NOEL B. PAVLOVIC MURULEEDHARA N. BYAPPANAHALLI 20201120 spreadsheet Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/P9ZP9L4P This soil and vegetation data were collected along a successional gradient at the Indiana Dunes National Park. Soil samples were processed for standard soil chemistry, texture, and nutrients. DNA extracted from soil samples were analyzed for bacterial communities using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing technique to understand the composition and distribution of these communities along the successional gradient. Soils samples were collected in 2015 and 2017. Vegetation data were collected only in 2017, as the vegetation was dormant in 2015. We collected the data to examine the relationships among soils, vegetation, and composition of the microbial communities along a dunal chronosequence. A dunal chronosequence is a series of coastal dunes that formed at different times thus a chrono-sequence. In such a sequence, the younger dunes are near the lakeshore and the older ones are inland. The raw metagenomic data can be accessed at the NCBI repository under the bioproject accession PRJNA658136. We collected the data to examine the relationships among soils, vegetation, and composition of the microbial communities along a dunal chronosequence. A dunal chronosequence is a series of coastal dunes that formed at different times thus a chrono-sequence. In such a sequence, the younger dunes are near the lake or seashore and the older ones are inland. 20151117 20170523 ground condition Complete None planned East unit of the Indiana Dunes National Park -87.11540 -86.93893 41.71290 41.63649 ISO 19115 Topic Category biota environment None Bacterial communities Time sequence Dune succession Burning Soil Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Microbial Communities USGS Thesaurus vegetation soil USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:5ed11e7082ce2832f044fe5a Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) Indiana Dunes National Park Common geographic areas Indiana Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore No data access constraints No data use constraints Noel B Pavlovic U.S. Geological Survey, MIDCONTINENT REGION ECOLOGIST mailing address

1574 Kemil Road N 300 E

Chesterton IN 46304 United States 219-926-8336 x428 219-929-5792 npavlovic@usgs.gov The Indiana Dunes National Park (INDU), a unit of the National Park Service, provided assess to the sites and permission to collect the samples. Funding was USGS base funds. Windows 2010 with Microsoft Excel 2016. Sequences were generated using a MiSeq Illumina system. Sequences were analyzed using the QIIME 2 pipeline. PCORD: McCune, B. and M. J. Mefford. 2016. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 7.04 MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, U.S.A. Muruleedhara Byappanahalli Noel B. Pavlovic Cindy H. Nakatsu 2025 publication Journal of Great Lakes Research Publication expected in 2025 in Journal of Great Lakes Research. The soil data was derived from chemical and physical analyses based on standardized protocols (conducted at A&L Great Lakes Laboratories, Fort Wayne). Vegetation sampling involved two components, species identification and cover estimation. Cover estimate was based on using % cover squares (1, 2, and 5%) for estimation calibration. Plant identification was performed by a plant ecologist familiar with taxonomy. The soil chemistry values are based on a 10 cm deep soil probe that was analyzed by A&L Great Lakes Laboratory in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Physical and chemical results were examined for acceptable range of values and detection capabilities. A&L Great Lakes Laboratory 3505 Conestoga Drive Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808 260.483.4759 https://algreatlakes.com/ Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. As noted in the attribute accuracy, if a data point was questionable after being reanalyzed the datum was removed. Overstory shrub and trees were not sampled. In November 2015, vegetation was not sampled because it was dormant. A Trimble Juno 3B GPS was used to collect the GPS data. Data was recorded as latitude (Y) and longitude (X) based on WSG84. Accuracy with post processing is 1 to 3 m. A formal accuracy assessment of the vertical positional information in the data set has either not been conducted, or is not applicable. Cindy Nakatsu 20200821 tabular digital data https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA658136/ Digital and/or Hardcopy 20151117 20170526 observed PRJNA658136 Location of associated microbial data. FIELD DATA COLLECTION 1) Arrived at the successional stage. 2) Selected a location that did not have any obvious human disturbance in that successional stage. 3) A half-meter square plot was placed at the sampling site. 4) Within the plot, the species and cover of the plant presence was recorded. 5) Percent bare ground, litter coverage and total vegetation cover were estimated. 6) Triplicate soil samples were taken near the center of the plot, after the litter cover was removed by displacing with a sterile tongue depressor. 15-ml centrifuge tubes were pushed into the soil to collect the sample and then capped. Tubes were placed in a cooler with ice for transport back to the lab. 7) Sub samples were used for 16S rRNA targeted metagenomic analysis. 8) Bulk soil samples for physical and chemical analysis were taken from the plot. A 1 cm diameter soil probe was pushed into the soil and the top 10 cm of the soil core were placed inside a bag. Multiple probes were taken, until a volume of approximately 236 ml was achieved. The bulk soil samples were placed on ice in a cooler. References: Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg (1974). Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. New York, John Wiley & Sons. 20170523 Noel B Pavlovic U.S. Geological Survey, MIDCONTINENT REGION ECOLOGIST mailing address

