USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Ecosystems”

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

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

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2020

An assessment of the representation of ecosystems in global protected areas using new maps of World Climate Regions and World Ecosystems

Representation of ecosystems in protected area networks and conservation strategies is a core principle of global conservation priority setting approaches and a commitment in Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly call for the conservation of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Accurate ecosystem distribution maps are required to assess representation of ecosystems in protected areas, but standardized, high spatial resolution, and globally comprehensive ecosystem maps have heretofore been lacking. While macroscale global ecoregions maps have been used in global conservation priority setting exercises, they do not identify distinct localized ecosystems at the occurrence (patch) level, and instead describe large ecologically meaningful areas within which additional conservation planning and management are necessary. We describe a new set of maps of globally consistent climate regions and ecosystems at a much finer spatial resolution (250 m) than existing ecological regionalizations. We then describe a global gap analysis of the representation of these ecosystems in protected areas. The new map of terrestrial World Ecosystems was derived from the objective development and integration of 1) global temperature domains, 2) global moisture domains, 3) global landforms, and 4) 2015 global vegetation and land use. These new terrestrial World Ecosystems do not include either freshwater or marine ecosystems, but analog products for the freshwater and marine domains are in development. A total of 431 World Ecosystems were identified, and of these a total of 278 units were natural or semi-natural vegetation/environment combinations, including different kinds of forestlands, shrublands, grasslands, bare areas, and ice/snow regions. The remaining classes were different kinds of croplands and settlements. Of the 278 natural and semi-natural classes, 9 were not represented in global protected areas with a strict biodiversity conservation management objective (IUCN management categories I-IV), and an additional 206 were less than 8.5% protected (half way to the 17% Aichi Target 11 goal). Forty four classes were between 8.5% and 17% protected (more than half way towards the Aichi 17% target), and only 19 classes exceeded the 17% Aichi target. However, when all protected areas (IUCN management categories I-VI plus protected areas with no IUCN designation) were included in a separate global gap analysis, representation of ecosystems increases substantially, with a third of the ecosystems exceeding the 17% Aichi target, and another third between 8.5% and 17%. The overall protection (representation) of global ecosystems in protected areas is considerably less when assessed using only strictly conserved protected areas, and more if all protected areas are included in the analysis. Protected area effectiveness should be included in further evaluations of global ecosystem protection. The ecosystems with the highest representation in protected areas were often bare or sparsely vegetated and found in inhospitable environments (e.g. cold mountains, deserts), and the eight most protected ecosystems were all snow and ice ecosystems. In addition to the global gap analysis of World Ecosystems in protected areas, we report on the representation results for the ecosystems in each biogeographic realm (Neotropical, Nearctic, Afrotropical, Palearctic, Indomalayan, Australasian, and Oceania).

Global Ecology and Conservation↗
USGS2012

Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services: technical input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment

Ecosystems, and the biodiversity and services they support, are intrinsically dependent on climate. During the twentieth century, climate change has had documented impacts on ecological systems, and impacts are expected to increase as climate change continues and perhaps even accelerates. This technical input to the National Climate Assessment synthesizes our scientific understanding of the way climate change is affecting biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and what strategies might be employed to decrease current and future risks. Building on past assessments of how climate change and other stressors are affecting ecosystems in the United States and around the world, we approach the subject from several different perspectives. First, we review the observed and projected impacts on biodiversity, with a focus on genes, species, and assemblages of species. Next, we examine how climate change is affecting ecosystem structural elements—such as biomass, architecture, and heterogeneity—and functions—specifically, as related to the fluxes of energy and matter. People experience climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems as changes in ecosystem services; people depend on ecosystems for resources that are harvested, their role in regulating the movement of materials and disturbances, and their recreational, cultural, and aesthetic value. Thus, we review newly emerging research to determine how human activities and a changing climate are likely to alter the delivery of these ecosystem services. This technical input also examines two cross-cutting topics. First, we recognize that climate change is happening against the backdrop of a wide range of other environmental and anthropogenic stressors, many of which have caused dramatic ecosystem degradation already. This broader range of stressors interacts with climate change, and complicates our abilities to predict and manage the impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they support. The second cross-cutting topic is the rapidly advancing field of climate adaptation, where there has been significant progress in developing the conceptual framework, planning approaches, and strategies for safeguarding biodiversity and other ecological resources. At the same time, ecosystem-based adaptation is becoming more prominent as a way to utilize ecosystem services to help human systems adapt to climate change. In this summary, we present key findings of the technical input, focusing on themes that can be found throughout the report. Thus, this summary takes a more integrated look at the question of how climate change is affecting our ecological resources, the implications for humans, and possible response strategies. This integrated approach better reflects the impacts of climate in the real world, where changes in ecosystem structure or function will alter the viability of different species and the efficacy of ecosystem services. Likewise, adaptation to climate change will simultaneously address a range of conservation goals. Case studies are used to illustrate this complete picture throughout the report; a snapshot of one case study, 2011 Las Conchas, New Mexico Fire , is included in this summary.

