SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Studies in Natural Sciences”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

USGS2014

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources, 2014-15

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. Although rainfall in normal years can support these activities and needs, occasional floods and droughts can disrupt streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie; it has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds. Nearly all the rural population obtain drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decision makers, policy makers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of the use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2014) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/ .

Ohio↗

USGS2011

Scientific drilling into the San Andreas Fault Zone - an overview of SAFOD's first five years

The San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD) was drilled to study the physical and chemical processes controlling faulting and earthquake generation along an active, plate-bounding fault at depth. SAFOD is located near Parkfield, California and penetrates a section of the fault that is moving due to a combination of repeating microearthquakes and fault creep. Geophysical logs define the San Andreas Fault Zone to be relatively broad (~200 m), containing several discrete zones only 2–3 m wide that exhibit very low P- and S-wave velocities and low resistivity. Two of these zones have progressively deformed the cemented casing at measured depths of 3192 m and 3302 m. Cores from both deforming zones contain a pervasively sheared, cohesionless, foliated fault gouge that coincides with casing deformation and explains the observed extremely low seismic velocities and resistivity. These cores are being now extensively tested in laboratories around the world, and their composition, deformation mechanisms, physical properties, and rheological behavior are studied. Downhole measurements show that within 200 m (maximum) of the active fault trace, the direction of maximum horizontal stress remains at a high angle to the San Andreas Fault, consistent with other measurements. The results from the SAFOD Main Hole, together with the stress state determined in the Pilot Hole, are consistent with a strong crust/weak fault model of the San Andreas. Seismic instrumentation has been deployed to study physics of faulting—earthquake nucleation, propagation, and arrest—in order to test how laboratory-derived concepts scale up to earthquakes occurring in nature.

California↗

USGS2012

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. The distribution of rainfall can cause floods and droughts, which affects streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie and has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds (State of Ohio, 1994). Nearly all the rural population obtain drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decisionmakers, policymakers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is reliable, impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2012) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/.

Ohio↗

USGS2016

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources, 2016-17

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. Although rainfall in normal years can support these activities and needs, occasional floods and droughts can disrupt streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie; it has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds (State of Ohio, 1994). Nearly all of the rural population obtains drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decisionmakers, policy makers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of the use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2016) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/ .

Ohio↗

USGS2013

Introduction to the special issue on ‘Frontiers in gas geochemistry’

The study of the geochemistry of gases pervades the Earth and Environmental Sciences. This is due in no small measure to the well-established thermodynamic properties of gases which allow their application to a variety of processes occurring over a wide spectrum of natural conditions. In this respect, both major and associated minor gases have been proven useful: indeed, the trace gases have been particularly important given their role as sensitive geochemical tracers. Examples where gas geochemistry places key constraints on geochemical processes include the degassing history of the solid Earth to form the atmosphere and oceans, the origin and migration characteristics of hydrocarbon deposits, the scale of climate variability, the P–T characteristics of geothermal reservoirs, and the dynamics of the earthquake cycle and volcanic activity, to name but a few. This volume continues this rich tradition with an eclectic selection of papers aimed at exploring and exploiting gas geochemistry over a myriad set of research themes.

Chemical Geology↗

USGS2018

Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration

Ecological restoration has traditionally been evaluated by monitoring the recovery of ecosystem conditions, such as species diversity and abundance, physical form, and water quality, whereas monitoring the social benefits of restoration is uncommon. Current monitoring frameworks do not track who benefits from restoration or by how much. In this study, we investigate how ecological restoration could be monitored to provide indications of progress in terms of social conditions. We provide suggestions for measuring several categories of benefit indicators, including access, beneficiaries, and quality of benefit, using information compiled from natural and social science literature. We also demonstrate how to evaluate ecological and social benefit indicators over time at a site or landscape scale using multi-criteria analysis. We use flood protection and recreation as example benefits to monitor.

