdictional One Health efforts.

Circular↗
USGS2018

Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity

Biodiversity —the variety of life on Earth—provides vital services that support and improve human health and well-being. Ecosystems, which are composed of living things that interact with the physical environment, provide numerous essential benefits to people. These benefits, termed ecosystem services, encompass four primary functions: provisioning materials, such as food and fiber; regulating critical parts of the environment, such as water quality and erosion control; providing cultural services, such as recreational opportunities and aesthetic value; and providing supporting services, such as nutrient cycling. Climate change poses many threats and potential disruptions to ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as to the ecosystem services on which people depend. Building on the findings of the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3), this chapter provides additional evidence that climate change is significantly impacting ecosystems and biodiversity in the United States. Mounting evidence also demonstrates that climate change is increasingly compromising the ecosystem services that sustain human communities, economies, and well-being. Both human and natural systems respond to change, but their ability to respond and thrive under new conditions is determined by their adaptive capacity, which may be inadequate to keep pace with rapid change. Our understanding of climate change impacts and the responses of biodiversity and ecosystems has improved since NCA3. The expected consequences of climate change will vary by region, species, and ecosystem type. Management responses are evolving as new tools and approaches are developed and implemented; however, they may not be able to overcome the negative impacts of climate change. Although efforts have been made since NCA3 to incorporate climate adaptation strategies into natural resource management, significant work remains to comprehensively implement climate-informed planning. This chapter presents additional evidence for climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services, reflecting increased confidence in the findings reported in NCA3. The chapter also illustrates the complex and interrelated nature of climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they provide.

Report↗
USGS2018

What goes up must come down: Integrating air and water quality monitoring for nutrients

Excess nitrogen and phosphorus (“nutrients”) loadings continue to affect ecosystem function and human health across the U.S. Our ability to connect atmospheric inputs of nutrients to aquatic end points remains limited due to uncoupled air and water quality monitoring. Where connections exist, the information provides insights about source apportionment, trends, risk to sensitive ecosystems, and efficacy of pollution reduction efforts. We examine several issues driving the need for better integrated monitoring, including: coastal eutrophication, urban hotspots of deposition, a shift from oxidized to reduced nitrogen deposition, and the disappearance of pristine lakes. Successful coordination requires consistent data reporting; collocating deposition and water quality monitoring; improving phosphorus deposition measurements; and filling coverage gaps in urban corridors, agricultural areas, undeveloped watersheds, and coastal zones.

Environmental Science and Technology↗
USGS2024

A multidisciplinary approach that considers occurrence, geochemistry, bioavailability, and toxicity to prioritize critical minerals for environmental research

Critical minerals (or critical elements) are minerals or elements that are essential to global security and development and have supply chains vulnerable to disruption. In general, knowledge of the environmental behavior and health effects of critical elements is needed to support the development of safe and environmentally responsible supplies. This knowledge includes identifying potential consequences of increased critical element production and use, alternative critical element sources such as mine wastes, and adverse effects of critical elements on ecosystem condition and organismal health. Here we identify significant data gaps in the understanding of critical elements in surficial and aquatic environments, and the need, given the large number of commodities (50) identified on the 2022 critical minerals list for the United States, for an approach to prioritize them for study of their environmental fate and effects. We propose a multidisciplinary approach for this prioritization, considering measures of occurrence, geochemistry, bioavailability, and toxicity. We describe relatively easy-to-obtain metrics for each of these topic areas and demonstrate the utility of this integrated prioritization approach using indium and zinc as examples. This approach facilitates prioritizing research with a focus on those critical elements that are most mobile in the environment, bioavailable, toxic, or simply lacking data in these categories.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake science strategy, 2015-2025—Informing ecosystem management of America’s largest estuary

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the critical role of providing scientific information to improve the understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The USGS works with Federal, State, and academic science partners to provide research and monitoring, and communicate results of these activities to enhance ecosystem management for both the Chesapeake and other National ecosystems. The USGS Chesapeake Science Strategy was prepared to guide science activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2014–2025), to support the Department of the Interior (DOI) involvement in the Bay restoration efforts, and align with the USGS Mission Area (MA) Science strategies. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation’s largest estuary, and provides critical goods and services to the people, fish, and wildlife that use the 64,000-square-mile watershed. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains over 3,600 species of fish, wildlife, and plants and provides spawning grounds for many ecologically and economically important species including striped bass and blue crabs. The Bay watershed lies in the heart of the Atlantic Flyway and has 29 species of waterfowl, about 1 million of which winter in the region. The size of the Chesapeake seafood harvest is third in the Nation, only behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Along with agricultural production, tourism, and recreation, the estimated economic value of the services from the Chesapeake Bay watershed is about $100 billion annually. However, the health of the Bay ecosystem began to decline at the beginning of the 20th century due to overfishing and increasing human population and associated land change. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is the Federal-State cooperative effort that started in 1983 to restore the Bay and watershed. Given the ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake ecosystem, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) in 2009 for increased Federal leadership in the CBP to enhance the pace of restoration, and the supporting strategy was released in 2010. The EO directed the Federal Government, including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and the USGS, to expand its efforts and increase leadership to restore the Bay and its watershed. The USGS and other Federal agencies expanded their activities in 2011 to meet the President’s Chesapeake EO. Since the EO was released, there have been several important changes in the USGS, DOI, and the CBP including: (1) the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, (2) increased DOI leadership in the CBP, and (3) the release of the USGS MA science strategies. The EO strategy served as a foundation for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement that was signed in 2014 by the CBP Partners, and has goals and outcomes to be met by 2025. The USGS developed the Chesapeake Science Strategy to guide our activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, DOI leadership in the CBP, and USGS MA strategies. Improving the understanding of fish and wildlife population and health, and the factors affecting their condition is the emphasis of the Strategy. The science focuses on documenting the critical ecosystem connections in the Chesapeake, and providing implications to enhance decision making for restoration and conservation activities. The revised Strategy has four themes that address 7 of the 10 goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement: Enhance science to support restoration, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and critical habitats. Characterize and explain changes in water quality, and its effect on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Assess and forecast effects of climate and land change on ecosystem conditions. Synthesize and provide information to support ecosystem management. The structure and function of biological communities of the Bay and its watershed are extremely complex and are affected by a variety of stressors and conditions. To better define the issues being addressed, the USGS has developed cross-cutting questions that define some of the most important scientific challenges where multiple disciplines and collaborators are needed to address an issue. The initial questions include: How do land and climate changes affect freshwater fish communities, health, and habitats? What are the relations among land use, water quality, contaminants, and the health of fish and wildlife? How are coastal wetlands and their carrying capacity for waterbirds affected by changing climate and land use? How is the water quality of rivers and estuaries responding to restoration actions, and changing land use? What are some of the best opportunities for management actions to benefit multiple restoration outcomes?

