Honors Earth & Space Science
2014 Sumer Assignment
Welcome to Honors Earth and Space Science! Our goal is that you learn about the
Earth’s place in the Universe, how the Earth works, and how we interact with the Earth.
When we think about the planet in this way, we are considering it as a “system”.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (read carefully)
Earth System Science (ESS) examines the Earth as a collection of interdependent parts
enclosed within a defined boundary. “Interdependent” means that the parts rely on each other to
function properly. Within the boundary of the Earth is a collection of four interdependent parts
called “spheres”, including:
1. Geosphere, which contains the crust, mantle, and core of the Earth.
2. Hydrosphere, which contains all of the planet's solid, liquid, and gaseous water,
3. Biosphere, which contains all of the planet's living organisms
4. Atmosphere, which contains all of the planet's air.
These spheres are connected to each other: birds (biosphere) fly through the air (atmosphere),
while water (hydrosphere) flows through the soil (geosphere). In fact, the spheres are so closely
connected that a change in one sphere often results in a change in one or more of the other
spheres. We call these changes events.
Events can occur naturally, such as an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, tornado, or volcanic
eruption, or be induced by humans, such as an oil spill, air pollution, or nuclear disaster. An
event can cause changes to occur in one or more of the spheres, and/or an event can be the
effect of changes in one or more of Earth's four spheres. This two-way cause and effect
relationship between an event and a sphere is called an interaction. Interactions also occur
among the spheres; for example, a change in the atmosphere can cause a change in the
hydrosphere, and vice versa.
Events may have local or regional impacts, such as floods and forest fires. On the other hand,
the effects of events such as El Nino or ozone depletion may cause interactions that can be
observed worldwide. For example, ozone depletion above Antarctica may result in increased
levels of Ultraviolet-b radiation around the world. Understanding the interactions among the
Earth's spheres and the events that occur within the system allows people to predict the
outcomes of events. Being able to predict outcomes is useful when, for example, developers
wish to know the environmental effects of a project such as building an airport before they begin
construction.
Understanding the interactions that occur in the Earth system also helps people to prepare for
the effects of natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions; this understanding allows people to
predict things like how far and in what direction the lava will flow. This relatively new field of
studying the interactions between and among events and the earth's spheres is called Earth
System Science (ESS). There are ten possible types of interactions that could occur within the
Earth system. Four of these interactions are between an event and each of the earth's spheres:
event<->geosphere
event<->biosphere
event<->hydrosphere
event<->atmosphere
The double-headed arrows (<->) indicate that the cause and effect relationships of these
interactions go in both directions; for example, “event<->hydrosphere” refers to the effects of the
event on the hydrosphere, as well as the effects of the hydrosphere on the event.
In addition to the above four event<->sphere interactions, there are six interactions that occur
among the earth's spheres:
geosphere<->hydrosphere
hydrosphere<->biosphere
geosphere<->biosphere
hydrosphere<->atmosphere
geosphere<->atmosphere
biosphere<->atmosphere
Again, the double-headed arrows (<->) indicate that the cause and effect relationships of the
interactions go in both directions; for example, “geosphere<->hydrosphere” refers to the effects
of the geosphere on the hydrosphere, as well as the effects of the hydrosphere on the
geosphere.
The ten types of interactions that can occur within the earth system often occur as a series of
chain reactions. This means one interaction leads to another interaction, which leads to yet
another interaction--it is a ripple effect through the earth's spheres. For example, a forest fire
may destroy all the plants in an area (event biosphere). The absence of plants could lead to
an increase in erosion--washing away of soil (biosphere  geosphere). Increased amounts of
soil entering streams can lead to increased turbidity, or muddiness, of the water (geosphere 
hydrosphere). Increased turbidity of stream water can have negative impacts on the plants and
animals that live in it (hydrosphere  biosphere). This is called a “causal chain”: E>B>G>H>B.
THE ASSIGNMENT (This is what I want you to do.)
To prepare for your 9th grade science class, you will