Restoration Ecology↗

USGS2009

St. Louis Area Earthquake Hazards Mapping Project— A progress report-November 2008

St. Louis has experienced minor earthquake damage at least 12 times in the past 200 years. Because of this history and its proximity to known active earthquake zones, the St. Louis Area Earthquake Hazards Mapping Project (SLAEHMP) is producing digital maps that show variability of earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and ground shaking, in the St. Louis area. The maps will be available free via the internet. Although not site specific enough to indicate the hazard at a house-by-house resolution, they can be customized by the user to show specific areas of interest, such as neighborhoods or transportation routes. Earthquakes currently cannot be predicted, but scientists can estimate how strongly the ground is likely to shake as the result of an earthquake. Earthquake hazard maps provide one way of conveying such estimates. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which produces earthquake hazard maps for the Nation, is working with local partners to develop detailed maps for urban areas vulnerable to strong ground shaking. These partners, which along with the USGS comprise the SLAEHMP, include the Missouri University of Science and Technology-Rolla (Missouri S&T), Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), Saint Louis University, Missouri State Emergency Management Agency, and URS Corporation. Preliminary hazard maps covering a test portion of the 29-quadrangle St. Louis study area have been produced and are currently being evaluated by the SLAEHMP. A USGS Fact Sheet summarizing this project was produced and almost 1000 copies have been distributed at several public outreach meetings and field trips that have featured the SLAEHMP (Williams and others, 2007). In addition, a USGS website focusing on the SLAEHMP, which provides links to project results and relevant earthquake hazard information, can be found at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceus/urban_map/st_louis/index.php. This progress report summarizes the methodology and data used to generate these preliminary maps. For more details about many of the topics in this summary the reader is referred to the Karadeniz (2007) and Chung (2007) Ph.D. theses.

Illinois, Missouri↗

USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives: Fiscal years 2009 and 2010

The U.S. Geological Survey is the earth and natural science bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The U.S. Geological Survey provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on, the negative effects of climate and land-use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and usable information. The U.S. Geological Survey is not responsible for regulations or land management. In the late 1800s, John Wesley Powell the second director of the U.S. Geological Survey, followed his interest in the Tribes of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau and studied their cultures, languages, and surroundings. From that early time, the U.S. Geological Survey has recognized the importance of Native knowledge as a complement to the U.S. Geological Survey mission to better understand the Earth and its systems. Collaboration allows the U.S. Geological Survey and Native American governments, organizations, and peoples to increase their mutual understanding of the increasing challenges facing our natural world. Although this report uses the term “resources,” the U.S. Geological Survey, through its interdisciplinary research, acknowledges the interconnectedness of the Earth and all the life forms that live upon it.

