SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Ecosystems”

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

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↗

USGS1989

Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration: a literature summary

Riparian ecosystems generally compose a minor proportion of surrounding areas, but typically are more structurally diverse and more productive in plant and animal biomass than adjacent upland areas. Riparian areas supply food, cover, and water (especially important in the arid West) for a large diversity of animals, and serve as migration routes and forest connectors between habitats for a variety of wildlife, particularly ungulates and birds. Because riparian ecosystems often are relatively small areas and occur in conjunction with waterways, they are vulnerable to severe alteration. Riparian ecosystems throughout the U.S. have been heavily impacted by man's activities. Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration have been used as mitigation for project impacts from highway, bridge, and pipeline construction; water development; flood control channel modifications; industrial and residential development; agriculture; irrigation; livestock grazing; mining; and accidental habitat loss. Creation of a riparian ecosystem in| a more mesic upland area (e.g., ‘grassland or cropland) adjacent to a river requires appropriate water supply and grading the topography to suitable elevations to support plantings of riparian vegetation. Restoration involves returning the ecosystem to pre disturbance conditions and typically implies revegetation. Removing exotic vegetation or restoring water supplies to pre disturbance level also may be involved. Enhancement of riparian ecosystems commonly refers to improving existing conditions to increase habitat value, usually by increasing plant or community diversity to increase value for wildlife. Managing a riparian ecosystem typically involves enhancement techniques. However, creation and restoration projects often involve use of techniques considered more management-oriented (e.g., fencing to prevent cattle grazing until planted vegetation of a created or restored wetland is established). Protection of an existing riparian ecosystem from impact should be of utmost importance during planning and construction phases of development projects. If loss or damage is unavoidable, wetland creation or restoration can be used as mitigation. Compared to other wetland types (e.g., coastal wetlands), projects and techniques involving creation or restoration of riparian ecosystems are not well documented. For example, only 8% of the records in the WCR Data Base contained information on riparian ecosystems, whereas 31% of the records contained information on coastal emergent or forested ecosystems. To provide a source of currently available literature, riparian information from 92 records (primarily published papers or reports) in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Wetland Creation-Restoration (WCR) Data Base (Schneller-McDonald et al. 1988) was used to develop a literature summary of creation and restoration of riparian ecosystems. The summary provides an overview of the status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., a discussion of several riparian functions, and a review of some techniques used for planning, implementing, monitoring, and measuring project success of creation-restoration efforts. Case studies of various creation or restoration projects are used to demonstrate these techniques and to report some results of their use. Several well-documented case studies are discussed in detail to illustrate more extensive efforts to plan, implement, or monitor riparian ecosystem creation-restoration projects. For the purpose of this report, riparian ecosystems are defined as landscapes adjacent to drainageways of floodplains that exhibit vegetation, soil, and hydrologic mosaics along topographic and moisture gradients that are distinct from the predominant landscape surface types. Major plant communities are described under palustrine system in Cowardin et al. (1979). Literature from the WCR Data Base was used to provide a summary of riparian ecosystem creation-restoration literature. Thus, information concerning natural systems is not included unless discussed in these articles. This focus allows the reader to compare relative information available on riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts. However, this focus also results in limited information in some sections of the report (e.g., Status of Riparian Ecosystems in the U.S.). Individuals involved in riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts are encouraged to thoroughly examine available literature on natural and altered systems. Brinson et al. (1981) provide a comprehensive review and synthesis of the ecology and status of riparian ecosystems. Over 500 articles are cited in their 124-page report. Chapters include the following topics: status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., ecological functions and properties of riparian ecosystems (e.g., geomorphology, primary productivity, nutrient cycling, hydrology), importance of riparian ecosystems to fish and wildlife, and considerations in valuation (ecologic and economic) of riparian ecosystems. Brinson et al. (1981) also discuss management of riparian ecosystems. Riparian ecosystem management literature was not included in the WCR Data Base, unless the article also discussed creation or restoration.