Report↗
USGS2014

From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments

Ecosystem services mapping and modeling has focused more on supply than demand, until recently. Whereas the potential provision of economic benefits from ecosystems to people is often quantified through ecological production functions, the use of and demand for ecosystem services has received less attention, as have the spatial flows of services from ecosystems to people. However, new modeling approaches that map and quantify service-specific sources (ecosystem capacity to provide a service), sinks (biophysical or anthropogenic features that deplete or alter service flows), users (user locations and level of demand), and spatial flows can provide a more complete understanding of ecosystem services. Through a case study in Puget Sound, Washington State, USA, we quantify and differentiate between the theoretical or in situ provision of services, i.e., ecosystems’ capacity to supply services, and their actual provision when accounting for the location of beneficiaries and the spatial connections that mediate service flows between people and ecosystems. Our analysis includes five ecosystem services: carbon sequestration and storage, riverine flood regulation, sediment regulation for reservoirs, open space proximity, and scenic viewsheds. Each ecosystem service is characterized by different beneficiary groups and means of service flow. Using the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) methodology we map service supply, demand, and flow, extending on simpler approaches used by past studies to map service provision and use. With the exception of the carbon sequestration service, regions that actually provided services to people, i.e., connected to beneficiaries via flow paths, amounted to 16-66% of those theoretically capable of supplying services, i.e., all ecosystems across the landscape. These results offer a more complete understanding of the spatial dynamics of ecosystem services and their effects, and may provide a sounder basis for economic valuation and policy applications than studies that consider only theoretical service provision and/or use.

Washington↗
USGS2015

Climate change impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the United States: Process and prospects for sustained assessment

The third United States National Climate Assessment emphasized an evaluation of not just the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems, but also the impacts of climate change on the benefits that people derive from nature, known as ecosystem services. The ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services component of the assessment largely drew upon the findings of a transdisciplinary workshop aimed at developing technical input for the assessment, involving participants from diverse sectors. A small author team distilled and synthesized this and hundreds of other technical input to develop the key findings of the assessment. The process of developing and ranking key findings hinged on identifying impacts that had particular, demonstrable effects on the U.S. public via changes in national ecosystem services. Findings showed that ecosystem services are threatened by the impacts of climate change on water supplies, species distributions and phenology, as well as multiple assaults on ecosystem integrity that, when compounded by climate change, reduce the capacity of ecosystems to buffer against extreme events. As ecosystems change, such benefits as water sustainability and protection from storms that are afforded by intact ecosystems are projected to decline across the continent due to climate change. An ongoing, sustained assessment that focuses on the co-production of actionable climate science will allow scientists from a range of disciplines to ascertain the capability of their forecasting models to project environmental and ecological change and link it to ecosystem services; additionally, an iterative process of evaluation, development of management strategies, monitoring, and reevaluation will increase the applicability and usability of the science by the U.S. public.

Climatic Change↗
USGS2009

Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: A synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer-reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass- and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro-ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico-chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem-specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub-global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity. ?? 2009 Oikos.

