USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Research”

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

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

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2014

Guidelines for use of fishes in research

The 2004 and 2014 Guidelines were developed to provide a structure that advances appropriate attention toward valid experimental designs and procedures with aquatic animals while ensuring humane treatment of the experimental subjects. At a practical level, the Guidelines are intended to provide general recommendations on field and laboratory endeavors, such as sampling, holding, and handling fishes; to offer information on administrative matters, including regulations and permits; and to address typical ethical concerns, such as perceptions of pain or discomfort experienced by experimental subjects. These Guidelines must be recognized as guidelines . They are not intended to provide detailed instructions but rather to alert investigators to a broad array of topics and concerns to consider prior to initiating study. At a comprehensive level, the principles upon which these Guidelines are based are broadly applicable, and many of the described practices and approaches can be adapted to situations involving other aquatic animal species and conditions. Understanding the differences between fishes and other vertebrates, especially mammals, is critically important to conducting scientifically sound research with fishes. Disparities in life histories and mortality rates in fishes versus other vertebrates are critical in designing sustainable sampling levels in fish populations. The UFR Committee points out that (1) compared to mammalian populations, adult populations of many fish species persist despite very high natural mortality rates in juvenile stages by virtue of the fact that most species lay thousands or tens of thousands of eggs; (2) because of these mortality patterns, research on fishes, especially field research or research on early life stages, can involve, and often requires, much larger numbers of research subjects than does research on mammals; and (3) the animal handling and husbandry requirements for fishes are fundamentally different from those for mammals and other vertebrates, in general. Policies, regulations, and recommendations developed for research on mammals, birds, reptiles, or even amphibians are frequently inappropriate for research with fishes. The Guidelines also address some of the ethical concerns that motivate guidelines used for research with other vertebrates, while being mindful of the unique physiology and general nature of fishes. The Guidelines were developed for general use by investigators within the United States; therefore, the roles, responsibilities, and informational needs of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) were given specific attention. All United States institutions that use vertebrate animals for research, teaching, research training, and biological testing are required to create an IACUC to oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution’s animal care and use program. Investigators from other nations who read this document may disregard specific references to U.S. state and federal laws and regulations, as their institutional infrastructure and processes may differ from those of an internal committee such as IACUCs. The principles described herein, however, are applicable to research on fishes regardless of geographic location. Investigators in other nations may benefit by modifying any of the specific provisions pertaining to the United States, thereby adopting guidelines consistent with the laws and regulations of their own government. The UFR Committee urges that the Guidelines be endorsed and adopted (adapted, where necessary) by those state and federal authorities with regulatory responsibilities for fishes, offices with federal oversight (e.g., National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm ) as well as by universities and other institutions and authorities using fishes and aquatic animals within their research and teaching programs.

Report↗
USGS1984

History of the State Water Resources Research Institute Program

The State Water Resources Research Institute Program, established in 1964, consists of 54 Water Resources Research Institutes located at land-grant universities in each of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The program evolved from the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, as amended, the Water Research and Development Act of 1978, Public Law 94-457, and the Water Research and Development Act of 1984. These laws authorize the following components of the Institute Program: (1) the annual allotment and matching grants program for the institutes and (2) the additional and saline water research programs for organizations in addition to the State Water Resources Research Institutes. This report summarizes the legislative history, budget history, research program development, and program accomplishments. The State Water Resources Research Program has been administered to by the Office of Water Resources Research (OWRR) (1964-1974), the Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT) (1974-1982), the Office of Water Policy (OWP) (1982-1983) , and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (1983-present). (USGS)

Open-File Report↗
USGS1986

Research on polar bears in Alaska, 1983-1985

Research on the ecology and status of polar bear populations in Alaska has continued since 1967. Research was a joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Alaska Department of Fish and Game effort until passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, and has been largely a Federal effort since then. In 1985, Alaskan polar beer research continues to be carried out by the Research Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI). A recent reorganization removed authority for ecological research in Alaska from the Denver Wildlife Research Center, and vested it with the newly created Alaska Office of Fish and Wildlife Research. This new research office is the center for Federal fish and Wildlife related research throughout the state of Alaska and in its coastal waters. Although the responsibility for polar bear research lies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, numerous other organizations and agencies deserve mention for their cooperation and support of the ongoing research. These include: the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC), The U.S. Minerals Management Service (DOI), The Canadian Wildlife Service, The Northwest Territories Wildlife Service, the Yukon Wildlife Service, Dome Petroleum Ltd, Gulf Canada, and the Alaska Department of Fish and game.