Circular↗

USGS2020

Foreward: Geology Field Trips in and around the U.S. Capital

The first annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) was held in 1888 in Ithaca, New York (Fairchild, 1932), but official Sections of GSA formed much later. During the spring of 1949, a symposium in Knoxville, Tennessee, on mineral resources of the southeastern United States became the catalyst for the creation of the Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America (King, 1964), and the first annual meeting of the Southeastern Section was held in 1952 in Roanoke, Virginia (Wilson, 1954). The Northeastern Section formed much later, and its first annual meeting was held in 1966 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Socolow, 1968). At all of these section meetings, field trips have been important venues for geologists and especially students to gather together, examine rocks in the field, and discuss ideas. These field trips have been especially important at combined section meetings because they provide settings for geologists who are experienced in one geographic region to examine and compare the geology of other regions. The first combined meeting of the Southeastern and Northeastern sections occurred in 1976 in Arlington, Virginia. Since then, the Southeastern and Northeastern sections have met together on numerous occasions, including 1982 in Washington, DC; 1991 in Baltimore, Maryland; 2004 in Tysons Corner, Virginia; and 2010 in Baltimore, Maryland. Since the first combined section meeting in 1976, there has been a gradual increase in the role of technology in geology field studies. In fact, during the past several decades there has been an increase in emphasis in our society on the instrumental component of science, the goal of which is operational techniques to do or control things, and a corresponding decrease in emphasis on the natural philosophy component of science, the goal of which is a greater understanding of the natural world (Dear, 2006). The modern education acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), for example, is often used as a catch-all term that implies that science and technology are relatively synonymous, and implies that greater technology leads automatically to greater understanding of the natural world. This assumption, however, is not always valid (Dear, 2006), and technology should not be promoted as a substitute for field experiences. Technology can be a tool that leads to greater understanding of the natural world, but not all Science uses technology as a means of providing greater understanding. The benefits of new technologies include: (1) data of greater resolution; and (2) greater efficiency of capturing, storing, and visualizing data. The risks of new technologies include: (1) an overabundance of data, some of which may be of little value; (2) less time available for analysis of data, if geologists become occupied primarily with capturing and storing data; and (3) errors that arise from complacency and the perception that field-checking may not be necessary. In other words, there is a risk that a glut of data and vast amounts of time devoted to the capturing and storing of data may result in a reduced interest and (or) willingness to field-check data. In the spirit of the early GSA section meetings, we feel that there are still enormous advantages to conducting geology field trips in conjunction with traditional meeting presentations and posters. In 2020, with this current combined Southeastern and Northeastern section meeting in Reston, Virginia, we have assembled eight different field trips that cover a wide range of territory in and around the Nation’s capital. These field trip localities include the immediate vicinity of Washington, DC, as well as various locations in nearby areas of Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. The physiographic provinces include Mesozoic Rift Basins, the Piedmont, the Blue Ridge, the Valley and Ridge, and the Allegheny Plateau of the Appalachian Basin. The field trip sites exhibit a wide range of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, as well as rocks with a wide range of geologic ages from the Mesoproterozoic to the Holocene. We hope that this guidebook provides new motivation for geologists to examine rocks in the field, to discuss ideas with colleagues in the field, and to avoid becoming complacent. The editors of this volume would like to thank the authors of the different field trip guides, the field trip leaders, and all of the reviewers who made suggestions for improving the field trip manuscripts. The editors would also like to thank Elle Derwent of GSA for her logistical help and guidance regarding the field trips, and April Leo and the staff of the GSA Publications Department for seeing this book through to publication.

Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia↗

USGS2016

Recreation, values and stewardship: Rethinking why people engage in environmental behaviors in parks and protected areas

Successfully promoting and encouraging the adoption of environmental stewardship behavior is an important responsibility for public land management agencies. Although people increasingly report high levels of concern about environmental issues, widespread patterns of stewardship behavior have not followed suit (Moore 2002). One concept that can be applied in social science research to explain behavior change is that of values. More specifically, held and assigned values lie at the heart of understanding why people around the world continue to live in unsustainable ways that impact parks and protected areas. A held value is an individual psychological orientation defined by Rokeach as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or endstate of existence is personally and socially preferable” (1973, 550). Held values are at the core of human cognition, and as such, influence attitudes and behavior. Assigned values on the other hand, according to Brown (1984), are the perceived qualities of an environment that are based on and deduced from held values. In other words, assigned values are considered the material and nonmaterial benefits that people believe they obtain from ecosystems. Held and assigned values predict stewardship behaviors (Figure 1). During the 2013 George Wright Society Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites, we organized a session to improve our understanding of why individuals and groups choose to engage in stewardship behaviors that benefit the environment. We used held and assigned values as vehicles to explore what people cared about in diverse landscapes, review select case studies from across the globe, and question how best to incorporate visitor perspectives into protected area management decisions and policymaking. In addition to sharing project results, we also discussed the importance of accounting for multiple and often competing value perspectives, potential ways to integrate disciplinary perspectives on valuing nature, and future directions for social science research and practice. In this paper, we present the results from our session to provide fodder for further contemplation about the timely question of how park and protected area managers can foster values that lead to environmental protection.

