SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Current Research in Earth Sciences”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

USGS2003

An overview on current fluid-inclusion research and applications

This paper provides an overview of some of the more important developments in fluid-inclusion research and applications in recent years, including fluid-inclusion petrography, PVTX studies, and analytical techniques. In fluid-inclusion petrography, the introduction of the concept of 'fluid-inclusion assemblage' has been a major advance. In PVTX studies, the use of synthetic fluid inclusions and hydrothermal diamond-anvil cells has greatly contributed to the characterization of the phase behaviour of geologically relevant fluid systems. Various analytical methods are being developed and refined rapidly, with the Laser-Raman and LA-ICP-MS techniques being particularly useful for volatile and solute analyses, respectively. Ore deposit research has been and will continue to be the main field of application of fluid inclusions. However, fluid inclusions have been increasingly applied to other fields of earth science, especially in petroleum geology and the study of magmatic and earth interior processes.

Acta Petrologica Sinica↗

USGS2012

U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy

The economy, national security, and standard of living of the United States depend heavily on adequate and reliable supplies of energy and mineral resources. Based on current population and consumption trends, the Nation's use of energy and minerals can be expected to grow, driving the demand for ever broader scientific understanding of resource formation, location, and availability. In addition, the increasing importance of environmental stewardship, human health, and sustainable growth place further emphasis on energy and mineral resources research and understanding. Collectively, these trends in resource demand and the interconnectedness among resources will lead to new challenges and, in turn, require cutting-edge science for the next generation of societal decisions. The contributions of the U.S. Geological Survey to energy and minerals research are well established. Based on five interrelated goals, this plan establishes a comprehensive science strategy. It provides a structure that identifies the most critical aspects of energy and mineral resources for the coming decade. * Goal 1. - Understand fundamental Earth processes that form energy and mineral resources. * Goal 2. - Understand the environmental behavior of energy and mineral resources and their waste products. * Goal 3. - Provide inventories and assessments of energy and mineral resources. * Goal 4. - Understand the effects of energy and mineral development on natural resources. * Goal 5. - Understand the availability and reliability of energy and mineral resource supplies. Within each goal, multiple, scalable actions are identified. The level of specificity and complexity of these actions varies, consistent with the reality that even a modest refocus can yield large payoffs in the near term whereas more ambitious plans may take years to reach fruition. As such, prioritization of actions is largely dependent on policy direction, available resources, and the sequencing of prerequisite steps that will lead up to the most visionary directions. The science strategy stresses early planning and places an emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration and leveraging of expertise across the U.S. Geological Survey.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2026

On-demand global Landsat evapotranspiration product: Development, evaluation, and dissemination

Global actual evapotranspiration (ET) is one of the essential climate variables needed to understand and manage the relationships among food, energy, and water resources. The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center launched a provisional ET product in 2020, offering on-demand, field-scale global coverage derived from Landsat data through the EROS Science Processing Architecture (ESPA) platform. The ESPA interface provides ET data for cloud-free Landsat overpasses starting in 1982 with Landsat 4 through the current Landsat 9. The ET data are delivered as a Provisional Level-3 Science product created using the Operational Simplified Surface Energy Balance (SSEBop) model. Landsat surface temperature and reference ET are the main model drivers along with vegetation index and net radiation for model parameterization. A large volume of Landsat-based ET orders (e.g., over 1,200,000 images from June 2020 through December 2025) around the world indicate increasing awareness and application of the ET data. The ESPA platform enables land and water resource managers and researchers to access a first-order ET product without requiring advanced knowledge of remote sensing technology or evapotranspiration modeling. We present the methodology and workflow of the on-demand Landsat ET product and its performance evaluations over diverse hydro-climatic settings. The product can help estimate field-scale consumptive water use and thus quickly and consistently assess historical water use, allocation, and budget to inform water management under changing environments. Future ET data aggregated to monthly and seasonal time scales are expected to enhance integration with decision-making tools and procedures.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗

USGS2003

To the National Map and beyond

Scientific understanding, technology, and social, economic, and environmental conditions have driven a rapidly changing demand for geographic information, both digital and analog. For more than a decade, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been developing innovative partnerships with other government agencies and private industry to produce and distribute geographic information efficiently; increase activities in remote sensing to ensure ongoing monitoring of the land surface; and develop new understanding of the causes and consequences of land surface change. These activities are now contributing to a more robust set of geographic information called The National Map (TNM). The National Map is designed to provide an up-to-date, seamless, horizontally and vertically integrated set of basic digital geographic data, a frequent monitoring of changes on the land surface, and an understanding of the condition of the Earth's surface and many of the processes that shape it. The USGS has reorganized its National Mapping Program into three programs to address the continuum of scientific activities-describing (mapping), monitoring, understanding, modeling, and predicting. The Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program focuses primarily on the mapping and revision aspects of TNM. The National Map also includes results from the Land Remote Sensing and Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Programs that provide continual updates, new insights, and analytical tools. The National Map is valuable as a framework for current research, management, and operational activities. It also provides a critical framework for the development of distributed, spatially enabled decision support systems.

Cartography and Geographic Information Science↗

USGS2022

Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

USGS2011

North American Jurassic APW: The current dilemma

Geologists are in a quandary over the correct interpretation of paleomagnetic data for Jurassic rocks of the North American plate. Conflicting reference paleopoles and alternate methods of constructing apparent polar wander (APW) paths have led to a controversy regarding the configuration of Jurassic APW for cratonic North America. These differences have been recently disputed at meetings (see Eos , Spring Meeting Supplement, April 7, 1992, p. 94) and in an exchange of letters in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth [ Butler et al ., 1992; Van Fossen and Kent , 1992a]. At stake is important information concerning the Jurassic paleogeography of North America and the whole of Pangea, as well as the nature and driving mechanism of plate movements. In addition, cratonic paleopoles provide a reference frame for measuring relative displacements of tectonostratigraphic terranes.

Eos Science News↗

USGS2024

Dust in the Critical Zone: North American case studies

The dust cycle facilitates the exchange of particles among Earth's major systems, enabling dust to traverse ecosystems, cross geographic boundaries, and even move uphill against the natural flow of gravity. Dust in the atmosphere is composed of a complex and ever-changing mixture that reflects the evolving human footprint on the landscape. The emission, transport, and deposition of dust interacts with and connects Critical Zone processes at all spatial and temporal scales. Landscape properties, land use, and climatic factors influence the wind erosion of soil and nutrient loss, which alters the long-term ecological dynamics at erosional locations. Once in the atmosphere, dust particles influence the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, and interact with longwave (terrestrial) radiation, with cascading effects on the climate system. Finally, the wet and dry deposition of particles influences ecosystem structure, composition, and function over both short and long-term scales. Tracking dust particles from source to sink relies on monitoring and measurement of the geochemical composition and size distribution of the particles, space-borne and ground-based remote sensing, and dust modeling. Dust is linked to human systems via land use and policies that contribute to dust emissions and the health-related consequences of particulate loads and composition. Despite the significant influence dust has in shaping coupled natural-human systems, it has not been considered a key component of the Critical Zone. Here, we demonstrate that dust particles should be included as a key component of the Critical Zone by outlining how dust interacts with and shapes Earth System processes from generation, through transport, to deposition. We synthesize current understanding from global research and identify critical data and knowledge gaps while showcasing case studies from North America.

Earth-Science Reviews↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey natural hazards science strategy— Promoting the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation

Executive Summary The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Circular↗

USGS2011

The story of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory -- A remarkable first 100 years of tracking eruptions and earthquakes

