USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Environmental Sciences”

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 1,549 records · Page 86Linked to original sources
USGS2018

Patterns, pace and processes of water-quality variability: Examples from a long-studied estuary

Environmental time series have rich information content that is invaluable for measuring and understanding changes over time and guiding policies to manage change. I extracted information from measurements of 10 water‐quality constituents in upper San Francisco Bay from 1975 to 2016, one of the longest observational records in a U.S. estuary. Changes were detected at every time scale captured by monthly sampling. Long‐term trends included increased ammonium (+53%), nitrate + nitrate (+50%), silicate (+14%), Secchi depth (+42%), and decreased chlorophyll a (Chl a ) (−74%) and suspended particulate matter (−45%). Changes at the decadal scale included abrupt shifts (Chl a , nitrate + nitrite) and oscillations between shorter trends of increase and decrease (Secchi depth, phosphate). Long‐term trends were not expressed equally across all seasons, and seasonal patterns of change varied across constituents. These examples illustrate key features of environmental variability at the land–sea interface: (1) water‐quality components change continually at time scales from months to decades; (2) patterns of seasonal, multiyear, and multidecadal change are complex and vary across constituents; (3) primary drivers of change are freshwater inflow, the master regulator of estuarine dynamics, and human activities such as river damming, water diversions, wastewater discharge, environmental policies, and species introductions; (4) extracting the full information content of time series requires multiple analyses, each revealing a different layer of insight into how changes develop over time; (5) water‐quality variability is nonstationary, so future changes cannot be forecast reliably; (6) repeated observation is an essential method of Earth system science with applications in the design and performance measures of environmental policies.

California↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary 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 policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking 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 wellbeing 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 decisionmakers 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 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau 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 Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. 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 for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: 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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS 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 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 in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗
USGS2010

USGS Science Serves Public Health

Human health so often depends on the health of the environment and wildlife around us. The presence of naturally occurring or human environmental contaminants and the emergence of diseases transferred between animals and humans are growing concerns worldwide. The USGS is a source of natural science information vital for understanding the quantity and quality of our earth and living resources. This information improves our understanding not only of how human activities affect environmental and ecological health, but also of how the quality of our environment and wildlife in turn affects human health. USGS is taking a leadership role in providing the natural science information needed by health researchers, policy makers, and the public to safeguard public health

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2008

Interpreting and Reporting Radiological Water-Quality Data

This document provides information to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Science Centers on interpreting and reporting radiological results for samples of environmental matrices, most notably water. The information provided is intended to be broadly useful throughout the United States, but it is recommended that scientists who work at sites containing radioactive hazardous wastes need to consult additional sources for more detailed information. The document is largely based on recognized national standards and guidance documents for radioanalytical sample processing, most notably the Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual (MARLAP), and on documents published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American National Standards Institute. It does not include discussion of standard USGS practices including field quality-control sample analysis, interpretive report policies, and related issues, all of which shall always be included in any effort by the Water Science Centers. The use of 'shall' in this report signifies a policy requirement of the USGS Office of Water Quality.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2018