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS2022

Framework for the development of the Columbia River mainstem fish tissue and water quality monitoring program - Bonneville Dam to Canadian border

The Columbia River provides important cultural, economic, and ecological services to a significant portion of the United States. Anadromous and resident fish species and other wildlife are integrated into the cultural traditions of all Tribes in the Columbia River Basin. Salmon, lamprey, sturgeon, and resident fish are an integral part of Tribal religion, culture, and physical sustenance. Despite concerns about the effect of contaminants on the aquatic ecosystem, the disproportionate effects of contaminants on members of Tribal sovereignties, and the known effects of contaminants on species protected under the Endangered Species Act, efforts to address toxic chemical pollution in the Columbia River have been limited. The lack of a dedicated contaminant monitoring program impedes evaluation and decision making regarding the health of the Columbia River ecosystem, as well as human health for Tribal members and others that consume fish and other biota from the Columbia River. The purpose of this framework is to provide guidance for the development of a long-term program (Program) that provides the basis for assessing the status and trends of contaminants in fish, sediment, water, and invertebrates along the 962-kilometer length of the Columbia River from the Bonneville Dam upriver to the Canadian Border (Figure ES1). This framework will focus on four persistent and bioaccumulative classes of toxic contaminants: • Mercury • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) • Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) Media of interest in this framework include anadromous and resident fish, sediment, invertebrates, biofilm, and surface water. Future consideration of additional contaminants could include pesticides, per or poly-fluoroalkyl substances, 6PPD-quinone, and contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), which comprises a diverse group of anthropogenic chemicals that include thousands of pharmaceuticals, hormones, illicit drugs, new pesticides, personal care products, flame retardants, artificial sweeteners, perfluorinated compounds, disinfection byproducts, ultraviolet filters, and other industrial chemicals. This framework includes the vision, goals, and objectives for the Program. The vision for the Program is that it will provide the basis for assessing the status and trends of contaminants in the Columbia River to guide ecosystem recovery resulting in clean, healthy fish for current and future generations . The goals of the Program are to 1) conduct long-term monitoring to assess the spatial and temporal status and trends of toxics in fish, water, sediment, and other potential media in the Columbia River mainstem, from Bonneville Dam to the Canadian Border in perpetuity, 2) stimulate conversion of science into action by providing information to facilitate future decision making that improves ecosystem function and reduces contaminants in all levels of the food chain, and 3) adaptively manage the Program to address new key questions, incorporate new and emerging science advancements, and respond to community information needs. To facilitate achieving these goals, this framework provides details on technical planning; community outreach and engagement; and adaptive management to promote understanding and improve future decision making over the long-term, including updating the Program with new and emerging science and community needs. Additionally, data associated with the Program will be made available to the public through the EPA Water Quality Exchange (https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/water-quality-data). Documents and other materials associated with the Program can be accessed via a website hosted by Yakama Nation Fisheries (https://yakamafish-nsn.gov/restore/projects/columbia-river-mainstem- water-quality-monitoring-program). Although the Program is limited to the Columbia River upstream of the Bonneville Dam, collaboration with other entities that monitor contaminants in the Columbia River Basin, including the Columbia River estuary below Bonneville Dam, are also an important component of outreach. Our goal is to encourage efforts to ensure data comparability across programs and recognize that the growth and adaptive management of the Program considers basin-wide monitoring developments.

Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey invasive species research—Improving detection, awareness, decision support, and control

More than 6,500 nonindigenous species are now established in the United States, posing risks to human and wildlife health, native plants and animals, and our valued ecosystems. The annual environmental, economic, and health-related costs of invasive species are substantial. Invasive species can drive native species onto the endangered species list, resulting in associated regulatory costs; exacerbate the threat of wildland fire, which destroys property and threatens lives; increase the cost of delivering water and power; damage infrastructure; and degrade recreation opportunities and discourage tourism. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works with sister agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and other Federal, State, and territorial agencies, Tribes, and other stakeholders to provide information and tools needed to help solve problems posed by invasive species across the country. Key components of USGS invasive species science include developing novel prevention, forecasting, early detection, decision support, and control tools.

Circular↗