Alaska↗
USGS2020

Using value of information to prioritize research needs for migratory bird management under climate change: A case study using federal land acquisition in the United States

In response to global habitat loss, many governmental and non‐governmental organizations have implemented land acquisition programs to protect critical habitats permanently for priority species. The ability of these protected areas to meet future management objectives may be compromised if the effects of climate change are not considered in acquisition decisions. Unfortunately, the effects of climate change on ecological systems are complex and plagued by uncertainty, making it difficult for organizations to prioritize research needs to improve decision‐making. Herein, we demonstrate the use of qualitative value of information analysis to identify and prioritize which sources of uncertainty should be reduced to improve land acquisition decisions to protect migratory birds in the face of climate change. The qualitative value of information analysis process involves four steps: ( i ) articulating alternative hypotheses; ( ii ) determining the magnitude of uncertainty regarding each hypothesis; ( iii ) evaluating the relevance of each hypothesis to acquisition decision‐making; and ( iv ) assessing the feasibility of reducing the uncertainty surrounding each hypothesis through research and monitoring. We demonstrate this approach using the objectives of 3 U.S. federal land acquisition programs that focus on migratory bird management. We used a comprehensive literature review, expert elicitation, and professional judgement to evaluate 11 hypotheses about the effect of climate change on migratory birds. Based on our results, we provide a list of priorities for future research and monitoring to reduce uncertainty and improve land acquisition decisions for the programs considered in our case study. Reducing uncertainty about how climate change will influence the spatial distribution of priority species and biotic homogenization were identified as the highest priorities for future research due to both the value of this information for improving land acquisition decisions and the feasibility of reducing uncertainty through research and monitoring. Research on how changes in precipitation patterns and winter severity will influence migratory bird abundance is also expected to benefit land acquisition decisions. By contrast, hypotheses about phenology and migration distance were identified as low priorities for research. By providing a rigorous and transparent approach to prioritizing research, we demonstrate that qualitative value of information is a valuable tool for prioritizing research and improving management decisions in other complex, high‐uncertainty cases where traditional quantitative value of information analysis is not possible. Given the inherent complexity of ecological systems under climate change, and the difficulty of identifying management‐relevant research priorities, we expect this approach to have wide applications within the field of natural resource management.

Biological Reviews↗
USGS2023

U.S. Geological Survey science vision for native freshwater mussel research in the United States

Executive Summary North America is a global center for native freshwater mussel (order Unionida, hereinafter “mussels”) diversity, with more than 350 species. Mussels are among the most imperiled fauna on the planet. Reasons for both local and widespread declines in mussels are mostly unknown, although the threats may include habitat loss and fragmentation, diseases, environmental contaminants, altered flow regimes, migration barriers to larval hosts, non-native species, and climate change. Over the past three decades, research on mussels has been substantial. Nevertheless, current conservation and management efforts are limited by significant information gaps. For example, the effects of emerging stressors on mussels are largely unknown and identifying when habitats are rehabilitated and suitable for reestablishment of mussels remains challenging. Additionally, historical and current information on the distribution, taxonomy, and life histories are often unreliable or lacking altogether, and more reliable information is needed for many species. We identified focal research themes, goals, and objectives where research on mussels is needed based on information gaps identified through conversations with resource partners across local, regional, and national organizations. Research on biodiversity seeks to enhance the diversity of mussel species and populations to support healthy aquatic ecosystems. Research on emerging stressors seeks to improve the understanding of how mussel species, populations, and communities respond to emerging stressors, including environmental contaminants and climate change. Research on conservation seeks to enhance the recovery of species and populations and to identify data gaps limiting the conservation of mussels and their habitats. Mussels are in urgent need of proactive conservation because they are an integral part of our natural heritage, enhance biodiversity, and provide vital ecological services that support freshwater ecosystems. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been, and continues to be, a leader in mussel research. Although the USGS is well suited to address the broad-scale multidisciplinary research needed to conserve mussels, the USGS has had substantial loss of scientists with mussel expertise over the past 20 years. However, the breadth of the USGS expertise on mussels can be leveraged internally across other USGS mission and program areas and externally across research partners. Given the breadth and scope of the issues facing mussels across the United States, the research themes outlined in this science vision can only be accomplished through extensive collaborations between the USGS and the full spectrum of natural resource partners, including other Federal and State agencies, Tribal organizations, universities, industries, and nongovernmental organizations.