The year 2012 marks the centennial of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO). With the support and cooperation of visionaries, financiers, scientists, and other individuals and organizations, HVO has successfully achieved 100 years of continuous monitoring of Hawaiian volcanoes. As we celebrate this milestone anniversary, we express our sincere mahalo—thanks—to the people who have contributed to and participated in HVO’s mission during this past century. First and foremost, we owe a debt of gratitude to the late Thomas A. Jaggar, Jr., the geologist whose vision and efforts led to the founding of HVO. We also acknowledge the pioneering contributions of the late Frank A. Perret, who began the continuous monitoring of Kīlauea in 1911, setting the stage for Jaggar, who took over the work in 1912. Initial support for HVO was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Carnegie Geophysical Laboratory, which financed the initial cache of volcano monitoring instruments and Perret’s work in 1911. The Hawaiian Volcano Research Association, a group of Honolulu businessmen organized by Lorrin A. Thurston, also provided essential funding for HVO’s daily operations starting in mid-1912 and continuing for several decades. Since HVO’s beginning, the University of Hawaiʻi (UH), called the College of Hawaii until 1920, has been an advocate of HVO’s scientific studies. We have benefited from collaborations with UH scientists at both the Hilo and Mänoa campuses and look forward to future cooperative efforts to better understand how Hawaiian volcanoes work. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated HVO continuously since 1947. Before then, HVO was under the administration of various Federal agencies—the U.S. Weather Bureau, at the time part of the Department of Agriculture, from 1919 to 1924; the USGS, which first managed HVO from 1924 to 1935; and the National Park Service from 1935 to 1947. For 76 of its first 100 years, HVO has been part of the USGS, the Nation’s premier Earth science agency. It currently operates under the direction of the USGS Volcano Science Center, which now supports five volcano observatories covering six U.S. areas—Hawaiʻi (HVO), Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands (Alaska Volcano Observatory), Washington and Oregon (Cascades Volcano Observatory), California (California Volcano Observatory), and the Yellowstone region (Yellowstone Volcano Observatory). Although the National Park Service (NPS) managed HVO for only 12 years, HVO has enjoyed a close working relationship with Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park (named Hawaii National Park until 1961) since the park’s founding in 1916. Today, as in past years, the USGS and NPS work together to ensure the safety and education of park visitors. We are grateful to all park employees, particularly Superintendent Cindy Orlando and Chief Ranger Talmadge Magno and their predecessors, for their continuing support of HVO’s mission. HVO also works closely with the Hawaiʻi County Civil Defense. During volcanic and earthquake crises, we have appreciated the support of civil defense staff, especially that of Harry Kim and Quince Mento, who administered the agency during highly stressful episodes of Kīlauea's ongoing eruption. Our work in remote areas on Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes is possible only with the able assistance of Hawaiʻi County and private pilots who have safely flown HVO staff to eruption sites through the decades. A special mahalo goes to David Okita, who has been HVO’s principal helicopter pilot for more than two decades. Many commercial and Civil Air Patrol pilots have also assisted HVO by reporting their observations during various eruptive events. Hawaiʻi’s news media—print, television, radio, and online sources—do an excellent job of distributing volcano and earthquake information to the public. Their assistance is invaluable to HVO, especially during times of crisis. HVO’s efforts to provide timely and accurate scientific information about Hawaiian volcanoes and earthquakes succeed only because of you, our receptive and keenly aware public. By following the activity of Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes through our daily eruption updates posted on the HVO website, viewing HVO webcam images, reading our weekly “Volcano Watch” articles, and attending our public lectures, you help us to ensure that you can live safely with Hawaiʻi’s dynamic volcanoes. To everyone who has shared in HVO’s reaching this milestone—100 years of continuous volcano monitoring—we extend our deepest gratitude. Mahalo nui loa!

Hawai'i↗

USGS2012

Natural hazards science strategy

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2017

Expanding the role of reactive transport models in critical zone processes

Models test our understanding of processes and can reach beyond the spatial and temporal scales of measurements. Multi-component Reactive Transport Models (RTMs), initially developed more than three decades ago, have been used extensively to explore the interactions of geothermal, hydrologic, geochemical, and geobiological processes in subsurface systems. Driven by extensive data sets now available from intensive measurement efforts, there is a pressing need to couple RTMs with other community models to explore non-linear interactions among the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and geosphere. Here we briefly review the history of RTM development, summarize the current state of RTM approaches, and identify new research directions, opportunities, and infrastructure needs to broaden the use of RTMs. In particular, we envision the expanded use of RTMs in advancing process understanding in the Critical Zone, the veneer of the Earth that extends from the top of vegetation to the bottom of groundwater. We argue that, although parsimonious models are essential at larger scales, process-based models offer tools to explore the highly nonlinear coupling that characterizes natural systems. We present seven testable hypotheses that emphasize the unique capabilities of process-based RTMs for (1) elucidating chemical weathering and its physical and biogeochemical drivers; (2) understanding the interactions among roots, micro-organisms, carbon, water, and minerals in the rhizosphere; (3) assessing the effects of heterogeneity across spatial and temporal scales; and (4) integrating the vast quantity of novel data, including “omics” data (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics), elemental concentration and speciation data, and isotope data into our understanding of complex earth surface systems. With strong support from data-driven sciences, we are now in an exciting era where integration of RTM framework into other community models will facilitate process understanding across disciplines and across scales.

