USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Science Report”

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 631 records · Page 35Linked to original sources
USGS2020

Mars orbiter for resources, ices, and environments (MORIE)

The MORIE mission concept study examined the science and technical trade space to address high priority questions related to ice reservoirs and environmental transitions. The study team converged on a medium-class SEP-enabled orbiter with seven instruments to unlock the extent and volume of subsurface ice and geologic sequence stratigraphy through time. Observations would include the first radar imaging from orbit, the first radar sounding directly over the poles, and surface mineral mapping at unprecedented spatial scales.

Planetary Science Decadal Survey, Planetary Missio↗
USGS2023

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from October 2019 to July 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) created a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here and built on to incorporate new information. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter “GRSG”) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” under the Endangered Species Act was in part a result of a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the USGS has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. Our most recent GRSG literature summary was published in 2020 (Carter and others, 2020) and included products published through October 2, 2019. Here, we consider products published between October 2, 2019, and July 21, 2022. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and USGS Open-File Reports) on greater sage-grouse. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the search phrase “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products for which greater sage-grouse was not a research focus or the study did not present new data or findings about greater sage-grouse. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified management topics addressed by each product; for example, species and population characteristics. We also identified projects that provided new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 221 total products, of which 147 met our criteria for inclusion. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics, behavior or demographics, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat selection, and population estimates or targets were the most commonly addressed management topics. The online version of this bibliography, which will be available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ), will be searchable by topic, location, and year, and will include links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GRSG populations across the GRSG range.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

USGS “Did You Feel It?” — Science and lessons from twenty years of citizen science-based macroseismology

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system is an automatic method for rapidly collecting macroseismic intensity data from Internet users’ shaking and damage reports and for generating intensity maps immediately following felt earthquakes. DYFI has been in operation for nearly two decades (1999-2019) in the United States, and for nearly 15 years globally. During that period the amount of data collected is astounding: Over 5 million individual DYFI intensity reports—spanning all magnitude and distance ranges—have been amassed and archived. DYFI allows for macroseismic data collection at rates and quantities never before imagined, and thus high-quality macroseismic intensity maps can be made almost immediately, and with more complete coverage at higher resolution than in the past. DYFI also allows for valuable positive interactions of the citizenry with a Federal science agency. In essence, the widespread adoption of DYFI—along with ShakeMap—has facilitated the general acceptance of the very concept of shaking intensity, fundamentally improving our agency’s ability to communicate both hazard and risk to the population. DYFI effectively confirms the importance of reporting and inculcating the public’s understanding of intensity—in addition to magnitude—for a proper perspective of earthquake risk-related decision-making. Furthermore, the vast amount of DYFI data allow for data-rich analyses of otherwise intractable seismological, sociological, and earthquake impact studies that range from quantifying the shaking due to induced earthquakes, to human response and risk perception, to relating recorded shaking metrics to macroseismic effects, and the attenuation of intensity with magnitude and distance. Naturally, web-based data collection also poses challenges. After two decades of experience acquiring data with the DYFI system, we address some of these hallenges by documenting refinements to our algorithmic and operational procedures that have evolved over that time. Lastly, we outline new opportune research and development directions for our DYFI approach to citizen seismology.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗
USGS2006

Summary of recovered historical ground-water-level data for Michigan, 1934-2005

This report documents ground-water-level data-recovery efforts performed by the USGS Michigan Water Science Center and provides nearly three-hundred hydrographs generated from these recovered data. Data recovery is the process of verifying and transcribing data from paper files into the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) electronic databases appropriate for ground-water-level data. Entering these data into the NWIS databases makes them more useful for USGS analysis and also makes them available to the public through the internet.

Michigan↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment: Restoration topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are substantial management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions, and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed 10 needs (hereinafter “Needs”) identified under the Restoration topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs for improving restoration success in degraded sagebrush rangelands. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (“Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 371 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Restoration topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: the development of methods to improve seeding success of native plants after fire; evaluation of short- and long-term plant responses relative to biotic and abiotic factors following restoration treatments; assessments of long-term effects on ecosystem processes following conifer removal treatments and development of decision support tools to aid in conifer management; determination of the costs of restoration treatments relative to the benefits to sage-grouse occupancy, survival, and populations; and assessments of the factors which contribute to soil degradation and development of soil enhancement methods that enhance seed germination and seedling survival while resisting nonnative plants. Needs that were not addressed well included: the development of methods for the rapid recovery of sagebrush and native herbaceous plants following wildfire and determination of whether treatments benefit sage-grouse and mitigate impacts from fires; determination of thresholds for successful restoration across a range of environmental conditions and development of decision support tools to assist with restoration effectiveness monitoring; and development and evaluation of the utility of seed transfer zones. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗
USGS2024