Book chapter↗

USGS2017

Understanding ecosystem services adoption by natural resource managers and research ecologists

The ecosystem services (ES) paradigm has gained much traction as a natural resource management approach due to its comprehensive nature and ability to provide quantitative tools to improve decision-making. However, it is still uncertain whether and how practitioners have adopted the ES paradigm into their work and how this aligns with resource management information needs. To address this, we surveyed natural resource managers within the Great Lakes region about their use of ES information in decision-making. We complemented our manager survey with in-depth interviews of a related population—research ecologists at the U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center. In this study, managers and ecologists almost unanimously agreed that ES were appropriate to consider in resource management. We also found high congruence between managers and ecologists in the ES considered most relevant to their work, with provision of habitat, recreation and tourism, biological control, and primary production being the ES ranked highly by both groups. However, a disconnect arose when research ecologists deemed the information they provide regarding ES as adequate for management needs, but managers disagreed. Furthermore, managers reported that they would use economic information about ES if they had access to that information. We believe this data deficiency could represent a gap in scientific coverage by ecologists, but it may also simply reflect an underrepresentation of ecological economists who can translate ecological knowledge of ES providers into economic information that many managers desired.

Journal of Great Lakes Research↗

USGS2013

Trends in concentrations of nitrate and total dissolved solids in public supply wells of the Bunker Hill, Lytle, Rialto, and Colton groundwater subbasins, San Bernardino County, California: Influence of legacy land use

Concentrations and temporal changes in concentrations of nitrate and total dissolved solids (TDS) in groundwater of the Bunker Hill, Lytle, Rialto, and Colton groundwater subbasins of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin were evaluated to identify trends and factors that may be affecting trends. One hundred, thirty-one public-supply wells were selected for analysis based on the availability of data spanning at least 11 years between the late 1980s and the 2000s. Forty-one of the 131 wells (31%) had a significant (p < 0.10) increase in nitrate and 14 wells (11%) had a significant decrease in nitrate. For TDS, 46 wells (35%) had a significant increase and 8 wells (6%) had a significant decrease. Slopes for the observed significant trends ranged from − 0.44 to 0.91 mg/L/yr for nitrate (as N) and − 8 to 13 mg/L/yr for TDS. Increasing nitrate trends were associated with greater well depth, higher percentage of agricultural land use, and being closer to the distal end of the flow system. Decreasing nitrate trends were associated with the occurrence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs); VOC occurrence decreases with increasing depth. The relations of nitrate trends to depth, lateral position, and VOCs imply that increasing nitrate concentrations are associated with nitrate loading from historical agricultural land use and that more recent urban land use is generally associated with lower nitrate concentrations and greater VOC occurrence. Increasing TDS trends were associated with relatively greater current nitrate concentrations and relatively greater amounts of urban land. Decreasing TDS trends were associated with relatively greater amounts of natural land use. Trends in TDS concentrations were not related to depth, lateral position, or VOC occurrence, reflecting more complex factors affecting TDS than nitrate in the study area.

California↗

USGS2015

Anaerobic chemolithotrophic growth of the haloalkaliphilic bacterium strain MLMS‑1 by disproportionation of monothioarsenate

A novel chemolithotrophic metabolism based on a mixed arsenic−sulfur species has been discovered for the anaerobic deltaproteobacterium, strain MLMS-1, a haloalkaliphile isolated from Mono Lake, California, U.S. Strain MLMS‑1 is the first reported obligate arsenate-respiring chemoautotroph which grows by coupling arsenate reduction to arsenite with the oxidation of sulfide to sulfate. In that pathway the formation of a mixed arsenic−sulfur species was reported. That species was assumed to be monothioarsenite ([H2AsIIIS−IIO2] −), formed as an intermediate by abiotic reaction of arsenite with sulfide. We now report that this species is monothioarsenate ([HAsVS−IIO3] 2−) as revealed by X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Monothioarsenate forms by abiotic reaction of arsenite with zerovalent sulfur. Monothioarsenate is kinetically stable under a wide range of pH and redox conditions. However, it was metabolized rapidly by strain MLMS-1 when incubated with arsenate. Incubations using monothioarsenate confirmed that strain MLMS-1 was able to grow (μ = 0.017 h−1 ) on this substrate via a disproportionation reaction by oxidizing the thio-group-sulfur (S−II) to zerovalent sulfur or sulfate while concurrently reducing the central arsenic atom (AsV) to arsenite. Monothioarsenate disproportionation could be widespread in nature beyond the already studied arsenic and sulfide rich hot springs and soda lakes where it was discovered.