Circular↗
USGS2002

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

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

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS1966

Geological Survey Research 1966, Chapter A

'Geological Survey Research 1966' is the seventh annual review of the econamic and scientific work of the U.S. Geological Survey. As in previous years the purpose of the volume is to make available promptly to the public the highlights of Survey investigations. This year the volume consists of 4 chapters (A through D) of Professional Paper 550. Chapter A contains a summary of significant results, and the remaining chapters are made up of collections of short technical papers. Many of the results summarized in chapter A are discussed in greater detail in the short papers or in reports listed in 'Publications in Fiscal Year 1966,' beginning on page A265. The tables of contents for chapters B through D are listed on pages A259-A264. Numerous Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies listed on pages A211-A215 cooperated financially with the Geological Survey during fiscal 1966 and have contributed significantly to the results reported here. They are identified where appropriate in the short technical papers that have appeared in Geological Survey Research and in papers published cooperatively, but generally are not identified in the brief statements in chapter A. Many individuals on the staff of the Geological Survey have contributed to 'Geological Survey Research 1966.' Reference is made to only a few. Frank W. Trainer, Water Resources Division, was responsible for organizing and assembling chapter A and for critical review of papers in chapters B-D, assisted by Louis Pavlides, Geologic Division. Marston S. Chase, Publications Division, was in charge of production aspects of the series, assisted by Jesse R. Upperco in technical editing, and William H. Elliott and James R. Hamilton in planning and preparing illustrations. The volume for next year, 'Geological Survey Research 1967,' will be published as chapters af Professional Paper 5715. Previous volumes are listed below, with their series designations. Gealagical Survey Research 1960-Prof. Paper 400 Gealagical Survey Research 1961-Prof. Paper 424 Gealagical Survey Research 1962-Prof. Paper 450 Gealagical Survey Research 1963-Prof. Paper 475 Gealagical Survey Research 1964-Prof. Paper 501 Gealagical Survey Research 1965-Prof. Paper 525

Professional Paper↗
USGS2017

Strengthening links between waterfowl research and management

Waterfowl monitoring, research, regulation, and adaptive planning are leading the way in supporting science-informed wildlife management. However, increasing societal demands on natural resources have created a greater need for adaptable and successful linkages between waterfowl science and management. We presented a special session at the 2016 North American Duck Symposium, Annapolis, Maryland, USA on the successes and challenges of linking research and management in waterfowl conservation, and we summarize those thoughts in this commentary. North American waterfowl management includes a diversity of actions including management of harvest and habitat. Decisions for waterfowl management are structured using decision analysis by incorporating stakeholder values into formal objectives, identifying research relevant to objectives, integrating scientific knowledge, and choosing an optimal strategy with respect to objectives. Recently, the consideration of the value of information has been proposed as a means to evaluate the utility of research designed to meet objectives. Despite these advances, the ability to conduct waterfowl research with direct management application may be increasingly difficult in research institutions for several reasons including reduced funding for applied research and the lower perceived value of applied versus theoretical research by some university academics. In addition, coordination between researchers and managers may be logistically constrained, and communication may be ineffective between the 2 groups. Strengthening these links would help develop stronger and more coordinated approaches for the conservation of waterfowl and the wetlands upon which they depend.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2018

Increased scientific rigor will improve reliability of research and effectiveness of management