1574 Kemil Road N 300 E

Chesterton IN 46304 US 219-926-8336 x428 219-929-5792 npavlovic@usgs.gov SAMPLE PROCESSING 1) Centrifuge tubes with soil sample were stored in a freezer -20˚C until processed for DNA extraction. 2) Bulk soil samples were placed in walk-in freezer at -20˚C until shipping to A&L labs for physical and chemical processing. 3) Plant community data were transcribed from data sheets into an Excel file. 4) When results from physical and chemical analysis were received from A&L labs, the results were entered into the same Excel file. 5) Results in Excel file were scanned for errors and expected values. References: Klute, A. (1986). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1-Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Madison, WI, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. Page, A. L., et al. (1982). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2-Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison, WI, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. Soil chemistry conducted by: A&L Great Lakes Laboratory 3505 Conestoga Drive. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 20170825 Noel B Pavlovic U.S. Geological Survey, MIDCONTINENT REGION ECOLOGIST mailing address

1574 Kemil Road N 300 E

Chesterton IN 46304 US 219-926-8336 x428 219-929-5792 npavlovic@usgs.gov BACTERIAL SEQUENCING Illumina 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing: PCR-amplification of the 16S rRNA gene in water and sand DNA extracts was performed using V3-V4 region primers (343-forward TAC GGR AGG CAG CAG and 804-reverse CTA CCR GGG TAT CTA ATC C). PCR protocol and primers tags were following the manufacturer’s suggested step out protocol (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Reactions were carried out using ~10 ng of template DNA in Q5® High Fidelity DNA Polymerase 2X master mix (New England Biolabs). PCR amplicons were purified using AxyPrepMag PCR clean-up kit (Axygen Scientific) and quantified using a Nanodrop 3000 fluorospectrophotometer after staining with the QuantiFluor dsDNA System (Promega). Amplicon were combined in equimolar amounts sequenced (2x250 paired end) on a MiSeq Illumina instrument at the Purdue Genomics core facilities. 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis: Sequences with primer tags removed and paired end reads merged (PANDAseq software), (Masella et al., 2012) were analyzed using the QIIME pipeline (version 1.9.1) (Caporaso et al., 2010). The options in QIIME chosen were “pick_open_otus” (Rideout et al., 2014), uclust (Edgar, 2010) for clustering, PyNAST (Caporaso et al., 2010) for sequence alignment, and RDP classifier (Wang et al., 2007) for taxonomic assignment using the Greengenes data set (version 13_5) (McDonald et al., 2012). Rarefied datasets (lowest number of reads among the samples being compared) were