1,943 research outputs found
Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-118-2016
No full textThe Cooperator Science Series was initiated in 2013. Its purpose is to facilitate the archiving and retrieval of research project
reports resulting primarily from investigations supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), particularly the Wildlife
and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The online format was selected to provide immediate access to science reports for FWS,
state and tribal management agencies, the conservation community, and the public at large. Burbot Lota lota is the sole freshwater representative of the cod-like fishes and supports subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries worldwide above approximately 40° N.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of Assessing the feasibility of using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring using acoustic monitoring for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, for Burbot conservation, management, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and productionmanagement, and production
Timothy Timothy Timothy Timothy Timothy Timothy Timothy Timothy B. B. B. GrabowskiGrabowskiGrabowskiGrabowskiGrabowskiGrabowskiGrabowskiGrabowskiGrabowski1
1 U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, TexasTexasTexasTexasTexas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Research Unit, Texas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech UniversityTexas Tech University, LubbockLubbockLubbockLubbockLubbockLubbockLubbock, TX
Cooperator Science Series # 118-2016
COOPERATOR SCIENCE SERIES ii
About the Cooperator Science Series:
The Cooperator Science Series was initiated in 2013. Its purpose is to facilitate the archiving and retrieval of research project reports resulting primarily from investigations supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), particularly the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The online format was selected to provide immediate access to science reports for FWS, state and tribal management agencies, the conservation community, and the public at large.
All reports in this series have been subjected to a rigorous peer review process consistent with the agencies and entities conducting the research. For U.S. Geological Survey authors, the peer review process (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html) also includes review by a bureau approving official prior to dissemination. Authors and/or agencies/institutions providing these reports are solely responsible for their content. The FWS does not provide editorial or technical review of these reports. Comments and other correspondence on reports in this series should be directed to the report authors or agencies/institutions. In most cases, reports published in this series are preliminary to publication, in the current or revised format, in peer reviewed scientific literature. Results and interpretation of data contained within reports may be revised following further peer review or availability of additional data and/or analyses prior to publication in the scientific literature.
The Cooperator Science Series is supported and maintained by the FWS, National Conservation Training Center at Shepherdstown, WV. The series is sequentially numbered with the publication year appended for reference and started with Report No. 101-2013. Various other numbering systems have been used by the FWS for similar, but now discontinued report series. Starting with No. 101 for the current series is intended to avoid any confusion with earlier report numbers.
The use of contracted research agencies and institutions, trade, product, industry or firm names or products or software or models, whether commercially available or not, is for informative purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Contractual References:
This document was developed by the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program to provide science-based support in fulfillment of a request through the Kootenai River/Kootenay Lake Burbot Conservation Strategy, which was established under an MOU with USGS and USFWS as signatory partners. Previously published documents that partially fulfilled any portion of this contract are referenced within, when applicable. (USGS IPDS #: IP-072721)
Recommended citation:
Grabowski T. B. 2016. Assessing the feasibility of using acoustic monitoring for Burbot conservation, management, and production. Report provided by the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program under agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-118-2016, National Conservation Training Center.
For additional copies or information, contact:
Dr. Timothy B. Grabowski
U.S. Geological Survey
Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Texas Tech University
P.O. Box 42120
Lubbock, TX 79409-2120
Phone: (806) 742-2851
Email: [email protected] Assessing the feasibility of using acoustic monitoring for Burbot conservation, management, and production
Final project report to the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the Bonneville Power Administration
February 2016
Timothy B. Grabowski
U.S. Geological Survey
Texas Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit
Texas Tech University
P.O. Box 42120
Lubbock, Texas 79409-2120
phone: 806-834-4388 | fax: 806-742-2946
[email protected] | [email protected]
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the Bonneville Power Administration (project #: 1988-0964-00; contract #: 67995) as part of the Kootenai River/Kootenay Lake Burbot Conservation Strategy. Partners for the Kootenai River/Kootenay Lake Burbot Conservation Strategy include the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative; Bonneville Power Administration; BC Hydro; British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection; the City of Bonners Ferry; Boundary County of the State of Idaho; Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada; Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Idaho Office of Species Conservation; Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey Idaho Water Science Center. I thank S.P. Young, S. Stephenson, V. Evans and the biologists who participated in the Kootenay Burbot broodstock collections from the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations for their assistance in the field. C. Alejandrez and C. Anderson assisted in the processing and analysis of acoustic data. P. Cott and J. Long provided comments and edits that improved the quality of this product. Cooperating agencies for the Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit are the U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Tech University, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Use of trade, product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 3
Abstract
Burbot Lota lota is the sole freshwater representative of the cod-like fishes and supports subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries worldwide above approximately 40° N. It is a difficult species to manage effectively due to its preference for deep-water habitats and spawning activity under the ice in winter. Like other gadiform fishes, Burbot use acoustic signaling as part of their mating system, and while the acoustic repertoire of the species has been characterized under artificial conditions (i.e., net pen suspended under ice in a natural lake), there has been no work to determine whether the species is as vocal in natural spawning aggregations. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of collecting and using acoustic data to characterize the spawning activity and locations of Burbot under field conditions. We recorded audio and video of Burbot spawning aggregations through holes drilled into the ice at known spawning grounds at Moyie Lake in British Columbia, Canada. Acoustic recordings (call counts and audiograms) were analyzed using Raven Pro v 1. 4 software. Acoustic behavior was also related to video data to determine how acoustic activity correlated to any observed spawning behavior. In general, wild Burbot spawning in Moyie Lake did not vocalize as frequently as counterparts spawning under artificial conditions. Further, Burbot vocalizations were not recorded in conjunction with spawning activity. While it may be feasible to use passive acoustic monitoring to locate Burbot spawning grounds and identify periods of activity, it does not seem to hold much promise for locating and quantifying spawning activity in real time.