Rigorous science that produces reliable knowledge is critical to wildlife management because it increases accurate understanding of the natural world and informs management decisions effectively. Application of a rigorous scientific method based on hypothesis testing minimizes unreliable knowledge produced by research. To evaluate the prevalence of scientific rigor in wildlife research, we examined 24 issues of the Journal of Wildlife Management from August 2013 through July 2016. We found 43.9% of studies did not state or imply a priori hypotheses, which are necessary to produce reliable knowledge. We posit that this is due, at least in part, to a lack of common understanding of what rigorous science entails, how it produces more reliable knowledge than other forms of interpreting observations, and how research should be designed to maximize inferential strength and usefulness of application. Current primary literature does not provide succinct explanations of the logic behind a rigorous scientific method or readily applicable guidance for employing it, particularly in wildlife biology; we therefore synthesized an overview of the history, philosophy, and logic that define scientific rigor for biological studies. A rigorous scientific method includes 1) generating a research question from theory and prior observations, 2) developing hypotheses (i.e., plausible biological answers to the question), 3) formulating predictions (i.e., facts that must be true if the hypothesis is true), 4) designing and implementing research to collect data potentially consistent with predictions, 5) evaluating whether predictions are consistent with collected data, and 6) drawing inferences based on the evaluation. Explicitly testing a priori hypotheses reduces overall uncertainty by reducing the number of plausible biological explanations to only those that are logically well supported. Such research also draws inferences that are robust to idiosyncratic observations and unavoidable human biases. Offering only post hoc interpretations of statistical patterns (i.e., a posteriori hypotheses) adds to uncertainty because it increases the number of plausible biological explanations without determining which have the greatest support. Further, post hoc interpretations are strongly subject to human biases. Testing hypotheses maximizes the credibility of research findings, makes the strongest contributions to theory and management, and improves reproducibility of research. Management decisions based on rigorous research are most likely to result in effective conservation of wildlife resources.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2013

Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes--Proceedings of a Research Symposium, September 2012

Locally and globally, there is growing recognition of the critical roles that herring, smelt, sand lance, eulachon, and other forage fishes play in marine ecosystems. Scientific and resource management entities throughout the Salish Sea, agree that extensive information gaps exist, both in basic biological knowledge and parameters critical to fishery management. Communication and collaboration among researchers also is inadequate. Building on the interest and enthusiasm generated by recent forage fish workshops and symposia around the region, the 2012 Research Symposium on the Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes was designed to elucidate practical recommendations for science and policy needs and actions, and spur further collaboration in support for the precautionary management of forage fish. This dynamic and productive event was a joint venture of the Northwest Straits Commission Forage Fish Program, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and The Puget Sound Partnership. The symposium was held on September 12–14, 2012, at the University of Washington, Friday Harbor Laboratories campus. Sixty scientists, graduate students, and fisheries policy experts convened; showcasing ongoing research, conservation, and management efforts targeting forage fish from regional and national perspectives. The primary objectives of this event were to: (1) review current research and management related to marine forage fish species; and (2) identify priority science and policy needs and actions for Washington, British Columbia, and the entire West Coast. Given the diversity of knowledge, interests, and disciplines surrounding forage fish on both sides of the international border, the organizing committee made a concerted effort to contact many additional experts who, although unable to attend, provided valuable insights and ideas to the symposium structure and discussions. The value of the symposium format was highlighted in the closing remarks delivered by Joseph Gaydos, SeaDoc Society and Chair of the Puget Sound Science Panel. Dr. Gaydos’ presentation referenced the 2011 paper by Murray Rudd in the journal Conservation Biology , “How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy.” The paper points out that policy makers and funding agencies are more likely to gain a full understanding of issues when they are presented with research findings from an aligned research program. That is, compared to unaligned research strategies, where work is not based on identified research priorities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science research plan 2013-18

The U.S. Geological Survey Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS) was created in 2006 and since that time has provided research primarily in support of The National Map. The presentations and publications of the CEGIS researchers document the research accomplishments that include advances in electronic topographic map design, generalization, data integration, map projections, sea level rise modeling, geospatial semantics, ontology, user-centered design, volunteer geographic information, and parallel and grid computing for geospatial data from The National Map. A research plan spanning 2013–18 has been developed extending the accomplishments of the CEGIS researchers and documenting new research areas that are anticipated to support The National Map of the future. In addition to extending the 2006–12 research areas, the CEGIS research plan for 2013–18 includes new research areas in data models, geospatial semantics, high-performance computing, volunteered geographic information, crowdsourcing, social media, data integration, and multiscale representations to support the Three-Dimensional Elevation Program (3DEP) and The National Map of the future of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1966