Report↗

USGS2016

Assessing climate-sensitive ecosystems in the southeastern United States

Climate change impacts ecosystems in many ways, from effects on species to phenology to wildfire dynamics. Assessing the potential vulnerability of ecosystems to future changes in climate is an important first step in prioritizing and planning for conservation. Although assessments of climate change vulnerability commonly are done for species, fewer have been done for ecosystems. To aid regional conservation planning efforts, we assessed climate change vulnerability for ecosystems in the Southeastern United States and Caribbean. First, we solicited input from experts to create a list of candidate ecosystems for assessment. From that list, 12 ecosystems were selected for a vulnerability assessment that was based on a synthesis of available geographic information system (GIS) data and literature related to 3 components of vulnerability—sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity. This literature and data synthesis comprised “Phase I” of the assessment. Sensitivity is the degree to which the species or processes in the ecosystem are affected by climate. Exposure is the likely future change in important climate and sea level variables. Adaptive capacity is the degree to which ecosystems can adjust to changing conditions. Where available, GIS data relevant to each of these components were used. For example, we summarized observed and projected climate, protected areas existing in 2011, projected sea-level rise, and projected urbanization across each ecosystem’s distribution. These summaries were supplemented with information in the literature, and a short narrative assessment was compiled for each ecosystem. We also summarized all information into a qualitative vulnerability rating for each ecosystem. Next, for 2 of the 12 ecosystems (East Gulf Coastal Plain Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods and Nashville Basin Limestone Glade and Woodland), the NatureServe Habitat Climate Change Vulnerability Index (HCCVI) framework was used as an alternative approach for assessing vulnerability. Use of the HCCVI approach comprised “Phase II” of the assessment. This approach uses summaries of GIS data and models to develop a series of numeric indices for components of vulnerability. We incorporated many of the data sources used in Phase I, but added the results of several other data sources, including climate envelope modeling and vegetation dynamics modeling. The results of Phase II were high and low numeric vulnerability ratings for mid-century and the end of century for each ecosystem. The high and low ratings represented the potential range of vulnerability scores owing to uncertainties in future climate conditions and ecosystem effects. Of the 12 ecosystems assessed in the first approach, five were rated as having high vulnerability (Caribbean Coastal Mangrove, Caribbean Montane Wet Elfin Forest, East Gulf Coastal Plain Southern Loess Bluff Forest, Edwards Plateau Limestone Shrubland, and Nashville Basin Limestone Glade and Woodland). Six ecosystems had medium vulnerability, and one ecosystem had low vulnerability. For the two ecosystems assessed with both approaches, vulnerability ratings generally agreed. The assessment concluded by comparing the two approaches, identifying critical research needs, and making suggestions for future ecosystem vulnerability assessments in the Southeast and beyond. Research needs include reducing uncertainty in the degree of climate exposure likely in the future, as well as acquiring more information on how climate might affect biotic interactions and hydrologic processes. Ideally, a comprehensive vulnerability assessment would include both the narrative summaries that resulted from the synthesis in Phase I, as well as a numeric index that incorporates uncertainty as in Phase II.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Lou↗

USGS2013

Maintaining and restoring sustainable ecosystems in southern Nevada

Managers in southern Nevada are challenge with determining appropriate goals and objectives and developing viable approaches for maintaining and restoring sustainable ecosystems in a time of rapid socio-ecological and environmental change. Sustainable or "healthy" ecosystems supply clean air, water and habitat for a diverse array of plants and animals. As described in Chapter 1, sustainable ecosystems retain characteristic processes like hydrological flux and storage, geomorphic processes, biogeochemical cycling and storage, biological activity and productivity, and population regeneration and reproduction over the normal cycle of disturbance events (modified from Chapin and others 1996 and Christensen and others 1996). Ecological restoration of stressed or disturbed ecosystems in an integral part of managing for sustainable ecosystems. The Society of Ecological Restoration International (SERI) defines ecological restoration as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (SERI 2004). Many of the southern Nevada's ecosystems are being subjected to anthropogenic stressors that span global, regional, and local scales (Chapter 2)., and are crossing ecological thresholds to new alternative states (Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). These alternative states often represent novel communities with disturbance regimes that differ significantly from historic conditions. Past management and restoration goals often focused on returning ecosystems to pre-disturbance conditions (Harris and others 2006). This approach assumes stable or equilibrium conditions and ignores changes in ecosystems processes due to land uses, increases in CO 2 concentrations, and climate change. A more realistic approach is to base management and restoration goals on the current potential of an ecosystem to support a given set of ecological conditions, and on the likelihood of future change due to warming climate (Harris and others 2006). This approach requires understanding ecosystem resilience to anthropogenic disturbance and climate change, the alternative states that exist for ecosystems, and the factors that result in threshold crossing (Bestelmeyer and others 2009; Hobbs and Harris 2001; Stingham and others 2003; Whisemnant 1999). It also requires the ability to predict how climate is likely to influence ecosystems in the future (Harris and others 2006). This chapter addresses the restoration aspects of Sub-goal 1.3 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy which is to restore and sustain proper function of southern Nevada's watersheds and landscapes (able 1.3; Turner and others 2009). The effects of global, regional and local stresses on southern Nevada ecosystems are presented in Chapter 2. Here, we discuss appropriate objectives and develop guidelines for maintaining and restoring southern Nevada ecosystems. We then discuss the differences in ecological resilience to stress and disturbance and resistance to invasive species in southern Nevada ecosystems and describe restoration and management approaches for the different ecosystem types. We conclude with knowledge gaps and management implications.