Earth-Science Reviews↗

USGS1978

On the development of strong-motion instrument networks in the United States

This report outlines a plan for the distribution of strong-motion instrumentation throughout the United States. The present "national" network of strong-motion instrumentation has evolved through the merger of several programs initiated by different agencies and organizations with objectives ranging from research to regulation. It is the result of the coordination of instrument maintenance and record archival currently provided by the Seismic Engineering Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly the Seismological Field Survey of the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, or the National Ocean Survey, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The USGS operates the program under funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies. NSF supports a data management function and the operation of a network of about 200 accelerographs and 300 seismoscopes utilized for studies of ground motion and building response. The State of California is developing its own strong-motion instrumentation program (CSMIP), which includes measurements of ground motion as well as the response of representative types of structures. The CSMIP network is the largest network operated by a single agency anywhere in the world. Eventually it will contain a total of about 1000 accelerographs. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is developing a program for monitoring the response of earth dams, which eventually will include as many as 400 instruments on over 100 dams. Other agencies and organizations are developing networks appropriate to their missions or objectives. At present the number of instruments owned by these other agencies is less than 100 in each case, although several agencies are still expanding their networks. The present distribution of accelerographs in the United States is indicated in Figure 1 (see: USGS, 1977, also). In 1964 the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, California passed ordinances which required 3 accelerographs to be installed in all high-rise buildings. Initially, these instruments were installed and maintained as a part of the strong-motion program of the Seismological Field Survey (SFS). As the number of installations required by such codes increased, it became apparent that the maintenance of these instruments placed an inordinate burden on and created an imbalance in the SFS operated program (in 1972, 50 percent of the "national" program was concentrated in Los Angeles). With the transfer of the SFS program responsibility to the NSF and with the development of the CSMIP, the responsibility for maintenance of code required instruments has reverted to the city building officials and the building owners. As the coordinated network of strong-motion instruments has grown, the maintenance of the instruments has required a larger staff than the USGS could provide under existing personnel ceilings. This situation has been resolved by the agencies with the larger networks performing their own installation and maintenance. The USGS maintains an archive of first class copies of all records, whereas other agencies maintain archives of their own records, only. In addition, the USGS coordinates the routine processing of all of the significant records, although other agencies will process their own data if they consider it to have a higher priority than does the USGS. In response to a recent change in their legislated charter, the CSMIP is beginning to develop a capability to process the data collected under that program.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2021

Six decades of seismology at South Pole, Antarctica: Current limitations and future opportunities to facilitate new geophysical observations

Seismograms from the South Pole have been important for seismological observations for over six decades by providing (until 2007) the only continuous seismic records from the interior of the Antarctic continent. The South Pole, Antarctica station has undergone many updates over the years, including conversion to a digital recording station as part of the Global Seismographic Network (GSN) in 1991 and being relocated to multiple deep ( ⁠ > 250    m "> > 250 m >250 m ⁠ ) boreholes 8 km away from the station in 2003 (and renamed to Quiet South Pole, Antarctica [QSPA]). Notably, QSPA is the second most used GSN station by the National Earthquake Information Center to pick phases used to rapidly detect and locate earthquakes globally, and has been used for a variety of glaciological and oceanography studies. In addition, it is the only seismic station on the Earth where low‐frequency ( ⁠ < 5    mHz "> < 5 mHz <5 mHz ⁠ ), normal‐mode oscillations of the planet excited by large earthquakes can be recorded without influence from Earth’s rotation, and most of the direct effects of the solid Earth tide vanish. However, the current sensors are largely 1980s vintage, and, while able to make some lower‐frequency observations from earthquakes, the borehole sensors appear unable to resolve ambient ground motions at frequencies lower than 25 mHz due to instrument noise and contamination from magnetic field variations. Recently developed borehole sensors offer the potential to extend background noise observations to below 3 mHz, which would substantially improve the fidelity and scientific value of seismic observations at South Pole. Through collaboration with the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, the opportunity exists to emplace a modern very broadband seismometer near the base ( ⁠ > 2    km "> > 2 km >2 km depth) of the Antarctic ice cap, which could lead to unprecedented seismic observations at long periods and facilitate a broad spectrum of Earth science studies.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2013