4
Introduction
Burbot Lota lota is the sole freshwater representative of the gadoid fishes (order Gadiformes). It is an ecologically important species found worldwide at latitudes above approximately 40° N and supports important subsistence, commercial, or recreational fisheries in many locations. Burbot is relatively abundant throughout its range (Stapanian et al. 2010). However, some populations have been extirpated or suffered declines in abundance primarily due to habitat loss and alteration (McPhail and Paragamian 2000; Stapanian et al. 2010), shifts in temperature regime (Magnuson et al. 1990; Paragamian et al. 2000; Massol et al. 2007), and potentially overharvest (Hubert et al. 2008; Stapanian et al. 2010; Worthington et al. 2011). Burbot conservation, management, and recovery plans have been implemented in some jurisdictions and include harvest regulations and altered water releases to maintain thermal optima during Burbot migratory and reproductive periods (Stapanian et al. 2010).
Burbot are a difficult species to effectively manage due to its preference for deep-water habitats and spawning activity completed in the winter when most waterbodies in the Burbots’ range are under ice-cover (Scott and Crossman 1973; McPhail and Paragamian 2000). This preference for spawning during winter creates a particular impediment to gauging the success of recovery actions, such as reintroduction efforts, or identifying habitat requiring special protection. However, assessing Burbot spawning using standard fisheries methods, such as capture surveys or visual monitoring, may be logistically difficult, ineffective or have undesirable effects (e.g., disturbing the spawning aggregation). Recently, Cott et al. (2014) described acoustic signaling by Burbot during their spawning period. Burbot produce a series of single and double biphasic calls at relatively low frequencies (> 1,000 Hz). The intervals between calls may decrease resulting in a “purring” or “humming” sound, similar to a revving motor (Cott et al. 2014). Burbot calls are similar to those reported for Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus (Hawkins and Rasmussen 1978; Hawkins and Amorin 2000; Bremner et al. 2002), and potentially serve the same functions during male-female and male-male interactions during the spawning season as in other gadoids (Bremner et al. 2002). This presents the possibility of using passive acoustic monitoring to evaluate Burbot spawning locations and their use. Further, this discovery could potentially relate acoustic activity to reproductive output. Passive acoustic monitoring has proven successful for mapping the location and timing of drum species spawning aggregations in 5
estuaries along the Gulf and southeastern Atlantic coasts (Luczkovich and Sprague 2002; Lowerre-Barbieri et al. 2008; Walters et al. 2009). Furthermore, passive acoustic monitoring has been used to assess the timing of reproduction in other gadoid fishes, such as Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua (Nordeide and Kjellsby 1999) and Haddock (Casaretto et al. 2014).
While the acoustic repertoire of Burbot has been characterized (Cott et al. 2014), there has been no work to determine the function of individual call types or to understand the role of acoustic signaling in the Burbot mating system, particularly in wild spawning aggregations. In Haddock, acoustic signaling is related not only to courtship, but is also a component of male-male interactions (Bremner et al. 2002) and may be used outside of the spawning season (Hawkins and Rasmussen 1978). The development of a reliable protocol for using passive acoustic monitoring to locate Burbot spawning aggregations would provide a useful tool for non-invasively assessing the success of stocking and reintroduction efforts as well as surveying the spatial distribution and temporal use patterns of Burbot spawning habitat. Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of collecting and using acoustic data to characterize the spawning activity and locations of wild Burbot under field conditions. Secondarily, an attempt was made to create synchronized video and audio recordings of spawning Burbot to assess the role of acoustic signaling in their mating system.