Promoting synergy in the innovative use of environmental data—Workshop summary

From December 2 to 4, 2015, NatureServe and the U.S. Geological Survey organized and hosted a biodiversity and ecological informatics workshop at the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C. The workshop objective was to identify user-driven future directions and areas of collaboration in advanced applications of environmental data applied to forecasting and decision making for the sustainability of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Substantial effort to recruit attendees from diverse Federal, State, and private sector organizations successfully attracted participants from 20 Federal agencies and 48 different institutions in the academic, nonprofit, State government, and commercial sectors; the total number of attendees ranged from 100 to 144 during the 3-day workshop. The first one-half of the workshop was divided into 7 plenary sessions and 3 sets of lightning talk sessions organized by sector, providing 48 oral and visual plenary presentations that shared diverse perspectives on biodiversity and ecological informatics, including original biospatial analyses from 6 graduate student map contest winners. The second one-half of the workshop focused on 10 breakout sessions with participant-driven themes from the environmental data sphere and concluded with an address by the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The workshop was structured to encourage interactivity. About 80–90 percent of attendees provided direct feedback using clicker devices for specific questions related to biodiversity and ecological data uses and needs, and 10 breakout session leaders shared the highlights of their group discussions during the final workshop plenary sessions. Participants were encouraged to use the Twitter hashtag #ShareUrData. Over lunch on day 2 there were 20 simultaneous presentations of tools and apps during a special “Tools Café” session. The 10 participant-defined breakout session topics are listed below: Ecosystem services and ecological indicators Inventory and monitoring Biogeographic map of the Nation Pollinators Invasive species Remote sensing Drivers of agricultural change Citizen science Climate Hydrology and watersheds Numerous common themes that emerged from the workshop include the following: The vital importance of completing foundational environmental datasets that are nationally consistent and are essential to multiple sectors, such as the Soil Survey Geographic database high-resolution soils data, a minimum 5-meter resolution digital elevation model, national hydrographic data, high-resolution land cover data, time series high-resolution spatial climate data from historical to future time steps, and a national wetland inventory. Improved, nationally consistent environmental datasets (integrated with targeted observations) will dramatically advance forecasting capacity and support early warning systems (that is, drought, forest disease); however, multiagency coordination should focus on decision support tools that convey appropriate actions and responses to adapt to, and mitigate, potential negative consequences. Digitizing and providing access to the vast stores of underused historical data that can be leveraged for this purpose is of national importance. Modern computational techniques and the ever-increasing flow of environmental data from ground and remote observations can support improved understanding of environmental change. Success of understanding patterns of change for decision making requires establishing baselines from which change can be measured. The value of digitized historical data is greater than ever before. There is a need to recognize the multifaceted potential of citizen science to engage the public in resource stewardship, to create the next generation of science, technology, engineering, math, and environmental leaders, and to have sufficient field personnel to monitor environmental trends, including early detection of alien invasive species, phenological shifts, shifting distribution and abundance of indicator species, and species inventories. The Federal government has an essential role in creating the infrastructure to dramatically improve mobilization of citizen science (and other) data by fostering the following: creation of data standards, creation of nationally consistent framework datasets, vertical integration of observation data, visualization and dissemination of aggregated datasets, and calculation and communication of derived trends. Current and near future trends in the availability of remotely sensed data (rapid expansion of satellite fleets and drones) is revolutionizing access to near-real-time ecological data. Targeted integration with ground-based observations and instrumentation has an extremely valuable role in validating remotely sensed data, filling data gaps, improving data quality, and fully realizing the potential of the near-real-time monitoring of environmental indicator trends. Integrated management of environmental data at the landscape scale is required even as specific actions on the ground are largely local in nature. The workshop highlighted numerous success stories; however, almost every breakout group pointed out the still-too-fragmented nature of the current data landscape. Management and delivery of the necessary data, tools, and analyses to sustain our Nation’s environmental capital must be a collaborative effort between Federal, State, and local governments, academia, nonprofits, and the commercial sector, even though the responsibilities of each sector are different.

Open-File Report↗
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↗
USGS2019

Results from the Department of the Interior Strategic Sciences Group Technical Support for the 2018 Kīlauea Eruption

On May 3, 2018 Hawai'i’s Kīlauea volcano erupted, ultimately covering 35 square kilometers (13.5 square miles) of land in lava, destroying over 700 homes in multiple subdivisions, and displacing over 2500 residents in the Puna District on the southeast flank of the volcano. Simultaneously, Kīlauea’s summit experienced its largest collapse in 200 years, with a total of 500 meters (1,640 feet) subsidence and tens of earthquakes each day rattling surrounding communities. These simultaneous events impacted residential, agricultural, business, tourist, and scientific areas. Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park closed, slowing tourism and the local economy. The building housing the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory also closed, displacing scientists responsible for monitoring the erupting volcano. The eruption lasted 107 days, one of the longest eruptions in recent history in lower Puna. Throughout the eruption, uncertainty regarding the duration of the event, its extent, and total damage remained high. This uncertainty led to social tensions and fatigue across the affected community, responders, and local officials. At the direction of the USGS Director, serving as the Science Advisor to the Secretary of the of the Interior, the Department of the Interior (DOI, hereafter also referred to as “the Department”) Strategic Sciences Group (SSG) convened a multidisciplinary group of 13 experts in Hilo, Hawai'i, on July 17-19, 2018. The SSG was charged with considering the cascading short- and long-term social, economic, and environmental consequences of the 2018 Kīlauea eruption to DOI resources, employees, and facilities as well as to the surrounding communities. Established in 2012, the SSG is designed to complement ongoing response efforts by providing strategic science to identify potential social, environmental, and economic consequences and potential interventions during a crisis event affecting Departmental resources. This activation of the SSG was funded by the USGS. It was the first official activation of the SSG since it supported Hurricane Sandy recovery in 2013 and provided the unique opportunity to test new methods, including bolstering the social science expertise on the team and interacting directly with stakeholders before, during, and after deployment. The SSG Kīlauea Team developed three scenarios focused on 1) the impacts of continued seismicity and deformation at the summit; 2) vog (volcanic smog); and 3) the eruption in the lower East Rift Zone. Across all scenarios, areas of concern included human health (physical and mental); biosecurity (for example, protecting threatened and endangered species); infrastructure (impacts caused by seismic activity, vog, and lava); communications (internal and public-facing); long-term planning (related to tourism, access, housing); and ongoing needs for community engagement and empowerment. The SSG Kīlauea Team identified 59 potential actions for mitigation. Highlights of these actions were delivered to stakeholders during briefings in August and September 2018. Examples of potential actions included: ● Seize opportunities to develop new partnerships within and outside of DOI to address facilities issues caused by seismic damage and park closure. ● Educate community members and new workers to increase early detection of invasive species and establish new wash stations to address biosecurity threats to the park posed by more frequent commuting from new temporary Hilo locations. ● Create a "vog officer" position to ensure coordination and consistency in communication about vog hazards across federal, state, and county agencies. It is important to note that the potential actions are suggestions and are not intended to be prescriptive. The SSG uses “blue sky thinking” when developing these potential actions to encourage creative approaches to problem solving. In some cases, some of the suggested potential actions derived by the SSG are actions that were already underway, or already under consideration and helped to affirm 3 activities by different stakeholders. In other cases, the actions may be new ideas. Some were applicable to immediate response, while others are more relevant to long-term recovery. This report details the results from the July 2018 activation of the SSG. It includes background on Kīlauea and the 2018 eruption, an overview of SSG methodology, and a complete list of the potential actions to mitigate cascading consequences identified by the SSG. Importantly, Appendix 4 includes several rapidly assembled “issue papers” on a variety of topics for consideration for recovery and future preparedness and response activities. This report is designed to be used by both the Department and more broadly by partners, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hawai'i County, Hawai'i Department of Health, and the Hawai'i Emergency Management Agency.