Choose an Earth System Science Event

Conduct an Earth System Science Analysis on that event. Your TYPED report should
include
o
A Thesis Statement
o
A Recommendation as to how to prevent or respond to the event
o
ESS Analysis (examining how the different spheres create the event and how the
event affects the different spheres)

Examine, list and describe how each of the earth's four spheres may
have caused the event to occur:


Sphere  Event

Sphere  Sphere  Event
Examine, list and describe the effects of the event on each of the earth's
four spheres:


Event  Sphere

Event  Sphere  Sphere …
Examine, list and describe the effects of changes of any sphere on the
other sphere:

Sphere  Sphere  Sphere…

Create a Web or Concept Map showing your ESS Analysis

Expected Length 5-10 pages with Works Cited.
On the following pages, you will find the grading rubric and a detailed example. Please
do NOT use the example as your ESS Analysis.
Grading Rubric
Quality of Understanding: Accuracy of ideas, facts, statements (assertions) about interactions and causal
chains
4
3
Response is Mostly correct with no major
complete and errors, misconceptions or
correct
omissions. May contain up to
3 minor inaccuracies.
2
1
0
Partially correct with
one or two significant
omissions, content
errors or more than 4
minor errors.
Misconceptions about
key content in Earth
system interactions
Not
present
Depth of Reasoning: Clarity and focus of supportable ideas, interactions and systemic relationships
4
3
2
1
0
Predicts future effects
(e.g. positive feedback)
or transfers
understanding to
evaluate other situations
or recommends
remediation (e.g.
negative feedback)
Explains the
processes
responsible for the
causal chains
(S>S>S) in the
event or context
from a scientific
perspective
Describes interactions
using cause and effect
connections including
secondary effects that
unfold over time,
event> sphere>sphere
Describes what is
happening in the
system, including
characteristics and
direct effects of the
event or context
(event>sphere)
Not
present
Evidence: Scope, detail and accuracy of the evidence supporting the relationship statements
4
3
2
1
0
Builds on data from reliable
sources by manipulating the
data to support claims
(charts, graphs, maps, etc.)
or refuting opposing
positions with data or
discussing ambiguity or error
in the data
Supports statements
with data from
reliable sources.
Uses quantitative
and qualitative data
appropriately
Accurately uses
and cites
quantitative and
qualitative data
from reliable
sources
Uses only
quantitative or
qualitative data or
lacks adequate
support for
statements, or lacks
citations for some
statements
Not
present
Science Writing: ESS analyses are communicated clearly.
4
3
2
1
Uses graphics (diagrams,
graphs, pictures, video, etc)
to support the text or has
exemplary overview of the
thesis or the writing style is
particularly vivid,
compelling, or creative
Builds ideas
across
paragraphs and
sections to
support the main
ideas
Paragraphs support
the main ideas/
thesis. Sentence
structure sometimes
interferes with
meaning.
The thesis/main ideas
about the interactions
are clearly stated.
Grammatical errors do
not interfere with the
meaning.
0
Not
present
Example ESS Analysis of the 1988 Yellowstone Fires
Thesis Statement: Fires are a natural part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. That