Nevada↗

USGS2016

Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting

In natural capital accounting, ecosystems are assets that provide ecosystem services to people. Assets can be measured using both physical and monetary units. In the international System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, ecosystem assets are generally valued on the basis of the net present value of the expected flow of ecosystem services. In this paper we argue that several additional conceptualisations of ecosystem assets are needed to understand ecosystems as assets, in support of ecosystem assessments, ecosystem accounting and ecosystem management. In particular, we define ecosystems’ capacity and capability to supply ecosystem services, as well as the potential supply of ecosystem services. Capacity relates to sustainable use levels of multiple ecosystem services, capability involves prioritising the use of one ecosystem service over a basket of services, and potential supply considers the ability of ecosystems to generate services regardless of demand for these services. We ground our definitions in the ecosystem services and accounting literature, and illustrate and compare the concepts of flow, capacity, capability, and potential supply with a range of conceptual and real-world examples drawn from case studies in Europe and North America. Our paper contributes to the development of measurement frameworks for natural capital to support environmental accounting and other assessment frameworks.

PLoS ONE↗

USGS2018

Integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services concepts to improve natural resource management: Challenges and opportunities

Executive Summary—Overview Natural resource managers must make decisions that affect broad-scale ecosystem processes involving large spatial areas, complex biophysical interactions, numerous competing stakeholder interests, and highly uncertain outcomes. Natural and social science information and analyses are widely recognized as important for informing effective management. Chief among the systematic approaches for improving the integration of science into natural resource management are two emergent science concepts, adaptive management and ecosystem services. Adaptive management (also referred to as “adaptive decision making”) is a deliberate process of learning by doing that focuses on reducing uncertainties about management outcomes and system responses to improve management over time. Ecosystem services is a conceptual framework that refers to the attributes and outputs of ecosystems (and their components and functions) that have value for humans. This report explores how ecosystem services can be moved from concept into practice through connection to a decision framework—adaptive management—that accounts for inherent uncertainties. Simultaneously, the report examines the value of incorporating ecosystem services framing and concepts into adaptive management efforts. Adaptive management and ecosystem services analyses have not typically been used jointly in decision making. However, as frameworks, they have a natural—but to date underexplored—affinity. Both are policy and decision oriented in that they attempt to represent the consequences of resource management choices on outcomes of interest to stakeholders. Both adaptive management and ecosystem services analysis take an empirical approach to the analysis of ecological systems. This systems orientation is a byproduct of the fact that natural resource actions affect ecosystems—and corresponding societal outcomes—often across large geographic scales. Moreover, because both frameworks focus on resource systems, both must confront the analytical challenges of systems modeling—in terms of complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty. Given this affinity, the integration of ecosystem services analysis and adaptive management poses few conceptual hurdles. In this report, we synthesize discussions from two workshops that considered ways in which adaptive management approaches and ecosystem service concepts may be complementary, such that integrating them into a common framework may lead to improved natural resource management outcomes. Although the literature on adaptive management and ecosystem services is vast and growing, the report focuses specifically on the integration of these two concepts rather than aiming to provide new definitions or an indepth review or primer of the concepts individually. Key issues considered include the bidirectional links between adaptive decision making and ecosystem services, as well as the potential benefits and inevitable challenges arising in the development and use of an integrated framework. Specifically, the workshops addressed the following questions: How can application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision process improve the outcomes of management and advance understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation? How can these concepts be integrated in concept and practice? What are the constraints and challenges to integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services? And, should the integration of these concepts be moved forward to wider application—and if so, how?

Circular↗

USGS2011

Developing an institutional framework to incorporate ecosystem services into decision making-Proceedings of a workshop

The routine and effective incorporation of ecosystem services information into resource management decisions requires a careful consideration of the value of goods and services provided by natural systems. A multidisciplinary workshop was held in October 2008 on "Developing an Institutional Framework to Incorporate Ecosystem Services into Decision Making." This report summarizes that workshop, which focused on examining the relationship between an institutional framework and consideration of ecosystem services in resource management decision making. This workshop was the third in a series of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can more effectively be incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, "Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In this workshop, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services more routinely and effectively used in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and identified some key challenges to developing the analytical framework (Hogan and others, 2009). Preconference workshop 2, "Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held July 28, 2008, in Naples, FL, and focused on the analytical process and identification of research priorities for ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies (Hogan and others, 2010). The summary presented here synthesizes the discussion at workshop 3 and considers how institutional structures and policy instruments can be used to achieve the vision developed in workshop 1, while recognizing the analytical capabilities and limitations identified in workshop 2. Our purpose was to identify how to use ecosystem service information more effectively and broadly in resource management and development decisions. We recognized the need to facilitate an integrated understanding of (1) the natural capital that produces ecosystem services; (2) the geospatial and temporal aspects of ecosystem service production, values, and use; (3) the value of ecosystem services (monetary and nonmonetary); and (4) institutional instruments, processes, and structures (property rights, laws, governance structures, and courts, for example). Interdisciplinary collaboration and understanding is beneficial and needs to engage stakeholders. The appropriate use of institutional structures, including markets, to integrate ecosystem services into decision making depends on the players and characteristics of the specific situation (such as stakeholders, the ecosystem, resources, and the political environment). Incorporating ecosystem service values into decisions requires consideration of place-based social, cultural, economic, and landscape characteristics and institutions. Thus, a single, prescribed solution will not work-various institutional strategies must be used in different situations. Market-based approaches require appropriate regulations, monitoring, and enforcement, depending on the situation and place. Further, market approaches will need to be coupled with nonmarket approaches into an integrated institutional framework.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2010