Oikos↗
USGS2018

Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity

Biodiversity —the variety of life on Earth—provides vital services that support and improve human health and well-being. Ecosystems, which are composed of living things that interact with the physical environment, provide numerous essential benefits to people. These benefits, termed ecosystem services, encompass four primary functions: provisioning materials, such as food and fiber; regulating critical parts of the environment, such as water quality and erosion control; providing cultural services, such as recreational opportunities and aesthetic value; and providing supporting services, such as nutrient cycling. Climate change poses many threats and potential disruptions to ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as to the ecosystem services on which people depend. Building on the findings of the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3), this chapter provides additional evidence that climate change is significantly impacting ecosystems and biodiversity in the United States. Mounting evidence also demonstrates that climate change is increasingly compromising the ecosystem services that sustain human communities, economies, and well-being. Both human and natural systems respond to change, but their ability to respond and thrive under new conditions is determined by their adaptive capacity, which may be inadequate to keep pace with rapid change. Our understanding of climate change impacts and the responses of biodiversity and ecosystems has improved since NCA3. The expected consequences of climate change will vary by region, species, and ecosystem type. Management responses are evolving as new tools and approaches are developed and implemented; however, they may not be able to overcome the negative impacts of climate change. Although efforts have been made since NCA3 to incorporate climate adaptation strategies into natural resource management, significant work remains to comprehensively implement climate-informed planning. This chapter presents additional evidence for climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services, reflecting increased confidence in the findings reported in NCA3. The chapter also illustrates the complex and interrelated nature of climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they provide.

Report↗
USGS2010

Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): using GIS to include social values information in ecosystem services assessments

Ecosystem services can be defined in various ways; simply put, they are the benefits provided by nature, which contribute to human well-being. These benefits can range from tangible products such as food and fresh water to cultural services such as recreation and esthetics. As the use of these benefits continues to increase, additional pressures are placed on the natural ecosystems providing them. This makes it all the more important when assessing possible tradeoffs among ecosystem services to consider the human attitudes and preferences that express underlying social values associated with their benefits. While some of these values can be accounted for through economic markets, other values can be more difficult to quantify, and attaching dollar amounts to them may not be very useful in all cases. Regardless of the processes or units used for quantifying such values, the ability to map them across the landscape and relate them to the ecosystem services to which they are attributed is necessary for effective assessments. To address some of the needs associated with quantifying and mapping social values for inclusion in ecosystem services assessments, scientists at the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC), in collaboration with Colorado State University, have developed a public domain tool, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). SolVES is a geographic information system (GIS) application designed to use data from public attitude and preference surveys to assess, map, and quantify social values for ecosystem services. SolVES calculates and maps a 10-point Value Index representing the relative perceived social values of ecosystem services such as recreation and biodiversity for various groups of ecosystem stakeholders. SolVES output can also be used to identify and model relationships between social values and physical characteristics of the underlying landscape. These relationships can then be used to generate predicted Value Index maps for areas where survey data are not available. RMGSC will continue to develop more robust versions of SolVES by pursuing opportunities to work with land and resource managers as well as other researchers to apply SolVES to specific ecosystem management problems.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2022

A conceptual framework to integrate biodiversity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem service models

Global biodiversity and ecosystem service models typically operate independently. Ecosystem service projections thus may be overly optimistic because they do not account for the role of biodiversity in maintaining ecological functions underpinning their provision. We review models used in recent global model intercomparison projects and develop a novel model integration framework to more fully account for the role of biodiversity in ecosystem function, a key gap for linking biodiversity changes to ecosystem services. We propose two model integration pathways. The first uses empirical data on biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships to bridge biodiversity and ecosystem function models and could currently be implemented at the global scale. We also propose a trait-based approach involving greater incorporation of biodiversity into ecosystem function models that can be applied to more systems and taxa than the first pathway. Integrating biodiversity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem service modeling will enhance development of policies to meet global sustainability goals.