Geological Survey research 1966, Chapter B

This collection of 43 short papers is the first published chapter of 'Geological Survey Research 1966.' The papers report on scientific and economic results of current work by members of the Conservation, Geologic, Topographic, and Water Resources Divisions of the U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter A, to be published later in the year, will present a summary of significant results of work done during fiscal year 1966, together with lists of investigations in progress, reports published, cooperating agencies, and Geological Survey offices. 'Geological Survey Research 1966' is the seventh volume of the annual series Geological Survey Research. The six volumes already published are listed below, with their series designations. Geological Survey Research 1960-Prof. Paper 400 Geological Survey Research 1961-Prof. Paper 424 Geological Survey Research 1962-Prof. Paper 450 Geological Survey Research 1963-Prof. Paper 475 Geological Survey Research 1964-Prof. Paper 501 Geological Survey Research 1965-Prof. Paper 525

Professional Paper↗
USGS2023

Identifying research in support of the management and control of dreissenid mussels in the western United States

On February 9–10, 2022, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Washington State University hosted a workshop to establish research priorities that support the implementation of action items listed in a current invasive species management plan, the Quagga and Zebra Mussel Action Plan (QZAP) 2.0, that are intended to limit the establishment and spread of quagga and zebra mussels in the western United States. The workshop focus was on developing research priorities for the thematic areas that are addressed in QZAP 2.0: 1) early detection monitoring, 2) prevention and containment, 3) control and management, and 4) rapid response. In addition, research priorities were developed for a fifth thematic area that addressed dreissenid mussel biology. Forty scientists participated in the two-day workshop. Prior to the workshop, participants were asked to review and rank research priorities that were established for a previous version of the QZAP and to offer suggestions on emerging research priorities. During the workshop, subject matter experts presented information describing current knowledge of research and information associated with the thematic areas of early detection monitoring, prevention and containment, rapid response, control and management, and biology in the context of strategies and actions listed in QZAP 2.0. The rankings of previous research priorities and suggestions of emerging priorities were then reviewed, and a revised list of research priorities was formed. The list of research priorities is presented by thematic area.

Management of Biological Invasions↗
USGS2013

Research strategies for addressing uncertainties

There is an immense volume of information pertaining to research needs for addressing climate change uncertainties and resolving key information gaps. Fortunately, multiple independent efforts to establish research priorities have yielded similar results. Input on research needs is being used to craft national scientific priorities and strategies that are being implemented regionally by agencies and organizations. A number of regionally based efforts are already underway to aggregate and synthesize climate-related management needs and research priorities. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Climate Science Centers, funded by the Department of the Interior, are conducting strategic syntheses of common resource-management priorities and related science needs across the Southwest, and many of these priorities and needs are related to climate variability and change. The present Assessment includes many examples of the types of research that are needed to address key climate science uncertainties. The Assessment also includes examples of information needs related to understanding climate effects on systems (human, biophysical, ecosystems, and others) in the Southwest. Implementation of research strategies will increase understanding and improve the ability of the scientific community to anticipate the direction or magnitude of future climate-related change in these systems. The assembly of experts for the other chapters of this document provided a unique opportunity to draw upon the authors’ collective expertise to share knowledge about priority research strategies. The peer-reviewed information sources assessed in this chapter highlight research strategies and priorities established by the research community. Other sources cover priorities that are based primarily on management and policy needs. In the latter type, the sources represent the consensus of senior leaders of organizations, generally with substantial input and advice from the organizations’ technical and scientific experts.

Book chapter↗
USGS2021

Translational invasion ecology: Bridging research and practice to address one of the greatest threats to biodiversity

Effective natural resource management and policy is contingent on information generated by research. Conversely, the applicability of research depends on whether it is responsive to the needs and constraints of resource managers and policy makers. However, many scientific fields including invasion ecology suffer from a disconnect between research and practice. Despite strong socio-political imperatives, evidenced by extensive funding dedicated to addressing invasive species, the pairing of invasion ecology with stakeholder needs to support effective management and policy is lacking. As a potential solution, we propose translational invasion ecology (TIE). As an extension of translational ecology, as a framework to increase collaboration among scientists, practitioners, and policy makers to reduce negative impacts of invasive species. As an extension of translational ecology, TIE is an approach that embodies an intentional and inclusive process in which researchers, stakeholders, and decision makers collaborate to develop and implement ecological research via joint consideration of the ecological, sociological, economic, and/or political contexts in order to improve invasive species management. TIE ideally results in improved outcomes as well as shared benefits between researchers and managers. We delineate the steps of our proposed TIE approach and describe successful examples of ongoing TIE projects from the US and internationally. We suggest practical ways to begin incorporating TIE into research and management practices, including supporting boundary-spanning organizations and activities, expanding networks, sharing translational experiences, and measuring outcomes. We find that there is a need for strengthened boundary spanning, as well as funding and recognition for advancing translational approaches. As climate change and globalization exacerbate invasive species impacts, TIE provides a promising approach to generate actionable ecological research while improving outcomes of invasive species management and policy decisions.