Users, uses, and value of Landsat satellite imagery: results from the 2012 survey of users

Landsat satellites have been operating since 1972, providing a continuous global record of the Earth’s land surface. The imagery is currently available at no cost through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Social scientists at the USGS Fort Collins Science Center conducted an extensive survey in early 2012 to explore who uses Landsat imagery, how they use the imagery, and what the value of the imagery is to them. The survey was sent to all users registered with USGS who had accessed Landsat imagery in the year prior to the survey and over 11,000 current Landsat imagery users responded. The results of the survey revealed that respondents from many sectors use Landsat imagery in myriad project locations and scales, as well as application areas. The value of Landsat imagery to these users was demonstrated by the high importance of and dependence on the imagery, the numerous environmental and societal benefits observed from projects using Landsat imagery, the potential negative impacts on users’ work if Landsat imagery was no longer available, and the substantial aggregated annual economic benefit from the imagery. These results represent only the value of Landsat to users registered with USGS; further research would help to determine what the value of the imagery is to a greater segment of the population, such as downstream users of the imagery and imagery-derived products.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2019

Extreme coastal water level in Washington state: Guidance to support sea level rise planning

This document provides guidelines for assessing exposure to future coastal flooding during extreme coastal water level events – whether these are due to tides, surge, wave run-up, or, more likely, a combination of the three. These guidelines provide information about the current and future magnitude of extreme coastal water levels across Washington State and the underlying processes that influence them. This information is intended to be combined with sea level projections to assess future exposure to coastal flooding along Washington’s coastline. Although the results of our analyses can be combined with any available sea level projections, this report is intended as a companion to the localized sea level rise projections (Miller et al., 2018) developed as part of the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. The Washington Coastal Resilience Project was a three-year effort to rapidly increase the state’s capacity to prepare for sea level rise. The project aimed to improve risk projections, provide better guidelines for land use planners and strengthen capital investment programs for coastal restoration and infrastructure. Partners in the Washington Coastal Resilience Project included Washington Sea Grant, Washington Department of Ecology, Island County, King County, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Padilla Bay National Estuary Research Reserve, The City of Tacoma, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Geological Survey, University of Oregon, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington University. The 2018 sea level projections are described in an accompanying technical report, along with a review of the science related to sea level rise (Miller et al., 2018). The report and all associated supporting information are available on the Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network website (http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/).

Washington↗

USGS1999

The EOS land validation core sites: background information and current status

The EOS Land Validation Core Sites1 will provide the user community with timely ground, aircraft, and satellite data for EOS science and validation investigations. The sites, currently 24 distributed worldwide, represent a consensus among the instrument teams and validation investigators and represent a range of global biome types (see Figure 1 and Table 1; Privette et al., 1999; Justice et al., 1998). The sites typically have a history of in situ and remote observations and can expect continued monitoring and land cover research activities. In many cases, a Core Site will have a tower equipped with above-canopy instrumentation for nearcontinuous sampling of landscape radiometric, energy and CO2 flux, meteorological variables, and atmospheric aerosol and water vapor data. These will be complemented by intensive field measurement campaigns. The data collected at these sites will provide an important resource for the broader science community. These sites can also provide a foundation for a validation network supported and used by all international space agencies.

The Earth Observer↗

USGS2011

Palaeotsunamis in the Pacific Islands

The recent 29 September 2009 South Pacific and 27 February 2010 Chilean events are a graphic reminder that the tsunami hazard and risk for the Pacific Ocean region should not be forgotten. Pacific Islands Countries (PICs) generally have short (< 150 years) historic records, which means that to understand their tsunami hazard and risk researchers must study evidence for prehistoric events. However, our current state of knowledge of palaeotsunamis in PICs as opposed to their circum-Pacific counterparts is minimal at best. We briefly outline the limited extent of our current knowledge and propose an innovative methodology for future research in the Pacific. Each PIC represents a point source of information in the Pacific Ocean and this would allow their palaeotsunami records to be treated akin to palaeo-DART® (Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) buoys. Contemporaneous palaeotsunamis from local, regional and distant sources could be identified by using the spatial distribution of island records throughout the Pacific Ocean in conjunction with robust event chronologies. This would be highly innovative and, more importantly, would help provide the building blocks necessary to achieve more meaningful disaster risk reduction for PICs.

Earth-Science Reviews↗