A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios

he Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Section 712, mandates the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a methodology and conduct an assessment of the Nation’s ecosystems, focusing on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and emissions of three greenhouse gases (GHGs): carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The major requirements include (1) an assessment of all ecosystems (terrestrial systems, such as forests, croplands, wetlands, grasslands/shrublands; and aquatic ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes, and estuaries); (2) an estimate of the annual potential capacities of ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration and reduce net GHG emissions in the context of mitigation strategies (including management and restoration activities); and (3) an evaluation of the effects of controlling processes, such as climate change, land-use and land-cover change, and disturbances such as wildfires. The concepts of ecosystems, carbon pools, and GHG fluxes follow conventional definitions in use by major national and international assessment or inventory efforts. In order to estimate current ecosystem carbon stocks and GHG fluxes and to understand the potential capacity and effects of mitigation strategies, the method will use two time periods for the assessment: 2001 through 2010, which establishes a current ecosystem carbon and GHG baseline and will be used to validate the models; and 2011 through 2050, which will be used to assess potential capacities based on a set of scenarios. The scenario framework will be constructed using storylines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), along with both reference and enhanced land-use and land-cover (LULC) and land-management parameters. Additional LULC and land-management mitigation scenarios will be constructed for each storyline to increase carbon sequestration and reduce GHG fluxes in ecosystems. Input from regional experts and stakeholders will be solicited to construct these scenarios. The methods for mapping the current LULC and ecosystem disturbances will require the extensive use of both remote-sensing data and field-survey data (for example, forest inventories) to capture and characterize landscape-changing events. For potential LULC changes and ecosystem disturbances, key drivers such as socioeconomic and climate changes will be used in addition to the biophysical data. The result of these analyses will be a series of maps for each future year for each scenario. These annual maps will form the basis for estimating carbon storage and GHG emissions. For terrestrial ecosystems, carbon storage, carbon-sequestration capacities, and GHG emissions under the present conditions and future scenarios will be assessed using the LULC-change and ecosystem-disturbance estimates in map format with a spatially explicit biogeochemical ensemble modeling system that incorporates properties of management activities (such as tillage or harvesting) and properties of individual ecosystems (such as energy exchange, vegetation characteristics, hydrological cycling, and soil attributes). For aquatic ecosystems, carbon burial in sediments and fluxes of GHG are functions of the present and future potential stream flow and sediment transport and will be assessed using empirical hydrological modeling methods. Validation and uncertainty analysis methods described in the methodology will follow established guidelines to assess the quality of the assessment results. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Level II ecoregions map will be the practical instrument for developing and delivering assessment results. Consequently, the ecoregion (there are 22 modified ecoregions) will be the reporting unit of the assessment because the scenarios, assessment results, validation, and uncertainty analysis will be produced at that scale. The implementation of these methods will require collaborations among various Federal agencies, State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the science community. Using the method described in this document, the assessment can be completed in approximately 3 to 4 years. The primary deliverables will be assessment reports containing tables, charts, and maps that will present the estimated GHG parameters annually for 2001 through 2050 by ecosystem, pool, and scenario. The results will permit the evaluation of a range of policies, mitigation options, and research topics, such as the demographic, LULC-change, or climate-change effects on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and GHG fluxes in ecosystems.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2017

Ecosystem extent and fragmentation

One of the candidate essential biodiversity variable (EBV) groups described in the seminal paper by Pereira et al. (2014) concerns Ecosystem Structure. This EBV group is distinguished from another EBV group which encompasses aspects of Ecosystem Function. While the Ecosystem Function EBV treats ecosystem processes like nutrient cycling, primary production, trophic interactions, etc., the Ecosystem Structure EBV relates to the set of biophysical properties of ecosystems that create biophysical environmental context, confer biophysical structure, and occur geographically. The Ecosystem Extent and Fragmentation EBV is one of the EBVs in the Ecosystem Structure EBV group. Ecosystems are understood to exist at multiple scales, from very large areas (macro-ecosystems) like the Arctic tundra, for example, to something as small as a tree in an Amazonian rain forest. As such, ecosystems occupy space and therefore can be mapped across any geography of interest, whether that area of interest be a site, a nation, a region, a continent, or the planet. One of the most obvious and seemingly straightforward EBVs is Ecosystem Extent and Fragmentation. Ecosystem extent refers to the location and geographic distribution of ecosystems across landscapes or in the oceans, while ecosystem fragmentation refers to the spatial pattern and connectivity of ecosystem occurrences on the landscape.