Biological Invasions↗
USGS2025

Applications of unoccupied aerial systems (UAS) in landscape ecology: A review of recent research, challenges and emerging opportunities

Context Unoccupied aerial systems/vehicles (UAS/UAV, a.k.a. drones) have become an increasingly popular tool for ecological research. But much of the recent research is concerned with developing mapping and detection approaches, with few studies attempting to link UAS data to ecosystem processes and function. Landscape ecologists have long used high resolution imagery and spatial analyses to address ecological questions and are therefore uniquely positioned to advance UAS research for ecological applications. Objectives The review objectives are to: (1) provide background on how UAS are used in landscape ecological studies, (2) identify major advancements and research gaps, and (3) discuss ways to better facilitate the use of UAS in landscape ecology research. Methods We conducted a systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines using key search terms that are unique to landscape ecology research. We reviewed only papers that applied UAS data to investigate questions about ecological patterns, processes, or function. Results We summarize metadata from 161 papers that fit our review criteria. We highlight and discuss major research themes and applications, sensors and data collection techniques, image processing, feature extraction and spatial analysis, image fusion and satellite scaling, and open data and software. Conclusion We observed a diversity of UAS methods, applications, and creative spatial modeling and analysis approaches. Key aspects of UAS research in landscape ecology include modeling wildlife micro-habitats, scaling of ecosystem functions, landscape and geomorphic change detection, integrating UAS with historical aerial and satellite imagery, and novel applications of spatial statistics.

Landscape Ecology↗
USGS2026

Co-producing coastal bird research on the Gulf Coast through structured decision making (SDM) and constructed value of information (CVoI)

Conservation practitioners face the complex challenge of addressing global biodiversity threats within social-ecological systems with multiple jurisdictions, numerous interest groups, and changing environmental conditions. Bridging the research-to-implementation gap between scientists and managers, which integrates diverse perspectives that represent the variety of considerations impacting management outcomes can help to inform efficient and effective conservation. Avian conservation programs along the U.S. Gulf Coast exemplify these challenges, as management decisions must address diverse threats to declining coastal bird populations across large breeding, wintering, and migratory ranges while facing uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of large-scale strategies. This provides opportunities for improving management through co-produced research with structured decision making (SDM). We present a case study that demonstrates the application of co-production principles and SDM to collaboratively develop high-priority research questions informing effective avian conservation and management. Additionally, we applied a constructed value of information (CVoI) framework to identify and prioritize which uncertainties to reduce and better understand how research questions impact management actions. The integration of SDM’s five-step decision making framework ensured key principles of co-production were met, while co-production enhanced SDM outcomes by incorporating diverse perspectives and knowledge bases. CVoI further allowed participants to collectively determine final high-priority research questions in the face of complexity and uncertainty. Together, these approaches supported co-produced knowledge-generation, strategic hypothesis prioritization, and identification of research questions most likely to improve conservation decisions. This case study from the U.S. Gulf Coast demonstrates how co-produced research through SDM offers a broadly applicable approach for navigating ecological complexity and bridging the research-to-implementation gap in avian conservation.

Gulf Coast↗
USGS2020

The next frontier: Making research more reproducible

Science and engineering rest on the concept of reproducibility. An important question for any study is: are the results reproducible? Can the results be recreated independently by other researchers or professionals? Research results need to be independently reproduced and validated before they are accepted as fact or theory. Across numerous fields like psychology, computer systems, and water resources there are problems to reproduce research results (Aarts et al. 2015; Collberg et al. 2014; Hutton et al. 2016; Stagge et al. 2019; Stodden et al. 2018). This editorial examines the challenges to reproduce research results and suggests community practices to overcome these challenges. Coordination is needed among the authors, journals, funders and institutions that produce, publish, and report research. Making research more reproducible will allow researchers, professionals, and students to more quickly understand and apply research in follow-on efforts and advance the field.

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management↗