ecosystem evolved with fires and fires continue to be a tool that land managers may need to
use to keep the ecosystem in balance. However, because of human incursions into the natural
ecosystem, there is a limited amount of forage, space, and fresh water for the wildlife in the
area. Fighting fires may be necessary to keep the ecosystem intact and functional. Our goal is
to determine if there is a need to fight natural fires or if the ecosystem is best left alone (fire
included).
Recommendations: We recommend that natural fires be allowed to burn in Yellowstone
National Park. This is in the best interest of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the people
who enjoy the area. By allowing natural fires to burn, fuel loading will be reduced and
biodiversity will be maintained.
ESS Analysis: (in this analysis, E=event, A=atmosphere, B=biosphere, H=hydrosphere, and
G=geosphere)
A>E
During the mid to late summer of 1988, Yellowstone National Park was the driest it had ever
been in 116 years of recorded history. During that summer, more than a third of the Park’s
area (>793,000 acres or 1240 square miles) was affected by fire. Fires that had started
outside the park’s boundaries burned more than half that total acreage. Of the 51 individual
fires, lightning naturally started 42 of them (lightning starts as average of 22 fires each
year). Most of the 1988 fires extinguished naturally by autumn rain and snow (80% of
naturally started fires go out by themselves). (http://www.us.national-parks.net/fire.htm)
According to Trenberth, et.al. (1988), the exceptionally dry conditions were the result of
long-term climate conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean in 1986-87, an “El Nino”
year. Following the El Nino, the 1988 La Nina conditions (below average sea surface
temperatures in the equatorial Pacific) set up causing warmer waters to be displaced away
from the equator. This caused unusually warm atmospheric conditions southeast of Hawaii
and low precipitation in the early months of 1988 in the western U.S.
E>A
When fire burns, the smoke and particulates fill the air creating health hazards for animals
and humans. During the 1988 fires, smoke was particularly bad in the areas northeast of
the park due to the dominant southeast wind direction. (Franke, 2000)
B>E
According to the National Park Service, humans started only 9 of the 51 fires. The total cost
to fight all the fires was $120 million. 25,000 firefighters worked to save human life and
property but had little impact of the extent of the fires.
The impacts of the mountain pine beetle were studied by Lynch et. al. (2006). They found a
strong correlation between the spatial pattern of burned areas to the areas affected by a
pine beetle outbreak in 1972-75 but no correlation with the outbreak of 1980-83.
E>B
Soil horizons and lake sediments in YNP indicate that the ecological system is well adapted
to large fires. These records show 250-400 years cycles of large forest fires and 25-60 year
cycles of grass fires in Yellowstone. (http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/yfire.html)
In the 793,880 acres of Yellowstone National Park that burned, a forest mosaic was
created, according to Knight, et.al (1989) and Franke (2000). There were three types of
fires, each affecting the forest differently:

Crown fires burn hot and fast through the canopy of the forest. During the 1988 YNP
fires, these consumed 41% of the burned areas.

Mixed fires burn both the tree canopy and/or the ground vegetation in an area.

Ground fires burn low vegetation (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) as they move slowly
across an area. This type of fire can penetrate the duff layer of the forest floor, killing the
root system of a tree that did not burn.
The patchiness of the burn allowed for quick and natural recovery. Areas that were
intensely burned were within 200 meters of areas less affected by the fires. The seeds of
Lodgepole pine are released from the cones when the parent trees burn. Fireweed
(Epilobium angustifolium) seeds blow in from surrounding areas. Within a few years,
Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, and whitebark pine have emerged. Grasses,
some forbs, and aspen trees spread from their roots. The bare mineral soil left behind by
the fires provided good conditions for aspen seedlings. (Knight, et.al (1989) and Franke
(2000))
Of the approximately 40,000-50,000 elk that lived in YNP in 1988, 345 perished in the fires,
along with 36 mule deer, 12 moose, 6 black bear, 9 bison, and one grizzly bear. For the
animals that survived the fires, finding food the following winter was challenging. However,
the following years, food was plentiful, easier to get to, and more nutritious.
Fire retardant dropped into two streams resulted in the deaths of approximately 100
fish. Besides that, there has been no observable impact on the native fish populations in
the park. Birds that nest in tree cavities increased in population after the fires, birds who
were dependent on mature forests lost habitat and their numbers declined.
(http://www.us.national-parks.net/fire.htm)
Currently, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is considered a relatively intact ecosystem
with strong biodiversity. This region is one of the few places left in North America where the
animals that roamed most of central North America can all be seen in one place.
(http://www.greateryellowstone.org/ecosystem/)
G>E
Much of the park has rhyolitic soils, which do not retain water very well. When there is very
little rainfall, the soils dry out very quickly causing the vegetation to dry out as well, making
them more susceptible to fires (Franke, 2000). In areas where the soils are older and better
developed, water holding capacity was greater and the vegetation was less likely to be
burned as intensely. (http://www.us.national-parks.net/fire.htm)
Slope angle and aspect can affect the intensity of the burn. Forests tend to be more dense
on north-facing slopes because they receive less direct sunlight and have a higher soil
water content. These hillsides are less likely to ignite in normal conditions but burn much
hotter in drought conditions due to the fuel load (Martin, 2000)
E>G
When forest fires burn, there are numerous impacts on the geological
environment. According to USGS reports, the geomorphology of the western U.S. is
changed most rapidly by erosion and deposition after fire events (Martin, 2000). Not only
are soils enriched with nutrients previously locked up in the trees but the rocks that make
the soils are broken down faster by the rapid heating and cooling, leading to exfoliation and
spalling. When heated by intense fires, some of the soils become hydrophobic (water is not
absorbed but runs off) causing an increase in erosive capacity of the water. The hotter the
fire, the more likely this happens.
When soils and sediments are eroded off of the hillsides, they can move as hyperconcentrated flows, debris flows, and landslides into lower lying regions. In the western
U.S., there are few events that lead to the massive movement of sediment like forest fires
do (USGS, 1999). These events forever change landscapes that have seemed stable and
unchanging: stream channels shallow or deepen, alluvial fans become active, landslides
and debris flows redistribute sediment quickly and dramatically.
H>E
The winter and spring of 1987-88 was very dry. However, heavy precipitation in May and
June caused a surge in the growth of grasses and forbs, increasing ground fuels. Higher
humidity areas around lakes, streams, and rivers did not burn as intensely as drier areas.
(Franke, 2000; http://www.us.national-parks.net/fire.htm)
E>H
There was very little direct impact on the water. The impacts were the result of the fires
affects on the air and soil. See following:
E>H>G>H
As with many wildfires, land managers were very concerned with erosion after the fires of
1988. Spring runoff and summer thunderstorms can overwhelm the soils, running straight
into streams, rivers, and lakes. The water carries sediment into the waterways, causing a
decrease in stream depth. Sediment inflow into the Gardiner, Gibbon, and Madison rivers
were notable during the spring and summer months of 1989. (Franke,
2000; http://www.us.national-parks.net/fire.htm)
E>B>H>G
In the efforts to fight the fires, millions of gallons of water were dropped on the fires or
pumped to the fires. This caused a decrease in stream flow and washed soil and ash into
the streams. More than a million gallons of ammonium phosphate based fire-retardant
ended up polluting some streams, but this was a transient impact, having no long-term
effects on water quality.[ (Franke, 2000)
E>G>B>G>H
Since the fires, vegetation growth has slowed erosion in watersheds that had erosion and
mudslides after the fires, such as the Gibbon, Gardiner, and Madison Rivers (Turner, et.al,
1994).
E>B>A>B
According to Franke (2000), the Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences and the park recorded 19 days in Gardiner and 7 days in Mammoth where