Report↗

USGS2000

Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: Implications for conservation ecology

We evaluate the empirical and theoretical support for the hypothesis that a large proportion of native species richness is required to maximize ecosystem stability and sustain function. This assessment is important for conservation strategies because sustenance of ecosystem functions has been used as an argument for the conservation of species. If ecosystem functions are sustained at relatively low species richness, then arguing for the conservation of ecosystem function, no matter how important in its own right, does not strongly argue for the conservation of species. Additionally, for this to be a strong conservation argument the link between species diversity and ecosystem functions of value to the human community must be clear. We review the empirical literature to quantify the support for two hypotheses: (1) species richness is positively correlated with ecosystem function, and (2) ecosystem functions do not saturate at low species richness relative to the observed or experimental diversity. Few empirical studies demonstrate improved function at high levels of species richness. Second, we analyze recent theoretical models in order to estimate the level of species richness required to maintain ecosystem function. Again we find that, within a single trophic level, most mathematical models predict saturation of ecosystem function at a low proportion of local species richness. We also analyze a theoretical model linking species number to ecosystem stability. This model predicts that species richness beyond the first few species does not typically increase ecosystem stability. One reason that high species richness may not contribute significantly to function or stability is that most communities are characterized by strong dominance such that a few species provide the vast majority of the community biomass. Rapid turnover of species may rescue the concept that diversity leads to maximum function and stability. The role of turnover in ecosystem function and stability has not been investigated. Despite the recent rush to embrace the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem function, we find little support for the hypothesis that there is a strong dependence of ecosystem function on the full complement of diversity within sites. Given this observation, the conservation community should take a cautious view of endorsing this linkage as a model to promote conservation goals.

Oecologia↗

USGS2012

Sinks for nitrogen inputs in terrestrial ecosystems: a meta-analysis of 15 N tracer field studies

Effects of anthropogenic nitrogen (N) deposition and the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to store carbon (C) depend in part on the amount of N retained in the system and its partitioning among plant and soil pools. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies at 48 sites across four continents that used enriched 15 N isotope tracers in order to synthesize information about total ecosystem N retention (i.e., total ecosystem 15 N recovery in plant and soil pools) across natural systems and N partitioning among ecosystem pools. The greatest recoveries of ecosystem 15 N tracer occurred in shrublands (mean, 89.5%) and wetlands (84.8%) followed by forests (74.9%) and grasslands (51.8%). In the short term (<1 week after 15 N tracer application), total ecosystem 15 N recovery was negatively correlated with fine-root and soil 15 N natural abundance, and organic soil C and N concentration but was positively correlated with mean annual temperature and mineral soil C:N. In the longer term (3–18 months after 15 N tracer application), total ecosystem 15 N retention was negatively correlated with foliar natural-abundance 15 N but was positively correlated with mineral soil C and N concentration and C: N, showing that plant and soil natural-abundance 15 N and soil C:N are good indicators of total ecosystem N retention. Foliar N concentration was not significantly related to ecosystem 15 N tracer recovery, suggesting that plant N status is not a good predictor of total ecosystem N retention. Because the largest ecosystem sinks for 15 N tracer were below ground in forests, shrublands, and grasslands, we conclude that growth enhancement and potential for increased C storage in aboveground biomass from atmospheric N deposition is likely to be modest in these ecosystems. Total ecosystem 15 N recovery decreased with N fertilization, with an apparent threshold fertilization rate of 46 kg N·ha -1 ·yr -1 above which most ecosystems showed net losses of applied 15 N tracer in response to N fertilizer addition.

Ecology↗

USGS2010

Public review draft: A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Section 712, authorizes the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a methodology and conduct an assessment of the Nation's ecosystems focusing on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and emissions of three greenhouse gases (GHGs): carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The major requirements include (1) an assessment of all ecosystems (terrestrial systems, such as forests, croplands, wetlands, shrub and grasslands; and aquatic ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes, and estuaries), (2) an estimation of annual potential capacities of ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration and reduce net GHG emissions in the context of mitigation strategies (including management and restoration activities), and (3) an evaluation of the effects of controlling processes, such as climate change, land use and land cover, and wildlfires. The purpose of this draft methodology for public review is to propose a technical plan to conduct the assessment. Within the methodology, the concepts of ecosystems, carbon pools, and GHG fluxes used for the assessment follow conventional definitions in use by major national and international assessment or inventory efforts. In order to estimate current ecosystem carbon stocks and GHG fluxes and to understand the potential capacity and effects of mitigation strategies, the method will use two time periods for the assessment: 2001 through 2010, which establishes a current ecosystem GHG baseline and will be used to validate the models; and 2011 through 2050, which will be used to assess future potential conditions based on a set of projected scenarios. The scenario framework is constructed using storylines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report Emission Scenarios (SRES), along with initial reference land-use and land-cover (LULC) and land-management scenarios. An additional three LULC and land-management mitigation scenarios will be constructed for each storyline to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce GHG fluxes in ecosystems. Input from regional experts and stakeholders will be solicited to construct realistic and meaningful scenarios. The methods for mapping the current LULC and ecosystem disturbances will require the extensive use of both remote-sensing data and in-situ (for example, forest inventory data) to capture and characterize landscape-change events. For future potential LULC and ecosystem disturbances, key drivers such as socioeconomic, policy, and climate assumptions will be used in addition to biophysical data. The product of these analyses will be a series of maps for each future year for each scenario. These annual maps will form the basis for estimating carbon storage and GHG emissions. For terrestrial ecosystems, carbon storage, carbon-sequestration capacities, and GHG emissions under the current and projected future conditions will be assessed using the LULC and ecosystem-disturbance estimates in map format with a spatially explicit biogeochemical ensemble modeling system that incorporates properties of management activities (such as tillage or harvesting) and properties of individual ecosystems (such as elevation, vegetation characteristics, and soil attributes). For aquatic ecosystems, carbon burial in sediments and GHG fluxes are functions of the current and projected future stream flow and sediment transports, and therefore will be assessed using empirical modeling methods. Validation and uncertainty analysis methods described in the methodology will follow established guidelines to assess the quality of the assessment results. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Level II ecoregions map (which delineates 24 ecoregions for the Nation) will be the practical instrument for developing and delivering assessment results. Consequently, the ecoregion will be the reporting unit of the assessment because the mitigation scenarios, assessment results, validation, and uncertainty analysis will be