Methods
Study area.—Moyie Lake is an approximately 850-ha lake of glacial origin located 20-km south of Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada. The lake consists of two long, narrow basins connected by a 2.5-km river segment and drains into the Kootenay River by way of its outlet to the Moyie River (Figure 1). Burbot surveys were conducted along the southeastern shore of the north basin of Moyie Lake, approximately 2.5 km south of Cotton Creek. This location was selected because it was the only known Burbot spawning area in Moyie Lake where ice was thick enough to permit sampling activities in February 2015. The spawning ground was further divided for analysis purposes into a southern portion, characterized by a steep-sloped bottom and relatively deep water (5-10 m) with a retaining wall along the shoreline, and a northern portion consisting of a gentler slope and shallower water (2-5 m). Substrate in both locations was a mixture of small 6
boulders, cobble, and gravel. At the time of sampling, ice thickness was 15-20 cm and water temperature was about 2.0°C. Sampling was conducted < 20 m from the shoreline.
Broodstock collection was being conducted jointly by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the British Columbia Ministry of Forestry, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations during the acoustic surveys. These activities involved considerable amount of activity, such as biologists walking on the ice, drilling holes, and talking, which created noisy acoustic conditions on Moyie Lake. Range testing was conducted on Mineral Lake, a smaller (approx. 8 ha) lake located < 1.0 km west of the north basin of Moyie Lake (Figure 1) to evaluate the potential distance at which Burbot calls might be detectable. Ice cover was approximately 30 cm thick and water depth in the locations where range testing was conducted was approximately 18.3 m. The hydrophone was suspended approximately 6.1 m above the substrate. Water temperature at the time of testing was about 2.0°C.
Range testing in Mineral Lake. — The influence of distance on the detection of simulated Burbot calls and on their measured characteristics was assessed at Mineral Lake on 19 February 2015 (Figure 1). Burbot calls were simulated by tapping on a 355-mL plastic bottle wrapped in a woolen sock and submerged to a depth of approximately 0.75-1.00 m. We recorded simulated calls using a VLF-100 hydrophone (Vemco, Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada) and DR-100 MK II 96k/24-bit portable stereo recorder (Tascam, Tokyo, Japan). A series of holes were drilled in the ice spaced 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m from the hole the hydrophone was deployed in (Figure 1). Simulated Burbot calls were produced in each hole by one researcher, who would tap on the plastic bottle, while the other researcher monitored the recording device.
Raven Pro v 1.5 software (Bioacoustics Research Program 2011) was used to visually and audibly identify simulated Burbot calls and to measure the characteristics of the simulated calls. We measured 14 variables describing the duration, amplitude, frequency, and power of the simulated calls (Table 1).
Audio and video recording of Burbot spawning activity.—Acoustic and video surveys of Burbot spawning activity were conducted in conjunction with annual broodstock collection efforts during 16-20 February 2015. Audio and video of Burbot spawning aggregations were recorded through holes drilled into the ice. Acoustic data were recorded using a VLF-100 hydrophone (Vemco, Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada) and DR-100 MK II 96k/24-bit portable stereo recorder 7
(Tascam, Tokyo, Japan) Video data were recorded using an underw
Roma, magistra mundi. Itineraria culturae medievalis. Mélanges offerts au Père L.E. Boyle à l\u27occasion de son 75e anniversaire
No full textR. James Long (with Timothy B. Noone) is a contributing author, Fishacre and Rufus on the Metaphysics of Light: Two Unedited Texts , Volume 2, pp. 517-548
Marker-Based Paternity Test in Polycross Breeding of Timothy
Full text linkAlthough the polycross is a useful and cost effective mating design, a lack of paternal pedigree information is a major limitation for polycross breeding in forage grasses such as timothy (Phleum pratense L.). This study describes a paternity test for use in timothy breeding using polymorphic data on 27 genomic simple sequence repeat markers. The paternity test is a simple exclusion statistical test with a combination of maternal information. It successfully determined paternity (success rate = 97%) for 112 progeny plants derived from three polycross groups (A, B, and D). Indirectly selected paternal parents in polycrosses were inferior to maternal parents directly selected by polycross progeny tests mainly for forage yield. Chi-squared values (χ2) in goodness-of-fit tests of the frequency distribution of paternal parents compared with the expected probabilities revealed unbalanced selection in Polycrosses B and D (χ2 = 141.4*** and 82.7***, respectively). Significant differences among the maternal and paternal parents in breeding values for competitiveness toward legumes and low-digestibility fiber content indicate that unbalanced paternal selection would result from individual phenotypic selection for these traits. These results demonstrate that implementation of a marker-based paternity test in timothy polycross breeding could significantly improve the selection of superior paternal parents and redress problems of parental imbalance
Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-103-2013
No full textThe Cooperator Science Series was initiated in 2013. Its purpose is to facilitate the archiving and retrieval of research project reports resulting primarily from investigations supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), particularly the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The online format was selected to provide immediate access to science reports for FWS, state and tribal management agencies, the conservation community, and the public at large.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Evaluating The Reproductive Success Of Arkansas River Shiner By Assessing Early Life-History Stage Dispersal And Survival At A Landscape Level
Shannon K. Brewer1
Timothy B. Grabowski2
1 U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
2 U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX
Cooperator Science Series # 103
http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/CSS.103
COOPERATOR SCIENCE SERIE
Introduction to \u3cem\u3eThe Singing Bird: A Cherokee Novel\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkJohn Milton Oskison was a mixed-blood Cherokee known for his writing and his activism on behalf of Indian causes. The Singing Bird, never before published, is quite possibly the first historical novel written by a Cherokee. Set in the 1840s and \u2750s, when conflict erupted between the Eastern and Western Cherokees after their removal to Indian Territory, The Singing Bird relates the adventures and tangled relationships of missionaries to the Cherokees, including the promiscuous, selfish Ellen, the Singing Bird of the title. The fictional characters mingle with such historical figures as Sequoyah and Sam Houston, embedding the novel in actual events. The Singing Bird is a vivid account of the Cherokees\u27 genius for survival and celebrates Native American cultural complexity and revitalization. Jace Weaver is the author of Other Words: American Indian Literature, Law, and Culture and That the People Might Live: Native American Literatures and Native American Community. Timothy B. Powell is author of Ruthless Democracy: A Multicultural Interpretation of the American Renaissance. John Milton Oskison (1874-1947) was a distinguished New York editor and published five books, including Tecumseh and His Times. Melinda Smith Mullikin is a former media editor for The New Georgia Encyclopedia. (Key Words: Cherokee Indians, American Indians, Native Americans, Fiction, John Milton Oskison, Melinda Smith Mullikin, Timothy B. Powell, Jace Weaver)
Evaluating Research Impact through Open Access to Scholarly Communication
Full text linkScientific research is a competitive business – in order to secure funding, promotion and tenure researchers must demonstrate their work has impact in their field. To maximise impact researchers undertake high priority research, aim to get results first, and publish in the highest impact journals. The Internet now presents a new opportunity to the scholarly author seeking higher impact: s/he can now make their work instantly accessible on the Web through author self-archiving. This growing body of open access literature (coupled with new publishing models that make journals available for-free to the reader) maximises research impact by maximising the number of people who can read it, and making it available sooner. Open access also provides a new opportunity for bibliometric research. This thesis describes the relatively recent phenomenon of open access to research literature, tools that were built to collect and analyse that literature, and the results of analyses of the effect of open access and its effect on author behaviour. It shows that articles self-archived by authors receive between 50-250% more citations, that rapid pre-printing on the Web has dramatically reduced the peak citation rate from over a year to virtually instant and how citation-impact – now widely used for evaluation – can be expanded to include a new web metric of download impact
Analysis of watersheds and river systems: short course