recommended allowable particulate concentrations were exceeded. On the worst days
smoke could be seen for up to 60 miles away. Smoke filtered down the valleys into
adjacent communities. Driving became hazardous. People were treated for smoke
inhalation.
E>B>A>H
When the wild fires were burning, nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur compounds are sent into the
atmosphere. When mixed with water vapor, the result is acidic precipitation
(http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/acidrain.html). In the case of the
Yellowstone fires, I was unable to find research verifying that acid precipitation fell in the
region as a result of the fires. Given the size of the fires and the dominant wind direction, I
would assume that acid precipitation probably fell to the northeast of Yellowstone National
Park.
B>E>B
The fires of Yellowstone National Park in 1988 were the result of climatic
conditions. However, the decisions of humans in the decades prior to that year created a
situation that made the fires much more intense.
Because of the deadly fires that land managers had to deal with for more than a century
prior to 1988, wildfire suppression became the normal course of action throughout our
country.
(http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/peshtigo.htm; http://www.wilderness.net/l
ibrary/documents/IJWApr06_Aplet.pdf; http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/pfires.asp;http://ww
w.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf) All fires were supposed to be suppressed within 24
hours of ignition. This protected communities and natural resources and created jobs.
Smokey Bear’s motto of “only you can prevent forest fires” did a great job of misleading the
American public that most fires were started by people when, in fact, most are caused by
lightning.
The ecological ramifications of fire suppression were beginning to be understood better (by
scientists) in the early 1900’s. This knowledge was entrenched in Native American culture.
Aldo Leopold wrote about it, ecologists pondered it, and land managers considered using
fire to “clean up” the forest. By the 1960’s, the scientific community was encouraging the
NPS to allow natural fires to “run their course” and by 1972, the NPS was letting fires burn
in Yellowstone and USFS adopted this same policy for Wilderness
Areas. (http://www.wilderness.net/library/documents/IJWApr06_Aplet.pdf; http://www.nrdc.
org/land/forests/pfires.asp; http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf)
Ecologically, we know that suppressing fire reduces the number and variety of plant and
animal species. Disease and insect infestations are kept in check by fire. Fires help to
maintain a forest ecosystem. (http://www.us.national-parks.net/fire.htm)
Works Cited
"Evolution of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy" (pdf). Review and Update of the 1995
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy January 2001. National Park Service, U.S.
Forest Service. January 2001.http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf.
"Firestorms of 1871". Disasters. Boise State
University. http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/peshtigo.htm
"Wildfires in Western Forests". Natural Resources Defense Council. May
2003. http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/pfires.asp
"Wildland Fire in Yellowstone". Wildland Fire. National Park Service. June 11,
2007. http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wildlandfire.htm.
“The Total Yellowstone Page”. 1995-2003. http://www.us.national-parks.net/fire.htm
Aplet, Gregory H. (April 2006). "Evolution of Wilderness Fire Policy" (PDF). International Journal
of Wilderness 12 (1): 9–
13. http://www.wilderness.net/library/documents/IJWApr06_Aplet.pdf
Franke, Mary Ann (2000). "The Role of Fire in Yellowstone" (pdf). Yellowstone in the Afterglow.
National Park
Service. http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/chapter1.pdf.http://www.nps.gov/y
ell/planyourvisit/upload/chapter4.pdf.
Knight, Dennis H.; Linda L. Wallace (November 1989). "The Yellowstone Fires: Issues in
Landscape Ecology". Bioscience 39 (10): 700–706..
Lynch, Heather; Roy A. Renkin Robert L. Crabtree and Paul R. Moorcroft (January 19, 2007).
"The Influence of Previous Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Activity
on the 1988 Yellowstone Fires". Ecosystems 2006 (9): 1318–1327
Martin, D. (Winter 2000). Studies of Post-Fire Erosion in the Colorado Front Range Benefit the
Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration
Project. http://watershed.org/news/win_00/5_postfire.htm
Turner, Monica; William H Romme and Daniel B Tinker (2003). "Surprises and lessons from the
1988 Yellowstone fires" (pdf). Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1 (7): 351–
358.http://tiee.ecoed.net/vol/v3/issues/frontier_sets/yellowstone/pdf/Frontiers%5BTurne
r%5D.pdf
Turner, Monica; William W. Hargrove, Robert H. Gardner, William H. Romme (November 1994).
"Effects of Fire on Landscape Heterogeneity in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming".
Journal of Vegetation Science 5 (5): 731–742.
Turner, Monica; William H Romme and Daniel B Tinker (2003). "Surprises and lessons from the
1988 Yellowstone fires" (pdf). Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1 (7): 351–
358.http://tiee.ecoed.net/vol/v3/issues/frontier_sets/yellowstone/pdf/Frontiers%5BTurne
r%5D.pdf
United States Geological Survey (1999, September 22). USGS Studies Wildfire Ecology In The
Western United States. ScienceDaily.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990922050418.htm