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Effects of acid deposition on ecosystems: Advances in the state of the science

Chapter 2 focused on the environmental results of the ARP, presenting data from national monitoring networks on SO2 and NOx emissions, air quality, atmospheric deposition, surface water chemistry, and visibility. This chapter expands on this information by examining the most recent research into how ecosystems respond to acid deposition, especially the processes that control the recovery of ecosystems as acid deposition decreases. In Chapter 2, two general trends were discussed regarding the current recovery status of affected ecosystems: (1) these ecosystems are trending generally towards recovery, but improvements in ecosystem condition shown by surface water chemistry monitoring data thus far have been less than the improvements in deposition; and (2) ecosystem impacts and trends vary widely by geographic region, but the evidence of improvement is strongest and most evident in the Northeast. These trends are not uniform across the United States, however, and in some regions (e.g., central Appalachian Mountain region), trends in improved water quality are generally not evident. Despite the strong link in many areas between reduced emissions and reduced acidity of atmospheric deposition, the link is less clear between reduced acidity and recovery of the biological communities that live in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that have experienced deleterious effects from acid deposition. The recovery of these communities is proceeding at a slower pace than, for example, the improvements in stream and lake ANC would indicate. The goal of this chapter is to synthesize the science in a weightof-evidence manner to provide policy makers with tangible evidence and likely causative factors regarding ecosystem status and recovery patterns to date. This chapter serves as an update to the 2005 NAPAP RTC (NSTC, 2005), with an emphasis on scientific studies and monitoring since 2003, which was the last year for consideration of research results in the 2005 report. Several issues pertinent to ecosystem response to emission controls and acid deposition are receiving increasing attention in the scientific literature and will be discussed in this chapter, including the (1) observed delay in ecosystem recovery in the eastern United States, even with decreases in emissions and deposition over the past 30 years; (2) emerging ecosystem impacts of nitrogen deposition in the western United States; (3) the application of critical deposition loads as a tool for scientists to better inform air quality policies; (4) the role of changes in climate and the carbon cycle as factors that affect the response of ecosystems to acid deposition; and (5) the interaction of multiple pollutants in ecosystems. Throughout this chapter, the value of long-term environmental monitoring data in informing air quality policy will be highlighted, including the limitations of assessing the current status of some ecosystem indicators for which continuous, long-term data are lacking.

Report↗

USGS2016

Aquatic biodiversity in forests: A weak link in ecosystem services resilience

The diversity of aquatic ecosystems is being quickly reduced on many continents, warranting a closer examination of the consequences for ecological integrity and ecosystem services. Here we describe intermediate and final ecosystem services derived from aquatic biodiversity in forests. We include a summary of the factors framing the assembly of aquatic biodiversity in forests in natural systems and how they change with a variety of natural disturbances and human-derived stressors. We consider forested aquatic ecosystems as a multi-state portfolio, with diverse assemblages and life-history strategies occurring at local scales as a consequence of a mosaic of habitat conditions and past disturbances and stressors. Maintaining this multi-state portfolio of assemblages requires a broad perspective of ecosystem structure, various functions, services, and management implications relative to contemporary stressors. Because aquatic biodiversity provides multiple ecosystem services to forests, activities that compromise aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity could be an issue for maintaining forest ecosystem integrity. We illustrate these concepts with examples of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services in forests of northwestern North America, also known as Northeast Pacific Rim. Encouraging management planning at broad as well as local spatial scales to recognize multi-state ecosystem management goals has promise for maintaining valuable ecosystem services. Ultimately, integration of information from socio-ecological ecosystems will be needed to maintain ecosystem services derived directly and indirectly from forest aquatic biota.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2010

Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Conterminous United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), with support from NatureServe, has modeled the potential distribution of 419 terrestrial ecosystems for the conterminous United States using a comprehensive biophysical stratification approach that identifies distinct biophysical environments and associates them with known vegetation distributions (Sayre and others, 2009). This standardized ecosystem mapping effort used an ecosystems classification developed by NatureServe (Comer and others, 2003). The ecosystem mapping methodology was developed for South America (Sayre and others, 2008) and is now being implemented globally (Sayre and others, 2007). The biophysical stratification approach is based on mapping the major structural components of ecosystems (land surface forms, topographic moisture potential, surficial lithology, isobioclimates and biogeographic regions) and then spatially combining them to produce a set of unique biophysical environments. These physically distinct areas are considered as the fundamental structural units ('building blocks') of ecosystems, and are subsequently aggregated and labeled using the NatureServe classification. The structural footprints were developed from the geospatial union of several base layers including biogeographic regions, isobioclimates (Cress and others, 2009a), land surface forms (Cress and others, 2009b), topographic moisture potential (Cress and others, 2009c), and surficial lithology (Cress and others, in press). Among the 49,168 unique structural footprint classes that resulted from the union, 13,482 classes met a minimum pixel count threshold (20,000 pixels) and were aggregated into 419 NatureServe ecosystems using a semiautomated labeling process based on rule-set formulations for attribution of each ecosystem. The resulting ecosystems are those that are expected to occur based on the combination of the bioclimate, biogeography, and geomorphology. Where land use by humans has not altered land cover, natural vegetation assemblages are expected to occur, and these are described in the ecosystems classification. The map does not show the distribution of urban and agricultural areas - these will be masked out in subsequent analyses to depict the current land cover in addition to the potential distribution of natural ecosystems. This map depicts the smoothed and generalized image of the terrestrial ecosystems dataset. Additional information about this map and any data developed for the ecosystems modeling of the conterminous United States is available online at: http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/ecosystems/.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS2012

Ecosystem services valuation to support decisionmaking on public lands—A case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona

This report details the findings of the Bureau of Land Management–U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Services Valuation Pilot Study. This project evaluated alternative methods and tools that quantify and value ecosystem services, and it assessed the tools’ readiness for use in the Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking process. We tested these tools on the San Pedro River watershed in northern Sonora, Mexico, and southeast Arizona. The study area includes the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (managed by the Bureau of Land Management), which has been a focal point for conservation activities and scientific research in recent decades. We applied past site-specific primary valuation studies, value transfer, the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) and Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) models to value locally important ecosystem services for the San Pedro River watershed—water, carbon, biodiversity, and cultural values. We tested these approaches on a series of scenarios to evaluate ecosystem service changes and the ability of the tools to accommodate scenarios. A suite of additional tools were either at too early a stage of development to run, were proprietary, or were place-specific tools inappropriate for application to the San Pedro River watershed. We described the strengths and weaknesses of these additional ecosystem service tools against a series of evaluative criteria related to their usefulness for Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking. Using these tools, we quantified gains or losses of ecosystem services under three categories of scenarios: urban growth, mesquite management, and water augmentation. These results quantify tradeoffs and could be useful for decisionmaking within Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Results are accompanied by a relatively high level of uncertainty associated with model outputs, valuation methods, and discount rates applied. Further guidance on representing uncertainty and applying uncertain results in decisionmaking would benefit both tool developers and those offices in using ecosystem services to compare management tradeoffs. Decisionmakers and Bureau of Land Management managers at the State-, district-, and field-office level would also benefit from continuing model improvements, training, and guidance on tool use that can be provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of the Interior. Tradeoffs were identified in the level of effort needed to parameterize and run tools and the amount and quality of information they provide to the decision process. We found the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, Ecosystem Services Review, and United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre Ecosystem Services Toolkit to be immediately feasible for application by the Bureau of Land Management, given proper guidance on their use. It is also feasible for the Bureau of Land Management to use the InVEST model, but in early 2012 the process of parameterizing the model required resources and expertise that are unlikely to be available in most Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Application of past primary valuation is feasible, but developing new primary-valuation studies is too time consuming for regular application. Value transfer approaches (aside from the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit) are best applied carefully on the basis of guidelines described in this report, to reduce transfer error. The ARIES model can provide useful information in regions modeled in the past (Arizona, California, Colorado, and Washington), but it lacks some features that will improve its usability, such as a generalized model that could be applied anywhere in the United States. Eleven other tools described in this report could become useful as the tools more fully develop, in high-profile cases for which additional resources are available for tool application or in case-study regions where place-specific models have already been developed. To improve the value of these tools in decisionmaking, we suggest scientific needs that agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey can help meet—for instance, development and support of data archives. Such archives could greatly reduce resource needs and improve the reliability and consistency of results. Given the rapid state of evolution in the field, periodic follow-up studies on ecosystem services tools would help to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management and other public land management agencies are kept up to date on new tools and features that bring ecosystem services closer to readiness for use in regular decisionmaking.