Environmental Science & Technology↗

USGS2019

Don Swanson: A field volcanology career worth celebrating

Don Swanson has profoundly influenced generations of volcanologists and has made major contributions to our understanding of both silicic and basaltic volcanic systems. He provides an exceptional example of how a gifted scientist can develop entirely new paradigms related to large-scale problems on the basis of decades of study, as exemplified by his work on the emplacement of flood basalts, monitoring and forecasting volcanic eruptions, the development of lava flows and domes, and the explosive nature of Kīlauea Volcano. Don has maintained exceptional productivity even while playing major leadership and management roles in science, and his research is intrinsically geological and rooted in painstaking fieldwork that is both collaborative and interdisciplinary. This volume recognizes Don’s career accomplishments by emphasizing his careful approach to volcanology and highlighting meticulous field observations as the basis for better understanding how volcanoes work.

Special Papers of the Geological Society of Americ↗

USGS2019

Field volcanology: A tribute to the distinguished career of Don Swanson

Special Papers of the Geological Society of Americ↗

USGS2017

Competitive Interactions of Garlic Mustard ( Alliaria petiolata ) and Damesrocket ( Hesperis matronalis )

Competitive interactions between native plants and nonnative, invasive plant species have been extensively studied; however, within degraded landscapes, the effect of interspecific interactions among invasive plants is less explored. We investigated a competitive interaction between two sympatric, invasive mustard species that have similar life history strategies and growth forms: garlic mustard and damesrocket. Greenhouse experiments using a full range of reciprocal density ratios were conducted to investigate interspecific competition. Garlic mustard had a negative effect on the final biomass, number of leaves, and relative growth rate in height of damesrocket. Survival of damesrocket was not negatively affected by interspecific competition with garlic mustard; however, garlic mustard showed higher mortality because of intraspecific competition. These results indicated that although garlic mustard has been observed to be the dominant species in this landscape, it may not completely outcompete damesrocket in all situations. Studies of invasive species in competition are important in degraded landscapes because this is the common situation in many natural areas.

Invasive Plant Science and Management↗

USGS2006

Natural history collections: A scientific treasure trove

Natural history collections play an indispensable and often overlooked role in the conservation and management of our Nation’s flora and fauna. Scientific specimens housed in museum collections not only open an important window into the current and past diversity of life on Earth, but also play a vital role in fueling cutting-edge scientific research in many disciplines. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) curates a collection of vertebrates from the Intermountain and Southwestern United States that is used by researchers from around the globe. As one of the largest Federal natural history collections in the western United States, the USGS specimen holdings offer unique opportunities to study the fauna of this incredibly diverse and unique region.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2010

Environmental flow studies of the Fort Collins Science Center— Cherry Creek, Arizona

At the request of the U.S. Forest Service, an instream flow assessment was conducted at Cherry Creek, Ariz., to investigate habitat for native and introduced fish species and to describe the beneficial use of a possible instream flow water right. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fort Collins Science Center performed an intensive field study of two sections of Cherry Creek in September 2008 to provide base data for hydrodynamic simulation of the flow conditions in the stream. The USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, at the University of Arizona School of Natural Resources, conducted a survey of the habitat requirements of the resident fish species in Cherry Creek and provided the habitat suitability criteria used in this study. The habitat suitability criteria were combined with hydrodynamic simulation results to quantify fish habitat for the full range of daily flow experienced in the creek and to produce maps of habitat occurrence for those flows. The flow record at the Cherry Creek stream gage was used to generate habitat response values over time. The long-term habitat response was incorporated into an Excel (Registered) spreadsheet to allow evaluation of habitat occurrence with and without an instream water right under different hypothetical water withdrawal scenarios. The spreadsheet displays information about the time sequence of habitat events, the duration of critical events, and habitat retention.

Arizona↗