used for beta-diversity comparisons. Metrics tested included both phylogenetic Unifrac distances (weighted and un-weighted) (Lozupone et al., 2011) and non-phylogenetic distances (weighted Jaccard and Bray Curtis). Good’s coverage to assess completeness of OTU representation in each sample. Alpha-diversity measurements were used for richness and evenness (Shannon diversity), richness (ChaoI index, observed-species), Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (PD whole tree) and evenness (Simpson’s e). The raw metagenomic data can be accessed at the NCBI repository under the bioproject accession PRJNA658136: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA658136 References: Masella, Andre P., Andrea K. Bartram, Jakub M. Truszkowski, Daniel G. Brown, and Josh D. Neufeld. "PANDAseq: paired-end assembler for illumina sequences." BMC bioinformatic. 2012, 13 (1): 31. Caporaso, J. G.; Kuczynski, J.; Stombaugh, J.; Bittinger, K.; Bushman, F. D.; Costello, E. K.; Fierer, N.; Pena, A. G.; Goodrich, J. K.; Gordon, J. I.; Huttley, G. A.; Kelley, S. T.; Knights, D.; Koenig, J. E.; Ley, R. E.; Lozupone, C. A.; McDonald, D.; Muegge, B. D.; Pirrung, M.; Reeder, J.; Sevinsky, J. R.; Turnbaugh, P. J.; Walters, W. A.; Widmann, J.; Yatsunenko, T.; Zaneveld, J.; Knight, R., QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Meth. 2010, 7 (5), 335-336. Rideout, J. R.; He, Y.; Navas-Molina, J. A.; Walters, W. A.; Ursell, L. K.; Gibbons, S. M.; Chase, J.; McDonald, D.; Gonzalez, A.; Robbins-Pianka, A.; Clemente, J. C.; Gilbert, J. A.; Huse, S. M.; Zhou, H.-W.; Knight, R.; Caporaso, J. G., Subsampled open-reference clustering creates consistent, comprehensive OTU definitions and scales to billions of sequences. PeerJ 2014, 2, e545. Edgar, R. C., Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010, 26 (19), 2460-2461. McDonald, D.; Price, M. N.; Goodrich, J.; Nawrocki, E. P.; DeSantis, T. Z.; Probst, A.; Andersen, G. L.; Knight, R.; Hugenholtz, P., An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea. ISME J. 2012, 6 (3), 610-618. Wang, Q.; Garrity, G. M.; Tiedje, J. M.; Cole, J. R., Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73 (16), 5261-5267. Lozupone, Catherine, Manuel E. Lladser, Dan Knights, Jesse Stombaugh, and Rob Knight. "UniFrac: an effective distance metric for microbial community comparison." The ISME journal. 2011, 5 (2): 169. PRJNA658136 2015 CALCULATION OF PLANT COMMUNITY DIVERSITY The calculation of species richness, evenness and Simpson's diversity were performed in PCORD, a statistical program for vegetation analysis. These were calculated from the species cover data from each vegetation community plot. McCune, B. and M. J. Mefford (1999). PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4. Gleneden, OR, MjM Software Design. 2017 Noel B. Pavlovic Research Plant Ecologist mailing and physical