BioScience↗
USGS2008

Coastal Louisiana ecosystem assessment and restoration program: The role of ecosystem forecasting in evaluating restoration planning in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain

The development of ecosystem management plans to restore and rehabilitate natural resources requires an understanding of how specific ecological mechanisms regulate the structure and function of ecosystems. To achieve restoration goals, comprehensive plans and engineering designs must effectively change environmental drivers at the regional level to reduce stress conditions at the local environment that are responsible for ecosystem degradation. This document focuses on the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Assessment and Restoration (CLEAR) ecosystem forecasting framework and how it can be used to support the analysis of Louisiana’s coastal restoration plans. Specifically, the framework is designed to (1) develop and incorporate conceptual ecological models that can be used to integrate ecological needs and opportunities with engineering designs, (2) utilize wetland loss rates to describe the most likely “future without” scenario for a variety of ecosystem attributes, (3) estimate broad ecosystem responses to restoration alternatives based on processes associated with succession of geomorphic and ecological systems, and (4) calculate ecological benefits for incorporation into decision support tools associated with large-scale geomorphic and hydrologic processes. This paper provides a brief overview of the spatial framework and modular design of the CLEAR ecosystem forecasting framework and describes in greater detail the evolution of the landscape change module, concepts for its refinement, and how it was utilized in evaluating a coastal restoration alternative proposed in the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Preliminary Draft Master Plan. Such projections by the CLEAR forecasting framework can evaluate processes and conditions that result in sustainable coastal ecosystems with habitat functions that support higher trophic levels.

Louisiana↗
USGS2002

Net ecosystem production: A comprehensive measure of net carbon accumulation by ecosystems

The conceptual framework used by ecologists and biogeochemists must allow for accurate and clearly defined comparisons of carbon fluxes made with disparate techniques across a spectrum of temporal and spatial scales. Consistent with usage over the past four decades, we define "net ecosystem production" (NEP) as the net carbon accumulation by ecosystems. Past use of this term has been ambiguous, because it has been used conceptually as a measure of carbon accumulation by ecosystems, but it has often been calculated considering only the balance between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration. This calculation ignores other carbon fluxes from ecosystems (e.g., leaching of dissolved carbon and losses associated with disturbance). To avoid conceptual ambiguities, we argue that NEP be defined, as in the past, as the net carbon accumulation by ecosystems and that it explicitly incorporate all the carbon fluxes from an ecosystem, including autotrophic respiration, heterotrophic respiration, losses associated with disturbance, dissolved and particulate carbon losses, volatile organic compound emissions, and lateral transfers among ecosystems. Net biome productivity (NBP), which has been proposed to account for carbon loss during episodic disturbance, is equivalent to NEP at regional or global scales. The multi-scale conceptual framework we describe provides continuity between flux measurements made at the scale of soil profiles and chambers, forest inventories, eddy covariance towers, aircraft, and inversions of remote atmospheric flask samples, allowing a direct comparison of NEP estimates made at all temporal and spatial scales.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2012

Changing Arctic ecosystems--research to understand and project changes in marine and terrestrial ecosystems of the Arctic

Ecosystems and their wildlife communities are not static; they change and evolve over time due to numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A period of rapid change is occurring in the Arctic for which our current understanding of potential ecosystem and wildlife responses is limited. Changes to the physical environment include warming temperatures, diminishing sea ice, increasing coastal erosion, deteriorating permafrost, and changing water regimes. These changes influence biological communities and the ways in which human communities interact with them. Through the new initiative Changing Arctic Ecosystems (CAE) the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) strives to (1) understand the potential suite of wildlife population responses to these physical changes to inform key resource management decisions such as those related to the Endangered Species Act, and (2) provide unique insights into how Arctic ecosystems are responding under new stressors. Our studies examine how and why changes in the ice-dominated ecosystems of the Arctic are affecting wildlife and will provide a better foundation for understanding the degree and manner in which wildlife species respond and adapt to rapid environmental change. Changes to Arctic ecosystems will be felt broadly because the Arctic is a production zone for hundreds of species that migrate south for the winter. The CAE initiative includes three major research themes that span Arctic ice-dominated ecosystems and that are structured to identify and understand the linkages between physical processes, ecosystems, and wildlife populations. The USGS is applying knowledge-based modeling structures such as Bayesian Networks to integrate the work.