Full text linkShort course: Analysis of Watersheds and River Systems, Session I and II, held on May 28-June 1, 1979 and June 4-June 8, 1979 at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.Speakers: Dr. E. V. Richardson, Dr. David Duttweiller, Mr. Lee Mulkey, Dr. Stanley A. Schumm, Dr. Daryl B. Simons, Dr. Ross Carder.Includes bibliographical references.This short course is designed for individuals dealing with the analysis of watersheds and rivers. Practical applications concerning physical processes will be emphasized.Chapter 1. General introduction / Daryl B. Simons and Ruh-Ming Li -- Chapter 2. Introduction to watershed and river analysis / Daryl B. Simons and Ruh-Ming Li -- Chapter 3. Physical processes governing response of watersheds and rivers / Daryl B. Simons, Timothy J. Ward and Ruh-Ming Li -- Chapter 4. Sediment transport / H. W. Shen -- Chapter 5. Alluvial bed roughness / H. W. Shen -- Chapter 6. Overview of flood routing methods / Ruh-Ming Li and V. Miguel Ponce -- Chapter 7. Water routing and yield from watersheds, Part I and II / Ruh-Ming Li, Daryl B. Simons, and Kenneth G. Eggert -- Chapter 8. Water routing in rivers / Yung-Hai Chen -- Chapter 9. Stage discharge relations / Robert K. Simons, Ruh-Ming Li, and Daryl B. Simons -- Chapter 10. Watershed sediment yield / Ruh-Ming Li, Daryl B. Simons, and Timothy J. Ward -- Chapter 11. Unsteady sediment routing models in rivers / Yung-Hai Chen and Daryl B. Simons -- Chapter 12. Known discharge sediment routing / Glenn O. Brown and Ruh-Ming Li -- Chapter 13. Landslide potential delineation / Timothy J. Ward, Ruh-Ming Li, and Daryl B. Simons -- Chapter 14. Application of Kalman filtering in watershed and river analysis / Nguyen Duong -- Chapter 15. Handheld calculator programs for analysis / Kenneth G. Eggert, Ruh-Ming Li, and Daryl B. Simons -- Chapter 16. Overview of case studies and data management / Daryl B. Simons, Ruh-Ming Li, and Nguyen Duong -- Chapter 17. Canal and channel design and river response analysis / Daryl B. Simons, Ruh-Ming Li, and Yung-Hai Chen -- Chapter 18. Degradation and aggradation analysis / Ruh-Ming Li and Daryl B. Simons -- Chapter 19. Watershed best management analysis / Ruh-Ming Li, Timothy J. Ward, and Daryl B. Simons -- Chapter 20. Large river basin analysis: Yazoo River Sedimentation Study / Daryl B. Simons and Ruh-Ming Li
Testing for differences in spatial distributions from individual based data
No full textSpatial distribution is increasingly studied using individual based telemetric methods in lieu of, or supplementing, surveys. Distributions may be in two- or three-dimensions, or in an abstract space such as depth-temperature space. One of the most basic questions one might address when analyzing these data is whether the distributions of two species, populations, genders, age classes, or other units are different. However due to the inherent differences between survey and telemetric approaches, it is difficult for practitioners to find a simple and easily applied approach to answer this question. In contrast to surveys, telemetry collects a large amount of data about a small number of individuals. Methods must therefore account for the random effects of individual variation in a way not otherwise necessary. We will demonstrate, for example, that tests suitable for detecting differences in distributions from survey data can give false positives (type I errors) when faced with telemetry data. This is essentially because the test treats the large number of data points as a very high n, but in fact the small number of individuals makes the n very small. As a solution, we present a test for differences in distribution based on an existing test for survey data based upon randomizing the data at the level of individuals rather than observations
Electrochemical-control of abrasive polishing and machining rates, U.S. Patent 6,171,467
No full textAn apparatus and method is disclosed; both of which use electrochemistry to selectively grow and remove hard oxide coatings on metals, and capacitive double layers on non-metals and semiconductors in order to predict and control the rate of surface abrasion during planarization of the surface of such materials
Coastal erosion along the Monterey Bay
Full text linkDistinguished Alumni Award Program author. RDML Timothy J. McGee, USN (Presented 11 May 06)Coastal erosion, as inferred by measuring bluff recession is correlated with wave height at 12 sites along the Monterey Bay coastline. Bluff recession rates are established by applying precise photogrammetric techniques to a 44-year time series of aerial photographs. Wave heights are determined from the USACE Wave Information Studies spectral wave climatology, where deep water gravity waves are hindcast from historic wind fields at three-hour intervals from Jan 56-Dec 75. The deep water spectra are refracted to shallow water spectra at a nominal depth of 4m. An erosion model is developed for Monterey Bay where the erosion process is modelled as a non-linear function of the 4-m significant wave height: R=(AHs sq) + BHs + C(Tide + 1.02Hs - Clifftoe)/Beach Slope. The coefficients A, B, C are computed from a least squares regression of the modelled and observed recession rate values. The erosion model provides a reasonable representation of the erosion process in Monterey Bay, where the mean standard error between observed and modelled erosion rates is + or - 0.17 m/yr. Adjustment of the wave energy coefficient, A, allows tuning of the model for high and low wave energy locations. Keywords: Ocean waves; California; Photogrammetry; Refraction; Cliffshttp://archive.org/details/coastalerosionlo109452171
- …