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on Taeniatherum caput-medusae published from January 2010 to January 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey is creating a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate the integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here to frame the presentation. Invasive annual grasses are widely distributed throughout the western United States and threaten native ecosystems by altering fire regimes, replacing native plants, and altering grazing patterns, often with tremendous associated costs. One invasive annual grass, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (hereafter, medusahead), was first documented in the United States in 1887 and has been identified as a species of management concern. Medusahead’s life history traits allow it to quickly and effectively dominate native plant communities, and it has already taken over millions of acres in western North America. Although medusahead can spread widely and disrupt ecosystem function, it has been studied less than other western invasive grass species. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports) on medusahead, published between January 2010 and January 2022. We first performed a systematic search of three reference databases and three government databases using the search phrase “medusahead” OR “medusa head” OR “ Taeniatherum caput-medusae ” OR “ Taeniatherum caputmedusae ” OR “ Taeniatherum asperum .” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) products not written in English, (3) publications that were not focused on North America, (4) publications that were not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (5) products for which medusahead was not a research focus, or the study did not present new data or findings about medusahead. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified the management topics (for example, species and population characteristics; habitat; and control and management efforts) addressed by each product. We also noted which publications included new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included an initial internal colleague review of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and a formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 4,245 total products, of which 211 met our criteria for inclusion. The most commonly addressed management topics addressed in products summarized in the annotated bibliography were as follows: nonnative invasive plants, weed management, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat restoration or reclamation, and cultural management of weeds. All published bibliographies, including the online version of this bibliography, are available at the Science for Resource Managers ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ). This database is searchable by topic, location, and year and includes links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and associated native species across the western United States.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1983

Land resource information needs of county government : a case study in Larimer County, Colorado

My two colleagues on the study team, Rex Burns of the Larimer County Planning Department, and Glenn McCarty of the Fort Collins office of the Soil Conservation Service, contributed substantially to this report; many of their written words have found their way directly into the text. Jill O'Gara later replaced Rex Burns as the Larimer County coordinator in the study's final stages. John Rold, Colorado State Geologist, assisted in coordinating our efforts at the beginning of this study. Lou Campbell, State Cartographer, gave valuable advice and assistance throughout the effort. Wallace Hansen and James Blakey of the USGS Geologic and Water Resources Divisions, respectively, read the final manuscript and helped in many other ways. Joanna Trolinger served as research assistant and manuscript typist. Many others in the USGS, SCS, and other organizations helped in supplying information and advice. Tom Bates, then Chairman of the USGS Central Region Earth Science Applications Task Force, was the originator of the study, leader of the USGS participation effort, and guiding inspiration throughout. The study was carried out in association with the Program on Environment and Behavior, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on Gunnison sage-grouse published from January 2005 to September 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey is creating a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate the integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here to frame the presentation. Centrocercus minimus (Gunnison sage-grouse; hereafter GUSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation since the early 2000s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed GUSG as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2014 because of declining populations and increasing habitat loss. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife have sought to increase the conservation of this species by adapting management and recovery plans to reduce threats and increase population resiliency. GUSG are studied less than the closely related Centrocercus urophasianus (greater sage-grouse); however, research efforts have recently increased to understand the life history, genetics, and habitat suitability of this sagebrush-obligate species. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports) on GUSG, published between January 2005 and September 2022. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the following search phrases: “Gunnison sage-grouse” or “lesser sage-grouse” or “Gunnison grouse” or “Gunnison sage grouse” or “lesser sage grouse” or “ Centrocercus minimus .” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications that were not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products that did not have GUSG as a research focus or products that did not present new data or findings about GUSG. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified the management topics (for example, population estimates or targets, habitat, and management efforts) addressed by each product. We also noted which publications included new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and a formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 80 total products, of which 63 met our criteria for inclusion of which 53 were products that had not been summarized before. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics; population estimates or targets; behavior or demographics; and genetics were the most commonly addressed management topics. The bibliographies are available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ) and are searchable by topic, location, and year, and the search tool includes links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized in this annotated bibliography may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GUSG populations across the GUSG range.