Hawaii↗
USGS2013

Water resources and shale gas/oil production in the Appalachian Basin: critical issues and evolving developments

Unconventional natural gas and oil resources in the United States are important components of a national energy program. While the Nation seeks greater energy independence and greener sources of energy, Federal agencies with environmental responsibilities, state and local regulators and water-resource agencies, and citizens throughout areas of unconventional shale gas development have concerns about the environmental effects of high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), including those in the Appalachian Basin in the northeastern United States (fig. 1). Environmental concerns posing critical challenges include the availability and use of surface water and groundwater for hydraulic fracturing; the migration of stray gas and potential effects on overlying aquifers; the potential for flowback, formation fluids, and other wastes to contaminate surface water and groundwater; and the effects from drill pads, roads, and pipeline infrastructure on land disturbance in small watersheds and headwater streams (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2012). Federal, state, regional and local agencies, along with the gas industry, are striving to use the best science and technology to develop these unconventional resources in an environmentally safe manner. Some of these concerns were addressed in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fact Sheet 2009–3032 (Soeder and Kappel, 2009) about potential critical effects on water resources associated with the development of gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale of the Hamilton Group (Ver Straeten and others, 1994). Since that time, (1) the extraction process has evolved, (2) environmental awareness related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing process has increased, (3) state regulations concerning gas well drilling have been modified, and (4) the practices used by industry to obtain, transport, recover, treat, recycle, and ultimately dispose of the spent fluids and solid waste materials have evolved. This report updates and expands on Fact Sheet 2009–3032 and presents new information regarding selected aspects of unconventional shale gas development in the Appalachian Basin (primarily Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York). This document was prepared by the USGS, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, and reviews the evolving technical advances and scientific studies made in the Appalachian Basin between 2009 and the present (2013), addressing past and current issues for oil and gas development in the region.

Maryl;New York;Ohio;Pennsylvania;Virginia;West Vir↗
USGS2020

Oases of the future? Evaluating springs as potential hydrologic refugia in drying climates

Springs in water-limited landscapes are biodiversity hotspots and keystone ecosystems, disproportionately influencing surrounding landscapes despite their often small areas. Some springs served as evolutionary refugia during previous climate drying, supporting relict species in isolated habitats. Understanding whether springs will provide hydrologic refugia from future climate change is important to biodiversity conservation but complicated by hydrologic variability among springs, data limitations, and multiple non-climate threats to groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Here, we present a conceptual framework for categorizing springs as potentially stable, relative, or transient hydrologic refugia in a drying climate. Clues about refugial capacity of springs can be assembled from diverse approaches, including citizen-science-powered ecohydrologic monitoring, remote sensing, landowner interviews, and environmental tracer analysis. Managers can integrate multiple lines of evidence to predict which springs may become future refugia for species of concern, strengthening the long-term effectiveness of springs conservation and restoration and informing climate adaptation for terrestrial and freshwater species.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2007