Arctic↗
USGS2019

Developing and optimizing shrub parameters representing sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems in the Northern Great Basin using the Ecosystem Demography (EDv2.2) model

Ecosystem dynamic models are useful for understanding ecosystem characteristics over time and space because of their efficiency over direct field measurements and applicability to broad spatial extents. Their application, however, is challenging due to internal model uncertainties and complexities arising from distinct qualities of the ecosystems being analyzed. The sagebrush-steppe in western North America, for example, has substantial spatial and temporal heterogeneity as well as variability due to anthropogenic disturbance, invasive species, climate change, and altered fire regimes, which collectively make modelling dynamic ecosystem processes difficult. Ecosystem Demography (EDv2.2) is a robust ecosystem dynamic model, initially developed for tropical forests, that simulates energy, water, and carbon fluxes at fine scales. Although EDv2.2 has since been tested on different ecosystems via development of different Plant Function Types (PFT), it still lacks a shrub PFT. In this study, we developed and parameterized a shrub PFT representative of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems in order to initialize and test it within EDv2.2, and to promote future broad-scale analysis of restoration activities, climate change, and fire regimes in the sagebrush-steppe. Specifically, we parameterized the sagebrush PFT within EDv2.2 to estimate gross primary production (GPP), using data from two sagebrush study sites in the northern Great Basin. To accomplish this, we employed a three-tier approach: 1) To initially parameterize the sagebrush PFT, we fitted allometric relationships for sagebrush using field-collected data, information from existing sagebrush literature, and parameters from other land models. 2) To determine influential parameters in GPP prediction, we used a sensitivity analysis to identify the five most sensitive parameters. 3) To improve model performance and validate results, we optimized these five parameters using an exhaustive search method to estimate GPP, and compared results with observations from two Eddy Covariance (EC) sites in the study area. Our modeled results were encouraging, with reasonable fidelity to observed values, although some negative biases (i.e., seasonal underestimates of GPP) were apparent.

Great Basin↗
USGS2020

Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States

Climate change is a pervasive and growing global threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. Here, we present the most up-to-date assessment of climate change impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services in the U.S. and implications for natural resource management. We draw from the 4th National Climate Assessment to summarize observed and projected changes to ecosystems and biodiversity, explore linkages to important ecosystem services, and discuss associated challenges and opportunities for natural resource management. We find that species are responding to climate change through changes in morphology and behavior, phenology, and geographic range shifts, and these changes are mediated by plastic and evolutionary responses. Responses by species and populations, combined with direct effects of climate change on ecosystems (including more extreme events), are resulting in widespread changes in productivity, species interactions, vulnerability to biological invasions, and other emergent properties. Collectively, these impacts alter the benefits and services that natural ecosystems can provide to society. Although not all impacts are negative, even positive changes can require costly societal adjustments. Natural resource managers need proactive, flexible adaptation strategies that consider historical and future outlooks to minimize costs over the long term. Many organizations are beginning to explore these approaches, but implementation is not yet prevalent or systematic across the nation.

Science of the Total Environment↗
USGS2010

Using landscape limnology to classify freshwater ecosystems for multi-ecosystem management and conservation

Governmental entities are responsible for managing and conserving large numbers of lake, river, and wetland ecosystems that can be addressed only rarely on a case-by-case basis. We present a system for predictive classification modeling, grounded in the theoretical foundation of landscape limnology, that creates a tractable number of ecosystem classes to which management actions may be tailored. We demonstrate our system by applying two types of predictive classification modeling approaches to develop nutrient criteria for eutrophication management in 1998 north temperate lakes. Our predictive classification system promotes the effective management of multiple ecosystems across broad geographic scales by explicitly connecting management and conservation goals to the classification modeling approach, considering multiple spatial scales as drivers of ecosystem dynamics, and acknowledging the hierarchical structure of freshwater ecosystems. Such a system is critical for adaptive management of complex mosaics of freshwater ecosystems and for balancing competing needs for ecosystem services in a changing world.

Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin↗
USGS2020

Understanding the effect of fire on vegetation composition and gross primary production in a semi-arid shrubland ecosystem using the Ecosystem Demography (EDv2.2) model

Wildfires in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) dominated semi-arid ecosystems in the western United States have increased dramatically in frequency and severity in the last few decades. Severe wildfires often lead to the loss of native sagebrush communities and change the biogeochemical conditions which make it difficult for sagebrush to regenerate. Invasion of cheat- grass (Bromus tectorum) accentuates the problem by making the ecosystem more susceptible to frequent burns. Managers have implemented several techniques to cope with the cheatgrass-fire cycle, ranging from controlling undesirable fire effects by removing fuel loads either mechanically or via prescribed burns, to seeding the fire-affected areas with shrubs and native perennial forbs. There have been a number of studies at local scales to understand the direct impacts of wildfire on vegetation, however, there is a larger gap in understanding these impacts at broad spatial and temporal scales. This need highlights the importance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) and remote sensing. In this study, we explored the influence of fir on vegetation composition and gross primary production (GPP) in the sagebrush ecosystem using the Ecosystem Demography (EDv2.2) model, a dynamic global vegetation model. We selected Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed (RCEW) to run our simulation study, an intensively monitored sagebrush-dominated ecosystem in the northern Great Basin. We ran point-based simulations at four existing flux-tower sites in the study area for a total 150 years after turning on the fire module in the 25th year. Results suggest dominance of shrubs in a non-fire scenario, however under the fire scenario we observed contrasting phases of high and low shrub density and C3 grass growth. Regional model simulations showed a gradual decline in GPP for fire-introduced areas through the initial couple of years instead of killing all the vegetation in the affected area in the first year itself. We also compared the results from EDv2.2 with satellite-derived GPP estimates for the areas in RCEW burned by a wildfire in 2015 (Soda Fire). We observed moderate pixel-level correlations between maps of post-fire recovery EDv2.2 GPP and MODIS derived GPP. This study contributes to understanding the application of ecosystem models to investigate temporal dynamics of vegetation under alternative fire regimes and post-fire ecosystem restoration.

Idaho↗
USGS2012

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force---Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Science Assessment and Needs

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (GCERTF) was established by Executive Order 13554 as a result of recommendations from “America’s Gulf Coast: A Long-term Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (Mabus Report). The GCERTF consists of members from 11 Federal agencies and representatives from each State bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The GCERTF was charged to develop a holistic, long-term, science-based Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy for the Gulf of Mexico. Federal and State agencies staffed the GCERTF with experts in fields such as policy, budgeting, and science to help develop the Strategy. The Strategy was built on existing authorities and resources and represents enhanced collaboration and a recognition of the shared responsibility among Federal and State governments to restore the Gulf Coast ecosystem. In this time of severe fiscal constraints, Task Force member agencies and States are committed to establishing shared priorities and working together to achieve them. As part of this effort, three staffers, one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist and two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists, created and led a Science Coordination Team (SCT) to guide scientific input into the development of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. The SCT leads from the GCERTF coordinated more than 70 scientists from the Federal and State Task Force member agencies to participate in development of a restoration-oriented science document focused on the entire Gulf of Mexico, from inland watersheds to the deep blue waters. The SCT leads and scientists were organized into six different working groups based on expanded goals from the Mabus Report: Coastal habitats are healthy and resilient. Living coastal and marine resources are healthy, diverse, and sustainable. Coastal communities are adaptive and resilient. Storm buffers are sustainable. Inland habitats and watersheds are managed to help support healthy and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. Offshore environments are healthy and well managed Each working group was charged with defining their specific goal, describing the current conditions related to that goal (for example, the status of coastal habitats in the Gulf of Mexico), providing highlevel activities needed to further define and achieve the goal, with associated outcome-based performance indicators, and identifying the scientific gaps in understanding to accomplish the goal and implement the recommended activities. The overall scientific assessment reveals that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem continues to suffer from extensive degradation, and action is necessary to develop a healthy, resilient, and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The six groups also were tasked with outlining the necessary monitoring, modeling, and research needs to aid in achieving the goals. Recognizing that (1) the scientific needs (monitoring, modeling, and research) overlap among many of the goals, and (2) an overarching scientific framework could be developed to implement the necessary science in support of the Strategy, a seventh group was created with several members from each of the original six working groups. This seventh group compiled all of the cross-cutting monitoring, modeling, and research needs previously identified by the individual groups. These scientific requirements are found in Chapter 5 of this document. The seventh group also has developed a Science Plan, outlined in Chapter 6. The Science Plan provides the basic science infrastructure to support the overall Gulf restoration program and Strategy. The Science Plan allows for the development of an iterative and flexible approach to adaptive management and decision-making related to restoration projects based on sound science that includes monitoring, modeling, and research. Taken in its entirety, this document helps to articulate the current state of the system and the critical science needs to support effective restoration of the Gulf of Mexico resources that have been trending towards decline for decades.