Colorado↗
USGS2016

Users and uses of Landsat 8 satellite imagery—2014 survey results

Executive Summary In 2013, Landsat 8 began adding high quality, global, moderate-resolution imagery to the more than 40-year archive of Landsat imagery. To assess the potential effects of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on users and their work, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Land Remote Sensing Program (LRS) initiated a survey of Landsat users. The objectives of the survey were to 1. Characterize various Landsat user groups, such as United States (U.S.) and international users and Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users; 2. Identify any differences among user groups in uses and preferences; 3. Measure the importance of and satisfaction with Landsat 8 attributes; 4. Assess the importance to users of the frequency of usable imagery; and 5. Determine any challenges in using Landsat 8. The online survey was sent to 51,617 Landsat users registered with USGS in May 2014. Almost 13,000 people responded to the survey for a response rate of 25 percent (n = 12,966). Current Landsat users (users who had used Landsat in their work in the year prior to the survey) composed 89 percent of the sample (n = 11,549) and past Landsat users composed 11 percent (n = 1,417). The results reported here apply to current Landsat users registered with the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Users from 161 countries responded to the survey. Of those, 19 percent were citizens or permanent residents of the United States and 81 percent resided in other countries. More than 70 percent of current users had used Landsat 8 in the year prior to the survey. The majority of Landsat 8 users (65 percent) were established users who used Landsat imagery regularly both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available. The average current Landsat user was male, 36 years old, and highly educated, with 9 years of experience using satellite imagery or geographic information system (GIS) software. Landsat 8 users had, on average, two more years of experience than non-Landsat 8 users. Users were employed predominantly by academic institutions (65 percent), followed by private businesses (13 percent), Federal governments (10 percent), State and local governments (6 percent), and nonprofit organizations (6 percent). Of the Landsat imagery obtained in the past year by current users, on average 31 percent came from a Landsat 8 sensor. An equivalent amount came from the Landsat 7 ETM+ sensor (33 percent); slightly less came from Landsats 4 and 5 TM sensors (27 percent). Much less came from Landsats 1 through 5 MSS sensors (5 percent). Overall, more than a third of users’ work used Landsat imagery (38 percent). Of this work, on average, 37 percent of the work was operational. Landsat 8 users considered a greater proportion of their work operational than non-Landsat 8 users (39 percent compared with 29 percent). Environmental sciences and management were the most commonly selected primary applications (selected by 42 percent of users). Land use/land cover (23 percent) was the second most commonly selected primary application, followed by education (12 percent), agriculture (9 percent), and planning and development (6 percent). Landsat 8 users were asked to rank the importance of certain attributes in determining whether to use Landsat 8 imagery in their work. The archive was ranked most important, followed by cost, spatial resolution, extent of coverage, data quality, and frequency of revisit. Users were asked how satisfied they were with these same attributes as they currently apply to Landsat 8 imagery. On average, users were most satisfied with lack of cost, extent of coverage, data quality, and the archive, but they were satisfied with all attributes. Users were asked how often they needed Landsat imagery to meet various requirements for their primary application. The survey question specifically asked how often users needed usable imagery, which differs from how often they would like the Landsat satellites to acquire an image. Users were asked to identify their needed frequency of usable imagery for the following levels: 1. Threshold level—the minimum frequency of usable imagery needed to be of any value to their primary application. 2. Breakthrough level—the frequency of usable imagery that would result in a significant improvement for their primary application of the imagery. 3. Target level—the frequency of usable imagery that would only provide a limited additional increase in the expected performance for their primary application. To meet the threshold level, three-quarters of users needed usable imagery every 17 days or less frequently. At the breakthrough level, two-thirds of users (64 percent) needed a usable image every 5–16 days. The current constellation of two satellites (Landsat 7 and 8) is capable of meeting the threshold and breakthrough needs of most users at least some of the time, but a single satellite would be highly unlikely to do so. Two-fifths of users (40 percent) felt that usable imagery provided every 4 days or more frequently would meet their target level which the current Landsat constellation cannot provide. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than non-Landsat 8 users to need usable imagery more frequently to meet their target levels. Additionally, U.S. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than other Landsat users to need usable imagery more frequently in order meet both their breakthrough and target levels. To explore the effect of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on Landsat imagery use in general, established users (those who had consistently used Landsat imagery both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available) using Landsat 8 imagery were asked about changes in the amount of Landsat imagery they used. The majority of established users using Landsat 8 imagery (60 percent) reported an average increase of 51 percent in the number of scenes obtained after Landsat 8 imagery became available. Landsat 8 users were asked if they had encountered challenges in using Landsat 8 whereas non-Landsat 8 users were asked if such challenges had played a role in why they were not using Landsat 8 imagery. Although many users did not encounter challenges when using or trying to use Landsat 8 data, slightly less than 30 percent did encounter issues with processing the data to a usable point. The most common issue reported was not being able to create or have access to a surface reflectance corrected product. Other challenges were related to the file sizes of images being too large to download, store, or analyze. There were no statistically significant differences between Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users in terms of challenges encountered when using or trying to use the imagery, which indicates that users were not unduly discouraged by the challenges they may have encountered. When asked about potential consequences of not using Landsat 8, more than half of the non-Landsat 8 users did not report detrimental effects on their work from not using the imagery. Of those who did report detrimental effects, decreased quality of work, decreased scope of work, and increased time spent on work were the most common.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment: Invasives topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed six needs (hereinafter “Needs”) identified under the Invasives topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs related to the control of invasive plant species in sagebrush rangelands, with a special emphasis on invasive annual grasses. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (“Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed, or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 198 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Invasives topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: studies of natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the distribution and spread; methods of preventing, eradicating and controlling invasive plant species; development of mapping techniques that provide regularly updated annual grass and fine fuel projections; and assessment of the efficacy of potential cheatgrass biocontrol agents. Needs that were addressed poorly included (1) investigations of livestock grazing as a tool for managing invasive plants and (2) investigations of cheatgrass die-offs and identification and subsequent study of potential biocontrol agents associated with those die-offs. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗
USGS2018

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review postcard

This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 Year in Review, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1438, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1438 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review postcard

This postcard provides details about the "Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2018 Year in Review," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1452, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1452 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