Lake trout demographics in relation to burbot and coregonine populations in the Algonquin Highlands, Ontario

The objective of the study was to test the hypothesis that lake trout populations change in relation to cisco, lake whitefish, round whitefish and burbot populations in lakes in the Algonquin Highlands region of Ontario. Lake trout population change is greatest where cisco and lake whitefish are present. Lake trout populations in lakes without either coregonine tend to have small adults and many juveniles. Where cisco or lake whitefish are present, adult lake trout are large, juvenile abundance is low, and the stock-recruit relationship appears to be uncoupled likely due to a larval bottleneck. Lake trout populations in these lakes may be sensitive to overfishing and recruitment failure. Lake trout populations do not appear to change in relation to round whitefish. There appears to be an indirect positive change on juvenile lake trout abundance through reductions in the density of benthic coregonines in the presence of large, hypolimnetic burbot. ?? 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Environmental Biology of Fishes↗
USGS2009

Water quality of least-impaired lakes in eastern and southern Arkansas

A three-phased study identified one least-impaired (reference) lake for each of four Arkansas lake classifications: three classifications in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAP) ecoregion and a fourth classification in the South Central Plains (SCP) ecoregion. Water quality at three of the least-impaired lakes generally was comparable and also was comparable to water quality from Kansas and Missouri reference lakes and Texas least-impaired lakes. Water quality of one least-impaired lake in the MAP ecoregion was not as good as water quality in other least-impaired lakes in Arkansas or in the three other states: a probable consequence of all lakes in that classification having a designated use as a source of irrigation water. Chemical and physical conditions for all four lake classifications were at times naturally harsh as limnological characteristics changed temporally. As a consequence of allochthonous organic material, oxbow lakes isolated within watersheds comprised of swamps were susceptible to low dissolved oxygen concentrations to the extent that conditions would be limiting to some aquatic biota. Also, pH in lakes in the SCP ecoregion was <6.0, a level exceeding current Arkansas water-quality standards but typical of black water systems. Water quality of the deepest lakes exceeded that of shallow lakes. N/P ratios and trophic state indices may be less effective for assessing water quality for shallow lakes (<2 m) than for deep lakes because there is an increased exposure of sediment (and associated phosphorus) to disturbance and light in the former. ?? 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment↗
USGS2021

Opportunities and challenges of macrogenetic studies

The rapidly emerging field of macrogenetics focuses on analysing publicly accessible genetic datasets from thousands of species to explore large-scale patterns and predictors of intraspecific genetic variation. Facilitated by advances in evolutionary biology, technology, data infrastructure, statistics and open science, macrogenetics addresses core evolutionary hypotheses (such as disentangling environmental and life-history effects on genetic variation) with a global focus. Yet, there are important, often overlooked, limitations to this approach and best practices need to be considered and adopted if macrogenetics is to continue its exciting trajectory and reach its full potential in fields such as biodiversity monitoring and conservation. Here, we review the history of this rapidly growing field, highlight knowledge gaps and future directions, and provide guidelines for further research.

Nature Reviews Genetics↗
USGS1973

Value and validity of earth resources observations from space

Observations of the earth from space can provide overall repetitive views in various regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Data from such surveys can be used as the basis for more detailed observations from aircraft and on the ground to guide resource exploration, development, and conservation activities. The value of earth resource observations from space has been demonstrated by the practical use of photographs from the Gemini and Apollo spaceflights and particularly by a series of multispectral photographs taken during the flight of Apollo 9. The analysis of those photographs has shown that the performance of the planned Earth Resources Technology Satellite will meet the needs of the resource and environmental community for small-scale repetitive images of the earth in the visible and solar infrared portions of the spectrum and has provided a limited base of material for earth scientists to work with in order to ready themselves for the ERTS data. The validity of earth resource observations from space can be derived by analogy from the successively closer observations of the moon, culminating in repeated physical sampling of the moon's surface. The method of inductive reasoning and analysis used for the moon is the opposite of the normal deductive analysis used on the earth. Adoption of the inductive methods and reasoning for earth observations will provide a framework of broad observations and conclusions leading to the identification of target areas for more detailed observation and will, in time, reduce the costs and time required for surveys dealing with resource and environmental problems.