1574 N 300 E

Chesterton Indiana 46304 US 219-926-8336 X428 219-926-5927 npavlovic@usgs.gov CHDataEnvirSoilVegDataRelease.csv Comma Separated Value (CSV) file containing the soil and vegetation data collected at the sites where soil samples were taken for bacterial genomic analysis at the Indiana Dunes National Park in 2015 and 2017. No vegetation data was collected in 2015 because the vegetation was dormant. Producer Defined Date Date samples were collected. Producer Defined In 2015, samples were collected on November 17th (sample site: Kemil Road East) and November 18th (sample site: Kemil Road West) In 2017, samples were collected on May 18th (sample site: Cowles Dunes and Hadenfeldt), May 23rd (sample site: Central Avenue) and May 26 (Central Avenue). Site Code Site in which samples were collected. The alphabetical coding for each site is defined below under "Description". Producer Defined The first character of the code is the chronosequence stage: B = Beach F = Foredune S = Secondary Dune WT = Woodland Transition C = Calumet G = Glenwood *Second character is the year: 5 = 2015 7 = 2017 *Third character is the condition of the plot: C = Control B = Burned *The last two characters are the site names: KR = Kemil Road CA = Central Avenue CB = Cowles Dune HR = Hadenfeldt Road X X coordinates of the sample site (DD) Producer Defined -87.11208034 -86.94706944 Decimal Degrees (DD) Y Y coordinates of the sample site in latitude based on WSG84. Producer Defined 41.64520965 41.70277158 Decimal Degrees (DD) Location Name of the site were samples were collected. Producer Defined Site names: Cowles Dunes - site west of the Town of Dune Acres Kemil Road - road east of the Dunes State Park north of US12 that also extends southward to US20 witnin the Indiana Dunes National Park Central Avenue Hadenfeldt Road See X and Y column for their respective coordinates. Phase Phases of ancestral Lake Michigan that produced the dune systems in the landscape. Argyilan et al. 2018 Contemporary = Active coastal dune systems where sand movement and stabilization are ongoing. This includes the beach, foredunes and secondary dune. Recent = Active to forest to dune transition where stabilization is predominant. Tolleston = Phase representing dunes that formed approximately 3 to 4 thousand years ago and are now stabilized. Calumet = Phase representing dunes that formed approximately 11,000 years ago and are now stabilized. Glenwood = Phase representing dunes that formed approximately 13,000 years ago and are now stabilized. Argyilan, E. P., J. W. Johnston, K. Lepper, G. W. Monaghan and T. A. Thompson.. (2018). Lake level, shoreline, and dune behavior along the Indiana southern shore of lake Michigan. GSA Field Guides. 51: 181-203. Successional Stage Represent the stages of ecological community development in coastal dunes. Cowles 1899 and Olson 1952 Beach = Transition from the lake to the dune. Foredune = First dune formed adjacent to the beach that parallels the beach and it's often dominated by marram grass because of active sand deposition and erosion. Secondary dune = More stabilized dunes behind or inland the foredune that tends to be stabilized. Often dominated by little blue stem grass, but often interspersed with blowouts. Woodland transition = Area behind secondary dunes where tree invasion is occurring. Woodland = Stabilized dune system dominated by black oak, where frequent fire maintains more open tree canopy. Oak forest = Stabilized dune system dominated by black and white oak, with multilayer structure (shrubs, sapling, sub-canopy and canopy) Cowles, H. C. (1899). "The ecological relations of the vegetation on sand dunes of Lake Michigan." Botanical Gazette 27: 95-117, 167-202, 281-308, 361-391. Olson, J. S. (1958). "Rates of succession and soil changes on southern Lake Michigan sand dunes." Botanical Gazette 119: 125-170. Approximate age (yrs) Approximate geological age. Argyilan et al. 2018 0 13000 approximate years Condition Soil conditions based on whether the site was burned or not. Producer Defined Burn Land has been burned as part of a prescribed burn management. Producer defined Control Land have never been burned as part of a prescribed burn management. Producer defined Soil sample number Sample number provided by A&L labs. A&L Great Lakes laboratories Five digit sample number applied by A&L Labs. OM Percent organic matter in the soil (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 0.1 7.1 Percent (%) PBrayppm Phosphorus concentration in the soil (Bray extraction) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 1 75 parts per million (ppm) K_ppm Potassium concentration in the soil A&L Great Lakes laboratories 2 52 parts per million (ppm) Mg_ppm Magnesium concentration in the soil A&L Great Lakes laboratories 20 110 parts per million (ppm) Ca_ppm Calcium concentration in the soil A&L Great Lakes laboratories 50 1350 parts per million (ppm) pH Soil acidity / alkalinity A&L Great Lakes laboratories 4.6 8.2 pH BufferpH Buffer of the soil A&L Great Lakes laboratories 6.7 7.2 pH CECmeq100g Cation exchange capacity milliequivalent A&L Great Lakes laboratories 1.7 7.5 mEq/100g K_Sat Percent potassium saturation (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 0.1 3.9 Percent (%) Mg_Sat Percent magnesium saturation (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 8.6 32.9 Percent (%) Ca_Sat Percent calcium saturation (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 14.5 90.4 Percent (%) H_Sat Percent hydrogen ion (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 0.0 69.6 Percent (%) TotalC Total Carbon in the soil (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 0.28 4.121 Percent (%) TotalN Total Nitrogen in the soil (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 0.001 0.213 Percent (%) CNRatio Carbon/Nitrogen ratio A&L Great Lakes laboratories 18.5 850 No units Sand Sand percent in the soil (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 79 97 Percent (%) Silt Silt percent in the soil (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 1 12 Percent (%) Clay Clay percent in the soil (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 2 10 Percent (%) Organic carbon Percent organic carbon (%) A&L Great Lakes laboratories 0.058 4.118 Percent (%) Litter Percent of the plot's ground covered by leaf litter (%) Producer Defined 0 80 Percent (%) Bare ground Percent of the plot's ground that was not covered by litter and it was bare ground (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 99 Percent (%) Veg Percent of the plot covered by vegetation (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 1.0 37.5 Percent (%) AMBR2 Amphicarpaea bracteata Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 12.0 Percent (%) SCSC Schizachyrium scoparium Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 20 Percent (%) CALO Calamovilfa longifolia Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.5 Percent (%) MOFI Monarda fistulosa Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) ARCA12 Artemisia campestris Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 1 Percent (%) EQLA Equisetum laevigatum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) RHRA6 Toxicodendron radicans Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 12 Percent (%) CAPE6 Carex pensylvanica Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 20 Percent (%) HAVI4 Hamamelis virginiana Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 2.0 Percent (%) PTAQL Pteridium aquilinum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 10 Percent (%) LICR Lithospermum caroliniense Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 2 Percent (%) TROH Tradescantia ohiensis Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.5 Percent (%) KUEUC2 Brickellia eupatorioides Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) POCO Poa compresa Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) CEOR4 Celastrus orbiculatus Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) FRPE Fraxinus pennsylvanica Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 6 Percent (%) SAOF4 Saponaria officinalis Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 2 Percent (%) DISAT Dicanthelium sabulorum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 1.5 Percent (%) SOCA4 Solidago caesia Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 12 Percent (%) ROCA4 Rosa carolina Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 2 Percent (%) PAVI2 Panicum virgatum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) SYOO Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.5 Percent (%) EUCO10 Euphorbia corollata Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) SAAL5 Sassafras albidum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 5.0 Percent (%) RICY Ribes cynosbati Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 5 Percent (%) PAQU2 Pathenocissus quinquefolia Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 4 Percent (%) HEDI2 Helianthus divaricatus Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 10 Percent (%) SMRA Maianthemum racemosum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 1 Percent (%) POBI2 Polygonatum biflorum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 2.5 Percent (%) MAST4 Maianthemum stellatum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 1 Percent (%) GAPI2 Galium pilosum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) RUFL Rubus flagellaris Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 7.0 Percent (%) PRAL2 Prenanthes alba Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) QUVE Quercus velutina Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 8.0 Percent (%) ASTU Asclepias tuberosa Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.5 Percent (%) ELCA4 Elymus canadensis Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.25 Percent (%) AMAR3 Ambrosia arborea Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 10 Percent (%) GACI2 Euphorbia cyparissias Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.5 Percent (%) VIAE Vitis aestivalis Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 2 Percent (%) PRSE2 Prunus serotina Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 3 Percent (%) VAPA4 Vaccinium pallidum Plot percent Cover (%) Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0 1 Percent (%) S Species richness Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 1 11 Number of species H' Evenness index Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 1.6980000000000002 no units D Simpson's diversity index Producer Defined -999 No data was collected. Producer defined 0.0 0.8032 no units U.S. Geological Survey GS ScienceBase mailing address

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Digital Data https://doi.org/10.5066/P9ZP9L4P None 20250124 Great Lakes Science Center mailing and physical

1451 Green Road

Ann Arbor MI 48105 US 734-994-3331 GS_ASK_GLSC@usgs.gov FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001.1-1999