Report↗
USGS1999

Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes

Gauging the impact of manipulative activities, such as rehabilitation or management, on wetlands requires having a notion of the unmanipulated condition as a reference. And understanding of the reference condition requires knowledge of dominant factors influencing ecosystem processes and biological communities. In this paper, we focus on natural physical factors (conditions and processes) that drive coastal wetland ecosystems of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Great Lakes coastal wetlands develop under conditions of large-lake hydrology and disturbance imposed at a hiearchy of spatial and temporal scales and contain biotic communities adapted to unstable and unpredictable conditions. Coastal wetlands are configured along a continuum of hydrogeomorphic types: open coastal wetlands, drowned river mouth and flooded delta wetlands, and protected wetlands, each developing distinct ecosystem propertics and biotic communities. Hydrogeomorphic factors associated with the lake and watershed operate at a hierarchy of scales: a) local and short-term (seiches and ice action), b) watershed / lakewide / annual (seasonal water-level change), and c) larger or year-to-year and longer (regional and/or greater than one-year). Other physical factors include the unique water quality features of each lake. The aim of this paper is to provide scientists and managers with a framework for considering regional and site-specific geomorphometry and a hierarchy of physical processes in planning management and conservation projects.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2013

Interactions among hydrogeomorphology, vegetation, and nutrient biogeochemistry in floodplain ecosystems

Hydrogeomorphic, vegetative, and biogeochemical processes interact in floodplains resulting in great complexity that provides opportunities to better understand linkages among physical and biological processes in ecosystems. Floodplains and their associated river systems are structured by four dimensional gradients of hydrogeomorphology: longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and temporal components. These four dimensions create dynamic hydrologic and geomorphologic mosaics that have a large imprint on the vegetation and nutrient biogeochemistry of floodplains. Plant physiology, population dynamics, community structure, and productivity are all very responsive to floodplain hydrogeomorphology. The strength of this relationship between vegetation and hydrogeomorphology is evident in the use of vegetation as an indicator of hydrogeomorphic processes. However, vegetation also influences hydrogeomorphology by modifying hydraulics and sediment entrainment and deposition that typically stabilize geomorphic patterns. Nitrogen and phosphorus biogeochemistry commonly influence plant productivity and community composition, although productivity is not limited by nutrient availability in all floodplains. Conversely, vegetation influences nutrient biogeochemistry through direct uptake and storage as well as production of organic matter that regulates microbial biogeochemical processes. The biogeochemistries of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling are very sensitive to spatial and temporal variation in hydrogeomorphology, in particular floodplain wetness and sedimentation. The least studied interaction is the direct effect of biogeochemistry on hydrogeomorphology, but the control of nutrient availability over organic matter decomposition and thus soil permeability and elevation is likely important. Biogeochemistry also has the more documented but indirect control of hydrogeomorphology through regulation of plant biomass. In summary, the defining characteristics of floodplain ecosystems are determined by the many interactions among physical and biological processes. Conservation and restoration of the valuable ecosystem services that floodplains provide depends on improved understanding and predictive models of interactive system controls and behavior.

Book chapter↗