Search

Geoscience faces dual recruiting challenges: a pending workforce shortage and a lack of diversity. Already suffering from low visibility, geoscience does not resemble the makeup of the general population in terms of either race/ethnicity or gender and is among the least diverse of all science, technology, engineering, and math fields in the U.S. Many studies discuss recruiting and diversity issues in science and math, but only a small number consider--and address quantitatively--barriers in geoscience. We interviewed 31 current and former geoscience majors (18 women, 13 men; 8 Hispanics, 21 whites) at a large university in the southwestern U.S. to collect 926 ''critical incidents,'' or experiences that affected choice of major. These critical incidents were classified, sorted, and analyzed by race/ethnicity and gender. We found that positive experiences in introductory courses, supportive family members, personal characteristics that meshed with geoscience, and outstanding field experiences were the most commonly reported factors influencing the choice of a geoscience major. Though our sample was not large, we interpret these factors as crucial tools for improving recruitment and retention. Hispanic students reported more familial factors, and more negative familial factors, than white students. Hispanic students also reported fewer informal outdoor experiences and fewer incidents involving personal factors. Men reported more critical incidents related to career and economic factors than women. Women reported more negative experiences than men in required nongeoscience courses. These findings suggest that sociocultural factors behind underrepresentation in other fields may similarly impede diversity in geoscience. Although geoscience majors share many common experiences, knowledge of subtle barriers that may exist for only Hispanic students and women in geoscience can inform recruiting, teaching, and advisement strategies.

Humans now play a major role in altering Earth and its biota. Finding ways to ameliorate human impacts on biodiversity and to sustain and restore the ecosystem services on which we depend is a grand scientific and societal challenge. Conservation paleobiology is an emerging discipline that uses geohistorical data to meet these challenges by developing and testing models of how biota respond to environmental stressors. Here we (a) describe how the discipline has already provided insights about biotic responses to key environmental stressors, (b) outline research aimed at disentangling the effects of multiple stressors, (c) provide examples of deliverables for managers and policy makers, and (d) identify methodological advances in geohistorical analysis that will foster the next major breakthroughs in conservation outcomes. We highlight cases for which exclusive reliance on observations of living biota may lead researchers to erroneous conclusions about the nature and magnitude of biotic change, vulnerability, and resilience.

Natural resource managers may utilize remotely sensed data to monitor vegetation within their decision-making frameworks for improving habitats. Under binational agreements between the United States and Mexico, seven reaches were targeted for riparian habitat enhancement. Monitoring was carried out using Landsat 8 16-day intervals of the two-band enhanced vegetation index 2 (EVI2) for greenness and actual evapotranspiration (ETa). In-channel water was delivered in 2021 and 2022 at four places in Reach 4. Three reaches (Reaches 4, 5 and 7) showed no discernable difference in EVI2 from reaches that did not receive in-channel water (Reaches 1, 2, 3 and 6). EVI2 in 2021 was higher than 2020 in all reaches except Reach 3, and EVI2 in 2022 was lower than 2021 in all reaches except Reach 7. ET(EVI2) was higher in 2020 than in 2021 and 2022 in all seven reaches; it was highest in Reach 4 (containing restoration sites) in all years. Excluding restoration sites, compared with 2020, unrestored reaches showed that EVI2 minimally increased in 2021 and 2022, while ET(EVI2) minimally decreased despite added water in 2021–2022. Difference maps comparing 2020 (no-flow year) to 2021 and 2022 (in-channel flows) reveal areas in Reaches 5 and 7 where the in-channel flows increased greenness and ET(EVI2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]