Arizona;Sonora↗

USGS2013

Ecosystem stressors in southern Nevada

Southern Nevada ecosystems and their associated resources are subject to a number of global and regional/local stressors that are affecting the sustainability of the region. Global stressors include elevated carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations and associated changes in temperature and precipitation patterns and amount, solar radiation, and nutrient cycles (Smith and others 2009b). Global stressors are ubiquitous in nature and interact both directly and indirectly with regional or local stressors. Regional/local stressors in southern Nevada include: population growth and urbanization and associated increases in nitrogen deposition, energy development, water development, and recreation; increased effects of insects and disease; ongoing effects of livestock, wild horse and burro grazing; new and expanding invasive species; and altered fire regimes. This chapter provides background information on the stressors affecting southern Nevada's ecosystems that is needed to address Goal 1.0 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy, which is to restore, sustain, and enhance southern Nevada's ecosystems (Turner and others 2009). Human population growth and changes in land use strongly affect the type and magnitude of local/regional stressors. From 1960 to 2010, Nevada's growth rate was the highest in the nation (www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf). Clark County has experienced particularly high growth, with a population increase of greater than 40 percent since the 2000 census. Factors like land ownership, historic and current land use, proximity to human and energy developments, and desirability for recreation all influence the level of human-caused stress. The strong elevation/climate gradients and large difference in the environmental characteristics of southern Nevada ecosystems (fig. 1.2; Chapter 1) have a major influence on both patterns of land use and the dominant stressors for different ecosystem types. Shifts in land use related to population growth, urbanization, and energy development and largely focused in lower elevation ecosystems including sagebursh, blackbrush and shadscale, and Mojave Desert scrub. Water divisions influence riparian/aquatic ecosystems and springs, while groundwater pumping also has the potential to affect ecosystems that characterize lower valleys including Mojave Desert scrub. Recreational uses influence all ecosystems, and wild horse and burro use and livestock grazing affect all but alpine and subalpine ecosystems. Insects and disease, as well as invasive species are widespread stressors. Fire is limited to ecosystems with sufficient fuels to carry fire and is strongly influence by invasive species in lower elevation Mojave Desert scrub, blackbrush and shadscale, and sagebursh ecosystems. This chapter address aspects of several of the Goals and Sub-goals listed in the SNAP Science Research Strategy (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009). Altered fire regimes, invasive species, land use practices, and management actions are addressed in Goal 1 -- Sustain, Restore, and Enhance Southern Nevada's Ecosystems. The effects of these stressors on sensitive species and habitat are specifically addressed in Sub-goal 1.4 -- Sustain and Enhance Southern Nevada's Biotic Communities, to Preserve Biodiversity and Maintain Populations. Anthropogenic factors, such a recreation and urbanization, are referred to in Goal 2-- Provide for Responsible Use of Southern Nevada;s Lands in a Manner that Preserve Heritage Resources and Promotes an Understanding of Human Interaction with the Landscape.

Nevada↗

USGS2022

N and P constrain C in ecosystems under climate change: Role of nutrient redistribution, accumulation, and stoichiometry

We use the Multiple Element Limitation (MEL) model to examine responses of twelve ecosystems to elevated carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), warming, and 20% decreases or increases in precipitation. Ecosystems respond synergistically to elevated CO 2 , warming, and decreased precipitation combined because higher water-use efficiency with elevated CO 2 and higher fertility with warming compensate for responses to drought. Response to elevated CO 2 , warming, and increased precipitation combined is additive. We analyze changes in ecosystem carbon (C) based on four nitrogen (N) and four phosphorus (P) attribution factors: (1) changes in total ecosystem N and P, (2) changes in N and P distribution between vegetation and soil, (3) changes in vegetation C:N and C:P ratios, and (4) changes in soil C:N and C:P ratios. In the combined CO 2 and climate change simulations, all ecosystems gain C. The contributions of these four attribution factors to changes in ecosystem C storage varies among ecosystems because of differences in the initial distributions of N and P between vegetation and soil and the openness of the ecosystem N and P cycles. The net transfer of N and P from soil to vegetation dominates the C response of forests. For tundra and grasslands, the C gain is also associated with increased soil C:N and C:P. In ecosystems with symbiotic N fixation, C gains resulted from N accumulation. Because of differences in N versus P cycle openness and the distribution of organic matter between vegetation and soil, changes in the N and P attribution factors do not always parallel one another. Differences among ecosystems in C-nutrient interactions and the amount of woody biomass interact to shape ecosystem C sequestration under simulated global change. We suggest that future studies quantify the openness of the N and P cycles and changes in the distribution of C, N, and P among ecosystem components, which currently limit understanding of nutrient effects on C sequestration and responses to elevated CO 2 and climate change.

Ecological Applications↗