Hydrological Sciences Bulletin↗
USGS2009

What is a picture worth? A history of remote sensing

Remote sensing is the use of electromagnetic energy to measure the physical properties of distant objects. It includes photography and geophysical surveying as well as newer techniques that use other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. The history of remote sensing begins with photography. The origin of other types of remote sensing can be traced to World War II, with the development of radar, sonar, and thermal infrared detection systems. Since the 1960s, sensors have been designed to operate in virtually all of the electromagnetic spectrum. Today a wide variety of remote sensing instruments are available for use in hydrological studies; satellite data, such as Skylab photographs and Landsat images are particularly suitable for regional problems and studies. Planned future satellites will provide a ground resolution of 10–80 m. Remote sensing is currently used for hydrological applications in most countries of the world. The range of applications includes groundwater exploration determination of physical water quality, snowfield mapping, flood-inundation delineation, and making inventories of irrigated land. The use of remote sensing commonly results in considerable hydrological information at minimal cost. This information can be used to speed-up the development of water resources, to improve management practices, and to monitor environmental problems.

Hydrological Sciences Bulletin↗
USGS2011

Flow studies for recycling metal commodities in the United States

As world population increases and the world economy expands, so does the demand for natural resources. An accurate assessment of the Nation's mineral resources must include not only the resources available in the ground but also those that become available through recycling. Supplying this information to decisionmakers is an essential part of the USGS commitment to providing the science that society needs to meet natural resource and environmental challenges. The U.S. Geological Survey is authorized by Congress to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on the domestic and international supply of and demand for minerals essential to the U.S. economy and national security. This information on mineral occurrence, production, use, and recycling helps policymakers manage resources wisely. USGS Circular 1196, "Flow Studies for Recycling Metal Commodities in the United States," presents the results of flow studies for recycling 26 metal commodities, from aluminum to zinc. These metals are a key component of the U.S. economy. Overall, recycling accounts for more than 40 percent of the U.S. metal supply. Marcia K. McNutt Director

Circular↗
USGS2024

Structured science syntheses to inform decision making on Federal public lands

The U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service partnered to develop a new type of science product: the structured science synthesis. Structured science syntheses are peer-reviewed reports that synthesize science information about a priority resource management issue on public lands. Structured science syntheses are developed explicitly to facilitate the application of science to decision making. Key characteristics of structured science syntheses include that they are coproduced with resource managers, developed using clear, repeatable methods and designed for ease of use. The syntheses include different types of science information needed for analyses completed under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2000

Publications of the Western Earth Surface Processes Team, 1999

The Western Earth Surfaces Processes Team (WESPT) of the U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Division (USGS, GD), conducts geologic mapping and related topical earth- science studies in the western United States. This work is focused on areas where modern geologic maps and associated earth-science data are needed to address key societal and environmental issues such as ground-water quality, potential geologic hazards, and land-use decisions. Areas of primary emphasis currently include southern California, the San Francisco Bay region, and the Pacific Northwest. The team has its headquarters in Menlo Park, California, and maintains field offices at several other locations in the western United States. The results of research conducted by the WESPT are released to the public as a variety of databases, maps, text reports, and abstracts, both through the internal publication system of the USGS and in diverse external publications such as scientific journals and books. This report lists publications of the WESPT released in 1999 as well as additional 1997 and 1998 publications that were not included in the previous list (USGS Open-file Report 99-302). Most of the publications listed were authored or coauthored by WESPT staff. The list also includes some publications authored by non-USGS cooperators with the WESPT, as well as some authored by USGS staff outside the WESPT in cooperation with WESPT projects.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

Publications of the Western Earth Surface Processes Team 2000

The Western Earth Surface Processes Team (WESP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts geologic mapping and related topical earth science studies in the western United States. This work is focused on areas where modern geologic maps and associated earth-science data are needed to address key societal and environmental issues such as ground-water quality, potential geologic hazards, and land-use decisions. Areas of primary emphasis in 2000 included southern California, the San Francisco Bay region, the Pacific Northwest, the Las Vegas urban corridor, and selected National Park lands. The team has its headquarters in Menlo Park, California, and maintains smaller field offices at several other locations in the western United States. The results of research conducted by the WESPT are released to the public as a variety of databases, maps, text reports, and abstracts, both through the internal publication system of the USGS and in diverse external publications such as scientific journals and books. This report lists publications of the WESPT released in 2000 as well as additional 1999 publications that were not included in the previous list (USGS Open-file Report 00-215). Most of the publications listed were authored or coauthored by WESPT staff. The list also includes some publications authored by non-USGS cooperators with the WESPT, as well as some authored by USGS staff outside the WESPT in cooperation with WESPT projects. Several of the publications listed are available on the World Wide Web; for these, URL addresses are provided. Many of these Web publications are USGS open-file reports that contain large digital databases of geologic map and related information.

Open-File Report↗